Sitting of 23 March 1897

THOMPSON'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be Read the Third time.

METROPOLITAN AND OTHER POLICE COURTS BILL.
Second Reading deferred from this day till Monday next.
QUESTIONS.

  SHUTTLE GUARDS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case at Blackburn County Court, in which William Guest sued for compensation for the death of his wife, alleged to have been caused by a shuttle flying, and in which the Judge nonsuited the plaintiff, and stated that there was no legal evidence that the particular loom was dangerous; and, whether there is any ground for the distinction drawn among shuttles employed in cotton manufacture, by which some are held to be dangerous machinery and others not?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): My attention has been called to this case. So far as can be judged from the newspaper reports, the Judge nonsuited the plaintiff on the ground that no evidence was produced either that the loom at which the plaintiff's wife was working was dangerous, or that she had been struck by a shuttle at all. His decision appears to me to decide nothing except as to the manner in which this particular case was

  1171
  presented to him; but, no doubt, the danger from unguarded looms varies greatly in degree according to the speed and other conditions.

  MADAGASCAR.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether his attention has been called to the increasing persecution of the native Protestants in Madagascar, at the instance of French Jesuits; (2) whether many churches and schools, built by Protestants for Protestant use, have been forcibly taken from them and given to Roman Catholics; (3) whether the Queen has recently been deported from Madagascar to the Isle of Bourbon because she would not abjure the Protestant faith; and (4) whether these acts are in contravention of the solemn assurances given to this country at the time the French occupation took place?
  MR. MICHAEL DAVITTsaid that, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, he wished to ask whether the alleged persecutions were due to the fact that there had been a war in the island, and not to a spirit of religious animosity?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): No doubt there has been some excitement owing to the war in the island, but I should have thought that the war was at a sufficiently remote date to have allowed such feelings to have subsided. In answer to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the complaints made by the Protestants in Madagascar, though we have at present received no official confirmation of the statement contained in the second paragraph of the Question. The entire subject, which is one of much importance, is engaging the attention of Her Majesty's Government, who, as I have previously informed the House, have addressed representations to the French Government on the matter. The grounds upon which the Queen has been deported from Madagascar have not been reported to us, and if I may judge from the recent Debate in the French Senate, are not as yet known in France.

  BOARD SCHOOLS (SPECIFIC SUBJECTS).
  MR. W.E.T. SHARPE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether similar figures to those for the Board Schools throughout England and Wales, given in the last Report of the Committee of Council, Table No. 9, pp. 612–615, on the number of scholars who in each year proceed to the third stage in specific subjects, are published for the London Board Schools; and, if not, whether the Vice President would have a Return made for the last five years, and a similar one given in future annexed to the Annual Reports of the Committee of Council?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): I do not think it would be possible to give in the Annual Report the Return asked for in respect of any individual School Board, but I can give the hon. Member the figures for the London School Board for the last five years, if he wishes.

PARCEL TRAFFIC (ENGLAND AND AMERICA).
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the London and South Western Railway is endeavouring to divert trade from British steamship lines to the American flag, by widely advertising at every station that the American Government carries parcels from this country to America at preferential rates if under the American flag; and, having regard to the depressed condition of the national shipping industry, if Her Majesty's Government will give like advantages to the Union Jack over the Stars and Stripes?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General is not aware of any advertisements of the London and South Western Railway Company notifying that the American Government carries parcels from this country to America at differential rates or otherwise. Such a statement would be untrue, as neither the American Post Office nor any other department of the American Government maintains any service for the conveyance of parcels to and from this country. It is understood that facilities for Customs

1173
clearance are given to the public at New York in regard to particular kinds of parcels carried by the subsidised steamers of the American Line. This is clearly a matter outside our control. The procedure in regard to Customs clearance on this side is already so simple that it is difficult to see how Her Majesty's Government could afford a corresponding preference to parcels carried in British vessels, even if it were our policy to differentiate in the manner stated.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the American Government offers no facilities for the conveyance of parcels under the American flag?
MR. HANBURY: Not for the carriage of them, but it does for the clearance of them by the Customs on the other side.

ASCENSION DAY (WEST HAM SCHOOL BOARD).
LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the medal regulations made by various School Boards, whereby medals are awarded to children who make every school attendance regularly and punctually; whether he is aware that the West Ham School Board has refused to award medals to the children of Church of England parents who withdrew their children on Ascension Day for the purpose of their attending church, under Section 7 of the Education Act of 1870; whether the Board is acting within its legal rights in thus penalising the children of parents who are acting strictly within their legal rights; and even if it is, whether he considers such action fair and reasonable; and whether he can take any steps to remove this grievance?
SIR J. GORST: While the Committee of Council regret that any School Board should show so little consideration to the religious observances of the Church, or of any religious denomination, they have no power to interfere. The managers of any Public Elementary School are within their legal right in attaching such conditions as they please to the prizes for attendance which they distribute.

LAND COMMISSION (REDUCTIONS OF RENT).
SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the reductions of rent fixed by the Land Commission in the second statutory term, as shown by the latest Return; (2) whether, in every case, the Court has explained the principles on which such reductions were made; (3) whether the rents so fixed have any and, if so, what proportion to the marketable value; and (4) whether it would be possible to furnish a Return of the prices paid for the tenants' interest in holdings with reference to which fair rents have been fixed?
MR. M. J. FLAVINasked whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to the judgments delivered in Wexford in 20 cases on Friday last, in which the rents were raised; and, if so, whether he could state upon what ground the rents had been so raised?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): No, Sir; I am not aware of the cases referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and they have not been reported to me. In answer to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, I have to state that the reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. Since passing the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, the Court, when fixing the fair rent of the holding, records in the form of a schedule the particulars relative to the holding mentioned in the first section of that Act, and which have been taken into consideration in arriving at the fair rent. This provision of the Act has been complied with by the Sub-Commissions, and it is believed by the County Courts, in all cases since heard, as well as by the Land Commissioners in all cases heard by them since the decision of the Court of Appeal in "Cope v. Cunningham" was communicated to them. No statutory duty is cast upon the Courts of explaining any principles beyond such as are apparent from the particulars recorded in the schedule, nor are the Land Commissioners aware whether any of the Courts have or have not given any such explanation in any particular cases. If the expression "marketable value" used in the third paragraph is equivalent to "competition

1175
value, "it is not possible to lay down any proportion rule which would be applicable. It would be impossible to furnish a Return of the prices paid for the tenants' interest in holdings with reference to which fair rents have been fixed, owing to the absence, in the majority of cases, of any evidence that the tenants' interest in the holding has been sold. However, under the form of schedule now in use, if it appears that the tenancy has been purchased since the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, the date of the sale and the amount of the purchase is now recorded.
MR. E. CARSONasked whether the Land Commissioners had in several cases since they commenced their revaluation of rents laid down any principle on which they granted reductions on the rents previously fixed?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think that the answer to that Question has already been given in my reply. The Commissioners are in no way required to lay down any principle on which rents are to be fixed; therefore, ultimately it must come to an exercise of judgment on their part.
MR. CARSON: Am I to understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Commissioners are not bound to give any reasons for the judgments they give?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: They are bound to do nothing further than is laid down in the Act. [Nationalist cheers and laughter.]

POSTMEN'S WAGES.
SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can explain on what principle the maximum wages of the postmen's staff at Preston where there are 60 men, at Dundee where there are 74 men, and at Southampton where there are 85 men on the staff, is only 26s., while at Lincoln and Gateshead, much smaller places, where respectively only 31 and 32 men are required, the maximum wage is 28s.?
MR. HANBURY: It is true that some of the town postmen at Lincoln are in receipt of pay rising on scale to a maximum of 28s. a week; but there was no ground for retaining an exceptional scale there, and the postmen appointed since
1176
1891 are not entitled to a higher maximum than 26s. At Gateshead, on account of its close proximity to Newcastle, the postmen's force is practically on the same footing as that of the Newcastle Office. The scales at Preston, Dundee, and Southampton rise, as stated by the hon. Member, to 26s., a maximum which is based on the ordinary rates, which vary with the population of the district concerned.

JAMAICA (PORT ROYAL) DOCKYARD.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state what was the total number of officers and men employed in, and the total cost for the year 1896–97, of Jamaica (Port Royal) Dockyard, and of Jamaica (Port Royal) Hospital respectively; whether he can state the cost of freight of stores sent to this dockyard in that year; whether there is any dock at this dockyard, and has any ship or boat ever been built there; and, if so, when; how many of Her Majesty's ships used the dockyard during the year for purposes of repair, and what was the nature and the total value of those repairs; whether there are any appliances in the dockyard for effecting repairs to machinery, such as foundries or fitting shops; what number of seamen and Marines were in the hospital for treatment during the year, and what number of soldiers; and whether, seeing that Admiral Sir J. Ommaney Hopkins in 1893 recommended that Port Royal should not be continued as a dockyard, the late Board or the present Board of Admiralty have taken any, and if so what, steps in consequence of that recommendation?
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The total number of officers and men employed at Jamaica Dockyard and Hospital respectively in 1896–97 is 79, at a cost of £7,971, and 22 at a cost of £2,725. The freight of stores in 1896–97 amounted to £842. There is no dock there. No ship, pulling or sailing boat has been built there, but one coaling lighter was built in 1893–94 and another in 1896–97. Four of Her Majesty's ships used the dockyard during 1896–97 for repairs, which cost altogether £386. There are foundries, fitting shops, and machines capable of effecting

1177
ordinary repairs to machinery. In 1896 135 seamen and marines and 326 soldiers, including officers, were under treatment in the hospital. Sir J. O. Hopkins reported in 1893 that it was questionable whether the establishment should be maintained in its, then condition, and a local committee was appointed to consider how the establishment might best be reduced, but on receipt of their Report the Admiralty decided to make no change. The Board of Admiralty are not prepared to close this most important station, but they have for some time past been considering whether further facilities for repairs to ships on the station ought not to be provided. The whole subject is occupying their serious attention.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the hon. Gentleman would lay upon the Table the Report of Admiral Sir J. Ommaney Hopkins, made in 1893, in which he recommended that Port Royal should not be continued as a dockyard?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that he could not lay such at document upon the Table, because it would be against all precedent to do so.

ROADS IN BURGHS (SCOTLAND).
MR. T. H. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in the Minute of 26th August 1886, dealing the distribution of grants in aid of roads in its application to burghs, the word "road" has an interpretation put upon it which operates to the prejudice of burghs; and whether counties can add roads and streets to the list of highways, and draw a share of grant in respect of the expenditure on these added roads, whilst burghs which have undertaken the management of their roads and streets cannot include in their claim for a share of the grant any expenditure on any road or street which was not a turnpike or statute labour road; if so, whether he can amend the Minute to remedy the hardship?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): It is the fact, as stated in the Question, that in counties the distribution of the grant is made in respect of all roads maintained out of public rates, whereas in burghs it is only made in respect of roads which form part of a highway which was, subsequent
1178
to 1850, a turnpike road or a county road maintained by statute labour out of the rates levied under a Country Road Act. The regulations under which the grant in aid of roads is thus distributed were framed in 1884, after careful consideration, and are stereotyped in accordance with Section 22 Sub-section (2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889, and cannot be amended without legislation.

ARMY MAJORS (COMPULSORY RETIREMENT).
SIR JOHN DORINGTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention to raise the age for compulsory retirement of Majors who have been selected as seconds in command to 51 years?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): There is no such intention; but, under Article 106 of the Pay Warrant, a Major second in command, who is considered eligible to succeed to the command of a battalion, may be retained in the service beyond the age of 48 years for such period as is thought desirable.

IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
MR. J.P. FARRELL,: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the new time table, it is possible to arrange for a night mail train to leave Belturbet and Cavan for Clones, instead of sending the night mails as at present by car, which necessitates their departure front Cavan at 6 p.m., and Belturbet 6.45 p.m.; and whether, in the representations at present being made to the Great Northern Railway Company, the consideration of this matter could be included; and, if so, will the further question of an extension of the times for posting letters in Cavan, Arva, Killeshandra, Belturbet, Ballyconnell, and Bawnboy be also considered.
MR. HANBURY: Although a new time table is being framed, the desired improvement in the night mail dispatch from Belturbet and Cavan could only be arranged by the establishment of additional trains which are not required for

1179
ordinary traffic, and the cost of establishing such trains would be altogether prohibitive. In the circumstances the Postmaster General does not think it expedient to include this matter in the representations at present being made to the Great Northern Railway Company.

WORKMISTRESSES (IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS).
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state to the House the nature of the representations made to the Education Commissioners on the subject of improving the conditions of service as to salary and results fees of workmistresses in National Schools; and whether any reply to these representations has been received; and, if so, can he lay upon the Table the whole correspondence on the subject?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If the Question of the hon. Member has reference to representations made to the Commissioners within the past six months, I can only repeat what I stated on Friday, 12th instant, that representations have been made within that period respecting the fees payable to workmistresses, but none dealing specially with the salaries of these officers. Prior to this period, however, proposals were made to the Commissioners in favour of an augmentation of salaries as well as fees, and it was also suggested that the average daily attendance of girls in schools in which workmistresses are recognised should be reduced from 20 to 15. The reply to these various communications was that the proposal would be considered by the Commissioners. It would be contrary to established practice to lay this correspondence on the Table of the House.

LOAN FUND SOCIETIES (IRELAND).
DR MCDONNELL: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, since the publication of the last Report of the Loan Fund Board, Lord de Vesci has made any further offer in settlement of the very serious claim disclosed in the correspondence printed in that report, in view of the fact that it appears from the correspondence that his father, the late Lord
1180
de Vesci, being, as trustee of the Abbeyleix Loan Fund, in possession of two sums of £887 18s. 11d. and £1,488, which had been duly appropriated for the charitable purposes of erecting labourers' cottages and a fever hospital, spent the money in erecting buildings on lands held from himself on yearly tenancy or on short leasehold; that, although his agent undertook that this land should be conveyed to trustees for the perpetual benefit of the poor, this undertaking was never carried out; and that the present Lord de Vesci claims to deal with the buildings as his own property; whether, if no settlement has been arrived at, Mr. Attorney General will proceed ex officio in the Chancery Division against the legal personal representative of the late Lord de Vesci?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): Since the date of the Report referred to, Lord de Vesci has not made any further offer of compromise. The facts mentioned in the Question are stated by the Loan Fund Board in the course of the correspondence, but are disputed by Lord de Vesci, and I am not aware what proof of them, if any, is now forthcoming after the lapse of a period of 54 years. I am carefully considering whether there is now any claim against Lord de Vesci which can be enforced by law.
MR. VESEY KNOX: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is also considering; whether there is a claim against the personal representatives of Lord de Vesci apart from what claim there may be against his landlord?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: There can be no possible claim against the landlord. The question is, what claim there is against the personal representative of Lord de Vesci?

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
MR. J. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the inspectors appointed for the purpose of securing a compliance with the provisions of 39 and 40 Vict., c. 77, to visit places licensed for the practice of vivisection, have hitherto been persons who either

1181
have practised vivisection in the past, or shown the strongest sympathy with the practice of vivisection; are there any of those inspectors who are opposed to the practice of vivisection; and whether he will consider the advisability of not confining the inspection of licensed places for vivisection to inspectors who are advocates of the system?
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The inspectors have been appointed by my predecessors without regard to their advocacy of, or opposition to, the system established by statute, under which experiments may be performed on living animals. If occasion arises, I shall pursue the same policy. The scientific knowledge required in an inspector implies a knowledge of experiments on animals; and I am satisfied that the inspection is carried out with the strictest regard to the law, and to considerations of humanity.
MR. MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether all these inspectors are advocates of vivisection? I am told they are. Will he answer the question, yes or no?
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have said they are all acquainted with the method of conducting these experiments, but I am not able to say whether they are advocates of the law as it stands, or desire any change in it. I am persuaded that you cannot possibly examine and test whether operations are conducted according to law unless you employ professional gentlemen who know something about the matter.
MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the account in the Press of asoirée to which 400 guests were invited in honour of the completion of the new Laboratories in connection with St. George's Hospital Medical School, the report stating that in the physiological laboratory were displayed illustrations of new methods employed in the serum diagnosis of cholera and diphtheria; and whether St. George's Hospital has a licensed laboratory for the performance of experiments on the bodies of living animals; and, if so, why has not this hospital been included in the last return of places licensed for vivisection?
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have seen a newspaper account of the reception referred to, but do not gather from it that anything illegal took place. There is no licensed laboratory at St. George's Hospital.

CHILDREN'S METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD.
MR. H. H. BEMROSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, with reference to the proposed Order for a new sick children's board, how many replies have been received from boards of guardians and managers, and how many of these express approval of the order as it stands?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): Since the date of the conference I have received communications from seven boards of guardians out of 30, and two school districts out of six. Three out of the seven boards of guardians either approve the Departmental Order or suggest as an alternative that the Metropolitan Asylums Board should take Charge of the cases. One board or guardians prefers the Metropolitan Asylums Board if there is to be any change at all, to which it is opposed. Another suggests that the classes referred to should be assigned to some school or groups of schools, and the remaining two object. Of the two school districts, one approves and the other objects.
MR. FLOWER: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind laying the replies received from the boards of guardians on the Table?
[Mr. CHAPLIN signified assent.]
MR. T. LOUGH (Islington, W.): Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to wait for the reply of the other boards before he proceeds with the scheme?
[No answer was given.]

CRETE.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the case, as stated in the declaration read by M. Hanotaux from the tribune of the French Corps Legislatif, that Greece addressed to the Powers several proposals of compromise, including one for the administration of Crete under the suzerainty of the Porte?
MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government are not aware of any proposals in the nature of compromise having been addressed by Greece to the Powers, beyond that contained in the supplementary note of March 10, which has already been laid before Parliament.
SIR C. DILKE: Has the right hon. Gentleman looked at the words employed by M. Hanotaux?
MR. CURZON: I have.
SIR C. DILKE: They are very clear on that subject.
MR. CURZON: The French Minister of Foreign Affairs said that communications had been made to him, and I assume that they were made to him by the Greek Minister in Paris. What I said was that we have not received them here.
MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Turkey is to be allowed to take part in the blockade of Crete; and whether Turkish ships will be permitted to enter Cretan ports during the blockade?
MR. CURZON: Turkey does not take part in the blockade. It has been notified and is enforced by the Admirals of the Great Powers. Turkish merchant vessels will be permitted to enter Cretan ports under the same restrictions as other merchant vessels.
MR. MACNEILL: As Crete is at present an integral part of the Turkish Empire, do I understand that Turkey is debarred from blockading herself? [Laughter.]
[No answer was given.]
MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the prohibition to the ships of the Great Powers and neutral nations entering Cretan ports to land goods intended for the interior applies only to goods for the Greek forces in Crete, who only occupy the district of Sphakin, or to the cutting off of the remaining nine-tenths of the island from the means of subsistence; and whether the Government have considered that the effect of this prohibition, if enforced in its entirety, will be to prevent the Christians in the interior of Crete, already reduced to want by the failure of last year's harvest, from receiving food while the Moslems of the towns are enabled to
1184
import whatever commodities they please?
MR. CURZON: The application of the rules of blockade is left to the discretion of the Admirals, who will, no doubt, take care that they do not press with unnecessary severity on the peaceably disposed portions of the population of either creed.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask whether the offence of breaking the blockade will, as in other blockades, extend to the whole of the voyage?
MR. CURZON: I am very glad to say that I am not an authority on international law.
SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Turkey and Greece have been desirous of entering into direct negotiations for the settlement of the Cretan question; and whether the Great Powers have objected to such direct negotiations; and, if so, on what ground this objection has been taken?
MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government are not aware of any such desire having been shown, or of any objections having been raised by any of the Great Powers.

QUEEN'S JUBILEE PROCESSION.
SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the action of certain landlords on the line of route of Her Majesty's procession through South London, who are taking proceedings for the eviction of their tenants, with the view of letting their houses for large sums on the occasion of the celebration of Her Majesty's Jubilee: and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter? I also wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether the magistrates would have the power to adjourn their decisions until after June 22?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member brought that Question to the Table, and was there told that it was out of order. [Laughter.] If he was not satisfied, he should have appealed to me.
SIR J. BRUNNER: I am sorry, Sir. I thought a Question on the present state

1185
of the law would be in order, and beg you to believe that I would not do anything contrary to your ruling. [Laughter.] I would now like to ask the Home Secretary whether he would permit me to hand to him a copy of a notice which has been given to me to-day, and has been addressed to several tenants on this line of route, which is headed,
"Re Approaching Celebration of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, to be held in June. I have been offered a sum—"
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not asking for information, but whether he may be permitted to hand a document to the Home Secretary. Of course, he is permitted to hand it without asking leave. [Laughter.]
MR. C. J. DARLING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in answering the Question, he will at the same time answer a Question of mine on the Notice Paper, although, without any authority from me, it has been put down for Thursday? It differs from the present Question in this respect, that it asks whether the Home Secretary or the Government could in any way divert the route as at present arranged, so as to contravene any scheme of this kind which may have been resolved upon [Cheers.]
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: In answer to the hon. Baronet opposite, I have no particular information on the subject. I have noticed, of course, the rumours which have been reported in the newspapers, but I have no authority whatever to take any action in the matter; and, with reference to any subsidiary Question, if I am in order in replying, I would say I think it would be highly improper on my part to indicate to any magistrate in London the course which he might take in any proceedings which might be instituted. As regards the Question of my hon. and learned Friend behind me, the Home Office has no power whatever to settle what route Her Majesty may be disposed to take in making her procession through London.

ROYAL NATIONAL LIFEBOAT INSTITUTION (SELECT COMMITTEE).
SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether
1186
the Select Committee to be appointed to inquire into the administration of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution will be precluded by the terms of reference from receiving evidence in regard to the Lifeboat Saturday organisation for raising funds towards the maintenance of the Institution?
MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of extending the terms of reference to the Select Committee on the administration of the National Lifeboat Institution so as to include an inquiry into the management of the Lifeboat Saturday Organisation, which is now part of the National Lifeboat Institution, and has directly and indirectly increased its income to a great extent?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): Perhaps the hon. Member for the Northern Division of Manchester will allow me to answer his Question at the same time as that of the hon. Member for the North West Division of Manchester. It will, of course, be for the Committee to decide what matters come within the reference. For myself I should say that the reference would include all questions connected with the administration of the funds of the Royal National Lifeboat institution; and, therefore, so far as the raising and expenditure of the Lifeboat Saturday organisation is associated with the administration of the Lifeboat Institution, it would seem to fall within the scope of the Inquiry.
SIR W. HOULDSWORTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Saturday organisation is considered in the quarters the most important part of the administration of the institution?
MR. RITCHIE: I did not understand that it was considered as the most important part of the Inquiry. So far as it bears on the work of the National Lifeboat Institution, it will be included in the Inquiry.
SIR R. U. PENROSE FITZGERALD: Inasmuch as the institution are anxious for the fullest and most searching inquiry, is the right hon. Gentleman of opinion that the Committee may inquire into the Saturday fund movement?
MR. RITCHIE: I understand that it is certain that the collection of funds on

1187
Saturdays is connected with the administration of the institution, and, if that is the case, it will, of course, fall within the scope of the Inquiry.

LOCAL LOANS.
MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the total amount of instalments of local loans in Great Britain, falling due during the year 1896, which were not paid until they had been a month or more overdue, or which still remain unpaid; and whether any sum was exacted in any of those cases by way of receivers' fees?
MR. HANBURY: The Public Works Loan Board state that during the calendar year 1896 the amount overdue, but paid more than a month late, was £6,516, and there is a further amount of £6,286 still unpaid. There is no power to charge receivers' fees on the Board's loans. There is, of course, no loan corresponding to the Irish seed loans, where the locality does not bear the charge for interest, and has therefore no inducement to repay the loans.
MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the total sum demanded during the year 1896 by way of receivers' fees on overdue instalments of local loans in Ireland; and what was the nature and cost of the services rendered in receiving these instalments?
MR. HANBURY: The Board of Works have not sent me, as they ought to have done, the figures for the year 1896, which is the period named in the Question. What I have are the figures for the financial year 1896–7 down to the 17th instant. The total amount collected as receivers' fees of 1s. in the pound during that period is £698 17s. 9d., representing arrears of about £14,000. The arrears cause an increase of the clerical and accounting work of the Department, and the cost is as a rule merged in the general cost of the Office, and cannot be stated separately. In the special case of the Suck Drainage, however, a local agent is employed in recovering the arrears, and is paid at a rate not excelling 5 per cent. on the sums collected.

BOGUS TELEGRAMS, IRELAND (ALLEGED).
MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what is the result of
1188
the inquiries which have been made as to the bogus telegrams sent to the Rev. D. Humphreys, P.P., Killenaule, on 4th February; whether he is aware that no telegram was dispatched from Clonmel on that date either to the Rev. D. Humphreys or to the person for whom it is alleged the telegram from Clonmel delivered to the Rev. D. Humphreys was intended; and what is the reason given by the postmaster at Clogheen for refusing information as to the alleged sender of the second telegram which purported to come from Clogheen?
MR. HANBURY: I learn that an officer was sent specially to Killenaule to give the explanation, but that Mr. Humphreys was not satisfied. The telegram in question, which originated at Clogheen, was really not addressed to that gentleman, but in course of transmission at an intermediate office some errors unfortunately occurred, and the name of the addressee and of the office of origin were altered. In consequence of these errors it was made to appear that the telegram came from Clonmel, and that it was intended for Mr. Humphreys. The postmaster of Clogheen is undoubtedly to blame for not at once answering the inquiry addressed to him by Mr. Humphreys. His omission, it is thought, was due to the confusion arising from the errors. The Postmaster General much regrets the annoyance to which Mr. Humphreys was subjected, and has given instructions that the cost of the three telegrams which he was led to send, be refunded.

ARMY PENSIONS.
CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the generally admitted evils resulting from the payment of pensions and reserve pay to discharged soldiers in quarterly sums, and especially in view of the very strong statements as to the harmfulness of this system laid before the recent Select Committee on Retired Soldiers' and Sailors' Employment by the Superintendent of the Building Works Department of the War Office, and others, he will take the necessary steps to make these payments at least monthly, either through the Post Office or otherwise?
MR. BRODRICK: It has been repeatedly explained in this House that there would be serious disadvantages to well-conducted men in reducing the payment now made of three mouths in advance to one month, the larger sum having been counted on, while it is obvious that men who habitually squander their pension when received would have twelve occasions of excess instead of three in the year. The change would cost a very large sum.

PIERS AND BOATSLIPS (SCOTLAND).
MR. J. MCLEOD: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate (1) why the Vote in this year's Estimates in respect of the Lowers granted by Parliament under the West Highlands and Islands Act 1891, has been decreased by nearly one-half as compared with that of last year; and (2) whether he is aware that, in consequence, a large number of works in the form of piers and boatslips, which had received the necessary local sanction, and were awaiting the sanction of the Secretary for Scotland, will now have to be abandoned?
THE LORD ADVOCATE: As regards the first part of the hon. Member's question, the Estimates for 1897–98 in respect of public works and communications in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland have been reduced in respect of steamer communication by £1,325, piers, harbours, and minor works by £6,761, roads by £2,550, and administration by £64, leaving the total sum voted at £25,500, as compared with £36,200 for 1896–97. The reply to the second part of the question is that, as the sum of £11,239 taken this year for piers, harbours, and minor works, will have to be devoted to the completion of those works already in course of construction, the Secretary for Scotland regrets that the execution of any fresh works must be postponed for the present.
MR. MCLEOD: May I ask the Lord Advocate the reason for this remarkable change of policy on the part of the Scotch Office?
THE LORD ADVOCATE: I must ask my hon. Friend to put that Question to the Treasury.

CORK ASSIZES (JUDGES' MILITARY GUARD).
MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the statements of the Lord Chief Baron and Mr. Justice O'Brien at Cork on Friday last, made from the Judicial Bench as Her Majesty's Commissioners of Assize, complaining of the absence of a military guard at their lodgings as a departure from constitutional usage; whether he is aware that the Sheriff of Cork made the usual requisition for a military escort on the 9th instant, and received a reply that the guard would be provided if the sheriff made arrangements for the accomodation of the men; whether that reply was given in consequence of a Treasury decision that the expense of providing a temporary guardhouse would not be admitted as a charge on the Civil or Military Vote; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Lord Chief Baron and Mr. Justice O'Brien have publicly challenged the legality of that said decision, the Treasury will adhere in future to the ancient usage of supplying the expenses of a military guard at the Judges' lodgings.
MR. HANBURY: My attention has not been drawn to the remarks referred to, and I am not aware of any legal requirement in the matter. There is no such usage in England and Scotland, where the duty is efficiently performed by the police, and occasionally by the javelin-men of the Sheriff. The requisition stated to have been made by the Sheriff of Cork, and the reply which he received, have not been communicated to the Treasury. The Treasury have expressed no opinion as to charging this expenditure on the Military Votes, but the costs of the Military guard clearly ought not to fall upon the Civil Votes.
MR. CARSON: May I ask whether the saving to the Treasury has been 14s. 6d.?
MR. HANBURY: It is not a Treasury question at all; it is a question for the War Office.
MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland (I) whether his attention has been called to the serious strictures of the Lord Chief Baron and Mr. Justice O'Brien, at the Cork Assizes, on Friday last, on the withholding, in consequence of a Treasury decision, of the Military guard at the

1191
Judges' lodgings, a proceeding which both the learned Judges characterised as illegal; (2) whether a Sheriff is entitled to the services of the Military in furtherance of his duties; (3) whether it was incumbent on the authorities to place at the Sheriff's disposal a Military guard for the lodgings of the Judges at Assizes when requested by him so to do; (4) whether he is aware of any previous departure from this practice; and (5) whether there is any and, if so, what remedy against the Treasury for this proceeding, which has been declared by both the learned Judges to be a flagrant violation of the law?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: There is no official Report of the language used by the Lord Chief Baron and Mr. Justice O'Brien on the occasion referred to, but judging from the report contained in the local newspapers there appears to be no doubt that both the learned Judges decided, on the best consideration they could give to the point at assizes, that the Military Authorities were bound to furnish the guard required to the Judges, representing, as they held they did, Her Majesty under their Commission. This Question only appeared on the Paper this morning. It is rather an abstract one, and I am not in a position to express an opinion on the legal points put to me in the second, third, and firth paragraphs, even if it were proper I should do so after the decision referred to. In answer to the fourth paragraph, I am not aware of the practice ever hiving been previously departed from.
MR. MACNEILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has read unofficially the statements made from the Bench; and whether it is true that Mr. Justice O'Brien thence denounced the Treasury as a demon of parsimony?
MR. CARSON: Is it a fact, as stated in the papers, that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has said this is a matter which has arisen by reason of the action of the Treasury?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: No; I do not think the Lord Lieutenant actually said this had arisen from Treasury action. I think he did state that the matter arose by the action of the authorities, by which, I presume, he meant the War Office and the Treasury combined.

COUNTY COURT JUDGE (FERMANAGH AND MONAGHAN).
MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the reasons which induced the Irish Government to remove Judge Orr from the County Monaghan; and, who will be Judge Orr's successor in the County Monaghan?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Judge Orr, until recently County Court Judge of Fermanagh and Monaghan, has been transferred to fill the vacancy in the similar office for County Down, caused by the retirement of Judge Roche, and Mr. Walker Craig, Q.C. succeeds Judge Orr in Fermanagh and Monaghan.

LOCAL TAXATION.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Islington, for 23rd March, and whether the Inquiry contemplated in that Motion is within the scope of the Inquiry of the Royal Commission now sitting on Local Taxation?
MR. CHAPLIN: I have communicated with the Commission on the subject of the Motion referred to, and the question will certainly come within the scope of their inquiry. The County Council, I understand, are to be heard on it very shortly.

BURGESS ROLL (KILKENNY).
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, out of a population of neatly 12,000 there are only 247 voters on the present burgess roll of the borough of Kilkenny; and, whether he will take the opportunity, a Bill being now before Parliament to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Kilkenny, to sanction the introduction of a Clause into that Bill reducing the qualification of burgesses from £10 to £4, as was done last Session in the private Acts promoted by Drogheda, and Waterford, and in the Provisional Order Confirmation Acts relating to Armagh, Belfast, Blackrock, and other places?
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you if it is not the case that the course suggested in the Question was ruled by you from the Chair to be out of order, on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill?
MR. SPEAKER: That is so. And it would be quite out of order for a Committee, or for the tribunal which, in the case of an unopposed Bill, takes the place of a Committee, to deal with the matter after I had ruled it out of order.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That being so, I have nothing further to add.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will facilitate the passing of a Bill, if I introduce it, making this change in the franchise, as in the case of Belfast?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir; I could not undertake to do that.

NECESSITOUS BOARD SCHOOLS BILL.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce their Measure dealing with necessitous School Boards before Easter?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Yes, Sir; I have a very confident expectation of being able to introduce this Bill before Easter.

MORAY FIRTH (ILLEGAL FISHING).
MR. J. E. GORDONasked the Lord Advocate a Question of which he had given him private notice—namely, whether information had been received at the Scottish Office of illegal fishing yesterday, in the protected waters of the Moray Firth; and what steps had been taken with regard to the matter?
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid the Scotch Office had not heard anything of the Report in Question until it was communicated by his hon. Friend that morning. They at once telegraphed to the Fishery Board to take steps to meet the necessity which seemed to have arisen.

RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL.
Second Beading deferred from Tomorrow till Wednesday 31st March.
RATING OF MACHINERY SUSPENSORY BILL.
Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow till Wednesday 7th April.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Twelve of the Clock.
MOTIONS.
  POLICE PENSIONS AND SERVICE.
  Bill to amend the Police Acts with regard to pensions and service, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Schwann, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Vaughan-Davies, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), and Captain Norton; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Tuesday, 6th April, and to be printed.—[Bill 172.]
  POLICE APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION.
  Bill to amend the Police Acts with regard to co-operation between police forces, the powers of local authorities, and the appointment and promotion of police officers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Schwann, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Vaughan-Davies, Mr. John Wilson (Durham) and Captain Norton; presented, and read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Tuesday 6th April, and to be printed.—[Bill 173.]
  COTTAGE HOMES.
  Bill to authorise the provision of cottage homes for the aged deserving poor, ordered to be broubht in by Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Grant Lawson, Mr. Milbank, Mr. Joseph A. Pease, Mr. Wilson-Todd, and Mr. Wyvill; presented, and Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 29th April, and to be printed.—[Bill 174.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CLERICAL INCOMES (TAXATION).
  MR. J. ROUNDcalled; attention to the taxation of clerical incomes, and moved:—
  "That, in view of the distressed condition of many of the clergy whose remuneration is principally derived from tithe rent-charge, this House is of opinion that the burdens of local taxation borne by them are inequitable and excessive, and that the grievance is one that calls for substantial relief."

  1195
  He said the subject was interesting and important to the clergy, and he hoped that every Member of Parliament who desired to see all classes of ratepayers contributing equitably to local burdens would also take an interest in his Motion. He bad heard the income of the Church of England from tithe variously estimated at from four to six millions, but he wished to point out that the income from tithe rent-charge of the parochial clergy of the Established Church amounted to about two and a quarter millions at the time of the commutation, but now only to £1,725,000. No doubt if they took the income of the parochial clergy from all sources they would reach a total of some £3,165,000, but if that were divided among the incumbents each incumbent would receive only some £238. He believed that there were about 14,000 parishes in England and Wales, and that in more than half of them the income of the incumbent was less than £130 a year. In the year 1836 the payment of the clergy by tithe was commuted and the present tithe rent-charge substituted, which was based upon their average receipts from tithe during the seven previous years, and was caluculated at the then existing price of corn—wheat, 56s.; barley, 31s.; and oats, 22s. per quarter. He need not point out to the House the enormous fall that had taken place since that time in the value of cereals, and as a consequence the loss of income to the clergy by the depreciation of tithe rent-charge was very great indeed. He believed he was correct in saying that for the past seven years the income of the clergy from tithe rent-charge had only been 75 per cent. of what it was at the time of the commutation. In his own diocese of St. Albans, comprising Essex and Hertfordshire, the value of the tithe, when the tithe was commuted, was £201,543, while the present value of the tithe rent-charge was only £146,000. The gross income of the clergy of that diocese was £212,000, but the net income was only £148,000, or less than £230 a year for each incumbent. If he took eleven large livings in Essex in one Rural Deanery, each incumbent at the time of commutation would receive £586, whereas now his tithe, according to present averages, would be
  1196
  £436, and, subject to necessary outgoings, would only be £363. These figures showed that the income of the clergy at the present day was small, and was still diminishing. In the assessment of the tithe rent-charge to local burdens the clergy were allowed certain deductions before the rateable value was arrived at. They were allowed to deduct the actual amount of rates paid, any necessary ecclesiastical fees, the amount of repairs to the chancel, and 5 per cent. for the cost of collecting the tithe rent-charge; but they were obliged to pay rates upon the remainder of the tithe rent-charge. He wished to impress upon the House that they felt it a great grievance that they were not included in the benefits given to local ratepayers by the Agricultural Rates Act of last year. ["Hear, hear!"] There were a great many outgoings from the clergyman's pocket—moneys which never came to him as income—on which he was obliged to pay local rates. These were—repayments to Queen Anne's Bounty for money borrowed by a previous incumbent to provide the parish with a residence; the land tax, which was allowed to be deducted in the case of the income tax; and stipends of curates. He knew one living in his own county the gross income of which was £1,207, but the outgoings, which amounted to £613, brought it down to £585. In the case of another large living in Sussex the value of the tithe at the time of the commutation was £960; the present gross income was only £750; the outgoings amounted to £335 8s. 9d.; and therefore the net value of the living was only about £420. These outgoings were—income tax, £27 19s.; land tax, £31; rates, £109; repayments to Queen Anne's Bounty, £86; ecclesiastical fees, £1 17s.; and a curate's stipend, £78. Local taxes were therefore levied upon money which, never came into the clergyman's hands, and he ventured to say that the clergyman was the only man in this country who was rated upon the whole of his professional income. That was the substance of the grievance which he had to bring before the House; and he hoped he should obtain the support of the House in the object he had in view. He had made mention of the few larger livings, as they showed distinctly the large amounts of burdens in rates and

  1197
  taxes, but the grievance was felt much more in the innumerable smaller livings. He would mention one or two more cases in his own county. There was one living where the tithe rent-charge was £455 a year; the average for the present year £338; the gross income, from all sources £363, and the net income £250. The incumbent in this case complained that he was unable to deduct the land tax payable on the tithe, and that many rates had been added since the tithe commutation took place—such as the highway rate and the school rate. In one parish in the West of England this rate was 7s. 6d. in the pound. Then, in consequence of the great fall in the value of agricultural land, the assessment on land in some Unions had fallen 30, 40, or even more per cent; the tithe rent-charge was, of course, assessed at the full rateable value, and the consequence was that the rates were perhaps raised from 1s. 6d. or 2s. to 2s. or 2s. 6d. Consequently, the owner of the tithe rent-charge in those Unions had to pay a larger amount of rates, and had less income wherewith to pay it. Another case in his own district was that of an incumbent, who now paid £6 a year more in rates than he did ten years ago, while the tithe rent-charge was £127 less. In another case, the tithe rent-charge was £796, according to the commuted value; the average for last year's was £560; the incumbent paid income tax, £15; land tax, £42; rates, £73; Queen Anne's Bounty, £14; clergy fees, £2 10s.; total, £145. He also paid rates and taxes on his house to the extent of £45, leaving as net income £370. This left little, even in the big livings, for education and all the claims of a large parish. The clergy, too, had to contribute largely to the schools. It was impossible to say too much of the way in which the parochial clergy had devoted themselves to the management of their schools. [Cheers.] A letter was placed in his hands from a collector of tithes, who said:—
  "The distress among the clergy without private incomes is simply heartrending. There are many houses where the furniture and books have, by degrees, been sold to obtain the necessaries of life, simply through the living being eaten up by outgoings on rates and taxes."
  1198
  At the Church Congress of 1895, Chancellor Blofield read an excellent paper on the position of the clergy in the Diocese of Norwich. He pointed out that of the 415 livings in the Diocese, the average income was only £125. He continued by saying that
  "this res angusti domi,, with all its cares and anxieties, must often hinder the incumbent in his spiritual work, and take the heart out of him."
  He had shown how overburdened the clergy were in regard to local taxation, and what he would suggest was this—that they should be allowed further legal deductions from the tithe rent-charge before it was assessed for its rateable value; that payment of Queen Anne's Bounty should not be takeu into account in the ratealde value; and that payments of the land tax and payments for curates should be deducted. Further, as the clergy were the only class rated on their professional incomes, he asked that legal deductions should be made from the local assessment in that respect. Chancellor Blofield also said:£
  "We forbid the clergyman by law to eke out his income by secular pursuits; we compel him by law to perform certain duties; yet he is not rated equally, although equality is said to be the basis of the law of rating."
  The Chancellor went on to suggest that in rating the tithe the incumbent should be allowed to deduct for all necessary expenses, and for his own services, say, at the lowest rate at which the Bishop would fix the stipend of a curate, in case of a non-resident incumbent. This was the suggestion he wished to bring especially before the Government. He hoped he had shown that the parochial clergy were not treated fairly in the matter of rating; and he hoped that he should receive some sympathy from hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as from Her Majesty's Government. [Cheers.] The Members of the Government must know better than any private Member of the House the real position of the clergy throughout the country. He begged to move his Resolution, and, while he thanked the House for their attention, he trusted that the claim of the clergy for just relief of local burdens would not be put before Parliament in vain.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYseconded the Motion. He said that it was only a limited one, and not so wide as he could have wished. Last week hon. Gentlemen opposite vied with each other in extolling the sacrifices of the rural clergy for education. It was for these men that he and his hon. Friend pleaded. Next week the House would be engaged in considering the question of the overtaxation of a portion of this United Kingdom. He would guarantee that the rural clergy as a class would easily prove that they were the most overtaxed entity in the land. Two causes called special; attention to this matter now—the Rating Act and the Relief of the Land Tax, both Measures of relief to agriculture. He had not last year pleaded for the inclusion of the tithe in the Rating Act, which was an occupier's, not an owner's Act; but he did claim that, when others had been helped, there was no more deserving class than the clergy to help next; and that there was an apparent inequality created by the exclusion of tithe front the relief given to the soil. Then as to the land tax. Through the unfortunate action of the local Committees, in many parishes where a reassessment had been made the clergy, from having a large house and tithe rent-charge, which had not depreciated in rateable value as fast as agricultural land; had as a result been obliged to bear a larger proportion of the quota of land tax than on the old assessment—and this at a moment when they could ill afford any extra charge. On these grounds there was some special call for inquiry. Then what was the grievance? In the particular district he was best acquainted with in Kent the re-assessments had fallen very heavily on the clergy. Assessments in the rural parishes and farms had fallen very low, and the result had been that the actual proportion of the rates now paid by the clergy was very much larger than it used to be. Therefore it was that recent Measures intended for the relief of the agricultural districts had, perhaps unwittingly, operated to the prejudice of the clergy. The great ground upon which they must press their claim was, that the clergy were at present the only class in the country rated upon their professional income, that income being only a life interest for services rendered to the community. The
  1200
  whole tendency of recent legislation had been to fix what had been called a living wage, to relieve the mere means of livelihood from taxation; yet with the clergy they were heavily rated upon incomes far below the limit accepted for exemption from the income tax. He believed the average tithe rent-charge amounted to little more than £100 in each parish, and yet often the taxation for local purposes came to 30 per cent. of this amount. What should they hear if there was a large class in the manufacturing towns of hard-working people who had an income of £2 or £2 10s. a week, and had to pay an income to the State at the rate of one-third of that income? Essex was the county, in all England where the matter had been felt most cruelly; but in Kent the tithe per acre was the heaviest of any county in England. It averaged nearly 5s. an acre. In that county the clergy were entirely, or to a large extent, dependent on the tithe rent-charge. In the diocese of Canterbury there was an average payment in stipends to curates of over £12,000, and on that sum the clergy had all to pay rates, although they never received a penny of the amount; and there was a further grievance which also pressed heavily on what were large livings in old days, but which were now very much reduced—namely, where grants had been fixed from a mother parish to a daughter parish. There was a case where a clergyman was bound to pay, out of an income reaching to £700 a year, £125 to a district church and £140 to a curate, and on the whole £265 he was rated to his own parish, so that he was actually paying in rates and taxes, although he did not receive the £265, £150 a year. Another vicar had a tithe which, in 1878, was reckoned at £450, and he then paid £60 in rates, or 2s. 9d. in the £. Owing to agricultural depression and the changes which had taken place in assessment, the rates had gone up enormously, and although now he was only receiving £290 instead of £450, he had now to pay £87, or at the rate of 6s. in the £. There were other cases no less striking, showing that in many of the smaller incomes the actual outgoings taken from the vicar amounted to 35 or 40 per cent. Many new rates had been imposed since commutation, such as the school rate, the new parish rate, and the sanitary rate, which, while

  1201
  it fell on agricultural land at the rate of one-fourth, had to be paid on the full gross value. What he would wish would be to see an absolute redemption of tithe by the assistance of the State, so that the poor rural clergy should obtain the same settled payments as had been obtained by the bishops and chapters in most cases; but, as this was beyond the region of practical politics, they might at least ask that a professional income should no longer be taxed away altogether, and that a minimum increase should be left to the clergy, which should be free from the ever-increasing demands and rapacity of the tax-collector. Further deductions from gross value might be allowed; perhaps the oil precedent of land tax revived, and, in some other ways, their burdens lightened. To the Government they appealed, with a case of cruel hardship, for a class of men who, least of all, should be the most taxed of the community; and, trusting in their sense of justice, he was glad to second this Resolution.
  MR. CHARLES HARRISONsaid that the grievance about which the hon. Member had spoken was not confined to the clergy. A grievance of a similar nature existed in a very much greater degree among the urban ratepayers and dwellers in towns. The clergy did not depend on rent-charge alone for their income. Most of the poorer livings were fed from Queen Anne's Bounty Fund and the revenues of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Receivers-General of the Church income, and the Church and the clergy stood in an exceptionally favourable position with regard to both Imperial and local taxation. Since commutation of tithes had taken place, Imperial taxation had immensely changed, and on all classes of real property there had been imposed, for the purposes of taxation, first the succession duty, afterwards converted into the Death Duties. But on the vast aggregation of realty belonging to the Church, not one penny of this Imperial taxation was contributed by it to the Exchequer. 1n ground rents alone the Church was deriving an income of £317,000 a year on a property which at the lowest valuation was equal to £9,000,000. The Church was deriving from beneficial rents in London-property in possession, including a considerable number of public
  1202
  houses—a rental of £112,000 a year. The account of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners also showed that the Church was drawing in mining rents and royalties £346,000 a year, and from tithes no less than £254,000 a year. Not only did the Church possess that property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but in addition, there were glebes of 658,000 acres, producing a net rental of £908,000 a year. Many of these glebes had, by special Private Acts of Parliament, been authorised to be built upon, and in the north of England had been converted into building estates. All that vast property had not paid one penny to the Imperial Exchequer in respect of succession, which, had it belonged to a private individual or corporation other than the Church, would have paid that Imperial duty. In substitution for the Succession Duties, there was imposed the Corporation Duty, and the City Guilds and other Corporate bodies had now to pay a tax of five per cent. per annum upon their income, which was taken as being an equivalent substitute for the Succession Duty. In addition to these large sums there were something like 300,000 acres of agricultural land vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, spread over every part of England, and in respect of which not a penny was paid for Imperial taxation other than in respect of Property Tax and the local taxation where the tenants did not pay it. In the parish of Paddington there were 612 acres, with a rack rent of £900,000, and a ground rent of £150,000, owned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and a third of the ground rents were now being received by them. The ground leases had the usual covenant that the tenant should pay all rates and taxes; so that in respect of that vast property, the rateable value of which must come to £300,000 or £400,000 a year, nothing but Property Tax was paid by the Church. When they found this vast aggregation of property exempt from all classes of contribution, whether urban or agricultural, deriving an immense income and paying nothing to the imperial Exchequer, except corporation or Imperial duty as a substitute for Death Duty, he said that the Church occupied an extremely favourable position in respect of contributions to Imperial taxation. He turned next

  1203
  to the system of local taxation. There he found that a great area of property in the country already received Imperial grants in aid, contributed chiefly by the dwellers in towns, and that those who were lowest rated in respect of local taxation in the country received the highest amount per cent. of Imperial grant. The result was to convince him that country and local taxation in that area was the least taxed, and taxed at the expense of the towns—["oh, oh!"]—while receiving the largest amount of grant in aid from the Imperial Exchequer to the reduction of local rates. The tithe rent-charge obtained the benefit from this system in the amount for which they were rated. Take the case of Bedfordshire. From the local taxation there, the rate was 14·04 per cent. of the rateable value. How was it contributed? Twenty-five and a-half per cent. came from the Imperial Exchequer, and there was raised by local rates 74½ per cent. In other country places the same ratio prevailed. In Hunts the rate was 10·64 per cent.; the Exchequer contributed 28·67 per cent., and there was raised by rate 71·33 per cent. Now as to towns. Wolverhampton raised in local rates 33 per cent. on the rateable value; the Imperial Exchequer gave 15 per cent., and the balance of 84 per cent. fell on the town. The whole question was now being investigated upstairs before a Royal Commission; and when they came to local taxation it was found that the exemptions in favour of the Church had been marked throughout the whole history of that branch of the subject. Take the case of poor livings from 1806 to 1822. There existed a series of statutes which exempted poor livings up to £150 from the payment of Land Tax. Under those Acts, 2,140 livings were exempted, saving £7,343 a year of Land Tax. In 1836, when the Commutation of Tithes Act was passed, there was taken into account the rates that were then charged on property paying tithes. In the commuted sum and rent charge arrived at, there was added to the net amount of rent a sum which then represented the amount of tax imposed on the property; so that the rent charge represented at this day, not only the rent which was then paid, but also the amount of the rates.
  1204
  When the Act of 1836 was passed commuting for tithes in kind a fixed annual sum, to be ascertained on the prices of the day, according to the directions in that Act, the Commissioners, in fixing the original sum, ascertained the average net value of the tithes in kind for the six years preceding the Act, and added to that sum an amount to cover rates and taxes. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members seemed to doubt this, but he could cite numerous instances in Essex where the tithes were the highest. In Fairstead the money value of the tithes was ascertained to be £413, and the then taxes £77. The rent-charge fixed under the Act was £479. In Staple Tawney the money value of the tithe was £291, the taxes £66. The rent-charge was fixed at £350. In Fordham the money value was £567, the taxes £188; the rent-charge was fixed at £750. To give a further exemption now would be to give the relief twice over. On the theory that tithes are land, they had been placed in the exceptional position of land. With regard to its exceptions from special local rates, in that respect it was only assessed at one-third, and in towns at only one-fourth. The Church had had, in consequence, the advantages of tithes being treated as land, and from the year 1836 the tithe rent-charge was fixed on a certain basis, with the result that up till 1875 the £100 tithe rose and rose until, in 1875, it reached £112 15s. 6d., and between the year 1837 down to 1892, if they took this number of years by the average receipts, the tithe had yielded above par-£100 13s. 2d. So that in point of fact, by treating tithes as land, they had had the benefit of the exemptions which had been accorded to land. He thought he had made out a case that the Church was exceptionally favoured with regard not only to Imperial taxation, but also with regard to local taxation, and there seemed no reason why the particular class of property of the tithe rent-charger should receive any more especial favour than that which land and rental values had received. While sympathising with the shrinkage of the incomes of any particular class, and while he sympathised with the great and heavy burdens which were put, and oppressively put, on any particular class, he did venture to think that in this instance at all events the Church had been exceptionally

  1205
  favoured as compared with other classes, and particularly the urban ratepayer. If this subject was investigated before the Royal Commission the urban ratepayer would have the opportunity of urging these propositions in answer to the present Motion. He therefore opposed the Motion.
  MR. T. USBORNEasked the House to have patience with him for a few minutes, while he stated why the grievance of the tithe owners had cropped up just now, what that grievance was not, what it was; were they a class to whose petition for redress of their grievance, if it existed, this House ought to turn a deaf ear; and if they were to redress the grievance, what it would cost. First of all, it had cropped up just now because of the Agricultural Rating Bill of last year. As soon as the tithe owners perceived the immediate relief of the land occupiers, and the eventual relief of the landowners, from which they were excluded, they felt, as they put it, that they had been treated most unjustly, and in his diocese of St. Albans a Committee of the clergy were appointed at the Diocesan Conference to meet the Members of the two counties forming the diocese—namely, Essex and Heitz—to discuss with them what was best to be done to secure to them the advantages conferred on the other classes connected with the land. They met once or twice last Session, and he believed that the Members of this House present at those Meetings thought that the tithe owner had been hardly dealt with—certainly he did. But after the receipt of numerous letters from clergymen, and after several discussions with Members or his own Party in this House, he came to the conclusion that they had not been unjustly treated by chat Bill, and at their last meeting, held during this present Session, he told them so. He believed he persuaded them that they had net been unjustly treated, or, at all events, he persuaded them that it was useless heir trying to persuade the majority of this House that they had been. Among the arguments he used was one to the effect that they must not compare their position with that of the land occupiers, but of the land owners, and then gave it as his opinion that the Bill of last year was admittedly a landlord's relief Bill, and inn a tenant's. [Opposition cheers.] That
  1206
  statement of his, taken out and away front his speech, had been much quoted in opposition papers and on opposition platforms, of which he did not complain. He was not now going to discuss last year's Bill, and he was not going in for a personal explanation, because he did not consider any statement made by him of sufficient importance to justify his wasting the time of the House in any such way; but he might be allowed to say that he hoped that he was not the only Member of thus House, who, in the heat of an argument, and owing to a desire to convince those he was addressing, had, on occasions, used words in excess of what he intended or ought to have used. Such Words in this case were "and not a tenant's." He hoped he had explained to the house why this grievance had now cropped up, and what it was not—namely, omission from relief in last year's Bill. But what was it; for it certainly existed? Well, the tithe owner paid rates on the whole of the income derived front the tithe, although he received the income on condition of doing certain work and performing certain duties. That was to say, he was rated not only on that portion of the tithe which might be considered income from the property, but also on that portion which Must be considered remuneration for work done; whereas, of the total income of land, shops, etc., only that portion was rated which represented rent, and not that portion which is, or at all events used to be, earned be the farmer as remuneration for has labour. The present grievance was therefore really this, that the clergy of the Church of England—he cared only for the very poor ones—were the only class rated on their pay or earnings. Now could they disregard this grievance? Could this class of men continue under present distressing circumstances—he alluded to the reduction in the value of the tithe and the increase in the rates they had to pay, owing to the greatly lowered assessment of the land—to pay in rates and taxes a larger percentage of their incomes than any class in a similar position? He did not think that any Member of this House would wish to turn a deaf ear to their complaint; certainly not those who knew, as he knew, of the several families in agricultural districts who at the present moment had not enough to eat, and had not for some few years bad a domestic

  1207
  servant in their house. He now came to the last question; what would be the cost? This mainly depended upon what they valued the amount of work, etc., that they did. He would be very modest on their behalf, and would ask the House to put it at £2 a week all round; in other words, he would ask the Government to relieve them of the rates on the first £104 of their tithe. He did not ask for a percentage of relief to every tithe owner. He asked that every man, whatever his receipt be, should be relieved to the same extent. This course would, for the money that had to be found, relieve the small tithe owners to a far greater extent than a percentage of relief would do. But it might fairly be asked, "what will be the total cost of your modest demand?" It was not easy to arrive off-hand at an exact amount, but the figure that he considered the most likely was £110,000 a year. The lower the figure at which the relief was fixed, the more would it cost the country per pound of relief absolutely given, because there were so many small tithe owners who would not participate in the whole relief, even up to £104 a year, and there would be fewer still if a higher figure were fixed upon. He would conclude by urging the Government to listen to their appeal, and to grant to these necessitous and highly-educated men liberally, but above all, speedily, such relief as in their judgment the necessity of the case required.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid they had now had an appeal made to them on the ground of the necessitous and highly-educated character of the clergy—in fact, both institutions which had been so much in fashion of late with hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to be in a very necessitous state. It was very curious that the clergy of the richest Church in Christendom should come to the House of Commons, and ask for a dole. Let him call attention to the wording the Motion:—
  "In view of the distressed condition of many of the clergy, whose remuneration is principally derived from tithe rent-charge, this House is of opinion that the burdens of local taxation
  1208
  borne by them are inequitable and excessive, and that the grievance is one that calls for substantial relief."
  He assumed it was not intended that the benefit contemplated should be given to the clergy as a whole, but only to those whose incomes were derived mainly from tithe rent-charge, and only to those so deriving their incomes who were in a distressed condition. That would set up a very curious and a new principle in taxation. Who was to be the judge of distressed condition? Reference had been made to a net income of £360. What a princely income £360 would be considered by many Nonconformist ministers, who did their work as honestly and efficiently as any clergyman of the Church of England. Yet they did not come to Parliament and ask for relief. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are not taxed as high."] However highly taxed the Church of England clergymen might be, they got a net income of £360, and, therefore, they were not a class to be viewed with special favour in a matter of this kind. It was right to examine how the commutation was fixed in the first instance. Originally the commutation included not only the tithe rent-charge, but the rates and taxes. [Cries of "No!"] In The Times of the 26th of May there was a letter giving three instances in Essex in which the commutation included the rates and taxes. He did not know whether those were exceptional cases or not, but by the inclusion of the rates and taxes a material difference was introduced into the argument. Don't let them forget that, whether rates and taxes were included or not, up to 1892-from 1836 to 1892-the average was above par. Was it to be said that because in the last five years the shoe had pinched, clergymen were entitled to come to the House of Commons and ask for substantial sympathy? Reference had been made to the Act of 1891. It was rather hard on the Conservative Government that they should be told that that Act was a bad one.
  MR. HARDYsaid he did not say that the Act was a bad one, but that the circumstances which were contemplated at the time the Act was passed had changed.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHthought that the circumstances were much more favourable to the clergyman, as it Was not the poor farmer but the landowner who was responsible for the payment of tithe. Since the passing of the Act of 1891 there had been very few bad debts in respect of tithe rent, for there was absolute security for its being paid. The assessment, too, had been higher, because the cost of collection had been lighter. Hon. Members would agree with him that the real question they had to consider was, Did clergymen pay a greater share of the taxation of the country than they ought to do? ["Hear, hear!"] The Motion only referred to local burdens, but it was necessary to pay heed to Imperial taxation. Of the latter there were three items the income tax, indirect taxation, and the succession duty. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the land tax."] As to the income tax, the clergyman was no worse off than anybody else, and as to indirect taxation he had only himself to blame if he contributed too much. He imagined that spirits and tobacco were commodities not consumed in very large quantities by the clerical party. [A laugh.] Succession duty was paid clergymen as individuals; the income of the rectory did not contribute it. Land tax he put under the bead of local taxation, and front it clergymen were exempted from 1806 to 1820. Since 1820 they had paid it like all other owners of land, and if they had the security of land for their incomes they must pay the penalty. He admitted that for the purposes of the poor rate the clergy were assessed at the full value of the tithe rent-charge, and the reason was that they had such a splendid security for their property. As to other rates, tithe rent-charge was on the same footing as land; it was assessed at one-third its value. Under the Public Health Act, 1875, it was on a very favourable footing, as it
  1210
  was exempted front three-fourths of its full value. As to a remedy, he ventured to submit one which he regarded as based on the best and closest precedent. The real remedy for the present state of affairs was a compulsory association of poor clergy—[Laughter]—no, not of poor clergymen, but of all clergymen, including the Archbishops and Bishops. They should all form this compulsory association, of course quite voluntarily. [Renewed laughter.] Having funned compulsory associations in the manner he had indicated, they would grow in that spontaneous way which the Vice President of the Council had said would happen in respect to another matter, and once they had grown spontaneously by the will of the clergy just as other associations were to grow by the will of the people, these things would adjust themselves, and the necessitous clergyman would have his income increased. What more Christian than that the richer clergymen should aid their poorer brethren?
  CAPTAIN PRETYMANsaid he thought it would be accepted as a sound principle that men should contribute in taxation in proportion to their ability to pay, and if he could show that, as a whole, the clergy were taxed, both in regard to local and Imperial taxation, in a larger proportion than the rest of the community, he thought he would have made out a case to go before the House. They did not come to the house in formâ pau peris; they did not ask for a dole because they were distressed. If they took up that ground, they would be told that, although they were distressed, there were many classes who were even snore distressed than they. What he and others asked was that the clergy should not bear more taxation than their fair share. The hon. Member who Seconded the Motion had brought forward several eases of exceptional hardship, and it would have been noticed that on the whole the clergy paid at the rate of 5s. in the pound. Take a

  1211
  case which was present to his mind of a living which was in two parishes, the income of which was £320 a year. Out of that a curate had to be paid, and £80 went in taxation. This was a typical case, and it was just 5s. in the pound, which, generally speaking, would be rather below than above the mark. On the basis of ability to pay as measured by the income tax, the amount would be 1s. 10½d. in the pound. This showed that the clergy were bearing an undue proportion. The suggestion of the hon. Member who had just spoken was that the clergy, those who were well off and those who were not, should all compulsorily combine into voluntary associations. He feared that remedy would not commend itself to the clergy. [ironical cheers.] He might draw a parallel from the payment of Members. It would just be as reasonable for the hon. Member to propose, as many hon. Members were in favour of that scheme, that they should pool their interests. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought that was not an unfair parallel. What he wished to impress on the House was that the burden of taxation fell on the clergy with absolutely exceptional severity. With regard to the remedies, a Commission was now sitting dealing with the whole question of local taxation, and it would be difficult to deal with this question until that Commission had reported. They pointed out the grievance, and they left it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, than whom no one was better able to grapple with it, to do the best he could. He thought the House might pass the Resolution, which dealt with no party question. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,)said he approached this question not only with sympathy but pain at the thought that the clergy of the august Church of England should be the only ministers of religion to conic to that House in formâ pau peris. [Cries of Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"] They had the Agricultural Rating Bill last
  1212
  Session, and there was nothing more natural than that the clergy, who also derived their income from the land, should make an appeal in their turn. There was no doubt that many of the clergy, who were hard working, devoted men, were miserably ill-paid, but what about the remedy for that state of things? If the suggested remissions were granted, there would be a deficit which would have to be supplied; so that they would have increased taxation in one direction, while it would be made lighter in another direction. It would also be an addition to what the Church would receive from the Education Bill. Was it likely that the laity would respond liberally to the appeals now being made to them on behalf of the clergy, if the House granted additional endowments to them in the form, suggested by the Motion? The clergy in the towns who depended on pew rents and offertories had not suffered from agricultural depression, and he did not suppose that the bishops, or the higher ranks of the clergy, had suffered in any degree. Why were the clergy in their present strait? It was because they had relied on State-endowments for support, instead of on the willing offerings of those to whom they ministered. Those endowments were now shrinking, and there was no adequate substitute. Many Churchmen had now become conscious of the disastrous effects of these endowments. One Churchman had said that "the close-fisted parsimony of the present is excused by the openhanded generosity of the past." Another, that "the want of willingness on the part of the laity to give liberally for Church work is because they have so much provided for them." A third acknowledged that" Churchmen, in doing spiritual work, have made the mistake of relying upon the dead hand of the past; and are pauperised by the endowments bequeathed by their ancestors. "The ill work of the past in that respect had to be undone; and the clergy would find that the true remedy for their pre-

  1213
  sent necessities was to be found in reliance upon the affection and liberality of their flocks, and on the power of the great Gospel which it was the business of their lives to preach. ["Hear, hear!"]
  COLONEL MILWARDsaid the hon. Member opposite had said that the clergy were suing that night in formâ pau peris,and the hon. Member for Anglesey said that they were asking for a dole. He denied each of those propositions. Those who supported the Motion came forward on a question of right. They based the Motion upon the rate on tithe, and they felt there they had a very strong case. The rate on tithe stood in a very different position from any other rate. Rent was generally the basis on which rates were levied, but in the case of tithe the rate was levied on production. Bent bore to production the proportion of one-third or one-fifth. Therefore, when a rate was levied on production, it was three or five times as much as a rate levied on rent. ["Hear, hear!"] They desired also to emphasise very strongly the point that it was a rate on a professional income, and there was no other instance in which a rate was levied on a professional income. He would take an instance from each of the counties of Warwick, Worcester, Leicester, and Hereford. In Warwickshire he, found a case in which the gross income of the living was £155 12s. 1d., and the actual taxation £30 6s. 4d. In Worcestershire there was a case in which the gross income was £690 7s. 5d., and the actual taxation £148 17s. 1d. In Leicestershire, on a, gross income of £339 5s. 4d., £71 11s. 2d. had to be paid in taxation; while in Herefordshire, on a gross income of £530 14s., £58 13s. 8d. had to be paid in taxation. And all these livings were subject to many other reductions, such as the payment of curates, pensions, and so on. Thus, in the Worcestershire case, though the gross income was £690 7s. 5d., the net income was only £301 5s. 4d. In the Leicestershire case, with a gross income of £339 5s. 4d., the
  1214
  net income was £246 8s. 8d.; and in the Herefordshire case the gross income of £530 14s. was reduced to a net income of £148 2s. 0d. The proportion of income paid in taxation was in the. Warwickshire case 19 per cent., in the Worcestershire case 20 per cent., in the Leicestershire case 21 per cent., and in the Herefordshire case 11 per cent. Another strong point was that the clergy were not represented in that House. There was no other class of Her Majesty's subjects that could not have direct representation in Parliament. It was true that they were represented in the other House by the bishops in many ways, but on any question of taxation or hardship they must come to the House of Commons. Therefore, he ventured to ask the House to deal tenderly and gently with persons so situated, and to ask for them the sympathetic attention of the Government. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. AUGUSTINE BIRRELLthought it was rather a shame that hon. Gentlemen opposite should have made their speeches in the House rather than by way of deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it was clear that they did not really propose to do more than to put the case of the poor clergy before the right hon. Gentleman, and did not seriously expect him to make any promise binding himself or his successors. He only rose for the purpose of making one observation. The strong case of the Church—a case which rendered it most invulnerable in the eyes of the people—was that it was an institution in the possession of its own property, and in no way deriving its revenue from the State. That was an honest and a formidable argument. But if clergymen thought that they ought to pay less in taxation, and came to that House asking that they might be put on a different footing from the rest of the community—[Ministerial cries of "No," and "Hear, hear!"]—very many other people who thought that they were in the same plight would at once ask that

  1215
  the law should be altered in their favour also, so that they, too, should be exempted from the payment of certain taxes. He sympathised as much as any man could with the distressed clergy, and miserable indeed must be the mental condition of the man who did not recognise that the lives of the clergy were almost without exception devoted to what they believed to be the public good. When they found clergymen who were dependent on charity for the clothing, and sometimes for the food, of their children, of course, pity was excited in their breasts, and possibly also amazement and indignation that such things should be. But other people besides clergymen were poor. There were poor solicitors in the country—[cries of "No," and laughter)—and poor doctors, and poor Nonconformist ministers, and all these people doubtless held that they had equally good claims to exceptional treatment. By asking that the claims of the clergy to relief should be given priority over the claims of other classes, the Church party would depart from the strong position which they at present occupied in connection with this matter. Their opponents would be able to say that in that House the clergy were treated on a different footing front other taxpayers. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] It would be a bad thing for the Church of England if the idea should get abroad that that House was ready to remove burdens from the shoulders of the clergy in order to transfer them to the shoulders of their parishioners, many of whom might not even belong to the Church of England.
  MR. ARTHUR JEFFREYS (Hants,)suggested that a process of redemption would be a good way of relieving the clergy of the rates and burdens on the tithe rent-charge. The hon. and learned Member who had just sat down had pointed out that if the clergy were relieved their burdens would have to be borne by others. That was, no doubt, true; but if tithe redemption were to take place any extra rates thrown
  1216
  upon parishes would have to be met by the landowners. It was not many years ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a Bill dealing with this very subject, but it was not proceeded with for want of time. Why could not a Bill for the redemption of tithe be re-introduced now, when money could be borrowed so cheaply? The Royal Commission on agricultural distress had reported unanimously that if this tithe rent-charge could be got rid of, not only would all existing occupiers of land be benefited, but future occupiers also.
  SIR JOHN LENDwished to say a few words, as one of the representatives of a country which he had not even heard named in the course of discussion. Most speakers had spoken as if England were the whole of the United kingdom, and as if the clergy of the Church of England constituted the whole of the clergy in this country. He begged to remind hon. Members that there was one important country roped Scotland. The hon. Member who had just spoken had pointed to one method of dealing with the question which had been brought before them. He would draw attention to the example which had been set by the Established Church of Scotland. There were many poor livings in that Church and many poor clergymen, but the members of the Church of Scotland did not come to that House with an appeal to have the stipends of the poorer clergy supplemented, but established a Clergy Augmentation Fund. Although the northern division of the Kingdom was by no means as wealthy as the southern, although the members of the Church of Scotland were not, as a rule, as wealthy as the members of the Church of England, and although the Church of Scotland had no highly-paid dignitaries like the bishops of the Church of England, that fund was established, and under it every minister in a parish church in Scotland received an income of £200 a year. If appeals were to be made for exemptions in favour of the Church of

  1217
  England clergy a very strong case for similar exemptions could be made out on behalf of the clergy of the Church of Scotland. It would not do for the Finance Minister of this country to consider local appeals merely, especially when that Minister was a member of a Unionist Government. In dealing with matters of this kind the Chancellor of the Exchequer must regard the whole of the United Kingdom, and act upon such broad and general principles as were applicable to each division of that Kingdom. He had referred to Scotland as setting an example worthy of imitation, and he would now refer to it by way of warning to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although the clergy of the Scotch Church had now the benefit of the Augmentation Fund, they enjoyed, under "use and wont," an exemption from the payment of poor rates, and at every election candidates were questioned as to why this special exemption was given exclusively to the clergy of the Established Church and not extended to Nonconformists. If the right hon. Gentleman were to do what he was asked to do for the clergy of the Church of England, ministers of Nonconformist Churches would suffer under another serious grievance. There were many conscientious, devoted, zealous and pious men ministering in the Nonconformist Churches of England, and why should they be excluded from the benefaction which it was desired to bestow on the clergy of the Church of England? He could not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to create another grievance as between the one class and the other. Gentlemen sitting, on the Benches opposite were already believed to have been legislating for the classes rather than for the masses. [Ministerial laughter and "Hear, hear!"] A day of reckoning was coining for hon. Gentlemen opposite. Every step they took in the direction suggested was a step which would lead them further astray. He hoped they would not have any more
  1218
  of this class legislation. Many on the Opposition side of the House were not strong partisans. [Ministerial laughter and cries of "Oh!"] They wished for legislation on fair and equitable principles, and were prepared to support any Government which would legislate in that direction, as they were also prepared to oppose to the utmost of their ability any Government which was addicted to legislation of the character he had described.
  MR. JEBBreminded the hon. Member for West Fife that the clergy did not claim any exceptional treatment. He wished to emphatically contradict that assertion. What was peculiar to the case of the clergy was the nature of their grievance. What they asked was that, suffering under burdens which were "excessive and inequitable," they should receive the same kind of equitable consideration given to any other overtaxed class. Why was their grievance a special one? Because so much of their income was derived from the source of tithe. And the special points in their case were these. They were a professional class who were rated on their professional income; they were taxed on money which they never received; their income from tithes had diminished while their burdens had increased. The tithe was assessed in Queen Elizabeth's time to the poor rate only. Now it was assessed to ever so many rates. Clerical incomes far below the level for exemption from income tax were heavily taxed, and it was an unfortunate thing that recent Measures for the relief of agricultural land, instead of lightening their burdens, tended to increase them. Under the Act of 1896, a good authority said it is probable that the rating of buildings and other hereditaments would have to be increased—[cheers]—and in some purely agricultural parishes where there are few buildings a considerable addition to the rate is thus likely to be thrown on the tithe rent-charge. Let the House remember that the heavy burdens on the clergy—crushing burdens as

  1219
  they were on those who held small livings—did not affect the clergy alone, but also the poor to whom the clergy ministered; and hon. Members opposite who talked about class legislation should remember that if they opposed relief of the heavy burdens of the poorer clergy they were inflicting a grievous injury on the poor. The late Lord Selborne, who knew the subject well and the lot of the clergy, and was careful of his words and never exaggerated, said, in his "Defence of the Church" (1886):—
  "The parochial clergy of the Church of England, without legal constraint—and although their endowments are too often insufficient for the decent maintenance of themselves and their families, unless supplemented by private means—are throughout the country the main dispensers of most of the charities of life; ministering generously and liberally, not so much of their abundance as of their poverty, to the temporal as well as spiritual necessities of their poor. Where others can and will help, they bear their full share; and in many places, if the good were not done by them, it would be left to the poor law."
  He, therefore, supported the Motion, not only in the interests of the grievously overtaxed poorer clergy, but also in the interests of the poor, to whatever denomination they belonged, throughout the country. [Cheers.]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The hon. Member for West Fife rather complained that this matter had not been ventilated by a deputation to myself in place of being discussed in this House. I can only say that for myself I do, not share that regret. [Laughter.] If the Debate is memorable for nothing else, I think we shall not forget the perfectly candid and frank manner in which the hon. Member admitted the formidable nature of the argument that the Church's property belonged to herself. [Cheers.] I do not recollect that the hon. Member was quite so strong upon that point in the course of the last Parliament.
  MR. BIRRELL: I recognise that the Church's property belongs to the Church and no one else, in the same way as the property of any public charity belongs
  1220
  to that charity and nobody else. But unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say that the Charity Commissioners have no right from time to time to divert from one object to another charitable funds, I am at a loss to see why he need think I am guilty of any inconsistency when I say that Church property, although it belongs to the Church, may very well by the House, on proper considerations, be diverted from its original purposes to others of a more important character. [Ministerial laughter.]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am content with the admissions that the hon. Member has made, all the more so because I was going to observe on the somewhat discursive nature of the Debate. I do not intend to say a word more on that subject, neither will I follow the hon. Member for Dundee in his assertion of the claims of Scotland, which I think betrayed ignorance of the system of rating tithe rent-charge in England. The hon. Member for Plymouth told us a good deal about Imperial taxation upon the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and about the enormous value of the land which is under the control of that body, and generally of the great resources at their command. This Motion does not relate to Imperial taxation; it does not, relate to land or tithe rent-charge under the control of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and therefore I fail to see how the hon. Member's observations were appropriate to the occasion. I am glad myself that we have not to discuss the whole subject of tithe rent-charge and rating. I have had something to do in this House with both these subjects. I had the somewhat unpleasant task of passing an Act, through this House with regard to tithe rent-charge in 1891, and I am afraid it is 30 years ago since I sat on a Select-Committee on the Valuation of Property Bill, which dealt also with the rating of tithe rent-charge; and I can only say that if there be two dry technical subjects in this world I think the two I have named

  1221
  are the driest. United they were simply terrible as a matter of discussion. [Laughter.] I am glad, therefore, that what we have to deal with to-day is not the subject as a whole. If it were, think I could show some reason for the view I hold that tithe rent-charge, not belonging to the incumbent of the parish, has little or nothing to complain of in the matter of rating. It has certain deductions allowed to it in calculating the rateable value Erma the gross estimated rental. I believe those deductions are fair. I see no reason why they should be increased. I am glad to recognise the fact that my two hon. Friends who Moved and Seconded this Motion admitted in their speeches, as I think has been generally admitted by those who have spoken in favour of the Motion, that the rating of tithe rent-charge could not properly have been dealt with in the Bating Act of last Session, but that it stands on a different footing from land, and must, if dealt with at all, be dealt with in a different way. I confess I have always felt that, although in my belief, and in the belief of the great majority of this House, there was great reason for the relief which was given by the Act of last Session to agricultural land in the matter of rating, yet., tithe rent-charge being the first charge on agricultural and other land a charge which has to be paid, whatever amount the owner of the land might have to expend in repairs and cultivation of the land out of which the tithe rent-charge has to be paid—is on a totally different footing, and could not claim the kind and amount of relief given last year. The point before us is, whether tithe rent-charge which belongs to the incumbent of the parish is, ill regard to rating, on a different footing from other tithe rent-charge. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, who proposed the Motion, and gave us some most interesting and painful statistics as to the sufferings of the parochial clergy in this matter, suggested that further deductions should be made in such cases in calcu-
  1222
  lating the rateable value of the tithe rent-charge from the gross estimated rental. He suggested that payments to Queen Anne's Bounty and land tax, and payments to curates, and payments which the incumbent was obliged to make to daughter parishes, should be allowed for in calculating the rateable value. With regard to the first of these I am bound to say I think my hon. Friend would find it difficult to draw a distinction between payments to Queen Anne's Bounty for loans borrowed by the incumbent for the improvement of the living or house, and payments by an ordinary owner of land for money borrowed by hint from a land improvement company, or some other source, for the improvement of his property. I do not see how you could allow one deduction without allowing the other. Again, with regard to the land tax. How could you allow a deduction to the incumbent for land tax in calculating the rateable value of tithe without also allowing a deduction to the landowner for land tax in calculating the rateable value of the land? Then, again, I come to the further suggestions which the hon. Member made. They were based on what I feel is a strong argument—that the incumbent of the parish being rated on his tithe rent-charge is the only mail who is rated on his professional income. [Cheers.] He is rated as the occupier of tithe rent-charge. But he occupies that because he has to render certain services, either by himself or by curates whom he has to employ, and if he ceased to render those services he will, of course, under the law very soon cease to occupy tithe rent-charge. That is a matter in which I feel with my hon. Friend that the incumbent of a parish paid by tithe rent-charge is in an entirely different position from any other person assessed to the rates. I, therefore, am bound to say that I feel a very strong sympathy with the suggestion which has been made, that this is a matter which constitutes a grievance and requires a remedy.

  1223
  [Cheers.] But then I come to the point how that remedy is to be applied, and there I have to admit that there is a great force in what has been said on the other side of the House, and admitted on this, that the rating of tithe rent-charge paid to incumbents is, after all, only a part, and not a very large part, of the great question of local taxation. Well, Sir, we dealt with a part of that question last Session, and in dealing with it we were obliged by a general consensus of opinion, not by any means confined to one side of the House, to refer the whole subject to a Royal Commission, which is now sitting and investigating it. How can I, how can Her Majesty's Government, take out from the investigation of this Commission one part of the question of local taxation, and attempt to deal with it by way of relief, while neglecting all the rest? It is perfectly true, is hon. Members on this side have said, that there are other ratepayers who have had, and who have, legitimate cause of complaint. It is perfectly true that in our great towns you may find shopkeepers, or occupiers of the poorer class of houses, law may have great cause of complaint in regard to the amount of the rates. All these matters are now being investigated by the Royal Commission. I would suggest to my hon. Friends, and to those whom they represent here, that, if they have not done so already, they should lose no time in bringing this special matter of the rating of clerical tithe rent-charge under the early notice of that Royal Commission ["Hear, hear!"] If it should seem well to that, commission to make Report to Parliament on that or any other subject, then the time would arise when Her Majesty's Government might fairly and properly consider whether they should deal with it, and, if so, how it should be dealt with. For the moment, I can only, on behalf of the Government, express my feeling that there is a grievance in this matter which requires to be remedied, and that it will have to be dealt with as part of the great subject
  1224
  of local taxation, and in that way I hope some fair relief may be given to those whose case has been so eloquently advocated. [Cheers.]
  The House divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes, 97.—(Division List, No. 143.)

LONDON TAXATION (GRANTS IN AID).
MR. T. LOUGHmoved:—
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether the amount annually received by London under grants in aid bears a just proportion to the amount contributed by London to the general taxes of the nation."
He said that perhaps the phraseology of the Motion was not perfect in every respect. By "general taxes of tin nation" he meant Imperial taxes as well as local taxes. It was very difficult to find any absolute accurate estimate of how much London paid in Imperial taxation. London was kept separate from the rest of the country in the Income Tax Returns, and it would appear from those that London paid about 7–15ths of the whole. It was not perhaps absolutely fair to quote that figure in support of his argument, because a large amount of the Income Tax paid in London was earned elsewhere. But in the case of the inhabited house duty London was assessed for 2–5ths of as much as the whole country was assessed, which showed the large amount contributed to Imperial Taxation by London. In 1888 the present system of grants in aid was instituted. There was the allocation of licences that might be paid in any given localities to the local purposes of those localities, and there was the allocation out of Excise instead of other grants in aid paid previous to 1888. The loss to London in licences was a growing loss. In 1888–89, the first year of the allocation, London got in licences practically

1225
14 per cent. of the whole amount, while live years afterwards London only received per cent. But the position of London was much worse in regard to the allocation out of Excise instead of other grants. In the first place, the year 1888 was for London the worst year that could have been chosen for the allocation, which had remained since then a more or less permanently fixed grant. If any of the four previous years had been chosen she would have got a larger proportion of the grant. Loudon got only 22½ per cent. of the twos in 1888, whereas if the allocation had occurred in the previous year she would have gut 29 per cent., and in the year before 23 per cent. Before the year 1888 London used to receive from Imperial resources a contribution of 4d. in the pound on the rates towards ate maintenance of the police within the Metropolitan area, and the amount paid in the year 1888 had been given to.London, ever since. But the rates had since increased, and the Commissioners of Police had demanded from the London County Council 4d. in the pound on the growing rates, although the County Council only received front the Imperial Exchequer the amount fixed in 1888. During the past seven years London received £152,00 less towards the maintenance of the police than she would have got if the arrangement in existence before 1888 bad continued. London received only £3,500 for main roads out of a total grant of £500,000 and nothing, at all in aid of sanitation, though a grant of £75,000 a year was Made for that purpose to other parts of the country. To sum up the whole case, London received in these grants in aid 19 per cent. of her total rate, while the rest of the country received between 19 and 20 per cent. He admitted that there was one difficulty in the way of the Government by, his Motion for a Committee of Inquiry, and that was that there was a Royal Commission sitting which was practically inquiring into every point at issue, and which, according to the President of the Local Government Board,
1226
would take evidence in regard to the grievance of London. He doubted, however, whether the reference to the Royal Commission would enable the grievance of London to be fully considered; and he, therefore, appealed to the Govermnent to consider the matter in a sympathetic spirit, because the grievance was one which the people of London of all classes felt very much. ["Hear, hear!"]
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid that he had promised to Second the Resolution, but he understood from his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board that this subject would be inquired into and reported on Iv the Royal Commission on Local Taxation which was now sitting. He certainly thought that London was hardly treated in this matter. The question was not, however, so much, as stated in the Amendment, the proportion received; and paid by London, but, what was even More important, whether the proportion allocated to London out of the contribution In the Exchequer in aid of rates was fair in relation to that paid to other parts of the kingdom. He made no complaint either of the present Government or late Government. The position arose front unforeseen circumstances, and all that those who represented London asked for wan that there should be a careful Inquiry into the facts. He understood his right hon. Friend to say that the Royal Commission would do So, and that case he supposed the hon. Member for Islington would not press his Resolution. He would not repeat the details given by the hon. Member. The relief afforded to London in the way of grants in aid of local taxation was less than that of ally other part of the country. The proportion of the Exchequer contribution to the rateable Value was in London 2·3 and in the rest of the country 9·2; the proportion of the Exchequer contribution to the rates levied was in London 12·5 and ill the rest of the country 21·5. In other words, London ought to receive in the first

1227
case £160,000 more, and in the second £400,000 more. In fact, London was worse off than any county or county borough in receipt of relief from the Imperial Exchequer. Again, London contributed more to Imperial resources. London paid £655,000 inhabited house duty out of a total of £1,460,000. The skilled advisers of the London County Council considered, he believed, that London ought to receive from £300,000 to £400,000 a year more than she actually did at the present time, and this was a very serious matter for the ratepayers of London. At the same time they made no complaint whatever against his right hon. Friend or his predecessors, as they knew that the circumstances had arisen from the complication of the subject, and they recognised that there was no intention whatever to deal unjustly with London. They, however, asked that the matter should be carefully inquired into, and they understood that the Royal Commission would really investigate the whole question. Under these circumstances his hon. Friend would, perhaps, not think it necessary to press the Resolution to a Division. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,)remarked that the hon. Member who moved the Resolution had very truly stated that the question of whether London received an adequate share of the Imperial grants, as compared with other parts of the country, was one which had been frequently raised and discussed both in and out of Parliament, and the Motion under ordinary circumstances would have been a very proper one for discussion by the House. But, in view of the reply which he had given that day to a question addressed to him, it was clear that a Debate was not called for upon this occasion. He gladly recognised the spirit in which both the Mover and Seconder of the Motion had accepted the reply to which he referred, and in which he stated that the question raised by the hon. Member was
1228
undoubtedly within the scope of the Inquiry now being conducted by the Royal Commission. This was also the view of the Chairman of the Commission, and therefore he thought it would be quite uncalled for on his part if he were to enter into any debate upon the question. He merely wished, however, to guard himself from being supposed to adhere to the principle which he understood was laid down by the hon. Member that London ought to receive a share of the Imperial grants in proportion to the amount she paid to the general taxes of the nation. That was a view he was not prepared to support, and, having said that much, he thought he had probably said all that was necessary. ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. LOUGHobserved that, after the very satisfactory assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PIERS AND HARBOURS.
MR. EDWIN LAWRENCErose to move the following Resolution:—
" That, in the opinion of this House, in the interests of trade and communication by sea between places on the coast of England and Wales, and with a view to the protection and development of sea fisheries and the safety of the persons engaged in them, it is desirable that a Departmental Committee be appointed to inquire in what way and to what extent the existing provision of piers and harbours on those coasts should be improved."
The hon. Member's opening remarks were interrupted by notice being taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—
The House was Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes after Seven of the Clock till To-morrow.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered,—
That no Private Bill brought front the House of Commons shall be read a Second time later than the third day on which the House shall sit after the recess at Whitsuntide.
That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought front the House of Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Com-be read a First time later than the third day on which the House shall sit after the recess at Easter.
That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a Second time later than the third day on which the House shall sit after the recess at Whitsuntide.
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendments, these Orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended.
That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill later than the 6th day of April next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the High Court of Justice later than the third day on which, the House shall sit after the recess at Easter.
That this House will not receive any Report from Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills later than the third day on which the House shall sit after the recess at Easter.
Ordered, That the said Orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall.—[No. 35.]
House Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes before Five o'Clock, to Thursday next, a Quarter past Ten o'Clock.