Sitting of 23 June 1896

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
  Order read for consideration of Bill as amended.
  Clause 29,—

  DIVISION OF CITY INTO WARDS.
  (1.) The City shall be divided into fifteen Wards.
  (2.) Two of such Wards shall have the boundaries defined on the "Ward Plan" signed by William Henry Houldsworth, Baronet, the Chairman of the Committee of the House of Commons to which the Bill for this Act was referred.
  (3.) One copy of the Ward Plan shall he deposited at the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, and one other copy shall he deposited in the Parliament Office of the House of Lords, and one other copy shall he deposited at the Town Hall in Belfast and shall be preserved there and open to public inspection at all reasonable times.
  (4.) The Council shall by Resolution at a meeting specially summoned for the purpose within three months from the passing of this Act or within such extended period as may he allowed by an Order of the Local Government Board, define the boundaries of the other thirteen Wards so that no such Ward shall at the time of defining the same comprise an estimated population of less than sixteen thousand or more than twenty-five thousand persons. The boundaries of the said thirteen Wards so far as practicable shall be denned by imaginary lines drawn along the centre of streets or roads or some natural or other well defined boundary.
  (5.) When the Council have defined the boundaries of the said thirteen Wards they shall cause the same to be marked upon the copy of the Ward Plan signed as aforesaid and deposited at the Town Hall, and shall submit the same to the Local Government Board, who on being satisfied that the division of Wards is in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall make a certificate to that effect upon the Ward Plan and seal the same.
  As soon as may be after the giving of such certificate, the Council shall publish notice thereof, in the Dublin Gazette with the names or numbers and a general description of the Wards as defined on the Ward Plan, and as from the
  1662
  publication of such advertisement in the Dublin Gavette the said Ward Plan shall be final and conclusive.
  (6.) Each of the said fifteen Wards shall be described by such number as the Council shall determine.
  (7.) The division of the City into Wards under this Act, and the said Ward Plan shall for the purposes of all proceedings connected with the preparation of lists and registers of electors and of all proceedings preliminary to the November Municipal Elections of the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven, and with respect to the functions and duties of the Lord Mayor, Town Clerk, and Revising Barristers of the City in relation to the purposes aforesaid, come into operation on the publication of the said notice in the Dublin Gazette, and for all other purposes on the 25th day of November, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON*MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.) moved to leave out sub-section (2). He said he hardly need apologise for taking part in the discussion on this Bill, as he had the honour of being the only living person who had ever represented the whole of the city of Belfast. When this Bill was introduced in the first instance he was asked, and readily consented, to give his name as one of the sponsors for it, being always glad to see the development of Belfast, and an extension of its boundaries and its industries. But in the Hybid Committee some alterations were made in the Bill that he was quite unable to agree to, and he was now obliged to move the omission of this sub-section. In order that the House might understand what was proposed to be done by this subsection, he must refer to previous Debates upon this Bill, in which claims were made that the Roman Catholic minority should have a representation on the Corporation. A plan was started, and it was concurred in by the Belfast Corporation, that such provision should be adopted as would enable this minority to have by extraordinary means a representation that they could not have by ordinary means. He objected to this new principle; he objected that Belfast should be thus experimented upon. In point of fact, these two words were pencilled out by a Roman Catholic priest, and the scheme received the sanction of the Corporation. In this way the Roman Catholics got by a jerrymandering process what they could not get by justice. [Nationalist cries of

  1663
  "Speak up, speak up!"] He was not afraid of any sentiments he uttered, still less of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The new principle adopted in this Bill would not for a moment be tolerated if it were sought to be applied to a Scotch or English city. ["Hear, hear!"] The representation of the minority might be advisable, but, in this case, these two wards had been so arbitrarily pencilled out as to exclude a Protestant from ever representing them. He objected to this principle, and in the name of the Protestants of Belfast, he protested against it. He had very much pleasure in moving the omission of this sub-section from the Bill.
  SIR W. H. HOULDSWORTHsaid that, as Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill, he would explain what took place. The evidence adduced before the Committee was not confined to one side; strong evidence was given by both parties of their desire that some representation should be given to the Catholics of Belfast on the City Councils. Indeed, no stronger evidence was given on the point than by the representatives of the Corporation themselves, and therefore in those circumstances the only question which remained to be settled was how that representation could properly be insured. Evidence was given showing that the number of Catholics in Belfast was no fewer than 70,000 out of a population of 350,000. The provision in the Bill was that the boundaries should be settled by a Commissioner appointed by the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, with a power of appeal to the Privy Council, and he was not prepared to say that if this provision had remained and the boundaries been settled in that way the Catholics might not have got some representation. But the Committee were very anxious that, if possible, this question should be settled as soon as possible, and in an amicable manner. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore, the Committee suggested to the parties before them that if they could come to some agreement among themselves as to the division of the wards, that would certainly be the most satisfactory way of settling the question. The Committee were told in the first instance
  1664
  that no such agreement was possible, and some days were then spent in the effort to strengthen the hands of the Committee. The Whitsuntide holidays came on, and gave the different parties leisure to confer together, and although it had been stated that the Committee indicated in some way or other that they would not pass the preamble of the Bill unless some arrangement was come to, he was glad to say that such a statement was unfounded. ["Hear, hear!"] The Committee formed no opinion whatever, but, in the interests of all parties, indicated that the best way of settling the question was by amicable arrangement. Fortunately, such an arrangement was arrived at by the representatives of the Corporation on the one side and the Roman Catholics on the other, and the Committee were informed by the representatives of both sides that, although neither party had got all it wanted, the arrangement which had been come to was mutually satisfactory, and that they were prepared to see it embodied in the Bill. In the circumstances, therefore, the Committee had no option but to sanction the scheme, unless some policy in the general interest of the public dictated some other course. But he was not aware that the public interests generally would be injured in any way if the agreement were carried out. Therefore the Committee gave effect to it, and followed precedent in doing so. He had got hope that the result of this agreement would be to produce greater harmony than had ever existed in Belfast before, and strongly recommended the House to support the Committee.
  MR. JOHN DILLONsaid that, after the speech from the Chairman of the Committee, who considered the Bill, he did not think the Member for South Belfast could expect much support in the Motion he had made. The hon. Member for South Belfast had stated that the wards marked out in the map and signed by the Chairman of the Committee had been pencilled out by a Roman Catholic priest. Was the hon. Member aware that the Corporation of Belfast were unanimously a party to drawing up these wards.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Is my statement not correct?
  MR. DILLONsaid it was just as correct to say the Lord Mayor and the Corporation of Belfast pencilled out these wards as to say they were pencilled out by a Roman Catholic priest. [Cheers.] The Committee devoted several days to the discussion of this question, and were at first informed that it was quite impossible to come to any amicable arrangement for fixing the delimitation of these wards. But, as the Chairman of the Committee had stated, the Whitsuntide holidays came on, and both parties sought to come to an amicable arrangement. The result was very instructive to those who took an interest in the factions in Belfast. When the parties came together it was found to be, not only possible, but perfectly easy, to come to an arrangement, and this arrangement was arrived at by the representatives of the Roman Catholics on the one side and the Corporation on the other in a very few interviews. The Lord Mayor and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Belfast said they were perfectly satisfied with the arrangement made.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Pilate and Herod.
  MR. DILLONsaid the hon. Member now described the Lord Mayor of his own city and the Roman Catholic Bishop as Pilate and Herod—[Nationalist cheers]; which was Pilate and which was Herod? ["Hear, hear!"] This was an example of the hon. Member's conduct. [Cheers.] This was an instructive lesson to the House, and showed who it was that really kept up a factious spirit in Belfast. [Nationalist cheers] If the people were left to themselves, and not stirred up by hon. Gentleman like the Member for South Belfast, a better spirit would long have prevailed. ["Hear, hear!"] There were some men who hated to see faction dying out. He entirely agreed with what had fallen from the Chairman of the Committee. He was confident that the agreement arrived at, giving the Catholics representation on the Council, would not only remove a difficulty, but would have a beneficent effect on the future of Belfast. ["Hear, hear!"] So far from trying to stir up the embers of religious strife, as the hon. Member for South Belfast had done, he rejoiced at the moderation displayed by the Roman Catholics, in having agreed with a good grace to accept as satisfactory an amount of representation on the Corporation
  1666
  cosiderably less than they were really entitled to. The Committee and the House were to be congratulated upon this arrangement, and he should be much surprised if the hon. Member for South Befast obtained the support of a dozen Members to vote for his Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwould like hon. Members to remember what it was they were committing themselves to by this Bill. He ventured to say that, when the principle of the Measure was applied to some English borough, a very different story would be heard. With the object of this decision of the Committee he entirely agreed; but he objected to the principle being made a precedent in an Act of Parliament. That the electoral result in Belfast were unsatisfactory to one party he regretted, and he wished there were more representation for Catholics. Still, what had been done in Belfast was done in every city and borough in the United Kingdom. With the franchise it possessed it had returned its representatives to the City Council, and the representation turned out to be wholly Protestant. But now it was sought to give the Separatists representation on the Council by unusual means through an Act of Parliament. The plan would fail in its object. It had failed already in his own constituency, where precisely the same scheme was tried and was defeated because there was a shifting population. Exactly the same thing would happen in these two wards. There would be a change, and the moment it became effective, they would be asked to perform the same operation again. The precedent with regard to Liverpool was entirely illusory. There, by agreement, the whole of the wards were readjusted, but here they proposed to give two wards and to earmark them as separatist wards. This precedent would be quoted over and over again. It was now quoted for Belfast, to-morrow it would be quoted for Sheffield, Liverpool, or Bradford. Unless they applied a general principle that would cover all cases, it became a very serious thing indeed to apply it to one particular case. He appealed to hon. Members before they gave their moral assent to this proposition, to ask themselves whether they were really prepared

  1667
  to vote this in their own cases. In the desire to bring about peace and quietness, immense pressure was put upon the House and upon the Committee. That was a short and easy way, but it was not a safe way. If they once assented to this proposition they would be asked to do it again in two years time. If not, what would happen? These two wards would be stereotyped, and it would be considered an offence against the decision of the House of Commons for any alteration in the representation of these two wards were to be brought about by any process whatever. He was quite willing that some private arrangement should be arrived at which should not receive the sanction and deliberate authority of Parliament in a Bill. Though he was prepared to agree to that, he could not assent to this matter being registered as a decision of Parliament.
  MR. VESEY KNOXsaid he thought that the House would feel that the speech just delivered was to be most seriously regretted. Let him recall the attention of the House to what the facts were. In the city of Belfast one-fourth of the population were Catholics, and under the system which had hitherto existed, they had no representation in the corporation. The Committee was asked to enlarge the city area, and to redistribute the wards, and to so redistribute the wards that in some wards there might be a Catholic majority. That was thought to be not an undesirable object, and the two sides were asked to confer and see whether they could not come to some agreement. The parties did confer. They met twice, and they came to an amicable agreement. They arranged that two of the 15 wards in the city should be drawn so that the Catholics should have a majority in them. Of course, it was perfectly true, as the hon. Member for West Belfast said, that it would be possible to destroy that practice by resorting to the same practice which was resorted to in West Belfast. In West Belfast, the Catholics, who were in a majority there, were forced out of it by means which he need not refer to in detail. He thought it was very much to be regretted that the hon. Member should have made in that House a threat, for it came to nothing less, that similar means might be taken
  1668
  to thrust the Catholic people out of these two wards.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he made no such statement. He pointed out that when there was a shifting population, a change must inevitably happen.
  MR. KNOXsaid that if the hon. Member objected to the word threat, he would say it was much to be regretted that he made such a prophecy, and that in doing so he was not really expressing the views of the vast majority of the people of Belfast. The Corporation of Belfast were unanimous on this question, and he did not hesitate to say that the vast majority of the Protestants as well as the Catholics were anxious that the reproach which had been so often hurled against Belfast should be removed by amicable agreement. It had been removed, at any rate for the present, by this Bill, and he did not believe that any means such as the hon. Member had foreshadowed, would be taken to upset the agreement arrived at.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONsaid nothing had been done by the Committee to set a precedent which should be accepted by the House in all cases. There were sufficient precedents before the Committee to justify them in allowing the arrangement which was unanimously agreed to by both parties, who wished to bring about a different state of things. No precedent had been set except that it was desirable, when circumstances allowed, to bring about an amicable settlement of these cases. The House was perfectly free to deal with each case on its own merits.
  MR. J. C. FLYNNreminded the hon. Member for West Belfast, who protested against what he called exceptional legislation for Belfast, that it was in connection with the Belfast Main Drainage Bill—a private Bill—that his predecessor in the representation of West Belfast, Mr. Sexton, succeeded in introducing a provision lowering the Franchise. The hon. Member for West Belfast, in referring to minority representation, had gone out of his way to make a groundless attack upon Dublin and other cities. What he desired to point out was the exceptional position of Belfast. The minority, the Catholics, though a third of the population, had no representative in

  1669
  that House. Of that they did not now complain, but they were utterly without representation on the municipal Council, [''Hear, hear!"] That was a state of things utterly unmatched in any other part of Ireland, except, perhaps, in a city not very far from Belfast. In Cork, as a contrast, where the Catholics were as nine to one, the Protestant minority held one-third of the representation on the municipal Council. [''Hear, hear!"] It was a matter of universal congratulation that the sects and parties had come together, and had arrived at an amicable understanding. It was to be deplored that such an exhibition of intolerance as they had witnessed should have been voiced from the Benches of that House. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR JAMES HASLETTwished to make one or two remarks regarding this settlement. He was quite aware that the settlement was somewhat exceptional. It was exceptional treatment, but the city was exceptional, and the Committee before whom the Bill came did their best not only to carry out the desires of this House, but, if possible, to carry to a successful issue the legislation for the city of Belfast. [''Hear, hear!"] His hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast objected, not to the principle, but to the putting of that principle in an Act of Parliament. That was, he would have been glad to assent—[''hear, hear!'']—to all the Committee had done if it had only been a matter of assent; but he objected to that assent taking legal form in an Act of Parliament. That was a very fair position. [''Hear, hear!"] He confessed that that principle was somewhat exceptional, but Ireland was a land of exception. [''Hear, hear!"] There were scarce two towns governed on the same principle, and enjoying the same franchise. One scarcely knew, when they were travelling from one town to another, whether they were living under the same conditions of life. The Committee was in this difficulty, that if they sent back this Bill with the clause as it was drafted, he had little hesitation in saying that, so far as his knowledge of Belfast was concerned, no independent Commission could have mapped the city into 15 wards without giving in two of those wards a Roman Catholic preponderance.
  1670
  As an honest Commissioner, he did not think he could have mapped out the city honestly and fairly as an independent man without giving preponderance in two of the wards to Roman Catholics. What were the difficulties of the Committee? They were obliged to send back this Bill if it passed, to a Commissioner to be appointed by the Chief Secretary, and he would have been obliged to go to Belfast and hold a close investigation there, not only into the various political and religious phases of Belfast character, but also into the various valuations in connection with the varied sections of the community, and they would have had in Belfast a large amount of friction created which it was thought by all lovers of their city it would be a desirable thing to avoid. The result was the acceptance of this compromise. He neither justified it on the one hand nor condemned it on the other. [''Hear, hear!"] It was an arrangement which he trusted would work out well for their city. He trusted they would have no friction in relation to the matter. [''Hear, hear!"] While it had been held that the next November elections might possibly tell in a different direction, there might be very strong opinion in regard to this. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought a little time and a little calm deliberation, over the entire circumstances of the case would show that the Committee had done the best they could to carry out the views of this Parliament, and he thought they had done the best they could for the city of Belfast.
  MR. M. MCCARTANthought the action of the hon. Member for South Belfast would show fairminded men that the rank-and-file of the people were not to be blamed for intolerance and bigotry, the blame resting rather with their leaders. He denied that the hon. Member, in opposing the compromise for minority representation, spoke the wishes of the Protestants in this matter, who gladly welcomed this way out of the difficulty. He regretted the House should be put to a Division on a matter which was the outcome of an honourable understanding. This was about the last feeble flicker of the spirit of bigotry and intolerance, of which the House would hear very little in the future.
  Question, "That Sub-section (2) of Clause 29 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 52,—

  BETTING IN STREETS.
  Any three or more persons assembled in any part of any street for the purpose of betting shall be deemed to be obstructing the street, and each of such persons shall be liable to a penalty of forty shillings, and any police officer may take into custody without warrant any person who commits such offence in view of such police officer.
  MR. MCCARTAN MR. MCCARTAN moved to omit all the words after "forty shillings." He explained that the first portion of the clause provided that where three or more persons assembled in any street for the purpose of betting they should be deemed to be obstructing the thoroughfare, and should be liable to a penalty of 40s. The latter part of the clause left it in the power of a constable, if he judged such persons were there for the purpose of betting, to arrest them without a warrant, and his Amendment was to omit words giving this power. He was happy to say the promoters of the Bill had consented to this Amendment, which he now formally moved.
  COLONEL WARINGshould be sorry to interfere with any compromise the promoters of the Bill had arrived at with regard to this burning question, but unless the powers in the Bill were sufficient to put a stop to the disgraceful scenes which took place in certain neighbourhoods when telegrams were expected announcing the decision of any great race he should not be inclined to agree with the Amendment. He assumed, however, the provision would not prevent the police summoning parties, or proceeding against them in the police court. [Mr. MCCARTAN: "No, it will not."] That being the case he saw no objection to the Amendment.
  SIR W. H. HOULDS WORTHobserved that on this clause the Committee were not perfectly unanimous. The Committee,
  1672
  however, felt that they had no particular reason in this case for departing from the precedents which existed in other Acts of Parliament. The clause, as it stood, was precisely the same, in regard to the powers given, as the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867. The same powers were also given by the Birmingham Corporation Act, 1883, and there were other Acts in which power was given to policemen to interfere without warrants, as in this clause. Whether there was any Act in which such powers were omitted, he did not know, but for his part he thought the proposal was one which might very fairly be considered by the House on its merits. It was very desirable that there should be as much uniformity as possible in any clause of this kind. But at the same time, he understood that in Ireland this clause did not exist in any Act which was at present in force, whilst they knew that the organisation of the police was rather different to what it was in this country. For these reasons he felt it might be quite right to make an exception in this case.
  Amendment agreed to; Bill to be read the Third time.

  SAVINGS BANKS.
  Return [presented 22nd June] to be printed.—[No. 251.]
  ARMY (COURTS-MARTIAL).
  Return [presented 22nd June] to be printed.—[No. 252.]
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 293.]
QUESTIONS.

  STRANDING OF STEAMSHIP "NORSE KING."
  MR. CHARLES SHAW: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether it has been brought to his notice that a steamer, called the Norse King, chartered by Messrs. Gaze and Son, ran on the rocks in Zante Bay in March last; whether a Board of Trade Inquiry has been or is going to be made into the causes of the accident; and, whether more strict regulations could be framed for the protection of passengers by such excursion steamers?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The steamer Norse King when approaching the town of Zante in March last stranded on a ledge of rocks. An Inquiry was held at Malta, and the certificate of the Master was suspended for one month, the Court being of opinion that he had transgressed an elementary rule of prudence and seamanship. The requirements of the Merchant Shipping Act are, I think, sufficient for the protection of passengers, though they cannot provide against unforeseen dangers or errors of judgment.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIALS.
  CAPTAIN NORTONI beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that the cleaners and firelighters of the House of Commons, who receive lower pay than any workmen on the building, are less generously dealt with than those occupying a similar position in the House of Lords; that it is ten years since they received any advance, whereas the general rate of wages for the Clerk of the Works' men has been considerably increased during that time. And, whether he will now give favourable consideration to their petition of February last, which was strongly recommended by the authorities of the House, thereby preventing the discharge of three of their number at the end of this month?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): This Question appears to relate to the petition of a small number of persons who are temporarily employed during the Session, in addition to the staff who are permanently employed. It is under the consideration of the Commissioners for regulating the affairs of the House of Commons, who hope to be able to give a decision on it before the end of the Session, but they cannot hold out any hope of retaining the three firelighters referred to after the end of this month, as temporary assistance of the kind cannot altogether be dispensed with. I understand that there are no persons employed temporarily in this work in the House of Lords.

  HOIST ACCIDENTS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the statements with regard to accidents from hoists, made by Major Roe and the women factory inspectors, and contained in the Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories recently laid before Parliament; whether a full Report on the subject of accidents from hoists was made by Mr. Tinker, Her Majesty's Inspector for Bolton, and published in the Chief Inspector's Report for the preceding year; and, whether, in view of these Reports in two successive years on the danger arising from improper fencing of hoists, he will issue instructions to Her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories as to the action which should be taken by them in reference to the matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I have seen the statements alluded to, and it is true that attention was called by Mr. Tinker last year to certain safety arrangements for hoists. Hoists are required by the Act of 1878 to be securely fenced, and the matter is one which is constantly before the Inspectors, who should take action when necessary, and have in many cases been successful. The circumstances, however, vary so considerably, that I see great difficulty in insisting upon the general

  1675
  application of any particular system, or in issuing any more specific instructions to the Inspectors.

  MODEL SCHOOLS (MUNSTER).
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state the numbers of Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils respectively in the various Model Schools in Munster; and also the numbers respectively of the Protestant and Roman Catholic teachers in the small schools; whether all the Roman Catholic holidays are kept strictly in these Model Schools, causing the schools to be closed against all Protestant pupils; and, whether, as the Queen's Birthday is a holiday under the rules of the National Board, he can state the names of the Model Schools in Munster where it was so observed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): There were 818 Protestant and 346 Roman Catholic pupils; 11 Protestant and 11 Roman Catholic teachers, in the various Model Schools in Munster at the close of last quarter. In cases where the teaching staff is exclusively Roman Catholic, the Model Schools are closed on Roman Catholic holidays; but where there are Protestant teachers on the staff (as there are in eight out of the 12 schools in question) the schools are in some instances kept open for pupils who may wish to attend; in other instances they are closed. Under the rules of the National Board, teachers are not required to keep open their schools on public or Church holidays. The Model Schools at Clonmel, Dunmanway, Limerick, and Waterford were closed on the commemoration of the Queen's Birthday, but the holiday was allowed to lapse in the case of the Cork Model Schools, owing to some uncertainty on the part of the teaching staff as to the day that might be substituted for the Queen's Birthday which fell this year on a Sunday.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (CASTLEBLANEY).
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware
  1676
  that the Irish Land Commission at Castleblaney Quarter Sessions held recently got a decree against Pat M'Ginn, Corryagan, who sold his farm by public auction in January last, but that owing to the deed of his farm being with the Irish Land Commission the sale fell through: whether he is aware that M'Ginn applied to the Irish Land Commission for return of deed, and that Mr. Bailie, Crown Solicitor, directed the auctioneer in this case to return the purchaser of M'Ginn's farm his money, as M'Ginn was not in a position to complete sale in absence of deed; whether he can state when the deed will be returned to M'Ginn; and, whether he will direct the Irish Land Commission to stay further proceedings against M'Ginn until he gets deed of his farm and enable him to sell?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As explained in reply to the hon. Member's previous inquiries of the 11th inst. the Question is put under a misapprehension as to the effect of registration of title pursuant to the compulsory provisions of the Local Registration of Title Act. M'Ginn's title having been registered pursuant to the provisions of that Act, the copy deed cannot be returned to him, and there should be no difficulty in his transferring his interest in his farm by transfer to be entered in the Local Registration of Title Office, at which office all particulars of his title can be obtained. I have no information regarding the alleged action of the Crown Solicitor but am making inquiry.

  RAILWAY THROUGH MANCHURIA.
  MR. EDWARD MOON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to the statement that His Excellency Li Hung Chang admits that a Russian railway will be built through Manchuria; and whether the Foreign Office has now any information as to when this railway will be commenced, what will be its course, and upon what terms, as between the Russian and Chinese Governments, it will be constructed, worked, and controlled?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): We have no information of the alleged statement of Li Hung Chang other than what has appeared in the newspapers; nor, therefore can I say anything as the terms on which such a railway would be constructed or the course it would follow.
  MR. MOONasked if the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiries as to the latter part of the Question.
  MR. CURZON: No, Sir. Until we have information that the railway is going to be constructed we cannot make inquiries as to the course it will take.

  CHEFOO.
  MR. MOON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he had received any information from Peking as to the alleged irregular acquisition of land at Chefoo by Russians; and whether substantial barracks for Russian troops have been built at Chefoo, on the eastern side of the peninsula?
  MR. CURZON: The only incident at Chefoo of which we have information is that which I described in an answer to the hon. Member on May 14th. We have hopes that a satisfactory settlement may be arrived at. We have not heard of any Russian barracks at Chefoo.
  MR. MOONasked if the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into the last allegation. He had authority for it.
  MR. CURZON: No, Sir. I am afraid we cannot add to the necessary labours of the Department by inquiring into every form of idle rumour. ["Hear, hear!"]

  WIDECOMBE-IN-THE-MOOR (PARISH MEETING).
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to the case of Albert Norrish and others, petitioners, v. Joshua Bancroft and other, respondents, in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, 22nd May 1896, in which it appears that at the parish meeting, held at Widecombe-in-the-Moor on 9th March last, the chairman (who was the assistant overseer) declared ten nominations for parish councillors void; and, a poll having been demanded, nine candidates were declared to be duly elected by the returning officer; that
  1678
  subsequently an election petition was instituted, and these nine candidates were made respondents, although they had not at that time held any council meeting or exercised their office; and that immediately after their first meeting they gave notice of their intention not to oppose; nevertheless on judgment being given in favour of the petitioners, declaring the election void, they were adjudged to be personally liable for a considerable amount of the costs of the petition, in which they had been involved in consequence of the erroneous ruling of the chairman and declaration of their election by the returning officer; and whether, under the circumstances, these costs can be charged against the parish?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The President understands the Court ordered that the costs referred to should be paid by the respondents personally, and if this is so he is not aware of any provision under which the costs could be charged against the parish.

  BRADFORD MOOR BARRACKS.
  MR. H. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been, called to the seriously insanitary condition of the barracks at Bradford Moor, and whether he has had an opportunity of considering the Report thereon made by the medical officer of health for the borough of Bradford, which has been sent to the War Office; whether he will give directions for the recommendations embodied in the said Report to be adopted by the contractor at present engaged in the reparation works at Bradford Moor Barracks, especially as regards the re-construction of the hospital; whether he will now state to the House what progress has been made up to date with these long-promised and sorely-needed repairs, and say what amount of money has up to the present been expended; and, with regard to the Bradford Moor Barracks, whether the contract for this work has been given to a Coventry firm?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The Report of the Bradford Barracks by the medical

  1679
  officer of health has only just been received, and is now under consideration. The recommendations in it will receive full attention. £1,125 was expended last year on these barracks in repairs and sanitary improvements; and about £800 has been paid this year. Nearly £400 more will be available for any necessary works. The contract was given to a Coventry firm after competition between seven tenderers from different parts of the country.

  POSTAL REGULATIONS (TRADE ORDERS).
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, although it is laid down in the postal regulations that an order for goods may be sent through the post at the half-penny rate, he has recently inflicted a fine on a firm for issuing such an order with the prefix, "please to send," in writing; whether the public is to understand that the word ''send," which constitutes the essence of the order, must be printed and not written; whether the Postmaster General has issued an order that the word or words referred to may be inserted with a hand stamp, the use of pen and ink being still strictly excluded; and, whether, in coming to a decision, he will refer to correspondence with the aggrieved parties No. 104,177?
  THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): It is a fact that orders for goods sent at the half-penny rate have been charged with letter-postage on account of their containing the written communication "please to send." Orders may not contain any written matter beyond the particulars specified in the Post Office Guide, well known to the public, and any communications such as "send" or "please send" must be printed. Hand stamping is a printing process, and it follows that the communication referred to may be hand-stamped although it may not be written. The Postmaster General has referred to the correspondence with the persons mentioned by the hon. Member, and he finds they were correctly informed of the conditions on which orders can be sent at the half-penny rate. The Postmaster General considers
  1680
  that the concessions which have been made in the past in order to extend the privilege of a cheap and unremunerative post have already gone at least as far as it is possible to justify, and if the inevitable inconsistencies which have resulted from such concessions are found inconvenient, it may be a question whether it may not be desirable to reconsider the whole matter, and subject documents of the character to which the hon. Member refers, to the letter rate of postage.

  GRAND JURY (COUNTY MONAGHAN).
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware the secretary to the Grand Jury of county Monaghan charges 8d. per tender form to road contractors in the barony of Farney, while the statute allows only a charge of 6d. per tender form; whether he can say how long this charge of 8d. per tender form has been in existence in the barony of Farney; and, what course does he intend to take in the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: On Thursday last I informed the hon. Member of the practice that existed in this respect in the barony mentioned. The arrangement, which has been in force for a number of years, was made at the request of the contractors themselves to whom it is represented to me to have been a great accommodation, but if any of them object to pay the additional sum of two-pence which has been charged to cover travelling expenses they can be supplied with the forms of tender on application at the office of the Secretary to the Grand Jury in Monaghan, on payment of the statutory fee of sixpence. The Secretary to the Grand Jury has apparently given special facilities to contractors residing in the barony of Farney, which they seem to have gladly availed themselves of, and the matter is not one calling for the interference of Government.

  PASTOR KHAMIS.
  MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been directed to the case of the Nestorian Pastor Khamis, who, for the past eight months, has been imprisoned

  1681
  at Deaza, in Kurdistan, by the Turkish authorities; if he is aware that this case is aggravated beyond others by the fact that this minister of the Nestorian Free Church is over 80 years of age; and, whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is prepared to make representations to the Government of the Porte in favour of release?
  MR. CURZON: Yes, Sir; our attention has been called to this case, and we have made inquiries. Her Majesty's Vice Consul at Van has reported that Pastor Khamis is in prison at Dizza, charged with having sent and received treasonable, correspondence, and with having in his possession documents of a similar character. The Vice Consul has reported to us that the case is not one in which in his opinion Her Majesty's Government ought to interfere. I may add, moreover, that Pastor Khamis is not a British subject.

  CIVIL BILL PROCESSES FOR RENT (COUNTY CAVAN).
  MR. S. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of civil bill processes for rent and the number of ejectments for non-payment of rent entered for hearing at the Quarter Sessions recently held in the different county court districts in county Cavan, also the number of decrees obtained in respect of rent at the Session in each district; and, whether he will state if any, and if so how many, decrees for the recovery of rent where only one year's rent was due were obtained at the recent Sessions held in Cootehill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have forwarded to the hon. Member a return giving the detailed particulars indicated in the Question. The return is too elaborate to read to the House in answer to a Question.

  NIGHT MAILS TO SCOTLAND.
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in connection with the projected acceleration of the London night mail service to Thurso, he will endeavour to induce the Highland
  1682
  Railway Company to adopt and maintain the same mail train rate of speed between Inverness and Thurso as is now maintained between Perth and Inverness, so that the mails may reach Thurso at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, or as near thereto as may be, with a view to render an evening delivery, viâ Scrabster, possible at Kirkwall?
  MR. HANBURY: No arrangement for running the London night mail train to Thurso at the same speed between Inverness and Thurso as between Perth and Inverness would be practicable without reducing the number of stops and necessitating the establishment of additional trains. If the Highland Railway Company should see fit for the advantage of their passengers to effect an alteration of this kind, the Postmaster General will gladly avail himself of the accelerated service; but, having regard to the payments already made for conveyance of the mails on the Highland Railway, he would not be justified in himself incurring additional expense for a higher speed.

  CIVIL SERVICE PROMOTIONS (ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S DEPART- MENT).
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Treasury Minute, dated 1st May 1890, by which the salaries of clerks promoted to classes the commencing salaries of which were smaller than those received by them at the dates of their promotion, were in future to be determined, and providing that in such cases the promoted clerks are to commence in the higher classes with the salaries they are in receipt of at the dates of their promotion, plus the proportion of increment earned at that date, was in force at the date of the recommendation for promotion to the higher division of the two staff clerks recently promoted in the Accountant General's Department of the Admiralty; whether, under the terms of this Minute, the salaries of these two gentlemen would be £371 each, instead of £231 and £208 respectively as now allotted to them; whether these two gentlemen are entitled, by the terms of the Minute, to retain on promotion their old salaries, plus the proportion of increment earned at the date of promotion,

  1683
  instead of suffering reductions of £134 and £157 per annum respectively; and, whether he will restore to them the portions of their salaries of which they have been deprived?
  MR. HANBURY: I have already stated that the staff officers referred to were in receipt of salaries of £365, while the commencing salary of the vacant clerkships of the upper division was £150. Also that there was no difficulty in obtaining competent officers for the latter at that rate of salary. In these circumstances, the Treasury declined to sanction the appointment of the two staff officers at their existing salaries, as being a very wasteful expenditure of public money. It was, therefore, for the officers to decide for themselves whether or not they would accept the clerkships upon the only terms on which the Treasury were justified in offering them, and their acceptance of the offer removes them altogether from the application of the Minute of 1st May 1890.

  PURDYSBURN ASYLUM, BELFAST.
  MR. D. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1), whether he will state at what price per pound the hair mattresses were contracted to be supplied to the new asylum at Purdysburn, Belfast; (2) whether any examination of the hair was made by any official from the Board of Control; and, if so, what report did he make as to the quality and value of the hair supplied; (3) whether he will state the particulars as to the contract; if tenders were invited by advertisement, and in what papers they were published; also, if any samples were produced; and whether the hair supplied was equal to the sample selected; and (4), what has been done in the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is 9¾d. The mattresses were examined on behalf of the Board of Control by an official, who stated that the hair was not equal to sample, but did not state its value. Tenders were invited from five of the principal firms in Belfast, though not by advertisement. Samples of the hair required were given to each of these firms, and, as I have stated, the hair supplied by the contractor whose tender
  1684
  was accepted was not equal to sample. He is now furnishing other mattresses with hair equal to sample.

  POPPY CULTIVATION (BEHAR AND BENARES AGENCIES).
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, if he can state what is the quantity of land which has been under poppy cultivation this year in the Behar and Benares Agencies respectively, as compared with the years 1893–94 and 1894–95?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The total amount under opium cultivation in the Behar and Benares Agencies during the last three seasons, deducting that in which the crop was a failure, was as follows:

  1893–94

  …

  …

  458,181

  1894–95

  …

  …

  513,804

  1895–96

  …

  …

  519,072

  I am unable, for purposes of comparison, to give the quantities in the Behar and Benares Agencies separately.

  CARRICKMACROSS WORKHOUSE.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that Peter MCEnaney, at present in Carrickmacross Workhouse, has made a solemn declaration before a magistrate that he was sent from Kirkcaldy Poorhouse, Scotland, against his will, to Carrickmacross Poorhouse; that he spent 50 years in Scotland, and has a wife and family there; (2) is he also aware that McEnaney has made frequent applications to the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians to be sent back to Scotland to his family; and, (3) what steps will he take in this case to relieve the ratepayers of Carrickmacross Union of McEnaney, who is in Carrickmacross Workhouse against his will?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first and second paragraphs is in the affirmative. The Guardians of the Carrickmacross Union declined to accede to the applications of this man to be sent back to Scotland on the ground that they had no power to defray his expenses

  1685
  from the rates, and the Local Government Board have no power to interfere in the matter.

  INDIAN TROOPS IN SUAKIN.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether the total number of Indian troops now at Suakin is, as stated in a telegram on Friday, 4,481; what is the cause of this large increase in the force from 2,498, the number named by him on 2nd June; and what will be the estimated charge per month for ordinary expenses of the total Indian force now at Suakin, or under orders to go there?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: There has been no increase in the number of Indian troops at Suakin, as given in my reply to the hon. Member on the 2nd June. In addition to these there are a considerable number of camp followers, but even if these are included, the total would fall short of 4,481.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Will the number to be charged for to the Indian Government be the number which the noble Lord mentioned on June 2?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Yes, that will be the total number charged for.

  WRECK OF STEAMSHIP "DRUMMOND CASTLE."
  MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it is practicable for Her Majesty's Government to convey, in terms of especial courtesy and commendation, to the Government of the French Republic the widespread appreciation and gratitude of the English people for the marked sympathy which has been displayed by the inhabitants of the Ushant coasts to the survivors and victims of the disaster to the Drummond Castle?
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government will take some suitable and public means for conveying to the French Government the expression of the high appreciation which is entertained in this country of the sympathy and admirable devotion of
  1686
  the officials and population of Ushant and other parts of Brittany in connection with the lamentable shipwreck of the Drummond Castle.
  MR. CURZON: The Secretary of State has already requested the French Ambassador to convey a message of the character suggested to the President of the French Republic, and a Dispatch on the subject will also be addressed to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris.
  At a later stage,
  MR. CURZONsaid: May I supplement the Answer that I gave with regard to the lamentable disaster to the Drummond Castle, by reading to the House a communication which the Secretary of State has received from the Board of Trade, and which will be made by the Foreign Office the basis of a communication that will be immediately addressed to the French Government? The letter from the Board of Trade is as follows:—
  "With reference to the recent lamentable loss of the steamship Drummond Castle off the coast of France, I am directed by the Board of Trade to state for the information of the Marquess of Salisbury, that many accounts have reached them of the great humanity, generosity, and kindness shown by all classes of the community in the vicinity of the disaster, not only in their treatment of the survivors, but in the solicitude displayed for the feelings of the friends and relatives of those lost, and in the careful arrangements made for the burial of the bodies recovered. The Board of Trade feel that it would be unbecoming at the present moment to select the names of any individuals for special mention; they are grateful to all alike for what has been done, and trust later on to testify their appreciation in some tangible way. I am, however, to suggest for Lord Salisbury's consideration that Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris should be instructed to convey through the the French Government the warmest thanks of Her Majesty's Government to all concerned for their efficient and kindly help, and for the hearty and sympathetic way in which it has been rendered. [Cheers.] Such a communication of thanks and appreciation would, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, be endorsed by the whole nation as an expression of its feelings under the sad circumstances of the present case."
  [Renewed Cheers.]

  TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESSES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with regard to the official reply given to the deputation which recently waited upon the official head of the Department,

  1687
  requesting that the name and address not exceeding four words in a telegram should be sent free, that the loss of revenue from such a concession would be £600,000 per annum, whether he will inform the House how he arrives at this calculation of the probable loss?
  MR. HANBURY: No such statement was made by the official head of the Department. What that officer did say was that an addition of four words to the average length of each inland telegram would produce an additional revenue of about £600,000 a year, and that the granting of a free address of four words could not be consequently regarded as such a trifle as had been represented by some members of the deputation.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received a copy of a resolution adopted by the Mallow Board of Guardians calling attention to the unnecessarily expensive procedure under the Labourers Acts (Ireland), and asking for the cheapening and simplifying of the present procedure; and, whether he will pay attention to these and similar recommendations on the Second Reading stage of the Labourers (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. W. ABRAHAMasked whether any provision made to simplify and cheapen procedure under the Labourers Act would apply to the scheme at present under consideration?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The resolution in question has been received. The principal object of the Labourers Bill now before Parliament is to simplify and cheapen the present procedure under the Labourers Acts. In reply to the supplementary Question, if the Bill were passed it would apply to any pending case so far as those cases are not complete—that is to say, the later stages in the transaction would be governed by the provisions of the Bill.
  MR. FLYNNasked whether, in cheapening and simplifying procedure, it would not be possible to abolish appeals to the Privy Council, which formed one of the most expensive parts of the procedure?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That has been carefully considered, and we have come to the conclusion that it would not be desirable. The number of cases in which there is an appeal is comparatively small, and we have introduced a provision in the Bill providing that only the opposed part of a scheme will go before the Privy Council, and this will tend to improve the procedure.

  DEPORTATION OF PAUPERS TO IRELAND.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he intends introducing the Bill promised to prevent deportation of paupers from England and Scotland to Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I fear I cannot at present add anything to the statement made by me on 17th April last in reply to the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division of Dublin on this subject. Any Bill dealing effectively with the matter would have to be an English and a Scotch rather than an Irish Bill.

  ARMENIANS IN PRISON.
  MR. EDWARD MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is aware that 3,000 Armenians are still detained in the prisons of the Sultan, in spite of the Sultan's repeated assurances to release all not convicted of felony or misdemeanour; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take in view of this grave state of affairs?
  MR. CURZON: We have not recently received any general report with reference to the number of Armenians in prison. Representations are made to the Turkish Government whenever cases of hardship and undue detention come to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Embassy.

  DANGEROUS PERFORMANCE.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to an announcement that a lady would

  1689
  jump from 40 feet above the roof of the Royal Aquarium to the ground; and, whether, having regard to the great danger of these performances, he proposes taking any steps in the matter?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: My attention has been called to the subject of the Question, but I have no power to prevent such performances taking place, unless the performer is under 14 years of age.

  AMALGAMATION OF UNIONS BILL.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is to be proposed under the Amalgamation of Unions Bill to appoint a Commission to determine the unions which could be conveniently grouped together in the Amalgamation Scheme of the Government?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is proposed to appoint a small Commission or Committee in connection with the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill to inquire how many unions could be most conveniently grouped together for the purposes of amalgamation. On June 9th it was stated that the Bill was nearly ready, but that in view of the state of public business, unless I were allowed to introduce it after 12 o'clock, I was afraid that it could not be introduced this Session.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he can state when the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill will be introduced; and (2) whether County Cavan will be scheduled under the Bill for the building of extension lines from Arignagh to Dowra, Bawnboy Road to Florencecourt, and a new line from Oldcastle through Bally-jamesduff to Kilnaleck?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have already stated that I hope to introduce Irish Light Railways Bill as soon as the Bill dealing with Light Railways in England has passed the Report Stage. As to the second paragraph, I can make no announcement respecting the provisions of the Bill pending its introdection.

  BARON DE VIALAR'S STATEMENTS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Foreign Office has yet received any information from Constantinople touching the recent statements of Baron de Vialar, Military Attaché of the French Embassy, in regard to the alleged outrages at Marash, Diarbekir, and Zeitoun; and, if so, will the information be laid before the House, and when?
  MR. CURZON: No, Sir; we have heard that the French Military Attaché has recently returned to Constantinople from Armenia, but we have not heard of any statements having been made by him with regard to fresh outrages at Marash, Diarbekir and Zeitoun.
  MR. FLYNN: These statements were reported more than ten days ago. May I ask whether the Foreign Office has received or made any attempt to obtain information from Sir Philip Currie in reference to the representations of an officer so highly placed?
  Mr. CURZON: It is perhaps hardly open to Her Majesty's Government to make any inquiry as to the contents of a report alleged to have been written by a French military officer presumably for the information of the French Government. Had the report contained any fresh information of the kind suggested, we should probably have heard of it.
  MR. FLYNN: When is it possible the House may expect it will be given any further information on the subject?
  MR. CURZON: Directly we receive any information, I shall be most happy to communicate it to the House.
  MR. FLYNN: I shall put a question on an early day.

  EQUIVALENT LAND RATING GRANT (IRELAND).
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what is the sum which it is proposed to grant to Ireland as an equivalent for the sum required for the English Rating Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I estimated the total sum required for the current year for Great Britain and Ireland at £975,000. Ireland would receive nine-hundredths of that amount, if the estimate is correct.

  1691
  But the exact sum which Ireland will receive cannot be stated until it is exactly known, by the returns provided for in the Agricultural Rating Bill, how much will be required for England.
  MR. DILLON: Then the amount Ireland will receive will not depend in any degree upon the amount of rates upon agricultural land in Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir; that has been stated already.

  DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTS.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the post of Director of Transports will shortly be vacated by retirement; and, whether the Government, having regard to the recent large increase of expenditure on the Navy and the necessity for practising economy whenever it can be beneficially exercised, will take advantage of the approaching vacancy to abolish the post, which is practically a sinecure.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): In view of the recent large increase of naval expenditure I would gladly practice economy wherever it can be beneficially exercised, but the post of Director of Transports is by no means a sinecure, very important duties are attached to it, and it cannot be abolished. On the contrary, I shall endeavour to find a first-rate officer to fill it.
  MR. LEWISasked whether it was not the fact that Lord Charles Beresford, shortly before he left the office, stated that it was a post to which practically no duties were attached?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid he did not know what it might have been at that time, but since then the holder of the office had discharged important duties.

  FAIR RENT APPLICATIONS (IRELAND).
  MR. M. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the 36,000 "recorded" cases under the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, whether he can state in how many of these fair rent applications judicial rents were fixed
  1692
  by the Court, and also in how many of them judicial agreements were entered into owing to the great delay in disposing of the cases in Court?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I regret that I am unable to furnish the hon. Member with the information he desires, as the "recorded" cases in which fair rents were fixed are not shown separately in the books of the Irish Land Commission. To segregate them now would involve an examination of the original papers, not merely in the recorded cases, but in all cases, for a lengthened period, as no distinction was made in fixing the terms of hearing. Even if this serious interruption of regular official business were entered upon, a reply could not be given to the second inquiry, as the Sub-Commissioners had no means of knowing, and the order could not disclose the reason that the tenant did not prosecute his application.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can, for the convenience of Members, make a statement with reference to the course of business during the remainder of the Session.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Gentleman asked me yesterday if I would make some statement to-day. This, of course, is not a period of the Session at which a complete statement as regards the remaining business of the Session could be asked for or could be given. I can state, however, for the convenience of the House, that after the proceedings on the next stage of the Rating Bill are concluded, we shall proceed with the Finance Bill, and, after the Committee stage of the Finance Bill is finished, we shall take the Light Railways Bill. I hold myself, however, at liberty to take a day for the discussion of the Indian troops question. Further, it may be necessary to find time for the Resolution on the Uganda Railway before the stages of the Bills I have mentioned are finally concluded. That will give the House an indication of what the work will be for some few days to come. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman who put the Question is anxious more especially about the Irish Land Bill.

  1693
  He, I think, made a statement the other day to the effect that three or four days would suffice for it.
  MR. DILLON: I said that, so far as we were concerned, we would endeavour to get it through Committee in three or four days.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: After that declaration I suppose we may have a reasonable hope of getting the Bill through all its stages in this House in four or five days. Five days I propose to give; I cannot promise more, but that amount of time I can promise.
  MR. DILLON: It would be a convenience to know when we may have these five days.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It depends, of course, upon the progress we make with other business. We should endeavour to take them somewhere about the middle of next month, in a week in which the Irish Estimates can be put down. I will endeavour to meet, as far as I can, the convenience of Irish Members. What I have said is to be taken rather as a statement of intention than as an absolute pledge.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I hope the right Hon. Gentleman will not take them about the 12th July.[Laughter.]
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSONasked whether an opportunity could be found of bringing on the Mines Bill this Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have hopes of being able to pass the Mines Bill now that it is lightened of what I understand are the only contentious clauses.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid the right hon. Gentleman had promised an answer about this time with regard to the Scotch Rating Bill. It was important it should be introduced so that it might be considered in Scotland before it was discussed in the House.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Scotch Rating Bill could not, of course, be taken till after the Finance Bill and the Light Railways Bill. It would perhaps be convenient if it could be brought in some day at four o'clock, with a short statement and a single reply. If that course could be adopted the introduction might be expedited; I will think it over.
  MR. LEWISasked when it was proposed to take the Military Manœuvres Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Not at present, Sir.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked what Supply would be taken on Friday.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Navy and Army Estimates.
  MR. C. FENWICKsaid that in answer to previous questions he had been told the Employers' Liability Bill would be introduced this Session. He therefore wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was now any reasonable hope of being able this Session to proceed with that Measure.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; there is no hope of being able to proceed with that Bill.

  BENEFICES BILL.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Government intend to give facilities for the passage of the Benefices Bill into law.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I confess I do not see any prospect of my being able to find time, before the end of next month, for any but Government business. I cannot make any definite statement.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. C. B. RENSHAW: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it will be possible to give an early day for the Second Reading of the Public Health (Scotland) Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid I cannot give any pledge at present.

  INCIDENCE OF LOCAL AND IMPERIAL TAXATION.
  Mr. JOSEPH A. PEASEI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is now in a position to say when a Committee or a Commission will be appointed to inquire into the subject of the incidence of Local and Imperial Taxation, as

  1695
  between movable and immovable property; and, whether the proposed Inquiry will extend to urban as well as to rural districts?
  MR. F. A. CHANNINGI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can now state what will be the form of the proposed Inquiry into the incidence of the Local and Imperial Taxation on the several classes of rateable property, and when the Inquiry will be begun?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman to-day; I will promise him a definite answer on Monday next.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING BILL.
  On the order for the consideration of this Bill, as amended in Committee,
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that, before the consideration of the Bill was entered upon, he wished to put a question to the Speaker as to whether the Standing Orders of the House had been infringed in the previous progress of the Bill, and also to put a question to the Speaker, as the constitutional guardian of the privileges of the House, and especially those privileges that related to the financial affairs of the country which were under the sole jurisdiction of that House. The clause of the Bill to which he desired to call attention was Clause 1, Sub-section (3), which provided:—
  "The Commissioners of Public Revenue, in such manner, at such times, and under such regulations as the Treasury shall direct, shall pay to the Local Taxation Account out of the proceeds of the estate duty derived in England from personal property the annual sum required by this section to be paid to that account."
  The Standing Order passed on March 20, 1866, No. 62 of the Standing Orders, provided:—
  "If any motion be made in the House for any aid, grant or charge upon the public revenue whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys to be provided by Parliament or for any charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof is not presently entered
  1696
  upon, but is adjourned till such further day as the House thinks fit to appoint, and then the matter is referred to a Committee of the whole House before any resolution or vote of the House shall pass thereon."
  The question he desired to raise was that that Standing Order had not in this case been complied with. The clause of the Bill which dealt with the appropriation of one-and-a-half million out of the public money raised out of revenues which were a charge upon the people had not been referred to a Committee of the House, nor had such resolution as the Standing Order required been passed in regard to it. In submitting the point of Order, he might be allowed to say that the Standing Order of 1866 was the last Standing Order that had been passed upon this question, and was evidently intended to sum up the previous legislation and rules of the House upon the subject. He would not refer to the number of Resolutions which the House had passed in reference to its sole control of the financial affairs of the country, but so late as 1848, by a Division, in which the Government of the day was defeated, the House resolved:—
  "That this House cannot be the effectual guardian of the revenue of the State unless the whole amount of the taxes derived from every source in the Kingdom received for the public account he either paid in or accounted for to the Exchequer, and that no department of the revenue should be allowed to stop any portion of the gross receipts in their progress to the Exchequer without the previous authority of Parliament."
  Founded upon that Resolution a series of Acts were passed during Mr. Gladstone's Chancellorship of the Exchequer which were intended to secure—but whether or not they succeeded he would not say—that the whole of the revenue from every source should be paid into the Exchequer, and that there should be no appropriation of the revenue without the previous assent of the House. In 1888 the local taxation account, which was referred to in Clause 1 of the Bill, was established by the well-known Local Government Act of that year, and to that local taxation account Parliament transferred a considerable amount of existing taxation, and also provided for the payment to it of a certain portion of the Probate Duty. But he would particularly

  1697
  call attention to the Act of 1890, which he thought was the only precedent that could be quoted in support of the action of the Government in regard to this Bill. In 1890 Parliament imposed additional duties on Customs and Excise, and these duties were imposed, in accordance with the regular practice of the House, by previous Resolution, upon which the Act was passed. There was, therefore, a distinction between that case and this case, inasmuch as in this case there was no previous Resolution justifying the proposed appropriation. It was then provided that those additional duties to be levied on spirits and beer should be called the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties, and that they should be appropriated in the same proportion to England, Scotland and Ireland, and paid to the local taxation accounts; and an Act was subsequently passed in the same Session providing for the appropriation to the various local taxation accounts of those various sums. It was evident that that precedent was the one which had been followed by the Government in the present case. But no question was then raised, and there was no ruling by the Speaker—though he would venture to say, with great respect to the late Speaker, that he thought that the procedure then adopted was not in accordance with the intention of the Standing Order—and the House itself had no opportunity of expressing its opinion on the matter. He therefore submitted that under Clause 1 of this Bill there was a grant or charge imposed upon the public revenue—the public revenue being the proceeds of the Estate Duty derived in England from personal property—that those proceeds were a tax or charge upon the people, that the people of this country paid that tax, and his point was that the Government were not entitled to ask the House to intercept, between the taxpayer and the Exchequer, any taxes, whether they were taxes on personal property in the nature of Probate Duty or taxes on Excise and Customs, and then apply the taxes so intercepted to the purposes described in Clause 1 of the Bill. He therefore asked the Speaker, as the guardian of the privileges of the House, whether it was in accordance with the Standing Order that Clause I should be inserted in the Bill without a previous Committee of the House having
  1698
  sanctioned such insertion; and whether the privileges of the House, in the control of the public revenue, would not be seriously endangered if such a procedure were allowed to continue.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES, on the point of order, submitted that the right hon. Gentleman had established a breach of the spirit of the Standing Order, but that it was more doubtful whether he had established any breach of its letter. As he read the Standing Order, the subject of the formalities described by the right Hon. Gentleman was a Motion for any charge upon the people. The method of this Bill, however, was not for the imposition of a charge, but for the interception of a charge already imposed. The right hon. Gentleman had cited certain Acts which had been passed in derogation of this Standing Order, but he had not cited the most mischievous of all—the Act of 1891, which empowered the Treasury, on its own mere fiat, to intercept public moneys and call them appropriations in aid. He would cite the two Standing Orders preceding that cited by the right hon. Gentleman. Standing Order 60, which in point of date was last before Standing Order 62, read as follows:—
  "The House will not proceed upon a Motion for an address to the Crown praying that any money may be issued or that any expense may he incurred except in a Committee of the whole House."
  That Order showed the intention of the House with regard to all these matters. But Standing Order 58 bore upon this very matter, and the procedure adopted in regard to this Bill was a breach not only of the spirit but of the letter of Order 58. The words were:—
  "That this House will not proceed upon any petition, Motion, or Bill for granting any money, or for releasing or compounding any sum of money owing to the Crown, hut in a Committee of the whole House."
  MR. SPEAKER: The question is one of very great importance. There is no doubt that it is here proposed that money shall be taken from the taxes and shall be applied to a particular purpose; and in that sense it is a charge upon the revenue. I think that the House has always entertained those general intentions of which the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for King's

  1699
  Lynn have spoken, of protecting the revenue from any new charge by preliminary proceedings in Committee, and by requiring the recommendation of the Crown signified by a Minister. But I have no power to make laws for the House. I have only to construe those which I find in the Standing Orders. If it is a case of the unwritten law I may declare what that law is, but where there is a Standing Order I have only the power and duty of saying whether the Standing Order has been complied with; and, in the present case, looking at the Standing Order, I am of opinion that it has been complied with. It says that:—
  "Any aid, grant, or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys to be provided by Parliament or for any charge upon the people,"
  shall be first considered in Committee of the whole House. I first call attention to the words "for any charge upon the people" because they refer to new taxation, and there is no proposal for new taxation in the Bill. But does this Bill create a charge upon the public revenue—
  "whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys to be provided by Parliament?"
  If the intention of the House, when it made that Order in 1866, was that which the right hon. Gentleman apprehended, and that which I apprehend, the words used were somewhat unfortunate for the purpose, because if these words—
  "Whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys to be provided by Parliament"
  —that is to say, by Votes in Supply—had either not been used; or, if there had been words of an entirely general nature, such as "from any source whatever," then I think it would have been clear that the right hon. Gentleman's contention was correct. The origin of the limitation was, I believe, that in 1866 the words "or out of moneys to be provided by Parliament" did not exist, but were added to meet a particular class of cases, with the result not uncommon in Acts of Parliament, that in desiring to be extremely particular, the intention of those who put in the words was defeated.
  1700
  The result seems to me that those words—
  "whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys to be provided by Parliament"
  —limit the words "charge upon the public revenue," and as the Order says that there is to be a Committee when there is a charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, it must follow that the necessity for a Committee is limited to those cases. In the Local Government Act of 1888 there was a fund created into which the tax gatherers were to pay direct certain moneys, and that fund was to be distributed again without ever going into the Consolidated Fund, Although there was no decision given in the House on that matter, it was carefully considered by the authorities of the House at that time, and it was thought that it did not come within the words of the Standing Order. The present case seems to me to be precisely similar; and therefore I feel bound to rule that, whatever the general intentions of the House may have been, the words of the Standing Order do not cover this particular case, and no committee is therefore necessary. If the House desires to secure all those precautions which are referred to in the Resolution of 1848 read by the right hon. Gentleman, it will be necessary to amend the Standing Order.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that he rose, not to discuss this question, but to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question which arose out of the Speaker's ruling. He gathered from that ruling that what had occurred was really in consequence of an insufficient definition in the Standing Order. The question was discussed some weeks ago upon an earlier stage of the Bill, and he then understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was of opinion—an opinion which the House would share—that it was desirable that a Bill of this character, or of any other character dealing with public money, should come within the scope of the Order. Therefore, if the Bill had escaped in consequence of the inaccurate or too-limiting words which appeared in the Standing Order, he supposed the right

  1701
  hon. Gentleman would be willing to see the Order made wide enough to include this class of Bills in future. He would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman, if that was his view, whether he would undertake in the present Session of Parliament to introduce an Amendment to the Standing Order which would give the protection in these cases which was given in the case of all other charges on the public revenue.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Perhaps I may say, as being primarily responsible in this matter, that before the introduction of this Bill I consulted the authorities, and particularly yourself, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the form in which it should be introduced. I did so because I did not feel certain whether the Bill should be prefaced by a resolution in Committee or whether it should be introduced, as was done, without a resolution. Looking at the precedents of 1888 and 1890, I was informed that the proper and only course open to me was to follow those precedents and do what has been done. As to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, I may repeat what I said in Debate on this matter—that in my opinion it is unfortunate that the Standing Order does not apply to cases of this kind. [Cheers.] I think, for the sake of the revenue, it should so apply, and I have been considering how the Order may be best amended. That is, of course, not a simple or an easy matter; but I am in hopes of being able to propose an Amendment to the Standing Order with that object in the course of the present Session.["Hear, hear!]
  The following notice stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. W. E. M. OMLINSON (Preston):—

  CONTINUANCE OF EXISTING SYSTEM OF RATING.
  Page 4, after Clause 5, to insert the following clause:—
  "During the continuance of this Act every rating authority shall be at liberty, unless otherwise directed by the Local Government Board, to continue any customary or conventional system of ascertaining the gross estimated rental or the rateable value of any rateable hereditament not consisting of agricultural land, which may be in use by them at the time of the passing of this Act."
  MR. SPEAKER: I must tell the hon. Member for Preston that his proposed new clause is out of order, as also is that of the hon. Member for Shore-ditch which follows. This is a Bill which allocates certain funds out of the revenue for relieving the occupiers of agricultural land from payment of half their rates; and it is not germane to that Bill to deal with a question of the mode of rating. These two clauses both deal with the amendment of rating laws generally; and if they were admitted, I should be compelled, if anyone proposed it, to admit all the clauses of the Rating of Machinery Bill as Amendments to this Bill. The clause proposed by the hon. Member for Linlith-gowshire—(Mr. Ure)—("Division of Rate")—
  "After the commencement of any new tenancy of agricultural land after the thirty-first day of March next, or after any new agreement after the said day, as to the rent to be paid on any existing and continuing tenancy of the said land, the occupier shall be entitled to deduct for every pound of rent he is liable to pay one-half of the sum in the pound which he has paid as rate, any contract or agreement to the contrary not withstanding"—
  is also out of order, because it proposes to put taxation upon the owner which he is not now liable to pay, a thing which cannot be done upon Report. The new clause of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. E. Robertson)—("Postponement of commencement of Act till after a similar Act for Scotland has been passed")—
  "This Act shall have no effect unless and until provision shall have been made by Act of Parliament authorising for Scotland a grant corresponding to the annual grant by this Act authorised for England—
  is also out of order. The Bill is a Bill relating to England only. It is not relevant to the Bill to propose that it shall not come into operation until another Bill has been passed which has no relation whatever to England. It may have an argumentative connection, but it has no statutory or legislative connection. It is obvious that the argument on the clause would refer to Scotland and the Scotch Bill, and not to the provisions of this Bill.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON, on a point of Order, desired to say that he had put down this clause

  1703
  because the grant for Scotland was named by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, out of which this Bill proceeded, as being part of the same Scheme to which this Bill related. The right hon. Gentleman distinctly said that the proposal for England would be accompanied by corresponding grants in the established ratio of, he thought, 11 for Ireland and nine for Scotland. It was in order to secure that the grant for England should not be made unless the corresponding grant promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was made to Scotland that he put the clause down. He submitted that this did make a connection between the two, and did make the clause in order.
  MR. SPEAKER: I had already fully considered the argument which the hon. Gentleman has addressed to me, but it does not affect the view I have expressed. The new clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith)—("Official Valuers")—
  "The separation of the valuations of land and buildings shall be made by official valuers appointed for the purpose by the Local Government Board"—
  and that in the name of the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. Langley)—("Application of Act.")
  "This Act shall not apply to any rate raised or levied in a municipal or county borough"—
  ought to be brought on as Amendments to the clauses to which they relate, and not as new clauses. It is a very objectionable practice to put down as new clauses, for the purpose of securing precedence, matters which are simply matters of amendment to the clauses already in the Bill, and these two clauses come under that head. The proposed new clause of the hon. Member for Anglesey will come in naturally as an Amendment at the end of Clause 5. As regards the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield, there is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. J. Stuart) to the same effect, which has been properly set down as an Amendment to Clause 1, but not as a new clause.
  MR. JAMES STUARTdesired to ask the Speaker
  1704
  whether his ruling also applied to the second clause which he had proposed to move?—
  "The Council of every county shall, in the first year after the passing of this Act, and thereafter once in every three years, convene a conference of representatives of the Overseers and Assessment Committees within the county, for the purpose of deliberating on any questions relating to the practice of assessment within the county"—
  The first clause, he admitted, proposed an alteration in the law, but the second clause proposed only a method of procedure referring to and bearing only upon administration and practice.
  MR. SPEAKER: The second clause referred to by the hon. Member does not, it is true, effect an alteration in the law of rating, but, as I said before, the point is whether the subject matter is relevant to this Agricultural Relief Bill. The subject matter of this second clause is the mode in which property shall be assessed, and that is subject matter which is not relevant to the Bill.
  Clause 1,—

  EXEMPTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM HALF OF RATES TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES.
  (1.) During the continuance of this Act, that is to say, the period of five years after the thirty-first day of March next after the passing of this Act the occupier of agricultural land in England shall be liable in the case of every rate to which this Act applies, to pay one-half only of the rate in the pound payable in respect of buildings and other hereditaments.
  (2.) This Act shall apply to every rate as defined by this Act, except a rate—

  (a) which the occupier of agricultural land is liable, as compared with the occupier of buildings or other hereditaments, to be assessed to or to pay in the proportion of one half or less than one half, or

  (b) which is assessed under any commission of sewers or in respect of any drainage, wall, embankment, or other work for the benefit of the land.

  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE*MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE (Northumberland, Tyneside), moved in Subsection (1) to leave out "five" years and to insert "four" years. He said that in Committee the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill indicated that the Government were prepared to consider the proposal of appointing either a Committee of that House or a Commission

  1705
  to inquire into the whole subject of the incidence of taxation. The object of an Inquiry was to legislate to remove injustice and redress grievances, and he submitted three years was ample time for the Committee to report and for legislation to be framed and passed. It seemed to him that in view of that the House would be well advised in coming to the conclusion that a shorter period than five years should be introduced into the Bill, so as to enable the House to act promptly upon the Report of the Committee or Commission whenever it reported. The right hon. Gentleman gave no reason why five years should be introduced into the Bill in preference to any other period. The only concession of substance yet made was the limitation to five years, pressed by the supporters of the Government. If, however, this concession had not been made, the Bill would have been now as dead as the Education Bill. The Bill was justified by the Government on two grounds—first, that it was in mitigation of the agricultural depression which had existed for the past few years; and, secondly, that it tended to a readjustment of taxation. On the first ground, he would like to inform the House that a very interesting return had been published by the Agricultural Department since the Debates in Committee, and he found from that that the depression had been somewhat exaggerated by Her Majesty's Ministers during their discussions on the Bill. This Return showed that the number of landowners farming their own land was gradually diminishing. In 1888 15·9 per cent, were farmed by owners, in 1896 14·9 per cent. They were able to secure tenants for their land more and more every year. The Report showed, too, that in the last ten years, in spite of railways and of the expansion of towns, only 34,000 acres of land in Great Britain had gone out of cultivation. Last year the decrease was only ·09 per cent of the total land in cultivation. He noticed that the number of horses had increased in 1895 as against 1894, cows had increased in the last year by 26,000 and cattle by 93,000, also pigs. There had only been a decrease in sheep, and that might be attributed to the severity of the frost last year. The price of wheat had risen, and the average crop of barley had materially increased.
  1706
  He submitted, therefore, that on the ground of depression, there was no reason whatever why the Bill should operate for so long a period as five years, or that the House should anticipate five years of continued depression. Let them take the other ground on which the Bill was justified by the Government, and it would secure justice and a readjustment of taxation. They, on that side of the House, only wanted to do what was fair to the agricultural interest; but they believed that, by operating for five years, the Bill would do a great injury to many of the urban districts. They thought the injustice was on urban rather than on agricultural districts, and the longer the period for which the Bill was in force the greater would be the injustice which it would tend to perpetuate. He found that over Great Britain, while the urban valuation was £98,000,000, £17,000,000 of rates were levied on the urban population; and that in the purely rural districts, while the valuation amounted to £53,000,000, the rates only amounted to £2,100,000. These figures showed that urban districts were paying four times more than agricultural. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton had pointed out how the tendency had been for the rates to decline in rural districts and to rise in the urban districts.
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that he was travelling beyond the scope of the Amendment.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid he wished to impress on the House the fact that the Bill, by operating for so long a period as five years, aggravated,the evils to which he had referred. The longer the period of its operation, the more certain it was made that the relief given would go into the pockets of the landlords. ["Hear, hear!"] He believed, moreover, that the Bill would lead to extravagance, for all Imperial subventions for particular objects tended in that direction. For his own part, he should like to see the Measure limited to one year only, and, in the circumstances there were very good reasons to limiting it to four years at the most. In Committee on the Bill, the right Hon. Gentleman in charge of it made no concessions of any substance to the arguments and representations brought forward, and he would appeal to him and the Government to show a

  1707
  more conciliatory spirit to this and other Amendments that would be moved.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,)said the question of limitation of the operation of the Bill was discussed at great length in Committee, and he thought it was hardly necessary to raise it again. But he could not quite understand the course adopted by the hon. Member, for while he had expressed the opinion that one year's operation of the Bill would be sufficient his Amendment was to reduce it from five to four years. The hon. Member complained that the Government had made no concessions to the arguments advanced in Committee, but he had forgotten that one of the largest and most important alterations made in deference to the views of Members on both sides, was to limit the Bill to five years. The Bill would involve a great deal of work both in the House and beyond it, and it would be simply absurd to make it operative for one year only. It would be a waste of labour to do so. In his opinion the same argument would apply to any reduction of years below the five proposed. The hon. Member had stated that the allegations of agricultural distress in the country had been greatly exaggerated, and that the condition of things was improving in England and Scotland. He had had opportunity on the Commission which was still sitting, and through other means, of gauging the existing agricultural distress, and he was merely stating the fact when he said that it was absolutely impossible to exaggerate the extent of the distress that prevailed over a large part of the country, though it might vary in certain districts. ["Hear, hear!"] For the reasons stated the Government could not accept the Amendment.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not really met the point raised by the Mover of the Amendment. It was admitted that the Bill was exceptional in character, and the original intention was to make its operation permanent. But the opinion and feeling were so strong against this—the representations, that, as the Bill dealt with one class of rates only, it would be unjust to make it permanent, were so urgent and powerful—that the Government had to give way, and, yielding to
  1708
  general opinion, the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to change the Bill from a permanent into a temporary one. But the question was, whether the temporary period fixed upon was too long. ["Hear, hear!"] Why should this exceptional treatment of a particular class in reference to their rates be continued for five years. ["Hear, hear!"] The question had been asked that day when the tribunal which was to consider the whole question of rating was to be appointed. Why were they to assume that it would take five years for that tribunal to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not all rated property could be treated on a fair and equal footing? ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Bill was unpopular in a large portion of the country in consequence of its exceptional treatment of the landed interest, and therefore it should be his desire not to prolong the operation of the Bill a day longer than was absolutely necessary. It had been admitted that the Government had no right to give the proposed advantage permanently to one class of property alone; and, therefore, under any circumstances, it should not be given a moment longer than necessity demanded. It was class legislation of the worst character. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government said the Bill should be passed immediately, because of the existing distress in agriculture, and because there was not time to consider the whole question of rating. But, admitting this, why should this class legislation be prolonged for a period of five years, when it should be the object of the Government to make the system of rating and taxation a fair one to all classes as soon as possible? ["Hear, hear!"] It was absurd to say that it would take five years to consider the question, for any Government ought to be able to deal with it in a much less period. For his own part, he should say that two years was ample time for a Government to consider how all classes of property should be fairly dealt with in the matter of rating. ["Hear, hear!"] On what principle, or for what reason, could it be maintained that advantages should be given to land which were not given to houses, or to the manufacturers of the country? He was speaking as a Member for a constituency where there were industrial

  1709
  interests in quite as distressed a condition as agriculture—the iron and tinplate industries. ["Hear, hear!"] Why were those interests to wait five years before they received similar treatment? No; before that period all classes should be treated alike. ["Hear, hear!"] There was nothing more vital to the Bill than the term during which its exceptional treatment was to operate, and he hoped that before the Amendment of his hon. Friend was disposed of, the Government would give some further and stronger reasons than they had already alleged why that term should not be shorter than five years. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government held out the expectation that they would deal with the matter of the subsidy when they came to deal with the general question of rating. The only method by which they could compel the Government to deal with the other interests was by shortening this term. That was exactly what they did in a Railway Bill. They gave the time in which the function, whatever it was, should be performed, and if it was not performed in that time, the power was to cease. If they sufficiently limited the time within which this advantage was given to the landowners, they would compel the Government to do that which he ventured to say they would find it extremely difficult to do, and which he was sure they would not be willing to do—namely, justice to the other interests in the country. It was from that point of view he thought this a most material Amendment.
  MR. T. LOUGHthought that if the right hon. Gentleman would only recall to his mind the reasons which induced him to limit the Bill to five years, he would accept this Amendment. In his buoyancy of spirit at the time the right hon. Gentleman agreed to limit the operation of the Bill to five years, but neither he nor any of his colleagues could now be sure that five years of life remained to the Government. ["Oh!"] Well, if he was sure he must be a very sanguine man. When would the five years from the date mentioned in the clause end? As the Act would commence to operate after the 31st of March after the passing of the Act the five years would end in 1902. He did not think the Government's life could possibly last as long as that. There
  1710
  were, therefore good reasons, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own argument, why the present Amendment should be accepted. Three years would bring them to 1900, and as long as the Government had a great task to accomplish they ought to put their hands to it and do it before even 1900. He represented an unfortunate constituency in London, where some people had calculated what this Act would cost. On the most moderate calculation this Act would cost London, £400,000 a year. If that pension to the farmers went on for five years, it meant to Londoners £2,000,000, if for three years £1,200,000. If, therefore, they could shorten the term by one year, London would save £400,000, if by two years £800,000. It was not, under the circumstances, too much to hope that his hon. Friends representing London constituencies who sat opposite would say a word in support of this Amendment.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELsaid there were some considerations which ought to weigh heavily with the Government. The first was that when the question was last before the House, the right hon. Gentleman agreed that an Inquiry should take place, and that the subject should be dealt with during the existence of the present Government. That meant, surely, that the Government were prepared to reopen the question within the next five or six years. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that urban districts had grievances. That being so, the operation of the Bill ought to be so limited that the Government could deal with the whole question during their tenure of office. If, however, the term of five years stood, it was absolutely impossible that this Parliament would be called upon to deal with the subject. According to the Government's calculation, the Act would expire in 1902, but in the ordinary course of things the next General Election would take place about July 1901. How, therefore, could the present Government deal with the question again?
  MR. J. STUARTdid not intend to twit the Government with their misfortunes. Indeed, on all the stages of this Bill he had endeavoured to improve it. He was extremely desirous that this Bill should not stand in the way of the most speedy settlement that could be

  1711
  made with propriety of the rating question generally. He thought, however, if this Bill were allowed to operate for five years, not only would the Government make the excuse that they should not meddle with the rest of the rating question till the end of that time, but they would not be able to deal legislatively with it until the end of that time. They were establishing something by Act of Parliament with respect to the agricultural districts affecting their rates for five years, and would they or any other Government intervene and shut short that period when once established by Act of Parliament? He said they would not do so, and that practically they could not. That being so, it was not possible to deal with the general rating question of this country without dealing with the agricultural rating question, as well as the urban rating question. The two would have to be taken together. He said, after the fullest examination of the Bill, he did not believe it was possible to incorporate this particular reform with the general reform of rating they were all seeking for, and, in consequence, they would have to wait for their general reform until the five years were up. The disturbance of this settlement for five years, so far as agricultural rating was concerned, was an impossibility. That being so, look at the difficulties they were leaving to their urban populations in great cities and towns. He would not refer to the point that had been touched upon by the hon. Member for Islington, as to the urban populations having to pay for the relief that was given to agriculture under this Bill. He looked at the rating question alone, and he pointed out the enormous inequalities and irregularities that existed in urban rating as compared even with agricultural rating. He maintained that the body which suffered least was the agricultural interest. That was a perfectly different thing to saying that there was no agricultural distress, which he admitted fully. Take the case of London. They had a complaint in London—and it was in no sense a Party complaint—that they received under the Local Government Act of 1888 £400,000 less than they ought to receive. They had endured that state of things for a number of years, and they were now going to be
  1712
  compelled to endure it for five years longer. The grievance was admitted, and he asked that it should be corrrected in less than five years. He had already demonstrated that it was not possible for the Government to deal with this general question of rating so far as legislation was concerned before the expiry of the five years. If they were prepared to do so let them say so. He saw no reason why such legislation should be deferred for five years. If the investigation into the position of local taxation and grants were to be begun at once he thought it could not take at the most more than a year and a half or two years to think out and frame some satisfactory Measure, and to put it at five years was quite over-drawing the thing altogether. He should support the Amendment because it was a reduction of the five years, which he regarded as much too long a period.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEhad noticed that the Chambers of Agriculture in his own district had accepted this gift of the State towards the agricultural interest, but the acceptance had been accompanied in every case by a resolution asking for that which they had asked for many years—namely, a revision of local taxation. The farmers were wise enough to feel that the longer this Act was on the Statute book, the longer, in all human probability, would the time be postponed when they would receive that which they thought their due—the full revision of local taxation. They were wise enough to see that this was a temporary expedient. On behalf of the Chamber of Agriculture with which he was connected, and the general feeling of his agricultural constituents, he urged for a shorter period for the operation of the plan of the Government. This plan was not a satisfactory one. The exigencies of different parts of the country were very different, and he asked the President of the Local Government Board to make this transition state as short as possible, and to bring about a fair incidence of local taxation upon the agricultural interest, in as short a period as was possible.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY, who intimated that on this Amendment he should follow the course he had

  1713
  adopted since the Government introduced the time limit and not vote at all, urged the Government to shorten the period of five years if they found they could possibly do so. He could not but recognise the fact that boroughs would have a grievance during the currency of this Bill when it became an Act. They would then be called upon for the next five years, not only to pay their own heavy rates, but also to pay their taxable share in order to reduce the county rates by one-half; therefore it was manifest that the shorter the period in which they would have to bear that additional burden the better it would be for them. ["Hear, hear!"] He would press upon the Government that they should appoint this Commission or Committee to inquire into the whole question of the burdens on rateable and non-rateable property as soon as possible, and give a pledge to the House, if they were not able to accept this Amendment, that, as soon as the Report of the Committee or Commission, were laid before them, they would legislate upon the lines of such Report. He hoped the Government would use every means in their power to shorten the duration of the Act.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid the hon. Gentleman opposite had earned the thanks of every urban community by the action he had taken in connection with the Bill. He had obtained an important concession from the Government, and he hoped they would respond to the further appeal he had made. This Bill was not given in relief of a depressed industry, but in payment for services rendered, and in these circumstances he considered four years was quite long enough and five years much too long. In the end the money would percolate into the pockets of the landlords. If the period was five years there was a greater chance that it would do so, but, if four or three years, considerably less. It was said that the period of five years had been fixed to enable the Government by means of a Commission or Committee to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. As a matter of fact, all the essential facts in connection with rating in this country were already in the possession of the Government. It was monstrous for a purpose of that kind that a period so long as five years
  1714
  should be fixed. He objected to agriculture being specially favoured when other industries were equally depressed and needed assistance. It was unjust that urban authorities should have to pay increased rates under this Bill. For five years London would have to pay £400,000 a year as its contribution towards agricultural rates. He believed that in the country the proposal of the Government was condemned.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid the Bill not only touched agricultural land but the rates paid by buildings. If that were so the passage of the Bill would prevent the proper consideration of wider questions later on, and he asked whether, when the result of the proposed inquiry came to hand, he would reconsider the question in a broad and comprehensive scheme.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERappealed to the Government to shorten the duration of the Bill to four years.
  Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 258; Noes, 140.—(Division List, No. 257.)
  MR. J. A. PEASE*MR. J. A. PEASE moved to leave out the words "thirty-first day of March next after the passing of this Act," in order to insert instead thereof the words "thirtieth day of June one thousand eight hundred and ninety seven." He thought that nine months would not be an adequate time for making the new valuation of agricultural land throughout the whole of the country which would be rendered necessary by the Bill. In order to ascertain what the Government proposed to do in the matter, he formally moved his Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Tyneside as to the intentions of the Government in relation to this matter, he had to state that they would adhere to the date for the Bill to come into operation which stood in the Bill. The date proposed by the hon. Member for the Bill to come into operation would be an inconvenient and an awkward one, as it would break into the financial year.

  1715
  The Local Government Board would have ample time under the Bill as it stood to make the necessary valuation.
  MR. J. A. PEASEasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The next Amendment which stood upon the Paper was in the name of Mr. HERBERT LEWIS, who proposed to insert after the word "Act" the words—
  "or until twelve months after the inquiry on the incidence of rating has been concluded; whichever is the shorter period."
  MR. SPEAKERruled this Amendment out of order, on the ground that the House had already agreed to the date, "the 31st day of March." The Amendment of the hon. Member was thereby excluded.
  MR. R. J. PRICE MR. R. J. PRICE (Norfolk, E.) moved to leave out the word "agricultural," in order to insert the word "arable." He said he was anxious to give relief where relief was most needed. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board made as one of his most important points, that it was advisable to relieve the burdens imposed on agriculture because the land was going out of cultivation and the country districts were becoming depopulated. That statement applied not so much to grass land as to arable land. He did not think there was any dispute as to that, and accordingly he proposed by his Amendment that larger relief should be given to arable land than to grass land.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid the object of the Amendment was a very laudable one, and it had a most attractive appearance; but he was afraid it would be impossible to measure the relief according to the existence of depression; for this reason, that the depression varied not only in large districts, not only in every county, but very often even in parishes. Thus they would be lost in interminable confusion if they endeavoured to give effect to the views of the hon. Member. He was willing to concede that the depression began in the corn growing districts, but as a matter of fact it was the case at this moment, as was attested by the large majority of the members of the Royal
  1716
  Commission, that with rare exceptions the depression was practically universal at the present time. He had other objections to the Amendment. It would be contrary to all existing precedents, it would be opposed to the principle of the Bill, it would be accompanied with great practical difficulty, and land which would be relieved to-day because it was arable would cease to enjoy relief to-morrow because it was changed to grass. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman was as laudable as it was impracticable, but the Government could not accept it.
  MR. WARNERsaid this was one of a series of Amendments which sought to help arable land more and grass land less. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the object of the Amendment was a laudable one, and there were other ways of carrying out that object if the right hon. Gentleman would accept one of them. The supporters of the Amendment would be glad to accept any Amendment that would prevent land going out of cultivation. In some districts where the land was almost entirely arable it was actually going out of cultivation, and the utmost relief it would get would be about 1s. an acre; while the rich land would, under the Bill, get very large relief, in some cases as much as 14s. an acre. The contention of those who supported the Amendment was that the poorer land should get more relief than the rich land.
  Question put, "That the word 'agricultural' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 252; Noes, 116.—(Division List, No. 258.)
  SIR J. PEASE*SIR J. PEASE moved after the word "land," to insert the words "let at an annual rent of less than twenty-five shillings per acre," so as to provide that the relief to be given by the Bill should be limited to occupiers of land let at an annual rent of less than 25s. an acre. His object, he explained, was the same as that of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment which had just been rejected, but he claimed that his proposal was more practical. The Bill as it stood would give aid where it was least wanted. Land the rental of which had not gone down would get a large amount

  1717
  of relief, whereas in Hampshire, Wiltshire, Lincolnshire, and elsewhere land which had gone down greatly in rental value would get very little help. To take an example. A 200-acre farm let at 5s. an acre would receive £5, but a 200-acre farm let at £2 an acre would get £40. It was to prevent the relief from going where it was least wanted that he proposed this Amendment. This Bill appeared to be full of anomalies, but the worst anomaly was that to which he called attention. The principle was so exceedingly unfair that he trusted the Government would accept the Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that the object of the Amendment was practically the same as that which had just been decided. He admitted that where a man at present paid very little rate there, of course, the relief would be equally small, and where the rates were high there the relief would be proportionally greater. That was a position which could not be avoided. The whole of the rating assessment was a mass of anomalies from beginning to end, and it was impossible to get rid of existing anomalies by this Bill. The fact that a man paid high rent would be testimony to the fact that he was entitled to and required relief. The Amendment would have the effect of refusing all relief to that class of farming where land was highly cultivated, as in the case of hop grounds and market gardens, where by far the largest amount of labour was employed. Rent was paid according to the quality of the land. In each case a tenant who took the land made his calculation of the margin of profit. The case of the Government from the beginning had been that farming land was unfairly rated and taxed as compared with other descriptions of property, and therefore it was right and fair that it should be relieved all round.
  MR. H. E. F. LUTTRELLhoped that the Hon. Member would press the Amendment to a Division, because it was a sensible and reasonable one. There was a wide difference between the two Amendments. He did not see in the first instance that the proposal was a practical one, because there was really no distinction between arable and grass land. This proposal, however, defined the land which was of
  1718
  high value and the land which was of low value. The Amendment proposed to remove one of the existing anomalies, and he maintained that they should try and relieve districts which were most distressed, and which might be gauged by the amount of money they paid. The right hon. Gentleman stated that farms let at a high rent required relief as much as farms let at a low rent. That was an admission that he was trying to help the landlords by keeping up high rents, that he was proposing to relieve landlords and not the tenant farmers, but the Amendment would relieve principally those who had the heaviest burdens to bear and who could least afford to pay. He supported the Amendment.
  MR. REGINALD MCKENNAsaid that any Bill which proposed to relieve the unfair burden of rates on agriculture should not be introduced except on a special occasion, and unless due regard was had to other instances of still more unfair incidences of rates on the industries of the country. He had a letter from a colliery proprietor in his constituency showing that the amount of rates in the district reached one-fifth of the amount of the income of the colliery. No farmer was rated to the same extent as the collieries in this district.
  Question put, "That the words 'let at an annual rent of' be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 108; Noes. 208.—(Division List, No. 259.)
  MR. J. A. PEASE*MR. J. A. PEASE moved after the word "England," to insert the words£
  "on which the total rates were in the year ending the thirty-first day of March one thousand eight hundred and ninety six more than two shillings and sixpence in the pound."
  He contended that the Amendment embodied a fair principle—namely, that the Act should operate only where the rates were excessive.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid the Amendment would create another and a greater anomaly than any of which hon. Gentlemen complained, and he really could not accept it.
  MR. T. R. WHITTAKER, who had an Amendment of similar sense on the Paper, said it would give relief just where it was most needed and in proportion to the need. Take the case of where land was let at 20s. an acre and the rates were 2s. 6d. in the pound. That land would not go out of cultivation for the sake of half the rate. The landlord would allow 1s. 3d. to save 18s. 9d. rather than let the land go out of cultivation. Parliament ought not to give relief where it could be done out of rents; it was not their duty to keep up rent at the public cost. He pointed out that, according to a recent Parliamentary Return, rents in some counties were considerably higher than even at the time of the Corn Laws; therefore it was clear that agricultural distress was limited to certain districts. In every county of Wales the rental value of agricultural land was 25 per cent, higher in 1894–95 than it was in 1852–53 and 50 per cent. more than it was in 1815. Since that date it had risen from two to three millions, and therefore, unless rates were excessively high, there was no necessity for giving relief. Essex had suffered more than other counties, but not so much as they were led to believe. The rental value of the county was little less than it was at the beginning of the century and only 25 per cent, less than in 1852–53. It was a county in which a large amount of land had been taken for building purposes, thus reducing the quantity available for agriculture. Allowing for this reduction, the value of agricultural land in Essex had not, on the whole, seriously fallen since 1852–53, and rates then were higher than to-day. If rents had not fallen, and if rates were higher then than now, no case was made out for assisting the people of the district. The Amendment would have the effect of confining relief to where there was real pressure and rates were high. The clause, as it stood, would afford aid in many districts where there was no pressure; and it would not adjust the burden of the rates, because it would leave the relative proportions of the rates in the agricultural districts precisely what they were to-day. The Bill ought to relieve land that was heavily rated and not that which was
  1720
  lightly rated. It had been pointed out that in the distressed districts the fall in rents had not reduced the rates. Where the rents had been 20s. an acre and the rates 2s. in the pound, if the rents had been reduced to 10s. an acre, the rates would have gone up to 4s. in the pound. The clause would practically make the rates Is. an acre in both cases; but the Amendment would leave the rates at 2s. an acre on 20s. land, and 1s. 3d. an acre on 10s. land. In the distressed districts it would give the reduction of rates desired, while it would do less where there had been no fall of rent, and consequently little or no serious pressure on the rates. The President of the Local Government Board contended that relief should be given to all land alike, because at present it was unfairly taxed as compared with other property. But it had been shown that this was not so; and further, so far as there was any case at all, it was the landlord and not the tenant who was overrated. Yet this Bill sought to relieve the tenant. The Bill had ceased to be a Bill to readjust the incidence of rating; it was a temporary Measure to meet an urgent necessity, to meet pressing distress; but there could not, he said, be any urgent necessity or pressing distress in districts where the rates were only 2s. 6d. in the pound. Take a district where land was let at 10s. an acre and paid 1s. 3d. an acre in rates. That was not distress. A tenant would get a relief of 7½d. an acre, which would be £3 2s. 6d. on 100 acres; and that was not going to save agriculture or relieve it in any way whatever. This Amendment would test whether the Bill was really what it was represented to be—whether it was intended to relieve distress, or whether it was merely intended to shovel £2,000,000 a year into the pockets of the landlords. [Ministerial cheers] It was said it would not relieve landlords because it was a temporary Measure; but it would prevent the abatements that landlords had been accustomed to make, and on entering upon new tenancies tenants would be apt to be misled into supposing that the relief would be continued. The Amendment would prevent land that was not heavily rated from being relieved, but it would

  1721
  allow relief to be given to the occupiers of heavily-rated land, and further than that they ought not to go.
  MR. LEWISsaid the right Hon. Gentleman in his brief reply—[Ministerial cheers]—those cheers indicated that hon. Members opposite wished to hear as little as possible—[renewed cheers]—had said the effect of the Amendment would be to restrict the amount of the relief given by the Bill; and that was precisely the object of the Amendment, because they wanted as little as possible of this money to go into the pockets of the landlords. The rental of agricultural land in Anglesey was £81,000 in 1814, £129,000 in 1842, and £182,000 in 1894. In Brecon, since 1889–90, it had risen from —190,000 to £192,000. If relief was to be given at all it ought to come out of rents that had been so largely increased. The argument that relief would reach a tenant rated at 2s. 5d. in the pound and not one rated at 2s. 6d. was an argument analogous to one used upon the Education Bill when objection was taken to stopping at boroughs with a population of 20,000; but the objection was immediately met by the rejoinder that they must draw the line somewhere, and so in this case the line was drawn at 2s. 6d. in the pound. What they wished to do was to give assistance to those who really required it.
  MR. LOUGHthought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be inclined to entertain the Amendment sympathetically, because it would save money, and something would have to be done to economise somewhere if the scheme were to be carried through in England and anything was to be left for Scotland and Ireland. The Amendment touched the principle on which the Bill was based. Of the three burdens on land—rent, tithe, and rates—rates was the lowest, and they were not increasing in England. During the last 30 years rates had declined on the average 5d. in the pound on agricultural land in England. Yet the position of the Government was that nothing was to be done with rent or tithe, but that it was rates that would ruin agriculture. It could not be argued that a rate of 2s. 6d. was a serious burden in any part of the country. In London rates varied from 6s. to 8s. in the pound; in many urban districts they were 8s.; and even in Ireland they
  1722
  averaged 4s. How on earth the Government would deal with those cases when they came to them was beyond him to say. The farmers could not be materially benefited by this slight relief in their rates. If a man were ruined before, the Bill could not save him. The Government were dangerously tampering with local rating, without accomplishing any good for the people whom they professed to serve.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid that this Bill would not be the first that Parliament had passed in order to relieve agricultural distress. Money had been voted with great lavishness out of the Exchequer in order to relieve distress in the West of Ireland and in the Highlands of Scotland. But what had been the test of the distress in those miserable districts? It was the great amount of the rates. It was because the rates in those districts had gone up to 5s., 6s., and 8s. in the pound, and at last could not be paid at all, that the House went—generously and rightly and justly, but slightly under the pressure of necessity—to their assistance. But in many counties in England to which this Bill applied, the rateable value had gone up and the rates had gone down. In his own county of Northumberland, where the rents had been raised between 1855 and 1870 by something like 70 par cent., the rents had, since 1870, hardly fallen at all, while the rates had gone down enormously. And yet it was proposed by the Bill that for five years one penny in the pound should be added to the Income Tax of his constituents in Glasgow in order that the farmers in Northumberland might be relieved of half their rates. That was a monstrous piece of injustice, and he should heartily vote for the Amendment.
  MR. T. R. LEUTYsaid the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had advanced as his reason for opposing the Amendment the argument that he could not draw a distinction between a man who paid a rate of 2s. 6d. and the man who paid a rate of 2s. 7d., the difference between them was so minute, in the application of the benefits of the Bill. It was wonderful how the right hon. Gentleman who had shown such a capacity for swallowing at camels strained at this little gnat.

  1723
  [Laughter.] The answer to the right hon. Gentleman obviously was that a man whose rate was only 2s. 6d. had a burden that did not demand national assistance, while as to the man whose rate was only a penny more, and who yet got relief, all that could be said was that he had reason to consider himself a very lucky fellow. But really discrepancies of that character were inseparable from all legislation. There was no royal road to doing away with those anomalies, and to making the incidence of every rating or taxing arrangement absolutely fair and equitable. If that were the only reason the right hon. Gentleman had to urge against the Amendment, it might be said that he was reduced to having no argument at all.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid he observed that hon. Gentlemen opposite were a little impatient of the discussion. But they should remember that this was the first time the Bill had been allowed to be discussed. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might call the all-night sitting a discussion of the Bill, but, in his opinion, the Bill had not yet been discussed. [Opposition cheers.] It was quite certain that the Bill would be discussed very fully elsewhere. They knew very little of the people of this country if they were not aware that a charge which bore on its face the stamp of inequality would be very closely scrutinised by the people. The right hon. Gentleman said, as a reason for opposing the Amendment, that he could not make a distinction between the man who paid a rate of 2s. 6d. and the man who paid a rate of 2s. 7d. But the Bill made a distinction of what he would call the most gross character. [Opposition cheers.] The Bill made a distinction even between two people living together. One of them who was a farmer got half his rates knocked off, and the other who lived next door, but had not got a farm, had to pay the whole of the rates. [Opposition cheers.] The real question at issue was, ought they in dealing out public money to give that money equally to those who wanted it and those who did not want it? There was a disposition on all sides—a natural and fair disposition—to give some assistance to those districts that required it. But the
  1724
  great fault of the Bill, which the Amendment desired to mitigate to some extent, was that it proposed to give large sums of money to districts that had no need of assistance. [Opposition cheers.] It had been asked, what had the rate to do with assessable value? His answer was that the rate depended entirely on the assessable value, and nothing else. If they had to raise a certain sum the rate would be low where the assessable value of the land was high, and the rate would be high where the assessable value had fallen considerably. Therefore the whole question was, what was the assessable value of the land in the districts to which they proposed to give relief? He would show that a large portion of the two millions voted by the Bill would go to people who—as was shown by the assessable value of the districts in which they lived—were not distressed at all. [Opposition cheers.] He had got a Return which showed that out of the 600 and odd unions of the country there were 103 where the assessable value had increased since 1870. Therefore in 103 unions to which the Bill proposed to give money the people were not worse off, but better off, than they had been in 1870, and they had no right to make a demand upon the public purse. [Opposition cheers.]
  CAPTAIN PRETYMAN (Suffolk, Woodbridge)asked whether the increase in the assessable value of those unions was in agricultural land or in property of all kinds. [Ministerial cheers.]
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid he got his information from a map prepared by the Agricultural Department, showing the districts in England where the assessable value had increased and where it had only decreased by 10 per cent. The map showed the decrease between the year 1870 and 1894 in the rateable value of land. It was only a synopsis of a Return laid before Parliament. The map really showed the condition of agricultural distress—[cheers and cries of "No"]—as far as it was represented by the assessable value of land. There were 103 Unions where there had been an increase in value; and there were 125 where the decrease had been less than 10 per cent, since 1870. Those together formed a large proportion of the Unions of the country. Therefore, it was impossible to represent that in all Unions

  1725
  alike there was the demand for relief—[cheers]—and some discrimination ought to be made, because it would be felt that money was being given, to those who did not need it, and was being taken out of the pockets of those who did need it very much. [Cheers.] He knew of no better test of agricultural distress than the assessable value within the last 25 years. It was not exact, but it was the fairest test that could be obtained. He should support the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. F. A. CHANNINGheartily supported the Amendment. The Government had announced their intention of carrying out an exhaustive and scientific inquiry into the incidence of local taxation on all classes of rateable property, and that fact, together with the fact that the Measure was limited in time, made out an irresistible case in favour of restricting relief under the Bill to cases of real agricultural distress. The landlords and tenants who were not now in distress might have a claim to some relief, but they could wait until the Inquiry promised by the Government had been concluded. The Amendment might not effect an ideal adjustment, but it afforded a fair test of where the distress began to be felt. Then, again, any Amendment which put a limit on the level of the rate below which relief would be afforded was obviously an inducement to many landlords to offer, instead of temporary abatements, permanent reductions of rent, which would carry with them permanent reductions in the assessment, and so bring the rateable value within the limits of relief.
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the usual interval,
  DR. CLARKsaid that unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had not thought fit to give any explanation of the anomaly in the Bill that whereas a man who paid less than 2s. 6d. in the £ rates received no relief, the man who paid 2s. 7d. in the £ received relief to the extent of 50 per cent of his rates. The Amendment of a similar character to the present one which had been placed upon the paper, in the Committee stage of the Bill could not be moved. By the present Amendment
  1726
  it was merely proposed to apply to England the limitations that had been inserted in the Irish and Scotch Acts, and which were always applied when the State came to the relief of any industry. The right hon. Gentleman in moving the Second Reading of the Bill had brought before the House some very sad cases in Essex where the heavy clay lands that were only fit for wheat growing had gone out of cultivation, and the rates on which were 23s. in the £. The farmers in those cases would receive relief to the extent of 11s. 6d. in the £. In such cases no doubt there was great depression, and it was only just, that the farmers should be relieved of a portion of their rates. But of the 50 per cent, so given in relief of rates, what proportion did the Government intend should go to the relief of agriculture, and what proportion to relieve real property from the unfair burden which they said it had to sustain. Why did not the Government make up their minds to give relief to agriculture only in cases where the relief was required. There were several counties in England where there was little or no agricultural depression, and yet in those cases the Government proposed to give as large a share of relief as would be given to those parts of the country where there was the greatest depression. No reply had been given to those questions by the Government. A similar Amendment had not been moved in Committee because of the action of the right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury—were the Government after having applied the gag in Committee now going to enter into a conspiracy of silence?
  SIR WALTER FOSTERasked whether hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House were to have no answers given to them before they went to a Division on this Amendment. The Amendment was an attempt on the part of hon. Members to introduce the principle of discrimination into the Bill. He did not know that the Amendment proposed to apply that principle in the best manner but at all events it did propose to apply it in some form. They ought to be told why the farmer who paid 2s. 6d. in the £ rates was to have no relief while the farmer who paid 2s. in the £ was to receive relief to the extent of 50 per cent. It was a necessary case

  1727
  that a man who paid 5s. in the £ in a town should receive no relief while his neighbour who lived just just outside the municipal boundary should be relieved from half his rates. This Amendment was a bona fide attempt to find some means of discriminating between that land which should have the benefit of this gift, and which land should not. There were districts in Essex where the distress was very great, and where the land was actually going out of cultivation, and was rated in some cases at over 3s. in the pound. Those were the districts it was desired to relieve, and this Amendment was moved in order to find some means of discriminating between districts like those and districts in the north of England, where the value of land had gone up. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give some argument why he should refuse to accept the Amendment.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)said there were three reasons why the Government could not accept the Amendment. The first was that it was part of the policy of the Government not to differentiate between the holders of agricultural land. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that the plan of the Government would create anomalies, but the Government were certain that if they departed from their plan they would create greater anomalies still. The second objection was that if the Amendment were adopted the result would be to penalise the holders of agricultural land in those districts where, by careful management, the rate had been kept under 2s. 6d. in the pound. Surely that could not be the object of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and yet no one could deny that that would be the direct effect of carrying this Amendment. It would, in fact, be an absolute premium on extravagance, because, in order to get the relief, there might be a party who would connive at the rates being carried to over 2s. 6d. in the pound. The third reason why the Government could not accept the Amendment was that it would involve the recasting of the Bill. Two or three clauses would have to be completely recast. The Government were not prepared to enter into any such undertaking, and for these
  1728
  reasons must decline to accept the Amendment.
  MR. MCKENNAcontended that differentiation already existed in the Bill, inasmuch as agricultural land was differentiated from all other land. The hon. Gentleman's argument as to penalisation was most extraordinary. Surely, all land which was now heavily rated was penalised in comparison with land which was not so heavily rated. The hon. Gentleman also contended that the Amendment might lead to extravagance, but the Amendment was only proposed to apply to land rated at over 2s. 6d. in the pound on the 31st March last. Therefore it could be no inducement to extravagance in the future. If the hon. Gentleman considered his own answer, he would find that in every point the case he had presented was a hopeless one.
  MR. DALZIELsaid they were all indebted to the Secretary of the Local Government Board for his explanation of the views of the Government, and they would all welcome his more frequent participation in the Debates on this Bill. But the hon. Gentleman had hardly improved the situation. The hon. Gentleman said there were certain anomalies in the Bill, but that this Amendment would create greater anomalies; but his hon. Friend put forward the Amendment with a view to meeting the obvious case that the occupiers of land which had increased in value would gain by this Bill. The contention was that where land had increased in value there was no bona fide case of agricultural distress. The Government admitted that occupiers of land who did not deserve to gain would gain, and he asked them what they were going to do to meet such a case? The supporters of the Amendment held that there ought to be discrimination. Where there was real agricultural distress there was a case for the Bill; but the Government had no ground whatever for asking the House for money in the name of agricultural distress, in order to give it to the occupiers of land which had increased in value of late years.
  Question put, ''That those words be there inserted.''
  The House divided:—Ayes, 66; Noes, 129.—(Division List, No. 260.)
  MR. C. SEALE-HAYNE*MR. C. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton) moved after the word ''England," to insert the words—
  "not being a tenant whose rent has been raised after the passing of this Act."
  His object, he said, was to protect tenants against grasping landlords who might wish to obtain for themselves the benefit which the Measure would confer. When the Bill was introduced the Government said that it was for the relief of agricultural distress, by which phrase he understood was meant the relief of the farmer and occupier of agricultural land. This Amendment would carry out the expressed intention of the Government, and he trusted, therefore, that it would have their support. The Government had consented to confine the operation of the Act to five years in order to convince the House that it was the tenant's interests and not the landlord's which they desired to serve. But even during five years it would be quite possible for a landlord to raise his rents, and thus to put a great deal of this contributed money into his own pocket. That was what he desired to prevent. No injustice would be done to a good landlord by the Amendment, which aimed simply at preventing injustice on the part of bad landlords. It would not prevent any justifiable increase of rents, and where rents could be raised legitimately, there could be no agricultural depression, and, consequently, no need for this statutory relief. It was the tenant farmer who was entitled to relief, because his capital had been expended during the past 10 or 15 years in paying the owner's rent, and it was highly desirable to insert a provision of this kind in the Bill in order to prevent tenants from being robbed of the proposed benefit by bad landlords. He did not refer to landlords like hon. Members opposite, who, he was convinced, were all liberal-minded. [Laughter and ''Hear, hear!"] He urged the Government to accept this Amendment; as without some such safeguard the Bill could only be regarded as a Bill for the relief of landlords, and securing no benefit to the distressed cultivators of the soil.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that the main object which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have in view was to prevent
  1730
  rents from being raised. From his knowledge of the present circumstances of agriculture, he asserted that an Amendment of this kind was probably less necessary to-day than at any period during the last 25 years. How, where, and by whom were rents to be raised, having regard to the freedom which farmers at present enjoyed?
  MR. SEALE-HAYNEexplained that what he had in his mind was an increase of rents in consequence of the doles which were to be given under this legislation.
  MR. CHAPLINasked whether it was conceivable that landlords would immediately raise their rents all over the country in order to gain the benefit of relief which was so small that the right hon. Gentleman called it a "dole.'' The right hon. Gentleman said that there were good landlords on the Government side of the House, though there were a few exceptions. But those exceptions would be controlled by the force of existing circumstances against their own will. He could state on his own responsibility, and from the experience and knowledge he had, that in the vast majority of cases throughout England it was not possible to raise rents. There might be exceptional cases, but a more uncalled-for Amendent than this he had never heard of in his life. [''Oh, oh!"] By the relief of agriculture the right hon. Gentleman, said that he meant the relief of those farmers engaged in the cultivation of the land. But he understood the ''relief of agriculture'' to mean the relief of all classes engaged in any way with the agricultural industry of the country. Why should they exclude the landlords and the rural labouring population from the category of those whom the right hon. Gentleman desired to relieve? What were the opinions of the farmers themselves? Did hon. Members opposite not think that the farmers might be trusted to know what was for their interest and what was not? Would the right hon. Gentleman go before the farmers and leave them to decide whether it was for their advantage or not?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I must say that a more absolutely unsatisfactory answer—[cheers]—to this Amendment could not be given, and the right hon. Gentleman will learn, if he does not

  1731
  know it now, that this is a test Amendment on this question. The pretence put forward by the Government is that this Measure is principally, or exclusively, for the benefit of the tenant farmers, but the moment a security is proposed—[cheers]—in order that the tenant-farmer may get it, the right hon. Gentleman says:—''Oh, I meant it for all classes—the landowner and the labourer.'' But how is the labourer to get it? The labourer is going to pay this out of the taxation of the country; lie is the person who will contribute to this payment whish you want to secure to the tenant-farmer. I should like to know the grounds of the contention which the right hon. Gentleman had made that there are no lands in this country upon which it will be possible to raise rent. He must have studied the volumes of the Agricultural Commission very little; he must know very little of the map prepared in the Agricultural Department——
  MR. CHAPLIN: No map has been circulated by the Agricultural Commission.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: By the Department of Agriculture. I know how the Agricultural Commission have dealt with that map, but I am speaking of the map prepared in the Agricultural Department.
  MR. CHAPLIN: For whom?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: In order to be presented to Parliament for the public. [Cheers.] The Royal Commission on Agriculture has endeavoured to keep that map back; they will not succeed. [Cheers.] The map has been prepared at the public expense by the Agricultural Department, and the public shall have it.
  MR. CHAPLIN: They shall, with the circumstances in which it was published.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: We will reserve that for another occasion. There is in this country a large amount of land upon which it is perfectly easy to raise rents, and upon which rents have been raised within the last few years. [Cheers.] That is a fact upon which I will pledge my responsibility against that of the right hon. Gentleman. It is notorious that there are thousands of acres on which rents can be raised—lands in the neighbourhood of towns for
  1732
  example. If there be such land, why should occupiers not have this protection? We have given protection to the Irish tenant against the raising of rent upon the improvements, but this Amendment is to prevent the rents from being raised on public doles. [Cheers.] Depend upon it the taxpayers are not going to accept the kind of answer given by the right hon. Gentleman. The object of the Amendment and the effect of it will be to prevent the rents of the country from being raised in consequence of a contribution out of public taxation on the occupiers and tenants. Hon. Members may vote against it to-night, but it will be understood to-morrow what they have been doing, and the principle upon which they have been acting. Why is it that this Bill is confined to five years? Because it is known that, unless you have a regular re-settlement of the system of rating in this country, the Bill will be most unfair and unjust in its operation. The Amendment is designed to prevent that injustice, and we ought to have, and the country will expect to have, a very different answer from that given by the right hon. Gentleman. [Cheers.]
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid that the Amendment was intended to prevent rents from being raised after the passing of the Bill. But it might be the end of an improving lease, or a new house had been built on the premises; and yet the rent was not to be raised, according to hon. Members opposite, on the exclusive advantages of this Bill. It seemed to him that the Amendment had been drawn in such a way that it could not possibly have the effect designed, and therefore he hoped that the Government would resist it.
  MR. G. LAMBERTmaintained that the old tenants had been suffering for a long time, paying rent out of capital in hundreds of instances. He defied the right hon. Gentleman to deny this from the evidence given before the Royal Commission. He was prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman on the merits of this Amendment, on any platform he chose to name. When he heard the right hon. Gentleman speak about "uncalled-for Amendments'' he believed that there was something in them, as the same epithet was applied to a Bill he introduced which

  1733
  obtained a very large measure of support from tenant farmers. He would like to know how the labourer would get the benefit of this Bill in a case where the tenant-farmer was receiving an abatement of rent and the landlord withdrew it on account of this Measure. If the labourer was to get the benefit, then give relief to the tenant-farmer, who would be able to employ more labourers, and be able to better cultivate the holding. If the absentee landlord, on the other hand, received the benefit, then the money would simply be spent elsewhere, and the small shopkeeper, the artisan, the labourer, and the rural community generally would not benefit in the least degree. This Amendment was designed to test the sincerity of hon. Members opposite towards the tenant-farmer. He maintained, too, that it was the old tenants who ought to get the benefit. They were undoubtedly paying rent out of capital, and their rents were being screwed up to the utmost possible pitch. He knew of cases where landlords had refused to let their farms until they had seen what benefit would accrue to the land from this Bill, and where other landlords had refused to enter into fresh arrangements or give the same reductions next year as they had given this, because, they said, the tenants would get so much abatement under this Bill. The acceptance of this Amendment would enormously increase any benefit that might accrue from this Bill in the agricultural districts.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH, dealing with a statement of the President of the Local Government Board, that in 99 cases out of 100, a change of tenancy was accompanied by a considerable fall in rent, asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in two Welsh counties, Breconshire and Cardigan, rents had advanced by thousands of pounds in the last five years. It was said that those who supported the Amendment were conferring post hoc and propter hoc. Not at all; they only said that when the rates payable in respect of agricultural property were lowered, the tendency was that rents would increase. In fact the right hon. Gentleman in other days admitted that rents and rates increased and decreased with one another. If this was a Bill for the relief of agricultural depression in the
  1734
  sense of relieving the farmers, what harm could this Amendment do? Either rents would be raised or they would not. If they would be raised, were they not entitled to say that the landlord was getting direct relief under the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman and his advisers told them that the landlord would not get any relief. Therefore, presumably, rents would not be raised. If so, then the Amendment would not apply, and therefore no harm would be done.
  MAJOR RASCHobserved that surely it must occur to the intelligence of hon. Gentlemen opposite that where land was going out of cultivation by miles, it was absolutely impossible to raise rents. The right hon. Member for Monmouth said how was it possible that the Bill was going to do any good to the labourers? The reason was plain and obvious. Why had labourers wages gone down? Of course it was because of agricultural depression. What had caused agricultural depression? Low prices and high taxes. That being so, surely the relief given by this Bill would enable the farmer to pay the labourers better wages than before. He had always considered a division of rates was the corollary of this Bill, but as this was simply a question of raising the rent, and as raising the rent was an impossibility, he should vote against the Amendment with a light heart.
  MR. LEWISsaid the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Rasch) had committed the fallacy of arguing from the particular to the general. He only spoke of facts within his own knowledge, but in some parts of the country, so far from land going out of cultivation, higher rent was being exacted for it. In 1814, the rents in Breconshire were £143,000, in 1842 they had gone down to £139,000, in 1889, they had risen to £190,000, and in 1894–5 this figure went up to £192,000.
  MR. CHAPLIN: What are they now?
  MR. LEWIS: I have given the latest figures.
  MR. R. A. YERBURGH: Can the hon. Member state how much is spent upon improvements?
  MR. LEWIS: It is upon the same basis in 1890 as in 1895. In Cardiganshire, again, rents showed a corresponding increase, and therefore there was absolutely nothing in the contention of

  1735
  the hon. Gentleman that there were no lands on which it would be possible to raise the rent.
  MR. DALZIELhad no doubt that in Essex, as they had been told, there were farms without tenants, but the House had to deal with cases where there were many persons anxious to get a particular farm. He knew of many instances in Scotland in which persons were prepared to give 20 and 30 per cent. more rent for farms than was now being paid. The whole point of the supporters of the Amendment was that rent was largely determined by the circumstances of taxation. If hon. Gentlemen had any doubt on the subject he referred them to the letter in the Daily News from a farmer who had received from his landlord a notice that in consequence of this Bill he was going to make an important revision in the rent of the farm. If a higher authority were wanted, they had it in the words of the Colonial Secretary, who in 1886 said he did not doubt for a moment that when rents were settled the question of taxation was taken into account, and to some extent affected by the amount of rent.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid there was a way in which the objection of the hon. Member for Thirsk could be at once met. There was already a provision in the Bill for separating the value of the holdings from the value of the land. If the two were separated for rateable purposes, they could be equally well separated for rental purposes. No valid argument had been advanced against the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had said the farmers who knew their own business liked the Bill. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that they liked this Amendment just as much as they liked the Bill.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid that up to the present no sufficient answer had been given to the Amendment. Then could be no objection to the Amendment from the point of view of the promoter of the Bill, because its adoption would
  1736
  not alter the Bill in any particular. The only effect the Amendment would have would be to secure that the 1s. per acre, or whatever the amount of the relief was, would go direct to the tenant-farmer and should not be taken away from him. The right hon. Gentleman said it was a bad time for raising rent. It might be a bad time to do that in certain parts of England, but there were portions of the country where it was a very good time to do it. There were 103 Unions where agricultural land had gone up in value. He knew scores of instances in which land was fetching a better rent than it did in 1870. ["Oh!"] The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that there was a competition for farms in some places. Wherever there was such a competition there was every inducement for landlords to take the 1s. per acre. If this experiment was being made for the benefit of agriculture, and if it was for a limited time it was well all the benefit should go to the industrial people, to the people actually engaged in the cultivation of the land. There were 125 unions in the country out of some 600 where the rent had been reduced since 1870, 10 per cent, or under, and in those cases the landlord might be induced to say that as the tenant was getting 10 per cent, benefit out of the Rating Bill, he could not allow the reduction any longer. ["Hear, hear!" and Ministerial laughter.] In those districts agriculture was not in a depressed condition, and there were no miles of land out of cultivation as had been stated by the hon. and gallant Member for East Essex was the fact in his part of the country. What he and other hon. Members desired was to insure that the cultivating occupier of the land should receive the benefit granted by the Bill, in order that he might be able to improve the cultivation of the soil, and, if possible, increase the earnings of the labourer. ["Hear, hear!"] In cases where there was no opportunity of raising rents, the Amendment could do no

  1737
  harm, while in those cases in which there might be such opportunity it would secure the benefit to those who actually cultivated the land. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. C. A. CRIPPS, in supporting the Amendment, said the hon. Gentleman opposite had confused two matters that were quite distinct—the point of the nature of the reform of local taxation as proposed by the Bill, and the point as to who would get the relief to be granted under the Bill if that reform was carried out. As regarded the first point—namely, the reform of local taxation, it was obvious that any such proposal as was made in the Amendment would be illogical and improper if the subject matter was considered. The basis of the Bill was that land, or the agricultural industry, was unfairly treated in the matter of taxation at the present time. If that were true, and it was generally admitted, there could not be any such discrimination in regard to the conditions of the land in different districts, as it was proposed to make in this and other Amendments of a similar character on the Paper. If they were dealing, for instance, with unfair taxation in relation to any other industry—the coal or the tin industry—they could not discriminate in particular cases as regarded the rent paid, or whether it was raised or not. Similarly, they could make no discrimination of the kind in relation to land. They were dealing with land as a whole, and if it was unfairly taxed at the present time all land ought to be relieved, whether it was prosperous or not, or whatever the rent might be. ["Hear, hear!"] The second point—namely, who would get the relief given by the Bill, was distinct from the question of the reform of local taxation. He regarded the Bill, indeed, as a first step in the reform of local taxation, and he hoped and believed that after this Measure had passed the work would be carried on and applied to the urban districts. ["Hear, hear!"] He believed that in the vast majority of cases the
  1738
  tenant farmer would get the benefit of the relief granted. There were some cases in which the labourer would get it, through land being thus kept in cultivation; in some instances, probably, the landlord would get the benefit, and he ought to get it. It surely could be no objection to a Bill in which they were dealing with the reform of local taxation that the landlord should get a portion of the benefit of that reform. ["Hear, hear!"] He contended, therefore, in the first place, that the discrimination in regard to the land proposed to be made by this and other Amendments could not be accepted, because it would destroy the principle of the Bill; and, in the second place, that the great bulk of the benefit to be conferred by the Bill would go to the tenant farmers. In those circumstances he should vote against the Amendment.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken had simply repeated the speech he made in Committee on the Bill. He had said, he did not know, with how much knowledge, that the object of the Bill was the reform of local taxation. But in the Queen's Speech the object of the Bill was declared to be, not the reform of local taxation at all, but for the relief of agricultural depression; and for any hon. Member opposite to come forward now and assert that the purpose of the Measure was the reform of local taxation, was to reduce the proceedings of the House on the Bill to absurdity. [Cheers.] His interest in the Bill was that of a Scotch Member who was much afraid that, in the circumstances in which they were placed, Scotland would have only the alternative of robbery to face in this matter. It was quite possible that in the present state of business they would get none of the corresponding grant which was promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that speech which was the basis and root of this Bill. The other alternative was that they might have a Bill such as this.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not relevant to the Amendment.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid he hoped it was in order to say that he resisted the principle of the Bill, which was attacked by this Amendment for fear it should be carried in the corresponding legislation for Scotland. He asked the House whether there could be any confusion in this case. Supposing the State gave 2s. 6d. an acre in relief of rates, and supposing that was followed by 2s. 6d. an acre increase in rent, were they not justified in saying that it was on account of the relief in rates that the increase in rent took place? In such a case as that the whole of the relief in rates would go into the pocket of the landlord. They thought that relief to the extent of £2,000,000 a year, which if capitalised meant more than £100,000,000, should not go into the pockets of the owners of land. They proposed by this Amendment to take care that, whoever else got the relief, the landlords should not get it, but that it should be the struggling tenant. He asked the Government to accept the Amendment, which would have the effect of preventing the landlord, by making an increase of rent, from pocketing this enormous subsidy from the resources of the nation.
  MR. GEORGE HARWOODthanked the hon. Member for Stroud for his fairness in stating that the object of the Bill was the relief of the taxation on land. He ventured to say, however, that it was not so understood in the country. It was understood in the country as a Bill to attempt to relieve the distress in agriculture. He thought the Bill ought to be put before the country honestly. If it was meant to relieve agricultural distress, let that be understood. If it was meant to readjust the taxation on land, let that be frankly stated, but to move from the one to the other seemed to be inconsistent with a great Party like the Conservative Party. He would like to say to the hon. Member for Essex that that county was
  1740
  always trotted out whenever the question of distressed agriculture was raised in this House, as though it was a fair sample of the state of the country in general. He ventured to say it was not so, and if the House was going to be guided by Essex as to what ought to be done to relieve agriculture throughout the country, they were going to make a great and costly mistake. The distress of agriculture did not arise merely from low prices or high rating. It arose from the fact, which had been most conspicuous in the county of Essex, that for years and years the land had been bled by the landowners. It had not been properly fed, and it was now running about after tenants to feed it, in order to make it worth while anyone holding it. Mention had been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite of the division of landlords into good and bad landlords, and it had been suggested that good landlords would not raise their rents under any circumstances. It was not really a question of good landlords or bad landlords. It was a question of the ordinary play of the common laws of political economy. The largest portion of the agricultural land was not let by landlords personally, but by a steward, who was, generally, a man who did for one's own benefit that which one could not for shame do for oneself. It was not a question of landlords living in England. He could cite instances of many landlords who had admirable reputations personally, but whose affairs were administered in as keen-fisted a spirit as the affairs of the keenest man in the country. The idea of representing that rents were fixed in an arcadian manner, with a jolly landlord slapping on the back a jolly tenant, was all nonsense. Therefore, they had got to look at how these things would settle themselve by the ordinary laws of political economy, and he said that the laws of political economy would make it necessary, whatever their wishes might be, that the benefit of this Measure would

  1741
  ultimately go into the pockets of the owners of the land. It was asked, would they raise their rents? There was a kind of quibble in that expression. They would not raise their rents, possibly, but it must be remembered that a large portion of the land of England was at present held under an absurd and un-businesslike tenure. That was to say, landlords had not brought their rents to a business level, but had gone on giving remissions. What would they do now? They would not raise their rents, but they would give less remissions, which meant the same thing. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Divide."] He stood there on behalf of a large population, and, as they had got to pay the piper, they had some right to say what the tune should be. In the division between the landlord and the farmer, the agricultural labourer was supposed to benefit by the prosperity of the farmer, but figures did not bear out that contention, for in past days, when the farmers and landlords had been most prosperous, the agricultural labourer had been having much lower wages than now. Unless some Amendment of this kind were carried, some such result would occur as he saw illustrated by a scene he witnessed in a pantomime. A clown and pantaloon had robbed a fish shop, and they were dividing the plunder, as the landlord and tenant were supposed to be dividing the plunder here. The clown said to the pantaloon, as the Government said to the landlord and farmer, "there is one for you, and one for me," taking to himself a salmon, and giving the pantaloon a sprat. Then he said, "there is another for you, and another for me,'' giving himself another salmon, and the pantaloon another sprat. The result was that the clown required a handcart in order to take his share away, but the pantaloon took his away in his pocket. It was because he desired that the farmer should have his fair share of the salmon that he should vote for this Amendment.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYappealed to the House to bring this discussion to a close. The general principles which appeared to guide hon. Gentlemen had been discussed over and over again, and it was quite evident they could not come to an agreement. Let it then be understood on the other side of the House that landlords were all grasping individuals, that there was very little agricultural distress, and that the sole object of the Government in bringing in the Bill was to give a certain amount of money to the owners of real property. [Laughter.] Let them argue these questions no longer, but each side go away with their own opinions. ["Hear, hear!"] But after all, even if those opinions were as sound as hon. Gentlemen opposite believed them to be, they would not justify this Amendment, which would be as utterly devoid of any solid foundation as any Amendment that ever was suggested. ["Hear, hear!"] It was easy to see that on any principles the Amendment was inadmissible. If rents were to continue to fall, the Amendment would not carry out the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, because rents that would fall irrespective of this Bill would, on their own hypothesis, not fall so much after the passing of the Bill, as the landlord, according to them, would take the whole amount which was now going to give relief to the rates. It was clear, therefore, the Amendment, in a falling market, would fail to carry out the object with which it was proposed. On the other hand, every means which made it impossible for any landlord to improve his land, and by doing so make it earn a legitimate rent, should be opposed by the House of Commons. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is limited to five years."] Were they to be told that the House of Commons was for five years going to announce to every owner of property in the country that, if he was fool enough to improve the value of his land, he was to be mulcted by the

  1743
  House of Commons? [Cheers.] Whatever views hon. Gentlemen took of the incidence of the rates and the wickedness of landlords, he begged of them, at all events, not to press further the discussion of an Amendment which did not carry out its own object in a falling market, and which would entirely put a stop to every kind of improvement of land by the owners of that land.
  MR. LUTTRELLsaid the object of the Amendment was to secure to the tenant the benefit which the Bill proposed to give. There were very good landlords, but there were also bad landlords, and what it was desired to do was to prevent the bad landlords reaping the advantage of this Bill by taking unto themselves the benefits which were intended to be given to the occupiers of the land. It was not a question of raising of rents because of the increase of the value of land; it was a question of raising of rents because of the lowering of taxes upon land, and he declared there would be held out a great temptation, nay, a direct incentive and inducement, to bad landowners to raise their rents in order that they might get unto themselves the benefits it was proposed to give to depressed agriculture. Then as to good landlords—of which he was glad to say there were many. Take a case of re-valuation, the valuer would be bound to take into consideration the reduction of rates in making a new valuation. He was informed that the Duke of Bedford—than whom there was no better country landlord—was going to have a re-valuation of his Devonshire property. The Duke would ask the valuer to value the land fairly, and this gentleman must take into consideration in making such re-valuation the fact that the Government proposed to pass a Measure which would very largely relieve those who were interested in agriculture and the rents would be raised in accordance with the amount of money it was proposed to give. That was a point which had not been answered from the
  1744
  Government Bench. The Amendment was designed to prevent such a state of things and to insure to the tenant farmer the relief to which he was entitled.
  Question put, ''That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 102; Noes, 216.—(Division List, No. 261.)
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH moved after the word "England," to insert the words—
  ''who at the period to which any rate relates is not entitled to deduct the rate to which this Act applies or any part thereof from the rent, dues, or consideration payable in respect thereof.
  standing on the Paper in the name of Mr. HARRISON (Plymouth), the effect of which was to provide that, where the tenant deducted the rates from the rent, there should be no deduction from the rates under this Act. This Amendment, he said, would again test the sincerity of the Government on the question whether the Bill was for the relief of landlords or of tenants; and he asked that the Amendment might be considered in a friendly and sympathetic spirit.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid the Amendment seemed to raise in another form a point settled by the last Division. There might be cases in which a tenant deducted the rates from the rent, but the instances were extremely rare and exceptional. There would be difficulty in giving effect to the Amendment. How was it to be ascertained by the overseer whether the tenant deducted the rates or not? A tenant who was permitted to deduct the rates was not in the same position as one who paid them himself. If he required further relief it was always open to him to go to the landlord and ask for a reduction of rent; and in the majority of cases landlords might be trusted to give the relief which was right and necessary. In these cases the tenant had no claim to relief, and for that reason he could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREsaid he had listened to the arguments for and against the Amendment with a perfectly open mind. He always voted on an Amendment entirely according to its merits. As he listened to his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, he thought a good case had been made out in its favour, but, with his mind still open, he waited to see whether the President of the Local Government Board would produce any arguments that would shake his confidence in the wisdom of his hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman had not done so. The right hon. Gentleman practically admitted that the Amendment was a good one, but that the cases to which it applied were so rare that it was not worth while inserting the words in the Bill. He could not admit the force of such an argument. If an injustice existed in one case—the case of the humblest and poorest person in the country—it ought to be remedied. The right hon. Gentleman also admitted that the clause, as it stood, would benefit some landlords. [Laughter.] They had been told again and again that the object of the Bill was not in the main to benefit the landlords, but to benefit the tenants. Here was a test case in which it was admitted that the tenants would not benefit by the Bill, and yet the right hon. Gentleman refused to extend the scope of the Bill so as to include them. The right hon. Gentleman said further that it would be difficult to distinguish in a parish whether the landlord paid the rates or whether the tenant paid the rates. Surely the overseer would know. The very fact of the rarity of the cases would lead the overseer to know them. But a still more extraordinary argument was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that he could not accept this fair and reasonable proposal because, forsooth, if any injustice was done to a tenant he could go to the landlord and get a reduction of rent. Every tenant would go to the landlord for a reduction
  1746
  of rent if he thought he would get it. They all knew perfectly well that in all cases tenants were charged too much rent. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] That shout showed that there was a landlord majority on that side of the House. Why, then, bring in this Bill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): It has nothing to do with rent.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman's remarks are hardly relevant to the Amendment. [Laughter.]
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. It was the interruption of an hon. Member opposite that led me astray. [Laughter.] I have only to say that I hope the arguments on the Amendment will be thoroughly threshed out.
  MR. LEWISsaid he regretted that the hon. Member who had drafted the Amendment was unavoidably absent, but as the hon. Member was one of the greatest rating authorities in the country, he was sure the House would treat the Amendment with the respect it deserved. Unless the Amendment were accepted, the landlord in a number of cases must absolutely benefit. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had said he had not the slightest doubt that the relief given by the Bill would go wholly to the tenant. It was to make the Bill square with that declaration that the Amendment had been moved. The fate of the Amendment would be the touchstone of the sincerity of the Government in regard to their expressed desire that the whole of the relief should go to the tenant. In the cases affected by the Amendment the whole of the relief would go entirely into the pockets of the landlord.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid it was somewhat difficult to understand the principle of the Amendment. It was one of those abstruse Amendments which required a good deal of debate. In the last Amendment they were

  1747
  deavouring to secure that under no circumstances should the tenant be deprived of the benefit of the Bill. There were some cases in which the benefit would not go to the tenant, because he had been relieved by contract from paying rates. In such cases the landlord would get the relief which it was most desirable should go to the cultivating tenant. It would then be put into the soil or be the means of employing more labour. If there was one person who more than another had felt the distress and been crippled and half starved by the fall in prices, it was the cultivating tenant. He admitted the Amendment was difficult to understand, but it might be put into such a form as would force the landlord to give the benefit under the Bill to the tenant. He should support the Amendment as a protest against the money being paid into the pocket of the man who did not cultivate the soil.
  Question put, ''That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 97; Noes, 222.—(Division List, No. 262.)
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid there was an Amendment standing in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth which he desired to move.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsubmitted that, having regard to the definition clause of this Act, this Amendment was not in order. If carried, the Amendment would not alter the Bill in the slightest degree.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid there was then all the more reason for moving it. As a friendly matter, he had no doubt his hon. Friend would vote for the Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he thought the objection held good.
  MR. STUART MR. STUART rose to move an Amendment which stood in his name, the object of which, he said, was to omit from the operation of the Act those agricultural lands that are situate within the limit of a borough, or a county borough.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out to the hon. Member that this Amendment and the two next Amendments on the Paper related to the same subject. The first proposed to exclude boroughs, the second
  1748
  the metropolitan district, the third urban sanitary districts. He thought the convenient course would be to put certain words only which were common to all three, and therefore he would call on the hon. Member to move his first Amendment, but the question he should put to the House would be that the words ''not being situate in" be inserted. If those words were accepted other words might be added to them.
  MR. DALZIELasked if the House would be giving a proper expression of its opinion, having regard to the fact that the urban sanitary authority was distinct from the borough?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he thought the hon. Member hardly followed what he had said. That proposition could be argued upon the question put, and if the House decided the question in the negative it would mean that the House did not desire to accept any of those Amendments. If in the affirmative, each hon. Member could endeavour to add his own words.
  MR. STUART MR. STUART moved after the word "England," to insert the words "not being situate in a borough or a county borough," upon which Mr. Speaker put the question ''that the words 'not being situate in' be inserted." When they were discussing this matter in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill, at the end of the long sitting held out the expectation that he would consider this question with regard to land situated in the neighbourhood of large towns, to see whether it was not possible to exclude them from the operation of the Bill. He had no desire to press the point too far, but the impression that the right hon. Gentleman's language left upon his mind was, that at all events he would consider the matter. He now asked the right hon. Gentleman not only to consider the subject, but to consider it favourably. He should like to point out to hon. Members on both sides of the House that his Amendment would not in any way interfere with the principle of the Bill, and that there would be no difficulty in carrying it out. He proposed to limit the operation of his Amendment to those special centres or districts in which without doubt agricultural distress in its ordinary sense did not exist, that was to say to agricultural land in boroughs

  1749
  and county boroughs and in the Metropolitan Police District. He proposed by his Amendment to deal with such agricultural land as was used for market gardens and orchards in the neighbourhood of large towns. Take, for instance, the case of Nottingham, although there were very few of our large towns in the neighbourhood of which large portions of agricultural land were not used for market gardens. This land was highly rated, and was most productive, and realised large rentals. It could not be said that such land was subject to agricultural depression. The Bill proposed to give relief in accordance to the amount of the rates. But wherever land had suffered from agricultural depression, the rates were low, and wherever it had not suffered from such depression the rates were high. In the neighbourhood of Norwich, where the land was used for the purpose of growing cucumbers, the rates were high, and they sometimes amounted to several shillings in the pound. Could it be said that such land was subject to agricultural depression? Taking the case of the Metropolitan Police District, there was a large amount of agricultural land in the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, and Hertford which was highly rated. The occupiers of such land, however, were in the immediate neighbourhood of the London markets, and obtained the best prices for their produce. He found that the rateable value of such land amounted to £800,000 per annum, and taking the average rates at 5s. in the pound, that would give a total rate of £200,000 per annum. If the Bill applied to that land, the relief given within the Metropolitan Police District would amount to £100,000 per annum. In his opinion that sum ought not to be given in relief to such land, but should be distributed over distressed land. He thought he had made out a very reasonable case for dealing with and separating these particular areas. There would be no difficulty in discriminating in these cases, because the dividing line could be actually drawn on the map, and was not a fantastic line in any sense whatever. He therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman and the House to amend and improve the Bill in this direction. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman on the ground that he undertook to consider the matters which bore
  1750
  on this important Amendment. If the Amendment were adopted it would undoubtedly greatly improve the Measure.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he quite appreciated the spirit and the tone in which the hon. Gentleman had moved the Amendment. It was perfectly true that when this matter was being discussed in the early hours of a certain Friday morning, he did undertake to consider it before Report; but what he said on that occasion was that he could not accept the Amendment in its then form and could not give any undertaking that he would be able to do so at a later stage; but that he would be ready to consider the question before the Report stage and examine it again. He did not, however, wish to be understood as giving any kind of pledge on the subject. All he could now say was that he had considered the matter, and he would tell the House the conclusion to which he had come. The hon. Member had stated—and it was quite true—that within these boroughs there was some agricultural land used for market garden purposes, and that those who cultivated it were exceedingly prosperous. The hon. Member then stated that the rates in these localities were very high, and gave that as a reason for accepting this Amendment. There was a matter which appeared to have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention altogether, and that was that there was a great deal of land in many of these boroughs of another description, which was used in the ordinary course of agricultural cultivation. He had obtained some figures from which it appeared that in one borough there were 20,420 acres of agricultural land, in another 17,608 acres, in a third 12,828, in a fourth 12,015, in a fifth 8,728, in a sixth 8,908, in a seventh 6,750, and in an eighth 7,096, and so on. The hon. Member also referred to the Metropolitan Police District, in which he said the whole of the counties of London and Middlesex were included and parts of Surrey, Kent, Essex, and nearly the whole of Hertfordshire.
  MR. STUARTexplained that the Metropolitan Police District extended 15 miles from Charing Cross, and that only a part of Hertfordshire was included.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that the Amendment would exclude thousands of acres of agricultural land from all participation in the relief conferred by the Bill, although that land was as much entitled to such relief as other parts of the country. Within 15 miles of London there were places in Essex, Hertfordshire, and Surrey, where the agricultural depression was as severe as in any part of England. He had received a great number of representations entreating him under no circumstances to accept the Amendment, and he did not see how he could ask the House to support a proposal which would certainly create a fresh anomaly. For these reasons he must oppose the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. MUNDELLAsaid that since the discussion in Committee, when he moved the Amendment which had been referred to, he had conferred with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, and they had come to the conclusion that what might be done with advantage was to fix a population limit, say 10,000. Land within the limits of boroughs having a population of 10,000 would then be excluded from the scope of the Bill. He would again draw attention to the state of things in the borough which he represented. The total area of the city was 19,000 acres, of which 10,000 or 12,000 acres were so-called agricultural land. The rates paid by the constituency generally amounted to something like 8s. in the pound. The right hon. Gentleman opposite proposed that these 10,000 or 12,000 acres of agricultural land, which was practically accommodation land paying rent of from £2 to £4 an acre, should be relieved in respect of half the rates. But could this be called a case of agricultural depression, and were the owners of the land entitled to the relief which the Bill would give? There was, of course, no agricultural depression here, and it would be absurd to extend the relief given by the Bill to the owners of this land, the chief of whom, if indeed he was not the exclusive owner, was a noble Duke who was a Member of the Government. This land was steadily increasing in value, and much of it would be eventually be built upon.
  1752
  To speak of relieving the owner of this beneficial property of half the rates on land realising from £2 to £4 per acre, land which was coming into use as valuable building land, was monstrous, and that those engaged in industry should contribute to such a relief as this. The right hon. Gentleman, he was sure, had not given the matter all the consideration he ought to have devoted to the subject.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYhoped that the House would not be misled by the pretended object lesson of so called agricultural lands in the borough of Sheffield. Those lands lay in the division he represented, and not in the right hon. Gentleman's.
  MR. MUNDELLA: They lie as much in mine as in yours.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid the area was that which lay between the inhabited part of the borough and the county boundary. Relief was not going to be given, as might be inferred from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, out of the pockets of the rest of his constituents; it was coming from other sources. He did not suppose that a man in Sheffield imagined that the Duke of Norfolk would get a shilling out of this Bill. When he passed round among the farmers in this area, he did not see that they appeared to be of that substantial kind which was seen in the Lothians of Scotland and other prosperous districts.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEYmaintained that it was a gross injustice to include an acre of land in the neighbourhood of populous towns that was not suffering from agricultural distress. It was said that within 16 miles of the Metropolis there was a great amount of agricultural distress. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman had not an intimate knowledge of the Metropolitan district; he, on the other hand, knew it well, and he asserted that there was no agricultural distress in the Metropolitan district; Take Kingston-on-Thames, Wimbledon, Richmond, Romford, Watford, or Chislehurst.
  And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R, W. HANBURY,)THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R, W. HANBURY, Preston) moved the Second Reading of the Friendly Societies Bill—a Measure which, he said, had been unanimously approved by the conference of friendly societies, together with a strong expression, that it might be allowed to pass this Session. It was entirely and wholly a consolidation Bill, and there was nothing in it altering the existing law. A Bill to consolidate the Friendly Societies Acts was badly needed. ["Hear, hear!"] Nearly eight millions of members of the friendly and collecting societies were affected by this Bill and the next Bill on the Paper (the Collecting Societies Bill). The Bills, in their different clauses, followed a much more logical order, and made it more easy for the members to know the particular points affecting them. The law relating to the two societies was dealt with in different Bills. As everybody knew, there was a broad distinction between the friendly and the collecting societies. To take only one point which occurred to him, the amount of capital belonging to each member in the case of the collecting societies only amounted to 14s. a head on the average, while in the case of the friendly societies it was more than £5. It would be extremely useful that the confusion existing between the two societies should be put an end to, and the law with regard to them made distinct.
  Read a Second time, and committed to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision, Etc., Bills.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Mr. Hanbury.)

  COLLECTING SOCIETIES BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision, Etc., Bills.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Mr. Hanbury.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  EDINBURGH GENERAL REGISTER HOUSE (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) RE-COMMITTED BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [15th May] further adjourned till Thursday.
  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  SHORT TITLES BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (WHIPPING) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  FINANCE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUA- TION BILL.
  Consideration, as amended by the Standing Committee, deferred till Tuesday next.

  CHAIRMEN OF DISTRICT COUNCILS BILL.
  Considered in Committee:—
  Clause 1,—
  Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  MERCHANT SEAMEN (EMPLOYMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Friday.
  SMALL LOANS (INTEREST) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  LONDON VALUATION AND ASSESSMENT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  BATHS AND WASHHOUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  TOWNS IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  House adjourned at a Quarter after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  FALMOUTH RECTORY BILL.
  Read 2a.
  LAMBETH WATER BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next—(The Lord Privy seal)—(No. 162.)
  COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed for the use of the Members of this House; but no copies thereof to be delivered, except to Members of the Committee, and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order.—(No. 160.)
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SEWERS AND DRAINS) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments. The Report of the Amendment made in Committee of the Whole House and the Amendments made by the Standing Committee to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended.—(No. 161.)
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order).

  DIVORCE AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a(according to Order).
  Clause 1,—
  "No marriage of any person whose former marriage shall have been dissolved on the ground of his or her adultery or crime, and whose former husband or wife, as the case may be, is living, shall be solemnised in any church or chapel of the Church of England."
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK moved, after the words "Church of England," to insert the words:—
  "And any person knowingly solemnising, or being a party to such a marriage, contrary to the provisions of this Act, shall forfeit and pay a penalty of one hundred pounds."
  His Grace said that without these words the Bill would be merely prohibitory, and the penalty now proposed to be inflicted was not for solemnising such a marriage, but for making use of the buildings of the Church for that purpose. Originally it was proposed that a marriage celebrated under such circumstances should be null and void, but this penalty was thought to be too severe and not altogether appropriate, as the injury would fall ultimately on the children of the marriage, and that provision was dropped.
  Amendment agreed to; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY (TRANSFER OF PATRONAGE) BILL.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR)in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that its object was to transfer the right of patronage to the Chair of Natural History in the University of Edinburgh, which was now exercised by the Crown, to the curators of patronage in the University, and in exchange to transfer to the Crown the right of patronage to the chair of botany, which was now vested in the curators. It was usual that with the chair of botany the professor should hold the office of curator of the Botanical Gardens, an office which was in the patronage of her Majesty, and unless arrangements were made between the appointing parties considerable inconvenience would ensue. It was in the interest of the school of botany that the same person should hold both offices, and with a view to facilitate this a departmental Committee had recommended that the transfer proposed should take place, and the proposal had been agreed to by Her Majesty, the Treasury, and all others who were interested. It was discovered after arrangements had been made that the arrangement could not be given effect to without legislation because the curators of patronage could not transfer their patronage without the consent of Parliament. Under these circumstances he hoped their Lordships would agree to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS) moved that this Bill be read a Third time.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  BOYNE NAVIGATION TRANSFER BILL.
  THE EARL OF RANFURLY,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that its object was the amalgamation of the two existing schemes so that the navigations may be carried on by one company. The second scheme, consisting of 5½ miles of navigation, belonged to the Boyne Navigation Company, which was almost, if not absolutely, bankrupt, and was unable to take over the working of the whole of this river. The second portion consisted of 12½ miles of navigation. The Board of Works had managed to arrange with the Drogheda Steamship Company, and many of the leading tradesmen of Drogheda, to form a company which should take over these two navigations in consideration of the sum of about £3,000. The Bill contained very few clauses, which were more or less of the same kind as those in other Bills of this nature.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid he did not see the necessity of Clause 7. He should like in Committee to move an Amendment to define more clearly the channel in which a barge was to go, as works might be carried out which would do away with the salmon spawning beds which were in the river.
  THE EARL OF RANFURLYsaid it was only proposed to keep the navigation at the same depth that it had been kept at for a number of years, and he could not see how it affected the spawning grounds.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a Quarter past Ten o'clock.