Sitting of 8 March 1895

Preamble
The House met shortly after Two of the clock.

THE JARVIS CHARITY.
THE VICE CHAMBERLAIN (Mr. C. R. SPENCER,)brought up Her Majesty's Gracious Reply to the Address, which was as follows:—
"I have received your Address praying that I will withhold my consent from the scheme of the Charity Commissioners relating to the Charity of George Jarvis to the inhabitants of the parishes of Staunton-on-Wye, Letton, and Bradwardine, in the county of Hereford. I will comply with your advice."

QUESTIONS.

  NAVY CONTRACTS.
  COLONEL C. E. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the tube, supplied for the boilers of Her Majesty's ships Powerful and Terrible, now in course of building were being obtained in Germany; and, in such case, how the Fair Wages resolution of the late Administration was to be enforced, having regard to the absence in Germany of either Trade Union custom or the factory laws in force in this country; and why no Sheffield or other firm had had an opportunity of supplying them.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,: These tubes are not being made in Germany, but by a Glasgow firm in Glasgow. They are not ordered direct by the Admiralty, but by the contractors for the ships. Provided they are obtained from a competent maker on the Admiralty List, and subject to the fair wages clause of the contract, the placing of such sub-contracts is left to the discretion of the principal contractors.
  There were 23 other questions on the Order Paper, and Mr. Speaker went through the list as usual, but only one Member—Mr. Radcliffe Cooke—rose to put the question which stood in his name, and in that instance the Minister to whom it was addressed was not present.
  MR. SPEAKERthen called on Mr. Courtney, who had a notice on the Paper to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors, but the right hon. Gentleman was not present.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY, Mr. RADCLIFFE COOKE, and one or two other Members rose ostensibly to put questions, when—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid: Order, order! Hon. Members are too late. I have gone through the list, and either hon. Members were not present to put questions or Ministers to answer them. I have called on the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

    PUBLIC EDUCATION.
    The House then went into Committee of Supply, and resumed discussion of the Vote £133,189 for public education in England and Wales.
    Mr. JOHN ELLIS in the chair.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYasked how far the increase in the Vote was flue to increased attendance in

    651
    the elementary schools. Another point to which he wished to refer was the practice of warning schools, which, he said, was a matter of considerable importance to the smaller schools.
    THE CHAIRMANcalling the hon. Member to order, said: I am unable to see how the hon. Member connects his remarks as to the policy of "warning schools" with the specific item before the Committee.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYsaid he thought the Committee should have a distinct and definite ruling on the point. Were hon. Members to understand that although this grant applied to every child attending the elementary schools, they were prohibited from discussing any point except the increase in the vote?
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked, whether the Chairman of Committees, on the preceding night, did not say that he would not state for the guidance of Members what might or what might not be discussed, but would call them to order when they were out of order?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The ruling which I have just given is based on a ruling of the late Chairman of Committees in the last Parliament applicable to Supplementary Estimates. It was referred to by the Committee on Estimates Procedure of 1888 in their Report, and has now become firmly established as the law of Parliament. I have nothing further to add.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND,, replying to Mr. Bartley, admitted that the contention that the Free Education Bill would not lead to such a rapid increase of average attendance as was expected, had been borne out by results, for although a very much larger number of children had crowded into the schools, the advance in the, percentage of average attendance, though steady, had been slow. The actual number of children provided for in this Estimate for this year was 50,000 beyond what had been expected. In the year before, the advance was 3 per cent., which was very much larger than had taken place in former years, when 1 per cent. advance was more usual. Last year they allowed for 1¾ per cent., but the advance was
    652
    much nearer 3 per cent., which accounted for the increase in the present Estimate. The figures as to attendance were—1891, 77·70; 1892, 77·84; 1893, 79·98; and in 1894, 81·28; showing that there had been a slow and gradual increase.
    In reply to VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester),—
    MR. ACLANDsaid, that the meaning of the words "habitually present" was that if the inspector should find that during a given number of weeks there was an additional increase beyond what was ordinarily reasonable, taking the year all round, he would call attention to it.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, the words "habitually present at any one time" appeared to be a contradiction in terms, and were open to the most extraordinary misunderstanding. Matters of this kind ought not to be dependent upon the particular Minister for the time being. The language of these rules, under which money was invested and great efforts were expended, ought to be precise and clear. The expressions "habitually present" or "present at any one time" were conceivable; but "habitually present at any one time" was a contradiction in term. If the right hon. Gentleman had been content with "average attendance" they would have understood his meaning. He did not mean to say it would have satisfied them altogether, but they should have been able to discuss the matter on that basis and might have come to some agreement. The people who had to interpret the Code were not skilled persons. Every country clergyman and country manager throughout England had to interpret it, and the Department were, therefore, bound to express themselves clearly. It was not surprising that the National Society should have found itself totally unable to understand these words when Lord Playfair himself could not understand them. The right hon. Gentleman ought to put in express words exactly what he meant.
    MR. ACLANDsaid, he would consider whether he could not put some other words in the Code.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLE, as a practical educationist,

    653
    submitted that the figures of the Estimate were not laid clearly before the House. He had brought the same point before the Committee last year, and though the right hon. Gentleman then gave a general and vague explanation, he was in hopes that this year the figures would have been presented in a more explicit manner. There had been a prima facie increase in the average attendance; but that would have been better shown by a statement of the estimated average attendance and the actual average attendance. At present they did not know what the exact increase had been.
    MR. ACLAND: I mentioned just now that it was about 50,000.
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, it would have been better if it had been shown by comparative figures. They had, however, some data whereby they could form their own conclusions. The fee grant for day scholars had exceeded the Estimate by £63,700. That meant that there had been at least 127,000 new scholars. These new scholars must have earned grants, and as these were given at 18s. a head they might have looked for an increase in the amount of grant earned of £111,000. But the Supplementary Estimate showed an increase of only, £72,000. Further, he inferred from the Statement accompanying the Estimate that the rate of grant per scholar had risen, but there was no room for that increase in this £72,000. There must be some discrepancy in these figures, and it arose because the statement was not properly made. It might be convenient for the Department to make the statement in this form, in order that there might be as few points as possible of which the Opposition could lay hold, but there were educationists in the House who were obliged to be versed in these matters, and the right hon. Gentleman could not wonder if they insisted on raising this question. He did not mean to say that the discrepancy in the figures was very important, but it ought to be explained: and he had the less compunction in pressing the matter now because he raised the same point a year ago. He hoped a more explicit explanation would be given now than was furnished on that occasion.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYthought they were entitled to have some in-
    654
    formation from the right hon. Gentleman as to what appeared to be, at first sight, a discrepancy in the figures. He thought they were entitled to ask the Vice President how far a rule of that kind, which pressed very heavily upon the poorer schools, and especially upon the Roman Catholic schools, which were among the best in the country, had the effect of producing the discrepancy to which his hon. Friend had referred. They were also entitled to ask what proportion of schools which would have earned the 21s. had been cut down to 17s. 6d. There was another point to which he wished to refer, and it was with regard to the question of attendances in small schools during such severe weather as we had experienced of late. Take the case of schools where many of the children had to go no less than three miles to get to them. At the present moment an absurd regulation practically made them during the severe weather, unless they were going to considerably reduce the grant, absolutely to shut the schools up for a certain time and prevent all children attending, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, the average attendance was calculated upon the number attending if the school was open a certain number of times. During any long spell of bad weather, therefore, the children at a distance were unable to attend, and consequently the grant was cut down. If, however, they wanted to get the full grant they had to close the school even to those children who were able to attend. Surely some better regulations than that could be made, because it inflicted considerable injustice upon the children living in the neighbourhood of the school, and who were deprived of their—education. The right hon. Gentleman had shown a disposition during his term of office to make the rules elastic and to do away with some of the cast-iron regulations, and he would do something also to remedy this particularly absurd state of things.
    MR. A. H. D. ACLANDwas grateful for the last few words the hon. Member had used, because he had not often received expressions of such a nature from that side of the House. With regard to the last question that had been raised, he thought that the removal of the regulation, instead of encouraging children to go to school on

    655
    bad days, would have the inevitable result of making bad-day attendances not count at all. They were constantly taking into account the various difficulties which presented themselves to keep up the school attendance, and he had sent out a special circular asking the Inspectors to bear in mind the difficulties which schools had to face during the recent severe weather. They were therefore assessed on the basis of that consideration, and he was inclined to think that it was doing well, because out of the hundreds of schools inspected up to the present he had not received a single complaint. He did not know how far the question of the 17s. 6d. limit entered into the Debate, and did not think the hon. Member would want him to go into the policy of that limit. He was sorry, however, that the figures had not been made more clear, and would undertake on the occasion of the next Supplementary Estimate to explain them a little more carefully. The £72,000 was made up of two parts, one part being due to the increased attendance of the children, and the other part was due to the fact that the Inspectors had given larger grants than were estimated. The first was, roughly speaking, £45,000, and the second, £26,000, was due to the actual increase of the grant. They had estimated the increased grant at 18s. 6½d., but it turned out to be 18s. 8d., so that the Estimate was not a sufficiently large one. The payment of the fee grants was an extremely complicated system, as they paid a certain amount per quarter, and then in the fourth quarter made up a certain larger sum. Sometimes there were excess payments, and reductions had to be made because, the fee grants to certain schools had been overestimated, but gradually they were settling them, and he hoped the reductions would eventually disappear. It was an extremely complicated subject, but there was no desire on the part of the able men who had to do the Estimate work of the Department to complicate it more than they could avoid. The Committee, he thought, would understand that the attendance of children was a matter difficult to forecast, and as a matter of fact the Department required more money than was at first expected.
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLEasked the right hon. Gentleman to explain, before the Vote was taken, to what cause he attributed the increased attendance. He presumed it was in consequence of the free education system, but wished to have the assurance of the Vice President on the point.
    MR. ACLANDhad no doubt that the Free Education Act had largely drawn children to the schools. At the same time, education was becoming more generally appreciated in this country, and parents were beginning to recognise the importance of the regular attendance if their children at school. Both the causes had been operating at the same time.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEthought it would interest the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman would state to what he attributed the increased grant which was so much above the Estimate. Was it in consequence of superior excellence on the part of the children, or through the alteration which was made in the Code last year?
    SIR R. TEMPLEasked to what cause the right hon. Gentleman attributed the increase in the average attendance?
    MR. ACLANDsaid, he was sure the Committee would not expect him to give more than a rough idea. He thought that heads of families had done their best before to promote regular attendance. They were beginning to realise the great importance of the matter. As the noble Lord well knew, he could not there and then analyse the causes. He thought the improvement all round was partly due to this, and partly to the fact that some extra subjects were being more taken up and better taught.
    In reply to MR. W. WICKHAM (Hants, Petersfield),
    MR. ACLANDwas understood to say that the new regulations were issued about three weeks ago.
    MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONwas not quite sure whether he would be in order, but there was one matter which he would like to bring before the Department. He referred to a school at Preston where there was a cookery class. This was not carried on at the schools but near to them; but the Inspector found that the register was defective, and so the schools suffered. If a little more time had been allowed, the register

    657
    could have been corrected. It seemed to him only a technical matter and that the schools should not be excluded.
    MR. ACLAND: If the hon. Member will give me details I will look into it.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked, as to these cookery classes—
    THE CHAIRMANruled that discussion would be out of order.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, the point he wished to refer to was that extra subjects had recently been added with respect to which these grants were given. ["No!"] Was it not so, that certain additional subjects had been added and grants given?
    MR. ACLAND: Cookery?
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid the matters in his mind were gardening and tree-cutting.
    MR. ACLAND: They have not received grants in the past year.
    MR. H. S. FOWLERhoped they would have an early opportunity of discussing the whole question. The right hon. Gentleman knew that during the last two years the Vote on Account, so far as education went, had always been closured. He therefore thought they had a right to have an opportunity of discussing the whole policy of the Education Department.
    Vote agreed to.
    On the Vote of £10 for London University,
    SIR A. K. ROLLITsaid, he was sorry to have to move a reduction in this Vote, as his desire was to stimulate the University and give it more adequate means of conducting its eduction. Therefore, nominally, his Motion would be at variance with the desire he had, but he moved the reduction with the object of drawing the attention of the House. With reference to the University, he might point out its strong claims for liberal treatment. It had only £20,000 a year, and students by their payments of their fees provided the whole of the advantage of the education given by the University, which might be spoken of as a self-supporting institution. The State gave this £20,000, and, on the other hand, it had a right
    658
    to see that the work was done well, that there should be proper and efficient tests both of the qualifications of the students for their degrees and the manner in which the teaching was done by the public schools of the country which sent them up for examination. Notwithstanding the representations made to the Governments of both Parties that the examination rooms are wholly insufficient—that the scientific appliances, which were of great importance in conducting examinations, were almost entirely wanting; that the necessary physical apparatus was not provided, and, even in reference to accommodation absolutely necessary, nothing had been done. A correspondence had been going on with the Treasury for a long time past, and he should call attention to one or two letters on the subject. In November 1893 the Senate represented to the Treasury that these works were absolutely necessary, and in that month a reply was received from the Department, in which it was said that the Department regretted the delay in providing new examination rooms, and that the only pretext which was advanced for not doing that which the Ministry required, was that the present condition of the Revenue forbade it. The Revenue, however, must be provided. Of all Votes taken in Parliament, the most economical was, undoubtedly, the Educational Vote. The letter of the Treasury said that they were wishful to provide accommodation, and in the interest of giving proper examination rooms they would concede a small sum for the provision of the electric light. He thought it was absurd to meet a demand for educational appliances by saying that lighting for the building would be provided, a concession which was absolutely irreconcilable with the want which had been expressed. The Treasury also admitted on November 7th, 1894, that new laboratories were wanted for this purpose, and yet they declined, on the score of want of Revenue, to provide them. He had before him resolutions of the Senate, in which they said that the request of the Registrar to call the attention of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to the difficult and unfair position in which the Senate was placed, by the insufficient accommodation at their disposal for carrying out the public

    659
    duties with which they were entrusted, and urging the provision of additional accommodation, should no longer be deferred. Again, in December last, a renewed representation having been made, My Lords again regretted that the demands of the Exchequer prevented this paltry accommodation for the institution, which cost the State nothing from being granted. The Registrar was directed to acknowledge the receipt of the letter, and to express regret at the non-provision, while again impressing on the Government the urgent and admitted need of such laboratories for the conduct of the business of the University. That representation came from the Senate, which included among its members the Lord Chancellor, as well as other men closely identified with the educational work of the country. He pointed out that this question had been raised nearly a year ago, and that on the Estimates the Secretary to the Treasury gave something amounting to almost an assurance to the hon. Baronet, the Member for St. Pancras (Sir J. Goldsmid), and himself, that this subject should receive attention. He did not doubt that any promise on the right hon. Gentleman's part to give attention to the question, would be amply fulfilled; but what was wanted was money, not attention.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,: I want money also.
    SIR A. K. ROLLITsaid, the University of London provided the right hon. Gentleman with the means within £10 or £20 of the whole of its cost. On the other hand, if the University did its work the State was under a binding obligation to the University to allow that work to be performed, and the students who paid their fees had a right to protest against the way in which their examinations were being conducted. He intended on this occasion, as a means of extracting money, or at least as a means to indicate the determination to extract it if possible, to divide the Committee. He concluded by moving the reduction of the Vote by £5.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that the object of the hon. Member was to extract money out of the Exchequer for a purpose which he admitted to be an admirable one. There was an old saying, however, that "you cannot get more out
    660
    of a cat than the skin." The skin of the cat had been presented to the Committee already in the shape of the Estimates which were before hon. Members. While admitting the utility of this institution, and the reasonableness of its demand, he maintained that as long as the expenditure of the country grew every year by millions—last year by between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 and this year by £2,000,000—he was afraid that he must say no to many of the objects which were pressed upon his attention, and with respect to which one would willingly say yes. They were obliged, therefore, when the expenditure increased to make economies in other directions and though he should be glad if he could to find money for purposes which were very useful, he was compelled to recognise that when the country was spending something like £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 additional on ironclads, their demands must be limited in respect of bricks and mortar. He must cut his coat according to his cloth; but his cloth was all gone, and he had no material to make coats out of for the London University or for anyone else. In these circumstances it was not because he did not sympathise with this object, or that he would refrain at the earliest time to give money to it, but simply because he had not the means, unless indeed his hon Friend would rise and propose additional taxation, say another 6d. on the Income Tax, or any other indulgence of that character. Then he would be glad to satisfy the claims of his hon. Friend or those of other hon. Members. But having regard to the state of the Estimates, and the provision which it was necessary to make to meet them, he was sorry to say that he could only repeat on behalf of My Lords that their present position was that of "splendid paupers." He was afraid, therefore, that he must again plead the unfortunate difficulty of not being able to find this money.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, he had been for 20 years a member of the Senate of the University of London, and had enjoyed many opportunities of seeing the valuable work which was done by that institution. He thought that the case was even a little stronger than that placed before the Committee by his hon. Friend. Several years ago the First Commissioner

    661
    of Works prepared a plan for putting up new laboratories which should supply the requirements of the University at the top of the existing building. That plan was submitted to the Senate of the University of London and approved by them. Subsequently, when the Office of Works was about to carry out the undertaking on which it had entered, a difficulty arose in consequence of the probability of injuring the light of the Royal Academy of Arts, and the result was that the First Commissioner was unable to carry out the work, and the University did not obtain the necessary additions to the building. The First Commissions of Works admitted later, however, that these facts did not exonerate him from the duty which devolved upon him, nor from the undertaking which he had given to the authorities of the University of London; but nothing had been done. The Senate had for the last four years made steady and persistent representations to the Treasury on this important subject. That was a matter of fact which could not be denied; therefore, the present Government as well as the last Government were equally bound by their obligations to the University. He might tell the Committee what it probably did not know—that the annual fees which came from the examination of students who presented themselves were increasing largely, and the statement of his hon. Friend was inaccurate in that he exaggerated the amount which the State paid to the cost of the University of London. At present the fees which were received from the examination of students were in excess of the amount which was paid for the examinations themselves. The result was that the Treasury were actually making a profit out of the examinations. It was true, they said, that there was a counterbalancing expenditure, inasmuch as they maintained the building and supplied the stationery for the Public Departments. Therefore, the Committee had to set off those two items against the balance of receipts on account of the examinations which were held. When the Government gave £5,000 a year and other large sums to small University colleges in different parts of the Kingdom, it was a little hard that the University of London should be refused an expenditure which was absolutely
    662
    necessary for its work, simply because the Budget requirements did not allow it.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYrose to Order, and asked whether this was a matter of principle or of policy, or whether the discussion was to be confined to the amount required in this special item.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Some of the remarks of the hon. Baronet are a little wide of the particular item in the Vote.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDthought that the item was for the whole Vote of the University of London. If he was not to be allowed to discuss the whole Vote there would be no means of bringing this question before the attention of the House. It must be obvious to every hon. Member that he was strictly within the rule which the Chairman had laid down.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The particular item does not refer to new buildings.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, that he was not now referring to new buildings, but to expenditure. The expenditure of the University was practically more than covered by the receipts from examination fees; and if any other expenditure were involved the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not require more than £5,000 or £10,000 to meet the requirements of the case.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared that he was cutting his coat according to his cloth; but the reverse was proved by the presentation of this supplementary estimate. The right hon. Gentleman was cutting his cloth according to his coat, and, not having enough cloth, he was now asking for more. The Committee was entitled to discuss what was to be the use of the extra cloth, and whether it would improve the original garment. He wished for an explanation of the term "Pro rata payments to contingent examiners."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,said, that the examiners were considerable in number, and were paid at different rates. The Vote was not a supplementary estimate in the real sense. A considerable number of extra students had been examined in the past year. That was an additional expense; but it had provided an additional number of

    663
    fees, which quite met the additional expenditure. The sum of £10 was put down to bring the matter before the House. As to the argument of the hon. Member for Islington (Sir A. K. Rollit), he quite admitted that the Senate had made out a very strong case for the provision of better examination rooms and rooms for the other purposes alluded to by the hon. Member. But the exigencies referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been too great for the Treasury; and he was afraid that the matter would have to remain over for future consideration. He could assure the hon. Member that as far as he could help forward the object he should be very glad to do so.
    MR. W. P. BYLESsaid, that if the Amendment were carried to a Division he should support it. The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that in order to provide plenty of money for the Navy, other useful and much-needed expenditure must be cut down. The London University was, in other words, to be starved that new battleships might be provided; and he preferred that the money should be spent on the University than on bloated armaments.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDhoped that his hon. Friend would not divide, as no object was to be gained; and as personally he was in favour of greater and not less expenditure. Moreover. this £10 did not really cover any national expenditure. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give some assurance that next year the case would be more favourably considered.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that, as far as he was concerned, as soon as he found himself able to do it there was not an object which he would be more willing to promote.
    SIR A. K. ROLLITsaid, that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman he should not be justified in dividing the House. He hoped the first opportunity would be taken of enabling the Senate to do its duty.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Vote agreed to.
    On the Supplementary Vote of the sum of £500 for services in connection with the suppression of the Slave Trade and the maintenance of certain liberated Africans,
    MR. J. A. PEASEsaid, that he should move a reduction in this Vote on the ground that the expenditure failed to accomplish its object. There was a system of domestic slavery existing on the mainland between the large inland lakes, and with that at the present time Great Britain was not in a position to interfere. But on the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba the situation was different. In 1861, through the arbitration of Lord Canning, the influence of Great Britain became predominant on those islands; and in 1890 Great Britain obtained absolute control over the islands. But at the present time the Government were absolutely ignorant as to the extent and the condition of the slavery for the suppression of which this Vote was required. On the island of Pemba this country had not at present even a representative. In 1844 the estimated slave population of those islands was 360,000, and since then no record or census had been made. The Consular Report issued last year showed how ineffective the expenditure had been. In 1892 the export of cloves was 1,895,000 rupees, and in 1893 it was 2,218,000 rupees, so that the production of slave labour had considerably increased. He had it on the authority of Sir John Kirke—our representative in that district for 28 years—that the number of slaves on those islands was three times what it had been 10 years ago. It was absurd to ask that House for this money for services which absolutely failed to prevent the smuggling of slaves to Pemba and Zanzibar from the mainland. The decimation of the slave population was partly due to climatic reasons and partly due to the cruelty of the Arabs, described by Dr. Livingstone and by the officers of Her Majesty's ships to which fugitive slaves had fled. There was a decree of June 5th, 1873, which prohibited the importation of any slave, and this expenditure on the Estimates was aimed at securing its observance. But inasmuch as there were very few births on the islands among the slaves, it must follow that nearly the

    665
    whole of them were illegally detained. The greater number of the slaves in Zanzibar and Pemba came from our own Protectorate in Nyassaland. Only 10 per cent. of those taken, however, reached the coast, the other 90 per cent. perishing by the way. This anomaly existed—that our own subjects in the Nyassa Protectorate were raided and sold to our own subjects in Zanzibar. In their interpretation of our actions the Arabs doubted our sincerity, and the infamous traffic continued to supply the demand, against which this vote was wholly ineffective. We must destroy the demand; it was our duty to do so. Let the slaves on the island be emancipated, and there would be no need to come to the House for a vote like this. If we emancipated the slaves, it would do away with the female labour employed in coaling vessels. It might be said that wages were paid for this labour, but so long as the Mohammedan law prevailed in the district and Arabs possessed slaves which had value with their other goods, every penny piece these slaves got would be forced from them, and it was admitted that they were compelled to hand all the money over to the Arabs in whose possession they were. On the mainland there was a demand by travellers, by sportsmen, and by Her Majesty's Goverment in connection with transport service. There was a decree of September 1891 forbidding the enlistment of any slave outside the Sultan's dominions, and the Government derived a revenue from the enlistment of these slaves, of whom only one out of three going inland ever returned to the coast. Two out of every three died, a fact which would be found stated in Mr. Stanley's account of the expedition for the relief of Emin Pasha. Sir Gerald Portal's opinion was that the demand for these men could only be destroyed by the construction of a railway, and on this point he mentioned in passing that at midsummer next a vessel would be sent from the Clyde to the Victoria Nyanza, and the cost of transport would be about £29,000, equivalent to half the interest required to guarantee the making of a railway.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Sir JULIAN GOLDSMID)reminded the hon. Member that he must confine himself to matters relevant to the vote.
    MR. J. A. PEASEsaid, he was not only endeavouring to point out that the only effectual method of suppression was to destroy the demand, and the construction of a railway would have a direct influence in destroying the demand for slaves. Passing from that, he pointed out that on August 22nd, 1890, a secret decree was issued which refused to a slave the right to purchase his own freedom, and also directed the Arab master to punish a fugitive slave. With a secret decree like that in existence, how could we expect that by spending money such as the Committee were now asked to vote, any good result could be effected? He submitted that such a decree should be at once repealed. We could not destroy altogether the demand for slaves, for slavery existed in Persia, in Arabia, and in Morocco; we could not kill the trade altogether, but we could do a great deal by uniform and concerted action with other Powers. We could prevent a continuance of those revolting practices in an island of the Red Sea for the supply of eunuchs. These things were done daily, but a vigorous protest to the Turkish Government should put an end to them. Our policy had been a ridiculous and expensive failure. We might save £100,000 in naval expenditure for intercepting slaves. We were too lethargic, we depended too much on the gradual growth of civilising influences. We allowed a state of things to continue which retarded progress and development, which naturally arose where native races came into contact with Europeans; we delayed that commercial development which would be of advantage to our industrial population at home. He asked that the Government should emancipate the slaves, abolish the legal status of slavery on the mainland, repeal the decree of 1890—and he urged them to construct the railway to get rid of those evils on the mainland to which he had alluded. The Government, to its credit, be it said, had recently taken action to put an end to Armenian atrocities, but outrages equally abominable were perpetrated upon these slaves, and certainly the amount of suffering outweighed the atrocities perpetrated in Armenia. He hoped the Government would show themselves sensible of the evil deeds committed under the British flag for the last five years. Mr. Lecky,

    667
    the historian, classed our unwearied crusade against slavery in the past among the three or four virtuous State actions on record, but to justify that good opinion we must entirely alter our present policy, and then such Votes as this would not be required. He trusted that an assurance would be forthcoming that the stain and reproach on our national honour would be removed. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    Question proposed, that a reduced sum of £400 be granted.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,)said, this was not a Foreign Office Vote, and certainly he was not prepared to enter at any great length into the policy of the Foreign Office in regard to the difficulties of the law, for he had not anticipated having to make a statement that evening. He would, however, do his best to meet the points raised by his hon. Friend. First, he would say of the Committee that it should be borne in mind in estimating this question of slavery in Zanzibar, that only since 1890 had there been a British Protectorate, and he did not think there was much to be gained by going back to events which occurred previously. The usual practice—he would not say it was without exceptions—but the general practice hitherto had been that when a British Protectorate was assumed over a native state, that native state was allowed freedom so far as its domestic institutions were concerned. Against the slave trade the British Government had made, and would continue to make, constant warfare; but the institution of domestic slavery was common to all Mohammedan countries, and certainly it had not been our general practice, upon assuming a Protectorate, to force a complete change in the institutions which had heretofore obtained in a native state. In addition to this, it must be borne in mind that a law passed by the late Sultan of Zanzibar, and to which he had on a former occasion made reference, restricted and regulated the institution of slavery, and the details of that law would have the result of bringing slavery in the island to an end within a comparatively limited time. Since he had been at the
    668
    Foreign Office this question of slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba had occupied the attention of officers on the spot. There had been reports from British representatives in Zanzibar dealing with this question of slavery, and, upon the whole, the reports possessed by the Foreign Office tended rather to show that the difficulties in the way of putting an end to the institution of slavery in the island were considerably greater than his hon. Friend estimated them to be; that the hardships connected with slavery in the island were considerably less, and that clandestine importation of slaves was not so great as it had been represented to be in some published statements. On the whole that was the tendency of reports received up to the present time. Now the time had come when, having got this information, having taken all things into consideration, the Government had to consider whether they could be regarded as a complete answer to the very strong statement of his hon. Friend. He was convinced that, though the difficulty of putting an end to slavery might be underestimated by his hon. Friend, though certain consequences might occur from taking any strong steps, consequences which, perhaps, were not contemplated by members who advocated that cause, still there was at the same time one very serious consideration to be borne in mind, that so long as the institution of slavery existed on these two islands, so long was there a temptation to evade the Sultan's regulations, so long was there a temptation to evade British cruisers and to smuggle slaves into the islands. It had also to be borne in mind, that not only was there in these islands a British Protectorate, but in a very intimate sense, British influence and interests were concerned in the administration of affairs. He freely admitted we had now arrived at such a position in regard to these islands, that he thought the House would be perfectly justified in insisting that the period of time during which slavery would continue to exist must be limited. But, still, a little further information was required. Up to the present time the Foreign Office had no information as to the condition of Pemba. The present Government had taken steps to obtain this information; they had sent a vice-consul to Pemba specially instructed

    669
    to collect information as to the condition of the people in regard to slavery, and to furnish information which might Lend to throw more light on the question, and help the Government to come to a decision as to what might be done. His hon. Friend had recommended three courses. He alluded to a certain decree issued, and then withdrawn, the effect of which would be to fix the money price at which a slave should be entitled to purchase his own freedom. His hon. Friend recommended that this decree should be re-established, that the status of slavery should be abolished, by which he meant, he concluded, not the declared emancipation of every slave—
    MR. J. A. PEASE, interrupting, explained that he did not advocate the re-enactment of the previous decree, because, personally, he did not think it was right that anybody should obtain an acknowledgment of right of property in a slave. What he did advocate was that the second decree of August 20, 1890, should be repealed.
    SIR EDWARD GREYthought that was pretty much what he had said. The second point was that the status of slaves should be abolished, by which he understood his hon. Friend to mean not that there should be special emancipation of all the slaves in the islands, but that slaves should be entitled to appeal to the Courts for redress.
    MR. J. A. PEASEsaid, that on the islands he advocated emancipation pure and simple; but on the mainland, where domestic slavery and not plantation slavery existed, he advocated the abolition of the legal status.
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid, he could not, of course, hold out any hope to the Committee that they could, by one enactment, emancipate at one stroke all the slaves on the islands; but the question of the abolition of the status, as sketched out by his hon. Friend with reference to the mainland, was another matter, and, though he could not say that the Government would pledge themselves to that course, it was one worthy of consideration. The third point was that the law previously passed by the Sultan should be strictly enforced, and he had no hesitation in saying that the Sultan's Government would do their utmost to secure that. But although, with regard to the withdrawal of a
    670
    certain decree which had previously been issued and the abolition of slavery on the islands, he could not pledge Her Majesty's Government, yet during the course of the last two months they had sent instructions to our representative in Zanzibar to furnish a report as to the steps which should be taken with a view of bringing the status of slavery to an end in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba at an early date. Therefore he was able to say that the object that his hon. Friend had advocated was one not only the importance but the necessity of which Her Majesty's Government admitted, as they had already asked for a report with the view of considering what were the best steps that could be taken. Until that report was given it was impossible for him to say more; but he ought to tell the Committee that, according to the intimation which he had received on this subject, it was shown very clearly that, at first at any rate, the termination of the status of slavery would result in a tremendous falling off in the revenues of Zanzibar. His own opinion, from information he had received, was that that would be the temporary result. The place of the slave labour would not be taken immediately by free labour, and undoubtedly there would be very great hardship on the two islands and a great falling off in the revenue. That would for some years, in his opinion, be the case. He would like it to be distinctly understood that he admitted that there ought to be an abolition of the status; but, although the present Government was now considering what means could be taken to attain that object, if the House was to approve of the abolition by Her Majesty's Government it ought also to be prepared, if the necessity arose after steps had been taken, to fall back on the Vote of the House, he did not say for the compensation of slavery, but to come to the assistance of the revenues of Zanzibar.
    CAPTAIN BETHELLsaid, that slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba was in a very curious position; although the British flag did not fly there, yet they were actual dependencies of this country. That being so, the question was—Was the honour of this country tainted by the existence of slavery? It was not a question of a few thousand pounds, but a question of what

    671
    had been the policy of this country in the past, and whether the institution of slavery ought to exist there. He thought the Government ought to look at this question more liberally than they had done in the past. The edicts of the Sultan had not, he believed, been strictly observed, and the Government had the power of seeing that those edicts were enforced. Considering the peculiar position of these Islands, he thought the Government ought to take speedy steps for the emancipation of slaves.
    SIR R. TEMPLErose to support the hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote, and he hoped that it would be seen, by a Division, whether or not the House of Commons was prepared to insist upon the abolition of slavery in Zanzibar. We had allowed these two islands to be virtually the slave market for the mainland. Africans were actually hunted and raided within regions under the sphere of British influence. He did not think Wilberforce and his collaborators would have believed that such a scandal would have been permitted in the second generation after their labours. Such circumstances, as had been calmly detailed that evening by the hon. Baronet, were enough to make the bones of Wilberforce turn in his grave. This was the third occasion on which the matter had been brought before the House, and on each occasion they had had the usual stereotyped reply. He admitted that on this occasion the reply went a little farther than it did before, but they had heard any time during these last two or three years that inquiry was being made. The hon. Baronet calmly told the House that if this was abolished there would be a falling off in the revenues of the Sultan of Zanzibar. That was what his argument amounted to. [SIR E. GREY: "No."] He would ask the House to remember the sacrifices made in the West Indies, and by England herself, for the freeing of the slaves. The hon. Baronet did say that the revenues would be seriously diminished, and he did not say that the plantations would be ruined, or that there would be very great private distress. The Mover of the Amendment had shown that this slave labour had increased, and that it was flourishing more than ever. He had also shown how the decrees issued by the Sultan of Zanzibar to
    672
    abolish the slave trade had been treated simply as waste paper. Our officers at Zanzibar had not acted with the firmness which British Administrators had shown elsewhere, simply because the instructions sent to them from home were not sufficiently urgent. Hon. Members of that House were somewhat to blame too in the matter, by not insisting by large majorities that the Government should act promptly and resolutely. Surely the policy of vacillation should now be put an end to, and the Foreign Office made to understand that the House of Commons had made up its mind once for all that this evil should be abolished.
    SIR EDWARD GREYthought the hon. Baronet had not quite understood what he had said the Government had done in the matter. What he intended to convey was, that some little time ago—before the Session began—the Foreign Office sent out instructions to the British representatives on the spot to report as to what steps it would be best to take to bring this system of slavery to an end. Obviously until that report was received he could not pledge the Government to take any particular steps in the question. But the thing had to be done, and they had asked for a report to be sent home to them as to the best means of carrying it out. He had also said that the result would very likely be, that the revenues of Zanzibar would be affected—that they would fall through the abolition of the system, and he thought so still. But it would be the duty of the Government—whatever Government were in power—to come to that House for the rescue of the revenues of Zanzibar.
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, the steps taken by the Government had been taken two years too late. The Foreign Office had failed to appreciate the gravity of the situation, and he still held the view he had previously expressed—that so long as this Protectorate remained under the Foreign Office they would have the difficulty with them. He ventured to say that if the Protectorate had been under the Colonial Office, the system of slavery would have been put an end to four years ago. Backed up by the House of Commons the Colonial Office would have acted promptly and decisively in the matter. Some years ago there had been slavery in a new British Protectorate

    673
    under the Colonial Office in the Malay Peninsula, and the same reasons had been adduced for leaving it alone which were given now, hut it had been soon put a stop to; and when the Under Secretary declared that we should have to vote monies towards the revenues of Zanzibar, he had to say that a similar claim might have been made for voting money towards the revenues of Pera, and that nobody even thought of doing anything of the kind. He should offer uncompromising resistance to any such proposal.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the real and true remedy for the evil complained of had been strangely overlooked in the discussion. We had been spending large sums almost uselessly year after year in combatting the evil, when all the time it had been in our power to stop the traffic—to stop the raiding for slavery and the bringing of caravans to the coast, by constructing a railway. The whole question was considered by the eminent men who met at Brussels, and the very first article in the Brussels Act they state that the most effective way if not the only effective way, of stopping this slave traffic was by the construction of railways.
    MR. LABOUCHERErose to a point of order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member was in order in raising the question of the expediency of building railways in Africa. Personally, he had no objection, for he was prepared to go into the whole question if it was raised.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he had no wish to raise the whole question of building railways in Africa, but he had mentioned it to show that there was another and more effective remedy for dealing with the evil than those which had been advocated.
    SIR C. W. DILKE, on the point of order, said, the Mover of the Amendment, when he began to refer to the subject of railways in Africa, was called to order by the Chairman. If the point could be referred to now it would not be quite fair that those who raised this question of the slave trade should be laid open to the reproach of not bringing forward this particular point, seeing that the Mover of the Amendment was prevented from doing so.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Penrith would not be in order to discuss the whole question of railways. He understood the hon. Member to refer to the question only incidentally.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHER, said, he would not pursue the point further, but it did seem extraordinary to him that the House should go on year after year voting large sums to grapple with the evil, and neglect to take the one effective means of destroying it at its very source. As to abolishing slavery in Zanzibar at once, he had some doubt. He thought the first step we should take in the matter was to refuse entirely to acknowledge the status of slavery; and if that was done, the slave owners would gradually come to understand that, in those circumstances that status could no longer exist. In that way they might arrive at a solution of the question without resorting to violent measures.
    COLONEL LOCKWOODasked, why, if the Government recognised the importance of the question, they did not send to our representatives at Zanzibar two years ago for a report as to the best means of dealing with the traffic. There had been ample time for them to have got a report and to have acted upon it. He was astonished to hear the Under Secretary state as a point for consideration in this matter, that if the slave trade was abolished the revenues of Zanzibar would suffer. Let them suffer; the point was a very small one, carrying little weight it. He believed that if British officers at Zanzibar had had definite and urgent instructions to put an end to the slave trade, they would not have failed to act on them. Members of both Parties now believed that almost culpable neglect had been exhibited in this matter. It was not a question of Party; it was a question of suffering humanity. And no reference to the revenues of the Sultan of Zanzibar ought to have been introduced in a matter that concerned the honour of England and of her flag.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINthought there could be no doubt as to the very grave importance of the subject, which undoubtedly touched

    675
    the honour and reputation of this country. The hon. Member for Tyneside in his very interesting speech really dealt with two subjects, which it would be desirable to keep entirely separate. The first point which the hon. Gentleman raised was really the question of the policy of the Government with regard to the slave trade. That constituted an opposition to the whole of this Vote. Those who thought with the hon. Member for Tyneside—and he undoubtedly shared the hon. Member's opinion on this point—believed that the whole of our recent policy with regard to the slave trade had been a mistake. We were dealing with the matter where we could deal with it to the least advantage and not to the greatest advantage. He was not disinclined to accept the assurance of the Under Secretary that when these slaves found themselves in Zanzibar they were subject to what was called domestic slavery, and that their condition was not one of very great hardship. That might possibly be true. The suffering occurred upon the route. It was not the existence of the slaves when they got to Zanzibar, it was the provision of the slaves, and all the circumstances which attended upon that provision, that was the difficulty. That being the case it was of supreme importance to deal with the matter at the fountain head—to prevent the slave raids and the slave traffic. That was of infinitely more importance than to deal with the slaves when they were once on the island. That was one point raised by the hon. Member, and the hon. Member and those who thought with him would be only consistent if on that point they took a Division against the whole Vote. He did not deny that, to a certain extent, a question of that kind, inasmuch as it undoubtedly involved an attack upon the policy of the Government, must be considered a Party question. Of course, there might be independent Members of either Party who would not vote with their Party on that matter. But this was a great question of Government policy and ought to be kept entirely distinct from the other question raised by the hon. Gentleman, which was in no sense, a Party question. The other point was—Was it consistent with all that we had done and said in the past that what was practically the
    676
    British flag should fly over slavery? That was what had been going on for the last four years, and some of them thought it was quite time it came to an end. That question should be decided upon the Amendment of the hon. Member. He sympathised with the position of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. They knew that no Under Secretary in that House could commit his chief to a policy which had not been previously decided upon. But the hon. Baronet had shown considerable sympathy with the object they had in view; and if the Committee, he would not say by an unanimous vote, for that was not possible, but by the vote of a large majority, showed the Government that there was a universal opinion, on all sides of the House, that the present state of things in the islands should come to a very speedy close, they would strengthen the hon. Baronet's hands and the hands of his Department to proceed in the direction which the hon. Baronet had shadowed forth. The hon. Baronet had made a sort of appeal to the House—it was in that sense that he understood the hon. Baronet's allusion to the effect on the revenues of Zanzibar. He said to the House of Commons:—
    "If you now press us to put an end to slavery in Zanzibar, we may have to come to you hereafter and ask you for a Vote of money."
    Let the Committee answer that when he came for that money they would grant it. They would make an answer of that kind if they voted for this Amendment. He, therefore, hoped that without the least regard to Party, or to the first question raised by the hon. Member, they would proceed to vote upon the immediate issue whether or not in their opinion slavery ought to go on in these islands; and whether or not they, as the representatives of the British people, were prepared to pay the cost whatever it might be.
    MR. J. A. PEASEasked leave to withdraw his Amendment on two grounds. In the first place, the money had been spent and they ought to vote it. In the second place, he desired that the question should be raised above Party. The statement of the Under Secretary "that the thing has got to be done"—that slavery must be terminated—was a step to the credit of the present Government which the late Government refused to

    677
    take. After the statement of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and the way it was received, it would be perfectly obvious to the country that the House of Commons was prepared to meet any deficit that might arise. He therefore thought they might now leave the question in the hands of the Government.
    Leave to withdraw the Amendment was refused.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, it was rather touching to find that the hon. Member who brought the question forward shrank from the success which appeared to be likely to attend his exertions. He, however, desired to offer some considerations why the Committee should pause before voting with the hon. Member. The House had in the last two years given some Votes with highly philanthropic intentions which it afterwards had reason to regret. The Vote given for the appointment of the Opium Commission was one of which he thought some Members felt they had reason to be ashamed. Hon. Gentlemen had expressed the greatest readiness to make up to the Sultan of Zanzibar any loss that might accrue to him from the sudden abolition of slavery in his dominions. He was not sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had subscribed to these little promises, and he rather thought this was one of the cases in which they would be philanthropically liberal at somebody else's expense. He observed that there were hon. Members who shrank from finding the £20,000 or, perhaps, the £500,000, compensation to the Sultan of Zanzibar, which would stand in the way of any change. They were asked to censure the Government for the slowness with which they had proceeded to accomplish the abolition of slavery in Zanzibar, and to induce them to take more active steps. In the time of the late Government a good deal was done in the direction of the abolition of slavery in Zanzibar. A great deal of money had been spent in stopping the seaboard slave trade, but very little could be done in that way. They must stop the trade at its source. With the view of abolishing slavery in the Sultan's dominions, the late Government procured the issue of decrees by which no slave could be inherited and
    678
    none could be introduced, so that the institution of slavery was now in process of extinction through the operation of these decrees. Was not that what was done when Parliament decided to abolish slavery in the West Indies? It had always been recognised that a sudden change could not be made. The present Government had been watching the operations of the measures taken by the late Government; and they had been making inquiries with the view of taking other measures. He could not conscientiously vote for an amendment intended to censure the Government for not taking more active steps, while the measures initiated by the late Government, and designed at no distant date to terminate the status of slavery in the Sultan of Zanzibar's dominions, were in operation.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid it was the unanimous opinion of the House that every measure that was possible should be taken for the purpose of putting down slavery. That was the policy of this Government, as it was of the last Government, and would be of future Governments. But the House must look at the matter from a practical point of view and see what measures were necessary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had initiated a counter policy, that the exertions of this country should be made not so much upon the coast as in the centre. He did not think that policy would be supported by the hon. Member for Northampton. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: "No, no."] Yet he was going to vote with the Member for West Birmingham.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I regard that as an entirely separate and distinct question. What I am voting against now is the continuance of slavery in the island.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that in dealing with these countries they must deal with them according to their actual condition, and he would ask the House to consider what would be the effect on our relations with Zanzibar of coming to a resolution of the character suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. He could quite conceive a Vote of that House changing the whole condition of things in Zanzibar, and that would have a very serious effect on our relations with Zanzibar. This was, he

    679
    understood, intended to be a declaration in favour of an immediate change in the condition of things in Zanzibar, and he did not think that that would be a wise policy to pursue. All he could say, on behalf of the Government, was that they accepted the view that it was the duty of the Government to use their exertions at the earliest possible moment to put an end to slavery both in Zanzibar and elsewhere.
    MR. H. LABOUCHEREpointed out that England took up this Protectorate over Zanzibar five years ago. For 2½ years the Government of right hon. Gentlemen opposite did nothing, and during the last 2½ years right hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Treasury Bench had done nothing, except to tell the House that they would do something. The object of this Vote was simply to state that the House desired that some action should be taken at once to put an end to the abominable state of things which existed in what was practically a British Protectorate. In Pemba there was not one single free labourer. Not only was the acreage under cultivation increasing, but there was every year a large importation of slaves into the island. The cruelty, too, was so great that a slave wore himself out in ten years. He did not think it would be desirable to extend our conquests in the centre of Africa. Nothing could be gained by that so long as we kept a place for the purchase of these stolen goods within our own territory. If the market were done away with the trade would be done away with. He thought the House ought to agree to vote with his hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-side, or, at all events, for his proposal. His hon. Friend was no doubt most anxious that hon. Gentlemen should vote for him, but he was in a rather peculiar position as the Private Secretary to a Minister, and it was exceedingly difficult for him to press this Motion when it was said that Ministers were opposed to it. He hoped, therefore, that hon. Members would do what his hon. Friend wished to do, and not what he said he would rather they did not do.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTexplained that the Vote before the Committee was for money which had been earned by Her Majesty's ship Philomel; and, therefore, if the Committee refused the Vote they
    680
    would not be censuring the Government but punishing the officers and crew of the Philomel, a body of men who had done everything they could to serve their country.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYsaid, it was quite possible to get the money for the crew of the Philomel by putting up another Vote. He wished to express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench on his side of the House had made a speech of a party character. With regard to the slavery in Pemba, there was not a pin to choose between the two sides of the House, and, therefore, this could not be a party matter. For 2½ years the late Government were responsible for this policy, and if anyone was to blame they were, because they set the example to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not think that the issue could be avoided by such an excuse as that made by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. England was entirely responsible for the administration of affairs in Pemba. He had travelled a good deal in those countries, and he had never met with domestic slavery in the aggravated form in which it existed in Pemba. The lot of the domestic slave was not, after all, usually a very bad one, but the kind of slavery going on in Pemba was of a great deal worse description. England was still more responsible, because under her rule these slaves had largely increased in number, and, therefore, there was a very much larger market for them. When we suppressed slavery on the West Coast of Africa, we carried it out heartily, and at great cost to this country, but our treatment of slavery on the East Coast had been a very much more half-hearted matter; in fact, it had had the effect of greatly increasing the horrors of the trade. All we did was to divert the trade from the old routes, and the result was that the slaves had to be taken by much longer routes, the horrors of the trade being very much increased thereby. He knew that we had had serious difficulties with France, but whether that was so or not, it did seem to him that there was little ground for the outcries we made against the evils of misgovernment in Armenia under Turkish rule, when two great European powers who were responsible for the state of things on the East

    681
    Coast of Africa were acting there as France and England were acting.
    MR. J. H. DALZIELappealed to the Government to define their position a little more clearly. It was plain that there was a strong feeling on both sides of the House that there certainly had been a remarkable absence of enthusiasm on the part of the Government in the cause of the suppression of the slave trade. If the Foreign Office had been determined to put down slavery in Zanzibar, it would have been done two years ago, or even before. At the same time, it was not quite true to say that the present Government had done nothing in the matter, for they had appointed a Commission of some kind to go out and report as to the best method of putting down the slave trade.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: To ask for a Report from people on the spot.
    MR. DALZIELsupposed that this meant that the Government had made up their minds to put down slavery, and were only waiting to ascertain what was the best plan to adopt. That, however, was not made quite plain in the speech of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and he wished to ask whether the Government would give a pledge, before the Division was taken, that they would act promptly after receiving the Report, and whether, in the event of the Report not embodying recommendations that could be accepted, the Government would undertake to do what they could on their own initiative to put down slavery in Zanzibar? Unless the Government meant business, he should feel compelled to oppose the withdrawal of the Amendment.
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid, that he thought it only fair to explain at the beginning of his speech that there were certain difficulties in the way of the fulfilment of the wishes of hon. Members. He had explained that a Report had been asked for, not as to whether the thing could be done, but as to the best means of doing it. He had also said, he thought, that the thing had got to be done. He had pointed out the difficulties in the way only for the purpose of explaining why steps had not been taken before. When he alluded to the possible effect of a change in the present state of affairs upon the revenues of Zanzibar, he
    682
    did not do so because he thought that that course was an insuperable objection; but because he thought it fair to give a warning that the effect of the change must be to necessitate a future Vote. If a Vote should be proposed by any Government in the future, for the purpose of putting an end to slavery at Pemba, or Zanzibar, he should be delighted to support it.
    MR. T. BAYLEYthought that the reason for taking over the island of Zanzibar was that we should have the power to stop the slave trade in Africa. We had now had the island for five years, and during those years there ought to have been an inquiry as to the best method of putting an end to slavery. His vote that day would not be given in favour of the Government who were asking for two or three more years for inquiry. The time for inquiry was over, and the time for action had come. Action ought to be taken within two or three months, and this disgrace to the honour of England ought to be wiped away. It was asserted freely that there were to-day British subjects in Zanzibar who owned slaves. It had always been stated by the Law Officers of the Crown that these slaves were held illegally, and they ought to be free men by the laws of this country. Only a small proportion of these slaves were domestic slaves. Most of them were made to work very hard by their task-masters, who were, very probably, using capital supplied from this country. He had seen it stated that these slaves lived only from three to five years.
    MR. J. HOWARDwished it to be understood that hon. Members on his side of the House were not going to vote from Party considerations. They were glad that an opportunity had been found to bring the subject of slavery in Zanzibar before the House and the country. He trusted that what had been said would stimulate the Government to do that which was right, and so to maintain the honour of this country, which, he regretted to say, had not been maintained in this matter as it ought to have been, by every Government.
    SIR J. M. CARMICHAELwas glad that they had obtained a pledge from the Government that the slave trade would be abolished

    683
    in the islands under discussion. The Government had called for a Report from Zanzibar, not as to whether it was desirable to abolish the slave trade, but as to the best means by which its abolition could be accomplished, and the Government had pledged themselves to effect the abolition of the trade in Zanzibar and Pemba after receiving this Report. Being satisfied with the assurance that had been given, he should support the Government; but he reserved his right to vote against them on this question if, within a certain period, their pledges should remain unfulfilled.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 153.—(Division List No. 24.)
    Vote agreed to.

    CYPRUS.—GRANT IN AID.
    On the vote of £29,000 as a grant in aid of the revenues of the Island of Cyprus,
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, that estimate, although it came in course of payment for the present financial year, really represented expenditure for the previous year. In addition £35,000 appeared in the Civil Service Estimates published that morning as the Cyprus deficit for the present year, and no doubt there would be a deficit in the financial year about to begin. We appeared, therefore, to be entering upon an era of heavy Cyprus expenditure. Ever since 1879, when the series of grants in aid of the revenue of Cyprus was first begun, a large number of Members of the House had always been found to debate and divide against them. The whole history of our financial relations with the Cyprus Protectorate was of such a character that it was almost impossible for anyone to vote with an easy conscience in favour of a grant in aid of Cyprus. In 1891, the last occasion on which a debate and division had taken place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Leader of the Opposition, had made several speeches on the subject. He did not wish, as the Prime Minister, Lord Derby, used to say, to "Hansardise" the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because doubtless, his right hon. Friend held the, same views now which he held then, but his right hon. Friend forcibly expressed the views
    684
    always entertained by himself on this question. On that occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that we robbed Cyprus of a large sum of money, which should be devoted to its administration, to the extent of something like £100,000, and that we so impoverished Cyprus that we were obliged to devote the money from the English taxpayers in order that we might carry on the affairs of the island, and he concluded by saying that "we ought to make arrangements of a different kind which would not be so unjust to the people of Cyprus as the present arrangements." Now, of course the Government had had plenty of other matters to attend to, and they ought not, perhaps, to be blamed because they had not come to Parliament with new proposals. He thought they were entitled to ask on this occasion that some new departure should be taken and some policy should be announced which should not be open to the very grave statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the former occasion. With regard to Cyprus generally, it was originally occupied as a military station, but there was now no great military or naval authority who said it was of any military value to this country. One of the best documents ever prepared on a military or naval subject was the naval prize essay which was read before the Royal United Service Institution by Captain Craigie. In that naval prize essay Captain Craigie proved that we should be stronger in the Mediterranean without Cyprus, and that was given as the conclusion of military and naval experts, who all agreed that Cyprus was worse than useless to this country. At the Royal United Service Institution, on the occasion of the discussion on this essay, although there was an equal division of opinion as to the retention of Egypt and holding the Mediterranean as the route, these words of Captain Craigie passed as accepted generally by all military and naval experts. The garrison had been withdrawn and Cyprus given up as a military station, and therefore, they must look at the matter as one of civil administration. The Cabinet of which the present Leader of the House and many of his colleagues in the present Government, as well as the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and the Duke of Devonshire, were members,

    685
    put on record, in a public despat settled by the Cabinet itself and laid before Parliament,
    "—that the acquisition of Cyprus is, in their view, of no advantage to the country either in a military or political sense."
    Various proposals were made at different times for getting rid of the difficulty in which this country found itself, because Cyprus must be looked upon as the whitest of white elephants, which was kept up at great cost and which was of no value to them. A proposal was made in 1881, with which the name of the right hon. Member for St. George's was connected, for handing Cyprus over to Greece, but no doubt great political difficulties arose to such a course. Without raising any such large questions on this vote, there was ground for pressing the financial situation. What was the financial situation as to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer used such strong language in 1891? It was this. The whole of the tribute and land revenue of Cyprus was remitted to the British Treasury, and they kept the money for the service of the Turkish Loan of 1855 (guaranteed by England and France) so far as it was not provided for by the available portion of the Egyptian tribute. The Cyprus tribute was £92,000, and the available portion of the Egyptian tribute was £72,000, the two slightly exceeding £154,000 a year, which was required for the service of this loan. Between £9,000 and £10,000 remained over, which the Treasury kept for a sinking fund. On the other hand, the Treasury came to that House for irregular contributions towards the revenue of Cyprus. When the sum of £92,000 a year was drawn from Cyprus as tribute it left insufficient money in the island for administrative purposes unless the natives were taxed in an extortionate way. That £92,000 represented a great deal more tribute than the Turks themselves ever drew from the island, whilst one of the great hardships to Cyprus had been that whilst England insisted on levying the tribute in gold, the taxes which were paid during the Turkish administration were paid in paper money, and amounted to very much less. The condition of the island was extremely miserable, and the complaints of the people were very great. The cost of our administration was
    686
    greater than the cost of the Turkish ad ministration, because our people, not being familiar with Turkish or Greek, had to employ a much larger staff, and for these reasons the government was inefficient and the people were oppressed. It was not in his power to make any practical proposal for a new departure to the Committee; but he hoped the Government, who were in possession of far more information on which these proposals could be based, would do so. He could only bring before the Committee what was a painful and miserable situation, and express his intention to vote against the amount now asked for as a whole, which was what he had always done.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I am in the position of agreeing with almost all my right hon. Friend has said. I have not altered the opinion I originally formed and expressed over and over again as to the impolicy of the acquisition of Cyprus, and the great error made in the Anglo-Turkish Convention, as it was called. Of all that Anglo-Turkish Convention Cyprus is the only miserable remnant. The idea that we were to reform Turkish administration, to give good administration to Asia Minor, and especially to Armenia—what has become of all that? That is all in wreck and ruin. There is no doubt that at the period of that Convention there was a sort of phantasmagoria of Eastern splendour. I remember the speeches of the period, and how we were told that Cyprus was to be a bright jewel of the English Crown. I remember there were splendid visions—a sort of dream of Alnaschar; and one noble Lord said that the result of the acquisition of Cyprus would be that the steam plough would be seen in Asia Minor. I am afraid that the number of steam ploughs that go to Armenia at the present time is of very limited dimensions. But the whole of that bright vision has disappeared. There were speculations at that time, and when a Government speculates it may expect good fortune and bad fortune. I fully admit that the speculation as to the Suez Canal was a fortunate speculation, but the speculation in Cyprus has been a most unhappy speculation. That speculation has cost the British taxpayer about half a million of money. What has been the benefit that has accrued from it?

    687
    At that time I remember that Lord Beaconsfield said that it was to be a place d'armes where our most distinguished generals would settle immediately with 25,000 troops. That is the way we began with Cyprus, but presently it was found to be so unhealthy and so entirely useless that Lord Wolseley with 20,000 men had to retire from Cyprus. The next stage was that it was to be a great naval harbour, but it was found to be of no use to our vessels. I remember my friend Lord Brassey declared that Papho would make an admirable coaling station. I remembered, when he said so, that the cohabitation of Venus and Vulcan had not been a fortunate one, and I thought that Papho was not adapted for a coaling station. Papho has not turned out to be a coaling station; no Vulcan is there, and I am afraid that even the remnants of Venus have disappeared. All these bright visions have vanished into thin air, and what remains? There remains an obligation. We took this property subject to an obligation, and there has happened to this country what has happened to many gentlemen who have dilapidated estates subject to mortgage and who find out that they are not profitable acquisitions. After Lord Wolseley and his army left Cyprus, and after it was shown not to be suitable for a naval station, it was stated that, at all events, Cyprus might be used as a sanatorium for the army in Egypt. But the Secretary for War informs me that it does not even answer in this respect, and that it is found much better and cheaper to send the soldiers of the Egyptian army home to England rather then to Cyprus. Therefore the last resource Cyprus has for any purpose has, as far as I know, disappeared, for the last soldiers have been removed from this place d'armes. That is the history of what has happened in Cyprus. Cyprus is not on the way to anywhere. If you want to occupy Egypt you do not go to Cyprus, but to Alexandria. If you wanted to operate on the Dardanelles or the Bosphorus you should have an island near the mouth of the Dardanelles, but Cyprus has absolutely turned out, as far as I can see, to be no road to anywhere. We have taken on ourselves the responsibility of the administration of the island, and what that responsibility costs
    688
    the British taxpayer is £30,000 a year. That is the price we pay for the possession of Cyprus. What we get in return for our money it would be extremely difficult for anyone to say. I believe the idea at the time that we took possession of the island was that it was to be a sort of basis from which ultimately, somewhere in Asia Minor or in the neighbourhood of Alexandria, the great battle of Armageddon would be fought, which would retrieve the condition of the East. But our relations with other Powers is such that we hope that the battle of Armageddon may be, for a time at least, postponed. I have before me what has been the revenue and what is now the revenue of Cyprus. I am sorry to say that the hopes entertained that the English Government would be able, by some way or other, to develop the agriculture and industries of Cyprus have been entirely disappointed. I saw also in one of the reports on the island that crime, so far from having diminished, has increased in Cyprus; and the representations made by the Bishop who was over here was that the condition of Cyprus was worse now than it was under Turkish rule. These statements are, no doubt, exaggerated, but, at the same time, it is impossible to say that progress has been made in that country. Lord Knutsford's expression was that there had been no actual retrogression in the island; but that is not an encouraging description of 15 years of British rule in that country. Of course, this mortgage to which the country is subject diminishes the resources that would naturally be applied to the development of the country. But that is part of the bargain. If you choose to take an estate subject to a mortgage, that prevents the possibility of your developing it, and of doing what you would otherwise naturally do, and as a consequence everybody on the estate suffers. That was the original error that was made in connection with the Anglo-Turkish Convention. It was all done in a hurry, without any inquiry into what the resources of Cyprus were; and, indeed, so difficult was it to arrive at the value of the tribute that it was many years before it was ultimately fixed at £92,000. I do not know on what foundation it was made, but I believe it was made on the basis of what Turkey had previously received. Well, I find

    689
    that for two years, and two years only—1891–92, 1893–94—there has been no vote in this House for a grant in aid. That was because the receipts were larger then than now. But Cyprus, like all countries in the world, especially being an agricultural country, has suffered from the low prices which depress agriculture everywhere, the consequence of which is that the produce of the revenue this year has been less than in former years. Indeed, I am afraid that the fall in the revenue will be greater next year, and probably that the grant in aid will be larger. I do not say that it will be a permanent condition of decadence and ruin in Cyprus. I hope not. The revenue of the country has been considerably higher than it is now, and it may yet be made to pay its way after some fashion. But we have accepted the responsibility of what has turned out to be what I can only call a very squalid possession under the notion that it was going to be of great value to this country. There we are, however we have accepted the responsibility, and we must do the best with the situation in which we find ourselves. My right hon. Friend says we should find some way out of it. One way is to lay a heavier burden on the British taxpayers. But is it fair to ask the British taxpayers to do more than they are doing now for the purpose of keeping up this dilapidated property? I do not think it is. If we could say, "Here is a place of great importance to the Empire; here is some great strategical position for which it is necessary you should make great sacrifices," it would be a different matter. To my mind, the British taxpayer has got quite as much as he can bear, or ought to bear, and to make a proposal in this House that an additional burden should be put on the British taxpayer, in order that more money might be paid to Cyprus, would be an unreasonable demand, and one I am not disposed to make. I admit that we have taken the responsibility and the liability, and that we ought to do our best fairly to administer the country and to do justice to the people. But that we should ask the British taxpayer to produce large sums of money for the purpose of employing it in Cyprus, when it is so much needed at home, is a most unreasonable demand.
    SIR C. DILKEsaid he had made no such suggestion. The only suggestion of the kind that was made was made by his right hon. Friend himself, when he suggested a few years ago an arrangement of a different kind that would be just to the people of Cyprus.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would make a suggestion, for I am not prepared to make one. I know my right hon. Friend says he will vote against this Vote. But he will not improve the condition of Cyprus in that way. We are bound in honour to make good the deficit to such Government as we have in Cyprus—I admit that it is not a very brilliant one—and we should be glad to do more in Cyprus; but, unfortunately, the country is seriously hypothecated for the price paid to the Turkish Government and its creditors, that, from its very inception into our hands, it was impoverished, and though we are prepared, year after year, to make greater sacrifices for the purpose of carrying on the concern, I am not able to think that the British Government can do more than they are doing at present, in order to discharge the liabilities with which they find themselves burdened.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERconfessed that he had some difficulty in following the Chancellor of the Exchequer through the somewhat unexpected speech to which the House had just listened He listened carefully to that speech, and he fully expected that, at the end, the right hon. Gentleman would come to what seemed to be, the natural consequences of his premises—namely, that he was prepared to announce to the House that it was the intention of the Government to withdraw from Cyprus, or to make some arrangement by which it would be returned to Turkey, at the earliest possible opportunity. But, instead of that, the conclusion to which the right hon. Gentleman came was that we were to remain in Cyprus, though there was opposed to that conclusion nearly every word which fell from the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: It is much easier to get into a place than to get out of it.
    Mr. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had got into Egypt, and had not got out of it yet.

    691
    He presumed that the right hon. Gentleman was so pleased to hear a speech of his own from which he did not depart—was so pleased to feel that he was still in agreement with a speech he made some years ago, that he could not refrain from revelling in it; and he also made merry about the statements which were made at the time Cyprus was acquired by us. That, however, was before he had the honour of a seat in the House, and a great many years before he had any official experience, so that he did not fell competent to defend the action which was then taken, but, at the same time, it seemed to him that something should be said on behalf of it. This matter occurred in 1878, and we were not then in Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman had asked what was the good of Cyprus when they wanted to get to the East, and pointed out that he and his Party did not go to Cyprus, but went to Alexandria. But it was not until 1882 that the right hon. Gentleman was able to go to Alexandria. He supposed that Lord Beaconsfield at the time consulted naval and military opinion before taking the island over, and that he and his Government did not enter into a solemn engagement with Turkey, without, first of all, ascertaining whether it was capable of being made a useful naval base, and would be a valuable acquisition for strategic purposes. Times, however, had altered, and we now found ourselves in a different position in the Mediterranean. Our position in Cyprus at the present time might be described as obsolete, but that did not justify the right hon. Gentleman in his attack on the Government of the day for having gone there at all. The right hon. Gentleman had made merry over the financial loss we had sustained, and said that if they would go into speculations they would be bound to find themselves at the end of a few years considerably out of pocket. When the Suez Canal shares were bought he violently denounced that speculation, and they were told over and over again that it was a ridiculous financial operation, and a sham, and similar expressions were used, but they had not been found in the mouths of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen lately. Now he ventured to say that if they were to put Cyprus and the Suez Canal shares together and strike a balance
    692
    between them, that we should be gainers by the transactions. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the subsidies we had to pay amounted to £30,000 a year, but he found that they varied from £55,000 in the year 1888–9 to nil in the year 1892–3, which made an average of something over £24,000. In 1889–90 it was £45,000, in 1890–1 £35,000, and in 1891–2, £10,000. Last year, however, we had to pay a subsidy, but that was due to the fact that the great agricultural depression, which, falling upon the rest of the world, had not neglected; to fall on Cyprus too. He could not help believing, however, that, by proper development, the island might yet be made to pay. At any rate, they might be able to put it in a position as not to have to fall back upon the subsidies of the British Exchequer. A question of policy, however, involving as large a subject as the retention or surrender of Cyprus could not possibly be raised without more notice than had been given on that occasion, and before he could give his assent to either one view or the other he should require something more than the statements they had had during the Debate, and something more from the naval and military authorities than a more reference to a prize essay from Captain Craigie.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKcould not understand why this country should go on finding money for the deficiencies in the revenue of Cyprus—a course which was not pursued in regard to India or any of our great Colonies, who were left to make both ends meet. He had hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have held out some prospect of a discontinuance of this continual drawing from England, but there had been no practical suggestions leading to that conclusion. If the Government expected the Island would improve, it would be better to make a temporary loan, and if there was no prospect of improvement, why should we go on paying? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had put the amount at a very moderate figure. Including, as of course they ought, our military expenditure in Cyprus, the total reached more than £1,000,000. But why was Cyprus reduced to such a sad condition? In former times it was fertile and prosperous. The change was mainly due to

    693
    the destruction of the forests; and to restore the prosperity they must restore the forests. It was no use merely to plant a few thousand trees here and there. They must close certain tracts one after the other until the trees had attained a sufficient height. He asked the Government to take the matter into their serious consideration. He saw no reason why the deficiency should continue to be made good by the people of this country. He regretted from this point of view that the right hon. Gentleman had no practical suggestions to make. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Island was not of any value from a naval or military point of view. If it was of no value, then he could not see why this country should continue to pay, year after year, when the money was so much required at home.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELLagreed that this was not the time to discuss Imperial policy with regard to Cyprus, but after what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he felt compelled to make an earnest protest on two points. The words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be read all over Europe with surprise that a statement of that kind should come from the Leader of the House of Commons. He had not been surprised at that speech, because it was one of the many speeches on his policy of the shrinkage of the Empire. He had some personal experience of that part of the world, and he had consulted naval, military, and commercial men, and he protested earnestly against the idea that Cyprus should be given up by this country. One of the greatest naval authorities, whose death they all mourned—Admiral Hornby—had pointed out that in the next naval war Cyprus, or some port in that region, would be absolutely essential to their naval supremacy. He looked with apprehension on the peoples of Europe learning that this country was prepared to retire from Cyprus.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I made no such suggestion.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELLhoped the right hon. Gentleman would deny that any such interpretation could be put on his words. No one would rejoice at that more than he would, but he thought
    694
    he must raise a protect against the suggestions that they ought not to continue to hold Cyprus.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSONsaid, it was true this was not the time to raise a question of policy. Cyprus had been referred to in uncomplimentary terms, and he was not going to argue whether it was a white elephant or not—whether the causes of depression were permanent or not—whether it was a good bargain or a bad bargain. The fact remained that they were in Cyprus, and as long as they remained there they were bound by these obligations until they were denounced. In view of the fact that the Turkish Government had disregarded certain obligations, was it not possible for England and France to secure that Turkey should no longer be relieved to the same extent.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he joined in the remarks made by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. The speech of the Leader of the House would be read all over Europe as condemning the policy of the preceding British Government with regard to Cyprus. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman in his sober moments whether he thought that was loyal to the British Empire? He was sure the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to do anything disloyal, but it was one thing to make that speech to an English audience and quite another thing to make it to a European audience. Apart from the very objectionable part of his speech, he agreed with many of his conclusions, which amounted to this—that we are in Cyprus, and being there we had got to do our duty by the island. He must remind the right hon. Gentleman that they had a duty to the people of Cyprus. They had undertaken to rescue them from Turkish rule and govern them on British principles, and that being the case they had rightly or wrongly an obligation towards them. He was thankful to find the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to discharge that obligation. He need not attempt to enter on the policy of their inquiring Cyprus. A great deal was to be said for it, and their occupation of the island was largely connected with events in Asia Minor. He should not it that late hour (6.30) go into that great subject. He desired to offer a few remarks in tins particular Vote. He had listened

    695
    with great attention to what fell from the right Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock). No doubt Cyprus was handicapped with those Turkish obligations; but still it was to him incredible that an island of its fertility and position should fail to prosper, even with the weight of those mortgages, if it had been properly governed. There were administrators in the British Empire who, in a few years, would have made Cyprus pay her charges. He thought it would be more satisfactory to the Committee, when it was called upon to vote a considerable sum towards the expenses of Cyprus, that it should first of all be informed more exactly how this deficit had arisen. All that the Committee had heard was that there had been a shrinkage in certain branches of produce because prices had fallen. That was a meagre and jejune explanation. The Committee ought to have an explanation of each head of revenue and expenditure in order to show what were the causes of the deficit. There was a grave apprehension, moreover, in well-informed circles, that Cyprus had never been well administered. He did not presume to lay the blame at the door of anyone, but the apprehension existed all the same that the resources of the Island had not been developed so much as they might have been. He recommended the Government to send out someone who would make a proper report, after inquiry, on two points—first, What had been the causes of the Cyprus deficit; and, second, how could they be averted in the future? Cyprus should be made to cut her coat according to the quantity of her cloth; and if this policy was adopted, he was sure that she would eventually make both ends meet. There ought to be a clear understanding on the part of the Government, and of Parliament, that the Cyprus administration must do the best it could with the money at its disposal, and that it must not come to Parliament for money year after year.
    MR. WILLIAM ALLENthought that the Committee had felt surprise at the conclusion to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come in his speech. The right hon. Gentleman had made precisely the same speech elsewhere, in which he had described Cyprus as a wretched abortion
    696
    of an island, and that it was absolutely valueless to this country. After having said all this on former occasions, the right hon. Gentleman voted against these grants; but, on the present occasion, after showing that we were misgoverning Cyprus, and that it was of no actual value, he told the Committee that it was still necessary to grant this money. Usually, when a Government asked Parliament for money towards some object, they had good reason for doing so. In his judgment, there could only be three reasons for asking the Committee to grant money on this occasion. One was that Cyprus was of some value to this country as a military position. The right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Dilke) had quoted one authority on this head. The Cabinet of 1880, of which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Duke of Devonshire were Members, came to the conclusion that Cyprus was valueless as a military position. The Government of that day had not probably come to this conclusion without first consulting the Military Authorities in the country. Then they ought to look at Cyprus as to whether it was useful from the Naval point of view. There was in the Island the harbour of Famagousta. If it was to be of any use a large amount of money would need to be expended on dredging it, and in building a mole to protect ships. But the late Government had not taken any action to improve or to dredge this harbour, and the present Government were also doing nothing in this respect; and, therefore, the island would be of no use from the Naval point of view. Some hon. Members opposite argued that this country ought to keep Cyprus because the English rule was always beneficial; but this argument amounted to a plea that we should hold every place, whether it was good or whether it was bad for us. What had Cyprus cost this country? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the Committee that it had cost us £500,000. Was there any chance that this country would not have to pay as much in the future as we had done in the past? In the Debate of 1879 the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Dilke) said that the amount of money then asked for, £26,000, was a fleabite;

    697
    and the Leader of the Opposition on that occasion traversed the statement of the right hon. Baronet, and came to the conclusion that this Vote could only be asked for on that one occasion. But the Committee now saw that the right hon. Baronet was right, for again and again Parliament had been asked to vote money for Cyprus. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pleaded that if we did not give Cyprus these grants in aid, what were to do? He pointed out in answer to that plea that the Turkish Convention had been broken again and again, that Turkey had not observed any of the agreements which she had entered into as to her dealing with Asia Minor and the improvements to be effected there. We could, therefore, at any moment hand the island back again to Turkey. There was thus no reason why we should still keep Cyprus and continue to pay those large grants in aid, having in view the large amount of the additions to the Navy and other expenditure. He should vote, therefore, in support of the right hon. Baronet if he went to a Division, because he believed that this country should not be called upon to pay these amounts in respect of an island where we were doing no good.
    SIR W. HARCOURThoped that the Committee would allow this Vote to be now taken. He was extremely anxious not to disturb the arrangement with reference to the Navy Estimates on Monday.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYcontended, on the other hand, that the subject was too important to be disposed of in this manner, especially in view of the right hon. Gentleman's own speech, which practically amounted to a reversal of the policy of previous Governments with regard to Cyprus. There were several hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House anxious to continue the discussion.
    MR. C. BILLsaid, that some years ago he had had some experience of the island of Cyprus; and having taken a considerable interest in it he was anxious to give his views on this important question. The right hon. Baronet had said that this country was face to face with a very wretched situation in that island. He agreed with the view which the right hon.
    698
    Gentleman had taken on that point; but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer described the island as a dilapidated property he could not agree with him. If, however, this was the condition of affairs, to whom was the fault due? Cyprus had been a failure because successive Governments had neglected their responsibilities. If the Turkish tribute had been capitalised many years ago, the cost to the Imperial Government, instead of being, as would have now, £92,000 a year, been between £30,000 and £40,000 a year. The Committee would see what a sum of money would have been set free for the development of the island. The Port of Famagusta was certainly in an undredged condition, but it was only 20 hours' steam from the mouth of the Canal, and it was the nearest harbour to that point. So long as the Canal was our route to India, Cyprus ought to be held, and the harbour of Famagusta ought to be improved. The rule of England had been a great benefit to Cyprus. Owing to the good work done by successive governors, the ravages of locusts, which used to ruin the crops, had now been put an end to. Considering the magnificent climate and the splendid agricultural land in Cyprus, the island should prove a most valuable possession if it were properly taken in hand by the Government.
    MR. R. PIERPOTNT, said that it was hard on Cyprus to be treated as a costly possession, seeing that England and France took £92,000 a year out of it. The balance between this grant and England's share of the charge was in favour of Cyprus. He wished to know by what arrangement this £92,000 a year was paid in satisfaction of the 1855 loan; with whom the arrangement was made, and whether it was likely to be permanent? The hon. MEMBER was still speaking when—
    It being Ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

    AUSTRALIAN COLONIES CUSTOMS DUTIES BILL.
    The House went into Committee on this Bill.
    (In the Committee.)
    On Clause 1.
    SIR M. E. HICKS-BEACHexpressed a hope that the Bill would not be proceeded with at that hour. The measure repealed certain Imperial enactments under which the Australian Colonies were not allowed to impose preferential duties on goods coming from one country as against goods coming from another. It might very well be right to remove those restrictions with respect to the Australian Colonies in dealing with one another; but it was very questionable whether the total repeal of these provisions was necessary. That would enable the colonies to give preferential treatment to a foreign country as against the mother country. Such a proposal ought to be properly considered.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. SYDNEY BUXTON,said, that he would postpone the further consideration of the Bill if the Right hon. Gentleman desired it.
    Progress reported, Committee to sit again on Monday next.

    SUPPLY—REPORT.
    The Report of the following votes agreed to in Committee of Supply on 7th March, was brought up and agreed to:— Miscellaneous Legal Expenses, £7,000; Relief of Distress in Ireland, £35,000; County Courts, £10; Law Charges and Courts of Law (Scotland), £5,125; General Register House, Edinburgh £500.
    Sitting suspended at Five minutes to Seven of the clock.

    EVENING SITTING.
    The House resumed at Nine of the clock.

    SUPPLY.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted and 40 Members being present—

    LOCAL TAXATION IN URBAN DISTRICTS.
    MR. A. D. PROVANDsaid, he rose to propose the Motion, notice of which, stood upon the Paper. Nothing he could say would add to the importance of the subject. The question of local taxation must come before the House every Session in some form, and the House was likely in the near future to hear more about it in the form he proposed to deal with it than had been heard in the past. Local authorities and municipalities had had to deal with a large increase of urban taxation during recent years, and the Government had recognised the importance of the question, inasmuch as they included the taxation of land values in the Newcastle Programme. He intended to deal with a part only of what was included there, his Motion being framed to exclude taxation dealing with agricultural land. There were several reasons for that, one of which was to simplify the question so as to enable the House to deal with it within the limits of an Evening Sitting. The urban question was of enormously greater importance than the rural question, as the amount of rates raised was so much larger, and the amount of money borrowed by urban authorities to carry out improvements represented nearly the whole of the local indebtedness. In a few words he would state the grievance of which he had to complain. It was that occupiers paid the rates, and that the maintenance of the city, and the public improvements

    701
    paid for out of those rates raised the value of the whole of the land under each town or city; and this increased value was realised by increased rents. Occupiers were, in fact, rented for advantages arising out of improvements and works paid for almost entirely with their own money. The increase in the value of town land went to the owners who, in England, paid almost no rates at all, and in Scotland and Ireland only a part of them. He could not state the matter more briefly and pertinently than by quoting to the House the words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Goschen), when President of the Local Government Board, On 3rd April 1871, in introducing his Local Taxation Bills, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
    "The result of the present stale of things has been that many great improvements in the Metropolis, in Liverpool, in Manchester, and in other large towns, have been made in the last ten years exclusively at the cost of the occupiers without the landlords contributing a single shilling towards the expenditure."
    That which had gone on for ten years prior to 1871, had continued for more than 20 years since on a larger scale; urban rates had increased faster during the past 20 years than they increased before the time when the right hon. Gentleman addressed the House on the subject, and were increasing faster now than ever. So the time had come for putting before the House a reasonable and equitable proposal, which would have the effect of making a fairer adjustment of taxation where land was built upon, and would open a new source of taxation altogether where land is vacant and unoccupied by buildings. The rise in the value of urban land had been altogether created by the increase of population, the consequent wealth arising from their industry, and the public improvements carried out, and there could be no doubt of the equity of the public taking for the public use as much as was practicable of that value which had been created by themselves. The expenditure in urban districts from rates was enormous, but beyond this, urban authorities had borrowed largely, and the present debt of local authorities exceeded £200,000,000 sterling; of which only about £4,000,000 were owing from rural authorities,
    702
    £13,000,000 from authorities partly urban and partly rural, and nearly £184,000,000 were owing by urban authorities. Our local debts were increasing faster than our National Debt was being paid off, and the purposes for which this money was borrowed and expended had been directly the means of increasing the value of the land upon which the towns were built —such improvements as new highways, streets, sewers, markets, bridges, libraries, drainage, harbours, docks, &c., all of which increased the value of the land in towns. In reference to the present rating in urban and rural districts the President of the Local Government Board said, in the Report issue I last year:—
    "At no time during the century for which statistics are available had the average rural rates in the £ been so low or the rates in London been so high."
    And the rates in London had since increased. As illustrating the increase in urban values he instanced Glasgow and London. In the twenty years between 1871 and 1891 the increase of rental value in Glasgow had been £1,330,000, or 62½ per cent., and the capitalised value of that was not less than £20,000,000. In London, during the same period, the increase in ratable value had been about £17,700,000; the capitalised value of which would be quite £250,000,000. No doubt the greater portion of that represented the value of new buildings, but, after allowing for those, there must have been an enormous increase in the value of the land, and that had gone directly to the owners of it, who had contributed little or nothing to create it. Two objections had been urged to the taxation of land values. It was said land in cities was taxed locally now, and that was true, as it was rated with the house standing upon it, but the rates were rarely paid by the landlord. Then, further, it was said it was impossible to discriminate between the value of the land and the value of the buildings on it, and that, separate assessment was, therefore, impracticable. In their Report of 1892, the Town Holdings Committee said that, in their judgment, separate assessment was not practicable; but there were different ways in winch the land under cities could be taxed. It might be rated separately from the houses or it might

    703
    be taxed in a way similar to the Land Tax, or a municipal death duty might be imposed. The grievance and the necessity for redress being shown, no doubt, in some way, a method of taxation could, be discovered. Though that Committee considered separate assessment impracticable, they said nothing of any other method of taxation; they did not report anything against the plan of municipal death duties. No doubt there would be difficulties in connection with carrying it out, but they were not insuperable. Other Committees had sat and reported on the subject besides the Town Holdings Committee. The London County Council had given great attention to it, and had passed a resolution to the effect that land might, and should be, assessed separately from houses. A Corporation Committee had been appointed in Glasgow to deal with the taxation of future unearned increment. They had received an interim report from the City Assessor proposing a plan, but had come to no decision. Various schemes had been propounded for the taxation of land separate from houses, and the equitable adjustment of the amount amongst those liable; the whole of which seemed to be based on a sub-section of Clause 1 of the Report of the Select Committee on Local Taxation of 1871, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Goschen) was chairman, to whom the House was indebted for much valuable information in reference to local taxation. The subsection was—
    "That, subject to equitable arrangements as regards existing contracts, the rates should be collected as at present from the occupier, except in the case of small tenements for which the landlord can now by law be rated, power being given to the occupier to take from his rent the proportion of the rates to which the owner may be made liable, and provision being made to render persons having superior or intermediate interests liable to proportionate deductions from the rents received by them, as in the case of the Income Tax, with a like prohibition against agreements in contravention of the law."
    Let the House then consider what would be a new source of taxation—vacant land. It was true that the Report of the Select Committee three years ago said that the land where there was a building upon it could not be separately assessed from the building; that to do so was impracticable. But there was
    704
    nothing impracticable in the assessment of vacant land; however, the Committee objected to it on the ground that it would be taxation of capital. They concurred in the view that by far the most effective cause of increased value of vacant land was the growth of the neighbouring population, which created a demand for land, and that that increase was what was known as "unearned increment." But they thought that if vacant land were taxed separately, it would be a tax on capital value, and that would be a departure from the existing basis of local taxation, and would be difficult in operation. He saw no difficulty as to its operation, and with respect to its being taxation of capital value the Committee reported that the principle appeared to be one of a far-reaching character, and if adopted its application might have to be extended to other forms of property. But, they added, it was a principle upon which economists of high authority entirely differ. Therefore there were two sides to the question. But the capital value of land was created by the increase of population; and their fears of the principle being extended to other kinds of property were groundless, as there was no other kind of property in which value was created in the same way. If population did not come, there could be no increase of value to the land, and if population did come, an increase in the value of the land necessarily followed. The Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes in 1885 reported quite differently from the Select Committee on Town Holdings in 1892, and with the permission of the House he would read a few lines from the Report:—
    "At present, land available for building in the neighbourhood of our populous centres, though its capital value is very great, is probably producing a small yearly return until it is let for building. The owners of this land are rated no in relation to the real value, but to the actual annual income. They can thus afford to keep their land out of the market, and to part with only small quantities so as to raise the price beyond the natural monopoly price which the land would command by its advantages of position. Meantime, the general expenditure of the town on improvements is increasing the value of their property. If this land were rated at say 4 per cent. on its selling value, the owners would have a more direct incentive to part with it to those who are desirous of building, and a twofold advantage would result to the community. First, all the valuable property would

    705
    contribute to the rates, and thus the burden on the occupiers would be diminished by the increase in the rateable properly. Secondly, the owners of the building land would be forced to offer their land for sale, and thus their competition with one another would bring down the price of building land, and so diminish the tax in the shape of ground rent or price paid for land, which is now levied on urban enterprise by the adjacent landowners—a tax, be it remembered, which is no recompense for any industry or expenditure on their part, but is the natural result of the industry and activity of the townspeople themselves."
    Quite so. They pointed out that the whole value was created by the townspeople themselves, while it passed into the possession of the few who happened to own the land. Indeed, so little was the enhanced value due to the owner of the site that he might be an imbecile or an infant, it was not necessary that he should do anything, the increase in the value of the land would go on steadily with the aggregation and industry of the surrounding population. If vacant land were taxed, it would certainly make an enormous difference to the municipalities. In the case of Glasgow— the only city he would refer to, as it was a representative city, and the others were all in a like position—Glasgow, with a municipal area of 11,861 acres, had 3,500 acres still available for building purposes, and the whole value of this 3,500 acres was derived from those who lived in the city, their industry and expenditure, while the owners of the vacant land contributed nothing to the maintenance of the city. He might give many illustrations of the hardships arising from the inequitable methods by which urban rates were assessed at the present time; and it was undoubtedly the case that a remedy was necessary which local authorities required the assistance of the House to provide. The London County Council introduced a private Bill two years ago to reform the system of rating, because, in their judgment, they thought it would be best to proceed by private Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet put a Motion on the Paper which prevented them from proceeding with it, and nothing had been done. To say that a private Member might introduce a public Bill to deal with the question was to dismiss the question to a future which it was impossible to estimate. No private Member as they all knew, could bring forward any
    706
    Bill except by the chance of the ballot, and he might be many years before he was fortunate enough to secure a place. They must either have the assistance of the Government in that matter, or a private Member must be given an opportunity of dealing with the question. Otherwise it might be shelved for a long time to come. The Government had already recognised, not only the necessity of rating urban land values with which he had dealt, but the whole question, inasmuch as they had put it down in their programme as a reform with which they would deal as soon as an opportunity was given to them. He was sure that that question appealed more directly to the majority of the inhabitants in towns than almost any of the other questions which so far had not been dealt with by the Government since the programme referred to was issued. He, therefore, hoped they might reasonably expect some Member of the Government to state what their intentions were on the subject. Meantime, he would content himself by moving—
    "That no system of taxation can be equitable unless it includes the direct assessment of the enhanced value of land due to the increase of population and wealth and the growth of towns."
    MR. J. FLETCHER MOULTONin seconding the Motion, said, he felt that in bringing the subject before the House no apology was needed from the nature of the subject itself. They all knew that the local Budget of this country was assuming such gigantic proportions that already it was something like two-thirds of the Imperial Budget; and that already the Local Authorities had run up a National Debt of some £200,000,000, which far exceeded the extent to which we had paid off the national indebtedness of the country during the last few years. It was also well-known that the sources of revenue for local authorities were necessarily restricted in their nature, and that we could not admit any source to be availed of that would limit the free circulation either of persons as residents or articles of commerce. The revenue must come from something local, the putting taxes upon which would not cripple the community; and those who had given their attention to local revenues knew how very great and pressing

    707
    such restrictions were. There were, therefore, but few sources, and beyond all contest the great source of local revenues now and in future must be local rates. At the present time they were the source of nominally one half, really far more, of the whole of the local revenues of this country. To put them on a proper foundation was a task worthy of any statesman, however great. We had certainly got the principles of Imperial taxation settled to a very great extent. Our taxes were few; they were based on great principles, and there was no wish to add to them. When the House turned to local taxation they found that the great burden of local taxation was borne by a source which, in the opinion of both sides of the House, was radically wrong in its present incidence, and that it should be left in that state was a disgrace. He did not want to make a speech that would arouse opposition. He believed that if in this matter they could banish conventional hostility, and talk on this subject without passion, they would find that the points of difference between the two sides of the House were far less important than was believed. He thought he could show that the principles which had been accepted by those who sat on the other side of the House led in their logical consequences so near to the reform which they on the Ministerial side of the House advocated, that but little would be required to accomplish it, and unless and until it was accomplished no great reform in local taxation could take place. The present condition of rates was such that, until they disentangled the two types of taxation that lurked within it, no one could consent to the rates being made more burdensome. That part which it was safe to tax more heavily was so mixed and covered by the other, that he felt sure public opinion would be against rates producing their proper return to the community, until they had accomplished the reform which would disentangle the two conflicting elements. He had said that he did not believe that the difference between the two sides of the House was so great as was supposed. If they looked at the Town Holdings Commission Report of 1892 it would be found that they gave two recommendations. One was—that half the rates ought to be borne by the
    708
    occupier and half by the owner; and the other was— that any contract altering that incidence of rates should be declared invalid and void in law. What did those two recommendations mean? The second recommendation was really the more important; it was that people should not alter the incidence of taxation by contracts between themselves. What a farce it was for Parliament to discuss what should be the incidence of local taxation when they knew that every lease set at defiance their decision, and that by leases the landlords of London had carved out of London's revenues the most valuable portion, and had sheltered it from the burden of municipal rates. The state of things was as bad as it was in France in the old days, when the greater part of the property was owned by the clergy and the nobility, and they paid no taxes. By their contracts the landlords of our towns had completely sheltered all the best portions of the revenues of those towns from any contribution to the burdens of the municipalities. In fact, throughout all the towns of England it was the persons who paid the rents who also paid the rates, and not the persons who received the rents. When persons insisted that London could easily bear the burden of its rates, did they reflect that the £8,000,000 of rates did not come out of the £33,000,000 of rental value, but that the £33,000,000 passed into the hands of owners without contributing a penny to the rates. This recommendation of the Town Holdings Committee showed that they were of opinion that this shielding of revenue from rates ought to cease, and that the incidence of rates ought to be determined by law, and not altered by contract. But almost as important was their other decision that rates ought to be borne one half by occupiers and one half by owners. He did not accept that division, but the recommendation might be accepted for argument's sake. It showed that in the opinion of opponents a portion of the rates ought to be borne by owners. How was this to be levied? No two classes of property could be more distinct than buildings and land. The land could not wither; it could not become useless; it could not have to be replaced; it remained, and was enhanced in value by improvements to the cost of

    709
    which it contributed nothing. Buildings were the direct outlay of capital, and required to be maintained; they decayed and became obsolete, and so the capital spent upon them was lost. Therefore, you could not apply to both the same measure of annual value. Surveyors knew that the capital value of land is something like 30 times its annual return, while the capital value of buildings is only 16 times their annual return; and, therefore, under our present system we really tax buildings twice as heavily ay we tax land. It was marvellous how some people deluded themselves by fancying that land in towns obtained increase of value from some mystic source which cost nobody anything. Stop our Municipal expenditure on streets, cleansing, lighting, and the land in Belgrave Square would have no value. That value was as much the direct consequence of municipal expenditure as a crop of coffee was the result of the upkeep of an estate. If we were going to draw municipal taxes from these two classes of property, we must separate them and apportion different rates of; taxation to each. If ever there was a property that ought to contribute largely to municipal revenue, it certainly was land which so greatly benefited by it. Two of the most remarkable features of social life were the enormous rise of expenditure in towns, and the enormous rise in the value of town land; the two went together, and one followed the other, and furnished the source from which the necessary expenditure might be supplied. It was said it was impracticable to separate the value of land from that of houses. Well, he had had some experience in compensation cases, and he never knew a case, certainly not in London, in which the witnesses on both sides did not value first the land and then the buildings upon it. It was almost the universal custom to separate the two elements. What was practicable in valuation was practicable in assessment, and he could not understand the alleged difficulty in tracing the annual value of land to the hands that received it. It was a fundamental principle with those who advocated the reform in local taxation, that not a pound should come into the hands of any one from the land of towns, but it should pay its tax. They
    710
    had got to find out where the revenue went to, and there they must get the tax. If the return from any piece of land was, £100, and if the person paving it deducted the rate as he did the landlord's property tax, they would accomplish what they desired in taxing this revenue. Antagonists divided themselves into two classes, one alleging that the landlords paid all the taxes, and the other that the tenants did so. The truth was, that under the present system we did not know the incidence of taxation. The burden of rates was a terror to dwellers in towns. During the last six years in London the London County Council had deliberately, with the approval of the ratepayers, refused to carry out improvements because of the great and ever increasing burden of the rates. The most serious wants of the towns were going unsatisfied because taxation was imposed in such a way that the occupier had to bear the burden, and until the rates were separated into that which ought to be borne by the land, and which ought to be borne by the buildings, and that which ought to be borne by the occupier, those wants could not be satisfied. It was their duty to see that the incidence of taxation was fair. Everyone, whatever his views on the subject were, ought surely to see, and the first duty incumbent on the House was to make local taxation take its true shape, and to take care that those people should pay who ought to pay. He called upon all in the House who desired that the taxes should not be an unnecessary burden on the people, and who would not allow their eyes to be shut to injustice, to take care that local taxation should be placed on a basis by which its incidence could be told, and by which the fairness of its incidence might be secured.
    MR. LEES KNOWLES, who had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out from "no," and add—
    "Legislation which may he proposed to this House on the subject of the direct assessment of the enhanced value of land due to the increase of population and wealth and the growth of towns is expedient, unless it is based upon the recommendations of the Select Committee on Town Holdings, which, after an investigation extending over nearly seven years, presented a Report to this House in May 1892,"
    said, that he rose with some diffidence to

    711
    address the House on this question, but his excuse must be that for five years he had had the honour of being a member of the Town Holdings Committee, and he hoped he might be able to talk without passion, or conventionality on a difficult and complicated question. In the first place, he would like to point out that the hon. Member who opened the Debate brought forward no definite proposal. The hon. Member for South Hackney, however, brought forward a definite proposal, but he hoped to be able to show the House that it was an objectionable proposal. He would remind the House of a notice which appeared on the Paper on Tuesday last in the name of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Macdonald), dealing with the subject matter of the present Motion. That Motion went one step further than the one under discussion. It was at first definite but misleading; and then it was altered, and became like the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, indefinite. It was, he thought, desirable to call attention to that matter in order to show the House how these would-be Reformers and Progressives were unable to agree among themselves on the proposal that ought to be adopted with regard to the question of the taxation of ground rents. That Motion asked the House of Commons to commit itself to a definite misstatement of fact. Its terms were:—
    "No system of taxation can he equitable, unless a direct assessment he imposed on the owners of ground rents and on the owners of increased values imparted to land by building operations or other improvements, as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Housing of the working classes."
    In point of fact, the recommendations attributed to the Royal Commissioners were not to be found in their Report. The Royal Commissioners reported that the present system of local taxation was unsatisfactory, but that they were not authorised by the terms of their Commission to "go generally into the question of local taxation." They did make a recommendation with regard to the rating of vacant building land (on which subject they had heard no evidence); but, with regard to the "direct assessment" of "owners of ground rents" and "of increased values imparted to land by building operations and other improvements," they made no recommendations
    712
    whatever. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets seemed to have copied the terms of the reference to the Town Holdings Committee, and to have put down as findings of the Royal Commission proposals into which the Town Holdings Committee were directed to inquire. It was difficult to resist the Conclusion that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had taken his facts at second-hand, for precisely the same mistake was made in a pamphlet prepared by Mr. Sidney Webb for the United Committee for advocating the taxation of ground rents and values. But he passed on for a moment from these indefinite, and, as he hoped to show, objectionable, proposals, and would take some of the points raised in the Debate with regard to the question of the unearned increment of land. On that he would quote the words of Professor Fawcett. Speaking on the proposal that the State should appropriate the unearned increment of land, he said:—
    "It seems to us that it can neither he defended on grounds of justice nor expediency. If the State appropriated this unearned increment, would it not be bound to give compensation if land became depreciated…..If the State in prosperous times appropriates an increase in value, and if in adverse times the falling off in value has to be borne by the owner, land would at once have a disability attached to it which belongs to no other property."
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking some time ago at Oxford, said:—
    "I shall not discuss with you the 'unearned increment of land.' That is an idea so illogical, so unreasonable, so perfectly unjust, and so absolutely 'philosophical,' that it does not require a refutation."
    AN HON. MEMBER: When was that?
    MR. LEES KNOWTLES: In 1874. Since the Report of the Royal Commission was issued, the proposals embodied in the Motion had been exhaustively considered and reported on by the Town Holdings Committee. That Committee arrived clearly at the conclusion that ground rents were already rated. The following were extracts from the Report:—
    "The idea that ground rents are a class of property which at present escapes assessment for the purposes of local taxation is, of course, quite erroneous. The basis of all rating is the whole annual value of the building and of the land on which it stands, regarded as one entire property. In the ordinary case of a house subject to a ground rent, and let by the owner to the

    713
    occupier at a rack rent, the several interests of the ground landlord, of the owner of the house, and of the occupier, constitute together the subject-matter of an assessment which is made upon the property as a whole. There appears to have been a popular impression that ground rents constitute a subject-matter of assessment hitherto untouched, and that a new and fresh source of revenue for local purposes would be 'tapped' by imposing a direct assessment on such ground rents, in addition to the present assessment of the whole property. Hut this view was found not to hear examination. It was soon seen that the assessed value of the house includes that of all the various interests above enumerated, and that to put a direct assessment on the ground rent, in addition to the existing assessment of the house, would be to rate a certain portion of the value twice over."
    "Upon the whole, the conclusion we have arrived at is that in the inception of tin ground lease, allowance is made un account of the existing and contemplated rates, and that the amount of such allowance is deducted from the ground rent, which might otherwise be charged, and that to the extent of such allowance the owner of the ground rent indirectly bears the burden of rates, in the sense that if this burden were remitted he would be able to obtain a ground rent increased by the amount so allowed for."
    The Town Holdings Committee took Scotch as well as English evidence, and found as follows:—
    "Ground rents and feu duties are already taxed as being included in the rateable value of the town holding on which they are secured. They do not constitute a fresh matter of assessment hither to untouched, as is often supposed. The imposition of a direct assessment upon such ground rents and feu duties as distinguished from the assessed value of the house itself, as at present rated, would lead to anomalies; and inequalities, and has been generally abandoned."
    With reference to the incidence of taxation, the Town Holdings Committee said—
    "The real, its opposed to the apparent incidence of local taxation in towns, falls partly upon the owner of the land, partly upon the householder, and partly upon the occupier. The proportions in which the burden is distributed are difficult to determine, and depend upon a variety of circumstances, among which the demand for and supply of houses is the most important."
    Therefore, it would appear from the findings of the Town Holdings Committee, that the lion, and learned Member for South Hackney was wrong when he said that the rates fell upon the occupier. But, if further evidence were wanted, there was the statement made by the
    714
    right hon. Member for Midlothian, at Ormskirk, in 1868. The right hon. Member said—
    "We all must agree that the ultimate burden of the rates comes upon the landlord. Whether they be parochial rates or borough rates, they will at last find their way to the landlord."
    Then, as to the landlord's having a voice on the subject of expenditure, the right lion. Member said—
    "The sole power of voting in the parish vestries is with the ratepayer, and if the landlord happens not to be an occupier he has no control whatever over the rates."
    If this proposal for the rating of ground rents were agreed to, whom would it benefit and whom would it injure? If the right hon. Member for Midlothian and the Town Holdings Committee were right, and ground rents were already rated, it would be unjust to rate them over again. If this were done the people who would be most injured would not be the great ground landlords, but the vast class of small investors in ground rents, who were, perhaps, the most deserving class in the community. The aggregate property of these persons probably exceeded by far the aggregate property of the great owners, who were attacked so violently. In his evidence before the Town Holdings Committee, Sir Thomas Farrer, now Lord Farrer, stated that he had received the following letter from a correspondent:—
    "I should like to put before you the following case, which is typical of tens of thousands in this country:—I am trustee for a lady whose whole income consists of £157 2s. 6d., derived from leasehold ground rents near King's Cross, bought for her by a thoughtful, thrifty husband some time back. She receives £194 2s. 6d., and pays the freeholder £37. She has only a nominal reversion of three days to the rack-rents. In 16 years she loses her income entirely, as the property reverts to the freeholder. Can you tell me upon what principle of right or justice this poor lady is at one swoop to be deprived of 20 per cent, of her income: Is it because the Thames Embankment and other distant improvements are supposed to have improved her property The answer is, her property has depreciated in gross annual value during the last 25 years, but even if it could be demonstrated that these distant improvements have benefited her property, they could not possibly benefit her. If you made London a city of palaces, and paved the streets with gold, she would not be one penny the richer. Her rents were fixed 82 years ago for all her term, and as far as she is concerned they are absolutely unalterable."

    715
    Sir Thomas Farrer admitted that this letter contained a very strong case, and could not deny that there were many others like it.
    MR. J. ROWLANDSasked whether Sir Thomas Farrer did not read this letter in illustration of some of the difficulties which would have to be met, but not in support of opinions which he held himself. What he wanted the House to hear was Sir Thomas Farrer's own view.
    MR. LEES KNOWLESreferred the hon. Member to Sir evidence. The letter witness when answering question 1,326 of 1890. Other illustrations which he wished to bring before the notice of the House were given in the evidence of Mr. George Beken, a surveyor and land agent, who said—
    "There are hundreds of thousands of the industrial and middle classes who have small savings invested in ground rents through the instrumentality of benefit and insurance societies, besides innumerable private investors and trustees who purchase ground rents as a safe investment, and can ill afford to be victimised by extra taxation."
    Mr. Bekenquoted the following cases taken from the business transactions of his firm:—
    (1.) A messenger for many years to a firm in the City has purchased £16 per annum for £360, and £29 per annum for £650. He referred to these two investments as his "little all." (2.) A photographer invested about £500 in ground rents, part freehold and part leasehold. Has been several years in business. Has three or four children. (3.) A barmaid recently invested £368 in buying £15 15s. 0d. per annum. Mr. Beken was informed that this was all she possessed except £50 or £60. (4.) A small grocer, been about 15 years in business in the City, made four investments in ground rents. The first was for £244, the others about £500 each, giving a total income of about £80 per annum. Speaking to Mr. Beken on the question, he ended by saying that he had worked for all he had got. (5.) A spinster recently invested a small legacy of £300 in the purchase of ground rents amounting to £15 per annum.
    Mr. Bekenalso quoted the cases of two Benefit Societies, and of one Insurance Company:—
    (1.) The "Hearts of Oak" Benefit Society consists of working men, and has over 120,000 members, with assets over £1,000,000. Of this,
    716
    £200,000 invested in ground rents. (2.) Another society (a small temperance body) had, in 1889, 4,700 members, with assets £33,000. Of this, £19,800, or more than half their capital, was invested in ground rents. (3.) The "Prudential" Insurance Company, according to their balance-sheet of 31st December, 1890, have 220,000 policies in force in the ordinary branch, with a capital liability of £4,400,000, also 900,000 policies in force in the industrial branch, with a capital liability of £7,900,000. They have assets of £12,500,000, with £2,040,100 in freehold ground rents and Scotch feu duties, or nearly 16 per cent. of their capital. A large proportion of the policy holders in this society are working men.
    So much for the case of existing ground rents. As regarded future ground rents, the Town Holdings Committee recommended a division of rates between the occupier and all the ownership interests, including rack rents as well as the various forms of ground rents. This proposal did not appear to to meet with the approval of the London "Progressives," for at a meeting of the London County Council on November 3rd, 1891, Lord Hobhouse, on behalf of the Local Taxation Committee of that body, having presented a Report in favour of a division of rates, Mr. STUART (Hoxton Division of Shore-ditch) moved and carried an Amendment which shelved the Report. The London Progressives had hitherto hopelessly failed to agree among themselves as to the scheme by means of which taxation of ground values was to be carried out. The town Holdings committee said—
    "We observe that there is little agreement among those who concur in thinking that the present system is unjust, and that reform is urgently required. The plan of assessing reversions proposed by Mr. Harrison is rejected by Sir Thomas Farrer, and is incompatible with the scheme for the separate assessment of ground and building values advocated by Mr. Moulton (South Hackney), which Sir Thomas Farrer also disapproves of. Mr. Moulton's plan is inconsistent with the proposal for the division of rates between occupier and owner approved of ay many of the witnesses. The imposition of municipal death duties is supported by Sir Thomas Farrer and Mr. Costelloe, but is at variance with the views of Mr. Harrison and Mr. Moulton, while the proposal to tax vacant land was not accepted by Sir Thomas Farrer or Professor Thorold Rogers, and is only adopted in a very qualified form by Professor Munro."

    717
    The fact that Mr. Moulton gave evidence strengthened this Report. That the Progressives were still unable to agree among themselves was obvious from the proceedings of the London County Council last year. On 16th January, 1894 (nearly two years after the second "Progressive" Council had been elected), a scheme for the taxation of ground values was at last presented to the Council by its Local Taxation Committee. The framework of the scheme was set out in sixteen recommendations. The fate of the Committee's unhappy Report might be stated in the words of Mr. Charles Harrison, the Chairman of the Progressive Party—
    "Not one of the recommendations was carried or adopted by the Council."
    A resolution was, however, carried, to inform the Government that it was imperatively urgent that "a measure" (what measure was not stated) should be passed in the next Session (1894) for the taxation of "ground values," and to forward to the Government a number of documents, including the Committee's Report, a conflicting scheme prepared by Mr. Harrison, and other papers. The hon. Member for South Hackney having particularly alluded to the subject of different scales for the taxation of land and buildings, it. was only fair he should read just one passage in the Report of the Town Holdings Committee in which this subject was dealt with:—
    "It is said that the only way to effect the taxation of land and buildings on different scales is by the separate assessment of each. This system does not, however, seem to us to possess the advantages claimed for it by its advocates. In the first place;, the feasibility of splitting up the value of an entire property consisting of a house and its site, so as to assign to each element its proper value, is disputed, not only by such witnesses as Sir Thomas Fairer (now Lord Farrer) and Mr. Thorold Rogers, but by men eminent in the very profession whose duty it would be to make such valuation. It is admitted that the valuation would have to be made by professional experts, and it is the almost unanimous opinion of the surveyors who gave evidence before the Committee, that to adopt the plan suggested by Mr. Moulton, viz., to estimate the value of the land as if it were a vacant site, and that of the buildings at a
    718
    certain percentage on its cost, would not necessarily give at all an accurate estimate of the annual value of the whole subject-matter. That which has to be valued is, alter all, the property as it actually exists in its entirety, in which all the parties, whether occupier, lessee, intermediate lessee, or freeholder, are interested."
    So much for that part of the subject. He would touch briefly the question of taxation without representation. This was an aspect of the case that was ignored in the speeches of the Progressives. They talked of the direct taxation of owners, but they forgot the correlative question of the representation of owners. Before owners were asked to contribute directly to local expenditure they ought at least to have some voice in deciding whether the expenditure should be undertaken, but this motion would place them at the mercy of bodies upon which they, as owners, had no representation whatever. Further than that, two Select Committees of the House of Commons had emphatically affirmed that local taxation and local representation must go together. Mr. Goschen's Committee of 1870 reported—
    "That, in the event of any division of rates between the owner and the occupier, it is essential that such alterations should be made in the constitution of the bodies administering the rates as would secure a direct representation of owners adequate to the immediate interest in local expenditure which they would thus have acquired."
    The Town Holdings Committee, in their Report, stated that they were "clearly of opinion" that, in the event of a division of rates, "the, claim for such representation must be met." He believed that, by the rules of the House, he should not be able to move his Amendment; but the case against the Motion might be briefly summed up thus: It asked the House of Commons in effect to ignore the finding of its own two Committees; the ground rents which it proposed to assess were already assessed, and if assessed again would be rated twice over, and the chief sufferers by this injustice would be the vast class of small investors in

    719
    this form of property. It was impossible to gather from the motion what scheme for the taxation of ground rents the mover favoured, and would-be reformers, including the London "Progressives," were hopelessly at variance with one another on the subject. In any case, the direct assessment of owners could not properly be expected without corresponding provision for their direct representation on local bodies in accordance with the recommendations of the two Committees of the House of Commons.
    MR. H. E. KEAKLEYdesired the indulgence of the House whilst he stated the evils resulting from the present system of local taxation, of which those who supported the Motion complained. The borough of Devonport, which he represented, was essentially a landlord's town, and he should endeavour to point out the evil effects the holding of land by the Manorial Lord had upon the locality. The area of the borough was 1,760 acres, of which only 460 had been built upon, leaving 1,300 acres in the centre of the town which were let out by the manorial landlord for accommodation purposes. The effect on the town was most remarkable. Overcrowding existed in Devonport to a greater extent than in any other town in England, with one or two exceptions. As an evidence of this he might state that 60,000 people were housed in 5,000 dwellings. Although there had been repeated attempts by agitation and other methods to break down the land monopoly, no success whatever had been achieved until within the last few months, when, owing to pressure of public opinion on this matter, and the fact that the Medical Officer had pointed out the great evils which resulted from overcrowding, the manorial landlord did at last agree to sell two acres of land for the purpose of erecting workmen's dwellings. On the occasion of the handing over of the land for this object
    720
    there was a great ceremonial, the event being regarded as the dawning of a better era for the locality. These two acres were probably the worst in the whole place, and yet the price at which the land was sold was something like £1,300 an acre. But outside the few houses that had been erected for the working classes on these two acres, the system of housing in Devonport was the most pernicious of all, namely, the system of tenement houses. He had seen as many as twelve families residing in one house, and the census returns set forth, in a very pronounced way, the terrible effects accruing from this overcrowding. They gave the percentage of the population thus overcrowded in tenements in the various towns. Gateshead had the dishonour of heading the list with a percentage of 40·7; Newcastle came next with 35·8; Sunderland third with 32·85; and Plymouth and Devonport were fourth on the list with 26·27. The last on the list was Portsmouth, a town exactly similar in all respects, save that it was built on freehold soil, to Devonport. In Devonport the figures were 26·27, while in Portsmouth they were only 1·74. Under the head of the number of tenements of less than five rooms it was proved by the census that Devonport was worse than London. In England and Wales tenements of one room only numbered 47 per thousand. In London the number was 184 per thousand, and in Devonport and Plymouth it was 244 per thousand. The cause of this overcrowding was nothing else but the hoarding up of land by the landlord, which was suitable for the erection of habitations for the people. The landlord of Devonport drew an income of £60,000 a year from land values, which practically escaped taxation altogether. He had in the midst of the town three-fourths of the land which was not built upon at all, but which was let out as accommodation land, and brought in a rental of £3,700 a year. There was no difficulty in

    721
    arriving at what the land would bring in to the Municipality if it were taxed for local purposes and assessed at its true capital value. Hales of land which recently took place in the immediate vicinity of Devonport showed that the value of this particular land for building purposes was 18d. per foot, or £3,200 per acre, and so its capital value was £500,000, and it required no effort of tin imagination to arrive at the opinion that if that land were taxed at its true value not only would the local rates be enormously relieved, hut such taxation would cause the land to come into the market, and the people would Vie properly housed. But the manorial landlord of Devonport not only hoarded up land in this fashion, but he actually taxed the people on entering and leaving the town. He had erected bridges over which the people must go to get into and out of the town. There was no possibility of any other highways being opened, because the landlord was the owner of the land at each side of the water crossed, and which those bridges presented fret access between the Three Towns. A Committee of the local governing bodies was formed in 1880, and they approached the manorial landlord to see if they could not purchase their freedom by buying the bridges, but the landlord refused to quote a price. However, in 1887 the landlord did quote a price, which was £125,000, and considering that these bridges could only have cost £8,000 to erect, this demand represented an additional imposition on the community. It was obvious that the yearly increasing revenue of the bridges arose from the growth in the population of the district, but if there were a proper system of taxation of land values there would be no encouragement of these actions of landlords which were so detrimental to the interests of the, people.
    Mr. G. W. BALFOURsaid, that the circumstances of Devonport, judged from the lion. Gentleman's account, seemed to lie that the land in
    722
    the neighbourhood of the town was monopolised by a single landlord. He was not the slightest inclined to deny that where land in the neighbourhood of a town was monopolised by a single landlord who did not desire to develop his land, a cast; existed for legislation, but the case quoted by the hon. Member for Devonport had nothing to do with the particular form of local taxation advocated in the motion. The hon. Member said that this landlord, who owned the entire land in the neighbourhood of Devonport other than the land held by the Government had an income of £3,700 a year.
    Mr. KEARLEYsaid his point was that the income of the land not built upon was £3,700 a year.
    MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid, that as the capital value of the same land, if built upon, would be £500,000 a year, it was quite clear that the landlord must be losing very large, sums every year. If the facts were as the hon. Member for Devonport had described, he thought it was owing to the idiosyncrasy of the landlord and not to a defect in the system of taxation. The hon. Member for South Hackney had expressed the opinion that the differences between the two sides of the House in regard to this question were perhaps not so great as they appeared to be. He hoped that might prove to be so, but he could not altogether follow the reasoning by which the hon. Member sought to sustain that that position. The hon. Member had described two recommendations of the Select Committee—first, that rates should be divided between the occupier and the owner; and, secondly, that any other arrangement than this should be considered illegal—as being decisions of the House.
    MR. J. FLETCHER MOULTONsaid, he certainly did not intend to use that language, if he had done so.
    MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid, in any case the hon. Member was very severe upon landlords who, not with standing

    723
    the recommendations made by the Select Committee, continued to grant leases in the usual form, by which leases, he said, a certain proportion of the landed property was shielded from taxation. It was true that the Select Committee made the recommendations which had been quoted, but, when the hon. Member went on to say that, according to the view of the Committee the incidence of rates ought to be determined by law and not by contract, he must permit him to say that there was a distinction between the real and apparent incidence of rates, and that he had contrived, unintentionally, no doubt, altogether to misrepresent the reasons which actuated the Committee in making these recommendations. The Committee were of opinion that whereas, as a matter of fact, the real incidence of local taxation was partly upon the owner and partly upon the occupier, the occupier of average intelligence could not be got to understand this, and was continually under a certain sense of hardship. That sentiment was not justified by the Committee, but as it existed they thought it would be desirable to assimilate the law to the facts, and to divide the rates between occupier and owner in law, just as already the actual incidence of local taxation did fall partly on the owner and partly on the occupier. Then the hon. Member drew a distinction between land and building, and asked how the imposition of taxes at equal rates upon property so dissimilar could be defended. He would point out that the real incidence of taxation upon land and buildings was not the same, even at the present time. This was an exceedingly difficult and complicated subject, and the hon. Member had told them that under the present system they did not know what the incidence of taxation was. How, then, was he justified in saying that land and buildings were taxed at the same rate? He was prepared himself to say that a larger proportion of local taxation, in propor-
    724
    tion to values, was at present laid upon land than was laid upon buildings. According to one argument which the hon. Member had put forward, it might be reasoned that because a town could not exist without water it was to the water companies alone that the increase in value in towns was to be attributed. Surely the hon. Member must see that such an argument could not be sustained, however ingenious it might sound when put in the plausible manner he always commanded. The reform advocated by the hon. Member was rejected by the Committee appointed to examine into the case. But the hon. Member who proposed the resolution was much more cautious. It was true that he said he had a proposal which would be fair and equitable where land was built upon, and would be a new source of income where it was not built upon; but he looked in vain for any such proposal in the Resolution. Under the present system the enhanced value of land was subject to direct assessment, and, so far as the, Resolution went, any hon. Member who voted for it would be voting in favour of a system that already existed. It contained nothing to which anyone could take exception. But if he passed from the Resolution to the Speech of the hon. Member he admitted that, though the hon. Member did not bring forward any very definite scheme, it was possible to judge the general lines on which he wished to proceed. Apparently he would assess land or landed property not on its annual, but on its capital value, and would add to that proposal the separate assessment of the various interests concerned. But if the hon Member would proceed on those lines there were, it seemed to him, two objections which he had either not dealt with at all or very inadequately. In the first place, did he mean to alter the real as well as the apparent incidence of taxation, and did he propose that this change should be applied in the cases both of existing contracts and future contracts? If the hon.

    725
    Member sought to alter the present incidence of taxation and to apply the burden he shifted to existing contracts he could only express the hope that tin House would resist any such unfair proposal, for it was obviously and clearly unjust. The proposal to relieve the occupier at the expense of the landlord had assumed many forms. Taxation of ground rents was one of them, but to tax ground rents specially would be to tax them twice over. Another proposal was that an arbitrary portion of the rates should be thrown upon reversions, but the effect of that would be to tax, not annual value, but capital values. It would be extremely unwise for the House to adopt, after a discussion of only two or three hours, proposals that would lead to a complete revolution in the whole system of our local taxation. But the hon. Member for Hackney thought he had discovered a way out of the difficulty by suggesting the special taxation of ground values at a different rate from building values. The hon. Member had not told them whether he, would apply that proposal to existing contracts or not; but, if so applied, and it altered the real incidence of taxation, it would be unfair. If it applied to future contract it would not be fair, and he saw very grave practical objections to it. A great deal had been said about the question of justice to the occupier in this matter. Surely justice required that those should pay the rates who derived advantage from their expenditure; and no serious attempt had been made to show that the landlords derived any appreciable advantage from them. It was hardly fair to describe, rates which were levied and expended for securing advantages to the ratepayers as a burden. The rates were paid for services rendered. He quite admitted that in the case of permanent improvements the ground landlord derived a certain advantage from the expenditure of rates for which he did not pay. But it was incumbent upon those who brought forward this
    726
    motion to attempt at least some estimate of the amount of advantage so derived by the landlords in proportion to the rates. The Select Committee did endeavour to arrive at some conclusion on this subject. That conclusion was that, supposing all the burden was thrown upon the ground landlords that in this connection could be legitimately thrown upon them, it would not represent more than 2d. in the pound to the ratepayers. Therefore, the House would see that while considerations of abstract justice might recommend the throwing of this burden upon the ground landlord, the relief to the ratepayers would be so small and the inconvenience in many respects so great, that it really would not be worth while to make the change. There was a wide discrepancy between the grievance described by the hon. Member in his speech and that set forth in the Resolution. The hon. Member only referred to the enhancement of value due to the expenditure of rates, while the Resolution referred to enhanced value due to the increase of population, and the wealth and growth of towns—in other words, the whole of what was commonly known as unearned increment. If they were discussing the larger question, he must ask whether, if the community locally or generally was entitled to any increment of value that might accrue without exertion on the part of the owner, the converse proposition would also apply, and the owner would be compensated for any decrease that arose in the value of his property for which he was not responsible. It seemed to be universally assumed that land would always go up in value. As regards agricultural land they knew by painful experience that the reverse was the case; and he wished he had the confidence that some hon. Gentlemen possessed that urban land would always go up in value. Even supposing this country could count with confidence upon the indefinite increase of wealth and prosperity, was that true of particular

    727
    localities? When trade left a town, the property in that town would probably depreciate, and that consideration alone was sufficient to prove that the hon. and learned Member for Hackney was wrong in ascribing the enhanced value to the expenditure of rates, for in a town where trade was leaving, the rates might actually be increased while the values were diminished. If the House was prepared to lay down the broad proposition that the increment in value arising from the increase of the wealth and prosperity of the locality or of the nation ought not to belong to the individual owner, but ought to go to the locality or the nation, then the converse proposition also was true, that decrement of value arising from corresponding causes should not fall upon the owner, but should be borne by the locality or the State as the case might be. And yet nobody could say that that was not the reductio ad absurdum of the whole case. The value depended upon the demand and supply—a proposition which was not likely to be disputed. Anyone who purchased land, and ultimately made a profit by doing so, was entitled to that profit, because he had shown greater foresight than other men who had had equal opportunities; and how were they going to distinguish between the increment which arose from causes beyond the human ken, and those which were the consequences of a development in a particular locality foreseen by a particular individual, who took advantage of his foresight and secured the enhanced value of the land? If land was certain to rise in value, why should not the State or Local Authorities purchase, and so secure it for themselves? If a community, whether local or national, was to get the advantage of the unearned increment it should be by purchase, and in no other way, because that was the only way in which the unearned increment could be fairly secured to the community without injustice to individuals. But very few Local Authorities would care
    728
    to venture upon land speculation, and that, to his mind, showed that they could not count with safety upon this increased value, so that if any individual purchased land, surely he was entitled to all the advantages he could get, partly by reason of his greater foresight, and partly by his taking the risk of a fall in the value of the land. He thought that the new system of taxation which had been suggested was highly objectionable, and trusted that the House would not, after so short a discussion, indicate its willingness to change the existing system after a Select Committee had investigated the whole subject, and had arrived at a conclusion diametrically opposed to the object of the Resolution.
    MR. WALTER HAZELL, as a new Member, asked the indulgence of the House while he addressed it upon this difficult and complicated subject. That it was a difficult and complicated subject no one could deny, but they were there to solve important questions, however complicated they might be. If the proposal of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes had been acted upon, by which building land was to be rated upon its capital value, our towns would have had opportunities of growing in a way they had not had hitherto, and with many advantages to the poorest members of the community. The hon. Member for Central Leeds had pointed out how injustice might be done, but surely they might so arrange the tax that if the income rolled away the tax would be adjusted to the diminished value of the property. As an instance of the way in which people were benefited by the unearned increment, he might point out to the House that a friend of his had recently sold a house in London for £7,000, for which his grandfather had paid only £700. The same gentleman sold a property in the City for £20,000 for which his grandfather paid £1,200. He would venture to ask whether under the system these owners would pay 100th part of what they ought to pay. Might he

    729
    remind the House of what happened at the great health resorts, where laud which had been standing waste was sold at an enormous price because the growth of the population made such places great health centres. As a matter of fact, the landlords of the great towns were getting increased profits out of the difficulties of the country. When unfortunate farm labourers flocked to the towns, unable to gain work in the country, they increased the ground value, and, whether they would or no, they had to pay their share of the increased ground rents. Do what they might, the towns were growing in extent. There were tens of thousands of little children who had never seen the country, such was the growth of some of their large towns. He held that it would not be unfair to use the taxation of ground values for the purpose of making the tramways into the country free to the poorer classes. Every kind of improvement, no matter what it was, all tended to the profit of the ground landlord. Were they rightly informed that in 1920 one of the ground landlords would be in receipt of £5,000,000 a year from London alone? If that was so, the time was coming when they would have to deal with the question in a serious and determined spirit.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,said the speech of the lion. Member for Glasgow and the Motion which he had placed before the House were not dissimilar from those which he made in 1892. The Motion on that occasion, however, covered a wider ground. His lion. Friend then dealt with the whole subject, agricultural land as well as urban land, Imperial as well as local taxation. In the interval the present Government had met his views with respect to Imperial taxation, and by the Act passed last, year had redressed inequalities in Imperial taxation as regarded land throughout the country. He thought
    730
    therefore, his hon. Friend had done well on that occasion to confine himself to urban property instead of including agricultural land. Whatever might be said in favour of extending the motion to agricultural land, the present would not be an opportune time to do it, for nobody could doubt, looking at the recent depression of agriculture, that this would not be a proper occasion on which to deal with the taxation of agricultural property. The evidence laid before the Agricultural Commission, of which he was chairman, showed that the true economic rent had almost disappeared, and that the rents now paid throughout a great part of the country did not amount to more than the interest on the capital expended in the last 20 or 50 years by the landowners. None of these arguments applied to urban property. As to that, there could be no doubt that there had been a continuous increase in its value. The growth of the population, the competition for land, the competition for favourable sites, all had tended to the growing increase in the value of urban property; and the result was that, while the value of urban property had been constantly increasing in a large number of cases, owing to the terminable leases in their towns, the landlords did not bear any share in the taxation, although they derived great benefit from the increasing value. That he took to be, in the main, the grievance pointed out. Then, as to agricultural land and the rates, he must point out that it was now admitted that the rates fell on the owners of the land. Now, this was not the case in towns where the occupier of houses and buildings was unable to shift the burden of the rates upon the owner of the land. It was now admitted by everyone who had looked into the matter that a large proportion of the burdens of local taxation fell on the occupier, and could not be shifted by him on the owner of the houses or of the land. The increase in the burden of rates in recent years

    731
    had been heavier, moreover, in the case of urban property than in the case of rural property. In rural property during the past 25 years there had been a decrease of rates rather than an increase. He found that the average rural rate in agricultural and rural districts during the last 25 years had decreased from 2s. 7d. in the pound to 2s. 4d. in the pound, while in London the rates had increased from 4s. to between 5s. and 6s. In other urban districts the increase had been in the some proportion. It could not be denied, therefore, that the question raised by his lion. Friend was a very serious matter in respect of the urban districts of the country. His hon. Friend had looked at the question from the point of view of Scotland, but the case of Scotland was not nearly so strong a case as that of England, and especially the case of London. In Scotland the great majority of local rates were divided between the owner and the occupier; in Scotland there was not the system of terminable, building leases was the case here. The land in Scotland was let on perpetual feu leases, which were more in the nature of perpetual rent-charges, and therefore did not raise the same grievance in the minds of the community as in the case of terminable leases in London and other large towns. It was therefore in London that the House could find the best illustration of the effect of the present state of the law, and of the practice arising under terminable leases. He pointed out that the system of terminable building leases was almost universal in London. The great bulk of the houses had been built under that system; he believed that at least five-sixths of the whole of the houses and the buildings in London had been erected under terminable leases. The owners had, in these cases, contracted themselves out of local rates. In leases from 60 the local to 90 years the owners were not subject to the increase
    732
    of the local rates. Though there might be new rates not contemplated when the leases were entered upon, it was found that at the end of the lease the owner came into possession of the property not only improved in value by the buildings erected upon it, but by the great public improvements which had been created out of the taxation which had been imposed during the interval on the ratepayers generally, and to which the owners of the land had not contributed a penny. That was the main grievance which was considered to exist in the present state of the law. He reminded the House that in 1825 there were in London 200,000 houses. In the interval that number had been quadrupled; and all these houses had been erected under the system of terminable leases. There had been four principal increases of taxation during the interval in respect of new duties undertaken by local authorities. In the first place there was the police, a new duty undertaken in 1829, and which now imposed a tax of 6d. in the pound on the ratepayers. In 1865 the Metropolitan Board of Works was constituted, and the rate now imposed by its successor, the London County Council, amounted to 1s. 2d. in the pound. In 1867 the Metropolitan Asylums Board was constituted; and now a rate of 4d. in the pound was imposed on all ratepayers on that head. Finally, in 1871, the School Board was constituted with the expectation that the rate would not be a heavy one, but the rate was now 1s. 3d. in the pound. During the same interval the debt of London had increased from zero to £40,000,000; and the money necessary to redeem that debt was levied by contribution on the ratepayers, on the leaseholders and the occupiers of the land, to the exclusion of the owners; yet the owners at the termination of the leases would find that the debt had nearly been paid ort, and that they have derived the full benefit of the improvements which had been effected by this great outlay.

    733
    The Equalisation Bill of last year had the effect of imposing upon the ratepayers of the wealthier parishes a rate for the purpose of relieving the poorer parishes. The City of London, under that Act, had to pay a rate of 5d. in the £, and St. George's, Hanover Square, a rate of 4d. in the £. That was a wholly unexpected charge, levied for the first time; but it fell entirely upon the occupier. No one who had looked into the question could deny the injustice of the present condition. It was a burden which ought to fall equally upon the owner, who received rent under a lease, and the occupier. Until he heard the speeches of the hon. Members for Leeds and Salford he thought that there was a general consensus of opinion as to this injustice.
    MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid, that he had admitted a theoretical injustice to a certain very small extent, amounting only to part of the sinking fund on loans raised for permanent improvements. That was the conclusion of the Committee which sat on this subject.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that he had not misrepresented the hon. Member, who described the remedy suggested by the Committee of 1892 as of no great importance. The case had never been better stated than by the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, in 1871, when introducing the Local Government Bill of that year. The right hon. Gentleman said at that time:—
    "The Government have become more and more convinced that both justice and public policy require that the owners shall pay a certain portion of the taxes. At present, through the nature of the contract made between the occupiers and the landlords, by which the former engage to pay the whole of the rates, any increased rate which is not foreseen by either party falls entirely on the tenants. This is a question more seriously affecting the towns than the country districts; but it is genefally inexpedient that the landlords should be allowed to contract with their tenants that the local authority should impose no taxation on them. With respect to Imperial taxation, such a practice is not permitted, for if it were legal to make contracts that the whole of the income-tax should be paid by the tenants, the House of Commons would be hampered in its legislation, knowing that in any increase in the income-tax the payment would fall, not on the landlords who ought to pay their fair proportion, but exclusively on the occupiers. The result of the present state of things has been that many great improvements in the metropolis, Liverpool, Manchester,
    734
    and other large towns have been made during the last ten years exclusively at the cost of the occupiers without the landlords contributing a ingle shilling towards the expense. The Government have decided that such an anomalous state of things shall no longer exist; and a provision rendering void any engagements by which owners contract themselves out of local taxation is embodied in this Bill."
    Again, in 1892, the right hon. Member for Midlothian, speaking on the Motion which had been referred to, said:—
    "It appears to me beyond all doubt that under our present system ground rents enjoy undue exemption, and in the metropolis, in particular, the owners of property have long enjoyed, at the expense of the ratepayers, privileges which are really unjust. I do not now speak of the manner in which these difficulties should be dealt with, but undoubtedly this is a matter as to which the people of London do look to effect a material change and improvement in their condition, and as to which I think, on grounds of justice and high policy, it will be important to make a change."
    MR. LEES KNOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman has ignored the Town Holdings Committee.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that that Committee, by a party vote of nine to eight, drew up a Report which apparently ignored altogether the grievances which existed. He could not admit the authority of that Committee as of any great value. There was another test of public opinion in this matter, and that was the attitude of the Moderate party at the last County Council election. He had observed that the Moderate candidates had almost vied with the Progressives in describing the grievances which at present existed and in suggesting remedies. The programme of the Moderate Party contained reference to this question of ground-rents. The Moderates criticised the Progressive Party for their want of action in three years, and for having been unable to come to any agreement as to what should be done, and the Moderate Party pointed out that the reform of the existing system was a question not, of phrases, but of equitable division of the burden. Lord Cadogan, now a Member of the Council, himself a Ground landlord, a Member of the late Government, and eminently qualified to give an opinion, used these words in his Address to the electors of Chelsea:—
    "With regard to the taxation of ground-values, the discussion of which has occupied so large a share of the time of the Council, I can

    735
    only say that these ideas do not appear to me to be objectionable. I will approach their I consideration without prejudice, and with a sincere desire to act with impartial justice and fairness to all."
    So the House might conclude that the universal opinion of London was that there was a grievance for which a remedy ought to be found, and he hoped they might look forward to the Moderate Party on the London County Council, where they had considerable power, vieing with the Progressives in the endeavour to frame a satisfactory scheme. Certainly, in view of the general consensus of opinion, he should, without committing himself to any particular scheme or promising immediately on the part of the Government to introduce a Bill, heartily support the motion of the hon. Member, who had presented his case to the House with so much: ability. But he must frankly admit that between the recognition of the grievance and the application of a remedy there was room for much difference of opinion. The subject was an extremely difficult one, and the consideration given to it did not point to any general concurrence of opinion as to what should be done. The London County Council had given a great deal of time to the thorough investigation of the subject, and he believed he was right in saying had not yet come to a final determination as to the remedy.
    MR. DALZIEL: They have suggested three modes of dealing with it.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that was so, but they had not been able to determine which was the best. He believed the general opinion was rather in the direction of the scheme of the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Moulton). He had listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Provand), and noticed that he did not commit himself to any definite scheme. He indicated several method's by which his object could be effected, and, among others, he mentioned Municipal Death Duties, the rating of vacant land, the appropriation of some part of the unearned increment, and the separate assessment of ground value as distinct from building value, so ably advocated by the hon. Member for South Hackney, but he did not commit himself to any one scheme. He said that no doubt a
    736
    method would be found, that the difficulties were not insuperable, and he appeared to think that the Government ought to undertake the duty of finding a remedy.
    MR. PROVAND: Hear, hear.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, several other Members had spoken in support of the motion, and, with the exception of the hon. Member for South Hackney, who had a very definite scheme which he expounded with great ability, there was no common concurrence of opinion in favour of any definite plan. Under these circumstances he did not think it was incumbent upon him at the moment to determine what was the best mode of dealing with this difficult subject. All he could say was that he felt himself entirely in sympathy with the case the hon. Member had made out. He had presented a grievance in respect to the position of occupiers in urban districts, a real and substantial grievance, and for his own part he (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) would have great pleasure in conferring with hon. Members on the subject with a view to devising the best remedy. He could not commit the Government to any promise of immediate submission of legislative proposals, or to an obligation to discover a definite scheme in the matter. With regard to the Amendment which the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Knowles) proposed to move, and which referred to the recommendations of the Committee of 1892, it was hardly necessary to say it stood self-condemned. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. G. Balfour) said these recommendations had no importance, and everybody who had listened to the Debate, or had studied the subject, must come to the conclusion that the remedy proposed in the Amendment was insufficient and inadequate. It could prove no settlement of the question, though he frankly admitted the Report of that Committee did decide one certain principle, which would be of value in the examination of the case. One principle of value presented in the Report was that in which the Committee recommended that in future contracts between land-owners and intending builders of houses, for the purpose of protecting owners from the payment of rates during leases, should be made void, and that owners of land should bear their proper-

    737
    tion of taxation. He felt no doubt then that the House would reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford, and would accept the original Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that there was little time to discuss in detail the speech the right hon. Gentleman had made, but he would have time to make a few observations on the curious character of the speech. It was an extremely important subject that had been discussed, and it was not usual for a Member of the Government to heartily support an Amendment to the Government proposal to go into Committee of Supply unless he was prepared to deal in a specific way with the question before the House. Now, they had waited for this speech with interest, because the hon. Member who moved the Resolution said he looked forward to a declaration of the intention of the Government, and that was an important matter in the Debate, because no private. Member could deal with the question. What had the House had from the right hon. Gentleman of the intentions of the Government? The right hon. Gentleman proposed to vote for a Resolution with regard to the terms of which he had said nothing whatever; and not a single phrase of it had passed his lips during his speech. But he had founded his support of the Resolution on what he called a consensus of opinion with regard to the existence of a grievance. But the last time the matter was seriously discussed by a Committee of the House, the Resolution of the Committee was in direct conflict with the conclusion the right hon. Gentleman had expressed. He was reminded in the course of his speech, while he was boasting so cheerfully of a universal consensus of opinion, that that Committee decided against him by a majority of nine to eight. He said that was a Party majority, and when it was against him he said it was a consensus of opinion on his own side. When any great measure was before the House, and the Government got its normal majority of 14, were they to say that was a consensus of opinion in their favour because it was a Party majority? To prove the consensus of opinion which had been described, the right hon. Gentleman quoted a speech made by his right hon. Friend the Mem-
    738
    ber for St. George's in 1871 now 24 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech representing the policy then led by the right— hon. Member for Midlothian, and he presumed he satisfied his colleagues and followers at that time that lie was right. Why had they not done anything during the last 24 years? Had they really felt that there was the injustice they said, why had they not only failed to find a remedy, but when their representative spoke now he said his mind was not ready for any specific remedy at all? He thought the President of the Local Government Board distinguished between a grievance and an injustice. Grievance in the sense of complaint there undoubtedly was. A great number of persons complained that the result of the contracts they had entered into had been unsatisfactory and unpleasant for them. But that was an entirely different thing from injustice, and the whole of the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech sounded like an argument in favour of the legislative prohibition of long building leases; because he pointed out the mischief that arose in consequence. But surely the right hon. Gentleman did not think a large part of the small property in London was held directly from a ground landlord? In the larger majority of cases, with small property there was a leaseholder standing between the ground landlord and the tenant, and upon that leaseholder fell directly a great share of the burden of rates put on the occupier. Really the proposal upon the Paper was an almost meaningless proposal. The last few words were words of limitation. The hon. Member said no system of taxation (he, himself, supposed he meant no system of rating, because there was an essential difference) could be equitable unless it included the direct assessment of enhanced value of land due to the increase of population, of wealth, and the growth of towns. Why did he put in those last words? He agreed with him

    739
    that there should be an assessment of value of land however enhanced, but if they were now to make an alteration which distributed between, the occupier and the ground landlord the rating of London, they would not add a single shilling to the rating of London. At the present time £8,000,000 was raised, but it represented, as every Committee had recognised (and Lord Hobhouse and Lord Farrer among others) that the rating of a house was the rating of the building and the land. They could not be separated. It had been tried over and over again, and in the rating of property in London no attempt was made to do it. It was only when exceptional cases were dealt with, such as railway stations, sewerage works, or great public institutions that any attempt was made to separate the value of the land from the value of the building. He thought they were entitled to have from the Government some specific declarations in this matter. No proposition that could be agreed upon as tangible had been put forward, and he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had enthusiastically declared for a Resolution for which he was not prepared to advance arguments, and the existence of which upon the Notice Paper was hardly recognised in his speech.
    Amendment agreed to.

    PLUMBEKS' REGISTEATION BILL.
    The Adjourned Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading was resumed.
    MR. LEES KNOWLESin reply to inquiries as to the object of the Bill, said that it parcelled out the country into districts for the education and examination of plumbers, who would be granted certificates if they could succeed in passing a theoretical and practical examination. When these certificates were granted, men would not say that they understood plumbing when they really did not.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the question of examining and giving certificates to plumbers was an extremely interesting one, particularly at that time, when so many householders were suffering from lack of water during frost, and subsequent flooding from burst pipes.
    740
    But there were some facts in connection with the Bill which he could explain, and which were absolutely unique. The Bill had been read a second time and sent to a Grand Committee, and lie had been expecting to hear some explanation of the course taken by that Committee.
    MR. LEES KNOWLESsaid, the Committee adjourned the consideration of the Bill for the attendance of a representative of a Government Department, but he did not attend; consequently, without advice and assistance, the Committee were unable to proceed with the Bill. The Bill was strongly supported by the Local Government Board.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, if that were so, the House ought to hear it from a Minister. Why did not the Government endorse the statement that had been made?
    MR. LEES KNOWLES: I am not one of their supporters.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, it appeared the Bill had been referred by the Committee to the Local Government Board, and by the Local Government Board to the Committee. Could the hon. Member assure them that, if plumbers were registered, householders would be saved from recent and present experiences? If plumbers were to be registered, why not blacksmiths and farriers? Why not shoemakers, barristers, and attorneys? If they were, it had done them very little good. But why did no one explain all this to the Grand Committee?

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House,
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERTasked whether the House was to understand that the Navy Estimates would be the first Order on Monday.
    THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. THOMAS ELLIS): Yes, Sir.
    In answer to Mr. R. W. HANBURY (Preston), MR. THOMAS ELLIS said, he could not say whether the Army Estimates would be taken on Thursday.
    The House Adjourned at Five minutes past Twelve o'clock till Monday next at three o'clock.

Preamble
Private business only was transacted.
The House adjourned at thirty minutes after Four o'clock, until Monday March 11th.