Sitting of 6 August 1894

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (by Order.). (No. 307.)

    CONSIDERATION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [31st July] on Consideration of the Bill, as amended.
    And which Amendment was, in page 22 of the Croydon Extension Order, to leave out paragraph 34a:—
    "The promoters or any company or person working or using the tramways shall not raise their fares on any Sunday or public holiday."—(Mr. S. Herbert.)
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said Order."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. WEIRsaid, that before the Debate on the Amendment was resumed he wished, in the absence of the hon. Member for Peterborough, to move the following Amendment:—
    120
    Paragraph 16, page 19, line 31, after "three-pence, "insert" but it shall not be lawful, without consent of the Local Authority, for the promoters or any company or person working or using the tramways to take or demand on Sunday or on any bank or other public holiday any higher rates or charges than those levied by them on ordinary week days."
    MR. SPEAKER: That Amendment cannot be moved now. It is not in Order.
    MR. WEIR: Will it be possible to move it later on?
    MR. SPEAKER: No, we have passed that portion of the Bill.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: But if the Debate is postponed can it be done?
    MR. SPEAKER: No, as we have passed that portion of the Bill; it is too late.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Cannot the error be rectified at all?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Bill might be re-committed for the purpose of dealing with that part of it.
    MR. SNAPEsaid, he understood that the Debate was adjourned on the last occasion in order that the views of the Croydon Corporation might be authoritatively expressed. He believed, however, no message had been received from that body.
    MR. BARROW: Yes, I have one.
    MR. SNAPEsaid, he had heard nothing of it. He wished to support the retention of the clause as it stood in the Bill, and he did so all the more strongly because the Amendment of which the hon. Member for Peterborough and himself had given notice had been ruled out of Order. He gathered that the clause was to be opposed, and that the Tramway Company had circulated a paper expressing their objection to it. He waited with some curiosity to hear the grounds upon which this Company objected to a clause which had been accepted by similar companies. The Oxford and Aylesbury Bills both contained a similar provision, and if they did not object to it surely the Croydon Company might be expected to assent to it. He wished to say a few words as to the action of the Croydon Corporation. He thought there might be a too superstitious reverence for the opinions of Corporations, and although he was behind no

    121
    one in his respect for local authority and local government, he did not from experience think that such authorities, acting under influences honourable enough in themselves, supported measures with which they were not at all in accord. He remembered that last year a Bill came before them strongly supported by the Liverpool Corporation. He took it upon himself to move the rejection of the measure, and telegrams came even from Leaders of the Liberal Party in the Liverpool Corporation urging hon. Members to support the Bill. Fortunately, the House disregarded those telegrams and threw out the Bill, and he was subsequently congratulated on the effect of his action by the very men who had urged Members to oppose him. And why did they take that course? Because they thought they were honourably bound by some old agreement which they condemned, but which they felt they must at least nominally support. In like manner he could not understand why the Croydon Corporation should go against the evident interests of the working classes in their Municipality by endeavouring to uphold the power of the Tramway Company to raise its fares on Sundays and on Bank Holidays. He believed the only objection the Company could raise to the clause was that whilst they were paying dividends of 5 per cent. on debentures and 6 per cent. on preference shareholders, they were paying nothing on their ordinary shares, and they desired the power to charge these increased powers for the benefit of the ordinary shareholders. But the working classes were the chief users of the tram-ears on Bank Holidays and Sundays, and why should they be penalised for the benefit of the ordinary shareholder? There were surely other means of increasing the dividend. Why not raise the fares generally? The Underground Railway which permeated the Metropolis did not raise its fares on these days, and there was no reason why Tramway Companies should be allowed a monopoly in that direction, and should be able to tax the hard-earned wages of the labouring classes.
    MR. S. HERBERTsaid, he had been informed that the Croydon Corporation, by a large majority, were against the clause being inserted in the Bill. As the Debate was adjourned on
    122
    the last occasion solely in order to ascertain the views of that body, and as he had no right to again address the House on the subject, he would content himself with expressing the hope that the House would agree to his Motion.
    MR. BARROWsaid, that when the question was put to the Croydon Corporation, of which he was a member, 33 voted in favour of the omission of the clause, six were against it, and nine were absent. Surely this was a matter on which the view of the Local Authority ought to be accepted.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,): What was the point put to the Corporation? Were they asked to approve the clause as it stood in the Bill or their opinion of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member?
    MR. BARROWsaid, the point was whether or not they supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Croydon to omit the clause. He thought that after so emphatic a pronouncement on the part of the Corporation, their views should be allowed to prevail. They ought to have such a thing as Home Rule in the matter, and he could not understand why the hon. Member for Peterborough should interest himself so much in it.
    MR. SNAPE: On a point of Order, if this Motion is passed, will it be in Order for me to move to re-commit the Bill?
    MR. SPEAKER: On the Motion for the Third Reading it will be possible for the hon. Member to move that the Bill be re-committed in order to insert this or any other clause.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. CALDWELL: I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
    MR. SNAPE: Then I move that it be re-committed.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Third Reading cannot be taken until Tomorrow.
    MR. SNAPE: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I wish only to say that I have a letter from the promoters accepting it.
    Amendment proposed, in Clause 20, page 30, line 42, after "mile," insert—
    "but it shall not be lawful without the consent of the Local Authority for the promoters

    123
    or any company or person working or using the tramways, to take or demand on Sunday or on any bank or other public holidays any higher rates or charges than those levied by them on ordinary week days."—(Mr. Snape.)
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 41, to leave out Clause 25.—(Mr. Snape.)
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

    PUBLIC BUSINESS.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I beg to give notice that now we have reached towards the close of the Session Public Business will be taken at a quarter past 3, instead of half-past, in the future.
QUESTIONS.

  THE "BOARD OF TRADE JOURNAL."
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the total cost incurred in collecting information for the Board of Trade Journal, the cost of editing, preparing, and printing the periodical; the cost of postages, distinguishing the cost of franked letters; the average circulation, distinguishing copies sold to the public from those sold to the advertising agent or distributed gratuitously; the amount of revenue derived from sale; the amount of revenue derived from advertisements; and the terms of the contract entered into with the advertising contractor; and does the Agricultural Department intend to accept advertisements for its new monthly Journal?
  MR. BRYCE: No, Sir; it is not possible to state the amount of the various items of expense incurred in editing, preparing, and issuing the Board of Trade Journal. Many of the services in respect thereof occupy small portions only of the time of Diplomatic, Consular, Colonial, and other officials, and most of the information published would be given to the public in some other form if not issued in the Board of Trade Journal. The headings in the Votes, under which certain of the charges are entered, were
  124
  described in the answer given by the Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Sheffield's question of 20th April. As regards the circulation and revenue of the journal, it would be unusual and obviously inconvenient to the Public Service to state the particulars required by the hon. Member. The contract is not made with the Board of Trade; but as stated in the answer referred to, it would be shown to the hon. Member on calling at the Treasury. For an answer to the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I must refer him to the President of the Board of Agriculture.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): The financial arrangements sanctioned in the case of the proposed quarterly journal of the Board of Agriculture include the acceptance of a certain number of advertisements, but the Treasury have stipulated (1) that advertisements shall be charged at the full market rate, and (2) that no more of them shall be accepted than will cover the cost of publication without leaving a profit. We shall, of course, work strictly within the limitations thus prescribed.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Can the President of the Board of Trade say whether the Journal is carried on at a profit, and, if so, how much profit?
  MR. BRYCE: I cannot.

  THE MANUFACTURE OF CORDITE.
  SIR W. HART-DYKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how soon any contracts for cordite will be given to any private firms who tendered for them about five weeks ago; whether the Government intend to give contracts to those private gunpowder manufacturers who have tendered, and who for many years have spent large sums on machinery, and put aside other work to execute orders required by the Government; whether those firms who have bad much experience in adapting powders to conform to the required proof test in guns, should have contracts given to them in preference to firms who have been only manufacturers of high explosives for blasting and similar purposes, where no scientific gun proof is required; whether any part of the blaek powder works at Waltham

  125
  Abbey is working at night, and whether all such work will be abandoned, so as to give work to private firms who are at present manufacturing gunpowder for the Government under the Waltham Abbey cost prices; and whether he will consider the importance of maintaining the efficiency and general staff of the said private firms by giving them orders, so as not to render their assistance valueless in case of war?
  MR. HANBURY: I should like to ask further if it is a fact that the amount of cordite in store at the present moment is only about one quarter of what is considered to be a safe quantity to have in store? Further, in regard to contracts with private firms, is any limitation imposed as to the kind of machinery with which the cordite is made? Has it to be made with machinery the patent for which was taken out by the present Director General of Ordnance Factories?
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,)said, that the interruption of the process of manufacture at Waltham Abbey had considerably depleted the stores, but with the co-operation of the Nobel Company the War Office had been able to produce cordite exactly answering its requirements. As to the particular conditions upon which these tenders were invited, it might be in substance stated that the Government required the cordite to be produced by the same processes, following in the main the same methods as employed at Waltham Abbey, though not necessarily employing the same machinery, giving, however, permission to observe, follow, and copy all the methods and processes adopted at Waltham. In answer to the question on the Paper the hon. Gentleman said: Nearly the whole quantity of cordite tendered for is for the Admiralty, who have not yet decided as to the supply required. I am therefore unable at present to answer paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the question. With regard to paragraph 3, however, it may be pointed out that the methods of manufacture of cordite and gunpowder are quite distinct. As to nightwork at Waltham Abbey, it is only the men in the incorporating mills who work a night shift regularly. If this were not done there would not be sufficient material for the day work of
  126
  the rest of the factory, and men would have to be discharged. The desirability of maintaining the efficiency of private firms is never overlooked by the Department. As evidence of this I may state that orders have been placed with private firms this year which could have been executed at Waltham.
  MR. HANBURY: With how many private firms have contracts been put out?
  MR. WOODALL: No contracts have actually been entered into.
  SIR W. HART-DYKE: Am I to understand that until something more definite is known as to the demand for cordite from the Admiralty and War Office the policy vaguely indicated by the hon. Gentleman will be that private firms will have a fair chance as regards the acceptance of tenders, and that they will be encouraged to put up machinery for supplying these explosives by some indication or promise of support?
  MR. WOODALLsaid, he could understand the importance of the question to the right hon. Baronet's constituents——
  SIR W. HART-DYKE: It has nothing to do with any particular constituency. It is a public question. It is a fact that there is a gunpowder factory in my constituency, but beyond my being able to get information there the point does not affect the question which I put—namely, are these private firms to be entirely closed, as regards the supply of Government ammunition?
  MR. WOODALLsaid, all he wished to guard against was anything in the nature of a promise. With regard to the trade generally, the policy of the Government was to keep alive as fully as possible the sources of private supply, and with that view they had determined that a very considerable proportion of the Government requirements would be obtained from private sources. At the same time, a grave responsibility would rest on the Department if it encouraged numerous undertakings to lay down plant, so that, while the Government accepted the general principle, they would act as prudently as possible and confine themselves to two, or at the most perhaps three, firms.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE STRABANE UNION.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps, if any, the Local Government Board Inspector has yet taken with regard to the labourers' cottages in the electoral division of Feddyglass, in the Union of Strabane?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J.MORLEY,): The Local Government Board inform me that their Inspector called upon the Medical Officer of Health to supply him with a list of the labourers in this electoral division who had applied for cottages, and to report on the condition of the existing cottages as required by law. Should he report that they are in an unsanitary state, the Inspector will at once proceed to the locality to ascertain whether other houses can be had in the district, and if not, he will consider whether it will be necessary to erect new ones to replace these stated to be unfit for habitation. The Medical Officer of Health has been called upon to report as soon as possible.

  THE BIRR MILITARY SCANDAL.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the officers' quarters in Birr Barracks were lately entered by a masked party, and the door leading to the room occupied by the servants Kathleen O'Donovan and Annie Desmond broken open; that these girls identified some of the assailants as officers of a Militia regiment; that no charge has been brought against these girls; and that, nevertheless, they have been dismissed their situation, whilst no inquiry, beyond an abortive magisterial one, has as yet been instituted into the occurrence; and is it the intention of the Government to direct further proceedings? I wish, further, to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that these girls who have been dismissed are orphans, whose character is testified to be beyond reproach, and is it also a fact, as stated in The Midland Tribune, that one of the accused officers is nearly related to a high official largely responsible for the government of Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: In this case the Crown have instructed the Sessional Solicitor to send up a bill at the next October Quarter Sessions against the four officers as to whom the Magistrates were evenly divided at the late investigation. The bill will contain charges for indecent and common assault, and copies of the bill and depositions will forthwith be served on the parties concerned. That being so, I can say no more on the merits of the case. As for the action taken in respect of the two girls, I have no official knowledge of anything done in consequence of the direction of the Military Authorities. It does not come within my Department.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will these officers be on bail in the meantime, or are they free to go where they like?
  MR. J. MORLEY: They will be treated like any other persons against whom proceedings are taken.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is there anything to prevent their leaving the country?
  MR. DODD: Will anything be done to compensate these girls, who seem to have done nothing?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I must repeat that the action was not taken by my Department.
  MR. WEBB: As to the statement in The Midland Tribune: Is one of the accused officers a relative of a high official in Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have no information as to that, and if I had all the information in the world, it would make no kind of difference. These persons will be treated exactly the same as anybody else.

  COLONEL O'CALLAGHAN, J.P.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary 1o the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has come to the knowledge of the Police Authorities in Clare that Colonel O'Callaghan, J.P., of Maryfort, Tulla, when recently applied to for a temporary licence to sell excisable drinks at a fair in the county by a man named Meehan, a publican of Tulla, used threatening language to Meehan, and fired several revolver shots at him from a window of his residence as Meehan was leaving his lawn; did the police guard who were then at the house, or their

  129
  superior officers, take any, and, if so, what, action in the matter, or is it proposed to take any action; and, if not, will he explain why; has the attention of the Lord Chancellor been called to this conduct on the part of a Magistrate when called upon to discharge his duty; and what course does he propose to follow in the matter?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that late on the night of May 12 last Mr. Meehan went to the residence of Colonel O'Callaghan for the purpose stated in the question, but that the latter refused to see him at this late hour. Owing to the conflicting statements of Colonel O'Callaghan's servant, who appears in the first place to have told him that the District Inspector of Police wanted to see him, and, after contradicting this, that Mr. Meehan wished to see him, Colonel O'Callaghan seems to have thought that there was something amiss, and he went to a back window and discharged his revolver in order to summon his protection party. Meehan, who at this point was walking away from the house, was detained by the police until the matter was cleared up. The shots were fired from Colonel O'Callaghan's bedroom window at the back of the house as Meehan was going in the opposite direction, so that there is no foundation for the statement that the shots were fired at him. I am also informed that it is not the fact that Colonel O'Callaghan used threatening language towards Meehan, whom, indeed, he did not see on the night of the occurrence. It is not proposed, under the circumstances, to take any action in the matter.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Might I ask if the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the effect likely to arise in the locality from the fact that this Magistrate fired a revolver out of his bedroom window in the middle of the night, whether he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter with a view to preventing Colonel O'Callaghan behaving in this disgraceful manner in the future?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not sure that Colonel O'Callaghan's conduct deserves so strong an epithet as that used by the hon. Member. It appears he, being under personal police protection, thought there was something more in the visit than a person wishing to see him, and he fired
  130
  his revolver—as he says, a very natural thing to do—in order to call the attention of his protecting party.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Am I to understand the right hon. Gentleman approves of the conduct of Colonel O'Callaghan in firing a revolver at that hour of the night in the circumstances?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I do not think I am called upon to express moral approval or disapproval, but I do think it is very likely I should have done the same thing myself in the circumstances.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Am I to gather from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that if I go to Clare and consider there is anything amiss I am to be at liberty to fire a revolver? [Laughter.]
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am glad to know that the hon. Member is not under police protection. [Laughter.]
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to give notice that, in consequence of the answer I will take the first opportunity of calling attention to the dissatisfaction which is caused in the neighbourhood by conduct of this kind on the part of Colonel O'Callaghan—blackguardly conduct, I call it.

  LIVERPOOL LAIRAGES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board have been appointed by the Privy Council, or the Board of Agriculture, to act as the Local Authority for the Port of Liverpool for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, and whether they profess to execute the provisions of said Acts; whether he is aware that the absence of proper reception lairs entails great suffering upon the animals after they are landed from the vessels; whether he has been acquainted with the fact that, on 27th July, 675 cattle, ex ss. Parkmore, were landed in the space allotted to 580; and whether he has learned that legal proceedings will probably be instituted in consequence of the damage done to the cattle?
  MR. H. GARDNER: The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board have not been appointed as the Local Authority for the Port of Liverpool under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, but they are the owners of the foreign

  131
  animals wharves there, and are responsible for the due observance of the Orders of the Board relating to such wharves. As I stated in reply to a previous question by my hon. Friend, we have no complaint to make as to the character of the existing arrangements at Liverpool for the reception of foreign animals; and so long as animals are not landed at the wharves in numbers exceeding the extent of the accommodation provided, I am satisfied that no avoidable suffering would be entailed by reason of those arrangements. My answer to the two concluding questions of my hon. Friend is in the affirmative, but I have no authority to intervene between the Docks Board and the owner of the animals in the matter, especially in view of its possible reference to the Law Courts.

  THE LIVERPOOL CATTLE TRADE.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the recently appointed General Manager of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has endeavoured to have the cattle landed, utterly regardless of the interests and requirements of the trade at Birkenhead; whether he is aware that one lot of 400 were taken possession of by the Dock Board and stored in seveu different places, a proceeding which harassed the owner, the cattle, and the buyers, and that the ss. Numidian was put into dock on the Liverpool side with her cattle on board in order to have her cargo discharged; whether this is against the Orders of the Board of Agriculture; and whether a sworn local inquiry will be instituted in this matter?
  MR. H. GARDNER: I am aware of and much regret the friction which exists between the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and the importers of cattle at Liverpool, and I should be glad to do anything in my power to remove the difficulties which have arisen, but I cannot, of course, assent to the proposition contained in the first of my hon. Friend's questions. I have no reason to suppose, from the inquiries I have made respecting the various matters which my hon. Friend has brought under notice, that any breach of the Orders of the Board of Agriculture has occurred on the part of the Docks Board. I have no power to
  132
  institute a sworn local inquiry as suggested, but I instructed one of my Inspectors to visit Liverpool, and to place himself in communication with the trade and the Docks Board, and I am hopeful that it will not be long before harmonious relations between the various parties concerned are restored.

  WEXFORD GRAND JURY.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a person can legally act in a Presentment Sessions Court unless he is a cesspayer in the county; whether it was legal for the Wexford Grand Jury, of which Mr. J. J. Percival, junior, was a member, to nil and reject presentments made by the Presentment Sessions, composed wholly of cesspayers; whether this Grand Jury is responsible for the tax of £800 upon the county for extra police; and whether he is prepared to order an inquiry into this grievance affecting the people of Wexford?
  MR. J. MORLEY: (1.) Section 4 of the Grand Jury Act empowers, and indeed requires, every Justice of the county, except a Resident Magistrate, to attend at Presentment Sessions and act with the associated taxpayers. The Justice need not be a cesspayer; all others must. (2.) The Grand Jury in their discretion may reject a presentment, even though approved of at Sessions, and they are under no obligation to assign reasons for or explain the rejection. (3.) There are 15 men of the extra police force at present serving in the County of Wexford. A reduction of this number is under consideration; but so long as the extra men remain, the Grand Jury has no option but to present the amount claimed on the certificates certified by the Under Secretary under Section 37 of 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 13. (4.) The Executive has no powers over the Grand Jury, nor is it responsible to the Executive for the manner in which it performs its fiscal business.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As this gentleman is only in lodgings as a lodger, will the right hon. Gentleman see if the provision of the law that a Grand Juror shall possess personalty to the value of £50 is carried out in his case?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will inquire into the matter.
  MR. THOMAS HEALY (Wexford, N.): Are there not scores of Nationalists highly rated who are never summoned on the Grand Jury? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to secure the appointment of High Sheriffs and Justices who will represent in some way the vast majority of the cesspayers?
  [No answer was given.]

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BOARD.
  MR. CREAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Leitrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the meetings of the Congested Districts (Ireland) Board and of the members who attended them since the beginning of the present year; how many members form a quorum, and how many signatures are required to cheques issued by the Board; and are the accounts of the Board duly audited, and does the auditor surcharge in case of misapplication of funds?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I do not think any useful public purpose would be served by laying upon the Table of the House a Return of the nature indicated in the first paragraph of the question. At Board meetings the attendance of three members, and at committee meetings of two members, is necessary. Payments are not made by means of cheques, but by the usual payable orders. The signatures of members are not required to such orders. The accounts of the Board are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, who possesses very ample powers in the case of any irregularity.

  IRISH INDUSTRIES FOR LEITRIM.
  MR. CREAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Leitrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. George L. Tottenham, D.L., J.P., Glenade, County Leitrim, has offered to place at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board a building equipped with engine-power and shafting for the purpose of starting a woollen factory or other industry; is he aware
  134
  that this practical and definite offer of Mr. Tottenham's was made with a view to give employment in the congested division of Aghamlish, where wool is one of the principal products; and that up to the present the Congested Districts Board have ignored the offer; is it a fact that up to the present no money has been spent on industries by the Board in the congested districts of Leitrim; and will he have inquiry made as to the feasibility of the scheme suggested by Mr. Tottenham?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Congested Districts Board have received from Mr. G. L. Tottenham a letter in which he offers to place at the disposal of the Board a building, recently used as a creamery, for starting a woollen or other industry. The offer has not been ignored, as alleged, but, on the contrary, careful inquiry has been made into the matter, and it will come before the Board at their next meeting. No money has yet been expended by the Board on such industries in the County Leitrim.

  THROUGH RATES FOR CATTLE TRAFFIC.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the North Eastern Railway Company have informed the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Company, that it was an error to state that they had expressed their willingness to receive applications for through bookings of live stock from the interior of Ireland, and that the North Eastern Company have only agreed to through bookings from certain Irish ports to York; and whether, as the Irish Companies are willing and anxious to facilitate through bookings, he will take the necessary steps to compel the North Eastern Company to comply with the law.
  MR. BRYCE: No, Sir. I am not aware that the North Eastern Railway Company have taken the action attributed to them. I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question of June 26th, and also to the Railway Company's letter of the 12th of the same month, a copy of which was forwarded to him two days later. It does not so far appear that the North Eastern Railway Company are breaking the law. I believe they are awaiting the communication from the hon. Member which he has

  135
  been asked to supply. In that letter the Company promised carefully to consider any statement of the practical inconvenience which the hon. Member wished to remove.
  MR. FIELD: Has the right hon. Gentleman received the letter which I sent to him—a letter from one of the principal Railway Companies in Ireland, pointing out that the North Eastern Railway Company have definitely refused to take through bookings?
  MR. BRYCE: I understand that they have not refused. They have said in a letter forwarded to the hon. Member that they would be glad to hear from him the practical inconveniences which he suffers, and that they will then endeavour to meet him. I believe that they are still awaiting his reply.
  MR. FIELD: As a matter of fact, did I not send the right hon. Gentleman a letter from the Midland and Great Western Company of Ireland pointing out these inconveniences?
  MR. BRYCE: I do not think that that is inconsistent with the answer I have given. I said the North Eastern were still waiting to hear from the hon. Member.
  MR. FIELD: Am I to understand that the statement by a great Railway Company of the refusal of the North Eastern to give facilities for through bookings is not sufficient to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that something ought to be done in the matter?
  MR. BRYCE: The answer I gave is not inconsistent with the view contained in the letter. I can only repeat the expression of my hope that the hon. Member will put himself into communication with the Company. I have no right to interfere otherwise than for purposes of conciliation. There is no evidence that the law has been broken.
  MR. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant an inquiry into the facts in his room with a view to conciliation? I understand it is for the Company to furnish facilities.
  [No answer was given.]

  "CONTRACTING OUT" ON RAILWAYS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been repeatedly directed to the consignment rates now in use on various Irish railways, containing illegal
  136
  conditions contracting the carrying Corporations out of any liability whatever; and whether he will communicate with the Companies and request them to discontinue this practice?
  MR. BRYCE: My attention has been directed to this matter, and I concur in the reply given by my predecessor at the Board of Trade to a question put by the hon. Member on the 13th of April last. My right hon. Friend said—
  "Whether the conditions of the notes are reasonable or not, involves legal considerations of great nicety, but the existing law is amply sufficient to deal with such cases, and the persons aggrieved have the remedy in their own hands."
  I may point out that if the conditions referred to in the question are illegal, as the question states, interference on my part is unnecessary, because the trader may disregard them. The proper course for them will be to test their legality before the Courts.
  MR. FIELD: Am I to gather from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that these traders have no resource except to go to law with a great carrying Corporation, and that the Railway Department of the Board of Trade is incompetent to help them?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  THE EVICTED TENANTS BILL.
  MR. ROSS: On behalf of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the event of the Evicted Tenants Bill becoming law, the sum advanced under the Land Improvement Acts (amounting in all to £20,000) to tenants who have been evicted since 1st May, 1879, will become charges upon the new interests of such tenants as may be reinstated?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): There seems to be no doubt that the tenants when reinstated will continue liable to pay the charges in respect of the loans referred to. The course to be taken with regard to the instalments which became due during the time that the tenants were not in occupation will have to be considered when their reinstatement takes place.
  MR. ROSS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me by what section that is enacted?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It does not require any enactment. These loans follow the laud in all cases.

  GORT HURLING CLUB BAND.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Galway, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of the police in Gort, on Sunday the 29th ultimo, who prevented the band of the Gort Hurling Club playing, and seized some of the band instruments; is he aware that the police used their batons, and was any person injured more or less; and will the Head Constable, under whose orders the police appear to have acted, be directed to restore the band instruments, and not interfere with the playing of bands on the occasion of some hurling matches about to take place in Gort?
  MR. J. MORLEY: There is one inaccuracy in the question. The police did not use their batons, and therefore nobody was struck. I have given directions for the instruments taken from the band to be restored to them, and as I am not satisfied with the conduct of the officer on this occasion, I have directed that further and full inquiry shall be made.

  THE LABOURERS' ACT LOAN TO LISTOWEL.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if lie can state why the first instalment of the loan to the Listowel Board of Guardians, authorised by the Provisional Order of November 1893, is still unpaid, although several applications for payment of it have been made by the Board?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT (who replied)said: I understand that the Board of Guardians were informed on 21st ultimo, in reply to their application for the issue of an instalment of loan under the Labourers' Act, that the Mortgage deeds could not be completed until the amount of preliminary expenses (£16 11s.) had been received. On the 3rd instant that amount was paid in, and the deeds will be forwarded for execution by the Guardians at their next meeting. The first instalment will be issued when the deeds are returned executed.

  STRADONE (CAVAN) MEDICAL OFFICER.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (c)f Ireland whether he is aware that for the past 60 years the medical officer of the Stradone Dispensary District, Cavan Union, has always resided in the town of Cavan, which is adjacent to borders of district; and that the present medical officer of said district of Stradone, Dr. James Mathews, has resided, since appointment 23 years ago, in Cavan, as his predecessors did; whether recently Dr. Mathews has, on the Report of the Local Government Board Inspector, Dr. Clibborn, been directed to take up his residence within the Stradone district; whether any neglect of duty on the part of Dr. Mathews was alleged by either the Inspector or the Local Government Board as the cause of the change; whether any serious charge of neglect has ever been made against Dr. Mathews; whether it is alleged that his residence in Cavan has caused any practical inconvenience to the poor of Stradone district requiring his services; whether he is aware that there is within the Stradone district no suitable residence for the doctor with his family; whether the Guardians of the Cavan Union and also the members of the Stradone Dispensary Committee have, on several occasions, remonstrated with the Local Government Board against the order of that body in reference to Dr. Mathews; and whether, if the facts are substantially as stated in the question, he will request the Local Government Board to reconsider their order with reference to Dr. Mathews?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The statements in the first and second paragraphs appear to be substantially correct. There being, however, no suitable residence for Dr. Mathews in his district the Local Government Board assented to his residing in Cavan until such time as he could take up his residence in the district. This he agreed to do. No complaints of neglect of duty on the part of Dr. Mathews have been Drought to the knowledge of the Board. It is obviously inconvenient for the sick poor requiring the attendance of the doctor to have to travel to Cavan, which is five miles from

  139
  Stradone Dispensary and seven miles from the furthest portion of the district. The Guardians and Dispensary Committee have expressed themselves satisfied that the doctor should reside in Cavan, and he continues to reside there in pursuance of the arrangement to which I have referred, and to which he has agreed—namely, that he would take up his residence in the district as soon as he could procure a suitable residence therein.

  LICENSING REGULATIONS IN DUBLIN.
  DK. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet arrived at any conclusion in reference to the question of directing the Police Authorities in Dublin not to oppose the granting to licensed houses, limited in number, well selected as to locality, &c., and with proper restrictions and precautions, permission to supply supper and other refreshments after closing hours, on which subject a question was recently addressed to him which he promised to consider?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have caused inquiry to be made into the matter, and am informed that there is no licensed restaurant accommodation in Dublin after 11 o'clock at night. On the other hand, however, there is no provision in the Licensing Acts authorising the granting of such facilities, and the police, therefore, would have no power to act in the manner suggested. There is power under the 11th section of the Licensing Act, 1874, to grant exemption orders for the accommodation of persons attending the markets or employed loading or unloading ships. The number of such exempted licensed houses is 33, but all are in the vicinity of the markets and along the quays, and none are privileged to open earlier than 4 a.m., and all must close at 11 p.m.
  DR. KENNY: Is it not the case that in London, in the neighbourhood of the theatres and the great newspaper offices, facilities are granted for getting supper up to 1 a.m.; has not the Recorder of Dublin expressed the opinion that similar facilities ought also to be granted in Dublin; and is it not merely owing to the opposition of the police that the facilities are not afforded to the residents of Dublin?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): Has anybody—the Recorder or anyone
  140
  else—the power to grant licences outside the statutory conditions?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Member for South Tyrone has indicated the real answer to the question. It is not a question of what the police do, or do not, wish. There is no power to grant licences outside the statutory authority.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Is the Chief Secretary aware that a theatre itself possesses a licence later than the hour named by the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: That is by special enactment.
  DR. KENNY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make further inquiry into this matter.

  LABOURER'S COTTAGE FOR BALLINA.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN (Tipperary, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the proposed site for the labourer's cottage in the Ballina division of the Nenagh Union, particulars of which have been communicated to him, whether he can now see his way to recommend the Local Government Board to sanction the action of the Board of Guardians in providing a cottage for the labourer Haskett in question, who they consider to be in urgent need of a home for himself and his family?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have inquired into this matter. An order will be sent down at once.

  ABSTRACTOR CLERKS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many writers have been promoted to be assistant clerks (abstractor class) since August, 1889, how many are nominated for such appointments, how many writers are now upon the Register, and what number of them are upwards of 60 years of age?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Up to August 4, 1894, 461 copyists had been appointed to the class of abstractor or assistant clerks, 22 more have been certificated as such, and 33 have been nominated, but have not yet passed the required examination. The number of copyists now on the ordinary Register, including the 55 just mentioned, is 296. Of the balance of 241, those above 60 years of age number 35.

  LYTHAM SCHOOL CHARITY.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether the Lytham School Charity is one open to all denominations, the Trustees of which were until recent years chosen from both Protestants and Roman Catholics; whether the Trustees are now all Protestants, and the school a Protestant school; whether grants from the charity have for some years been made to another Protestant school and refused to a Catholic school educating the same class of children; whether, in reply to applications for a grant, the letters were simply acknowledged, and no grant allowed; whether the Trustees have themselves petitioned the Commissioners to be allowed to make grants to the Roman Catholic and Nonconformist schools; what the Commissioners intend to do in the matter; and whether, in view of the delay in passing a new scheme, they will at once make arrangements for giving effect meanwhile to the object of the charity as one for all denominations?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. F. S. STEVENSON,): The Commissioners have for some years past had this important charity under consideration. They have drafted two Schemes under the Endowed Schools Acts, one of which has been published; but in view mainly of the difficulty of reconciling the wishes of Lytham with those of Kirkham, both of which are interested, they have not as yet seen their way to proceed further with a Scheme. The foundation is undenominational. The Commissioners have no precise information whether Trustees at one time included Roman Catholics. The schools of the foundation are public elementary schools in connection with the Church of England. Beyond this there is no direct information as to the creed of the Trustees. Grants have been made to another Protestant school. No grants have as yet been authorised to Roman Catholic schools by the Commissioners, but they have not been refused. At an inquiry held at Lytham by an Assistant Commissioner to discuss the terms of a Scheme the Trustees stated that they were prepared to make grants to the Roman Catholic and Nonconformist
  142
  schools. As there is no immediate prospect of the establishment of a Scheme the Commissioners will suggest to the Trustees that, pending and subject to the terms of any Scheme, annual grants should be made by the Trustees to all the public elementary schools in Lytham not hitherto supported out of the trust.
  MR. HANBURY: Will that recommendation be made at once?
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: Certainly, Sir; at once.

  DANIEL'S CHARITY, SWANSCOMBE.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether he can give the House any information with respect to the alleged breach of charity trust in the village of Swanscombe, in Kent, quoted in the newspapers as the Meriall's, or Daniel's, Charitable Bequest; whether it is true that the rent-charge upon certain property has not been paid for many years; whether the tenant occupier or owner who neglected to pay such rent-charge was a Trustee of such charity; whether the Statute of Limitations applies in such a case; and whether the Charity Commission are taking steps for the recovery of such charges under The Charity Trusts Recovery Act, 1891?
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: The rent-charge upon the property in question has not been paid for upwards of 40 years. It has recently been alleged that the person who neglected to pay the rent-charge was a Trustee of the charity, and that, consequently, the Statute of Limitations does not apply to such a case. The Commissioners have, within the last few days, invited evidence in support of the two foregoing allegations, with a view of considering whether or not they should take steps for the recovery of the charge under The Charitable Trusts Recovery Act, 1891.
  MR. HOWELL: Am I to understand that the Charity Commissioners have during 40 years never investigated this charity?
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I under stand that this is one of those cases not brought to the notice of the Charity Commissioners.

  LONDON PAROCHIAL CHARITIES.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner

  143
  whether the Charity Commissioners will lay upon the Table of this House a Return giving the total income from all sources, under the London Parochial Charities Act, 1883, together with the details of the expenditure and the apportionment of the funds, or whether the Charity Commissioners will publish a detailed statement of such income, expenditure, and apportionment in their next annual Report?
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: The Charity Commissioners will offer no objection to a Motion for a Return of the accounts, receipts, and expenditure rendered to the Commissioners by the Trustees of the City of London Parochial Charities since the creation of that body. The Charity Commissioners do not propose to publish such a statement in their next Annual Report, but they do propose to include in that Report a complete account of the capital stock and cash which have been transferred and paid to the official Trustees of charitable funds in pursuance of the provisions of the central scheme by which the Trustees of the City of London Parochial Charities are constituted, and of the application and appropriation of those funds to the purposes prescribed by The City of Loudon Parochial Charities Act, 1883.

  COMMISSIONERS OF CHARITABLE BEQUESTS IN IRELAND.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what are the functions and duties of Commissioners of charitable donations and bequests in Ireland; and whether it is in accordance with the Act relating to such Commissioners that persons having interests in or the direction of public charities, ex officio or otherwise, should be Commissioners of charitable donations and bequests?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The functions and duties of the Commissioners of charitable donations and bequests are regulated by the Statutes 7 & 8 Vic. c. 97; 30 & 31 Vic. c. 54; and 34 & 35 Vice. 102. The Commissioners have no powers except such as are conferred by these Statutes. With regard to the second paragraph, I am informed that there is nothing in the Acts relating to the Commissioners disqualifying persons having interests in or the direction of public charities from acting as Com-
  144
  missioners of charitable donations and bequests. Moreover, Section 23 of 30 & 31 Vic. c. 54 provides that a Judge shall not be disabled by reason of his being a Commissioner from hearing any case which may arise under the Charitable Donations and Bequests Act.
  DR. KENNY: Is it in accordance with the intention and policy of the Act that persons interested in public charities should become members of this body?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else find out what the policy of the Act is?
  MR. W. REDMOND: Is not the hon. Member quite capable of answering his own question?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I think he is fully as capable as I am.

  THE CHINO-JAPANESE WAR.
  MR. STOREY: On behalf of my colleague in the representation of Sunderland, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that war has been declared between China and Japan, neutral vessels will be interrupted in their trade between those two countries; if so, what time will be granted for sailing to and from belligerent ports; within what distance from British Indian and other colonial coasts and harbours capture and seizure by either of the belligerent Powers will be considered legal; and if it is intended to define, for the guidance of British merchants and shipowners, what description of merchandise is to be considered contraband of war, thus avoiding, as far as possible, complications similar to those which arose during the American Civil War; and whether coal conveyed to non-blockaded ports will be legal traffic?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The Japanese Government have promised that no warlike operations will be undertaken against Shanghai and its approaches, and upon this condition the Chinese Government will not obstruct the approaches of Shanghai. The contending Powers will have, speaking generally, no right to interfere with neutral vessels, except in the event of an effective blockade with due notification, or in a case of contraband of war. It would be a dangerous and unusual course

  145
  for Her Majesty's Government to undertake to define by a general statement what is and what is not contraband of war; for instance, coal has been held not to be contraband of war as a general rule, but it is possible that it might in certain cases become so. Her Majesty's Government, of course, adhere to the doctrine which they have heretofore maintained, that it is not for the belligerent to decide what is and what is not contraband of war, regardless of the well established rights of neutrals.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE TRAVELLING INSPECTORS.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board of Agriculture, in order to trace to its primary source certain contagious diseases among animals, have for this purpose appointed 31 Travelling Inspectors, one, the chief, with a salary of £900 per annum, and 30 others at £250 a year; whether these gentlemen possess the scientific knowledge rendering them capable of satisfactorily performing such duties; and whether the Travelling Inspector has supplanted the Veterinary Inspector, the person who should be called upon to perform such services?
  MR. H. GARDNER: The duties assigned to the Principal of the Animals Division of my Department and to the temporary Assistant Inspectors appointed for swine fever business, who are the officers to whom I understand the hon. Baronet to refer, do not require for their performance the possession of veterinary or scientific knowledge. On the retirement, at the end of last year, of the former Director of the Veterinary Department, a re-arrangement of duties was sanctioned, and my veterinary officers are now exclusively engaged on work of a professional character, but no work requiring the possession of veterinary knowledge has been transferred to an officer not possessing such knowledge.

  COMPANIES AND THE STAMP ACT, 1891.
  MR. FISHER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether all Companies authorised by Parliament to raise either original or additional share capital since the year 1890 have complied with the provisions of Section 113
  146
  of The Stamp Act, 1891; and whether he would have any objection to granting a Return giving the names of all such Companies and the amount due and paid under the conditions of The Stamp Act, 1891?
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, there had been a few cases of Companies being unable to raise the capital authorised in which the Inland Revenue had been unable to obtain payment of the duty, there being no assets. He saw no objection to granting the Return.

  OPPOSED BUSINESS AFTER MIDNIGHT.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the expediency next Session of having the Rules of Procedure so revised as to render it impossible for a single Member to object to the conduct of Public Business after 12 o'clock?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: This is a matter I have not considered, and I am not prepared to offer any opinion upon it.
  DR. MACGREGOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, considering that Public Business cannot be transacted, whether he will consider the desirability of adopting the principle of devolution—of applying the good old cry of Home Rule all round?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: This is a rather large question.

  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY—MALLAIG RAILWAY.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, considering that the West Highland Railway (Mallaig Extension) Bill has now received the Royal Assent, and that all the conditions imposed upon the promoters by the Treasury have been fulfilled, he is now prepared to introduce a Bill empowering the Treasury to give the guarantee in regard to the capital to which they are pledged, and upon which the construction of the line depends?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am afraid it would be impossible to introduce a Bill for this purpose during this Session, but I will take care that the matter is duly considered before next Session.
  DR. MACGREGOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a Memorial

  147
  from the Commissioners of Fort William on this subject?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir.
  DR. MACGREGOR: May I ask whether, in view of the failure of the fishing on the West Coast, and the probable destitution which will follow during the winter and spring, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter in order to enable the Railway Company to go on with their operations, and thus provide work for the people?
  MR. GOSCHEN): May I ask whether the Government will take the usual course of carrying out the undertaking of the late Government; whether it is merely a matter of time which determined the question of not introducing the Bill; and whether the House were to gather that, if an understanding is arrived at that the Bill will not be opposed, the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to bring it in this Session?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Of course, we shall carry out the undertaking given by our predecessors in the matter.

  THE ERASMUS SMITH CHARITY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the Chairman of the Erasmus Smith Board, on the 11th of March, 1886, stated, in reply to the late Lord Chancellor Naish and Lord Justice FitzGibbon, that the gross rental of the Erasmus Smith Schools estates was £10,014, and the net income more than £8,000; if so, can he explain how the income has fallen since 1886 to £7,000; has his attention been called to the fact that the High School, Harcourt Street, Dublin, attended by 300 pupils, is one of the Erasmus Smith Schools, though it is more than 20 miles from the nearest of the Erasmus Smith estates, and more than 100 miles from the chief parts of those estates in Limerick and Tipperary, where the gross rental of the Erasmus Smith School estates is £6,000; how many of the pupils attending the grammar schools at Tipperary, Galway, Drogheda, and Harcourt Street are children of the Erasmus Smith tenants, or can be described as "other poor children" who resided within two miles of Tipperary, Galway, or Drogheda; is he aware that Erasmus Smith was compelled by the laws of his day to appoint exclusively Pro-
  148
  testant Trustees and Protestant schoolmasters, and to provide that the pupils of his schools should be sent to Trinity College, which admitted only Protestants; and that these provisions are relied upon by the members of the Education Commission, who wish to exclude Catholics from the benefits of the endowments; is he aware that Lord Justice FitzGibbon has refused to sign the Draft Scheme signed by Mr. Justice O'Brien and two of the Assistant Commissioners, on the ground that whatever Erasmus Smith was compelled to do by the laws of his day is, in his opinion, not evidence of his intentions; and whether, seeing that more than 95 per cent. of the children for whose free education Erasmus Smith left the endowment are Catholics, he can take any steps to secure the adoption of a scheme which will admit Catholics to the benefits of these endowments?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I believe it is a fact that the Chairman of the Erasmus Smith Board stated, on March 11, 1886, that the net income of the schools estates was more than £8,000. The net income of that Board for the year ended May, 1891, was returned to the Commissioners as £6,583. They inform me they have no information as to the causes of the reduction referred to. The circumstances under which the school in Harcourt Street was founded are stated at page 108 of the Report of the Commissioners for the year 1885–6. In replying to a question put by my hon. and learned Friend on Monday last, I gave the number of pupils attending the schools at Galway, Drogheda, and Tipperary. These figures were courteously supplied by the Governors who, however, stated they were unable to give any further information. The Commissioners have no information in the matter. The functions of the Commissioners are of a judicial character. At the conclusion of the public sitting held to consider the objections to the Draft Scheme for the Erasmus Smith Endowments the Judicial Commissioners stated that they would appoint another occasion on which they would publicly state the conclusions at which they had arrived, with such reasons as they might think it right to give. The only document issued by the Commission was a Draft Scheme the objections to which were discussed at the public sitting referred to, and the

  149
  Judicial Commissioners have not been able to concur in signing any scheme to be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant. They have fixed a day in October at which to announce their decision, and to state the grounds of their opinions. This sitting could not have been appointed for an earlier date.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it a fact that the effect of the action of the Protestant members of the Board, in refusing Catholics fair play, will be that the entire endowment will revert to the Protestants for all time?
  MR. J. MOKLEY: I am not informed upon that point, but I hope it is not so.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ARBITRATION BILL.—(No. 346.)

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he rose, in pursuance of an understanding to which he was a party on Thursday last, to move a clause dealing with a voluntary agreement. The object of it was that where there was a voluntary agreement arrived at between the landlord and an evicted tenant the Arbitrators should have power to deal with the matter as if there had not been an agreement and as if proceedings had taken place in the manner set out in the first clause of the Bill. He thought that the House would see that the effect of the new clause would be—certainly the design was—to encourage and facilitate voluntary agreements. If they should be fortunate enough to find landlords and tenants in the mood towards one another which it was hoped would prevail, and which was indispensable if the Bill was to have the effect it was desired to have, they would agree that this provision would tend to facilitate settlements.
    New Clause—
    (Voluntary agreement.)
    "If within one year after the commencement of this Act a petition with respect to any holding in which a former tenant can be reinstated by an order of the Arbitrators under this Act is presented to the Arbitrators jointly by the landlord and the former tenant, and also, if there is a new tenant, by such new tenant, stating that a voluntary agreement between the parties for
    150
    the reinstatement in the holding of the former tenant has been entered into, and the Arbitrators are satisfied that such agreement is to the like effect as an order which they could make under this Act, and has been entered into bonâ fide, they may in their discretion make an order for carrying into effect such agreement, subject to such conditions or variations as they think fit, and thereupon the provisions of this Act shall apply in like manner as in the case of any other order of the Arbitrators for reinstatement under this Act."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. T. M. HEALYwished to know if it was the right hon. Gentleman's view that under this clause or any portion of the Bill, assuming that an order should have been made against the tenant on any ground, the tenant would be able to apply a second or a third time in case there might be a change of view on the part of the new tenant or landlord? He did not know if that was contemplated. It might well be that the landlord or the tenant might change his mind, and it might be possible not to regard an order if once made as of such a general character as to debar or stop further proceedings in case of change of view.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, it seemed to him that the point was met by provisions as they originally stood.
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, that if the Arbitrator refused to make an order in the case of the landlord being in occupation, or the new tenant being in occupation, the decision would be binding between the parties so far as any compulsory or judicial proceedings were concerned. But even in that case if both parties subsequently saw fit to change their view, repenting of the course they had taken, and desired to arrive at a settlement, the clause now before the House would enable them to act as though no order had been made.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he should have thought that whatever might be done in a case where the landlord showed cause, and where on his showing cause the petition was dismissed, that at any rate in the case of the new tenant where he only objected and the merits of the case were not gone into, that subsequently the merits might be considered. Where the

    151
    landlord objected it might be a hardship that the matter was at an end; but if the objection was by the tenant and the landlord did not intervene, he (Mr. Sexton) should suppose that it would be open for the former tenant at a future date to embark in a new petition.
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, his view was that if objection was withdrawn there was no necessity to bar proceedings. But as long as objection was raised it must stay proceedings.
    MR. SEXTON: On withdrawal of objection the proceeding would go on in the ordinary way?
    SIR R. T. REID: Yes.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the clause was discussed in Committee, and the danger pointed out was that it might perhaps be used by collusive agreement between the parties to secure the benefit of the funds provided under the Act. He should be glad to hear that the section was limited to holdings either in the occupation of the landlord on the 19th April, 1894—the date of the introduction of the Bill—or of a new tenant other than the tenant who had been evicted. If the intention of the clause was clearly set forth collusion need not be feared.
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, that only the cases of those tenants who would be reinstated under Section 1 were in contemplation.
    Motion agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he now desired to move the Migration Clause, and in doing so it was not necessary to say many words on the subject. The suggestion was first thrown out in Debate by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Carson), and it was subsequently embodied in an Amendment by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). The wording of that Amendment he (Mr. J. Morley) had not found quite satisfactory; but even in the form in which he was now submitting it, so far as he himself was concerned, he did not expect great results from the proposal. The Congested Districts Board during the two years he had had an intimate knowledge of their proceedings had found it difficult to get land for
    152
    migration purposes. Very little land, for reasons which were obvious, was accessible; therefore, he frankly confessed that he did not expect that any great good would flow from the clause. But, at the same time, it was quite worth while to leave the door open for such proceedings. If the Arbitrators were lucky enough to find adjacent to the holdings of evicted tenants a little crop of vacant farms, it would be desirable that they should have power to put the tenants on to them. Anxious to make the Act as flexible as possible, and to give as many opportunities for reinstatement in any shape or form compatible with justice, he begged to move the new clause. He might say that the added portion was due to certain technical points raised and the limitation of the amount which the Commissioners had at their disposal by the Act of 1891.
    New Clause—
    (Migration.)
    "(1) In order to provide for eases in which new tenants object to an order for reinstatement of former tenants, the Arbitrators may recommend to the Land Commission the purchase of land for the purpose of providing holdings for such former tenants, and thereupon the Land Commission may purchase any land for such purpose, and may issue guaranteed land stock for the payment of the purchase money, and may re-sell the said land to the former tenants in such portions and subject to such conditions as they may think expedient, and for these purposes may exercise all the powers conferred on them by the Land Purchase Acts, as defined by The Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1891, and upon any such former tenant agreeing to purchase, the said Acts shall apply as if such former tenant had been the occupying tenant of the lands which he agrees to purchase. (2) Rules may be made by the Treasury for adapting to the purposes of this section the enactments of the said Land Purchase Acts respecting the purchase of estates by the Land Commission, and respecting advances by means of guaranteed land stock, and otherwise for carrying into effect this section. (3) But nothing in this section or the said rules shall authorise the creation of guaranteed land stock in excess of the amount authorised by The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman had put in the

    153
    same condition as was contained in Clause 2 as to the guarantee deposit of one-fifth the new section could be got to work. There was a talk as to the difficulty of obtaining laud, but he fancied there was a sufficiency of vacant laud in the Landed Estates Court which the land-lords would be glad to sell if it were not for this restriction as to one-fifth and other restrictions in the Laud Purchase Act of 1891.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that as the hon. and learned Member was aware, the Congested Districts Board had power to acquire land, and there was a Bill before the House to enable the Board to acquire land without making the guarantee deposits. There was a provision that in case there was a default, the Land Commissioners could come down on the annual income of the Congested Districts Board to make it good. In the present case he did not see who they could enable the Land Commissioners to come down on. They felt the necessity of this in the case of the selling landlord, but he saw great difficulty in the way of the insertion of such a provision in the present case.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, there would be great disparity between the case of purchase by tenants of old holdings under the Act and the purchase of new holdings, and the obligation of the landlords to leave a fifth of the purchase money as a guarantee deposit would render operations under the clause very difficult. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out with perfect accuracy that when the full purchase-money was paid over to the landlord under the ordinary operations of the Bill the Land Commission could come down on the Church Temporalities Fund in case of default. But he would point out that under the Laud Purchase Act of 1891, in the last resort, defaults could be made good by a levy upon the local rates, and it was worth considering at this late stage of the Bill whether, if there were a general consent, it might not be as well to facilitate the working of this clause by providing that any default—which possibly would be infinitesimal and probably non-existent—might in the same way be made good by a levy on the rates. It would be a great pity if a provision so vital as that contained in this clause were rendered inoperative by the
    154
    unwillingness of the landlord to sell in consequence of having to put down one-fifth of the money as a guarantee deposit. He desired to allude to a very important defect in the clause, which would go far to render it inadequate for its purpose. The clause as it stood only provided for cases in which the new tenant objected to an order for reinstatement. These were the minority of the cases. The largest calculation he had seen of the number of new tenants put them down as 1,500, and there were 4,000 farms concerned in the sphere of operations of the Bill. In the case of 1,500 farms, if the new tenants objected to retire in favour of the old tenants, then the latter could be moved to unoccupied lands to be purchased by the Land Commission, and upon which they would be provided with new farms. But there were 2,500 other tenants who might be ousted, not by the objection of the new tenants, but where the landlord successfully showed cause against their reinstatement, and where the reasons which might be judged to have enabled him to so succeed might have no bearing on the hardship done to the tenant by eviction or on the equity of restoring him. He submitted, therefore, that a tenant in the case where the farm was vacant, and the landlord opposed him successfully, had in equity as good a right to be provided with lands as that tenant had in the case where a new tenant objected. The hardship was the same in both cases, and the Arbitrators, at any rate, ought not to be prevented—as they would be by the clause as it stood—from dealing with such cases, but should have the option of providing land when a tenant was kept out by the opposition of the landlord, just as well as by the opposition of the new tenant. To make the Bill equitable in its working he would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would consent to this Amendment: After the words "reinstatement of former tenants," in the second line of the clause, to insert the words
    "or in which the Arbitrators, after hearing the patties under Section 1 of this Act, dismiss the petition for reinstatement."
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member desire to move an Amendment?
    MR. SEXTON: No. I only ask if the Government would assent to this suggestion.
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, the contemplated Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would, of course, effect a considerable alteration in the Bill. The position was this: In the case where the landlord was now in occupation the Arbitrators had power to investigate the merits and, if they thought fit, they might apply the compulsory powers, and compel the landlord, whether he pleased or not, to dispossess himself and reinstate the former tenant. In the case where the new tenant entered an objection, his objection was final and conclusive, and therefore it might well be—and indeed was much more likely—that in the second class of cases instances of hardship would exist rather than in the first class. In the first class there was the compulsory element for dealing with their cases; in the case of the second class there was an entire absence of compulsory power. If they were to say that, notwithstanding the existence of compulsory powers, the Arbitrators might be free to use these migratory powers in cases where the landlord was in occupation it would tend rather to dispose the Arbitrators to use the second instead of the first remedy. If they had this alternative course, to which the Land Commissioners could have recourse, it might make it less probable that the former tenants would be reinstated in their holdings. The provision had not been successful in the Land Purchase Act, and under the circumstances he thought it better to confine the migratory power to those cases in which there were no compulsory powers already existing. He hoped the hon. Member would not move the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he desired to move an Amendment widening the scope of the clause. He agreed with the Solicitor General that it would be dangerous to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kerry. After the merits of the cases of the evicted tenants had been submitted to the Arbitrators and decided it would be dangerous to allow them to be re-opened. There was just one case where probably a grievance would arise in the case of the tenant evicted by the small landlord who entered on the land himself and improved it. In a case of that kind the Arbitrators
    156
    would find themselves in a difficulty. The merits of the landlord would be exceptional—he would have improved the laud since the eviction—and the Arbitrators would be unwilling to dispossess the landlord, who would be practically a new tenant. But these would be extreme cases. He did not think that half-a-dozen of them would be likely to arise. The Amendment he wished to move was, after the word "Arbitrator" in the second line, to insert—
    "shall ascertain the value of the tenant right of the former tenant at the date of his eviction and award him such compensation as, in their opinion, he is entitled to, having regard to arrears of rent for which he was dispossessed; and they shall determine in what proportion such compensation is to be paid respectively by the new tenant, the landlord, and the Arbitrators themselves, out of the moneys at their disposal for the purposes of this Act."
    This would give the Arbitrators power to confer on the old tenant pecuniary compensation as an alternative to finding land for him.
    MR. J. MORLEY (interrupting)said, the Amendment did not arise on the clause under discussion.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, it was an alternative to the method of compensation proposed in the clause. The tenant right of a holding might have been fixed at £500. The tenant might have been evicted for non-payment of £50—one year's rent—indeed, under certain circumstances, he might have been cleared out for half a year's rent. He would have been deprived of his holding, and what he (Mr. Harrington) now proposed was that the landlord and the new tenant who had got the benefit of the evicted tenant's tenant-right beyond the sum of £50 should compensate the man in respect of it.
    MR. SPEAKER (interrupting): This is an alternative to the scheme of migration, and would more properly come in as a distinct Amendment. It would be advisable not to mix up new matter with the migration scheme before the House. I do not know whether it would meet the hon. Member's view to propose his alternative plan at the end of Clause 4.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he bowed to Mr. Speaker's ruling, but the Amendment of the Chief Secretary did not compensate in the same way as the plan he proposed. His reason for moving it here was that he desired to empower the

    157
    Arbitrators to give compensation from three sources—from the landlord, if he had benefited from the tenant right; from the new tenant if he had also benefited; and from the funds at the disposal of the Arbitrators themselves.
    MR. SPEAKER: I think the Amendment should come in at the place indicated.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he would move to add words at the end of the clause in the sense he had indicated on the Second Reading, lie proposed to add—
    "Sub-section (b) of Section 2 of this Act shall apply to sales under this section."
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, he thought better words would be to add, after "purchase," the words
    "and the provisions of this Act as to guarantee deposit shall apply."
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the Irish Church Surplus Fund still continued a considerable sum, and if the words of the hon. and learned Member would give a charge on the fund similar to that of Section 2, he should be satisfied. Still, he thought his were against words to capture the Fund.
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, he had no doubt of the effect of the words he suggested.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that being the case, he would not move his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "and the provisions of this Act as to guarantee deposit shall apply."—(Sir R. T. Reid.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he had the following New Clause on the Paper:—
    (Purchase of goodwill of former tenants.)
    "Where the new tenant or the landlord objects to an order for reinstatement, or the former tenant agrees to accept a sum in lieu of reinstatement, the Arbitrators may take evidence of the value of the goodwill of the former tenant, and upon all claims on the holding being renounced by the former tenant, may award him such sum as they deem reasonable, regard being had to the amount which otherwise would have been paid to the landlord the new tenant and the former tenant under Section 4, Sub-section 2, of this Act, if an order for reinstatement had been made."
    158
    The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had accepted the Amendment in substance, and had put down words to the same effect. There was just this difference: that his (Mr. Healy's) proposal would give the former tenant the alternative of either letting the holding remain in the hands of the new tenant, or of getting a sum of money in lieu. He would discuss that when they came to the Amendment of the Chief Secretary.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he would move to insert in Clause 1 (application by tenant to Arbitrators and procedure thereon, where landlord remains in occupation), words limiting the application of the clause to holdings which, in the opinion of the Arbitrators, are agricultural or pastoral in their character, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral. The Amendment, he explained, was designed to meet an objection urged in Debate on the Second Reading, that even a house in a town might, under the Definition Clause of the Act of 1881, come under the operation of the Bill. The Amendment made it quite plain that the Act was only intended to apply to agricultural and pastoral holdings.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 5, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words—
    "in the opinion of the Arbitrators under this Act, agricultural or pastoral in its character, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he understood that the effect of the words, having regard to the opinion of the Arbitrators under the Act, would be that the action of the Arbitrators would be final, and not liable to he questioned in a Court of Law. Any question as to the interpretation of the right of the tenant to a fair rent could only arise after reinstatement.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the Amendment met the objection they took to the Amendment of the Solicitor General the other day. But it did not deal with the question of sub-letting. He had no doubt that under the word "holding," as it was proposed to be inserted in the Act, an evicted tenant who had sub-let would not come under the Statute, because "holding" would have the same meaning

    159
    as under the Act of 1881. A tenant I under the Act of 1881, in order to be entitled to its benefits, had to be in possession of his holding, and the whole holding. He did not say that the Arbitrators would be bound by a technical view of that Act; but he was quite satisfied that, under a compulsory system, they would be restrained by injunction of the Court of Queen's Bench if they proceeded to deal with subject-matter in regard to which they had not jurisdiction. He thought, therefore, some provision was necessary to deal with the ironclad views which had been taken by the Courts as to the meaning of the word "holding"—to deal with the case of a holding which was partly sub-let, either at the time of the eviction or since. In case the Bill should fortunately be read a second time in another place, he asked the Chief Secretary to consider whether "holding" was a sufficiently elastic term. He had not seen the Amendments on the Notice Paper until this morning, and, therefore, had not had an opportunity of putting down Amendments.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he was not competent to say what would happen in other places, but he would consider the point.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 25, after the word "parties," to insert the words "in open Court or, if the parties so desire, in private."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question propored, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DODDsaid, he wished to draw attention to a point which was not met by the Amendment. He was one of those who thought that the proceedings before the Arbitrators should in general be in public. He recognised, however, that cases might come before the Arbitrators where the parties agreed that it would be well to have the matter dealt with in private. Both those states of affairs were dealt with in the Amendment. He would suggest, as a third course, that where the parties could not agree as to whether the proceedings should be in open Court or in private, the Arbitrators should have a power to make an order on the question.
    MR. J. MORLEYcould not accept the suggestion, as it might be invidious to the Arbitrators.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. J. MORLEYproposed to amend Sub-section 5 of Clause 1, which provides that the landlord or tenant may apply to have a fair rent fixed in the case of tenancies determined before the passing of the Act of 1881, by extending its provisions to leasehold tenancies determined before the passing of the Act of 1887.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 19, after the words "term," to insert the words—
    "Or being held under a lease was determined before the passing of The Land Law (Ireland) Act. 1887."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the effect of the Amendment was that leaseholders evicted between 1879 and 1887 would be entitled to have fair rents fixed. He would invite attention to another point. Not only were there men who were present tenants before eviction, but there were also persons who would have become present tenants. He thought the rights of these men under the Bill should be the same as if they had continued in possession; and he would propose, after the word "apply," that these words should be added—"as if the former tenant had remained in possession." This Amendment could be dealt with after that of the Chief Secretary.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, he thought the words proposed by the Government were right. They had been carefully considered. The Act of 1887 dealt only with leaseholders at the commencement of the Act, and the question now was, how were they to deal with leaseholders whose tenancies expired through being determined before the passing of the Act?
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that such leaseholders by the 21st section of the Act of 1881 were to be deemed present tenants notwithstanding the expiration of the lease.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, there were two classes of tenants. The 21st section of the Act of 1881 gave all the advantages of that Act to leaseholders who expired down to 1887, but the Act

    161
    of 1887 dealt with a different class of leases altogether—leases in different towns—so that they were leases which would not be covered.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was doubtful about the matter which the Attorney General had referred to. The Amendment had reference not to the Arbitrators, but to the Laud Courts. If the proposal had referred to the Arbitrators, who were not subject to strict rules of law, and could act on their discretion, he should be satisfied that the intention of the Government would be carried into effect. He did not think the studies of the Attorney General had given him complete familiarity with the subtleties and refinements of the Laud Courts in Ireland; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman knew as much as the Irish Members did about the extraordinary tangle into which the Land Acts had been brought by Irish Judges of various capacities and degrees, he would hesitate before committing himself to the assurance he had given—that the words proposed could be relied upon to bring about any predetermined result. He had no doubt that a tenant evicted between 1879 and 1881, and a leaseholder evicted between 1879 and 1887, would be able to get back to their farms under this Bill, but there the difficulty would begin. They would apply to have fair rents fixed, and then the question would arise whether the words of the Government would not be fatal to the claims of some of them. It was necessary to press the hon. and learned Gentleman to bear in mind what Chinese subtlety of intellect was applied to the administration of the law in Ireland, and to give the House ground to entertain a national hope that the intentions expressed by the Government would be carried out. He moved, after the word "apply," in line 19, to insert, "as if the tenant had remained in possession."
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 19, after the word "apply," to insert the words "as if the tenant had remained in possession."—(Mr. Sexton)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he thought that as the clause now stood no leaseholder except one whose lease expired
    162
    before the passing of the Act of 1887 could have a right to make the application referred to in it. He did not think that the Amendment which had just been inserted had bettered the clause. He asked the Government whether, in case the Bill escaped fatality at a particular fence in another place, they could not simplify the clause so as to carry out their undoubted intentions?
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, he agreed with hon. Members opposite that, judging from what he had learnt during the last two or three months, ingenuity be yond words had been applied to the con struction of the Irish Land Acts. He took it that the purpose at which both the Government and the Irish Members were aiming was that people who could not get a fair rent fixed because they were evicted before 1881 should be enabled to come in under this Bill and have a fair rent fixed, and that lease holders who were evicted before the passing of the Act of 1887 should also be enabled to come in and have a fair rent fixed. After 1887 the leaseholders became present tenants——
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Not in all cases.
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, that at all events the case put to the Government was that of the leaseholder who was evicted prior to the Act of 1887. With considerable trouble and labour the Government had arrived at the words now proposed, which he thoroughly agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would effect their purpose. At the same time, he admitted that it might be necessary to have the provision emphasised, and he thought that if the word "now" were inserted in line 22 it would clinch the matter. The words would then read—
    "In so far as the said Acts now permit of a fair rent being fixed in respect of a tenancy of the same kind as the tenancy determined."
    MR. BODKIN (Roscommon, N.)thought, if he might say so with all humility, that the interpretation put upon the provision by the Attorney General (Sir J. Rigby) was accurate, and that the difficulty possibly, perhaps probably, would not arise, but he would suggest that all doubt might he put an end to by the addition of the words "assuming that such tenancy had continued up to the date of the order." He

    163
    thought that no trouble could arise if this suggestion were adopted.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the resources of human ingenuity would be exhausted in distorting the meaning of the words proposed by the Government for the purpose of keeping the tenants out of their rights.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman has already spoken, in moving the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Another Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 22, after the word "Acts," to insert the word "now."—(Sir R. T. Reid.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' be there inserted."
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he had given this matter some consideration, and he did not think that the clause, as the Government proposed to make it read, was at all satisfactory. The question of the status of the tenants when the order for their reinstatement was made was, he presumed, intended to be settled in every case by the sub-section. What, however, would be the status of a tenant who was evicted between the 22nd of August, 1881, when the Act passed, and the 1st of January, 1883, when the Act came into operation? He was not a "present tenant," and would be unable to get the benefit of the section. If he were a tenant who was evicted after the gale days in March or May, 1881, his six months for redemption did not expire until after the passage of the Act of 1881. The case of such a tenant was left entirely unprovided for, and it appeared to him that there must be large classes of tenants under disabilities of this kind. The Government said that leaseholders whose leases were determined before the passing of the Act of 1887 were to be reinstated. But how did the section affect leaseholders whose leases expired subsequently to the Act of 1887? He could not see that it affected them at all. It seemed to him, therefore, that the leaseholder who was evicted subsequently to the Act of 1887 was in a worse position than the leaseholder who was evicted before the passing of that Act. There was no way out of the awful bog into which the Committee had got with reference to this section except by saying that the order of the Arbitrators should specify the status into
    164
    which the tenant should be reinstated, having regard to the status at the time of the eviction as to the Acts which had subsequently been passed. He quite agreed that the question presented the most enormous difficulties, and that he did not see how it could be dealt with in any short or pithy phrase. The whole case required to be examined with microscopic minuteness, and he trusted that the Government would be able to give such an examination to it.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, it ought to be made clear beyond the possibility of doubt that every tenant reinstated should have the right to the fixing of a fair rent.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought the introduction of the word "now," as proposed by the Solicitor General, would have no operative effect at all. Again and again he and his colleagues had pointed out that the tenancy determined was not a present tenancy, either in the case of tenants from year to year before the Act of 1881 or in the case of leaseholders before the Act of 1887, and unless words were inserted explicitly declaring that a man should on reinstatement have the same right to the fixing of a fair rent that he would have had if he had continued in his farm until a present tenancy was acquired doubts and difficulties would be raised. No harm could be done by adopting the course he had suggested. The fair rent would be the fair rent, and the man would be in the same legal position as if he had not been evicted.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, there were two classes of tenants only they had to deal with in this matter—those whose tenancies were determined before the Act of 1881 and those leaseholders whose leases were determined before the Act of 1887. Those tenants were expressly mentioned in the clause, and, whatever the subtlety of the Land Commission might be, they would be bound to recognise that it was the intention of the Legislature that those tenants should have the benefit of application for fair rent. Assuming, however, that the language adopted by the Government was not the most apt, it would be beyond his powers, in the midst of such a discussion, with suggestions being made all round, to draft on the spur of the moment a new clause which should be satisfac-

    165
    tory. But there would be opportunities of dealing with the point in another place, and before that time arrived the Government would reconsider the matter. He presumed that the intention of hon. Members opposite and of the Government was exactly the same—namely, to give the best possible form to the clause. He must deprecate any attempt to redraft the clause now, and he hoped, after what he had said, no further Amendments to it would be moved.
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, he thought that in the circumstances it would be better not to insert the word "now," and he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On Motion of Mr. J. MORLEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
    Clause 1, page 2, line 23, leave out "such a tenancy," and insert "a tenancy of the same kind as the tenancy determined."
    Clause 4, page 4, line 20, after "holding, "insert" or the inability of the petitioner to acquire seed."
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 24, after the word "Act," to insert the words—
    "Where the new tenant objects to an order for reinstatement the Arbitrators may, upon all claims on the holding being renounced by the former tenant, award to him, out of the moneys at their disposal for the purposes of this Act, such sums as they deem reasonable, not exceeding the sums which in their opinion might have been payable out of the said funds in respect of the said holding if the order for reinstatement had been made."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved to amend the Amendment by inserting, after the word "reinstatement" in the first line, the words "or the former tenant agrees to accept a sum in lieu of reinstatement." The object of the Amendment was to restore social peace in Ireland. There were not many cases of the kind he sought to meet by his Amendment, but there might be a few, in which the former tenant might have set up in business at a considerable distance from the holding, have formed new relations, and might be willing to give up the goodwill of the holding on receiving a certain sum.
    166
    Something ought to be given to a former tenant for his goodwill even if he was not anxious to return to his old holding.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the word "reinstatement," to insert the words "or the former tenant agrees to accept a sum in lieu of reinstatement."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought the new clause brought forward by the Chief Secretary fell far short of the case which had been made out in Committee when the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) was withdrawn. In the clause as it stood the old tenant would riot be entitled to any compensation unless he presented a petition. Did the Government intend to drive the old tenant into presenting a petition where there was a new tenant on the farm? Why should not the old tenant have his grant just as well where the landlord was in occupation as where there was a new tenant in occupation? His improvements and tenant-right existed in the one case just as much as in the other, and he had as good a claim in the one case as in the other. He would suggest that the tenant should be compensated where there was no new tenant in occupation, and where the landlord himself objected, just as much as if a new tenant was actually in occupation.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he must confess that he could not see his way to supporting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, because he believed it would be productive of much mischief. The sum which was to be placed at the disposal of the Arbitrators was limited in amount. The suggestion now was that collusion should take place between the new tenant or the man who had grabbed the farm and the former tenant who did not wish to return to his farm, and that they should make a bargain to draw a certain amount from public funds. The money should be husbanded as much as possible in order that pressing cases might be dealt with satisfactorily. The cases of former tenants who had practically relinquished their claims to their old farms, who failed to present petitions, and who had started in business in new

    167
    localities, could not be very pressing. He must oppose the Amendment.
    SIR R. T. REIDwas understood to say that the Amendment of the Government was intended to benefit former tenants who were anxious to be reinstated but whose wishes were frustrated by the opposition of the tenants in possession. The hon. Member for North Kerry asked why the same benefit was not to be given to a former tenant of a holding of which the landlord remained in occupation. The reason was that where the landlord was in occupation the Arbitrators might in their discretion compel him to surrender the farm. In such cases, therefore, there was no reason for giving the tenant anything in the nature of a compassionate allowance.
    MR. SEXTON: Does it not seem rather hard that in some cases where the landlord is in occupation of the farm the former tenant can neither get back nor get compensation?
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, it must be remembered that the Arbitrators would exercise discretion. In all deserving cases he trusted that they would make orders for reinstatement. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member would extend the benefit of his right hon. Friend's Amendment to former tenants who did not think proper to take any preliminary steps for the purpose of ascertaining whether the occupying tenants were willing to go out or not. The purpose of this Bill, however, was not to provide compensation for people who could go back to their holdings but refrained from doing so, or who were not prepared to appear before the Arbitrators. Under the proposal of the hon. Member a tenant who had been evicted 10 years ago who had got over his misfortunes, and was engaged in other business, might come back and put in a claim for compensation. The fund available under the Bill was a limited one, and it was absolutely necessary to expend it with some regard to economy. If the Government were to accept an Amendment of this character it would drain resources which might be most precious for the purpose of restoring tenants who were really anxious to get back to their holdings. If the resources had been unlimited they might then have been able to be lavish and generous all round. Although
    168
    the sum was supposed to be sufficient, it was still limited in amount, and it was all the more necessary, therefore, that they should be careful how they expended it. Hon. Members for Ireland had put suggestions on the Paper which had resulted in the new clauses of the Government being put down, and he felt the Government had gone as far as they possibly could in the direction indicated by those suggestions.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he desired to move another Amendment to the clause. It was after the word "reinstatement," to insert the words
    "or where the Arbitrators, after hearing the parties under Section 1 of this Act, dismiss a petition for reinstatement."
    He could not for a moment admit that the evicted tenant had a worse claim for compensation or was less in need of it where there was no new tenant in possession than where there was a new tenant. The evicted tenant had suffered the same hardship and lost the same property in each case. The tenant owned the buildings and other improvements on the farm; he owned the tenant-right and he had lost his improvements and his tenant-right by the fact of his eviction. This tenant was equally penniless with the tenant who was replaced by a new tenant. The position of the two was in no respect dissimilar, and both were equally in need of help. He could not, therefore, admit that the circumstances that where there was a new tenant in the farm should be decisive against him. They had already provided that where there was a new tenant who declined to let the old tenant get back the old tenant might get a farm in some other locality, but they had declined to make any provision for the tenant where the farm was in possession of the landlord. They were now determined to give him no compensation whatever, when they decided that the landlord was to hold the farm. The Solicitor General had ignored the suggestion that the Arbitrators might refuse to reinstate the tenant for some cause not reflecting on the tenant in the least degree. The landlord might say he had made improvements; that he was not willing to surrender the farm; that he had converted it into a home farm, and any one of these

    169
    reasons might operate to induce the Arbitrators to refuse the order of reinstatement. Could it be suggested in such a case that the Arbitrators ought not to have power to make some compensation in cases where they would not make an order for reinstatement for reasons personal to the landlord and not personal to the tenant? In such a case the tenant would neither have a chance of getting a single acre of land elsewhere or a single farthing of compensation. He would urge the Government not to ignore such cases, but to make provision that a tenant in such circumstances might receive some compensation. He begged to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the word "reinstatement," to insert the words—
    "or where the Arbitrators, after hearing the parties under Section 1 of this Act, dismiss a petition for reinstatement."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    MR. BODKINdesired to suggest one answer to the difficulty which had been pointed out by the Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that in one case there was compulsion, and in the other there was none; that in one case the tribunal was powerless to let a man go back into his holding, and in the other case, that though it was in their power to admit him, they decided not to do so, and that in making such a decision, the Arbitrators had in effect decided it was not a meritorious case. The hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Sexton) had met that point, and had shown that there were many such meritorious cases. They were not asking that there should be any compulsion put upon the tribunal to give compensation, but the same tribunal had had all the cases before it, it had knowledge of all the circumstances, and knew whether the tenant's claim was meritorious or not, and it would be only where the tribunal decided that the tenant's claim was in itself meritorious that it would he likely to put this compensation clause in force.
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, it was distasteful to him in a Bill which related to Ireland and to Irish affairs not to be able to accept the Amendment suggested by the Irish Members. He knew perfectly
    170
    well they were more conversant with Irish affairs than he himself or his friends who sat beside him, but he would ask hon. Members to be good enough to remember that the Government was limited by considerations of economy; they could not make the money go any farther than it would go, and what they had got to do was to deal with the £250,000 to the best advantage. He thought they had endeavoured to do so within the Bill as originally laid down. In this particular Amendment they had gone somewhat beyond the original scope of the Bill for the purpose of complying as far as possible with the valuable suggestions of hon. Members. And now the question arose whether, having gone one step, they should not go another step. He thought if the Amendment were adopted it would not apply to one case in a hundred.
    MR. SEXTON: Very well; if there was only one case out of a hundred it would not cost so much money.
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, he thought that the provisions which the Government proposed would be found to deal satisfactorily with the question.
    MR. T. M. HEALYthought it would be possible to overcome the Solicitor General's argument as to economy being necessary by the use of the words—
    "Such cases to be dealt with if there should be any surplus money."
    Let economy be practised, and then if any money was left it could be used as proposed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry. Undoubtedly there would be cases to be met such as that put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Carson), who had instanced the case of a landlady who had spent a considerable sum of money on an evicted holding, and asked in such a case would the Arbitrators make an order for the reinstatement of the old tenant? Probably they would not; but would that be any reason why an evicted tenant who had been evicted for a year's rent should get nothing at all? The state of the law was wholly inequitable. It was English law, and English law wholly, that a man should lose his whole possessions because of one year's arrear of rent. The tenant had a much larger property in the holding than a year's rent. It might be

    171
    that he had £1,000 worth of property in his farm and the year's rent might he only £100. He might not be able to pay that; and under the conditions of English law, if he was not able to pay that at the proper time, he lost the whole of the £1,000 he had invested in the holding. It was very like the English view of Limited Liability Company law, and they were introducing that view to cases of land tenure where it was not applicable. In the old Land League days men were evicted for half a year's rent. Was the tenant who was evicted in such circumstances to get no compensation at all because the landlord had spent a sum of money on the holding which prevented the Arbitrators from making a reinstatement order? It seemed to him that such a tenant ought to get compensation, and he thought the Government should accept the Amendment.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, the clause now being introduced by the Government had been drafted in order to meet the cases where it was thought possible there might be some hardship. They had tried to make the conditions as liberal as the circumstances would allow. They had met the case as far as the limited means at their disposal would permit them, and he would, therefore, suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 97.—(Division List, No. 210.)
    MR. T. M. HEALYmoved an Amendment to the Amendment of the Chief Secretary, at the end of Clause 4, to substitute, after the words "such sums as they deem reasonable," the words "having regard to," instead of "not exceeding." He said, though a small alteration, it was important for the proper working of the clause.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out the words "not exceeding," and insert the words "having regard to."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'not exceeding' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, the Amendment could not be accepted as proposed by the
    172
    hon. Member, as it would leave the sum to be awarded to the old tenant without limit. That would undoubtedly be the interpretation put upon it.
    MR. T. M. HEALYdid not like to press the matter again, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had interpreted the Amendment in a sense which he had no wish to put upon it. He wished to give a certain elasticity to the words and a discretion to the Arbitrators. He trusted the Government would not tie them down to a hard-and-fast sum.
    SIR J. RIGBYrepeated that the Amendment could not be accepted.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. SEXTON MR. SEXTON moved a further Amendment to the Amendment of the Chief Secretary by omitting the words "out of the said fund." The Bill provided for payment of a sum not exceeding two years' rent. If payment was to be made out of the fund he was afraid that under the Chief Secretary's Amendment as it stood the old tenant might get nothing. It was in the hands of the Arbitrators to award two years' rent, and the tenant would only have to pay one, so that if the award was £100 the fund would only pay £50. The new tenant and the landlord would have to get twice as much as the old tenant would get. The sum total would not be very large in these cases, but something should be done where the old tenant was kept out by the refusal of the new tenant to let him in, and certainly as much should be paid to the old tenant as they would pay to the new tenant and landlord. Several Amendments to this effect had been already proposed, and as this was the last he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would regard it with more consideration.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, to leave out the words "out of the said funds."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, the objection to the Amendment was that if it were accepted the fund, in case of the new tenant objecting to an order for reinstatement, might have to bear a greater burden than if the old tenant were reinstated. That would be the effect if he

    173
    rightly understood the Amendment. The Arbitrators might award such sum as they thought fit not exceeding the sum which they considered might have been payable in respect of the whole interest, and the fund under this new section would have to bear a larger burden. That was what it came to. It was not easy to make such an alteration without destroying the object of the clause. Probably the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment, as he would no doubt see that the clause would meet his views.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, that the compensation payable to the old tenant ought to be contributed to both by the landlord and by the new tenant who was in possession of the old tenant's holding, and not only out of the fund to be provided under this Bill. As to that, there could be no dispute either in the case of the new tenant who was, even to some extent, in possession of the holding, or in the case of the landlord, who, by increased rent or otherwise, would gain an advantage. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if he was only going to offer to the former tenant the very inadequate provision in the shape of compensation given by this Bill, he would leave the question unsettled as far as the man himself was concerned, and also in the public opinion of the district. It would be thought that he had not received compensation for his interest in the holding. His hon. Friend had endeavoured to introduce an Amendment with the consent of the Government that the Arbitrators should consider the whole equity of the case, and decide what sum should be contributed by the new tenant in possession of the former tenant-right, and what contribution should be made by the landlord. That was a matter where considerations of economy would not come in. A wide discretion was left to the Arbitrators, and it was only fair and reasonable that the new tenant and the landlord should themselves make some contribution, and by so doing have the means of coming to a friendly settlement with the old tenant, by giving him compensation for what he had lost. It was only by such means that a settlement could be arrived at.
    MR. BODKINsaid, the question to he considered was whether the evicted
    174
    tenant was not entitled under the moralities and necessities of the case to get as much money as it was proposed to allot to the now tenant and to the landlord. All they asked was that the old tenants should be treated in the same spirit, and that the money awarded to them under the Bill should be really assured. It was for that reason that this proposal was made for securing the compensation, for it would be a matter of compensation in a great many cases. Their case in common was that no compensation which could be given from the general fund would be of much value to the tenant. He asked the Government to make this small concession on the ground that the old tenants should have the same consideration as the new tenants.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, the point had been already discussed on previous proposals, and the Amendment could not be accepted.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. HAYDENmoved to amend the Chief Secretary's Amendment by adding at the end the words—
    "And such further sums payable by the landlord and the new tenant as then find the difference between the former sums and the market value of the holding."
    He thought the Government would not object to this, as the money was proposed to he paid not out of the sum voted by Parliament, but out of the money found by the landlord and new tenant. He would give an instance of what was intended. In 1885 the tenant was evicted for a single year's rent, and had been eight years out of his holding. His land had been grabbed within the last year, yet if the new tenant refused his consent, under the Bill the man would lose all right in the holding in which he had a considerable property, and the grabber have to pay nothing for the valuable interest he acquired. In those circumstances it was only fair that against both the new tenant himself and his landlord, who had derived very substantial benefit, compensation should be awarded not exceeding the market value of the holding. If this Amendment were not inserted a very serious difficulty might turn out in working the Act.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, at the end thereof, to add the words—
    "And such further sums payable by the landlord and new tenant as they would find to be the difference between such former sums and the market value of the holding previous to the evictions."—(Mr. Hayden.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, this was practically the same Amendment as that upon which he addressed the House, and received a promise at an earlier stage that it would have favourable consideration. The great difficulty which the House had to deal with lay in the fact that there was no adequate compensation provided in cases where new tenants were in possession. He asked the English Members of the House to consider the peculiarities of the land system in Ireland, where it was not strictly the case of landlord and tenant as in this country, but was practically the case of two men in partnership, each having an undivided moiety of the holding. A tenant, the value of whose holding had been fixed by the Land Commission at £500, might have been evicted for one year's judicially fixed rent of £50. How, in such circumstances, were the Government to uphold a policy of this kind, and how were they to devise an equitable scheme if they would not compel the landlord and the new tenant in possession to contribute compensation for the man's tenant right? The Government were not going to give him a penny of compensation as far as the new tenant was concerned. The present proposal would not impose any new burden on the State, and did not introduce any new principle which was not already to be found in all the Irish Laud Acts—namely, the right to go to the Court and obtain compensation. If the former tenant had a valuable interest in the holding, it was a grievous hardship to allow the new tenant, who was now in possession, to enjoy the benefit of that interest for nothing at all, without making him contribute one penny, and only to award to the former tenant the very inadequate compensation afforded by the Bill.
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, he was very sorry the Government could not accept the Amendment. He would ask any hon. Member whether it would be possible
    176
    for the Government fairly, or, he might almost say, equitably, towards the House of Commons, to accept an Amendment of this character. It was perfectly true that the spirit of the Irish Laud Acts was that although the tenant might be dispossessed for a particular reason he was to be recouped the value of his holding in one way or another. That principle had been adopted in the more recent Irish land legislation. The Bill proposed reinstatement, and the hon. Gentleman proposed that, where the Bill itself admitted to the old tenant the option of not being reinstated, a pecuniary penalty should be awarded to him. This would be imposing on the new tenant compulsion, by ordering the payment by him of a sum of money. He was certain that this would be admitted to be entirely contrary to the principle upon which the Bill had been argued throughout from the Government Benches.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, that every one on the Irish Benches was under the impression that the present Amendment was, in substance, accepted by the Government on a former occasion.
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, that was not, in fact, the case.
    MR. J. REDMONDdesired to add to what his hon. Friend had stated, that an Amendment proposed in Committee had been withdrawn on the understanding that something of the kind would be considered on Report—that the Government would consider whether it was not possible for them to bring forward a clause embodying this proposal.
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, that he was able to correct the hon. Gentleman's recollection, as he was present the whole time.
    MR. J. REDMOND: So was I.
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, he certainly never understood his right hon. Friend to say that he would adopt that principle.
    MR. J. REDMONDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman certainly said he would consider it.
    SIR R. T. REIDthought the hon. Member would see that his right hon. Friend had felt, after consideration, that it would not be right in accordance with the principle of this Bill to accept the Amendment. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary assured him that he had expressly refused to give any pledge on

    177
    the subject. Hon. Gentlemen would, he thought, see that it would not be right to accept the Amendment before the House.
    DR. KENNYsaid, that his recollection tallied with that of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford. If the Government accepted the Amendment they would be going a long way towards the completion of their own work, by assuaging the bitterness of feeling which threatened law and order in Ireland as long as these men remained evicted in the neighbourhood of their former holdings. By giving the evicted tenant, who remained near his farm, no means of migrating they bound him to the place where, according to the theory of the Government, his presence was most objectionable and a standing menace to the peace of the country. But by accepting the Amendment the Government would assuage a great deal of the bitterness which would be aroused in regard to the new tenant who would not give up the farm, by enabling the old tenant to go out of the district. He, therefore, appealed to the Government, in the interest of the success of their policy with regard to the evicted tenants, to accept the Amendment.
    MR. HAYDENsaid, he moved a similar Amendment in Committee on Thursday, but withdrew it on a promise from the Chief Secretary that it would be favourably considered before Report.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he stated explicitly on that occasion that the Government could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the Nationalist Members could not, by any action of theirs, suffer it to be supposed that they consented to the transfer of the property of the evicted tenants either to the landlords or the new tenants. The evicted tenants owed, on the average, two or three years' rent. By reason of their eviction they lost, and either the landlords or the new tenants had appropriated, property valued from 10 or 12 to 20 years' purchase of the land. That property once legally belonged to the evicted tenant; it still in equity belonged to him; and the Nationalist Members could not allow it to be supposed that by any arrangement under the law the landlord or new tenant should be placed in a better posi-
    178
    tion with regard to the transfer of that property than they were at the present moment. Recognising the equity of the Amendment—though, perhaps, it was not in the best form—if the right hon. Gentleman went to a Division lie would feel bound to support him.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 94.—(Division List, No. 211.)
    Words inserted.
    On Motion of Mr. J. MORLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 5, line 25, leave out "shall," and insert "may."
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 25, after the word "employ," to insert the words "such of the."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the Chief Secretary had promised to insert words which would cover the value of the County Courts, as well as the valuers of the Land Commission.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, there were no County Court valuers as such. All the valuers were valuers of the Land Commission.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the valuers employed by the County Courts were selected from a list supplied by the Land Commission. The Land Commission had no more to do with those valuers than to put them on the list. They were selected by the Judges of the County Courts; and it was extremely doubtful that the words would cover the case of those County Court valuers.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he thought; there could be no question that they were not valuers of the County Courts, but valuers of the Land Commission; and the words he proposed were the best words he could devise to carry out his undertaking to his hon. and learned Friend.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On Motion of Mr. J. MORLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to: — Page 5, line 25, after "Commission, "insert" as they think fit."
    MR. T. M. HEALYproposed an Amendment in Clause 8, providing that a

    179
    holding sub-let or sub-divided at the time the tenancy was determined shall not be excluded under the Act. The Government had provided in the Bill that the words holding and tenancy and fair rent should have the same meaning as in the Act of 1881. This Amendment simply provided that sub-letting should not be a bar to reinstatement, and he could see no reason why the Government should not accept it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 15, after "1881," to insert the words—
    "Provided that the fact that a holding was sub-let or sub-divided at the time the tenancy was determined, shall not be held to be an objection to a petition or an order under this Act."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR R. T. REIDthought the Amendment wholly unnecessary. The point was whether sub-tenancies existing upon a holding at the time the tenancy was determined would prevent the holding from being one to which the Act would be applicable. He thought the opening words of the Act, which provided that the Act should apply to any holding whether agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral, were amply sufficient to cover the point raised, and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press the Amendment.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, no doubt the provision sought to be introduced by the Amendment was already in the Bill, but the insertion of the Amendment would make it clearer and the administration of the Act on the point more certain. The difficulty would not arise as to whether a holding was pastoral or otherwise; but when the question of the fixing of a fair rent came to be considered, of course, as it was not proposed now to alter the law with regard to the right of a tenant to have a fair rent fixed, the tenant could not get a fair rent unless he was entitled; but lest any doubt might arise as to the admissibility of a holding because sub-letting existed, he thought it would be well if the Amendment were inserted.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he could not agree with the Solicitor General's view on this point. He was familiar with the law in relation to this matter, and he
    180
    was of opinion that if the Amendment were not inserted there would be a blot in the Bill.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Schedule.
    MR. T. M. HEALYpointed out the Schedule did not incorporate Section 59 of the Act of 1870, and he moved to insert this section.
    Amendment agreed to; Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

  EQUALISATION OF RATES (LONDON) BILL.—(No. 124.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 3rd August.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, after the word "shall," to insert the words "half-yearly."—(Mr. Bartley.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'half-yearly' be there inserted."
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he did not know whether or not the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board accepted this Amendment, which would, he thought, make the clause somewhat clearer.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAWLEFEVRE,)said, he did not think the Amendment at all necessary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, he had the following Amendment on the Paper:—
    Page 1, line 17, leave out from the beginning to "that," in line 21, and insert—
    "The grant due from that one-half of the fund to each parish shall be determined by three Arbitrators to be appointed by the Local Government Board, who shall apportion the amount of half the Equalisation Fund among the sanitary districts.
    In making such apportionment the Arbitrators shall have regard to the following considerations:—

    (a) the population of each district;

    (b) the rate in the pound required in each district in order to provide the amount expended in each district for the purposes hereinafter mentioned;

    (c) such other matters as are in the opinion of the Arbitrators necessary to be considered in order to enable them to carry out the object of this Act.

    181
    Where a sanitary district comprises two or more parishes, the Arbitrators shall divide the grant due among those parishes, and in making such division shall have regard to the same considerations as are mentioned in the preceding sub-section with reference to apportionment.
    Provided nevertheless that."
    He was aware that this Amendment was no longer in Order, the Committee having decided that the London County Council should determine the grant due in some form or another. As the Bill stood, the proportion of the distribution was a mere matter of arithmetic, as the authorities were directed to apportion the fund on the basis of population. The object of the Amendment was to provide that the grant should be determined not in proportion to population, but in such proportion as might be fixed by three Arbitrators to be appointed by the Local Government Board. No doubt the population plan was a rough-and-ready method, which might, in the majority of cases, be found to work out with more or less fairness. But there were a few parishes in which it was certain, at any rate, that under this plan injustice would be done. He submitted that as it could be shown that in one case, at least, the theory failed to secure justice, that was primâ, facie evidence that the theory itself was faulty, and should not, therefore, be adopted by the Government as the basis on which the fund was to be distributed. In support of this argument, he would remind the Committee that for many years the corpuscular theory of light was accepted, but it was subsequently discovered that one fact would not fit in with the others, so that the whole theory was discarded as unsound. In the same way in regard to equalisation, if it broke down in one parish, or inflicted injustice, it showed that after all they had not got hold of the right theory. One important factor in dealing with equalisation had been left untouched by the Government. In the distribution of the fund no regard whatever was paid to the different needs and requirements of the parishes that were to receive it. That lay at the root of the whole thing. If the population proportion worked out without doing injustice it would not much matter, even if it were not absolutely correct; but if it was not correct, they must find out the cause. If they were going to equalise the
    182
    rates, they must take into account what the existing rates were in any parish or district, for they would be distinctly the measure of its requirements. They must take the various factors into consideration and work out a formula which would have the effect of introducing them. No one on the other side had suggested such a formula. They did not intend to do so. Then he ventured to suggest that the only way of distributing the money so as to bring about an equalisation of rates in the several districts was to leave the matter in the hands of Arbitrators to be appointed by the Local Government Board. That was the suggestion he put before the Committee to-night. Anyone who read the Amendment as it originally stood would see that one of the factors he proposed the Arbitrators should consider was population. The next factor was one which obviously should be brought in—namely, the rate in the £1 required in each district in order to provide the amount expended in each district for the purposes of the Act. Then, if justice was to be done, they must bring into account other factors which could not be enumerated in the Bill without leading to great complexity, but which, in the opinion of the Arbitrators, it might be necessary to consider, and which every sensible man who made such an apportionment would consider. One was the question of compounding, which made the rates appear in some parishes 1s. in the £1 higher than they actually were. If they were going to equalise, they must start not with the nominal rate as it appeared in each parish, but with the actual amount. As he had said over and over again, to decide the question of distribution on the mere basis of population could not possibly meet the justice of the case. It had been shown, and practically admitted, that, taking the basis of population in the case of Kensington and Islington, the principle of the Bill broke down. But there were far worse cases than that. St. George's-in-the-East and Bermondsey were both poor districts. The rates in the former parish were 5s. 5d. in the £1, and in the latter 7s. 4d., a difference of 1s. 11d. What would happen under the Bill? The district which had the lowest rate would get a reduction of 5 3–10d. in the £1, whilst Bermondsey would get a reduction

    183
    of only 3 3–10d. Obviously, therefore, the principle broke down, and instead of equalising the rates it would make them more unequal, giving the poorest parish and the one with the highest rate the least amount of relief. If the House was to be content to pass these things by thinking it too late to discuss them, and that they should be content with the extremely rough test of population, so be it; it was not worth while to bother any more; but it was obvious that the principle of the Bill was not a sound principle. Though the right hon. Gentleman said, with some confidence, that on the whole the parishes that ought to receive would receive, and the parishes that ought to pay would pay, he had shown that the parishes which ought to receive most did not receive most. He would take the cases of St. George's, Southwark, and Bethnal Green, where the rates for 1892–3 were almost precisely equal, in the former parish being 6s. 7d. and in the latter 6s. 6¾d. in the £1. These two parishes were practically equal in their rates and in their poverty, and yet the Bill proposed to give to St. George's 4 2–10d., and to Bethnal Green 8 4–10d., or nearly double. Obviously that was not equalisation. It might be said, "But Bethnal Green is probably a poorer parish than St. George's, Southwark." That was no answer to the argument, because what they had to look at was the burden on the individual in each parish. Take a man living in a £20 house in St. George's, Southwark, and another in Bethnal Green. They were both, probably, of equal capacity to bear the burden, and if they were to equalise they ought, as far as possible, to make the burdens equal. Therefore, when they considered that the burdens were to measured in that way, and they were to have regard to persons equally rated with an equal capacity to bear the burden, it would be seen that to give one parish twice the relief of the other was not equalisation. If they were to do even rough justice the system proposed by the Government should not be adopted. He considered the best way to carry out a plan of equalisation was to allow the work of apportionment to be done by Arbitrators, who would have certain lines laid down on which they might proceed. The test of population was too rough if
    184
    the proportions of population remained the same between Census and Census—from 1891 to 1901; but it was obvious that in 10 years there would be vast shiftings of population, and that the inequalities which existed now were likely to be much more magnified at the end of the double quinquennial period. For that reason the test of population, rough and uncertain as it was now, would get worse and worse as time went on. If his proposal were adopted the Arbitrators would have regard to shifting population. For these reasons he ventured to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, page 1, line 18, after the word "fund," to insert the words—
    "In such proportion as may be fixed on by three Arbitrators to be appointed by the Local Government Board."—(Mr. Bousfield.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that an analogous Amendment to this was discussed on Friday night, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, stated on behalf of his friends that the proposal of submitting the whole question to three Arbitrators was one which they could not possibly accept. He did not think, therefore, that it was necessary for him to deal at length with the arguments of the hon. Member. It appeared to him that of all the alternatives suggested to that contained in the Bill this of leaving the matter to three Arbitrators was the very worst, because the Arbitrators were to determine absolutely at their own discretion——
    MR. BOUSFIELD: The latter part of the Amendment is on the Paper.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I understood the hon. Member to say that he did not move the latter part.
    MR. BOUSFIELD: I intend, if this principle is accepted, to move the latter part of the Amendment which gives directions to the Arbitrators.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Member intended to move the latter part of the Amendment at some later stage. The Arbitrators were to act upon their own discretion subject to two or three directions which were not conclusive. The Amendment was one the

    185
    Government could not possibly accept. He admitted there were some anomalies, but they were not the result of the scheme. The parishes which would pay had an average rate of 5s. 1⅓d., and the effect of the Bill would be to bring them up to a little beyond 5s. 4d., whereas the average rates of the receiving parishes, which had been 6s. 3d., would be brought down to 6s. The difference between the two classes of parishes in the past had been 1s. 1d., but in the future it would only be 7d.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) was very glad to quote his opinion, but he should only quote it as far as it had been given. The point on which he differed from the hon. Member (Mr. Bousfield) was as to the Arbitrators. Beyond that he thought there was more force in the principle on which the right hon. Gentleman would justify equalisation than there was in the principle of the Bill. The hon. Member proposed—
    "In making such apportionment the Arbitrators shall have regard to the following considerations:—(a) the population of each district; (b) the rate in the pound required in each district in order to provide the amount expended in each district for the purposes hereinafter mentioned."
    That was a legitimate test and standard to apply. The difficulty they on the Opposition side of the House had to encounter in amending the Bill was want of information from the Government. On that point he might have more to say as different Amendments came before them. Then the hon. Member proposed—
    "(c) Such other matters as are in the opinion of the Arbitrators necessary to be considered in order to enable them to carry out the object of this Act."
    He was sure what was in the hon. Member's mind was the difficulty of finding a solution of the problem by any cut-and-dry method at all. The difficulty was to find the machinery to carry out the scheme, and with regard to this the Government had never attempted to meet the objections raised. The principles which had been laid down by his hon. and learned Friend ought to have found their way into the Bill, which in removing some anomalies created others. He trusted, however, that his hon. and learned Friend would not think it necessary to divide the Committee, because he
    186
    (Mr. Goschen) would not be able to support the proposal for the appointment of three Arbitrators. The hon. and learned Member, however, had done good service in calling attention to the fact that they could not decide a question of this kind by population alone.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid that, so far from the average being 4s. 10½d., it was something like in some cases 5s. 6d. in the £ 1. The average rate in the City, he was assured, was 5s. 2d., and not 4s. 6d. The Government had given them very little information, and what little they had given was utterly irreconcilable with the statements of the Government. It was an extraordinary thing that in connection with a Bill dealing with such an enormous sum of money the Government should give them so little information. The statements they had made were not only not borne out by the information hon. Members possessed, but were irreconcilable with the facts laid before them. This was a most extraordinary mode of dealing with a very important question.
    MR. BOUSFIELDdesired to say that the argument drawn from averages failed when applied to a Bill of this sort, on which they were dealing with particular instances in order to equalise. Of course, they might take the rates of the whole of Loudon and say, "The average is so much in the £1," but the object of equalisation was to pick out the high rates and the low ones and to try to equalise them. When the right hon. Gentleman said, "I average the half that pay and the half that receive," he was leaving out the factors to which they must have regard. Take the half that received. The right hon. Gentleman averaged it, but when they found that one parish received twice as much relief as another they could not help thinking that the scheme of equalisation was a bad one. With regard to the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had not dealt with the principle of arbitration at all, but had gone off on the details of the proposal. If the principle had been accepted it would have been easy to agree as to the details.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. KIMBERsaid, the object of the next Amendment which stood in his name was to secure that those parishes or sanitary districts whose rates last year were above the average should alone be recipients this year of the Equalisation Fund. The avowed purpose of the Bill was to equalise rates, but if the Equalisation Fund were devoted to sanitary purposes in districts in which the sanitary rates were below the average the measure failed to achieve its ostensible object. He submitted that the fund should go to those districts whose rates were above the average, and not to those whose rates were below it. He could not conceive on what ground this Amendment could be criticised. The arguments advanced against the Amendment he moved when the Bill was last before the House were certainly not applicable to this. Probably the plea of extravagance would be again put forward, but that could better be dealt with later on when they came to deal with the question of controlling the expenditure of the money. At any rate, he could not imagine that any parish or sanitary district already overburdened with rates would have the effrontery to further force up its rates.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, after the words "sanitary districts," to insert the words—
    "Whose total sanitary rates in the previous year shall exceed the average sanitary rates of all the parishes in London in that year, and in proportion to the amounts properly expended by such sanitary districts in the previous year for sanitary purposes in excess of such average rate."—(Mr. Kimber.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, there was but little difference between this Amendment and the one the hon. Member moved on the previous Friday night, and in his opinion the same arguments applied to both. The Amendment if carried would prove a direct incentive to extravagance, because a parish whose average rate was below the average would be tempted to raise that rate in order to share in the Equalisation Fund. He therefore asked the House to reject the Amendment.
    CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLANDsaid, the right hon. Gen-
    188
    tleman did not appear to have borne in mind the fact that the great object of the Bill was to improve the sanitation of London, and that the Amendment tended in that direction by securing that the fund should be applied to sanitary purposes.
    MR. GOSCHEN,on a point of Order, asked if the Amendment before the House were negatived it would preclude debate on that of the right hon. Baronet's, the Member for London University, which sought to secure the addition of the following words:—
    "Provided always that, unless the rates in a sanitary district shall on the average of the last three years have exceeded or fallen short of the average rate (hereinafter defined) by at least 6d. in the £1, such district and the parishes therein shall not be liable to contribute, or entitled to receive, any sum to or from the Equalisation Fund for the year?"
    THE CHAIRMAN: No; I think not.
    MR. KIMBER: Then I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND: In the absence of the hon. Member for North Islington, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to leave out from the word "districts," to end of sub-section (4) and insert—
    "At their discretion with a view to equalise as far as possible the burden of local taxation in different parts of London, having regard nevertheless to the following considerations:—

    (a) The amount of the local rates in each individual parish in relation to the average rates for the whole of London;

    (b) The circumstances of the local rates in each parish, and whether they are especially high on account of some expenditure specially local and beneficial mainly to the individual parish;

    (c) The relative number of ratepayers rated at £20 and under, excluding compound householders;

    (d) The efficiency with which the rates are collected in the parish;

    (e) The economy with which the rates are administered in the parish;

    (f) The sanitary condition of the parish and the increased sanitary efficiency of the parish produced from year to year by the Equalisation Fund granted to that parish."—(Captain Naylor-Leyland.)

    Question proposed, "That the words 'in proportion to their population' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, his Amendment laid down that this 6d. rate—as it might be roughly called—should be collected and distributed by the London County Council on certain definite principles. He was not known to be a strong supporter of the London County Council; he should have preferred that this fund should be distributed by the Local Government Board; but looking at the matter from a practical standpoint, and considering that they had got a London County Council established, it was reasonable that that body should have the distribution of the fund. He believed that if the administration of the fund were placed in the hands of the London County Council with definite principles—such as those in his Amendment—laid down for their guidance, they would administer it far fairly and more justly than it would be administered if any such haphazard mode, as a system of population—such as the Bill proposed—were adopted. He had gone with great attention and care into the way in which the Bill would work out, and he found that certain parishes would be very hardly hit, indeed; and although some of those parishes were small, it was no consolation to the individual, who was hardly pressed, that he belonged to a small parish. It had been his lot for many years to have to do with poorer persons in Loudon; and he had no hesitation in saying that the rates pressed as hard on what might be called the thriving and well-to-do small men of the richer districts as on any persons in any other part of the Metropolis. He candidly admitted that he was unable to invent any system of distributing this money which would do equal justice to all the parishes. If a large sum of money were pressed on Islington, which he represented in the House, Islington, naturally, would be glad to accept it; but looking at London as a whole, there was no doubt that if there was a fair system—allowing for the good administration of the local affairs of Islington, which would fairly give them a lower rate than many other parishes—it was not reasonable that some other parish
    190
    should pay them a large sum of money. He had always been a supporter of some fair system of the equalisation of rates; and he had always held that the present system was not fair. He was sorry that the Government had not accepted the Amendment which would confine this fund to the sanitary improvement of London, for if that had been done a great deal of the difficulty in connection with the Bill would have been got over. One of the great difficulties which those who desired to see London improved had to contend with was that population had a tendency to concentrate itself and become more dense in certain parts of London. In such parts as Bethnal Green and St. Giles, the very nature of the employment to be obtained there—the manufacture of small toys, for instance—tended to make them more congested; and as this Bill said to the parishes—"The more populous you are, the greater will be the benefit you will receive from this fund"—it would, of course, encourage the further concentration of population in those already too crowded portion of the Metropolis. This was not a Party question in any sense—it was above Party; and he thought it deplorable that while one of the great evils which those who had the well-being of London at heart tried to get rid of, was the dense concentration of population in certain parts of London, this Bill should directly encourage that concentration. In parishes where the population was already great, and which would get benefit from the Bill in the shape of reduced rates and reduced rents, the population would naturally have a tendency to become still more congested. He really thought, therefore, that the principle of the Bill, by which the fund was to be administered to the parishes according to their population was a very bad principle. His Amendment would hand over the administration of the fund to the London County Council, and lay down certain rules for their guidance. He could not see why the Government should oppose the Amendment. The London County Council was a body elected by the inhabitants of London; and although he had no great opinion of them, it seemed to him that if they were given some definite instructions—and he might say he was not unwilling to have his Amend-

    191
    ment modified—they would make a more just division of the fund than could possibly be done under the accidental, dangerous, and most disastrous system proposed by the Bill.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the Amendment came very strangely from the hon. Member, for on Friday the hon. Member was not prepared to concede to the London County Council even the power of simply administering the fund.
    MR. BARTLEV (interposing)said, he would very much rather that the Local Government Board should have the administration of the fund; but as his Amendment to that effect had not been accepted, he thought his present proposal was far better than the proposal in the Bill.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that was no answer to the argument. On Friday the hon. Member moved an Amendment which would deprive the London County Council of even the purely administrative duty of distributing the fund; and he now moved an Amendment in a directly opposite sense, for he proposed to give to the London County Council the widest possible discretion in the distribution of the whole of the 6d. rate, amounting to £800,000 amongst the various parishes. It was true the hon. Gentleman endeavoured to limit the discretion of the London County Council by laying down certain principles. But these principles were not binding legally. There was no obligation at law on the part of the London County Council to take those conditions into consideration. The Amendment merely submitted those conditions to the London County Council. Did the right hon. Gentleman think it right and reasonable to trust the London County Council with such a wide discretion? Nothing he had said in the past would give one the impression that he was prepared to trust the County Council in this matter, and he did not think the County Council would at all desire to have such a wide discretion left to them. It would be a most difficult duty to undertake without raising difficuties and endless opposition in every part of the Metropolis. There was no indication of the way the duty was to be performed. Under the Amendment it would be possible for the County Council
    192
    to say that a 6d. rate should be levied in St. George's, Hanover Square, and St. James's, Westminster, and the whole of the proceeds distributed amongst the poor parishes. There was no local limitation on their discretion. He presumed the hon. Member intended to tack on to his proposal the further Amendment giving an appeal to the Local Government Board; but, again, there was no direction as to what principle the Local Government Board was to adopt in, giving a decision upon the Bill. The Local Government Board might not assent to the settlement of the County Council and might redistribute the money. The result as it appeared to him would be that the Local Government Board would be flooded with appeals from the ratepayers, hundreds of whom would be dissatisfied; so that if the question were re-opened in respect of one parish it would be necessary to re-open similar questions in respect of all parishes. The result would be to give an endless amount of litigation to the Local Government Board to decide, ending in a state of affairs which would be absolutely intolerable. The fact was, the distribution under the proposal of the hon. Member would be so delicate and difficult that it should not be entrusted to any Local Authority. He could not conceive how hon. Gentlemen opposite who had not in the past shown much confidence in the County Council could propose to entrust to it a duty so onerous, delicate, and difficult. The right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, seemed to think that it was the duty of the Government to provide an alternative scheme.
    MR. GOSCHEN: No, no.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had implied that the Government had not supplied the Opposition with sufficient information to enable them to adopt an alternative scheme. There had been several alternative schemes brought forward, some of which had been still-born, some of which had been discussed, and one of which was that before the Committee, and he ventured to say that every one was open to far more serious objections on the ground of grave inequalities of every kind than the proposal of the Government. The scheme at present before the

    193
    Committee sought to impose a dangerous and difficult task on the County Council which they had no desire to undertake, and which, if undertaken, they could not fulfil with satisfaction to the ratepayers of the Metropolis.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would point out the position in which they were placed. The question as it was put from the Chair was——
    "That the words 'in proportion to their population' stand part of the Clause."
    That was the Question as against the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington. It was clear that if the Amendment of the hon. Member were to become the Main Question they would then be able to amend it; therefore, they had not got simply the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman before them, but an alternative which they could further discuss. If these words stood part of the Bill they would be precluded, so far as general principle was concerned, from moving any alternative scheme. Therefore, they had arrived at the point when they should consider whether they should accept the principle of compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had said that no alternative scheme had been proposed which would hold water. But the right hon. Gentleman's own scheme did not hold water. They could not help thinking that one scheme they had proposed would hold water, if the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the principle that it was sanitation the Committee ought principally to fix attention upon. If the proposal of the Opposition in that sense had been accepted, other proposals would have been submitted which in their results would have been infinitely more acceptable than the proposals of the Government.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he presumed that he might be allowed to state the case; for the parish of St. John, Hampstead, in which he lived, and to explain the objection entertained by the Hampstead Parochial Authorities to the plan of distribution by population. The great parish of Hampstead was happily one of those that were rising rapidly, both in population and in rateable value. He observed that in each decade the parish rose about one-third in population and one-third in
    194
    rateable value. The Parochial Authorities apprehended that this Bill would increase their burdens, and that when they came to pay the contribution that would be demanded from them under this Bill they would have to make an addition to their rates. They apprehended that this increased burden would become heavier during each year of the current decade. On the other hand, the only asset that could be set against this liability was the increase in their population. They would contribute upon rateable value and would receive upon population. But while their contribution would increase every year their asset would not go on increasing, because under one of the later provisions of the Bill the population upon which they would receive would not be the population of the year on which they paid, but the population of the last Census. The present decade was still comparatively young——
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: Perhaps I may say that I propose at a future stage of the Bill to move an Amendment which will make the Census quinquennial, so as to avoid the long period of 10 years.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for this information, which raised a large question, which, of course, he should not be prepared to argue at that moment. A quinquennial Census for London would mitigate the objection he was stating—in fact, it would halve it. There was, however, still the objection that during the five years the parish would continue to receive upon the population indicated by the Census, whilst it would pay upon an increasing assessment. He should think that a quinquennial Census would be difficult to carry out, but, no doubt, it could be accomplished. He might be permitted to complete his argument, which was that year by year there would be perhaps an appreciable addition to the burdens of the parish without any corresponding addition to the assets. Nothing could remove this objection except the making of some annual estimate of population. He admitted that this was impossible, and therefore the plan adopted by the Government was very objectionable in the estimation of the authorities of the well-managed parish in which he lived. He was sure that there were no

    195
    ratepayers who less deserved to have a burden put upon them than those amongst whom he lived, for there was no parish which did its duty better or whose affairs were better managed than that of Hampstead.
    MR. COHENsaid, he did not know whether the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) would charge him as he had charged his hon. Friend (Mr. Bartley) with inconsistency, inasmuch as he had voted infavour of assigning to the Loudon County Council the arithmetical duty of computing how much had to be paid by and to the various parts of London under the Bill, but he could not help expressing his extreme reluctance to vesting in the London County Council, of which he was privileged to be a member, the distribution of this money according to its discretion. He thought, nevertheless, that the Committee was indebted to his hon. Friend for having very laudably attempted to devise a plan which was not based upon population. If Members of the Committee had not been successful so far in devising any plan as an alternative to that of the Government, it must be borne in mind that they had not the information and resources at their command which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) possessed. He could not resist the belief that if the right hon. Gentleman had made all the use he could of his resources he would have been able to bring forward some better plan. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had set his powerful mind to work to devise some other expedient, because the right hon. Gentleman seemed, on succeeding to the Office which he now adorned, to have taken over the absolute text of the Bill from his predecessor. If the resourceful mind of the right hon. Gentleman had been brought to bear upon improving the Bill, he (Mr. Cohen) thought that a far more satisfactory measure would have been produced. He certainly disapproved the principle of population. He believed it to be unjust, and he thought that if it were rejected by the Committee it would be possible to devise a plan which would be more satisfactory than that of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman, if he examined the Amendment, would see that it did not in any way touch
    196
    the question of levying the rate. The Amendment did not affect in any way whatever the system on which the contributions of the various districts were to be raised.
    MR. BARTLEY: It does not pretend to; it deals with the distribution.
    MR. COHENwent on to say that in reference to this Amendment he was not swayed by any want of confidence in the Loudon County Council. His reason for not desiring to leave this matter to the London County Council was that that body had, at any rate, as much, and in his judgment had more, work than they could adequately and efficiently discharge. To add this new duty to their work would be to impair the efficiency with which their present duties were discharged, and to strike another blow at localisation—at that home rule of which, under circumstances far less appropriate, the Government had avowed themselves the apostles. The result must be to add another reason to those which deterred from taking part in local administration those persons whom it ought to be the object of every wise system of local government to attract into the important and useful work of local government. He believed that if the Committee rejected the system of distribution according to population they would Vie able to devise a scheme of distribution which would have regard—first, to the needs; secondly, to the claims of the districts; and, thirdly, to the efficiency with which the grant was distributed. For these reasons he should vote without hesitation for the omission of the words of the Bill.
    MR. FISHERsaid, he shared the view expressed by his hon. Friend who had just sat down, that population was a very false and erroneous basis of calculation to adopt in reference to the distribution of the grant. At the same time, if population was to be taken as the basis it was necessary to get the Population Returns fairly and approximately correct. Glaring as many of the inequalities and anomalies under this Bill undoubtedly were, he thought that one of the most glaring of them was to be found in the method of calculating population from the Returns of the last Census. Even the promise which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr.

    197
    Shaw-Lefevre) had given as to a quinquennial Census would not do substantial justice to his (Mr. Fisher's) constituents. The Bill made each parish contribute on its annual rateable value, whilst the grant was distributed according to the population as shown by the last Census. Fulham was probably the most rapidly growing part of the whole Metropolis. It had an enormous area still unbuilt over, and therefore from Census to Census for some time to come it must every year continue to show a great annual increase in its population. What would have been the result if the Bill had become law in the decade from 1880 to 1891? In 1880 the Census population of Fulham was 42,895 and the rateable value was £190,136. Year by year the rateable value went on increasing until in 1890 it was 385,407. If the Bill hail been in force the parish would have had to pay upon this increasing rateable value, but it would have received each year of the decade upon the population of 42,895, although by 1891 the population had risen to 91,639, and had thus more than doubled. If the Bill had been in force since the Census of 1891 Fulham would have received its share of the grant upon the population of 91,639. The rateable value of Fulham, however, had gone up ever since 1891, when it was £426,551, and it was now £484,851, whilst the estimated population was now 108,000. The population was growing at such a rate that he regretted to say he fully contemplated that by the time we entered upon another century it would be very nearly 200,000. They would only be receiving a proportion according to the last Census which gave them a population of 91,000, and they were increasing at such an enormously rapid rate that a very great injustice would be done to his constituency if they were to be treated on the basis of population according to the last Census. He did not wish to go more fully into the matter, and he had made this statement now instead of upon his own Amendment, because the right hon. Gentleman interpolated the remark that he would propose that a quinqennial Census should be taken for the Metropolis. That would in a sense meet the injustice; though in fact, to calculate it upon 91,000, which was the population
    198
    of his constituency at the last Census, would not be quite satisfactory, because the population would really be about 120,000. The only real way of meeting the injustice would be to have an annual estimate made of the population. There were so many anomalies and such injustice involved in this question that they ought to give up the idea of population as a basis of contribution. At all events, he thought he had made out a case that when the population was enormously growing, and must continue to enormously grow, the Bill would inflict great injustice.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, the discussions that had taken place last Friday, and again this evening, showed how much better it would have been if the Government had been satisfied with the Second Reading of the Bill and then referred it to a Select Committee. His right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill said this was a rough-and-ready measure of justice. He saw the roughness, but where the justice came in he could not see. They had had another discussion this evening, which showed how much more consideration this very little question deserved. He did not complain of the Government, as he admitted the perplexity of the question; but at the very last moment, without any warning, they were told they were to have a new Census for London every five years. Why was not that in the Bill? Because it was an afterthought, and what he wished to know was who was to pay the expenses?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact there is nothing of that in the Amendment.
    MR. FISHER: On a point of Order may I ask if we shall have an opportunity of discussing the question of the quinquennial Census?
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: When the hon. Member moves his Amendment, I will state what the alternative scheme is which the Government propose. I mentioned it to show that we were ready to meet the views of the hon. Member.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he did not wish to discuss the question; he only wished to know who was to pay the expenses; because if London was to pay for it, then in the majority of the dis-

    199
    tricts the Census would cost them more than they would receive under the Bill.
    MR. R. G. WEBSTER)wished to say a few words upon the rapid changes that took place in the population of various districts in London. The district 'he represented was totally different from that of his hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Fisher). His was a railway district, and the Midland Railway had encroached in the district very much, a large number of small tenements having been pulled down, which had not been a benefit, but rather an injury to the locality, and the tradesmen in that part of the district were hardly able now to earn a living. There were also very rapid changes in London every year, and in one year Somers Town lost 7,000 or 8,000 of its inhabitants; therefore, he was glad to hear they were going to have a quinquennial Census, but he would point out that if they were going to have population as the basis of collection they should go closer than every five years. In another Bill that passed through the House the basis of population was taken. He could not refer to that Bill—the Parish Councils Bill—as it would be out of Order, but he might point out that in a village near Manchester, during the construction of the Ship Canal, the population was over 300, and this was the case when the Census was taken in 1890; yet now, owing to the completion off the Canal, there was only one solitary individual left in this heretofore village, who, according to Statute, would have to form himself into a Parish Council, as on the 1st of next January all districts which, according to the Census of 1890, had 300 inhabitants would have to do so. That was an instance which showed how rapidly in any particular district the population might change, and though in London the case might not be so gross, there were very great changes taking place. But further than that, this Bill only took into account the night population; and not only in the City but in Wrapping, where there were chiefly wharves and warehouses, and in other parts of London, the night population was comparatively small, and in these cases, where so many of the population—as in the case about the docks—worked for so very poor a return, was it desirable to put on this
    200
    additional tax? Another objection to the basis of population had been pointed out, and it was that in some cases the workhouses were not in the parishes to which they belonged, but the population of these workhouses would be counted in the population of the district in which the workhouses were situated. The right hon. Gentleman had taunted them with not producing another alternative; but there was the alternative of the Municipal Common Poor Fund, and many others which he believed would work very much better and more fairly than the very rough and, as he thought, unworkable proposal contained in the Bill, where the only basis was that of population.
    MR. WHITMOREsaid, he wished to know how the right hon. Gentleman proposed to carry out the important proposal contained in the statement he had made. The great argument against the present Amendment used by the right hon. Gentleman was that he would mitigate the injustice of the Bill by proposing for London that in future there should be a Census taken every five years, and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to insert clauses in the Bill that would give effect to that proposal? He did not think he should be out of Order in saying that he happened to be a Member of the last Census Committee, which recommended a Quinquennial Census throughout England. The last Government would not assent to that proposal, which he knew could only have been carried out by a Quinquennial Census Bill. Every Census, as he was aware, involved a considerable expenditure of public money.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. WHITMOREsaid, he would not proceed further with that, but would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to include in the Bill clauses that would provide for the taking of a Quinquennial Census? If he did, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would, by that proposal, add enormously to the difficulty of getting this Bill through the House.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was determined to stick to the sham title of equalisation of the rates, and

    201
    seemed determined to resist every attempt made from that side of the House to give some verisimilitude to the title. The right hon. Gentleman rejected the opportunity provided by this Amendment of, to some extent, equalising the rates of London in connection with this Bill, and insisted upon his method of distribution according to population. If they were to have that method, as the Debate upon this Amendment had practically been turned into a Census Debate, it seemed to him absolutely essential that they should have a yearly Census, and that that Census should be taken according to the option of Local Authorities in particular districts. It was the mode, apparently, to speak of one's own constituency, and, therefore, he might be permitted to speak of his, and to instance the fact that in Westminster at least they had to sanitate for the day population, they had to sanitate for the maximum population, and the difference between the day and night population of Westminster was 100 per cent. It seemed to him that if this standard of population was adopted for the distribution of the fund, at least every effort should be made to form an accurate estimate of the population for whom the sanitation was to be carried out. The most striking instance of the rapid increase of a population would be afforded by the conversion of the site of Mill-bank Prison into lodging houses, which would, in the course of a few months, increase the population of Westminster by some 4,000 souls. It seemed to him that for Westminster to be deprived of the rights which it would have under this Bill, owing to its increase of population, for four or five years, and at the same time, owing to its increase of rating, to have to contribute an increased sum to the fund, was one of the most glaring instances of the injustice of this Bill could be found.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONwished to ask whether it would not be possible to have these calculations made by some responsible body like the Local Government Board? As the Bill stood it was full of anomalies. For instance, his own parish received 7½d., whereas the parish represented by his right hon. Friend who represented Poplar received 11⅓d., Limehouse and Shadwell received 9d.,
    202
    whilst Mile End Old Town only received 7¼d., and St. George's-in-the-East only received 5¼d. These showed there must be something radically wrong in the way these amounts had been calculated, and if they put it into the hands of a responsible body like the Local Government Board they would be distributed in a way that would give greater satisfaction, and would be more in accordance with an equalisation of the rates. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the question and see how necessary it was to adopt some plan that would give a greater degree of satisfaction.
    MR. KIMBERsaid, he thought they had arrived now at an Amendment that was the very crux of the Bill. Having decided that the contribution was to he 6d. in the £1 all round, according to the rateable value, and put into a common pot, the question was whether that should be distributed according to population? The question was not exactly the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Islington—that would be the second question put. As he understood it, the question would be whether the words "distributed according to the population" should stand part of the Bill? He took a few of the words that fell from the Minister in charge of the Bill as a test of his sincerity as to the grounds on which he intended to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman stated with great triumph that no one could agree with the alternative proposals made to those contained in the Bill, and that they all involved some defects or anomalies which were worse than the plan proposed by the Bill, and that the anomalies that would exist under the Bill were not the result of the scheme under the Bill, but would exist in spite of the scheme of the Bill. He was going to show the right hon. Gentleman that he was entirely wrong. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to accept the truth of the statement he made the other night, and he was going to convince the right hon. Gentleman now with more correct data taken from two authorities that would be accepted as good foundation for his argument. One was from the return made by the London County Council of the ratings in all the parishes of London for

    203
    the five years from 1889 to 1893 and the average of those ratings, and the other was the Parliamentary Return which was in the hands of hon. Members. As to the anomalies which existed under the Bill, and whether they were the result of the Bill or not, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to listen to this analysis of the rates on the average of five years in every parish in London. He would give the anomalies, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would find the two categories of them amounted to 39 distinct anomalies—divergences greater than now existed or would exist under any other plan. Though the right hon. Gentleman was fond of saying that if the Bill contained anomalies it did not contain so many as other plans, he had not pointed out yet a single anomaly in any of their suggestions. All the right hon. Gentleman had said was that the tendency would be so and so, and that to give money to any one would tend to extravagance. That might be so, but it was not an anomaly, and he was going to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the anomalies under the Bill, and caused by the Bill. There were three parishes in London whose average rate was 5s. 7d.—that was equality at present, but what was done with these three equal rates? Two of them were put down, and one was put up, so that positively these three which were equal before were made distinctly unequal, and the divergence between them was considerable. Take the next at 5s. 6d. At present there were four parishes rated at 5s. 6d. on the average of five years. These four were at present equal, but they would be made unequal, and the divergence created between them would reach as much as 9d. in the £1. Take 5s. 4d. There were eight parishes in London rated at present at 5s. 4d.—equality again. What did the Bill do with them? The effect was to put three of them up and five of them down, and the extreme divergence between them was nearly 9d. Take the next at 5s. 3d., at which rate there were three at present equal, and they were treated in this way: Two of them had to pay—that was to say, their rate was increased to 5s. 7d., and the other was put down to 5s. 2d. There were three other parishes
    204
    that were at present equal at 5s. 2d., and one was made to pay nearly 4d. extra, another was put down 2½d., and the third was put down by 2d.
    MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.): Is that on the average?
    MR. KIMBER: Yes, the rate I am speaking of is the average of the rates for five years—from 1889 to 1893.
    MR. LOUGH: Is it what you call the present rate?
    MR. KIMBER: Yes, the present average.
    MR. LOUGH: Then I would point out that it cannot be on the average if it is the present rate.
    MR. KIMBERsaid, the hon. Member could make his answer presently. The strongest statement of all was that there were two parishes at present rated at 5s., one of which was put up and the other down. If they added these divergences together, they would find they were 28 in number, 28 divergences created by the Bill, and consequent upon the Bill and not existing in spite of the Bill. But that was not all. Taking the right hon. Gentleman's own way of putting it, the right hon. Gentleman said that the average of all London was supposed to be about 5s. 5d. He forgot whether the right hon. Gentleman said it was 5s. 5d. or 5s. 3d., but he would take him either way. Assuming it was 5s. 3d., the right hon. Gentleman said the effect of the Bill was that nearly all above the average received, and nearly all below paid. He ventured to contest that statement, and here were the figures. There were no less than six parishes above the average of 5s. 3d. at present on the average of five years which would under the Bill be called upon to pay more than at present. The hon. Member shook his head, but it was so. Taking the parishes below the average there were three that would receive. But if they took 5s. 5d. as the average there were three above who paid and eight below who received. These added 11 anomalies to the other 28, making 39, and he might go one and show that even where the rates were above 5s. 7d., although all the parishes received, they received in extremely unequal proportions. He would give the right hon. Gentleman one case of a great divergence. His own parish on the average of five years was rated at 5s. 10d.;

    205
    that was put down, and was entitled to receive 0.84, that was 4–5ths of a penny, but other parishes rated at 5s. 6d. or down as low as 5s., received a subsidy of from 2d. to 6d. in the £1. That showed that while the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that parishes above the average received they did not receive in equitable proportions among themselves. Again, the parishes below the average paid in unfair and inequitable proportions. In the 28 cases he had stated to the Committee, and the names of which he could give if necessary, there was a distinct divergence instead of an approximation. He submitted the proper course for the Government to adopt in this case was to let the Bill stand over until an investigation could be made into the whole matter by some Committee or other Representative Body in order to ascertain what would be the fair principle for the distribution of this fund.
    MR. BOUSFIELDsaid that, having regard to the course the Debate had taken, he thought it well to suggest what he had intended to incorporate in a subsequent Amendment. He made the suggestion not in the hope that the Government would accept it now, but that they would between this and the Report stage give the matter their serious consideration. It had been pointed out that to take the simple basis of population as the basis of the division of this fund would work out manifest injustice in certain cases, and what he suggested was that, instead of population simply, they should take population and the sanitary rate jointly; that was to say, they should arrive at the proportion in each case by multiplying the population by the sanitary rate. [Laughter.] Just let him explain what the effect of that would be. In every casein which he had been able to examine what the effect was it had been to reduce the glaring inequalities which had been pointed out. The operation seemed to excite the merriment of the Government. He supposed they had made up their minds that whether taking the basis of population gave just results or not they would take it. But if it could be proved that a truer and better result was more equally arrived at by making the division according to the proportion of population and
    206
    the sanitary rate jointly he did not see why the Government should ridicule the suggestion. It was quite obvious that the President of the Local Government Board was throwing as much ridicule as he could upon the suggestion without examining it or ascertaining how it would work out. Let him tell the right hon. Gentleman how it would work out in the three typical cases in which it had been shown that injustice would be done by the Bill. In the case of Islington and Kensington the proportions were determined by the figures 319,000 and 166,000; that was to say, Islington had a population of 319,000 and Kensington 166,000, the sanitary rates being 1s. 4d. and 1s. 5d. If they multiplied 319,000 by 16 in the case of Islington, and 166,000 by 17 in the case of Kensington, and took the product as the basis of their division instead of the simple numbers of the population, that would tend somewhat to reduce the amount given to Islington in the division, and increase the amount returned to Kensington. Take the other case of St. George's, Southwark, and Bethnal Green, where in 1892–3 the rates were almost exactly equal; but where, according to the Bill, they proposed to give to one parish double what was given to the other. The Bill proposed to divide in proportion between these two of 59,000 to 129,000 representing population. If they took the sanitary rate, which in one case was 2s. 2d. and in the other 2s. 1d., and multiplied 59,000 by 26 and 129,000 by 25, taking the product as the basis of the division, they would tend to reduce the inequality of 2 to 1 and make the two parishes more nearly alike. St. George's-in-the-East and Bermondsey were both poor parishes, the rates in the one being 5s. 5d., and in the other 7s. 4d. in the £1, and the Bill proposed to give the most highly-rated parish only 3 3/10d., and the more lowly-rated parish 5 5/10d. The sanitary rate in St. George's-in-the-East was 1s. 8d. in the £1, and in Bermondsey 2s. 3d. If they multiplied 45,000, the population of St. George's, by 20, and 84,000, the population of Bermondsey, by 27, the result would be instead of St. George's, which was the lowest rate, getting 5d. and Bermondsey getting only 3d., they would get very nearly equal amounts. In each case the inequalities

    207
    were reduced, and justice was more equally done than if they took the simple figure of population. He hoped the Government would consider this suggestion.
    MR. GOSCHEN (who was received with cries of "Divide!"): I think hon. Members opposite who show, perhaps not unnaturally, signs of impatience at this time of the Session must remember that it is not our fault that a Bill of this kind, touching as it does all our constituencies, comes at a time when the House is really wearied, and would like to be relieved of its labours. Here is a Bill vitally affecting London—not only affecting our constituents individually, but vitally affecting London—introducing new principles for the division of money which is raised upon the whole of the Metropolis, which comes on when hon. Members are thoroughly worn out on a Bank Holiday, when the attendance is such as not to give us a representative House, and now at this moment, when we have not got a representative House to deal with this important question, we have a totally new suggestion made—a valuable suggestion from some points of view—for a new quinquennial Census for London. That is introduced in a single phrase from the right hon. Gentleman, which he will no doubt afterwards expand, as if it were not a matter which would require very great consideration from every point of view. The fact is that, while, on the whole, it may improve the justice of the Bill, it will involve very considerable expense to the Metropolis at large unless the right hon. Gentleman intends it should be an Imperial charges, which, I hope, he does intend. If not, then I have to say that the rates of London are running up very much, and, in addition to all the existing charges, the Government, through the adoption of a bad principle of population, are driven, in order to amend their proposal, to introduce a measure for taking a quinquennial Census for London at the expense of the Metropolis. That is a very serious proposal to lay before us, and I do hope that hon. Members opposite, though they may find themselves weary, will remember that our constituents are deeply interested in this matter, and will, therefore, give us some latitude, as I think we may fairly claim. In the
    208
    first instance, with regard to the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me, I have already said a word on the subject. But we have two questions—the principle of population and the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The principles which my hon. Friend has introduced into his Amendment, I think, ought to commend themselves to the approval of every Metropolitan Member. Hon. Members may say they do not approve of the County Council carrying it out, but with regard to the principles involved, I consider them to be infinitely better than the point of population alone. Are these not considerations which ought to be taken into account in determining the distribution of the fund raised upon the whole of the Metropolis? What are they?
    "The amount of the local rates in each individual parish in relation to the average rates for the whole of London."
    That is a principle which ought to be taken into consideration, but which you exclude by taking it on the point of population. The second point of the Amendment is—
    "The circumstances of the local rates in each parish, and whether they are especially high on account of some expenditure specially local and beneficial mainly to the individual parish."
    What can be more just than that principle? We talk of equal rates, or of higher or lower rates, but we do not take into consideration in so doing, whether they are specially local and beneficial, and whether the rates are not high, because a parish has, for some particular purpose, run up the rates. I look through the accounts and see many cases where that has happened. There are cases which could be proved if we had the necessary investigation, where rates have been made higher through special local circumstances. Another principle in the Amendment is—
    "The relative number of ratepayers rated at £20 and under, excluding compound householders."
    I think the whole Committee are of opinion that this question of compounding enters largely into the consideration, and I am informed that in the Press particularly favourable to the Government it is admitted to be a matter deserving of consideration, but they say it ought to be

    209
    taken into consideration after the Bill has passed. I should think that is rather too late to take it into consideration then. What other points does my hon. Friend raise?
    "The efficiency with which the rates are collected in the parish; the economy with which the rates are administered in the parish; the sanitary condition of the parish and the increased sanitary efficiency of the parish produced from year to year by the Equalisation Fund granted to that parish."
    There I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I consider it to be one of the greatest blots in the Bill that there is absolutely nothing which will ensure that there will be an increase of sanitary efficiency produced by the Equalisation Fund. That I consider one of the great defects in the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman has not thrown out the olive branch in any way or given us any assurance that any security will be taken for the application of this fund. The right hon. Gentleman might shorten these Debates if, in the same way as is proposed in reference to the Census, he had said that before the stage was concluded he would accept some Amendment or endeavour to work out some clauses by which we may not simply transfer the burden, but may have that which I have insisted upon so often as almost, I am afraid, to weary the Committee—namely, security that the sanitary conditions are the better carried out. That is a point to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee. If the words dealing with the distribution of the fund according to population were omitted from the Bill—and I should certainly vote for their omission—I should then move an Amendment to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because I am not prepared to hand this duty over to the County Council. I suggest the Local Government Board should undertake it, and that there should be an Order in Council, or that a Provisional Order should be submitted to the House of Commons, so that the House of Commons itself should be able to ratify and take note of the distribution to be made. I do not think that that would be an entirely satisfactory solution. The right hon. Gentleman says that all the solutions we propose are worse than that in the Bill. When he attacks our solutions, he finds weaknesses in them, no doubt;
    210
    but when we attack his principle of population, we find it breaks down almost at every point. Everyone who has listened to this Debate will admit, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted, that it has great imperfections. He has already admitted that the population is a shifting one, and yet your rate is not to be changed except once in every 10 years; therefore, the Government are stereotyping the principle of population. One of my hon. Friends, the Member for Putney, has shown that in his constituency the population has more than doubled in 10 years, so that this parish would have been contributing under the Quinquennial Census to other parishes where the population might have decreased. If you had stated that the City, St. George's, Hanover Square, and one or two other parishes should pay £20,000 or £30,000, and you had distributed the money among the poorer parishes, that would have been an equally relevant and rough-and-ready method of carrying out the principle which the right hon. Gentleman has put in the Bill, and in some respects it would have been more candid. There you would have seen that you carried out that which the right hon. Gentleman said was the object of the Bill. He disguises it under the principle of population; but when you come to population he sees he cannot carry it out. He says it must be a night population. Is sanitation not important for the day population? You put the test of population into your Bill, and apply it only so far as it suits your convenience for that larger purpose which you wish to carry out. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any of his friends has dealt with the point I have raised, which I think of great importance, and which ought to appeal to everyone who represents a poorer constituency. You are going to help these poorer constituencies and parishes to which population flocks—those parishes which have received accessions of population—but those parishes which had dwindled in their population from decaying industry, and which are as poor as any other parish in the Metropolis, come off badly by the very reason of their poverty. I consider that is a very great defect in this Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman says that our competing plans break down, and he

    211
    twitted me with having said we should have assistance from the Department and further information in order to work out the scheme. Certainly, we ought to have had more information, and I frankly state to the right hon. Gentleman that is why I did not propound a plan myself—because I have no information as to how much is spent on sanitary efforts in the various parishes of the Metropolis. That information is not in these taxation Returns. You cannot distinguish what is spent under the Public Health Act of 1891 or for other purposes. It is mixed up altogether. If I had put forward a distinct policy which I would have followed myself, it would have been to look in great part to the needs of these parishes to their sanitary expenditure, and to work that in with the other tests which might be put in the Bill. But I cannot do that, because I do not know how far the various parishes would be affected. I do not know how it would work out, and, therefore, I have not ventured to put it on paper. That confirms, to an extraordinary degree, the view of the right hon. Member for the University of London, that we ought to have had a Committee which would have thrashed out the information, and then we should have been able, in a friendly way, and each contributing from his own knowledge of his own constituency all the necessary data, to find out what was the pauperism in the various parishes, because that is one very important element; then what are the sanitary requirements of the various parishes, and how far they have carried them out or failed to carry them out; if they have failed to carry them out because they have not got sufficient funds, or because they have not been sufficiently active, and whether there has been extravagance or not. The House has been invited to pass the Bill in the most light-hearted manner, at the end of the Session, without any necessary information, and the consequence is that there is no doubt an extreme difficulty in working out a counter-plan. Many of us would wish to base the distribution upon expenditure properly conducted, coupled with population if you like, coupled with poverty and with the needs of the various parts of the Metropolis. That would have been far better, and I think it would be generally admitted that if it were
    212
    possible it would be a better mode than that of taking this basis of a shifting population in the various districts.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The right hon. Gentleman complains of not having information. I must inform him that this Bill was before the House for the best part of last Session, and it was mainly or solely by his exertions that the Bill did not pass last Session. The right hon. Gentleman did not ask us then for information. He has had the whole of this Session and he has not once asked for information of any kind. He might, at the beginning of the Session, if he had wanted information for really framing a scheme, have put some question on the subject, but he has allowed nearly the whole of the Session to pass without asking for information, and it is only at the last moment, when we hope to carry the Bill through, it is only this very night, that the right hon. Gentleman gets up and founds his opposition mainly on the want of information. The right hon. Gentleman has all the information before him which the Government has. The Returns before Parliament relating to the different parishes are very full. They may not be quite so full as the right hon. Gentleman desires, but they are quite full enough upon which to found any scheme the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind. The real fact is that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to frame any counter scheme. None of the schemes which have been suggested to the House by gentlemen opposite are in the least worthy of consideration. They are all of them essentially bad, and the further schemes which the right hon. Gentleman has ventilated in the course of his speech are equally bad.
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYdesired to state to the Committee what would be the effect of this Bill in the Union which Fulham and Hammersmith comprised. The rateable value of the Fulham Union in 1881 was £446,008; and in 1891 it was £964,896; so that they would have had to pay 6d. upon the larger sum and they would only receive for their population on the rate of 1881, which was then 114,811, whereas in 1891 it was 188,875. The part of London to which he was referring was increasing with such

    213
    enormous rapidity that unless they were practically to have a division every year they could not do justice to it. In these new increasing neighbourhoods the necessity for sanitary work was much greater in proportion than in the older parts of London. This was especially the case in Hammersmith, where the population for the last 10 years had increased at the rate of over 2,500 a year. That single fact would illustrate the unfairness of taking the population on the basis of the last Census. That was one objection he had to the Bill, and another objection was that unless they took the sanitary expenses into consideration they could not do what was fair. His constituents wanted to receive as much assistance as they could, but they wanted to do it fairly. The President of the Local Government Board said the Opposition had as much information as the Government. Then he had to press that they had not got sufficient information to enable them to frame a satisfactory measure, and that accounted for the Government Bill being what it was. He was anxious that a measure of this sort should be fair and should be free from Party influences, and for that reason he would not give any management into the hands of the London County Council, which, though it had done good work, proceeded on political lines. Instead of the County Council they should place the matter in the hands of the Local Government Board.
    MR. W. LONGdesired to say a few words in reference to the most extraordinary speech they had heard from the President of the Local Government Board. In a very short speech the right hon. Gentleman had contrived to make a number of very inaccurate statements. He commenced by saying that this Bill was prevented passing last year mainly by the action of the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. A more unfounded statement never was made. The reason why the Bill did not pass last year was because the Government, who were responsible for the measure, did not think it worth while to bring it forward until the very fag-end of the Session, when there was no opportunity for adequately considering it, and when, despite its various con-
    214
    tentious points, they desired it to be passed as a non-contentious measure.
    The simple reason was because the Government did not think it worth their while, or necessary, to bring the question forward until the extreme end of the Session, and then they suggested that the Bill should be taken as a non-contentious measure. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Opposition never indicated for one moment until now, at this late hour, that they were not satisfied with the details of the Bill.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I said you never asked for information.
    MR. W. LONG: The Opposition, on the Second Reading, and on every opportunity since, had pressed for more detailed information. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head, but that would not alter the facts. He, for one, had pressed that view on the right hon. Gentleman. Last year, when it was urged that the Bill might be taken, to a large extent, as a non-contentious measure, the Opposition said that, although they were not opposed to the principle of the Bill, the subject was one of difficulty, and they required further information before they could adequately deal with the subject. And on the Second Reading they expressed the desire that there should be a Committee to inquire into the whole facts and circumstances, upon whose Report the Bill should be founded, and had that course been adopted the measure would have passed without any great difficulty. Now, when the right hon. Gentleman was asked for information with regard to the proposals in his own Bill, he thought it sufficient to shelter himself behind the assertion that the Opposition could not produce a better plan. "If you know nothing," said the right hon. Gentleman, "the Government know no more." A more astonishing defence from a Minister in charge of a Bill he had never heard. What his right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's desired was, that if money was to be granted out of the rates of one parish of Loudon for the relief of the rates of another parish, there should be some other result than that of merely relieving the burden of taxation. If they were relieving parishes from a certain amount of taxation they should at the same time secure from those parishes a

    215
    better system of carrying out the Sanitary Laws, which was a matter in regard to which there was great room for improvement. It was often said that the administration of the Sanitary Laws all over the country was far from satisfactory; and anyone who knew anything of London knew that the administration of the Sanitary Laws in the Metropolis might be vastly improved. There was nothing, however, in the Bill which would bring about this result. There was nothing in the Bill to secure even that the money should be applied to sanitation; there was nothing in it to indicate what action would be taken if the Local Bodies applied their grants to other purposes; and there was nothing in it in the way of strong pressure on the Local Bodies to do their sanitary work better than it had been done in the past times. If the Opposition had the information they asked for, they would be able to decide whether this money would be a benefit or a curse to the parishes which could receive it. But they had not that information; and the right hon. Gentleman told them that they knew as much as he did that he had no further information to give and that as they had not asked for the information earlier they should not ask for it now. That was a monstrous doctrine for the right hon. Gentleman to lay down. Even if it were true that the Opposition only discovered those weak points of the Bill at the present stage, why should they not emphasise them, and ask for information about them? Why, when the Local Government Bill of 1888 were under discussion hon. Members opposite were constantly pressing for information on all sorts of points and at every stage of the Bill, and the Conservative Government of the day were frequently told that if they did not give this information the Bill would not be allowed to pass. The Conservative Government did supply the House with tons weight of information on every conceivable point pressed by London Members, by County Members, and by Borough Members; and the present Government ought not to complain if a demand for further information in regard to this most important Bill was made upon them. When the Conservative Government gave out of the Probate Duty grants in aid to the Local
    216
    Authorities, they were told that they were seducing the ratepayers.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman cannot go into that question. The question before the Committee is the distribution of the fund on the basis of population.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, the Amendment of his right hon. Friend proposed that one of the conditions which should apply to the distribution of the grant was—
    "(f) The sanitary condition of the parish and the increased sanitary efficiency of the parish produced from year to year by the Equalisation Fund granted to that parish."
    It was to that Sub-section (f) that he was addressing himself; but, of course, he bowed at once to the ruling of the Chairman, and would only say in conclusion that he repudiated in the strongest possible terms the statement of the President of the Local Government Board that the delay in passing or considering this Bill was in any way to be attributed to the Opposition. The responsibility rested entirely with the Government themselves in not bringing the Bill on earlier in the Session.
    MR. BARTLEYdesired to say that the only object he had in raising this point was to secure, if possible, some better system of adjusting the fund. He contended that the standard of population would lead to great irregularities and hardships on many districts, and if the word "population" were left out he would be willing to accept any reasonable amendment of his proposal. He was no great admirer of the London County Council; but bad as the County Council was, even that body would not distribute the money worse than the way proposed under the Bill, and he would rather trust any individual Radical opponent—even the hon. Member for Shoreditch himself—and that was saying a great deal—in administering the fund than the scheme of the Government. He could not see why the Government refused all Amendments to the proposal, which they must see would inflict hardship and injustice.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 119; Noes 43.—(Division List, No. 212.)
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he proposed to omit the words, in line 21, from "population," to the end of line 26, beginning

    217
    with the words "with this exception," for the purpose of allowing the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to state the effect of this particular exception, and to explain how it would really act.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that no difficulty would arise where the parish and the sanitary district were the same. But where they were not the same, where the sanitary district was formed of several parishes, with separate rating for Poor Law and other purposes, by law the general sanitary expenses were borne by the district as a whole and not by the parishes separately. In such a case the district was treated as a whole for the purpose of receiving the grant under the Bill. But in order to give poorer parishes a certain advantage in the distribution of the sum apportioned to the district, it was divided among the parishes in proportion to their respective population. With regard to the complaint made by the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich in respect of Charlton, the hon. and gallant Member pointed out that although Charlton paid the sanitary expenses incurred its own parish, and was treated separately for the purpose of expenditure, it was not treated separately for the purpose of receipts from funds apart from other parishes in the district. That was so; but the Government were advised that, legally, Charlton should not bear its own expenses of sanitary work, but that those expenses should be paid out of the Common Fund, to which all the parishes should contribute rateably. If this were done Charlton would gain considerably more than lose by the mode of contribution proposed by the Bill.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, it was a difficult statement to follow, though the right, hon. Gentleman had done his best to make it clear. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the result was not this: that wealthier parishes aggregated together with poorer parishes in the same sanitary district would, under the system proposed by the Bill, receive, whereas if they stood alone they would pay? That was an anomaly which was ad-
    218
    mitted by the President of the Local Government Board, and which did not appear to be got over by the Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMANcalled upon Mr. ALBAN GIBBS.
    MR. J. STUART: On a point of Order, Sir, I beg to ask whether this is the proper place for the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London to move the Amendment he has put down?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; I think it is in the right place, because it is not a definition.
    MR. ALBAM GIBBSmoved to insert at the end of Sub-section 4 the following words:—
    "Provided that, in the case of the City, the population shall for the purpose of this Bill be that ascertained by the day Census taken in 1891, unless or until the Local Government Board shall take a day Census or shall call on the City to do so. Provided also, that any parish may similarly take a day Census under the superintendence of the Local Government Board, and that the word 'population' in this Act shall mean the population so determined."
    The hon. Gentleman said he hoped he was not asking for anything that was not fair, and he was sure his constituency would not ask for anything that was not fair. In moving this Amendment he was fully convinced that it was a simple measure of justice that he was demanding. The City had been attacked rather strongly because it objected to pay the contribution in exactly the way settled by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill held the doctrine that any scheme was good enough, whether founded on justice or not, which had the result of taking sufficient money from the City. The Secretary of State for India put forward the argument that because the City had given before it was right that it should give again, and that the City was asked to give in the Bill put forward by the right how. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. The City gave cheerfully to the Common Poor Fund, not only because the object was good, but because proper checks were imposed on the expenditure, and because the money was to be distributed on a rational basis. The only other argument of the right hon. Gentleman

    219
    consisted of the use of the blessed word "Municipality," but the area of the London County Council was a Municipality neither in name nor in fact. A Municipality raised and administered rates for the common good, and those who found the money controlled the expenditure. What had that to do with a proposal that Parliament should order the proceeds of a certain fixed rate to be handed over for administration to people who did not pay it? Nobody could say that the state of affairs applicable to a Municipality was applicable to the City.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman's remarks were scarcely in Order.
    MR. ALBAN GIBBS,continuing, said, he was attempting to show that the City was right in objecting to the way in which it was proposed to take the Census. However, he would leave that subject. The only other argument that had been adduced against the basis of a day Census was that of the hon. Member for Bermondsey who made a direct attack upon the Amendment by anticipation. He drew a picture of the day population of the City leaving their offices by the back door and making off to Bermondsey, where, he suggested, they would get satisfaction for any increased rate that obtained in the City. Surely the hon. Gentleman did not mean to say that the people who left their offices by the back door and went off to Bermondsey were those who paid rates in the City. Of course these people might suffer, because with the raising of the rates their employers might have to consider whether they could afford to go on with their business, and, in order to carry their business on, might have to reduce salaries. He was sure they would be very sorry to do so, but no one could go on working at a loss for ever. Those who paid the rates in the City were the employers who did not go so much to Bermondsey as to Marylebone, Padding-ton, and St. George's, where they found their rates raised as well as in the City. Returns showed that 89,000 of the day population of the City went to stations outside the City area at night. Yet it was for that day population that the sanitary expenses were to a great extent incurred, the roads made, and the streets lighted; and he submitted that it ought
    220
    to be the basis of any Return of population for the purposes of the Bill. The City was in an exceptional condition with regard to its population. The small number of the night population in the City was due to the demand for offices, to the great railway facilities enabling people to live in the country or suburbs, and more than all, perhaps, to the very strict working of the Inhabited House Duty, which was 9d. in the £1 on houses of any size. Only one caretaker was allowed on the premises by night, and he must be a menial. If two persons—two caretakers or a clerk and a caretaker— remained on the premises the duty was charged not on the part of the house that was inhabited, but on the whole building, and that largely increased the amount of duty. If the duty were not construed so strictly a great many more persons would live in the offices and buildings in the City. He contended, therefore, that a night Census was not a fair basis of population to take for the City. He maintained that a day Census was not more difficult to take than a night Census. A day Census of the City had been taken three times—in 1866, in 1881, and on April 29, 1891. The Returns from this last Census showed that on that day there were 29,520 employers in the City, 202,213 male employés, 50,416 female employés, and 19,200 children under 16 years of age. They also showed that in 16 hours, from 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning onwards, over 1,130,000 persons entered the City. That was sufficient to show that the City had already enough to do with its rates. People, in talking about the City, said that the City was rich. When they were so talking many people had in their minds the Corporations of the City of London. The Corporations had a certain amount of money, and he could easily tell the Committee how it was spent.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, a discussion on that point would not be in Order.
    MR. ALBAN GIBBS,continuing, said, the fact ought not to be lost sight of that there was a poor population in the City as well as in other parishes, that there were many struggling traders and shopkeepers who made very little profit who ought not to be rated higher than at present, when they could scarcely

    221
    make enough to pay their rents. The City would rather contribute the exaction in the form of benevolence than have an unjust tax placed upon it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, after line 26, inserts—
    "Provided that, in the ease of the City, the population shall for the purpose of this Bill be that ascertained by the day Census taken in 1891, unless or until the Local Government Board shall take a day Census, or shall call on the City to do so.
    Provided, also, that any parish may similarly take a day Census under the superintendence of the Local Government Board, and that the word 'population' in this Act shall mean the population so determined." — (Mr. Alban Gibbs.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, this Amendment would reduce the contribution of the City under the Bill to about one-third. It stood at 5d. in the £1, and the Amendment would reduce it 1.8d. in the £ 1. He entirely denied that the City of Loudon had any grievance at all. Nor did he admit the figures of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London, who said the rates for the City were 5d. 2d. in the £1 He thought the right hon. Gentleman must have included the Militia rate and some other rates not common to the whole of London. As far as he was able to ascertain, the actual rates levied in 1891–92, as calculated on the valuation, amounted to only 4s. 8d. in the £1, while the average rates over the whole of London in the last three years were on. 3d. in the £1. Therefore the rates in the City of London were about 7d. less. The Mover of the Amendment proposed to reduce the contribution of the City of London by calculating it upon the basis of a day Census instead of a night Census. If the day instead of the night population of the City were taken, it would include 6,000 Post Office employés who never slept in the City and enormous numbers of similar people who lived elsewhere and were rated elsewhere. Why should such people be counted a second time at a place where they did not live and where they paid no rates? The principle of the Amendment was one which the Government could not entertain for a moment. Even when the City was
    222
    brought under the provisions of this Bill it would still pay less than the average Metropolitan rate.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, that surely they ought to have something more than the opinion of the President of the Local Government Board as to what the rates in the City of London were. He should like to know where the right hon. Gentleman got his information from.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, his figures were taken from the only available Return at the Local Government Board.
    MR. BABTLEY: What Return?
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the Return showed the actual expenditure, and from that he had made up his figures.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he thought they ought to have something more definite than the mere opinion of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had not told them on what Return his figures were based; surely this was a reasonable question to ask. It was most unfair to take the population of the City on Sunday or at night when only a few caretakers or housemaids were left in it. The real population of the City consisted of those who worked in it and made their living in it. On the other hand, the real population was not those who slept, but those who worked and thought in the City. That population exceeded 300,000, For them the City had to provide sanitation, streets, and lighting. The expenditure was based, and must be based, not on the 37,000, but on the 300,000. The injustice was, perhaps, most glaring in the case of the City, but it was not confined to the City. The hon. Member for Wands worth had shown that out of 90 districts there would be 39 new anomalies created by the Bill. So far as the City was concerned, he maintained that to the main expense for sanitary purposes the City already paid its full share. The annual expense of the main drainage in London was £190,000 a year, to which must be added the capital expenditure and interest on such expenditure. To all this the City contributed on its full rateable value. This expenditure then was already equalised. The rest of the sewerage expenditure, that for dust re-

    223
    moval, &c., for the Metropolis, exclusive of the City, amounted to £320,000 a year. The cost in the City was £68,000. It was now proposed to make the City pay another £100,000; so that out of £320,000 a year the City would be paying £170,000. If these items were paid by a genera] rate the share of the City would be about £100,000. As it was, they were really legislating in the dark. For instance, the primary purpose of the Bill was to equalise, or "aid in equalising," the expenses of the Sanitary Authority incurred under the Public Health Act of 1891, and yet the Government had not thought it necessary to lay on the Table any Return showing what those expenses were. He would like to ask his hon. Friends who were supporting the Bill whether anyone of them knew what the expenditure was under that Act. Was the right hon. Gentleman himself aware? But, at any rate, he submitted that the Amendment of his hon. Friend was both logical and just, and that unless it was accepted they would really not be distributing the funds according to population.
    MR. KIMBERsaid, he understood the Minister in charge of the Bill to challenge with a direct contradiction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University that the rateable value of the City of London was over £4,000,000. [Cries of "Bo, no!"] Well, the right hon. Gentleman contradicted something, and he should like to know what it was. If it was the statement that the rateable value of the City was over £4,000,000, he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that that fact was shown by the best authority they had Criesof "Agreed!"] He was glad to hear hon. Members opposite say they agreed with his statement; and he hoped the Minister in charge of the Bill would take that to his heart. The right hon. Gentleman in his argument against the Amendment referred to figures in some Returns, which he said he could not quote. It was a monstrous thing that the House should be called upon to pass this Bill on data afforded by the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman backed up by official documents which the right hon. Gentleman said were in existence, but which he could not quote.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE (interposing): I said the Return was laid on the Table. I have it here.
    MR. KIMBER: What is the date?
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: It is Part 4, for the year 1891–92. It was presented on the 20tb of January of this year.
    MR. KIMBERsaid, the Committee had decided that their so-called equalisation fund was to be distributed according to population. But what was the population of a parish? Was it the number of persons who slept in it at night? Was it the workers and toilers? Who were the ratepayers of the City? Were they the persons who slept there at night? Certainly not. Who were the people for the benefit of whom sanitary measures in the City of London were taken? Was it the people who worked there during the day or the people who slept there at night? Was the health of those who lived in the City in the daytime not to be considered at all? It was absurd and monstrous to say that they were not to be counted in the population of the City. They it was who made Loudon what it was—the great Metropolis of the country, and they should be reckoned as the population of Loudon in the distribution of this dole. The right hon. Gentleman also objected to the Amendment because it would largely reduce the amount expected to be got from the City by the arrangement proposed in the Bill. The question was simply whether the Amendment was fair and just. If it were, then it ought to be accepted whatever might be its consequences.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, that while he thought his hon. Friend was fully entitled in the interests of his constituents to move this Amendment; and while he entirely agreed with the view that the method selected for taxing the City was unfair, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a Division. The only safe and right basis of taxation was the ability of the taxed to bear the burden, and, judged by that test, no just case could be made out for the relief of the City, which was the wealthiest part of the Metropolis. There was, however, some features of the Debate to which he would like to call attention. The President of the Local Government Board had informed the House that his calculations

    225
    with respect to the City were based on Returns for 1891 and 1892; but in reference to Camberwell the right hon. Gentleman the other day gave the figures for 1894. It was ridiculous and misleading to give the statistics for different years in different localities, according as it suited the purpose of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had further asked whether the sanitary arrangements of the City could he supposed to be undertaken for those who went to the City "merely for business." Certainly they were. Did the right hon. Gentleman suppose that all the costly sanitary work of the City was carried out for the benefit of a few caretakers? Under the circumstances, they were entitled to ask that the day as well as the night population of the City should be taken into account. However, he did not go back from his statement that the City was able to pay, and consequently lie hoped the hon. Gentleman would not go to a Division upon his Amendment.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he would appeal to the justice as well as to the generosity of hon. Members opposite. ["Divide!"] When a large sum of money was proposed to be taken from the City in addition to the existing burdens imposed upon it, he thought he had a right to say a word on its behalf. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had said that this burden ought to belong to those who lived in the City. He admitted that; but who were they who lived in the City? Were they wholly those who were caretakers and servants, who had no connection with the City except that they drew wages for comparatively humble work, or were they the men who lived in the City day by day, doing the work and managing the affairs of the world's centre of commerce?
    MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid, it was for those who went into the City "merely for business" that all the sanitary arrangements of the City were provided. His suggestion was that the day and night population of the City, and for the other parts of London, should be added together and then divided by two. That would give the average number of the population which during the 24 hours sanitary appliances, roads, lights, &c. would have to be supplied for, and would be a much fairer basis of calculation than
    226
    merely calculating the night population, who were, in the case of the City, mostly caretakers. Who used the roads and streets in the City—the day or night population? Why, of course, mainly the former.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK,who said he had looked up Part IV. of the Local Government Board Returns, but there was nothing bearing out the statement of his right hon. Friend that the average City rate was only 4s. 6d. moved to insert, in page 1, line 26, after "district"—
    "Provided always that, unless the sanitary rates in a sanitary district shall, on the average of the last three years, have exceeded or fallen short of the average sanitary rate (hereinafter defined) by at least 6d. in the £1, such district and the parishes therein shall not be liable to contribute or entitled to receive any sum to or from the equalisation fund for the year."
    The right hon. Baronet explained that the object of this Amendment was to carry out the avowed intentions of the Government. If this Amendment were carried, no parish would pay unless its rate was substantially below the average, and none would receive unless its rates were distinctly above the average. The Bill as it stood did not effect its object. Another great advantage would be the simplicity it would introduce. There were 95 districts dealt with under the Bill. Of these 60 would pay or receive less than £5,000. There were only 12 which would pay or receive more than £10,000. In many eases the amounts were very small, but what an enormous amount of book-keeping, what thousands of entries they would involve, practically to no purpose. For instance, the Tower, with a rateable value of £4,000, would pay £4; St. Catherine's, £10,000, £11; Horsleydown, £80,000, £30; Lee, £135,000, £138; St. Andrew, Holborn, £235,000, £600; St. Saviour's,'£121,000, £300; St. Luke's, £320,000, £400; and Chelsea, £730,000, £900. With two or three exceptions the mere book-keeping would cost more than the districts would gain. This would be an immense addition to the expense of the Metropolis with no advantage to the ratepayers.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, after the word "district," to insert the words—

    227
    "Provided always that, unless the sanitary rates in a sanitary district shall on the average of the last three years have exceeded or fallen short of the average sanitary rate (hereinafter defined) by at least 6d. in the £1, such district and the parishes therein shall not be liable to contribute, or entitled to receive, any sum to or from the equalisation fund for the year."—(Sir J. Lubbock.")
    Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted."
    It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

  BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL. (No. 261.)

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, further considered.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he would move the Amendment standing in his name. The words he wished to have left out seemed to have been inserted in the interest of the person in default, but he did not see how they could benefit him.
    Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 6, to leave out from the word "society" to the word "shall" in line 7.—(Mr. Hopwood.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR, Clackmannan, &c.)said, the words were undoubtedly put in mainly in the interest of the persons charged, but if the hon. Gentleman thought they would do the accused no good he was willing to leave them out.
    MR. BABTLEYsaid, he thought it was a pity to make this alteration. The matter was fully considered in Committee, and the decision arrived at was that the words were for the benefit of the person concerned.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, if objection were taken he was afraid they would have to Divide.
    It being after Midnight, and Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—
    British Museum (Purchase of Land) Bill.
    Chimney Sweepers Bill, with Amendments.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for further promoting the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary." [Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords]

    VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords] (No. 345.)
    Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
    HERITABLE SECURITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 316.)
    Read the third time, and passed.

    PATENT AGENTS REGISTRATION (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 331.)
    Order for Committee read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (EXEMITION FROM SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL. (No. 54.)
    Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [11th April] read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (ACCOMMODATION).
    Ordered, That Sir Charles Dilke be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Accommodation).
    Ordered, That Mr. Edward Morton be added to the Committee.—(Mr. T. E. Ellis.)

    EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
    On Motion of Sir J. T. Hibbert, Bill to continue various Expiring Laws, ordered to be brought in by Sir J. T. Hibbert, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Attorney General.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 349.]
    House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. (No. 161.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  The Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee, made; Standing Committee negatived.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HEKSCHELL): My Lords, this is the ordinary annual Statute Law Revision Bill. It is the result of the deliberations of the Committee, and it is important it should go to the other House as soon as possible. I propose, therefore, that Standing Order 39 be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to Order) and dispensed with; Amendments reported; Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) (CANALS OF THE GREAT NORTHERN AND CERTAIN OTHER RAILWAY COMPANIES) BILL. (No. 184.)
  CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) (BRIDGWATER, &c. CANALS) BILL.—(No. 185.)

    CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No.3) (ABERDARE, &c. CANALS) BILL.—(No. 186.)
    CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) (REGENTS CANAL) BILL.—(No. 187.)
    CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) (RIVER ANCHOLME, &c.) BILL.—(No. 188.)
    CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 8) (RIVER CAM, &c.) BILL.—(No. 189.)
    CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) (CANALS OF THE CALEDONIAN AND NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANIES) BILL.—(No. 190.)
    CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) (GRAND CANAL, &c.) BILL.—(No. 191.)
    Moved, That the Order made on the 19th day of March last—
    "That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next,"
    be dispensed with, and that the Bills be read 2a; agreed to: Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

    UNIFORMS BILL.—(No. 175.)
    House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived.
    EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.] (No. 55.)
    Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARRY, &c.) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 54.)
    Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
    NAUTICAL ASSESSORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 193.)
    Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 194.)
    Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    CROWN LANDS BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Lord President [E. Rosebery.].)—(No. 199.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Earl of KIMBERLEY) moved that the House do meet to-morrow at a quarter past 4 instead of half-past 5, as he was informed there would be no Standing Committee sitting.
  Motion agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before the Motion for the Adjournment is put, as I understand there is no business after to-morrow until Monday next, I would suggest, if the Government does not object, that we should not sit until that day.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I propose that the House, after sitting tomorrow, should adjourn until Monday next, and that the Second Reading of the Evicted Tenants Bill should be taken on that day.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Oh, yes; to that we are quite agreeable.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.