Sitting of 17 April 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER, owing to indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy - Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, vizi.:—Barry Railway Bill [Lords]; Clacton Improvement Bill [Lords]; Commercial Union Assurance Bill [Lords]; Mortgage Insurance Corporation Bill [Lords]; Preston Corporation (Ribble Navigation) Bill [Lords]; Rhymney Railway Bill [Lords]; Truro Water Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First
  270
  Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Municipal Corporations (Merthyr TYdfil Scheme Confirmation) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.
  Whitechapel and Bow Railway Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Cordoba and Rosario Railway Bill [Lords]; Entre Rios Railways Bill [Lords]. [Not amended], considered; to be read the third time.
  Clyde Navigation Bill [Lords]; Hastings Harbour Bill [Lords]; Hessle Gas Bill [Lords]; Marylebone Chapels Bill [Lords]; Metropolitan Railway Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]. To be read a second time To-morrow.
  West Cumberland Electric Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill (by Order). Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 18th May.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Birkenhead, Bradford (Yorkshire), Chester, Derby, Leek, Ossett, and Plymouth," presented by Mr. Grant Lawson; supported by Mr. Gerald Balfour. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]
  Grangemouth Waterworks and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Grangemouth Waterworks and Burgh Extension," presented by the Lord-Advocate; read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 3rd May, and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

PETITIONS.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Buckpool; Edinburgh; Larkhall; Leith; and Spring-burn; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from Manchester, in favour: to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Copy presented, of further correspondence relating to Labour in the Transvaal Mines [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT).
  Copy presented, of Tenth Abstract of Labour Statistics of the United Kingdom, 1902–4 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHTHOUSES, ETC. (LOCAL INSPECTIONS).
  Copies presented, of Reports to the Board of Trade by the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, and the Commissioners of Irish Lights of their inspection of Local Lighthouses, Buoys, and Beacons [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 132.]
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations for Secondary Schools (from August 1st, 1905, to 31st July, 1906) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 7th March; Mr. John Morley];
  272
  to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 133.]

  IRISH LAND ACT, 1903.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Rules and Regulations, dated 14th April, 1905, under the Irish Land Act, 1903 [by Act], to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report and Papers relating to the Training of Teachers for the year 1903–4 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON CHURCHES (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Royal Commission on Churches (Scotland), Vol. I., Report [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON CHURCHES (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Royal Commission on Churches (Scotland), Vol. II., Minutes of Evidence and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHARITY COMMISSION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of fifty-second Report of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES (REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented, of Regulations made with the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the management, and discipline of the certified Inebriate Reformatory at Cattal, near York [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (APPEALS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 10th April; Sir Mancherjee Bhownaggree]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3339 to 3341 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EGYPT (No. 1, 1905).
  Copy presented, of Reports by His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General on the Finances, Administration, and Condition of Egypt and the Soudan in 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  Parish of

  County of

  Name, description, and purpose of each gift, mortification, or bequest, and by whom made.

  Date of the same.

  Amount of the same.

  Manner in which the same is invested.

  Authority by which such investment was made.

  Rate of interest obtained from said investment.

  State whether interest is in arrear; and, if so, from what date.

  Describe title deeds, and state in whose custody they are deposited.

  State in what register the deed of constitution and the last title are recorded.

  Annual income derived from the Trust during the year.

  Amount distributed to beneficiaries during the year 1904.

  Number of beneficiaries among whom the Trust was distributed during the year 1904.

  Has the Trust been transferred to the Parish Council under Section 30 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894; and, if so, by whom.

  And (2) of the Parochial and other Trusts upon which the Parish Council have applied for representation in terms

  Names of Trusts upon which the Parish Council have made application for representation in terms of Section 30 of The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894.

  Person or body to whom application was made.

  Has application been granted?

  Where application has been refused, state grounds on which such refusal was based.

  —(Mr. Haldane)

  PARISH TRUSTS (SCOTLAND), (No. 1).
  Return ordered, "(1) of all and every sum or sums of money, or other funds or properties, heritable or moveable, which have been given, mortified, or bequeathed wholly or mainly for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Parish, or any of them, as such inhabitants, or for any public purpose connected with the Parish, and which have become vested in or are administered by the Parish Council, in the following form—
  Of Section 30 of The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894:—

  PARISH TRUSTS (SCOTLAND), (No. 2).
  Return ordered, "(1) of all and every sum or sums of money, or other funds or properties, heritable or moveable, which have been given, mortified, or bequeathed wholly or mainly for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Parish, or any of them, as such inhabitants, or for any public purpose connected with the Parish, other than the purposes excepted

  Parish of

  County of

  Name, description, and purpose of each gift, mortification, or bequest, and by whom made.

  Date of the same.

  Amount of the same.

  Manner in which the same is invested.

  Authority by which such investment was made.

  Rate of interest obtained from said investment.

  State whether interest is in arrear; and, if so, from what date.

  Describe title deeds and state in whose custody they are deposited.

  State in what register the deed of constitution and the last title are recorded.

  Number of Trustees.

  Number of additional persons (if any) appointed to act along with the Trustees in terms of Section 30 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, and date of approval of Local Government Board.

  Annual income derived from the Trust during the year 1904.

  Amount distributed to beneficiaries during the year 1904.

  Number of beneficiaries among whom the Trust was distributed during the year 1904.

  £ s. d.

  £ s. d.

  And (2) of Trusts which have been transferred by the Town Council, or members thereof, in terms of Section

  Name of Trust.

  Date of Transfer.

  Has Trust been transferred to Parish Council or to persons appointed by them. In the latter case, give names of such persons.

  —(Mr. Haldane)

  BURGH TRUSTS (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, (1) of all and every sum or sums of money, or other funds or properties, heritable or moveable, which
  from the operation of Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, and which have become vested in or are administered by the kirk session or heritors and kirk session or minister of the Parish, or the kirk session or deacons' court or managers or vestry of a congregation belonging to any religious denomination, in the following form—
  30 (1) of The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894—
  have been given, mortified, or bequeathed wholly or mainly for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Burgh, or any of them, as such inhabitants, or for any public purpose connected with the Burgh, and

  277
  which have become vested in or are administered by the town council, or any

  Town Council of

  County of

  Name, description, and purpose of each gift, mortification, or bequest, and by whom made.

  Date of the same.

  Amount of the same.

  Manner in which the same is invested.

  Authority by which such investment was made.

  Rate of interest obtained from said investment.

  State whether interest is in arrear; and, if so, from what date.

  Describe title deeds, and state in whose custody they are deposited.

  State in what register the deed of constitution and the last title are recorded.

  Annual income derived from the Trust during the year 1904.

  Amount distributed to beneficiaries during the year 1904.

  Number of beneficiaries among whom the Trust was distributed during the year 1904.

  £ s. d.

  £ s. d.

  And (2) of Trusts which have been transferred, by the Town Council, or members thereof, in terms of Section 30

  Name of Trust.

  Date of Transfer.

  Has Trust been transferred to Parish Council or to persons appointed by them. In the latter case, give names of such persons.

  —(Mr. Haldane.)

  BY-LAWS IN RURAL DISTRICTS.
  Return ordered, "showing, as regards each rural district in England and Wales, the area, population, and number of

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  Rural district.

  Area of District in acres.

  Population according to Census of 1901.

  Number of parishes in District.

  Whether any By-laws with respect to new streets or new buildings are in force.

  Where any such By-laws are in force in part only of the District, the names of the parishes in which they are in force.

  Whether the By-laws substantially follow the Urban Model Series.

  If so, whether they contain any modification as regards the materials to be used in the structure of walls.

  Whether the By-laws substantially follow the Rural Model Series.

  If in excess of Rural Model, whether they contain any additional provisions as regards the materials to be used in the structure of walls.

  —(Mr. Hendry Hobhouse.)
  member or members thereof, in the following form—
  (1) of The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894—
  parishes, whether there are in force any By-laws with respect to new streets and buildings, and, if so, the scope of such By-laws, in the following form—

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return ordered, "relating to all authorised Gas Undertakings in the United Kingdom belonging to Local Authorities, for the year ended the 25th day of March, 1905 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 332, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1905 (1) the amount contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, to the Revenue collected by Imperial officers; (2) the expenditure on English, Scotch, and Irish services met out of such Revenue; and (3) the balances of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, which are available for Imperial expenditure (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 225, of Session 1904.)"—(Mr. Lough.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Preferential Treatment by United States of Sugar Grown in the Philippine Islands.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether sugar grown in the Philippine Islands enjoys any, and, if so, what preferential treatment on entry into the United States.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) Philippine sugar imported into the United States pays 75 per cent. of the ordinary tariff rates of import duty.

  United States Sugar Duties and Bounties.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether cane sugars grown in Porto Rico, the Sandwich Islands, and Louisiana, and beetroot sugar grown in the United States, pay no import or Excise duty, and cane sugar grown in Cuba only pays 80 per cent. of the United States duty; and whether bounties are paid to the growers of beetroot sugar by several of the separate States in the Union; whether refined
  280
  sugar exported from the United States receives a drawback equivalent to the whole duty, although the sugar may have paid no duty or a reduced duty; and, if this be so, whether the Government are bound by the Brussels Convention to prevent the importation of such bounty-fed sugar into the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative; only one State at present pays a bounty on beet sugar and only one factory benefits by that bounty; the drawback paid on sugar exported from the United States is 99 per cent. of the import duty paid on the raw sugar, from which it is refined. The last part of the Question does not therefore arise.

  British Pilotage Certificates—Eligibility of Foreigners to hold same.
  MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a pilotage certificate was granted by the Board to the master of a Dutch vessel after the Bristol Pilotage Committee had refused to grant him one on the ground of his being a foreigner; and will he say whether the Bristol Pilotage Committee had power to refuse the grant of a pilotage certificate on the above-mentioned ground; and, if so, for what reason was their decision set aside.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) A. pilotage certificate was recently granted after examination by the Board of Trade in the circumstances stated in the Question. It is entirely within the discretion of a pilotage authority to decide whether or not they will examine, and, if satisfied, grant a pilotage certificate to the master or mate of any ship applying for a certificate. It is, however, provided by Section 600 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, that, "if it appears to the Board of Trade upon complaint made to them that a pilotage authority have," without reasonable cause, refused to examine a master or mate or to grant such a certificate, the Board may, if the circumstances of the case appear to them to require it, exercise the. powers of the pilotage authority in this

  281
  respect. Having regard to the decision arrived at by a Select Committee of the House of Commons in the year 1888, and subsequently discussed in Parliament, and approved by Section 1 of The Merchant Shipping (Pilotage) Act, 1889, which is incorporated in The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the Board are unable to hold that the fact of an applicant being an officer of a foreign ship affords reasonable ground for refusal to examine him or to grant him a certificate.

  Government's Fiscal Policy.
  MR. BLACK: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state whether the Government's policy is to promote or to oppose the preferential or protective taxation of food.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I do not think that anything would be gained by attempting to deal with the fiscal controversy by Parliamentary Question and Answer.

  Landing of Fish Illegally Trawled in Moray Firth.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state whether, in view of the continued evasion of Fishery Board by-laws by British-owned trawlers sailing under a foreign flag, the Secretary for Scotland has yet come to a decision with other Government Departments in regard to the recommendation of the Fishery Board that all ports of the United Kingdom should be closed against the landing of fish caught by trawlers in the Moray Firth.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The matter referred to by the hon. Member is still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement as to the attitude of the Government.

  Irish Poor Law and Local Government Officials.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Poor Law and other local officers previous to being sanctioned by the Local Government Board have to sign a query sheet promising to conform to certain regula-
  282
  tions issued by the Local Government Board, and in existence at the time of appointment, and that these regulations or duties are specified under the headings of the different offices; and will he say whether any officer who complies with the regulations prescribed for his office and discharges the duties accordingly, can be disturbed in his tenure of office by either the local authority under whom he serves or by the Local Government Board; and, if so, to state the Act of Parliament and the section; whether there is any rule laid down in the Local Government Board office for determining the punishments to be meted out to the Poor Law and other local officers for transgression of or dereliction in the discharge of duty; and whether there have ever been any instances in which Poor Law officers have been dismissed by the Local Government Board without their boards of guardians ever having been apprised of bad marks being made against them in the Local Government Board offices; and, if so, will he state the cases and the causes which led to such action.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Poor Law officers are required to sign query I sheets with the view of eliciting information as to their history and qualifications. They do not sign any promise to conform to the statutory regulations of the Board, for these they are bound to obey. The Local Government Board can, either upon or without any suggestion or complaint from the guardians, remove any; ordinary paid officer whom they may I deem unfit for or incompetent to discharge the duties of his office, or who shall refuse to obey or carry out the orders of the Board (1 and 2 Vic, c. 58, s. 33). They can also remove dispensary doctors on sufficient grounds (14 and 15 I Vic, c. 68, s. 8). Under Section 86 of; the Local Government Act of 1898 any officer who wilfully fails or refuses to perform any duty or do anything required of him by the Act or the Orders of the Local Government Board is liable to a fine not exceeding 40s., or 40s. per day if the offence is a continuing one, There is no such rule as is mentioned, each case being dealt with on its merits. Records of officers' misconduct are kept, but not by means of bad marks. It is

  283
  not the practice of the Board to dismiss an officer without first communicating with the guardians on the subject of the officer's default.

  Irish Education—Rule 127 (b)—Commissioners present when Rule was passed.
  MR. P. A. McHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what date did the National Education Board for Ireland finally approve of, and adopt, Rule 127 (b); who were the Commissioners present at the meeting at which the rule was adopted; were there any vacancies on the Board at the time the rule was adopted; and, if so, can he say whether these vacancies have since been filled up; and can he give the names of the newly-appointed Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The regulation now embodied in Rule 127 (b) was passed unanimously at a meeting of the Board on the 25th October, 1904, at which the following Commissioners were present—

  Sir Henry Bellingham, Bart., D.L.

  Right Hon. Christopher Palles, Lord Chief Baron.

  Rev. Henry Evans, D.D.

  Sir Rowland Blennerhassett, Bart., DL.

  His Honour Judge Shaw.

  Rev. Hamilton B. Wilson, D.D.

  Stanley Harrington, Esq., J.P.

  William R. J. Molloy, Esq., J.P.

  Right Rev. Mervyn Archdall, D.D., Bishop of Killaloe.

  Right Hon. Mr. Justice Gibson.

  Anthony Traill, Esq., LL.D., M.D., D.L., Provost of Trinity College.

  Right Hon. Lord Frederick FitzGerald.

  Rev. D. A. Taylor, M.A., D.D.

  W. J. M. Starkie, Esq., M.A., Litt.D., Resident Commissioner.

  There were three Commissioners absent and there were three vacancies on the Board.
  The new Code, including Rule 127 (b), was approved at a meeting of the Board
  284
  on the 20th December, 1904. The following Commissioners were present—

  Sir Henry Bellingham, Bart., D.L.

  Right Hon. Christopher Palles, Lord Chief Baron.

  Sir Rowland Blennerhassett, Bart., LL.D., D.L.

  His Honour Judge Shaw.

  Rev. Hamilton B. Wilson, D.D.

  William R. J. Molloy, Esq., J.P.

  Right Rev. Mervyn Archdall, D.D., Bishop of Killaloe.

  Anthony Traill, Esq., LL.D., M.D., D.L., Provost of Trinity College.

  Right Hon. Lord Frederick FitzGerald.

  His Honour Judge Carton.

  Rev. D. A. Taylor, M.A., D.D.

  Right Hon. Lord Killanin.

  W. J. M. Starkie, Esq, M.A., Litt.D., Resident Commissioner.

  Four Commissioners were absent and there were three vacancies on the Board.
  The following are the names of the newly-apnointed Commissioners—

  The Most Rev. Patrick Foley, D.D., Bishop of Kildare and Leigblin.

  Edward John Gwynn, Esq., M.A., F.T.O.D.

  Gerald Dease, Esq., D.L.

  Facilities at Park Drain Station (Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Railway).
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will bring his influence to bear upon the directors of the North Eastern and Great Northern Railways with a view to their giving a station master and facilities sufficient for the requirements of the district at the station of Park Drain on their joint line between Doncaster and Lincoln.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade have communicated with the Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Committee on whose line Park Drain Station is situated, and the Committee have informed the Board that a

  285
  very small amount of traffic is dealt with at this station, and that it is not considered that any increase in the expense of working the station would be justified. It is added that the station is managed by a responsible foreman who is under the control of the neighbouring station master at Haxey.

  Bristol Art Union—Picture Lottery.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the Act for legalising art unions, the Board of Trade has sanctioned the combination of the schemes for the furtherance of fine arts and for the benefit of the infirmary in Bristol; whether he is aware that the scheme includes the redemption of the prize pictures at their money value by the principal promoter of the scheme, and that an office has been opened in Bristol for the sale of tickets for this scheme without the passing of a special Act of Parliament; and, if so, having regard to 4 Geo. 4, c. 60. s. 41, what action does he propose taking in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade have sanctioned certain alterations in the rules of the Bristol Art Union to enable the drawing this year to be held in connection with the Royal Infirmary Carnival. These alterations do not cover the proposal which has been made by a gentleman who is not, the Board understand, a member of the Art Union Committee for the redemption of the prize pictures. The Board have pointed out to the Committee, who are responsible for the drawings, that they have not sanctioned the proposal in question, and they now learn that it has been withdrawn.

  Medical Officer of Health for Ross and Cromarty and Inverness-shire.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate, in view of the extent of the area of the mainland of the combined counties of Ross and Cromarty and Inverness-shire, will he state whether the proposal to appoint one medical officer of health for the mainland of these counties has received the sanction of the Local Government Board for Scotland.
  286
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The Local Government Board do not favour the proposal, and have not therefore sanctioned the scheme.

  Scottish Church Dispute.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Lord - Advocate how many churches heretofore in the occupation of the United Free Church have been claimed and taken possession of by the legal Free Church; and how many notices of ejectment from their manses have been served on ministers of the United Free Church since the judgment given by the House of Lords, specifying the numbers of churches and manses separately for each county.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The Lord-Advocate must refer the hon. Member to the law agents of the two Churches concerned for the information he desires.

  Coaling and Revictualling Facilities Afforded to Russian and Spanish Fleets when Passing through Suez Canal.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state on what grounds the facilities for coaling and revictualling afforded to the Russian fleet during its recent passage through the Suez Canal were withheld from the Spanish fleet under similar circumstances in 1898.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The circumstances of the two cases were entirely different. In the recent case of the Russian Squadron, coal was allowed because the vessels were entitled, under Rule 3 of the Canal Regulations now in force, to an amount sufficient to take them to the nearest port where they could obtain the supplies necessary for the continuation of their voyage, and the amount which they had on board was not sufficient. In 1898 Admiral Camara might have claimed, under the general principles of international law, coal sufficient to enable him to reach the nearest Spanish port, or some nearer neutral destination, but for the fact that the Spanish warships had already enough for that purpose, and further supplies were therefore refused on that ground.

  European Officers Employed with Macedonian Gendarmerie.
  MR. STEVENSON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the numbers and ranks of the European officers employed with the gendarmerie in the Macedonian provinces of Turkey, showing the places at which their headquarters are situated, and their nationality.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) In addition to General de Giorgis, the Italian General Officer appointed to supervise the reorganisation of the Macedonian gendarmerie, and the six Adjoints (nominated by Great Britain, Italy, Russia, Austria, France, and Germany respectively), none of whom are below the rank of colonel, there are forty-eight European officers employed with the Macedonian gendarmerie. This number is made up as follows: Great Britain, six; France, ten; Russia, eleven; Austria, eleven; Italy, ten. The six British officers, comprising two majors, one captain, and three lieutenants, who hold rank in the Turkish service of one lieutenant-colonel, two majors, and three captains, are employed in the Drama Sandjak, with their headquarters at Drama, Cavalla, and Dovlen. The ten French officers are employed in the Serres district, with their headquarters at Serres. The eleven Russian officers in the Salonica district have their headquarters at Salonica. The eleven Austrian officers in Uscub have their headquarters at Uscub, and the ten Italian officers in the Monastir Sandjak have their headquarters at Monastir, Ochrida, and Perlépé. The ranks of the foreign officers are not known.

  Dundrum Asylum—Dismissal of Shoemaker Keogh.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether one of the charges which led up to the dismissal of the late shoemaker, Keogh, from the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum was that a sufficiency of work was not performed by him; whether he could give a Return of this man's work for the three years previous to his dismissal; and also the number of shoemakers who have been appointed to the vacancy since Keogh's
  288
  discharge, together with their length of service.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The reply to the first inquiry is in the negative. There would, therefore, be no object in giving the Return asked for. Three shoemakers have been appointed since Keogh's discharge; of these, two failed to take up duty, and the third, who was appointed on 1st October, 1903, still holds the post.

  Dublin Postal District—Pay and Office Expenditure of Sub-Postmasters.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General the number of town sub-offices in the Dublin postal district; the gross amount paid last year to the sub-postmasters in charge of these offices; the gross amount paid last year by said sub-postmasters out of their salaries to the postal and telegraph clerks engaged in duty at these offices; the gross amount paid last year by said sub-postmasters for office rent, stationery, twine, and other requisites absolutely necessary for the transaction of the duties of the offices under their control; and the average salary of sub-postmasters in the Dublin district after cost of assistants, rent of offices, and other necessary expenses have been deducted.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) There are sixty-eight town sub-offices in Dublin where the sub-postmasters out of their salaries and commissions provide the staff, accommodation, stationery,etc, necessary for the transaction of post office business. The gross amount paid last year to these sub-postmasters was £5,734, but I am unable to say how much of that was disbursed in staff, rent, and other expenses. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, these sub-postmasters also carrry on a private business, in which the post office assistants in many cases take part.

  Postal Facilities in the Templetown Division.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received a petition from the inhabitants of the electoral division of Templetown asking for a post office; and, as there are 1,000 inhabitants in that division and an area of 5,220 acres, will he inquire

  289
  into the matter with a view to giving better postal facilities to the people of Templetown.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) An application was received last year from the residents of Templetown for a post office at that place, but it was found that, owing to the high cost of the existing service, the accommodation could not be afforded unless the residents were themselves prepared to bear the expense incurred. I will ascertain whether the circumstances are now more favourable, and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result of the inquiry.

  Postal Facilities in Rosslare and Kilrane.
  MR. FRENCH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the want of postal facilities in Rosslare and Kilrane is causing dissatisfaction owing to the fact that letters are delayed in Wexford for twenty hours; and will he inquire why they are not despatched to Rosslare by train in winter as well as summer.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I received an application a short time ago for a second post to Rosslare and Kilrane during the winter months. As, however, it appeared that the cost of the existing service was very high in comparison with the revenue from the correspondence, I was not justified in providing additional accommodation at the cost of the Post Office, but I offered to arrange for the desired service if the residents were prepared to bear the cost. I regret that I am unable to meet the hon. Member's wishes except on those conditions.

  Maximum Salary of London Telegraphists.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that for a number of years the Civil Service Commissioners issued notices offering to candidates for the position of telegraphists in London a prospect of a salary of £190 per annum, and that at the present time in London no telegraphist who received the papers holding out this attraction is in receipt of the salary of £190 per annum; and whether he will state what prospect exists for the bulk of the men realising this salary, in view of his decision to
  290
  place a barrier between the £160 and £190 scales of pay.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am, aware of the facts of the case to which the hon. Member refers. The telegraphists in the Central Telegraph Office have quite as good a prospect of attaining a salary of £190 a year as during the period when the notices were issued. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the scale of pay of the class of overseers and senior telegraphists has recently been raised, and I am considering the question of increasing the number of that class. With these improvements the prospects of the telegraphists will be much better than they were during the period referred to.

  Delivery of Letters at Langley Mill.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that many of the inhabitants of Langley Mill wish to have their letters delivered at the back doors of their houses, as has been the custom for many years; whether recently the custom was broken, but that, after an inquiry was made into the matter, the letters were ordered to be delivered at the back doors when so desired; and whether, seeing that recently the letters have again been tendered at the front doors, and in some cases, when refused there, taken away by the postman, he will order the letters to be delivered in the manner most convenient to the public in this locality.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have no information as to the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member. The matter appears to be one which should be dealt with by the postmaster of Nottingham.

  Promotion of Senior Postman to Position of Overseer in East Central Section.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, in the East Central section of the London postal service, a senior postman and lobby officer, in receipt of 44s. per week, has been promoted to the position of overseer at a salary of £170 per annum; and that sorters in receipt of £160 per annum, who are senior in service to this

  291
  officer and who have been performing overseers' duties for various periods during the last two or three years to the satisfaction of their superior officers, have been passed over; and, if so, whether he will consider, in the interests of economy, the advisability of filling all overseers' vacancies in future from the sorters' class.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware that a senior postman and lobby officer with wages of 44s. per week has recently been promoted to the position of overseer. No questions of passing over officers on the sorters' class, however, arose, as the appointment in question was one for which senior postmen and lobby officers only were eligible. The practice of filling a fixed proportion of vacancies on the class of overseers from the postmen's force has obtained for many years past, and I am not prepared to direct that all overseerships shall in future be filled solely from the sorters' class.

  Case of Telegraphist Booth.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a telegraphist named Booth at the Central Telegraph Office, London, applied to be transferred to the Sorting Department by reason of the fact that he suffered from telegraphic cramp in his wrist, and was unable to perform manipulative duties; that the chief medical officer stated that Booth was physically competent to perform the duties in the Sorting Department; and that Booth is to be dismissed the service; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that he could be employed in another department, he will consider the matter with a view towards retaining the services of this officer.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The case is now under consideration, and I hope soon to be able to give a decision.

  Naval Training for Cadets at Bermuda.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state whether it is under consideration to use Bermuda as a place for continuing the studies and training on shore of naval cadets; and, if so, whether full information will be
  292
  given to Parliament explanatory of the proposal before any final step is taken or arrangements made to carry it out.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) There is no intention to establish a training school for cadets at Bermuda. Owing to the approaching occupation of Dartmouth College by the cadets from Osborne, it has been decided to embark the remaining "Britannia" cadets on two training cruisers, which will winter at Bermuda. One term will be on board for three months and one for six months.

  Experiments on Dogs—Case of Mr. F. O. Parsons, of Crouch End.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the report of a recent case in the Clerkenwell County Court in which it was stated that a Mr. F. O. Parsons, a veterinary surgeon of Crouch End, performed certain experiments on dogs; and whether, seeing that Mr. Parsons does not hold a licence under The Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, it is intended to take proceedings against him.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) As vaccination is, I am informed, a common method of treating dogs as a prophylactic against distemper, it is not clear to me, on the information I at present possess, whether what took place in this instance constituted an "experiment" or not. I am making inquiries in order to ascertain whether such was the case.

  Irish Estates Commissioners—Interpretation of Section 10 of the Land Act, 1903.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners in some instances interpret the words "an estate mainly agricultural," in Section 10 of the Land Act of 1903, as meaning an estate consisting of holdings mainly agricultural or pastoral; whether, in determining whether a large estate containing a small town is mainly agricultural and pastoral and an estate within the meaning of the Act, it is the duty of the Estates Commissioners to ascertain first to what extent the householders of such a town are

  293
  engaged in agricultural pursuits, the nature of their house property, and the relation of the price of such a town to the price of the whole estate; and whether the Estates Commissioners have had before them the proposal to purchase "the entire interest of Mrs. Grace Pakenham Mahon in her whole estates in the county Roscommon, including the small town of Strokestown.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) I am not aware that the Estates Commissioners put any such interpretation on the 10th Section. I must decline to answer the second query as to the proper interpretation of the section, which is a I matter for the determination of the Estates Commissioners, instructed by, and subject to the review of, Mr. Justice Meredith.

  Irish National Board of Education Inspectors.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give the names of inspectors employed by the National Board in Ireland, their salaries, previous experience of school work, and number of years each taught in a national school.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The names and University degrees of the inspectors are set oat in Thorn's Official Directory, and the scale of salaries will be found in the Estimates. These gentlemen are appointed as the result of competitive examination conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners. Experience in national or other schools is not a necessary qualification for the appointment, and I am not prepared to make inquiries in this respect.

  Sale of Estates in County Kerry under the Irish Land Act, 1903.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the name and number of estates sold in the county of Kerry since the passing of The Land Act, 1903, the total rental of each estate, and the number of tenants on each estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The number of estates sold is thirty-eight,
  294
  comprising 1,672 holdings, 1,635 of which were tenanted with a gross rental of £24,010. It is not feasible to set out the details asked for with regard to each separate estate.

  Loughrea, Kilchreest, and Athenry Police Force.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of policemen at present stationed in Loughrea, Kilchreest, and Athenry; and how many extra policemen have been drafted into these districts within the coarse of the past month.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The number of police at present stationed in Loughrea is twentv-four; in Kilchreest, fourteen; and in Athenry, thirty-two. The number of extra police drafted into these stations within the past month are: Loughrea, six; Kilchreest, nine; and Athenry, sixteen.

  Irish Manual Instructors and Science Teachers.
  SIR JAMES HASLETT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the introduction of the new system of manual instruction and science teaching in the national schools of Ireland, it was found necessary to secure the services of skilled and trained teachers to act as organisers of the new system, and to obtain the services of a number of the best teachers from large national schools in Ireland; and that these teachers are being dismissed from, their new posts, and practically from the service of the State; and, if so, will he reconsider the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) These organisers were employed for a definite term which expired on the 31st March. The Commissioners, however, are providing them with situations as teachers in model schools and other national schools upon the most favourable terms possible.

  Edgeworthstown Loan Fund Society Frauds.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of investors in the

  295
  Edgeworthstown Loan Fund Society lost their savings owing to the defalcation of a clerk; that most of these people were induced to put their money into this society by the representations made to them that this society was under the supervision of the Loan Fund Board of Dublin Castle; and that during the period that these defalcations were going on the books of the society were supposed to be audited by the Dublin Castle Loan Fund Board's inspector; and whether, seeing that the losses of these people were in part due to the ineffective control exercised by the central board, clauses will be introduced into the new Charitable Loan Fund Bill empowering the Loan Fund Board to make some grants towards the relief of the distress caused by this collapse.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) This loan fund society was under the supervision of the Loan Fund Board, but I am informed by the Board that the limitations of that supervision did not enable the inspector when auditing the books to detect the frauds in question, which were of such a kind as to lead to no discovery or suspicion on the part of the local trustees and managers. I am not aware that representations were made as alleged, but, if it was suggested that the Loan Fund Board is a Department of the Irish Government, the suggestion was entirely erroneous and misleading. The Board is not a Government Department, nor is the Irish Executive responsible for it. The Board have no funds for the purpose mentioned in the last inquiry, and no such clause as suggested, which would be quite in-effectual will be introduced in the Bill.

  Lectures on Bee Keeping in Ireland.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether bee-keeping is taught by the Department of Agriculture in Ireland; and whether, in case lectures on this subject are given, there would be a possibility of sending a lecturer to Longford before the summer season comes on.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Lecturers on bee-keeping are appointed by county committees under the
  296
  Department's schemes. In most "counties instruction in bee-keeping is given by the county horticultural instructor. The Longford Committee have not yet adopted a horticultural scheme.

  Agricultural and Veterinary Instruction in Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, with a view to encouraging scientific training of agriculturists in county Longford and the employment of a permanent agricultural and veterinary instructor, the Department of Agriculture would increase their present contribution to the Agricultural County Committee of county Longford.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Department are prepared to increase their contribution to county Longford by paying the salary of an agricultural instructor when a qualified person is available for the position. There is no suitable person to be had at present; but the Department have a number of young men in training at the Royal College of Science with a view to their qualifying for appointments of this nature.

  Wearing of Shamrock by Police at Lurgan on St. Patrick's Day.
  MR, J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on St. Patrick's Day last, at 9 a.m., the police force paraded to do duty under District Inspectors Stoddart, M'Mahon, and Redington at Lurgan were ordered to remove the sprigs of shamrock from their helmets lest offence would be given to the Orangemen of the town when they saw them wearing them; that a young constable, who in his temporary absence from the ranks had not heard the order, was ordered to remove the sprig of shamrock from his helmet, and can he say whether there is anything in the police code requiring this to be done; and whether he is aware that the Irish Guards at Wellington Barracks were presented with bunches of shamrock on the same day by Lord Roberts.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) No such order was given to the police paraded

  297
  for duty on this occasion, but one of the district inspectors advised a constable who was wearing a large bunch of shamrock on his helmet that it would be more prudent to remove it until he returned from duty. The remaining constables were not wearing shamrock. There is no regulation in the Code forbidding the police to wear shamrock.

  Purchase of Estates in Kerry by the Congested Districts Board.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of estates purchased by the Congested Districts Board in Kerry, the prices paid, and the additional sums spent in improving houses and land.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Board have arranged for the purchase of six estates for a total purchase-money of £54,993. No expenditure on improvements has yet been made.

  Rae Estate—Maurice Sheehan's Farm at Farnis.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Maurice Sheehan, of Farnis, on the Rae Estate, Keil, county Kerry, signed a notice in 1900 with the consent of the receiver Mr. Huggard; and whether, seeing that nothing has been done since to have the farm valued and the rent revised, steps will be taken at once to have the farm valued.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Commissioners have no record that proceedings to have a fair rent fixed in this case have been initiated before them in or since the year named.

  Irish Geological Survey.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Irish Geological Survey, hitherto managed from this country, has been transferred to the Board of Agriculture in Ireland; and, if so, whether that portion of the Ordnance Survey at present engaged in the survey in Ireland could not also be transferred to the Board of Agriculture in Ireland.
  298
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The Answer to the first of the inquiries is in the affirmative. No change is contemplated in the existing arrangements for the conduct of the Ordnance Survey, which could not be split up in the manner proposed without additional expense and considerable loss of efficiency.

  Transvaal Constitution—Women's Franchise.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the proposed Constitution to the Transvaal, the rights of women to vote or share in the government of the Colony have been in any way recognised.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I must ask the hon. Member to wait for the publication of the Letters Patent in about a week's time.

  Private J. Woods, 19th Regiment.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the case of Private James Woods, who joined the second battalion 19th Regiment in 1863, and served therein for ten years and eighty-eight days, five years of which were in Burmah, in which he saw active service, who then spent nine years in the Reserve, and afterwards fifteen years in the Militia; and whether, in view of this man's conduct in all these services, and of the fact that he has been discharged without pension, and of his age and circumstances, he will cause some small pension to be granted to him.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) This man was discharged from the second battalion 19th Foot on the 23rd May, 1868, after ten years three months service, on completion of his term of limited engagement. There is no record of his having taken part in any active operations while serving in Burmah, and he was not awarded a war medal. His subsequent service in the Reserve and in the Militia gives him no claim to pension. Several applications for pension have been made by the man to the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, who have informed him, in reply, that his services do not render him eligible

  299
  for any pension. His age and present circumstances give him no claim to special consideration.

  Array Reform—Territorial Regiments and Militia—Recruits.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if, when the territorial regiments are formed, he intends to continue the Militia; and, if so, how he proposes to find recruits for a long-service Army, a short-service Army, and the Militia.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part there is no intention of changing the present system of obtaining recruits. The proposals made do not involve any addition to the number of recruits required.

  Army Reform—Territorial and Long-Service Regiments.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if it is his intention, in his new scheme of Army reform, to separate the long-service regiments from their territorial connections and restore their old numbers; and, if not, will he explain how he intends to supply both the new territorial regiments and the long-service Army with recruits.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) One of the main objects of the new Army scheme is to strengthen the territorial connections of the regiments, and there is no present intention of re storing the old numbers. The present system of obtaining recruits will be maintained.

  Alterations and Repairs to Barracks and Fortifications.
  SIR LEWIS MCIVER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it has been decided to abolish the triennial contract system of executing alterations and repairs to barracks and fortifications; and whether instructions have been issued in the Southern Command to employ labour at once by way of experiment, with a view to the War Department eventually adopting a system of carrying out the repairs by means of labour employed directly.
  300
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) It has not been decided to abolish the system of triennial contracts for repairs altogether, but it is the intention, in those cases in which the work can be done satisfactorily and efficiently, to replace the present triennial contract system by the employment of day labour. It is understood that this plan has been adopted by the Admiralty with success. Instructions have been issued to the various General Officers Commanding requesting them to inquire and report whether the conditions of the various divisions of their commands are suitable for the adoption of the new method.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    New Battleships.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty at what date were the battleships and cruisers of the 1904–5 programme laid down, and where; what interval of time elapsed between the date of the announcement of the 1904–5 programme to Parliament and the laying down of the two battleships; in the case of the new programme does the Admiralty propose to carry out the statement of the then Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, 3rd July, 1903, that it was their intention to return to the system under which the laying down of vessels proposed in any year shall follow closely upon Parliamentary sanction being received.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): Tenders for building the two battleships of the 1904–5 programme were accepted as follows—"Lord Nelson," Palmer's Shipbuilding Yard; "Agamemnon," Beardmore's, Glasgow, both in November last. Both firms have made good progress with the preliminary work, but the keels are not yet laid on the blocks. Of the three cruisers, the "Minotaur" was laid down in Devonport Dockyard on the 2nd January, 1905, the "Shannon" at Chatham Dockyard on the same date, and the "Defence" at Pembroke Dockvard on the 22nd

    301
    February. The earlier commencement of ships included in the annual programme is a policy desirable in itself, but must always be subject to modification having regard to the circumstances of the year. I may add that what is technically known as "laying down" is not a governing factor in reference to the time of building. An immense amount of preparation and collection of material has to precede the construction of a ship, and the laying of the keel may actually take place at any time during this period without affecting the date of completion.

    Training of Volunteer Officers.
    Ms. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, under his new scheme, he intends to give additional facilities for the training of Volunteer officers.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): As explained in the Memorandum on Estimates, it is proposed to make grants of increased allowances to enable Volunteer corps to carry out field training.
    MR. CHARLES ALLEN: Do I understand that no special arrangement is made for the officers?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Not at present, but that is part of the training of the officers.

    Volunteers and the Infantry Drill Book.
    MR. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the amount of matter contained in the infantry drill book which Volunteers can hardly be expected to study, he will take into consideration the advisability of issuing a book giving plainly the minimum which Volunteers ought to learn.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The principles and instructions contained in the new edition of "Infantry Training," issued in March, 1905, are as much applicable to the Volunteers as to the Regulars, and it is considered essential that the Volunteers should study practically the whole of the matter contained therein. In carrying out their training Volunteers
    302
    are not, however, expected to adhere to the course laid down for the Regulars, and they are directed in paragraph 179 to follow the spirit rather than the letter of the instructions for this course. It is not considered necessary to issue a separate manual for the Volunteers.

    Expenditure on Military Works.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, seeing that as the officers of the Comptroller-General were unable to check the revised figures in respect of Head II., Barracks, and Head III., Rifle Ranges, under the Military Works Acts, that official called for a statement showing how such amounts had been arrived at, but awaits a reply from the War Office, when will the reply of the War Office be sent to the Comptroller-General.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,): The statement referred to was asked for by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on 21st January and was furnished to him on the 7th February.
    MR. LAMBERT: But the Comptroller and Auditor-General states in his Report that he still awaits a reply!
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The Report was sent in before the 7th February.

    War Office Purchase of Land in Ireland.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can supply any explanation of a transaction mentioned in the Comptroller-General's Report that for land compulsorily acquired in Ireland the owner claimed £8,000, was awarded £2,040, while on behalf of the War Office the fair and reasonable value was placed at £30.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to the reply given to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for South Donegal on Monday, April 3rd†.
    †See (4) Debates cxliv., 123.

    The War Office and the Connelmore Brickfields Expenditure.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the date of the request of the Comptroller-General to be made acquainted with the steps taken by the Commanding Royal Engineer to satisfy himself of the correctness of the expenditure charged by the manager of the Connelmore brickfields; and when the reply will be sent.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The request of the Auditor-General was dated 5th October, 1904, and the reply was sent on the 20th February, 1905. It was thought desirable to have the system inquired into on the spot by a War Office representative, and the question of the accounting in such cases considered generally before replying to the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has asked for further particulars and a letter was accordingly sent to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in Ireland on the 5th April, to which a reply is awaited.

    Longford Garrison—Precautions against Fever.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the local authorities in Longford to allow any cases of fever which may occur amongst the troops quartered in Longford to be treated in the fever hospital which is under the control of the Poor Law guardians; and will he say what steps he proposes to take to cope with an out-"break of fever amongst the military stationed at Longford.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: My attention has been drawn to the situation at Longford and the whole question is receiving careful consideration. Should a case of fever arise arrangements would have to be made for its segregation in barracks. I am glad to be able to add that very few cases of infectious disease occur at Longford, and none at all have occurred since a case of scarlet fever in 1903. The advisability of retaining troops in localities where ordinary facilities are withheld by the local authorities is necessarily engaging the attention of the Army Council.

    Contractors to the Tipperary Barracks and the Fair Wages Resolution.
    MR. CULLINAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that contractors to the Tipperary military barracks do not comply with the Fair Wages Resolution; and if he will have steps taken to secure that future contracts be given only to those who will do so.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: All contractors holding Government contracts are bound by the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution, and if the hon. Member will direct my attention to any alleged infringement of that Resolution, I will cause immediate inquiry to be made.

    South Africa—Coolie Riot at the Jumpers Deep Mine.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what was the cause of the riot on 9th April at the Jumpers Deep Mine in the Transvaal; how many Chinese coolies were concerned in it; how many were arrested; and, if their trial has already taken place, what sentences were inflicted.
    THE SECRETARY OP STATE FOE THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I have received the following statement as to this outbreak from the officer administering the Government:—"Cause of outbreak at Jumpers Deep was that leave of absence had been temporarily restricted owing to recent contraventions by coolies of Section 19 of the Labour Ordinance. About 400 coolies broke out of bounds and were intercepted by police about two miles from compound. Police turned coolies back to compound. Certain number got on railway line and threw stones without effect. Twenty-nine were arrested and are being charged with riot and assault, but trial has not yet taken place. Coolies were only absent from compound for one and half hours. Whole incident unimportant."
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the effect of Section 19 of the Labour Ordinance?
    MR. LYTTELTON: It is the section which prohibits the coolies from leaving the compound without permission.

    Chinese Consul for the Transvaal.
    Ms. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a Chinese Consul has been appointed in the Transvaal; if so, what is his name and where does he reside; and, if not, who is looking after the interests of the Chinese coolies at present.
    MR. LYTTELTON: A Chinese Consul has been appointed. His name is Liu Yu-Lin. He will reside at Johannesburg. The interests of the Chinese coolies are and will continue to be looked after by the Superintendent of Foreign Labour and his staff as well as by the Chinese Consul when he arrives.
    MR. CHARLES ALLEN: When will this gentleman arrive in South Africa?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I cannot say.

    Income-Tax on British Investments Abroad.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state separately the amount of British capital invested abroad in foreign countries and in the Colonies; and what amount of interest paid upon this capital is brought under review for purposes of the income-tax.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I cannot add anything to the information given in Table 185, page 201, and Table 216, page 215, of the Inland Revenue Board's Annual Report, 1904 (Cd. 2228).

    Signatures to Consols Dividend Warrants.
    MR. REGINALD LUCAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Bank of England will not accept a Consols dividend warrant signed by power of attorney, and that, consequently, a payee who is incapacitated from signing his or her name is deprived of all sums accru-
    306
    ing; and whether he is prepared to take steps for the removal of this difficulty.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A Consol dividend warrant can be discharged only by the person in whose favour it is drawn. If he be physically incapacitated from signing his name, he can discharge the warrant by mark, which must be attested in the usual manner. If, however, a stockholder has granted a power of attorney to some person to receive his dividends and give a discharge therefor, and lodges the power of attorney with the Bank, a dividend warrant is prepared in favour of the attorney and can be discharged by him.
    MR. REGINALD LUCAS: As I am at present in the position of being able to obtain payment of dividends under such circumstances I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will make further inquiries.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will communicate with me privately.

    Royal Commission on Trade Disputes.
    MR. PEMBERTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Disputes will be ready by the end of the Easter Recess.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS - DOUGLAS,): No, Sir; I have communicated with the Secretary to the Royal Commission, and he cannot give me a definite date.

    Rural Postmen's Grievances.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that rural postmen formerly employed on mounted rural posts have suffered losses through being compelled to dispose of their horses and carts, owing to their rounds being converted into cycle posts for the convenience of the Department; and whether

    307
    he will take steps to compensate these men for their losses.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): Such cases as those to which the hon. Member refers occur sometimes. In each full consideration is given to all the circumstances and a special grant is made of such an amount as the equity of the particular case seems to require. If the hon. Member has in mind any instance of the kind which he would like to bring specially to my notice, I shall be pleased to consider it on hearing from him.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I may tell the noble Lord I have several instances in which applications have been made for compensation and no satisfaction has been received.
    LORD STANLEY: If the hon. Member will send them to me, I shall be happy to inquire into the circumstances.

    Pay of Provincial Linemen.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in accordance with the undertaking given by his predecessor to consider the claims of the smaller classes in the postal service to improved scales of pay, he has considered the claims of linemen in the provinces, and whether the maximum pay of the general body has been reduced from 40s. to 38s. per week, as from November last; and, if so, what are the reasons for this reduction of pay.
    LORD STANLEY: There has been no reduction of pay for linemen now in the service. But in order to afford adequate remuneration for certain superior duties I have recently introduced a class of senior linemen on scale 39s., 1s. 6d. to 45s. a week. This rendered it necessary to reduce the maximum of the class below, for new entrants, from 40s. to 38s. a week.

    Lerwick Mails.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the terms of the mail contract between the North of Scotland Steamship Company and the Post Office with reference to delivery of mails at Lerwick, and the dates of depar-
    308
    ture of mails from Aberdeen and arrival at Lerwick during the last three months.
    LORD STANLEY: I have sent the hon. Member a copy of the mail contract to which he refers, and also a statement showing the dates of the mails from Aberdeen to Lerwick during the last three months.

    Underfed School Children
    SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can now state what instructions have been given to local boards of guardians in reference to the right of starving and destitute children in public elementary schools to immediate relief.
    THE PRESIDENT or THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I am preparing a circular to boards of guardians on this subject, which I propose to issue as soon as possible.
    SIR JOHN GORST: Will the circular be laid on the Table of the House.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I see no objection to that.

    Average rate levied by Metropolitan Borough Councils and London County Council.
    MR. BENN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how the increase in the average rate in the pound levied by the Metropolitan boroughs compares with the increase in the average rate, exclusive of education, levied by the London County Council.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Taking the three years ended March, 1904, the increase in the average rate levied by the Metropolitan borough councils for their own purposes was one penny. In the case of the London County Council the increase was 1½d. No sum was raised by the County Council for education purposes.

    Increase of Metropolitan Borough Rates.
    MR. BENN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what is

    309
    the amount of the increase in the average rate in the pound levied by the Metropolitan boroughs during the four complete years of their existence as compared with the average rate levied by their predecessors, the vestries and district boards, during the like preceding period.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Returns received by the Local Government Board do not enable me to include the year 1904–5 in the period in respect of which the information asked for is desired. The average rate in the pound of the Metropolitan borough councils in the three years ended March, 1904, was Is. 10·6d., and the average rate of the Metropolitan vestries and district boards and the Woolwich Local Board of Health for the three years ended March, 1900, was 1s. 7·1d. The increase, therefore, was 3·5d, For the purpose of the comparison I have taken the rates raised by the vestries and district boards as including those required for the expenditure of burial boards, commissioners of baths and washhouses, and of public libraries and museums, whose powers have now been transferred to the borough councils.
    SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: May I ask whether it is not the fact that, during the same period, the assessment in many cases has been enormously increased—that the same property is now assessed at a much higher rate than it was—and that, therefore, the absolute rate in the pound is somewhat misleading.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think that is probable.

    Continental Import Duties and Drawbacks on Sugar and Sugared Goods.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is willing to furnish a Return of the import duties imposed upon sugar, and upon confectionery, jams, biscuits, cakes, and other sugared goods in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Belgium, Holland, and France; and also a Return of the drawbacks granted in these countries upon all these commodities except sugar itself.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): If the hon. Member will move for a Return the Board of Trade will be happy to grant it.

    London Education Rate.
    MR. BENN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state the amount of the additional rate incurred to date in the administration of the London Education Act, 1903; and whether he can at present give any estimate of the total addition to the rates which that measure involves to the Metropolis.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): I am afraid I have no official information on the subject.
    MR. BENN: Does not the hon. Gentleman's Department, publish particulars of the cost of education? If not, to whom am I to go for the information?
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The question of rates is not one which concerns my Department.

    Defaulting Education Authorities in Merionethshire.
    MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Education (Defaulting Authorities) Act, 1904, has been put in operation in the county of Merioneth; and, if so, in respect of what schools; and on what grounds.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The Board of Education have made payments to the managers of the following three schools in Merioneth: Llawr-y-Bettws Church School, Maentwrog National School, and Tynant National School. These payments have been made in respect of expenses which, in the opinion of the Board, had been properly incurred by the managers of these schools for the purpose of maintaining and keeping them efficient between September 30th, 1903, and October 31st, 1904, and for which provision should have been made by the local education authority.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Has any deduction been made in respect of this amount out of the grant payable to the county? Are these the only schools in arrears, or, if not, have any preliminary steps been taken in regard to the others?
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: No deduction has been made at present. Claims have been made by the managers of other voluntary schools in Merionethshire, and the Board of Education are in communication with them on the subject.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: At any rate, no deduction has been made in respect of these schools.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: That is so.

    Loughrea and Athenry Police Force
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many extra police have been drafted into the districts of Loughrea and Athenry; where have they been brought from: and will he consider the advisability of charging the districts named, instead of the county at large, with their cost.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): Between March 30th and April 8th, a force of sixty-five extra police was stationed in Loughrea,Athenry, and other districts in the East Riding of Galway. The extra force was reduced by ten men on the latter date. The police have been drawn from a number of counties, and the question of the area of charge is at present under consideration.

    The Estates Commissioners and Intimidation and Outrage in Ireland.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will take steps to ensure that the Estates Commissioners shall not buy any farms on estates where either intimidation has been used with the object of forcing the occupier to give up possession or outrages have been committed with the same object.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Estates Commissioners have already caused
    312
    persons interested to be informed that intimidation, if resorted to, would constrain them not to purchase farms or estates. This matter will be further dealt with in the regulations about to be laid on the Table, and every effort will be made by the Government in this and other directions to cope with this form of crime.

    Cost of Kingstown Urban Council's Address of Welcome to the King.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to-ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a resolution passed by the Kingstown Urban Council protesting against the Local Government Board in allowing the auditor to surcharge members of the council in connection with an address of welcome to His Majesty during his first visit to Ireland; and, if so, what action, does he intend taking in the matter.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir. The resolution was received, and on Monday last a letter was written by my direction to the district council, a copy of which I have forwarded to my hon. friend.

    Irish Poor Law and Local Government Officers.
    MR. HAVILAND BURKE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Poor Law and other local officers previous to being sanctioned by the Local Government Board have to sign a query sheet promising to conform to certain regulations issued by the Local Government Board, and in existence at the time of appointment, and that these regulations or duties are specified under the headings of the different offices; and will he say whether any officer who complies with the regulations prescribed for his office and discharges the duties accordingly, can be disturbed in his tenure of office by either the local authority under whom he serves or by the Local Government Board; and, if so, to state the Act of Parliament and the section; whether there is any rule laid down in the Local Government Board office for determining the punishments to be meted out to the Poor Law and other local officers for transgression of or dereliction in the

    313
    discharge of duty; and whether there have ever been any instances in which Poor Law officers have been dismissed by the Local Government Board without their boards of guardians ever having been apprised of bad marks being made against them in the Local Government Board offices; and, if so, will he state the cases and the causes which led to such action.
    MR. WALTER LONG: With the hon. Member's permission I will furnish a printed reply to this Question.

    Lavagh Evicted Tenant.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that John Quinn, an evicted tenant on the estate of Sir Joselyn Gore Booth, situate at Lavagh, near Tubbercurry, county Sligo, has left the question of his reinstatement for settlement to the Estates Commissioners and the agent of the estate, and has signed an agreement to that effect; and that the present occupier, Edward Lang, has signed a similar agreement, both agreements being witnessed by the parish priest, the Rev. B. Quinn; and, if so, whether, seeing that this estate is about to be sold to the tenants under the Act of 1903, an immediate settlement of this case will be brought about.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners are prepared to consider any proposed arrangement between the landlord, the evicted tenant, and the present occupier, but the matter in its present stage is not one for the intervention of the Commissioners.

    W. J. Griffith's Estate, Killery, County Sligo.
    MR. WILLIAM McKILLOP: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the estate of W. J. Griffith, at Killery, near Ballintogher, county Sligo, has been for many years in the Land Court; and that an order was made by the Land Judge that the estate should be inspected with a view to its purchase by the Estates Commissioners, and to its resale to the tenants; will he say if the estate has been in-
    314
    spected; and, if not, can he explain the cause of the delay; and will he give instructions to have the inspection proceeded with as soon as possible.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners issued a request to the Land Judge, under the 7th Section of the Act of 1903, in February last. The tenants are now withholding payment of their rents, and the Land Judge has directed, in consequence, that all further proceedings towards a sale shall be abandoned so long as the tenants maintain this attitude.

    Catholic Clerks in the Irish Agricultura Department
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will obtain information as to whether the chief clerk of the Agricultural Department acted wholly on his own initiative in sending for one of the Catholic gentlemen of the veterinary branch and endeavouring to induce him to withdraw from the signed representation which that gentleman, in common with other Catholics in the branch, had laid before the secretary.
    MR. WALTER LONG: This Question was fully answered on the 1st March,† The chief clerk acted on behalf of the Department.

    King's County Constabulary Force.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the county inspector and five district inspectors, Royal Irish Constabulary, at present stationed in King's County, are Protestants, and that the Catholic members of the force in that county are subjected to persecution because of their religion, particularly on the part of District Inspector Taylour; and what steps he proposes taking to remedy this grievance.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir; it happens that the officers referred to are Protestants, but I have ascertained from the Inspector-General that there is not
    †See (4) Debates, cxlii., 27.

    315
    the smallest foundation for the suggestions in the Question.

    Sergeant Flynn, R.I.C.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Sergeant Flynn, Kinnity, King's County, was lately obliged to retire through the action of District Inspector Taylour, who sought to compel him to act as caretaker for the Protestant rector of the district and to prevent trespass on the rector's land; and whether, as Sergeant Flynn was forced to retire list month, three years before his time for full pension had expired, steps will be taken to protect Catholic members of the force from religious persecution on the part of officers.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Member has not been correctly informed. There is no foundation whatever for the suggestions in the Question. The sergeant's retirement was quite voluntary on his part, after a service of twenty-six years, and he was awarded the pension to which his service entitled him.

    Irish Public Officials.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Antrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the information from candidates for, or Civil servants in, public departments in Ireland as to their respective places of education, already given for the purposes of the Civil Service or their respective departments is to be regarded as confidential, or if such can be published without the assent of such candidate or servant; and if this rule applies to the Civil Service in England.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot answer this Question in the general form in which it is tramed. In some cases the information supplied would not be treated as confidential; in other cases it would be so treated. The point must depend on the occasion and circumstances under which the information was communicated. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the same rule applies to the Civil Service in England.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in recent years a similar Return was ordered by Parliament in connection with Assistant Land Commissioners and resident magistrates, and that there is, too, an annual Return showing the religion of Irish justices of the peace? Does he still adhere to his statement that there is no precedent for such a Return?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am not aware I ever said there was no precedent. What I said was that in granting a Return I must be guided by the advice of my law officers both as to my powers and as to the rights of those affected by the proposed Return.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Surely if Parliament has a right to demand information from Justices of the Peace it can do so from public servants whose salaries are on the Estimates.
    MR. WALTER LONG: It is not for me as a layman to interpret the law. It is for the law officers, and by their opinion I shall be guided.

    Outrages in Ireland.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant a Return showing the number and nature of outrages committed in the province of Connaught and in the counties of Clare, Cork, Limerick, Kerry, Tipperary, Queen's County, and King's County, which have been reported by the police to the Irish Government since 1st December, 1904; and whether, in respect of any such reported outrages, any orders were issued by the Irish Executive that they were not to be included or mentioned in the reports furnished to the Judges of Assize in these counties or any of them; and, if so, will he state the number of outrages in respect of which such orders were given.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant a Return showing the number and nature of outrages, assaults on persons, attacks on property, and disturbances in the province of Ulster which have been reported by the police to the Irish Government

    317
    since 1st December, 1901; and whether, in respect of any such reported outrages, any orders were issued by the Irish Executive that they were not to be included or mentioned in the reports furnished to the Judges of Assize in these counties or any of them; and, if so, will he state the number of outrages in respect of which such orders were given.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Returns of all outrages or other offences of an indictable character reported by the police in each county of Ireland, since the date mentioned, will be prepared and laid on the Table. No orders of the nature indicated in the second part of the Questions were issued by the Executive or by the Constabulary authorities.

    Howth Harbour.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Northern Division of Dublin County, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the complaints made of the condition of Howth Harbour at the last meeting of the North Dublin Rural District Council, and especially to the statements made as to the necessity for a repairing slip in that place; and whether he will recommend the Board of Works, in whose charge Howth Harbour is placed, to take some action towards satisfying the public requirements mentioned.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY or THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The attention of the Board of Works has not been drawn to the condition of Howth Harbour. Any representations made to it will be considered.

    Dredgers for Irish Harbours.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Northern Division of Dublin County, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that only one dredger appears to be at the disposal of the Board of Works for use in the small harbours of Ireland, he will consider the advisability of urging on the Treasury the
    318
    necessity of supplying the means of purchasing or constructing another dredger for such use, so that the small harbours referred to, many of which are almost completely blocked up with accumulations of mud and sand, may be dredged within a reasonable period.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The dredger referred to was bought out of the Development Grant funds, and its object was to reduce the cost of dredging. The responsibility for dredging lies with the harbour authorities, and there is no obligation on the Government or on the Board of Works to provide a "dredger.

    Captain French's Estate, King's County.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the conditions of sale entered into between Captain French and his tenants, near Kinnitty, King's County; whether he is aware that there are four cottiers on this estate, none of whom hold more than three or four acres of land, and that the landlord had on hand over 200 acres of grazing lands, which he has divided into large farms and given to farmers, some of whom were not on the estate; and whether the Estates Commissioners will refuse to sanction the sale until the uneconomic holdings on this property are enlarged to a sufficient size to enable the cottiers to live.
    MR. WALTER LONG: This estate has not yet come before the Commissioners, and, until it does, they can express no opinion in the matter.

    Congested Districts Board and Untenanted Lands.
    MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the Congested Districts Board have any power under the Land Act of 1903, or under any former Acts, to utilise untenanted land acquired by them in unscheduled areas for the benefit of the occupiers of uneconomic holdings in these unscheduled areas.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The 3rd Section of the Congested Districts Board Act, 1901, provides that where the Board purchase land in a non-congested district the Lord-Lieutenant may declare that such land be treated as part of the congested districts. The result is that the occupiers of such lands may be treated as though they were residents in congested districts.

    Irish Creamery Inspectors.
    MR. O'KELLY: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Leitrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture and Technical Education for Ireland has recently appointed two creamery inspectors; and if so, can he state their names, addresses, and previous experience; were these posts open to competition; was an examination held; and, if so, was public notice given of it, and where was it held.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Department have appointed two dairy instructors, Messrs. Ward and Fant. Mr. Ward was a creamery manager for six years, and also holds the Department's certificate of competency. Mr. Fant was inspector of creameries for six years, and also had previous experience as creamery manager. There was no competition or examination for these appointments. The Department held an examination two years ago, but no suitable candidates presented themselves on that occasion.

    Portavogie Fishing Fleet Disaster.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the disaster to the fishing fleet at Portavogie during the recent gales; and whether he will consider the possibility of making a special grant to meet the widespread distress caused by the loss of the fishing boats and gear.
    MR. WALTER LONG: My attention has been drawn to the lamentable disaster to the fishing fleet at Portavogie on March 15th. I am considering the suggestion of my hon. friend in the second part of the Question.

    Irish National Education—Rule 127 (b).
    MR. O'KELLY: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Leitrim, beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what date did the National Education Board for Ireland finally approve of, and adopt, Rule 127 (b); who were the Commissioners present at the meeting at which the rule was adopted; were there any vacancies on the Board at the time the rule was adopted; and, if so, can he say whether these vacancies have since been filled up; and can he give the names of the newly-appointed Commissioners.
    MR. WALTER LONG: With the hon. Member's permission I will furnish a printed reply to this Question.

    New Education Rule 127b.—Aughrin School Teacher.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in case the new rule (127b) of the National Board of Education in Ireland is put in operation, the salary of the national school teacher in Aughrin, county Wick-low, will be reduced from £130 to £56 a year; and, if so, will the teacher be given full compensation foe the reduction in his income of £74 a year.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that it is very unlikely that the rule will affect this teacher's income in the manner suggested. I will take this opportunity of stating the result of my personal examination into the operation of the rule, which I undertook co make, during my visit to Ireland. The rule was designedly framed in the interests of boys under eight years of age who had received little or no instruction in schools where there were no mistresses, and especially in schools with only one male teacher. The necessity for such a rule was strongly pointed out in Mr. Dale's Report on primary education. I have received full assurances that the rule will not prejudicially affect the incomes of existing teachers. It will result in the removal of the great educational disadvantage attending the present over-subdivision of schools for boys and girls, by extending the system

    321
    of mixed for separate schools. I am informed that there are, at the present moment, as many as 2,247 mixed national schools under Catholic management in Ireland. The Treasury have agreed to an arrangement by which the principal teachers of schools proposed to be amalgamated may be recognised in the combined schools, one as principal and the other, or others, as assistant teachers, such assistant teachers to be secured from any reduction of salary in consequence of amalgamation.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this school teacher has been informed by the National Board that his salary is to be reduced.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am not aware of that. My Answer is based on the information I have received from the National Board. If the hon. Member will send particulars of individual cases I will inquire.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Will the present teachers suffer any damage by a reduction of salary?
    MR. WALTER LONG: The conclusion j arrived at by the Board is that they will not.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Seeing that all the managers and teachers are against this rule, does the right hon. Gentleman think it reasonable to put it into operation?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am not sure they are all against it. Naturally if the result were to be an immediate reduction of salary the teachers might object, but if that is averted they may not.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Will the teachers be heard before the National Board?
    MR. WALTER LONG: They have made their views known, arid have been told that no injustice will be done them. If individual cases of injustice are brought to my notice I will inquire into them.

    Poor Law Medical Relief in County Louth.
    MR. NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
    322
    Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state, in miles, the maximum distance between the dwellings of poor people who-may require medical aid and the nearest dispensary under the new arrangement of the Grange, Collon, and Drumconrath districts, county Louth; whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of a meeting of the Ardee guardians recently held, and the resolution upon the subject adopted at the same; and whether, seeing that the new arrangement will necessitate a considerable expenditure upon buildings for medical officers' residences, he will carry out the late Chief Secretary's promise to have a sworn inquiry upon the spot, and take local opinion into account before making any change in the old arrangement.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The existing dispensaries have been retained under the new arrangement, and consequently the distance to be travelled is precisely the same as before. There is no proposal to build new residences for the medical officers. A local public inquiry was held on 20th January, 1904, as a result of which the Board, with all the facts before them, made their Order rearranging the districts. I am not aware that my right hon. friend promised any further inquiry, nor, as I am at present advised, is one necessary.

    Ardee Scheme for Labourers' Cottages.
    MR. NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the guardians in Ardee No. 1 Rural District, county Louth, submitted a scheme to the Local Government Board for the erection of a number of labourers' cottages about six months ago; and whether, seeing that the scheme is still in abeyance, he can account for the delay.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The scheme has not yet been submitted to the Board by the district council. The responsibility for any delay does not rest with the Board.

    Dublin Civil Service—Assistant Clerks.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Northern Division of Dublin County, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury

    323
    whether he is aware that there are at present assistant clerks (New Class) serving in various public departments in Dublin who have from eight to nine years established service in addition to several years temporary service, and who now, at the age of twenty-eight or twenty-nine years, are allowed a salary of only £80 per annum; and whether the case of those assistant clerks (New Class), who obtained no benefit whatever from the revised regulations promulgated by the Treasury two years ago, will receive special consideration in connection with the memorial now before the Treasury.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for the College Green Division of Dublin on this subject last Thursday, to which I would refer the hon. Member†.

    Irish Cut Flower Industry—Post Office Facilities.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that from experiments made at Caherdaniel, county Kerry, the climatic conditions are specially suitable for the growing of flowers such as violets, narcissi, and daffodils; whether, seeing that the nearest railway station is nineteen miles distant, he can state whether any special facilities for forwarding cut flowers in large quantities will be given if an industry of this nature is started; and can he say whether any, and, if so, what facilities are given by international agreement to the growers of flowers in the South of France and elsewhere.
    LORD STANLEY: I was not aware of the experiments to which the hon. Member refers, but I will have inquiry made as regards the facilities for despatching parcels by post from Caherdaniel and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result. As regards the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, I may say that at the postal Union Congress held at Washington, proposals were made by several Continental countries to extend the provisions of the sample post in a manner which would have operated
    † See page 71.
    324
    in favour of Continental flower-growers. Those proposals were, however, not accepted, and the Postal Union Convention, which in its present form was the issue of that Congress and governs international postal relations, makes no specific provision for the transmission of fresh flowers. They can be sent at the letter or parcel rate of postage, or, if they are genuine trade samples of no saleable value, at the reduced rate applicable to samples.

    Scottish Church Dispute.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I bag to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that many of the notices of ejection from their manses recently served on ministers of the United Free Church expire on May 28th, he will take care that provision be made by legislation, or otherwise, that such ejectments shall not be carried out until Government legislation on the whole subject has received the assent of Parliament.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The objections to interim legislation are great and obvious, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well acquainted with them. He is also acquainted with the statement I made the other day that in our view nothing that could happen in the interval between the inquiry undertaken by the Commission and legislation would alter the character of that legislation when we are able to propose and carry it through the House. I understand that the object which the Free Church have had in issuing these notices is to obtain the use of the manses where they have already got the use of the church. I make no pronouncement on the propriety or impropriety of that course in particular cases; but the grounds for their action, at all events, are so far, if I rightly state it, quite intelligible. I understand, however, that after notice of ejectment has been given there is power of appealing to the Courts on the subject, and that that appeal may last an indefinite period, going up from Court to Court to the House of Lords. As regards interim possession in such cases, it would rest with the judge, I think,

    325
    having regard to all the circumstances of the case, to decide whether convenience and justice were best served by leaving existing occupants in possession or requiring them to leave. Those are all the facts known to me; and I think the lion. Gentleman will perceive that it is quite impossible for us to bring in, in those circumstances, an interim Bill, pending the final legislation we hope to introduce.
    MR. BUCHANAN: May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman that the interests involved with regard to manses will not be prejudiced in any case by action taken in the meantime?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, that is so.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman is somewhat in error in his statement of fact. I can give at least one case of a manse being claimed without the church being taken, and I believe there are other cases.

    The Customs Vote.
    MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that several Members of this House have expressed the desire that an opportunity should be given for discussing the Customs Vote; and whether he will endeavour to satisfy this desire by submitting that Vote as first Order on some early date.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be most happy to meet the hon. Member's wishes and put the Vote down for an early Thursday.

    Lord Selborne and the Liberal Unionist Club.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that at a meeting of the Liberal Unionist Club, held at the Westminster Palace Hotel, on Wednesday April 12th, the Earl of Selborne, His Majesty's High Commissioner for South Africa, was elected at that meeting a vice-president of this political organisation; whether it is in accordance with the rules of the public service that a person
    326
    holding the position of His Majesty's High Commissioner for South Africa should remain an office-bearer in a political organisation; and whether he will take steps to secure the Earl of Selborne's retirement from the post of vice-president of the Liberal Unionist Club.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have inquired of Lord Selborne what the facts are, and he tells me that some time ago he gave specific notice that all political posts of the kind referred to by the hon. Gentleman must be abandoned by him now that he has become High Commissioner for South Africa.

    Redistribution.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the Government's scheme of Redistribution, it is proposed to make provision for paying out of public funds the expenses incurred to returning officers at Parliamentary elections, so as to facilitate the return of manual labourers and other persons of moderate means to the service of this House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hardly think the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman is one that is germane to a Redistribution Bill.

    Public Accounts Committee's Reports.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury can he now undertake to give a day during the present session for the consideration by the House of the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, and for taking the decision of the House upon the recommendations embodied therein.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have on a previous occasion stated that if it is the general wish of the House I am prepared to give up one of the Thursdays allotted to Supply for the discussion of the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, which although not technically Supply are very closely associated with the financial business of the House. If there should be any reluctance to give up one of the days allotted to Supply, I

    327
    will endeavour to find some other opportunity, but it must be understood that I cannot in that case promise a whole day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. LOUGH: Will the Prime Minister state what will be the first business after the holidays?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On Tuesday, May 2nd, the day the House reassembles after the Easter holidays, the Second Reading of the Aliens Bill will be taken.
MR. LOUGH: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider that proposal. The usual custom is that no contentious or interesting business is taken on the first day after the holidays.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The old practice was to reassemble on the Monday; but to meet the convenience of Members who are unable to return by Monday, I have put off the reassembling till Tuesday, and, in the circumstances, I think the House might proceed that day with business that is contentious and interesting.
MR. CROOKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to give the Aliens Bill precedence over the Unemployed Bill? It is a very serious matter.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The urgency of the Unemployed Bill is not nearly so great now as it was in the recent period of distress. But I do not propose to give one Bill precedence over the other. I propose to take the Second Reading of the Aliens Bill before I take the Second Reading of the Unemployed Bill.

NEW BILLS.
  LUNACY BILL.
  "To amend the Lunacy Acts," presented by Mr. Attorney-General; supported by Mr. Solicitor-General; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, May 2nd, and to be printed. [Bill 179.]
  COUNTY COURTS (No. 2) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to County Courts," presented by Mr. Attorney-General; supported by Mr. Solicitor-General; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, May 2nd, and to be printed. [Bill 180.]

AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896, ETC., CONTINUANCE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): As the object of the Bill, the Second Reading of which I rise to move, is to continue an Act with the subject of which the House is already thoroughly familiar, and as it has been discussed at considerable length on more than one occasion in recent years, my observations this afternoon may be comparatively brief. The effect of the Bill will be to continue until March 31st, 1910, the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, the Tithe Rent Charge Act, 1899, and certain Acts relating to Scotland, all of which otherwise expire on March 31st next year. It will be remembered that when the original Continuance Act was introduced in 1901, it was brought in a form which would have given permanence to the Acts to which it applies. That proposal was strenuously objected to by the Opposition, and my right hon. friend the Leader of the House explained that we did not consider the scheme in the form embodied in those Acts to be in any sense a final or permanent scheme, or that, in the opinion of the Government, it would not be necessary, within a comparatively brief period, to introduce a comprehensive measure of local taxation reform. He accordingly expressed his willingness to limit the Continuance Bill to a period of four years, on the understanding that only one night should be spent upon the discussion of the Second Reading. That proposal was accepted. The operation of the Bill was limited to four years. The Second Reading only took one night, and the main stages of the Bill were passed with little or no opposition.
Now, four years have since passed and we are practically in the same position

329
as in 1901. We do not now, any more than then, profess that the scheme contained in these Acts is final or a permanent scheme, or that it deals once and for all with the many difficult and complicated problems connected with the question of local taxation. On the other hand, we held then, and we hold still, that those Acts met a real grievance, and, however much the Acts may be objected to in principle by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I hardly think that they will venture to deny that proposition. At all events, hon. Members on the other side of the House representing agricultural constituencies and Liberal candidates in agricultural constituencies would hardly dispute that those Acts do meet Teal grievances, and, to some extent, remedy them. I do not suppose that, at the present stage, this Continuance Bill is likely to meet with serious opposition, but perhaps it may be asked—I gather from a cheer just now that we shall be asked—why it is that the Government have not utilised the interval to introduce that more comprehensive measure at which my my right hon. friend hinted during the course of the discussion in 1901. Well, I do not think the answer is a very difficult one. To deal with so complicated a question as local taxation, a question involving so many conflicting interests, necessarily requires a favourable combination of circumstances. I will mention two senses in which combination is required before any Government can undertake such an Act. First, there must be an overflowing Exchequer, for, as far as I am aware, no complete solution is likely to be found without making large grants from Imperial sources; and, in the second place, it is necessary that there should be a Government and a House of Commons with plenty of leisure before it, and able and willing to devote a whole session, perhaps even more than one session, to dealing with the question. Neither of these conditions exists in our case.
But, over and above that, I may remind the House that it is admitted on all sides that before any comprehensive reform of local taxation can be undertaken the first thing necessary would be to establish a uniform basis of valuation. With that
330
object in view, in 1903, and again in 1904, Valuation Bills were prepared by my right hon. friend who is now the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and one of these was introduced in Parliament last year; but it met with considerable opposition. A revised Bill is in an advanced stage of preparation, and I trust will be introduced before very long, in accordance with the promise given in the King's Speech; but, of course, what progress it may be possible to make with that Bill must depend to a large extent upon the opposition which it encounters, and I fear experience has shown that even in the preliminary stages there are many pitfalls. I may, perhaps, briefly state why, in the meantime, and pending the introduction of larger and more comprehensive measures of reform, we support the admittedly incomplete remedy provided by the Acts which this Bill proposes to continue. The root of the whole matter is the fact that almost the entire burden, I may say the entire burden, of the rates falls in this country upon realty, and that personalty escapes scot free. This would not signify very much if all the money levied, in rates were expended in a beneficial manner, and if that benefit were distributed in anything like proportion to the payments made by the different classes of ratepayers. Everybody knows, however, that that is very far from being the case. A great many of the services which are paid for out of local rates are not services in which the ratepayers, as such, have any special interest; they are in the nature of national services. And there are also other services to which certain classes of ratepayers undoubtedly pay more than in proportion to their ability and more than in proportion to the benefit which they receive for them. Hence arise two grievances. In the first place, there is the grievance which all ratepayers have in common, though not, I think, in an equal measure, against personalty, in personalty not contributing towards the rates; and, secondly, there is the special grievance of the agricultural ratepayers and payers of tithe rent-charge, in that they are called upon to contribute more in proportion to their abilities than others and receive less benefit.
These two grievances have already, to a certain extent, been met, quite apart

331
from the Acts to which this Bill refers. They have been met, the first grievance, in part, by grant already made by the Exchequer to the Local Taxation Fund; and the second grievance has also been, to a considerable extent, recognised, at all events in principle, with regard to those rates which are levied for sanitary or other purposes of a similar character, in respect of which agricultural land and tithe are only rated to the extent of one-fourth. The Acts included in this Continuance Bill carry these remedies one step further. They are based upon the unfairness of the position in which agricultural ratepayers and the clerical owners of tithe rent-charge are placed as regards the other rates besides the sanitary rates, and in particular in regard to those rates which are levied for expenditure upon onerous services of a national character; and, as regards such rates, they provide relief not to the full extent of the Public Health Acts, but to the extent of a half. But, as a reduction in the rates in respect of agricultural land necessarily means an increased burden upon other ratepayers, the case of those other ratepayers has been met, though we do not consider their grievance as great as the agricultural ratepayer; and the Act of 1896 provided chat the deficiency should be met from moneys voted by Parliament. The scheme of relief which the present Bill continues for another period of four years may be imperfect, it may be open to criticism from various points of views, and it is confessedly incomplete and provisional. But, on the other hand, what we say is that it does meet the grievance on lines which are broadly just and equitable, and it holds the field, and, in my opinion, will and must continue to hold the field, until a more systematic and comprehensive form of local taxation is devised and passed into law to take its place. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it will be found in the course of this debate that the opinions so strongly held and expressed on this side of the House both in 1896
332
and in 1901 remain among us still and have not been in the least degree abated; and, indeed, many of our complaints are practically admitted by the Government themselves. If the object of this Bill is the equitable readjustment of rating we are as much in favour of it as anybody, but what we think is that this Bill has set about it the wrong way; that the Government have dealt with it, as is admitted, in a partial and imperfect manner; as we say, also, in an unfair and inequitable manner as between different classes and different interests. It is inequitable as between town and country, inequitable as between different occupations and the like; and also we think that what has been done is open to this very serious objection, that a great part of the benefit, if it was ever designed for the advantage of the farmer, will drift as levies are made in the course of years into the pocket of the landowner. There are our feelings on the subject, and we hold them as strongly as ever. But, of coure, when you have had nine years of these subventions to a certain class, I think it is rather unusual and abrupt, as a principle at any rate in our dealing with these questions, to take away that assistance at once. It is one of the evils of such a mode of dealing with these questions. If I were to seek a parallel case, supposing a protective duty were imposed on some article which was found to be injurious to the interests of the country, we know how exceedingly difficult it would be, vested interests having been acquired, to interfere with that protective duty. And so it is that those who are most opposed to certain legislation may find it exceedingly difficult, after a term of years, to vote simpliciter for its repeal.
The right hon. Gentleman now Chief Secretary for Ireland said in 1901—
"What we want to do is to deal effectually with the whole rating question."
So do we. But if the Government are so anxious to deal with the whole rating question, and have imposed a limit upon this particular measure in order that they may have the opportunity of dealing with it, why have they not done it? The 1896 Bill was only temporary; the Bill of 1901 was only temporary; and now, again, this is only

333
temporary. The President of the Local Government Board says that one reason why it could not be dealt with is that it requires an overflowing Exchequer. "Who is it that has caused the Exchequer not to be overflowing? The whole policy of the Government and the administration of the finances of the country have led to the depletion of the Exchequer, and now they allege that as a reason why they cannot deal with this great subject. But, after all, I do not know that an extremely overflowing Exchequer need be required, because this is a question of the readjustment of taxation. It is not a question of subvention so much as a question of readjustment so as to establish a fair system between one class of ratepayers and others. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that it would require a Government with leisure. The Government have given themselves very little leisure, because they have been occupied with great schemes of the same class as their proceedings in this matter—namely, schemes for the benefit of one part of the interests of the country in which the interests of the rest of the country were too often disregarded. They have been busy saving the pockets of the subscribers to Church schools, busy establishing those schools on a firmer basis, and they have been busy, above all, in entrenching and fortifying the position of the brewers. Now they say that they have no leisure to deal with this question, which would have brought advantage and contentment to the whole community if it had been rightly dealt with, and which has been, by their own admission, urgent throughout all these years.
I think it is worth while to quote the account given of this matter by the Prime Minister in 1901. I quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman because it was so well put that it cannot be improved upon. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman arose out of a question as to the arrangements for the debate, and I asked whether a reasonable limit ought not to be placed on the operation of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not now discuss the merits of the Bill, but the view of the Government was that the amount of relief given
334
should be temporary. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the actual machinery was essentially imperfect and the Government never contemplated that the Bill as drafted could be a permanent settlement of the question, and that if passed in its present form steps would be taken for further legislation at no distant date. The right hon. Gentleman was also prepared to consider the question of a time limit, though it would be madness, he said, to make the time limit too short. Within the next four or five years the Government would be prepared to deal with the subject. On this I thought that
"four or five years" was rather a vague term; I thought three years would be enough, and the right hon. Gentleman said, "Shall we, in order to m et the right hon. Gentleman, split the difference, and say four years?" But here we are again in the same position, the same concessions made, the same demands from this side of the House, and not an inch further forward than we were before. I ask in these circumstances what should be done by a well-disposed and straightforward Government? I have said already that it is absurd to suppose you can root up after nine years without any qualification whatever an arrangement of this kind. No one that I am aware of has proposed to do that: but I do think that pressure should be put on the Government, to use a colloquial phrase, "to hurry up" and not to allow so much water to flow under the bridge before they tackle this question, the urgency and importance of which they themselves admit. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will again apply that saving principle of statesmanship which he adopted four years ago, and will split the difference and modify to that extent the limit of time for which this Bill is to prevail.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The right hon. Gentleman has asked what should be done by well-meaning and straightforward men in dealing with this measure. Every one will admit that the right hon. Gentleman comes under the definition of a well-meaning and straightforward man. The right hon. Gentleman's position however, is that the Bill should not be

335
opposed, but that an appeal should be made to the Government to cut down the four years and convert the period into two. I do not think that much would be gained by that, and I do not know whether the experience of the past shows that there is likely to be much gain. The right hon. Gentleman reproaches us with not having in the last four years carried out a large scheme of local taxation reform.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Following five years before.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will not go into the way in which we have used the time of the House. But each session we were told that we were overcrowding the Speech from the Throne with legislation; and we have not been more fortunate than our predecessors in carrying through all the programme we have suggested horn time to time, though I think we have come nearer to the goal than any of those who have held office before. The right hon. Gentleman speaks in an airy, irresponsible manner of the facility of dealing with local taxation, though my right hon. friend, in introducing the Bill, pointed out that in the first place you must have as a preliminary measure a Valuation Bill. I do not know what view the right hon. Gentleman takes of the facility of passing such a Bill. I think that it would be a much less easy task than he at present realises. But even then you only come to the threshold of the question as to how you are to deal with the problem of local taxation itself; and here the right hon. Gentleman indicated why he thinks it is so very easy a matter. He speaks of the question as a readjustment of local burdens. The right hon. Gentleman will find that hard enough by itself, but it is much more than that. I do not believe that either he or any hon. Member will ever deal with the subject as one of the readjustment of local burdens pure and simple. It cannot be so treated. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke with very statesmanlike moderation of the extreme difficulty of attacking vested interests, interests once set up, and the bitterness of feeling and friction which attends any such measure. What is his own idea of the reforms of local taxation? It is to
336
attack every vested interest in the country. All those who at present pay too little will have to pay more, and those who pay too much will be relieved, no doubt.
MR. LAMBERT: That is not attacking them.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is what the right hon. Gentleman described as attacking vested interests. I take the right hon. Gentleman's vocabulary and it ought to be sufficient for the hon. Member. No Government can venture on any readjustment of local taxation among the different ratepayers unless they can smooth the progress by some contribution from Imperial funds. Nor is this theoretically unjust. On the contrary, it is unquestionably and intrinsically just. There are objections legitimately made to the present mode of grants in aid of local rates, and financial purists may object to the method. But if we take our eye off the mere question of technical method and look at the broad equities of the case, it is preposterous, in a country in which the needs of civilization throw more and more burdens on the local taxpayer, that that local taxpayer should be the owner and occupier of real property. It cannot be justified on any ground of broad equity. That gross natural injustice of the present state of things will meet inevitably any Government which tries to deal with this question in the broad, comprehensive spirit so easy to talk about and so difficult to carry out; and if the right hon. Gentleman and his friends deal with the subject in that spirit they will have even a more unpleasant time of it than I think, for other reasons, may be in store for them. But the truth is, that the right hon. Gentleman, quite rightly from his own point of view, only desires to get out legitimately of the rather delicate situation in which the extreme and almost factious violence of ten years ago put him and his friends. I think that he has got out of that position with grace and dignity. He has curbed, temporarily at least, his haste.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, no! My feelings are entirely unchanged.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was talking of his policy, not of his feelings. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the statesmanlike wisdom and moderation of his speech. If I have some criticisms to make on the rough sketch he has made of the kind of Bill, comprehensive, universal, to give advantage and content to every class in the community, and if I have commented adversely on his general views of this great subject, that does not diminish the admiration which I express for the facility with which he has extricated himself and his friends from a position which at one moment looked as if it might be difficult.
MR. WHITLEYsaid hon. Members on his side of the House held more strongly than ever their opinion on the measure, and he had ventured to place an Amendment to the Second Reading on the Paper, which attacked the crudeness and unfairness of the method contained in the proposals now introduced for the second time, and which set forth an alternative method of giving the needed assistance. In submitting the Amendment he trusted that at any rate, although they might not be able to defeat this policy of "drift and dole," they would be able to show that there was a method which would be more satisfactory, more equitable, and by which the admitted difficulty might be dealt with. This Bill had been introduced without even the condescension of a ten minutes address from the Minister of the Crown in charge of it. Let the House remember that the first Bill on this subject was introduced in 1896, and was brought in avowedly as a temporary measure pending the Report of the Royal Commission which was then sitting. That Commission had long since made its Report, and yet the Government a second time asked for a renewal of this Act without showing the faintest sign of acting on the Report. There appeared to be less signs now of bringing in any comprehensive or satisfactory measure than there was in 1901, yet surely in the period that had intervened the crudity and unfairness of this proposal had been established beyond question.
First as to the unfairness between agriculturists themselves in different localities and on different kinds of
338
land. This Bill dealt with many varieties of land. They had land rented as low as 5s. per acre—land which was barely able to, even if it could, bear the tithes charged upon it. Then they had the average land rented at about 25s. an acre, and they had land rented at 50s. an acre, such as was to be found in prosperous dairy-farming districts of Cheshire. Lastly, they had suburban land rented at £5 per acre. Those lands alike received relief under this Bill, but in what proportions? Did the poorest land receive the most and the richest land receive the least? It was the exact opposite. The greatest relief was given where it was the least needed, and the least relief was given where it was the most needed. The weak land in Essex and East Anglia, which had been the hardest hit by the importation of cheap food from foreign countries, and whose necessity gave rise to this Bill, should have received the greatest part of its benefits, but it had received the least, thus proving that relief was given out according to riches and not according to poverty. The unfairness could be established out of the mouth of the Government itself. The evidence given before the Royal Commission by the present Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Pretyman) some time after the Act had been in operation showed it. The hon. Member in reply to questions said—
"It is a bad method … I cannot say that I think it is entirely satisfactory because the relief is given to the land which is best able to bear the burden—that gets the most relief; and the land which is least able to bear the burden gets the least relief. That is inseparable from this form of relief, and that is one of the reasons, I suppose, why it was made only temporary."
In spite of that evidence the Government came a second time to ask for that form of relief. Another member of the Government giving evidence before the Commission was the Deputy-Chairman of Committees (Mr. Jeffreys) who stated—
"No, what I say is that, unfortunately, on the poor land where the assessment is low—I know land, for instance where the assessment is only 5s. an acre, and the rates per acre therefore are very low indeed—the relief that we get is very small."
An eminent agriculturist gave similar evidence and said—
"I cannot say that I think the principle upon which the Agricultural Rating Act was

339
passed last year was altogether wise. It gives the minimum of help where most is wanted. It chiefly goes to help the rates where the help is least needed."
Secondly, as between the different classes of ratepayers in the rural districts there was equal crudity and equal unfairness. The relief given under this Act was limited to the amount required to pay one-half of the agricultural rates on the land when the Act was first passed. The results had been very disastrous in rural districts because it made in the case of all future increase of rates a double burden on that class of property. It had established a heavier burden on houses. They had been hearing recently of better accommodation for the agricultural labourer, and of measures to keep them from being driven out of rural districts into the towns, and yet they had an Act which would press more heavily than before on houses in rural districts. Even farmers through their own buildings and improvements found their burdens doubled by this Act. In the parish of Brockworth 117 persons had their rates raised, whilst only sixteen persons received any benefit under the Act. The rates in the parish of Langport, in Somersetshire, had been increased by fourpence in the pound on other classes of property owing to the operation of this Act. Then in the county of Buckinghamshire a table had been prepared showing that the total increased charge due to the operation of this Act on other classes of property had been £8,408 during the last five years. One of the things which agriculturists were attempting to do at the present time was to bring about co-operation and the increase of dairy farming in order to compete with the imports coming from Denmark, and yet the very operation of this Act was to throw heavier burdens on every farmer and landowner.
Then as between the owner and occupier they had a similar state of injustice. The right hon. Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks Beach), when Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave his opinion on that point very clearly. He said—
" In my belief—and I have always said so—it will be a benefit to the English farmer certainly at first, probably for the whole time of its operation; but when fresh tenancies are created, when there is a change in tenancies, especially in the present state of the market as
340
between landlord and tenant, if the change should be more in favour of the landlord than at present, then no doubt—I think it is admitted—the owner of the land will have an advantage."
All the time these renewals went on new tenancies were created, and with each renewal more went to the owner and less went to the occupier. Yet it had been the occupiers who had borne the burden of the depression in agriculture in recent times. There could be no manner of question that nine-tenths of the burden had been borne by the tenants. The evidence of the Agricultural Commission had been overwhelming on that point. They had the evidence of Mr. Pringle, with regard to the county of Northamptonshire, dealing with a long series of farmers' budgets, and that gentle-man pointed out that all the profits over a certain number of farms in that series were £4,900, whilst the total rent paid to the landlords was £36,571. Mr. Pringle gave a series of cases in different counties in England showing how reduction on rents had been in no way comparable to the loss sustained by the tenants owing to the depression in agriculture, and showing in the whole series the profits to the farmers had been Is. 3d. per acre, whilst the rents paid by them amounted to 24s. 3d. At the present time there was a proposal for putting the farmer into the position of the owner of the soil. He could not say he was much in favour of such a proposal at the present time, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley had brought in a large scheme of land purchase in order to do away with the dual ownership of land in England, and he would point oat that one serious result of the continuance of this unsatisfactory policy was that all such proposals as that which was now under consideration made it more difficult to carry out a scheme of that kind, because, as was seen in Ireland, they were now purchasing from the land-lords their holdings at an increased value owing to a dole having been added to the capital value of the land. It was a most unsatisfactory policy. A few years ago they had to make a purchase on behalf of the War Office, and they found then how the price had been run up by the action which this House had taken. The hon. Member for King's Lynn gave some very useful figures upon that subject. He

341
found that the price paid by the War Office for the purchase of land required in the neighbourhood of Salisbury Plain was out of all proportion to its value for the purposes of taxation. In the case of the estate of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol the value for estate duty amounted to £43,700, whereas the price paid by the War Office was £93,411, and no doubt there were many similar cases.
As between the town and country also this Bill was unjust. The policy of paying rates out of taxes meant that the poor were made to pay for the relief of the rich. In regard to the Exchequer grants it had been estimated that the result was that every man rated at less than £40 was condemned to pay out of his taxes money for the relief of those who were rated at a higher figure. In the case of the agricultural rates it was a positive hardship to those in the great cities. When they examined the case of accommodation land in the neighbourhood of the great towns, they found a very different state of things. Such land was only rated at one-fourth of its annual rental value, and its rental value was out of all proportion to its real or capital value. The rateable value of land in the neighbourhood of Bristol which came under this Act was £12,476. There was probably not an acre of that land which was not worth at least £400 or £500, much of it was ripe for building and worth £1,000 or £1,500 an acre. Yet in regard to that land the poorest wage-earners were being taxed in order to relieve the rich.
They could not get away from the fact that dealing with a question of this kind in this way was unjust. In all respects the method established by this Act was unfair and unequal with regard to every class which had to pay taxes. The real fact was that the farmer was taxed on his raw material and his improvements. Every effort of industry and intelligence which he put into his calling went to the owner of the land. It must be remembered that there were certain obligations placed upon the land of this country, certain duties to be carried out, obligations which. were, in fact, a first charge upon the
342
land long before they had any idea of rent. In early days, when grants were made by the Crown, there was the obligation to maintain the Army and the poor, and to uphold the Church, which at that time was the centre of education. Those services with regard to the ownership of land were not in their essence taxes at all, they were the reserved portion of the grant made by the State to the landowner, and if those burdens were moved off the shoulders of the owner on to those of the general taxpayer it was confiscation of that portion of the grant that the State specially reserved, and the community was doubly wronged. It had to pay rent for its own property and to pay taxes to increase its own rent. Those were the hereditary duties of owners for the discharge of which their privileges were granted. It was hard on the tenants who were rated and rented on their own exertions. What was required was that justice should be done to the tenant. It was necessary to remove from his shoulders the burdens which ought to be spread over the country as a whole in proportion to the benefit recceived from them. The occupier of land required to be put in a position where he would not any longer be rated for improvements which he himself made. This point was well illustrated by the case of some fruit growers in Perthshire who rented at £2 an acre some pasture land upon which they established a fruit-growing industry, and made it so successful that they required more land. But the owner asked £10 an acre for the land, and it was upon that £10 they would have been rated had the industry been capable of sustaining so heavy a burden. Thus the unfortunate tenant was both rented and rated on the improved methods he might introduce, and until this difficulty was dealt with in a thorough manner there could be no satisfactory solution of the question, and small holdings, co-operation, and so forth would only tend to defeat their own object. He had known cases of farms being cut up into small holdings, new buildings erected, and land made twice or three times as productive, and the only result had been to increase the. crushing burden of rates and taxes on the improvements.

343
The essentials of a just system of local taxation were a national distribution of national services; a fair allocation to owners of land of services which were in their essence a just charge on the land—which would mean a distribution according to the value of the land in the various districts concerned; a reduction of the burdens on tenant farmers, and the prevention of the burdens falling on their own improvements. Both in Scotland and in Ireland the plan had long since been adopted of sharing these burdens between owner and occupier, and there was surely nothing very revolutionary in suggesting that some such system might be introduced in England and Wales. The arbitrary division in halves between the owner and the occupier was a crudity in some respects corresponding to the present system, but he believed a scheme could be devised whereby a division could be made on scientific and equitable lines, so that the owner should bear his proper burdens, and the tenant those burdens of which he himself obtained the benefit. An Amendment in this direction, moved by the hon. Member for East Northampton when the Act was first before the House, was defeated by the Unionist Party; he hoped they had now learnt to look more favourably on the proposal. He could conceive of no satisfactory way of dealing with these national services without to some extent pooling the great land values of our cities. For instance, agriculture ought not to be called upon to bear the chief share of the burden of main roads, the use of which belonged more to the inhabitants of cities than to the dwellers in the country. He believed a scheme ought to be, and could be, devised, whereby all such national services should be placed on one fund to which town and country contributed, not in proportion to area, but according to benefit received, and he knew of no better test of the benefit received than the value of the land in the respective districts. That in itself would bring great relief of burdens to the agricultural districts, but the relief would be founded on justice and not on charity.
He had ventured to put his Amendment before the House in the hope that when the time came round for this matter to be
344
reconsidered there might be put forward a comprehensive and thorough proposal which would not have the unfair result of the present Act. A dying Government could not be expected to deal with the matter; they had had their opportunity twice over and had neglected it. The Act would have to be renewed, but he hoped it would be for a very short period, and that then the question would be faced and dealt with in a satisfactory manner. Nothing at present prevented the advance of agriculture and the development of agricultural districts so much as the question of local taxation, and he hoped the House would join in condemning the continuation of the policy of doles. It was not inconsistent for any Member who believed in the allocation of the burdens between owners and occupiers as a proper solution of the question to vote for his Amendment, although a temporary supporter of the measure itself. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, and he hoped the debate would be devoted more to the threshing out of a solution of the question than to the mere temporary renewal of the Act.
MR. TREVELYANseconded the Amendment because it contained a direct challenge to the general policy of the Act and gave the House an opportunity of discussing one alternative to the proposal which the Government for the third time were bringing forward. From the haste with which the Government had brought in a mere continuation Bill, it was pretty clear it was a prelude to an election. But whether or not this was an election Bill, the Act which it proposed to renew I was the only thing done by the Government during its ten years of office which; had even the appearance of a measure for the relief of either rural or urban ratepayers. It was not a very magnificent I record. It meant that there had been handed over to a particular industry rather more than £1,500,000 per annum, which would otherwise have gone to the I relief of the general taxpayer. It was only a shilling an acre, though it was true the Government began by holding out to the farmer the hope that it was only the beginning of greater things. In 1896 they would not do more because a

345
Royal Commission was inquiring into the question of local taxation; in 1901 they asked for a renewal pending the consideration of the Report of that Royal Commission; and now they asked for a further renewal—he supposed pending the forgetting of that Report. At any rate there was no promise, hint, or pretence on the part of the Government that there was any larger policy to which this Act was leading which would embrace the whole question of the burden of rates and help all ratepayers instead of only one particular class. This was the end, as it was the beginning, of the Conservative policy; its friends would be able to say of the Government, "Rest in peace. They gave the farmer a shilling an acre."
But that was not all. Other measures had been passed since this Act was first introduced. The President of the Local Government Board had said that the Government had not had leisure to deal with the whole question of rating. But they had not done very much during the last three years. All the measures of importance they had passed were those dealing with licensing, the Sugar Convention, the imposing and the taking off of the corn duty, and education. What had been the effect of the Education Act on the farmer? Ail the advantage which it was claimed he could have reaped from the Agricultural Rates Act had been more than abolished by the large increase of rates which had taken place from one end of their county districts to the other. He had the honour of being a member of the Northumberland County Council and he knew what the outcry of the farmers was there. He could assure the House that they were quite as noisy against the rates as they were before the Act was passed. The farmers were the only class the Government had catered for and yet they were still asking for larger consideration and more subventions from the Government. That was the way in which they hoped to meet the increase in the rates. He thought it would be somewhat of a miscalculation if the farmers thought that, in the next decade, it would be as easy to get relief out of the taxpayer, because they would not always have a Government in power dominated by the landlord interest, and they could
346
not always expect the urban taxpayer to go on paying increased taxation for the sake of benefiting agriculturists. It was less likely that the town ratepayer would sanction an extension of this process when half the Party opposite were trying to impress upon him that he was being ruined through the decadence of industries in the towns. The outcry against the rates in towns was every day becoming more and more marked, and more subventions was a thing that could not possibly be thought of. But although agriculturists were unwilling to relinquish the advantage they got under this Bill they despaired just as much at the burden of the rates. If more relief was going to be given it should be given all round to all ratepayers upon some scientific and more reasonable plan which would attract the support of the towns. He did not think that many hon. Members regarded the method by which these subventions were given as either reasonable or logical, and he did not gather from the President of the Local Government Board that he thought that this was a satisfactory system.
A system of, distribution was wanted, in the first place, which would enable those districts which wanted it most to get the relief. Quotations had been given in which a member of the Government and the hon. Member for Basingstoke had declared that the districts relieved most were those which least required it, and that those districts where agricultural depression was greatest were relieved the least. He thought they ought to turn for advice on this question to the Hamilton-Murray Report of the Local Taxation Committee. That was a Report with which Lord Balfour of Burleigh entirely agreed, and what was more, it was a scheme for distributing the national subventions which the Government themselves practically adopted when they gave the increased education grant under the Act of 1902. They made a proposal to give a fixed and increased contribution for national services to all unions, urban and rural alike. It was a proposal to give two kinds of grants—(1) a primary grant in order to bring the rate under a certain figure and administered so as to give most relief to the most needy districts;

347
and (2) a grant towards excess expenditure. The result would be that the largest proportional grant would be given to the poor and economically administered districts and the smallest to the wealthy and extravagant. If they went on giving larger grants to local authorities because the ratepayers were becoming more and more discontented with the burden of the rates, where were they going to get the money from? The Government were getting it from the ordinary taxpayer. That was just where this Amendment differed from the proposal of the Government and from the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somerset. He thought that the ordinary taxpayer paid enough already and national economy was required. He was proposing a national readjustment of the burdens on land by taxing the permanent value of land in order that the taxation on improvements and buildings was to some extent relieved. A great many of them who supported a policy of this kind disliked a great part of the rates upon real property quite as much as hon. Gentlemen opposite. In his view the rates which at the present time, under the ordinary system of assessment, fell upon the improvements put into the land or on the land seemed to him the most vicious and destructive kind of tax they had got. It was impossible to devise a worse tax than that part of the rates which fell upon the improvements put into the land or on the houses built upon the land. The same principle applied in the case of towns in the present taxes on improvements. In towns industries were hampered and houses were fewer because of the high taxes put upon mills and houses. It was just the same in the country where the enterprising farmer or the landlord put capital into the land, for he was mulcted in rates upon his improvements, and this was the reason why the burden of the rates was felt so much.
What they wore now asking the House to consider was the placing more and more of the taxation upon the permanent and unimproved value of the land which would not rise in exact proportion to the amount of capital put into the land or to the extent to which it was improved. There was an impression abroad that in
348
proposing this kind of taxation they wished to put a new and larger tax upon the cultivators of the land. He was constantly hearing of what he would call "the finishing touch" argument, which urged that if they put any more taxation upon land they would put the finishing touch to that class of property which was suffering from agricultural depression. He had received a letter from a country gentleman in which he said—
"I have had this estate thrown on my hands twice over in a ruinous condition, and not being rich enough to incur such heavy losses a third time, I am farming five farms out of six, at a loss, but not so great a loss as the former tenants caused me, owing to the agricultural depression. On the sixth farm, formerly let at £620 a year, I have received less than £200 a year for the last twelve years on the average, besides having had to spend an average of some £60 a year on upkeep. The tithes and rent-charges run away with another £150 a year. If you succeed in imposing another land tax on it, I will get my trustees to make you a present of it if you do not take care. In any case I promise you that my sense of justice will not permit of my paying another land tax, if I have to form a rebellion of only one, nor shall I be-altogether passive."
He was sure hon. Members would have respect for that man's sufferings. He did not know all the circumstances, and he did not know what the condition of his estate was, but he might very easily be a man who would very considerably gain by the proposals contained in this Amendment. Supposing his land was really of very much less intrinsic value than a few years ago, and supposing it was the unimproved value that was going down, and he had been putting a good deal of capital into it in order to keep his head above water, he would be a gainer by this proposal, because its object was to try and get taxation taken off such capital which had been put into the land, and if they based the taxation upon the unimproved value, if that land went down in value of course the taxation would be reduced. It seemed preposterous, taking land in Essex, which. notoriously was hardly of any value, that rates should be raised on such land to any extent. If land was of no value it ought to have no rates, and if a man. came along to spend capital upon it, if he took this useless and valueless land and put money into it, it was very foolish that the nation should put local burdens, on him and tax him on the capital values

349
which, he chose to put into that land. His object was to exempt that kind of man from taxation.
The other side of the question was where ought the taxation to fall, and whose taxes ought to be increased in order to make up for the remission of taxation in this direction? In no case ought the tax on land which was being put to a good or better use to be increased. If they based taxation more on the unimproved value of land, there were certain classes whose taxes would tend to be increased. There was first of all the landlord who was neglecting bin estate—the landlord who was putting no capital into it, allowing bad farming to continue, and letting the value of the land fall, not because the general value was falling, but because he was not working the estate properly. At the present time if an estate fell in value because it was not put to proper use and was not well farmed, the result was that the rates on that estate fell. Who had to make it up? The neighbouring landlords who were working their land well and putting plenty of capital into it. The best criterion for rating was the intrinsic value of the land and not the way in which the land was used. What they wanted to do was to let off as far as possible the landowner whose land was being well used, and, if they liked, to penalise the man who was not using his land well.
Then there was land round towns or villages which was fit for building. He addressed an argument to the House on Friday on the subject of the rating of land values and carried hon. Members with him. At any rate, the Second Reading of the Bill he introduced was carried by a majority of ninety. His argument then went to show that they ought to tax more than they did land on the outskirts of towns which was fit for building on and which was wanted for buildings by the people. There was no magic in the particular boundary line of an urban district or town. Exactly the same was true of villages from one end of the country or the other. There was land round villages which very often would be used for building if it were taxed on its selling value and so brought into the market for building. They were always talking
350
about the condition of housing in the villages. One of the reasons of that condition was the difficulty of getting land, whether by the local authorities or individuals. Then there was land which was wanted for public improvements. Everyone in the House could probably call to mind cases where enormous prices had been paid by corporations in order to get land for, say, waterworks. What ought corporations to pay if they went into some wild district which had been a sheep run? What ought they to pay in reason for land which, until there was a water-supply scheme in prospect, had never had any particular value? Obviously they only ought to pay very little above the agricultural value of the land. But the landlord, owing to his monopoly, was often able to ask eighty or ninety years purchase. That land ought to be taxed on its selling value. That would mean, if public authorities could not get land at reasonable prices, the landlords would have to pay rates on the basis of the selling value. The other day in Northumberland the local authority had to buy land in the neighbourhood of pit villages for schools under the Education Act. The land round about these villages was often going for Is. 6d. or 2s. a square yard, but the local authority had to pay 5s. a square yard in order to get land to put up schools. If land were, taxed on its selling value two things would be done. It would be made easy for local authorities or individuals to get land at reasonable prices, and also to get in the neighbourhood of towns and villages a larger revenue for local purposes. There was land near railway stations which was fit for the purposes of industrial development, but which did not now come into market.
At the present time there was a healthy panic in the country at the fact that we were becoming a town-brednation, and one of the forms which that panic was taking was the outcry for garden cities, and for having industries in the country instead of the towns. There was only one way in which any large part of the industries could be taken into the country. There was an advantage for almost all our industries in being in towns because of the nearness of communication to the centres of business. There must be some

351
economic compensation to the industries if they were to be taken out of the towns and placed in the country. The only real compensation there could be was that land ought to be cheaper in the country. But what was the case now? Land constantly could not be got in the country by those who wanted to take industries there. If a man wanted a piece of land close by a railway station he was asked a prohibitive price for it; it was a mere chance if he could get cheap land there. If land were rated at its selling price the landlord would not be able to hold it, and when it was wanted for industrial purposes it would be obtainable at a reasonable price. He asked the House to consider whether they ought not rather to do justice than to give charity, whether their chief object ought not to be to remove the real burden upon land, that was to say, the taxation on improvements and everything put into the land, and to tax instead, as could be done with perfect safety, the unimproved value of the land, because that was a permanent factor which could not be altered by anything except the general activity of the population.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'No Bill dealing with the severe burden of the local rates on the agricultural industry will be satisfactory or afford permanent relief which does not provide for a contribution payable by the owners of land based on its selling value, and utilise the fund so provided to relieve the ratepayers of a substantial portion of the burdens which result from the local payment of national services and from the incidence of existing rates on buildings and improvements, instead of adopting the crude and unfair method of paying half the rates on agricultural land out of the Imperial Exchequer' (Mr. Whitley.)—instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. CHAPLINsaid that, as the author of the Bill of 1896, he might be allowed to intervene for a few moments in the debate. The hon. Member for the Elland Division was good enough to say that this Bill was the only thing the Conservative Party had done in ten years for the rural ratepayers of England. Even if the statement were true—and he should be inclined to doubt it—it was not a bad record even after
352
ten years of office. By this one measure alone they had reduced the burden of the rates paid by that particular class 50 per cent. What had the Party opposite ever done to compare with that with regard to this particular class, although they had been in power quite as long as the Conservative Party during the time he had been in the House of Commons? The hon. Member for the Elland Division went on to say that when this Bill was passed it would be the end of Conservative policy in this direction for the present. If he was right in that statement, there was all the more reason for passing this Bill as quickly as they could, for if there was one thing in the world that farmers might be certain of, it was that they would never get anything of this sort from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
He rejoiced to hear the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that he was not going to offer opposition to this Bill. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on that decision whatever he might think of his consistency, and, indeed, he could hardly believe his ears when he remembered the weary hours through which they were kept night after night, and on two different occasions all night, by the most obstructive Opposition that he had ever known during the time he had been a Member of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that all his objections to the Bill remained as strong as ever they were in the past, which under the circumstances was somewhat surprising. What were these objections? That it was grossly unjust, that it was inequitable, that it could not be otherwise than most ineffective, and that it would be most unfair in its operation, and, lastly, that it was nothing but a dole to the landlords from which the farmers would not benefit by a single iota. If the condemnation of the Bill was true—he denied it at the time and he denied it again to-day—and if those iniquities had been allowed to proceed during a period of nine years, what was it that naturally followed? Why! that the sooner, of course, that these iniquities were repealed the better! To-night the Opposition sang a very different song. What he had understood from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was, that the

353
doles to the landlords and all the iniquities they had complained of in regard to this Act, had only to be allowed to continue sufficiently long to become virtues instead of the vices which they denounced.
He remembered, as if it were yesterday, the rapturous cheers with which one attack in particular on that side of the House was received by Gentlemen opposite. It was made by an hon. Member who was now a prominent and rising Member of the Liberal Party; he meant the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. He was not going to detain the House by any long quotations, but would merely give a concrete instance to the House of the iniquities which that hon. Gentleman said would follow from the Bill. That hon. Gentleman stated that taking the rentals of the Ministers, as the authors of the Bill, they would benefit to the extent of £67,000 a year, and he was good enough to tell him that his share would be £700. His own experience was this, that after a permanent reduction in the rental, which had been nearer 70 than 60 per cent., at the very next rent day after the passing of the Bill he had to make a further remission of 10 per cent. in his rents, and on the last rent day he had to make another remission. So much, as a matter of fact, for what had happened to landlords as compared with the amazing fictions of the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. And all this was being done, said the hon. Gentleman, to relieve the distress of the farmer, the real fact being that the landlord had "bled him to the last drop of his blood." He had had quite recently some opportunities of learning a good deal about the truth of this matter. He happened to be chairman of the Agricultural Committee of the Tariff Commission, and a number of gentlemen had come before them as witnesses from a great number of counties, in England, Scotland, and Wales, selected not by the Commissioners but by the great agricultural societies in the country, and there had been the most remarkable and almost unanimous testimony of opinion he had ever heard before any Committee or Commission, and he had served on many, as to who had been the real recipients of the benefits of the Act. Out of all these witnesses it would be found that, with one or two single
354
exceptions, no one had ever heard of a landlord attempting to intercept the advantages of the Act, and that they had no doubt the farmers had enjoyed them all to the full.
Whether it were the possible approach of the election which had contributed to what he could only describe as this eleventh hour recantation on the part of the Leader of the Opposition; whatever the motive was he thought the right hon. Gentleman was wise, for opposition to the renewal of the Bill just now with an election before them, might, he thought, be a little awkward for a good many hon. Members on that side of the House. Many of those Gentlemen were always professing their desire to do something, to arrest the rural exodus to the towns. "Back to the land" was a leading item in their policy. It was one of their favourite catch cries; what had they ever done to promote it? Nothing that he was aware of, except to bitterly oppose a measure, which at least reduced the rates upon agricultural land by one half; and to denounce it without ceasing ever since. Their Leader moreover declares that they maintain all their old objections to the Bill as strongly as ever. If they do—if they believe in them—if they are sincere—then of course their duty is clear. To do their utmost to defeat it now; which would mean, of course, doubling the rates upon agricultural land, immediately after the Act expires next year. The Member for the Elland Division and the Member for Halifax had Amendments down which, if carried, meant the destruction of the Bill and nothing else. Yet they professed to feel great interest in the welfare of the rural population. Personally, he hoped they would vote for them. The more they voted for them the better; it would teach the people of this country what they would have to expect from some Gentlemen who professed great interest in the welfare of the rural ratepayers of England. It would be a nice cry for them to go to the country with—" Double the rates on agricultural property after March 1st next year."
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he very much regretted that the hon. Member for Elland had chosen to meet this Bill with

355
a very elaborate and complicated Amendment, rather than simply moving that it should be read a second time that day six months hence. He, himself, held as strongly as ever he did some nine years ago, when the Agricultural Rating Act was first introduced, the cruel wrong and grievous injustice which this Bill did to to a very large section of His Majesty's subjects, viz., all the urban ratepayers and those who lived in populous districts. It seemed to him that that injustice and greivance had been aggravated all the more because this Bill had been originally passed as a merely temporary measure, and it had now become, by its repeated continuance, almost incorporated into the Statute - book of the country. He did not observe any real evidence of any intention, or inclination even, on the part of the Government of dealing further in the future with this great and pressing matter of the reform of local taxation.
The House would pardon him if he referred to the question of rates in towns. Hon. Gentlemen who represented urban districts well knew how heavy and burdensome those rates were. He had ventured to cull the rates imposed on ten or a dozen of the large towns and cities in the country. In Newcastle they amounted to 5s. 2d. in the £; Portsmouth, 6s. 2d.; Bristol and Hull, 7s. 2d.; Cardiff, 7s. 3d.; Liverpool, 7s. 4¼d.; Brighton, Birmingham, and Nottingham, 7s. 6d.; Plymouth, 7s. 7½d.; Manchester, 7s. 8½d.; Leeds, 8s.; Bradford, 8s. 4d.; Southampton, 9s. 5d.; and Norwich, 9s. 7d. He knew full well that hon. Members opposite would urge that regard should be paid to the facilities and advantages which those who lived in largo towns obtained from the expenditure of those large sums of money derived from the rates. They pointed out that the ratepayers in towns enjoyed fine main roads, excellent sanitary arrangements, sewage farms, watching and lighting. All these were paid for out of the rates. But he argued that there was no luxury in fine main roads and smooth pavements, no great advantage in complete sanitary arrangements. A sewage farm was not "a thing of beauty and a joy for ever"—although all these things were necessary for the aggregation of population in the towns. He could assure the House that
356
the towns were not very extravagant in spending money on these objects. The expenditure under these heads was not incurred by the municipalities unless it was absolutely unavoidable. They waited until they were absolutely driven and forced by the Local Government Board to make it. He argued again, that towns were called upon, under this Bill, to contribute to make good in rural districts the rates that were formerly levied on the land. It was all very well for the right hon. Member for Sleaford to say that the Agricultural Rating Act had reduced the rates in counties by one-half. Well, were he a rural ratepayer he should think that a most excellent thing; but it had been done out of the pockets of the ratepayers in the towns, who had to pay even higher rates than those in the rural districts. An hon. Member who sat on that side of the House told him the other day that if the people in the towns were idiots enough to pay one-half of the rates in the rural districts, should they not be much greater idiots in rural parts if they did not accept it.
This Bill was founded on a wrong principle. The rates were purely local in their nature and character, and were not national in any shape or form. They were levied in any particular parish, district, or county in order to meet the expenditure of that parish, district, or county, such as for the poor, or for roads or other expenses. They were entirely restricted to that locality and to the district. It followed that the land in itself was rated at too great a figure and that some other property had escaped the fair share of the burden which it ought to bear. That argument, if true, might, be no justification or bringing national resources to the rescue of land, but it might be for some rectification of the burdens of rating in the special areas in which those rates were levied. That was the course which ought to be followed. Why should the ratepayers of Leeds, Manchester, or Liverpool be called upon to pay taxably sums of money in order to reduce rates in Andover or rural districts in Devonshire or Cornwall, with which they had no connection or sympathy.
With regard to the allegation that the farmers and occupiers received this

357
benefit, he was inclined to hazard a doubt of it, and if hon. Members would carry their minds back to the state of affairs that existed previous to the passing of the Act of 1896 they would remember that for some weeks before rent day one read in the newspapers, and more especially in those dealing with agricultural subjects, lists of landowners and landlords in various parts of the country who announced their decision to give some abatement or remission on the rents to be paid in the next rental. Those abatements and remissions went up to 25 per cent. But did anyone read now of such abatements? He had consistently read the newspapers, and had not seen for some years past any announcements of that nature. What did it mean but that the tenant was in almost the same position as before? Instead of his relief coming from the landlord, the State stepped in and took on its shoulders those remissions and abatements which previously the landlord had been bound to afford to the tenants in order to keep his land let. Would the tenants be worse off if the House refused to re-enact this measure? He ventured to argue that the landlords and landowners would have to return to their former course and again allow the abatements and remissions as before the passing of the Act. He did not believe that the tenant would suffer in the long run.
They had heard from the right hon. Gentleman an elaboration of the two arguments previously placed before the House by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who said that in all these rating matters the House should have consideration for two points, viz., ability to pay and service rendered. Those were two new doctrines or gospels of very recent birth; they were formulated to give an air of verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. He agreed that they ought to bring personal property into contribution towards expenditure. His objection was to any piecemeal and partial dealing with the subject. Why should an income of £100 a year obtained from land be treated differently to an income of £100 a year derived from cottages, or a public-house, a corn-mill, or any other
358
business. The right hon. Gentleman could not say that the ability of the land to pay was less, because if it were not able to pay £100 a year, it would pay only £60 or £80. They must take it that the income derived from land was evidence that this land or property was able to pay the amount placed upon it. He suggested, therefore, that the argument of "ability to pay" went by the board. If that part of the argument were not true, the other part of "services rendered" was more ridiculous. Were they going to discriminate among the ratepayers according to the benefits they received? Were they going to have a new classification of property on some sliding scale? If so, they must go further, and not only graduate and classify properties, but graduate and classify the people to whom they belonged. To state either argument was to show immediately the colossal absurdity of both of them. There was no doubt that the effect of the operations of the Act was bad. It was generally allowed that the relief under this Bill went where it was not wanted—to the rich land, instead of to the poor land that ought to enjoy the larger share. It was a re-enactment of the old state of affairs which provided that "to him that hath shall be given, but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." He ventured to think that, so long as 1hey had the present Party in office, this would be not only the first but the last stage of reform. There was no indication or intention on the part of the Government really and honestly to take into consideration the whole question of the reform of local taxation. If the Government would promise to attempt to deal with this matter in a manner fair and equitable to all classes of property he would support them, but unless they had some such assurance he would not only vote against the Second Reading, but he would oppose the Bill to his utmost ability.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he differed from the hon. Member for Halifax in the way in which the hon. Gentleman proposed to remedy the present unfair system of rating. The hon. Gentleman, in the first instance, talked about the unfairness of

359
the present system between farmers and farmers, and in the same breath he talked about a "dole." He had never heard farmers complain that the relief was greater in districts, where the rent was £2 or more an acre, than in districts where it was 5s. or 10s. per acre. Farmers never looked upon this question as a "dole." If they looked upon it as a charity, it would have been right to have given greater relief where the land was the poorest. As regards fresh tenancies his experience had been that not the slightest alteration in rent had been made in consequence of the Act, and he believed all land owners would agree with him in saying that their agents when letting a farm did not for a moment take into consideration the incidence of the Agricultural Rating Act. It was a fallacy to say that the rate had gone into the pockets of the owners, because if that were the fact they would not have the farmers with one voice asking for a renewal of the Act. The farmers declared that the relief went direct to them and not to the owners. If the argument was true that reduced rates meant increased rent, it would be true also as regarded urban rates. The cry in the great cities, as well as in the country districts, was of the excessive burden of local taxation. The occupier was the person who suffered, and not the owner, and it was well known that in towns the higher the rates the higher the rent where rates were compounded. The argument might just as well be employed that it was no use to reduce the taxation on fond or on clothing, if it was taxed, because the workmen would just get less wages. Farmers and working men would repudiate any suggestion of that kind.
They were told by the hon. Member for Halifax that his Amendment was based on the principle of relieving agricultural land by taxing land at its unimproved value and without the buildings. The hon. Member for Halifax proposed that they should tax land upon its unimproved value. That was a very startling proposal, for it would mean taxing urban land value for the benefit of rural land. It might be very well from a farmer's or a land owner's point of view, but the hon. Member's proposal would be most
360
unfair to the towns. There was a great difference between the taxation of land values in the town and in the country. As regards the town they would be taxing land which was continually increasing in value, and which it was only right should be taxed to assist in paying for the rates which were spent in the town itself which not only increased the annual value, but the capital value. On the other hand, the capital value of agricultural land was decreasing year by year. He agreed with the hon. Member for Halifax that it would be advantageous if they could have a fair distribution as between owner and occupier in this matter. He was always ready to support any suggestion which would throw on the owner of the land any fair burden which was for the permanent improvement of the land.
As regards the question of what ought to be charged to the Imperial Exchequer which was now placed on local rates, he admitted that the question was one of considerable difficulty. He considered that subsidies were not ideal, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs expressed the opinion that there ought to be an adjustment and not an increase in them. The Royal Commission on Local Taxation, who had inquired very carefully into the question, had reported, however, that it was not practicable to suggest any other remedy at the present time. If some scheme could be devised to do away with them altogether and so readjust taxation as to have all taxes which were Imperial in their incidence placed on Imperial resources, and all those which were local in their character placed on the localities concerned, it would receive the support of those who thought with him that burdens which were national should not fall on the local rates. Take such matters as the education rate, the poor rate, and the main road rate. In the case of the main roads those who lived in country-districts were aware of the enormous expense falling on the rates owing to these roads being used for heavy locomotive and motor traffic—traffic which could not in any way be regarded as local. Then the education rate had increased enormously and had placed an unfair burden on the local ratepayer. It

361
had been said that the idea of placing these taxes on the national Exchequer was impracticable. He thought most of them would favour the granting of relief to the local taxpayer by taking off the unfair burden he was called upon to bear in having to pay out of local rates for national services. There ought to be no distinction between one form of property and another. From whatever source the income was derived every person ought to pay a fair share towards local taxation. He did not see why all these charges should fall entirely on real property and none on personal property. It was, he supposed, because at one time there was very little property except real property to be rated, but if that were so in the past the reverse was now the case. Now there was £160,000,000 a year arising out of real property to bear this burden, whilst there was £340,000,000 a year out of personal property which almost entirely escaped local taxation in regard to those services which were as national in their character as the Army and Navy.
If it were asked how he would tax property derived from, say Consols, he would suggest the possibility of a local income-tax. Such a system had been adopted in several countries. In France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Holland, and America personal property was liable to assessment for local taxation, and they had the principle of a single assessment for both local and Imperial purposes, thus getting rid of many inequalities and difficulties. Upon that assessment local taxes were raised on personal property. In France, Belgium, and Holland it was done by a surtax to the rate levied by the State; in some cases the local authorities had power to rate independently personal income for local purposes, while in Austria they went so far as to have a local death duty for educational purposes. The difficulty of localising the incidence in cases when men were domiciled in more than one place was met in some cases by the man who had two residences having to pay on the whole of his income in both places, probably on the principle that if a man was rich enough to have two houses he could afford to pay his local contribution
362
in both places, while in other cases the whole contribution was divided proportionately to the time spent in each place. There were doubtless difficulties in the system, but he believed they could be surmounted. If a system of local income-tax were introduced it would be only fair that the tax should be graduated, and as in Imperial taxation, so that the small ratepayer should pay a smaller amount of rates than the larger one.
As one of those who had always considered that this Act did the right thing in the wrong way, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did not intend to oppose the Second Reading of the present Continuation Bill. From the agriculturists' point of view he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman's complaint against the delay of the Government in dealing with the matter, but he was not altogether sorry for that delay, because from the sympathetic way in which the right hon Gentleman had spoken, it was evident that the Leader of the Opposition, when he had the opportunity, would attempt to deal with the question in a much more satisfactory way than the present Government had done. He should divide against the Amendment, as he did not believe it was practicable, nor did he for one moment think that the great towns should assent to the suggestion for the pooling of land values for the benefit of agricultural land, as by so doing they would be depriving their own inhabitants of valuable resources for lightening their own heavy rates. The remedy for reducing local rates in town and country was to bring into local taxation property which now escaped such taxation so that the incidence of local taxation might be readjusted on a fair and just basis, and that all forms of property should contribute its fair share.
MR. SPEAR (Devonshire, Tavistock),speaking as a farmer, expressed his gratitude to the Government for bringing forward this Bill, and congratulated them on having to meet a different kind of opposition from that which they had hitherto had to encounter. On the present occasion the objection was not so

363
much to the assistance given to agriculture as to the absence of a larger scheme dealing with the whole question of local taxation. Hon Members on that side of the House felt as strongly as Members of the Opposition the importance, in the interests of the trading community and of the agricultural classes, of a complete rearrangement of the basis of local taxation. The Government had at least shown some appreciation of the necessity for such a le-arrangement by proposing to take the first step towards the formation of a new valuation authority. But the argument of the Leader of the Opposition would not be misunderstood by the agricultural community. They would not readily forget that when the Bill was first introduced, and there was no question of the expediency of dealing with the question on a larger scale, the opposition of the Party opposite was directed against the principle which the right hon. Gentleman now admitted was just and equitable.
The hon. Member for the Elland Division had spoken deridingly of the amount of the relief. It might very well have been larger, but if the hon. Member and his friends had had their way the farmer would have been deprived of even the £1,500,000 granted by this Act. As an agriculturist he knew how manfully the farmers had borne up against the depression with which they had had to fight, and it was mockery for the hon. Member to taunt the Government with no having done more. Without this Act British agriculturists would have had to pay during the last nine years from £13,000,000 to £15,000,000 more in rates than they had done. They based their claim for the passage of the Bill not on charity, but on justice. While there had been a slight improvement during the last few years, he believed it was true, as certain statisticians calculated, that agriculturists in this country were receiving for their produce from £60,000,000 to £80,000,000 per annum less to-day than thirty years ago. He also believed that the average agriculturist had not received a penny interest on his capital during the last twenty-five years; he had simply had bread and cheese for his labour, and frequently the labour of his wife and
364
family in addition. Under these circumstances it was not unreasonable to suggest that an industry whose paying powers were so seriously diminished should not be called upon to contribute to local rates so heavily as was justifiable in more prosperous days. He submitted, further, that it was more important to-day that the Act should be renewed than it was in the first instance that it should be passed, because, mainly owing to increased outlay on main roads, there had been a large increase in the rates that had to be paid, with the result that agriculturists were paying as much in rates to-day as before the Act was passed. [OPPOSITION cheers.] Hon. Members opposite cheered, but it had to be remembered that had they succeeded in their opposition agriculturists would have been paying nearly £2,000,000 more to-day than they actually were.
Many objections had been urged against the Act, some in their old form, others in a new dress. Once again it had been said that the landlords would grab all the advantage of the measure. British agriculturists had been grossly insulted by the way in which this matter had been dealt with; they had been treated as though they were paupers instead of Englishmen asking for justice at the hands of Parliament. From his own experience he could say that the prediction that this was a landlords' dole had not been borne out by the facts. If a landlord said to them, "We intend to increase your rent because of the reduction in rates," they would at once point out that notwithstanding the advantage of the Agricultural Rates Act the farmer was earning less to-day than years ago, and, therefore, the landlord would have no ground on the principle of the reduction of rates to increase the rent. When farms were rented for a term of years the landlords readily gave 10 or 15 per cent. remission of rent during agricultural depression, and they readily came forward. Therefore, he did not think landlords were men who were likely to come forward in order to grab that which Parliament meant for the benefit of the tenant farmer.
It was said that this Bill helped the richer farmer as against the poorer

365
farmer, but in his opinion it did quite the reverse, because actually the small farmer got the advantage as against the large farmer. He would show the House how this occurred. The abatement under the Bill was extended to big farmers and to small farmers, and to the occupier of rich land and poor land in like proportion. The abatement was made upon the rateable value of the land, representing the actual value of the land; therefore the advantage, in the first place, was equally enjoyed by the occupier both of good and bad land. The losses incurred by the holders of good land within the last few years had been greater than those sustained by the occupiers of poor land, but he wished to say that while the advantage of the remission was enjoyed equally according to the rateable value of the land, the larger farmer as a contributor to taxation contributed to a fund from which the money was taken to give this remission, and so paid back in taxes part of the advantage he got by the remission of the rates on the land. The smaller farmer was not a taxpayer, and so he put in his pocket the whole of the advantage of this Act, whereas the larger farmer got the advantage, but made a contribution by an increased payment to the taxes.
He appealed to the House to pass this measure first in the interests of the British farmer, and secondly, in the interests, of the labourer. Any unjust burden upon the farmer must affect those labourers employed by him. He deplored most sincerely and deeply the movement of the rural population into the towns, but the only way to stop it was to make it better worth while for the rural classes to remain in the country districts, and the removal of unjust burdens from those classes tended in that direction. This was a matter of importance, because they all wanted to see home land developed, and producing the greatest possible amount of food supply which it was capable of producing. The removal of unjust burdens from the agriculturists also tended to the employment of more capital in the cultivation of the soil, and, consequently, it gave more employ-
366
ment to the labourer, and brought greater good to the people, thereby increasing the common wealth. They had heard a great deal said to the effect that this Bill was helping the agricultural community to the injury of the towns, and that house property suffered in consequence. If the Government could have secured a payment to the local bodies of a sum of money from the Imperial Exchequer equal to one-half the rates upon agricultural land the same object would have been achieved. He would like this Act applied to one-acre lots of agricultural labourers. He understood that as this was a continuation Bill that could not be done. Where the expenditure had increased to what it was when the Act was passed the balance did fall upon house property rather than on land, but it fell on the houses and premises of the farmer as well as upon those of anyone else, and, therefore, he did not see that there was much to complain of. He always regretted to hear the town placed against the country, because what was good for the country was also good for the town. He admitted that the ratepayers in towns had grievances, and Parliament every year passed the Poor Law Exemptions Bill which relieved tradesmen of an enormous burden that would otherwise have fallen upon them for the maintenance of the poor. The concession to the towns under that measure was much greater than the concession to the country districts under this Act.
He hoped the Government would introduce a Bill dealing with the rearrangement altogether of local taxation. He thought traders had just reason to complain of the present basis of taxation, and it was high time there was a re-arrangement in the interests of trade and agriculture in the direction of securing that all who had enjoyed local work and the advantages of the outlays made for the convenience and health of the district should contribute alike to the cost of those improvements whether their property was real or personal. This Bill would be received by the agricultural classes with gratitude and appreciation. He assured the House that the farmers had had a keen struggle to meet the liabilities of their position and they had done it manfully. They

367
had heard of very few bankruptcies. Had it not been for the sympathy of the landlords in allowing reductions of rent, and the Government in granting this remission, he ventured to say that a large number of farmers would have been bankrupt. From the point of view of justice and equity he thought the Government had done right in bringing forward this Bill, and he appealed to the House to pass it simply as a measure of justice to a class of people who were engaged in one of the most important industries of the land.
MR. LLOYD - GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)said the hon. Member who had just sat down had told them that a reduction of rates was a very good thing for agriculture. He thought that observation was equally true about any other industry; their complaint was not that the Government had reduced rates upon agriculture, hut that they had made this reduction at the expense of other industries which were very much more heavily rated than agriculture. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] Surely hon. Members opposite did not mean to say that other industries were not so heavily rated as agriculture? The hon. Member said that he hoped next session the Government would readjust taxation generally, but he noticed that with hon. Members opposite it was always "next session." In 1896 it was stated that this Bill was purely a temporary measure, but they had renewed it once since, and they were now being asked to renew it a second time, and they were simply renewing it as a promissory note to the tradesmen, whilst, at the same time, they were giving the cash to the agriculturists. So long as they confined the relief to one class they must necessarily increase the burden to other classes. Take, for example, the town tradesman and the farmer. He was not going to say that the rates were not very heavy, but they were heavy for all classes. Take, for example, a tradesman paying £100 rent and a farmer paying £100 rent. The farmer would have probably a rate at 2s. 3d. in the £. The tradesman paying £100 rent in a town would probably have to pay a rate of about 6s. 8d. in the £. He thought that was a very fair
368
average for a good many towns, and he knew in some of the towns he represented the rates were higher. The tradesman in this case would be paying £30 a year. What did this Bill mean?
MR. SPEARsaid the tradesman's income would be twenty times more than the farmer's.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid if that was the case the hon. Member ought to be righting not to tax the tradesman but to reduce the rent of the farmer.
MR. SPEARsaid that the turnover of the tradesman would be fifty times greater than that of the farmer.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Member might know a good deal about farmers, but he did not appear to know much about tradesmen, or he would know the difference between turnover and profit. Did he not know that many tradesmen were struggling just as hard as the farmers? The hon. Member stated that few farmers had gone to the Bankruptcy Court. He wondered if the hon. Member had ever looked through the list of the tradesmen who had absolutely failed to struggle on in their business and had become bankrupt. If the Government had introduced a Bill to deal with everybody—farmer, miller, and manufacturer—nothing could have been said against it. On his side of the House they should probably have voted for it. He objected to one class being singled out of the lot—a class which was not the most heavily rated-and to all the other classes of the community bearing the burden of relieving a class of that character.
It had been said in the course of the debate that this relief had not gone into the pockets of the landlords, and that rates had not gone up. But from observation he knew that remissions of rent had been knocked off in a good many cases. The farmer, after all, was a good business man, and it was perfectly right that he should make the best of this, and claim as much remission as he could in respect of rates. If a landlord attempted to put the rent up because the tenant had had a remission of half his rates, the tenant would say,

369
"The remission we get is one that we are entitled to." Perfectly true, but the hon. Member opposite forgot the other part of the argument. During the last few years the rates had gone up very much, one of the new burdens being in connection with the education rate. Supposing the farmer went to the landlord and said, "My rates are gone up and you ought to make me a remission in rent," the answer was, "Don't you get half rates out of the Agricultural Rates Act?" The farmer did not get the remission he otherwise would have got if this Act had not been passed. The landlord said that the Government were giving £1,500,000 towards the rates of agricultural tenants. Therefore the money had gone already to the landlords in those cases.
He reminded the Government that every time this Bill had come before the House they had promised a general Act dealing with the whole question of local taxation. The Royal Commission had reported fairly unanimously on this subject of local taxation, and how was it the Government had not brought in a Bill to give effect to their recommendations. Local rates were becoming a serious matter. Did the Government really intend to deal with the subject?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: We propose to bring in a Valuation Bill this year.
MR. LLOYD - GEORGE: The President of the Local Government Board knows that valuation is a very different matter.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Before any large scheme of local taxation can be undertaken it is absolutely necessary to establish a new valuation system.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that answer was good enough for the tradesman, the manufacturer, and the artisan, but it was not good enough for the landlord. Why not deal with the matter all round instead of dealing with it piecemeal? The fact was that the Government did not intend to deal with it. This was only one of a series of matters on which they had broken their pledges, and,
370
on the other hand, they had dealt with subjects they were pledged not to couch. They were pledged up to the hilt not to deal with controversial matters. Local taxation was a question which, in 1896, they pledged themselves to deal with, and that pledge was renewed afterwards. They had not dealt with it yet except in a manner which was characteristic of the way in which they had dealt with every subject. Rates were up all round, and the only relief given was in respect of rates on agricultural land. So far from the predictions that were made concerning the effect of this Act when it was originally passed having been falsified, the fact was that they had been justified by experience. One prediction was that parks would come under the definition of agricultural land, and that they would be relieved of half their rates. That was the case throughout the country, although they were not in any sense agricultural land. The landlords had put a few cattle or sheep upon them and had received relief to the extent of half the rates in every county in England and Wales.
MR. LUKE WHITEsaid that as the representative of a very large agricultural constituency in Yorkshire, he desired to say a few words in support of the Bill. Some years ago he not only voted but spoke in its favour. If circumstances at that time justified him in taking that course, the position of agriculture to-day was an additional reason why he should support the measure. In considering the Bill they were bound to take into consideration that when the Agricultural Rates Act was first passed its duration was limited in order that Parliament should in the meantime consider and deal with the whole question of local taxation. It was not the fault of agriculture that local taxation had not been dealt with. The onus really lay upon Parliament itself and on the Government for not taking action in the matter. It was absolutely necessary however, in the interests of agriculture itself, that this measure should be renewed until one Party or the other had the time, in the interests of agriculture, to deal with the whole question. In the meantime local rates had greatly

371
increased. Agricultural land in Yorkshire, although rated at one-half, was now paying nearly as much as was payable when rated at its full value. The Education Act had placed a very heavy burden upon the agricultural interest. It had been stated that the benefits of the Act went to the landlord. He had had considerable experience of the incidence of local taxation since the Act was passed, and he could unhesitatingly say that although here and there they might find the landlord deriving benefit from it, on the whole the benefit went to the farmer and not to the landlord. They might ask themselves who paid the education rate. The farmer paid it and got no recompense from the Government. The farmer would pay that rate for years to come; it was a burden placed upon him and not upon the landlord.
A Royal Commission had considered the practical working of the Agricultural Rates Act and they favoured its principle. But he considered there was great hardship to the farmer in some of its provisions. In some agricultural districts there were urban communities who suffered very much from local taxation. Although agriculture had received the benefit of the Act, there still remained a heavy burden of local taxation of which land should be relieved. The most important feature of the Report of the Royal Commission from the agricultural point of view was the full recognition of the claims put forward by those who represented the agricultural interest. It was clearly shown that a strong case had been made out for considerable relief in addition to the benefits under this Act. In dealing with the readjustment of local taxation there would have to be a clear distinction made between the cost of services which were national and those which were purely local. Those engaged in agriculture were agreed that the expenditure on Poor Law relief, the cost of police, the cost of the maintenance of main roads, education, and other services, ought not to be borne by agriculturists but by the taxpayers generally throughout the country. All who had had any practical experience as to the present basis of the incidence of local taxation were agreed that it urgently needed alteration. Hon. Mem-
372
bers had admitted that this measure ought to pass, certainly in the interest of agriculture itself. To his mind, all classes of the population, both in town and country, were interested in the success of agriculture; because, if agriculture was prosperous, then the entire population received considerable benefit. Agriculture stood more in need of this measure to-day than it did nine years ago. He trusted the Bill would pass, and that during the next four years Parliament would have the opportunity of dealing in a comprehensive manner with the whole question of local taxation.
SIR CARNE RASCHsaid that, as a Member for an agricultural constituency, he thanked the Government for having brought in this Bill. It was what the agricultural Members expected of the Government; although they would have liked it better if the Government had gone further. But, he supposed, they must take what they could get. He confessed he could not understand the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs was always perfectly straight, and he understood what that hon. Gentleman was at; but when his hon. friend came down to Essex to spread the light, if he would only take advantage of the opportunity of going over the land in that county with him, he could show him that this was not a question of rent at all, but a question of getting the land cultivated. He, however, confessed that he could not understand the arguments of the hon. Gentlemen who had moved and seconded the Amendment. He had heard of those who were "willing to wound and yet afraid to strike." So far as he could understand the line these hon. Gentlemen had taken they desired to kill the Bill, and yet they did not. They could not do both. The hon. Member for Halifax told the House that certain members of the Government were themselves not in favour of the original Agricultural Rating Act. He did not move in such exalted circles himself, but he knew that people in that part of the world which he represented were in favour of it.

373
Of course the Bill was not protection; but in this sphere they had to take what they could get and make the most of it. As Shakespeare said, it was not as deep as a well, or as wide as a church door, but it was enough. He admitted that a Bill of this kind was not an ideal way of dealing with the agricultural industry; but it was the only plan which had been tried. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had not done them the honour to suggest another. The agricultural interest was not satisfied with the present condition of things. What they wanted was to take all the rates off the land; and there was no reason why that should not be done, and, simply, for this reason. When protection was abolished the rates and taxes, for the payment of which protection was given, ought to have been abolished also. Either agriculture was worth preserving or it was not. The only way that agriculture could be preserved was by either relieving the land from rates and taxes, or giving a bounty on coin. If agriculture was not worth preserving, let it go; but if they let it go, he failed to see how they could keep a population on the soil which was to provide men for manning the Army and the Navy; or how the population of the country was to be fed for nine months out of the twelve in the year. If hon. Gentlemen opposite doubted that, let them come to Essex and he would show them where agricultural labourers were doing nothing. Then, if agriculture went by the board and the towns attracted the labourers, the towns might increase in wealth, but they would have an anæmic, narrow-shouldered, stunted people who would not do any good. He was certain of the truth of the lines written more than a hundred years ago that—
"III fares the land, to hast'ning ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates and men decay."
That was what they were coming to when the land went out of cultivation.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid there had been a good deal of discussion as to what the immediate effect of the Agricultural Bating Act had been. Had the occupiers or the owners of the land
374
benefited most; or had the one not benefited entirely at the expense of the other? He submitted that it was quite impossible to lay down any general proposition on that question. He thought that this discussion, taken part in by hon. Members from every part of the country, had shown that the effect of this Act, in operation, had been, in some cases, to give a temporary benefit to the occupiers, and, in other cases, a benefit to the owners. He would point out that what his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition said, in opening the discussion, was that the main reason for opposing the Bill in a former year, when it was first introduced, was that whatever, might be the temporary effect of the measure on the tenants, the eventual benefit, owing to the higgling of the market, would fall to the owners. That was one of the most established propositions of political economy, even in these days when free trade had been expelled from this planet and had taken refuge in another sphere. In regard to land, whatever might be the case in towns, the tendency of the rates was to fall on the tenant, and therefore the landlords benefited. In addition to that, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Carnaron Boroughs, "in a great number of parts of England, during the bad times after 1874, it was a very common practice on the part of owners not to give a permanent reduction of rent but a temporary. The old rent was kept in existence, and remissions were given from year to year. That being the state of things, in many cases, it was not unnatural for the owner to say that after the burdens on the occupier had been diminished he was justified in going back to the old rent. Therefore, the immediate effect of this Act had been to benefit such owners and not the occupiers of land.
He did not wish to enter into a general discussion on the whole effects of the Agricultural Rating Act; but he wanted to press on the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to state rather more clearly to the House than he had done the policy of the Government in regard to this great question of rating and the burdens on the land. It appeared to him that in his speech the right hon. Gentleman had

375
adopted a certain Olympian tone and had admitted that this question went back a very long time. Everybody admitted that it was a very great question, and that it demanded to be dealt with by the Government. He hoped the Government would deal with it, and yet the right hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate that the only way the Government meant to deal with it was by renewing this unfortunate Act. The House had good reason to complain of that attitude, because the experience of the past and the necessities of the present showed that this was a most urgent question. When the Government first introduced this question, they said it was necessary to appoint a Roya Commission, and an exceedingly strong Commission was appointed, of the composition of which they, on that side of the House, had no reason to complain. The Government then said that they must wait for the Report of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission had reported, but in what order? First of all, they made a Report on the very matter which the right hon. Gentleman told the House, correctly, lay at the foundation of this question. They produced a very able and convincing Report on the valuation and assessment of lands as the basis of taxation. The second question dealt with was the rating of tithes: and then came their final Report, not unanimous, but which, nevertheless, contained a very great deal of important and valuable information. There was also a Minority Report. Now, it might have been expected that the Government would have dealt with this question in the order of importance attached by the Commission to the questions raised. But exactly the opposite had been the case. There had been certainly the clamorous interest of the clergy in regard to tithes, and the interest of the owners of land in regard to rates.
The right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister told the House that valuation and assessment lay at the root of the whole matter; and so, judged out of their own mouth, they were doing exactly opposite to what they should have done. It was only last year that the Government brought forward a Valuation Bill, but where was it. They saw the Bill of last year, and they were now told by
376
the President of the Local Government Board that there was another Bill in an advanced state of preparation. The right hon. Gentleman also alluded to the Bill of last year. He (Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice) supposed that Bill was in an advanced stage of decomposition. That might be so or not, but they wanted to know where was the Bill of the present year. Was there any serious intention of dealing with this question at all, or was it only a shop-front Bill? He agreed that the question of valuation was at the root of the whole subject. Some of them were too much disposed to devote the whole of their time to the question of rating of site values, and did not attach sufficient importance to the organisation of the valuation authorities of this country. If they took the proposals of the hon. Member for Halifax and of other hon. Gentlemen, by their own showing, if their Bills became law to-morrow, it would be a considerable time before any large sums of money would accrue from those Acts and find its way into the pockets of the ratepayers. The Bill of the hon. Member for the Elland Division only dealt with houses and lands when the leases fell in, and therefore ex hypothesi it would be a considerable time before that Bill would bring any large amount of money into the pockets of the ratepayers.
In regard to the existing law of valuation he was astonished that the Government, having had the Commission's Report on valuation for some years, and having admitted that it lay at the very root of the question, had not only played with the subject last year, but were apparently going to play with it this year. He agreed that a Bill of this kind could not be carried by a wave of the hand. He recollected when some twenty years ago Mr. Sclater-Booth held the position now occupied by his right hon. friend there was a Government Valuation Bill every year, and every year it broke down by reason of the jealousy between the local rating authorities and the surveyors of taxes. Since then the county councils had come into existence. The figures in the last Report of the Local Government Board showed that a large proportion of the

377
rates were levied by the county councils as distinct from the boards of guardians. They now had to deal with three authorities. First there was the surveyor of taxes with regard to the Government taxes; next there was the existing local rating authority with regard to the rates which they still levied; and then there was the county council, which was becoming more and more the governing authority in county boroughs. What a humiliation it was to the Government that after so many years, after the Reports of the Royal Commission, and after having all these Bills they were now no nearer to a settlement of this question than they were in the days of Mr. Sclater-Booth. Was it not possible to make the appeal to the Government that they were losing authority and their reputation by appearing to play with this question, which was admittedly of such immense importance. Everyone who had anything to do with the subject knew the great difficulties that beset it, but he was most anxious that some effort should be made to deal with it, because he felt that whatever Government or Party might be in power that question must be dealt with first. The reputation of the House was involved in dealing with and settling this question which had been a failure ever since the days of Mr. Sclater-Booth.
MR. ERNEST GRAYcordially agreed with what the hon. Member who just sat down had said. It certainly was not creditable to this House that, though from the early sixties Governments from both Parties had declared that the reform of local taxation was an urgent question, yet both had persistently pushed it aside. He desired to approach this subject from the point of view of that class of district which would be called upon to pay heavily, and which would receive from this Bill no benefit whatever, or if it received any benefit it would be very small and very indirect. He denied that in this matter the country was in the same position as it was nine years ago when the original Bill was passed, or even four years ago when it was renewed. He remembered the promises that were made by the Government when the first Agricultural Rating Bill was passed; the declaration daily
378
and nightly made by the Government that this was a temporary expedient to meet a case of urgent necessity, and that the whole question of local taxation would, at an early date, be grappled with by the Government, Then came the Royal Commission and it was a reasonable thing at that time to vote for the Bill, and a great many urban Members did vote for it, largely in the hope that the promises made by the Government at that date would be fulfilled without any serious delay. In 1901 the Royal Commission had reported, and again he recollected the promises made by the Government when the Tithe Rent Charge Bill was taken up, when the House was again told that this also was an urgent matter, and should be dealt with without delay. Were they, he asked, in the same position as they were four years ago in regard to this matter? Had not the interest in this question of local taxation receded rather than advanced? Was the interest of the Government or the House as keen now upon the question of local taxation as it was when the Royal Commission reported? He very much doubted whether instead of having made progress the interest had not receded until it had almost reached a vanishing point.
Let the House consider for a moment the burdens of the urban districts and compare them with those of the rural districts. The burdens borne by the urban districts were much greater than they were ten years ago, and they had grown with much greater rapidity in the urban than in the rural districts. This was illustrated by the effect of the Education Act of 1902, which had placed far greater burdens on the ratepayer and the taxpayer. Where had that burden fallen most heavily? Where had the relief given by Parliament been the least felt? There were less than one dozen rural districts where the education rate came to Is. in the £., but there were a considerable number of urban districts where it exceeded 2s. How could he, representing an urban district where the education rate alone amounted to nearly 3s. in the £., support this Bill? He would be told, no doubt, that a different method of assessing the rate prevailed as between

379
urban property and agricultural land; but even admitting that that was the case, there was one instructive illustration of the difference, namely, that where-ever a man could move his residence from an urban district into an administrative county he went without the slightest hesitation. He would leave his factory, j his business, or occupation, whatever it might be, in the urban district, but would move his residence without the slightest hesitation into the administrative county, and the reason given nine times out of ten was the heavy burden of the local rate in the urban district compared with the much lighter burden which fell upon him in the administrative county.
What were the rates it was proposed to relieve by this Bill? They were all the rates levied on agricultural property. That was not following out the recommendation of the Commission; what the Commission recommended was that those charges which were national in their character should be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer, and that those which were local in their character should be paid out of local taxation. The whole of the charges on agricultural land were not national in their character, but when it came to a question of education and the poor rate, those were certainly national in their character, and the burden of them should not be so largely local as it was to-day. The debate of to-day, together with the debates of four and nine years ago, ought to teach the lesson not merely that the question of assessment and taxation had to be dealt with, but that it never would be satisfactorily settled until the basis of taxation had been considerably enlarged. Difficulty was found in imposing local rates, and schemes were put forward for bringing different kinds of property into the net of local taxation. There was H steadily growing desire that a large portion of the national charge now borne by local rates should be thrown upon national taxation, but every year the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to admit that if any such relief was to be given it would be necessary either to increase the burdens upon certain sections of the community or considerably to enlarge the area of national taxation, and no one who had followed the debates
380
of the last ten years could doubt that it was to the latter of those alternatives resort would have to be had to provide the central Exchequer with means sufficient to discharge national obligations without falling back on the local ratepayers. As the representative of a constituency where rates had enormously increased, he could not but admit that the position had materially changed during the last nine years. The prospect of relief appeared to be vanishing rather than approaching. Under the Education Act of 1902 necessitous districts which previously obtained relief had had that relief swept away, and in its stead there had been setup a system under which assistance was given to districts where it was hardly needed, while districts which more than ever required relief lost much of that which they formerly had and were now called upon to continue this subsidy to districts which were really better off in the matter of local rating than the urban districts themselves. Under these conditions he could not see his way to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
MK. PERKSsaid that he was one of the few Liberal Members who, in 1896, voted and spoke in favour of the Agricultural Rates Act, not because he was enamoured of the economic principle which underlay the Act, but as an expression of the gratitude of his constituency for the generosity of the authors of the measure to the depressed agriculturalists. He agreed that agriculture did not now present the altogether hopeless spectacle of fifteen or twenty years ago, but, at the same time, it could not afford, at any rate in his Division, to renounce the benefaction which Parliament offered to it. Remembering the strong language used to him in the House, and the still stronger language used in the lobby for the vote, he felt it his duty to give in in 1896 he could only congratulate the Leader of the Opposition that he had, for reasons he had explained, decided to support the measure on the present occasion—although the right hon. Gentleman had been careful to state that he did not approve of the principle of the Act. It might be remarked further that nearly every

381
Liberal who had been returned for a county constituency during the last few years had previously declared himself in favour of the Agricultural Rates Act.
He was not a believer in the doctrine of grants in aid from Imperial funds for local objects. The system had already been pressed far beyond reasonable limits, and it certainly conduced to waste and extravagance in the imposition and administration of local rates. Some of his hon. friends had given admirable, and, to some extent, lucid expositions of their views in reference to future rating legislation. It was possible that the time would come when a reconstruction of the whole system of local taxation would have to be considered, and he agreed that it would never be done by a mere shuffling of the cards as between agricultural and town property. There was reasonable ground of complaint, in Ms judgment, on the part of the large farmer class, as to the method in which they were assessed compared with the shopkeeper in the country town. The shopkeeper who paid perhaps £25 or £30 rent was probably making a larger income in that small shop than the neighbouring farmer who was cultivating 300 or 400 acres of land, and not only had to bear that burden, but probably had to invest £5,000 or £6,000 capital compared with the £200 or £300 invested in the stock of the country shopkeeper earning an equal income. That was a ground of complaint between these two classes of ratepayers. He was not concerned to inquire upon whom ultimately this burden rested, but he adopted the view of his right hon. friend that the benefit of the relief in the last resort unquestionably went to the freeholder. It must be so because every political economist asserted it. Assuming this doctrine to be true, although objectionable, that the freeholder was the man who benefited, he wished to point out that in his division there were 1,000 of this class who were the owners and occupiers and farmers of holdings varying in acreage from ten or fifteen acres up to 100 acres, and he was bound to have some regard to what they thought in regard to the working of this Act.
382
He did not know what form future legislation on this point would take, and he was not concerned to inquire about it; they might have to discover some method of ascertaining the selling value of freehold land, and base all future local taxation upon the selling value. He observed that by an extraordinary process of reasoning in the treatise sent out as a Parliamentary Paper by the opponents of this Bill, there were two branches of property which his hon. friends thought would never get any relief, and they were the public-house and the railway. He would pass away from that thorny point. The relief might come by bringing into the net for local taxation personalty as well as realty. He had a friend in a manufacturing district near Zurich, who told him he had to pay local taxation upon the whole of his stock, machinery, and manufactured articles in his great mills. He had another friend not far away from him who was a professional man. He was a doctor earning over £500 a year, and he had to pay away to the extent of one-third of his income over that sum in local and general taxation, and even his books and surgical instruments were valued for the purpose of ascertaining what he should pay. He did not know whether that would be the basis of taxation in the future, but he should support this Bill, not because he believed in its principle, because he did not believe in the principle of relief to local taxation upon which the Bill was based. He supported it, because it was a generous gift from the urban constituencies so largely represented on the other side of the House, to agricultural constituencies, and it was on that account that he supported it in 1896.
MR. EMMOTTsaid hon. Members opposite, and even his hon. friend who had just sat down, twitted some of the Opposition with not opposing the Bill on this occasion, whereas they had opposed it in the past. The hon. Member for Louth had further twitted the Leader of the Opposition with not approving the principle of the Bill. What was the principle of the Bill? His hon. friend himself did not approve of the principle of the Bill. Was the principle of the Bill that one class only

383
should be helped, or was it not? Nobody who had studied the question or read the Report of the Local Taxation Commission could deny that the agricultural interest required, under certain conditions, relief in the matter of the rates. If that was the principle of the Bill the Opposition did not oppose the principle; but what they did oppose, what they continued to protest against, was that one interest should have been picked out and treated with every favour, whereas other interests, deserving a large relief, had not been dealt with. He was glad that they on the Opposition side were not opposing in any very whole-hearted way at any rate, the passing of this particular measure on this occasion. When a Bill like this had been in force for some years, when a class of men—farmers, landowners, or whoever it was—had had a benefit under the Bill for a number of years, when it was generally conceded that they ought to have some benefit, then it was very difficult to take such benefit away.
They were considering at the present moment the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Halifax. He did not know whether he was present in the House at that moment. If he were he would appeal to him to withdraw the Amendment, or at any rate not put the House to the trouble of a division upon it. He did not think the Amendment quite expressed his hon. friend's desires; at any rate it was certainly not in accord with the speech of the hon. Member for the Elland Division who seconded, because he spoke of "a contribution payable by the owners of land based upon its selling value." But the whole of his speech—as he understood it—was that it was to be the unimproved selling value of the land, whatever that might be. If that was the case it ought to be expressed in the Amendment. He wished to make it clear why it was that some of them, whilst not going to any great length in opposition to this Bill, nevertheless felt strongly the gross injustice of it. His constituency was in the same position as that of the hon. Member for West Ham, and he fully sympathised with the speech he had made. Rates were extremely high. The education rate was mounting up to 2s., and the
384
effect of the Education Act of 1902 was not to benefit his constituency but to do it harm. Their urban rates were higher. They were advancing much more quickly than rates in the rural districts, and the burden of those local rates on the great manufacturing industries was enormous. This case was made infinitely worse by the extreme injustice of the distribution of Imperial subventions at the present time. Some hon. Members opposite who supported this Bill seemed to think of only one kind of injustice, and that was the injustice to the agricultural class under the old conditions of rating. But there was a tremendous injustice at the present time to constituents like his in the present distribution of Imperial subventions. If the amount received from the Imperial Treasury were divided according to the principle favoured by Sir Edward Hamilton and Sir George Murray, and approved by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, then the extra amount his constituency would receive would be between £20,000 and £25,000 per annum, representing a rate of Is. to Is. 3d. in the £. That being the case, was it not a great injustice to his constituents that they should be asked, as they were, nine years ago, not only to go on suffering that injustice, but also to pay their share of the subvention to the agricultural class. If his constituency paid its proportionate share of the £1,750,000 or whatever it was, the share of his constituency amounted to from 2½d. to 3d. in the £. At page 119 of the Report of Sir Edward Hamilton and Sir George Murray he found a statement showing the disparities in regard to-local rating in certain agricultural corn-ties and county boroughs, one of the county boroughs being Oldham. Further down on the same page was the following—
"Accordingly in order not to overstate the case we take 'assessable value' as defined by the Agricultural Rates Act, i.e., rateable value after deducting half the value of agricultural land. Even on this test, Rutland still is more than twice as rich as Oldham—that is to say, if a local service costs Is. per inhabitant alike in Rutland and in Oldham, it will need a rate of almost 4d. in Oldham and only 1¾d. in Rutland, even when agricultural land is rated at a half. Notwithstanding this disparity in ability, Oldham only receives help to the extent of 2s. 7d. per inhabitant, while Rutland receives 6s. 8d. or more than twice as much."

385
That statement showed how hardly treated his constituency was in this matter, and that would continue until there was a complete reform of the system on which subventions were given from Imperial sources. Could it be wondered in view of the facts that complaints were still made in regard to doles given to favoured classes? He regretted that as years went by no attempt was made to deal with this great question of the reform of local taxation. For ten years the Government had had an enormous majority. They certainly had had sufficient leisure to deal with this question. They had had some surpluses, and he thought that instead of giving the country the Acts which had been passed since 1900, to which the Opposition strongly objected, they might have devoted part of the time to making a great reform, in which hon. Members on his side would have been only too glad to help them, and which would have redounded to their credit in future years.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYassociated himself with the expressions of regret which had fallen from hon. Members that this question had been allowed to drag on for a considerable time without any substantial reform being undertaken. He agreed that urban districts had a grievance in regard to the postponement of the reform of local taxation. The sins of omission and commission of the present Government had been very much dwelt upon by Members of the Opposition, and he could only hope that during the time still left to them the Government would do a great deal to repair their sins of omission so that they could go to the country with a good record. At the same time he congratulated the Government upon this act of simple justice in preserving to the agricultural interest the benefit which they had enjoyed with advantage to themselves and. the whole community for the past nine years. He also congratulated the Opposition on their tardy repentance, which enabled them, now an election was in view, not to subject the House to an all-night sitting while they opposed the passage of the measure. The inequality of rating between those who enjoyed
386
an income from personal property and those who derived their income from real property was so glaring that Parliament had admitted that the case called for special and preferential treatment. The tradesman and the professional man paid rates only on the premises they occupied, whereas the agriculturist was rated on his whole income. He would give two instances to show what the hardship was for which this relief had been asked. In the Report of the Commission on Agricultural Depression it was stated that Mr. Wilson Pox, a farmer, the rateable value of whose holding was £1,050, paid income-tax on £506, and was assessed for poor and highway rates £157 12s. Id. A tradesman adjoining the farm had premises the rateable value of which was £50, and he paid income-tax on £600, but only £13 for poor and highway rates. There was another case in Somersetshire where a manufacturer, employing 2,000 men, was rated for local purposes on £200, while a farmer in the same parish was assessed on £460 and paid more in local rates than the manufacturer.
MR. EMMOTT: That is a very un usual thing.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid it was a very serious injustice; and his desire was to see the inequality in the way in which rates were levied between town and country done away with. He thought it was fair to put forward a special claim for the agricultural interest for consideration in these times. When the Corn Laws were repealed the advantages which the agricultural interest had hitherto possessed were withdrawn, and he submitted that the damage done to the agricultural interest ought to have been met by a reduction in the rating at that period. Time had been allowed to slip by, the injustice had remained, and the unfair treatment of the agricultural interest had been patiently borne, and would have continued but for this Act. What the agricultural interest asked for was only equity and justice. They would be very glad if this Act were made permanent and not temporary, because they would be free

387
from the danger of its not being renewed when hon. Gentlemen opoosite came into power.
MR. SOARESsaid that although he should vote for the Second Reading of the Bill he did not feel grateful to the Government for proposing it, because he looked upon it as, to a very considerable extent, a landlords Bill. He believed that the benefits of the Act went very largely to the landlord. He represented an agricultural constituency, and had talked with farmers, valuers, and land agents, and that was the position which fair-minded men took up in regard to this measure. They said that in the majority of cases in which there had been a reletting of a farm, or in which the farm had been revalued for rental purposes, it was the landlord and not the tenant who got the benefit of the Act. But, having regard to the fact that this Act had been in force since 1896, and that large numbers of contracts had been made on the faith of it, that reletting and revaluation for rental purposes had been made during that period, he considered it would be unfair not to continue the Act. One proof that the benefit of the Act went to the landlord was the Answer given by the President of the Local Government Board to a Question which he had put to the right hon. Gentleman. He asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would provide in the Bill that in every case the benefit should go to the tenant; but the right hon. Gentleman refused to do so. That was a very strong proof that the Government meant the benefit of the Act to go to the landlord and not to the tenant, and if the Government had not thought that the benefit would ultimately go to the landlord they would not have been so anxious to pass this Bill. If it had been a Bill giving tenants full compensation for improvements and security of tenure the Government and their supporters would have voted against it, hut when there was a Bill in which the benefits conferred went to the landlord, hon. Members opposite went tumbling over each other to support it. The right hon. Member for Sleaford had said that when rents were high rates were low, and that when rates were high rents were low. That showed that when
388
a rating benefit was given to the tenant the landlord was sure to get it ultimately for himself. The hon. Member for Tavistock spoke as if landlords were angels without wings, and yet he said in another sentence that no tenant during the last twenty years in his neighbourhood had made more than bare bread and cheese.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL
  (BY ORDER).
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  SIR GEORGE NEWNESsaid the works to which this Bill referred were of a permanent character, and it was of the greatest importance that sufficient time should be given to relieve the ratepayers of some of the liability. One of the most important obligations that could be put upon those responsible for municipal government was the supply of pure water for the municipality. Having carefully considered the question the Corporation of Swansea had provided not only for the Swansea of to-day, but for the Swansea, as it would in all probability be, in the future. The Swansea Corporation had in this acted wisely; they had provided for at least five generations, and the gist of his Amendment was that one generation should not be asked to pay the whole of the expenditure. If that were done it would be a very serious matter for the people of Swansea at the present time. It would add over £5,000 a year to their rates, which would mean a 3½d. rate unless this Amendment was accepted. There was no greater stickler for the integrity of municipal finance than himself, and he would not have proposed this Amendment except for the permanent character of these works, which would last not for the one generation which was asked to pay for them,

  389
  but certainly for five or six, and probably a great many more. It might be said that the works had cost considerably more than the original estimate, but there was nothing unusual in the cost of public works exceeding the estimate for them, and he pointed out that in this case the extra cost had not been a waste of money because it had been caused by the fact that the corporation had been compelled to undertake the cost of supplying all the intervening area between the reservoir and Swansea—a distance of some twenty-eight miles—and that itself involved putting down another twenty-four-inch pipe line at a great cost, so that value had been obtained for the extra money spent, for the repayment of which the House was now asked to give an extension of time. To give sixty years was not exceptional. Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham were all granted sixty years in which to pay off the loans they contracted for a similar purpose, while in the case of London 100 years were given. Those were the simple facts, of the case. He had no desire to weary the House further, but would now only appeal to hon. Members to support the Amendment, assuring them that if this Amendment was not carried a very great injustice would be done to that great community which he had the honour to represent. He begged to move.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he rose to second the Amendment. This Amendment was really an appeal from the decision of a Committee of that House. The question before that Committee was a simple one. It was not opposed, except by the Swansea Tramways Company, Limited. Their opposition was duly heard, and the question settled in favour of the corporation. The Bill then passed through Committee, and it was now under the consideration of the House. The Corporation of Swansea did not ask the House to go behind the Report of the Committee except on one simple question, which was the terms upon which the Corporation of Swansea should have a right to raise a sum of £270,000 to complete the great undertaking to which his hon. friend had done such ample justice—an undertaking authorised
  390
  by Parliament in 1892. The Committee had given borrowing powers to the corporation to the extent of £270,000, subject to the conditions that the loan must be repaid within thirty years. The corporation asked that the time of repayment should be extended over a period of sixty years. The period originally named in the Bill was sixty years. The Local Government Board reported that that period should be reduced to thirty years, and the Committee accepted that recommendation. The Amendment was in the nature of an appeal from the decision of the Committee. There were no questions in dispute. The matter was one not of fact but of opinion. This, though it might appear to be a small question, was more important than it looked. This was a question which affected all the municipalities of the United Kingdom, and it was not right that a hard-and-fast line should be taken by the Local Government Board as to the limit of time for repayment. In determining the period the two elements that ought to be taken into account were, firstly, the financial position of the corporation, and secondly, the character of the purposes for which the money was to be borrowed. These two tests were amply satisfied by the borough of Swansea.
  In regard to this Bill, he would point out that there was no question of municipal trading involved. The supply of water was one of the primary duties of every corporation. In 1892 a plan was laid before Parliament and passed with practically no opposition. In its main outline it was an accurate, well-ascertained plan. In some respects the estimates of the engineers had not been fulfilled, but in dealing with great undertakings, notwithstanding the best advice, it was impossible that no anticipation should be falsified. But the reservoir was of a permanent character and would last for many generations. It would suffice for treble the existing population and also for the discharge of the obligation under which the corporation had been put to supply the populous centres which were gradually rising between the reservoir and Swansea itself, which had grown more densely

  391
  populated as time went on. The only other point that he wished to put was why had this question about sixty years and thirty years been raised at this late period of the undertaking. In 1892 no objection was raised on the part of the Local Government Board to the repayment of these borrowed sums being extended over a period of sixty years. He could have understood the objections if the Corporation of Swansea had sought for new powers. It might then have been said that sixty years was too long a period, but once having allowed them to embark on a great enterprise, why at the last moment was this alteration made in the term for repayment? He did not think there was any occasion for the Local Government Board to take up a strong position on this matter. Their request was not unreasonable, and in the hope that it would be acceded to by the Government, or at any rate by the House, he begged to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 13, line 18, to leave out the word 'thirty,' and insert the word 'sixty'—(Sir George Newnes)—instead thereof."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. STEVENSON, as Chairman of the Committee, felt bound to explain the reasons which actuated the Committee in the line they had taken. His hon. and learned friend had left out of sight the statement which had been circulated among Members of the House, and which related to previous loans granted to Swansea for its waterworks. When he looked at that statement he noticed that in 1892 the Corporation of Swan sea was empowered to borrow £270,000 to be repaid in sixty years. In 1898 they again approached the Local Government Board and were allowed to raise a further loan of £100,000, on the condition that it should be repaid in thirty years. It followed, therefore, that the attitude of the Local Government Board with regard to the shorter term of repayment was adopted as far back as 1898.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESpointed out that the undertaking was originally
  392
  entered upon on the basis that the money required would not have to be repaid under sixty years.
  MR. STEVENSONsaid in 1902 a further loan of £71,000 was granted on a term of repayment extending over sixty years. In the present year an application was made for £250,000 to be raised, and the Committee decided that the period of repayment should be thirty years. These loans for the Swansea waterworks amounted to £691,000, as compared with the original estimate of £270,000. He did not complain that there should have been so great an excess over the original estimate, because undoubtedly one-half of the present loan was in respect of the new pipe line. They found that out of the total of £691,000 a sum of £341,000 was repayable within sixty years, whilst £350,000 had to be repaid within thirty years. Taking those amounts together, it appeared that Swansea was borrowing money for its waterworks on terms of repayment averaging forty-five years, and the question which the House had to decide was whether forty-five years was not a sufficiently long period to be allowed in a case of this kind. Previous attempts had been made, but without success, to get the period of thirty years extended in relation to the £100,000 borrowed in 1898.
  Dealing with the £250,000 present loan, he found that about one-half of the amount represented excesses over previous estimates, due partly to miscalculations and partly to requirements shown to be necessary. The other half related to the new pipeline, and they bad to consider what was likely to be the length of life of that pipeline. Although the engineer's evidence gave the life as likely to last from sixty to 100 years, other Committees had had before them similar evidence which had not given anything like so long a term. Then what changes were there in the development of Swansea or the growth of its population which induced them to put forward in the present year the demand for a loan of £250,000, when, in October of last year, they only asked for £125,000. The reply which had been given to that question was that some

  393
  time ago there was a depression of trade and some uncertainty as to the future, but owing to the recent advance in the tinplate trade and to other circumstances Swansea was never more flourishing than it was now. The Committee did not for a moment desire to deny the utility or value of the second pipe line which might be needed in the future, and they had inserted a clause in the Bill to enable Swansea to supply water to other authorities in the district on terms to be arranged which would recoup them for the expenditure thus incurred. He agreed with the seconder of the Motion that a question of this kind went behind the special merits of the Swansea case, and he ventured to think that unless very especial circumstances were shown why the minimum period should be departed from, it was not desirable or in the general interest of municipalities that this period of repayment of loans should be extended. It was deemed advisable to have a speedy reduction of our national burdens, and surely it would be undesirable to apply to municipalities a different standard to that which was applied to national finance. He had very considerable doubts whether a case bad been established in favour of the longer period of repayment for Swansea, as he had pointed out that by taking the loans together the average term was forty-five years. At the same time he did not think that the decision of the Committee should interfere with the free expression of opinion of the House of Commons, and for his own part he was quite willing that the decision should be either reversed or confirmed by the House.
  MR. ALLHUSENrecited the water history of Swansea. In 1892 they asked Parliament for powers to borrow £270,000 in order to make waterworks, a pipe line, and a reservoir. In 1898 they asked for another £100,000, and in 1902 for a further £71,000 for the purpose of completing works originally sanctioned in 1892 making a total sum of £441,000. Then in 1905 they asked Parliament for a further sum of £125,000 for the purpose of completing the works originally sanctioned, so that in the course of thirteen years, during which time the works were being proceeded
  394
  with, and the water consumers of Swansea had had no water from the new works, the amount of money sanctioned by Parliament had risen from £270,000 to £566,000. It was difficult for the Committee to arrive at an absolutely right judgment of the matter when the Bill was entirely unopposed, because they had to sit as judges, and at the same time find out the whole facts of the case for themselves. The Committee did their very best to arrive at a right decision. They were helped by the evidence given by a gentleman representing the Local Government Board, and he could not help feeling that in such a case it would be of very great advantage if the Local Government Board were to be represented by counsel who could cross-examine the promoters of the Bill for the benefit of the Committee, and thus relieve them from the dual position of cross-examiners and judges. The water debt of Swansea would, with the addition of this £250,000 loan, be increased to £836,000, which would be a very heavy burden on the ratepayers, for whom he could not help feeling a great deal of sympathy. This was rather a question which affected the future decisions of Committees, and it seemed to him that a case had not been made out for granting a period of sixty years for the repayment of all excess moneys required in addition to the original loan. The corporation had to admit that they had exceeded the r original estimate three times; it had been increased by over 100 per cent., and it was too much to ask the House to now sanction repayment of these additional sums over a period of sixty years. The real question at issue was whether the House intended to do anything at all to check excessive municipal borrowings and to put some drag on extravagant expenditure. In this case the Committee arrived at the very best decision on the evidence before them, and nothing had been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite to alter his opinion that the average term of forty-five years for repayment of this large debt was a very fair condition.
  MR. HIGHAMpointed out the great difficulty under which corporations and other local authorities laboured when they had to

  395
  meet these variable and erratic decisions of the Local Government Board. Here was an instance, he said, where for the same waterworks, and for the same class of work, in 1892 the Board granted sixty years, in 1898, only thirty years, in 1902, again sixty years, and in 1905, now thirty years for the larger sum. It was impossible for a municipality to discuss and consider its schemes, and to prepare its undertakings, with such variable decisions before it. He did appeal to the House to extend this period to sixty years. The difference between that time and thirty years meant, in the event of a loss in working the undertaking, an addition of 3½d. in the £ to the rates of the borough, and in the event of a profitable undertaking, it meant that for the next thirty years the ratepayers had to pay a much enhanced price for their water, so that their successors could have it for next to nothing. There was a great outcry throughout the country about the heavy increase in rates, and here was a case where a 3½d. addition was being deliberately forced on a municipality by the Local Government Board. As an illustration of the irregular methods of exercising pressure adopted by that Department, he mentioned an instance where it fell to his lot to be one of a deputation waiting upon a President of the Board a few years ago. It was in connection with the filtration of the sewage of a public authority, and the Board had intimated that the local authority must have land for filtration purposes. The corporation pointed out that all the land available—in fact all the land of the district was of a clay subsoil, and perfectly useless for the purpose. The Board replied, "It does not matter, we shall insist on your obtaining land," and the corporation's answer to this was that there was no legal power to compel them to buy land. The President of the Local Government Board acknowledged that this was so, but added that they would force them to buy land by stopping all their other borrowing powers till they did it, although, he said in addition, if they agreed to buy the land they would not compel them to use it. He put it to the House whether that was a fair or reasonable way for a great Department to exercise its powers, and in another direction was not this pressure upon Swansea
  396
  another illustration of the Board's unreasonable requirements? Year by year, water authorities found it necessary to go greater distances for their supply. The schemes became more and more costly, and naturally were being made to supply greater areas, and to look further ahead. In many cases, expenditure did not really become fruitful for ten or twenty years. Water was a prime necessity, and it was doubly important that it should be both plentiful and cheap. Would it not be wise, therefore, to give the longer period for repayment? If a corporation bought up an existing waterworks, the Department made no difference in its financial treatment, and if in the case of a works—reservoirs, etc.—already fifty years old, it was wise to give fifty or sixty years for repayment, surely it was most reasonable to ask for the longer period in the case of constructing new works. The pressure upon present ratepayers to pay off the capital cost of waterworks for the benefit of a coming generation was altogether too heavy, and this was especially apparent when they remembered that these works were never destroyed or cast aside. They were extended or added to, but they always retained their utility. He had the greatest sympathy with the demands for short periods of time for the repayment of loans in cases where the municipalities went in for purely commercial undertakings, but water supply was a matter of life and death, an absolute necessity, a case in which a corporation must spend money for posterity, and he submitted to the House that the sixty years asked for was not too long a period. He therefore supported the Amendment to alter thirty years to sixty years.
  MR. ROSEsaid the motives which made him, as a member of the Committee, unwilling to consent to an extension of the period of the loan, or to a period of sixty years for the additional money required, were those of financial prudence and a desire to restrict excessive municipal borrowing, feeling as he did that if a period of sixty years was allowed it might be an incentive to over-borrowing on the part of municipalities, whereas the shorter period would certainly conduce to greater caution. As to the suggestion

  397
  that gross injustice might be done to certain classes of the community by the imposition of the larger rate necessary to repay the loan in the shorter period, one of the chief arguments in favour of the Bill was that the works were rendered necessary by the great prosperity of trade in Swansea. The tinplate trade was said to be enjoying unexampled prosperity in Swansea, and that being so the class concerned could hardly object to the imposition of the additional rate.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid that while he sympathised with the desire to keep municipal expenditure within judicious bounds, he thought that if there was one province more than another in which the House should be extremely careful how such restrictions were applied, it was in that concerning the public health of the community. Borrowing for such purposes ought to be encouraged rather than checked, for economy in that direction was the worst possible economy that could be practised. In Lincoln recently there had been 700 cases of typhoid fever brought about by an inefficient water supply, and the cost of that outbreak would have twice over supplied Lincoln with a supply of pure water. Expenditure on drainage, sewage disposal, or water supply ought to be encouraged by the Local Government Board, and allowed the most liberal terms they could command. The authorities at the Local Government Board knew how difficult it was to get local authorities to incur large expenditure for public health purposes. The bigger authorities would undertake it because they were always allowed the longest terms for repayment, but the smaller authorities were usually unable to get the same length of term, and therefore were more frightened at the expenditure. For these reasons he should support the Amendment of his hon. friend.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD Mr GRANT LAWSON,)said he did not know where the hon. Member opposite learnt his financial policy; it was certainly not at the Local Government Board. Hon. Members were altogether mistaken in supposing that the Board had adopted a dictatorial or overbearing attitude to the Committee. The Committee had the whole of the facts before them, and on the evidence submitted to them, which, of course, was the evidence of the present ratepayers, they came to their decision. The House was now asked to overrule the decision of the Committee, and without any evidence as to the special circumstances of the case to fix one of the most difficult things possible, viz., the proper period of a loan for waterworks under certain conditions. If there were special features in the case they were considered by the Committee. He might point out that for works and land orginally estimated to cost £270,000 no less than £691,000 had been required, a fact which showed very curious finance and somewhat doubtful engineering skill. The House ought to be very careful in this matter of the period of loans. The enormous increase in the amount of local debt was a very serious matter and the only way in which it could be checked was by placing at any rate a considerable proportion of the burden upon those who by their votes decided upon making the expenditure. No doubt there would be relief to the present ratepayers if the period of repayment were extended to sixty years, but what would happen in the future According to the Report of a Committee over which he himself presided, the result of extending the period of repayment for a loan of £250,000 from thirty to sixty years would mean a saving of over £3,000 a year to the present ratepayers, but the amount of interest alone would be £291,994 as against £132,600 for the shorter period, so that from the point of view of the Swansea ratepayers it would really be penny wise and pound foolish to extend the period of repayment. He hoped the House would reject the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes, 111. (Division List No. 142.)
  Bill to be read the third time.

AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896, ETC., CONTINUANCE BILL.
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [17th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Which Amendment was—
"To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'no Bill dealing with the severe burden of the local rates on the agricultural industry will be satisfactory or afford permanent relief which does not provide for a contribution payable by the owners of land based on its selling value, and utilise the fund so provided to relieve the ratepayers of a substantial portion of the burdens which result from the local payment of national services, and from the incidence of existing rates on buildings and improvements, instead of adopting the crude and unfair method of paying half the rates on agricultural land out of the Imperial Exchequer.'"—(Mr. Whitley) instead thereof.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. SOARES (continuing)said that when interrupted by the adjournment he was congratulating hon. Members opposite on their touching and childlike faith in the beneficence of landlords and the good intentions of the present Government. And yet the hon. Member for Tavistock
402
had said that during the last twenty years farmers had not made any interest on their capital and had had only bread and cheese for their dinner. He presumed, however, that during that twenty years the landlords had been receiving their rents, and certainly the Party opposite had been in office throughout the whole period with a very short break. It, therefore, seemed that the tenant farmer, at any rate, had very little reason to hold any strong faith in the present Administration. Instead of benefiting the agricultural industry the present Government had more or less injured it. For instance, they hid passed the Motor Car Act. The cost of repairing the damage done to the high roads by motor-cars fell upon the agricultural community. The Government had passed the Education Act, the rates for which were not only high, but were destined to increase steadily from year to year. Proper provision had not been made for the cost of education, and the burden of the education rate was filling heavily upon the agricultural community. In spite of all these additional heavy burdens, the Agricultural Rates Act was at the same figure as in 1896. But, nevertheless, he was going to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill because he believed that the benefit, although it went to the landlord in the majority of cases, also went to the small freeholder and to those in possession of

403
long leases. It would be unfair to repeal this Act now, because many farmers had taken their farms relying upon this Act being continued. What was required was that the whole rating law should be thoroughly overhauled. At the present time personalty did not pay its fair share towards local burdens, but he did not think any good suggestions had been made as to the way personalty could be rated. He thought the only way to accomplish this was to graduate the income-tax and make grants-in-aid towards local burdens. He did not think that the grants now made under this Act should be abolished unless accompanied by a scientific readjustment of the local burdens of taxation. Inasmuch as they did not want this Act discontinued, he hoped the Second Reading would be passed without a division. When the whole question of rating came to be considered, he hoped it would be dealt with not by the present Administration, but by a Liberal Government which would not have regard so much to the interests of the landlords, but would pay some regard to the interests of the tenant farmer and see that he got his fair share of relief from the burdens of taxation.
MR. CATHCART WASONsaid there seemed to be a delightful unanimity of opinion that the Government had seriously neglected their duty upon this question during the last nine years by not bringing in a comprehensive measure. This was one of the most important questions that could come before the country and the House. It raised the question of the position of the agriculturist in this country and the point as to how farming could be best carried on. The hon. and gallant Member for Essex had told them that if they did not want to deteriorate into a miserable class of humanity, unable to serve their country either in the Army or in the field, there were only two alternatives—they must either relieve the country districts of rates and taxes, or else go back to a system of bounties upon corn. He would venture to suggest a third alternative, namely, the establishment of a peasant proprietary upon the land. He thought that was the only true solution. The position of affairs in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland in
404
regard to this Bill was entirely-different to what had been described by other hon. Members as to the manner in which it affected their constituencies, because in Scotland this form of relief to the crofters would not affect the position of the landlords. The rent was fixed, and if they took away this measure of relief it would be a serious matter for the crafting community. He knew that the whole question was surrounded with difficulties, but were they to part with this small measure of relief because it had been alluded to in a doctrinaire fashion without regard to the manner in which the people lived? He knew of poor country districts where the rates were up to 12s. and 14s. in the £. He did not think the hon. Member for the Elland Division had treated the matter from the practical point of view. As far back as 1878 the New Zealand Government had legislated according to the ideas of the hon. Member. The Act was a dead failure, brought nothing to the Exchequer and did nothing for either town or country. In more recent times similar provisions had again been enacted and they were a dead letter. Land was valued by a Government officer whose instructions were as far as possible to ensure fair valuation all over the country. Coming to farms of the same selling value nothing would be allowed by way of deduction from taxation for improvements, and although the wording of the Act was plain, no lawyer would advise an action against the Government. The plain fact was that there was no such thing as a taxable asset as the unimproved and prime value of land. He would remind his hon. friend that directly they began to tax the unimproved value of land they would find themselves involved in a sea of difficulty out of which there was no means of escape. It should not be overlooked that land without population was absolutely valueless. Again, to reduce the relief given to those living on and about the land was not the way to get at the unimproved value. The only effective way to deal with the matter was by a system of compulsory purchase.
He could corroborate what had been said by the hon. Member for Tavistock as to the condition of the farming industry, for he knew farmer after farmer in his own

405
county who was barely making a living, and who did not earn equivalent to the ordinary man who was getting £1 a week in wages. These men remained on the land because they felt that they were doing a good service to the State as well as to themselves and their families. The disadvantages of farmers as compared with tradesmen was that farmers had to labour under a great land monopoly system. If farmers had not been handicapped at every turn by the position in which landlords had been placed they would now have been in a far more prosperous state, and the state of the agricultural industry to-day would have been much different. At the present moment the position of the agricultural labourer was the worst possible. He did not approve of the attempt which had been made to set country against town, because a town could not succeed if the country was being beggared. They had to largely depend npon the country, because it was from the land that everything came, and if they handicapped the land and prevented free access to it, it was impossible for the agricultural industry to be carried on in a satisfactory way. The hon. Member for West Birmingham, in a recent speech, had said at Limehouse that this was not an agricultural country. He wished to point out that with the exception of Belgium this country produced more corn per acre than any other country in the world. He was aware that it was not of the same excellent quality as in some places where the yield was smaller, but nevertheless English farming was excellent, and it was an undoubted fact that this country was capable of growing corn successfully. Scotch farmers were proverbial for their farming abilities, and those who had visited Ireland must have come to the conclusion that as an agricultural or a grazing country Ireland did not lag behind either England or Scotland. There were large quantities of grazing land in Ireland superior to any of the land in England and Scotland, and it was worth two or three times as much. Therefore, he should support the Government in this small measure of relief which was given under this Bill.
They had been told by the hon. and gallant Member for Essex that there were thousands of acres of derelict land in Essex. If the hon. and gallant Member
406
would take them round that land and inform them what the amount of tithe rent-charge and other disadvantages were they would readily understand why it was that agriculture was so much handicapped in every direction. The land wanted freedom, and if they could have it cultivated by a peasant proprietary there would then be absolutely no necessity to come to the Government for bribes and doles. The necessity for revaluation had been alluded to. He did not think they wanted anything of the sort, for what they required was that some of the services thrown upon the land should be nationalised, in order to give some relief to the rates of the poor. Under all the circumstances he felt that this House would only be doing its duty if it supported the Government in endeavouring to pass this Bill.
SIR MARK STEWARTsaid he was quite satisfied that the relief which had been given to the agricultural industry under this Act in the past had been the means of keeping many farmers upon their farms who would otherwise have ceased to be tenants. By passing this Act, in the first instance, in spite of the great opposition of the other side of the House, the Government had shown that they were desirous of doing something for the tenant farmer. The hon. Member who spoke last said that rents were being paid and that the landlords were flourishing, but was that statement true? Were the tenants getting anything at all out of the land? He was sure that they were not getting sufficient to keep themselves and their families. And yet hon. Members came down to the House of Commons and said that the farmers were well off, and that the landlords were better off still. It was a well-known fact that the rental of an estate was not always a true indication of its prosperity or value, because a great many deductions had to be made. He contended that the condition of agriculture was at a low ebb just now, and tenant farmers, as a rule, were making only a bare living. In his opinion the relief given under this Bill was neither a dole nor a bribe, but it was only what was due to

407
the landed interest. Why should not a tenant on his farm be allowed to have the land just as a tradesman had his capital to work with. The land was the farmer's capita], and if he did not work it to its full extent he incurred losses, and when he was rated and taxed as at present he was practically called upon to pay twice over. The Government had been twitted with having been in office for nine years without bringing in a comprehensive Bill dealing with this question, but he would like to ask why previous Governments had not dealt with it? He hoped that the House would agree to pass the Second Beading of this Bill.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid that to him the proposals in this Bill seemed to run on parallel lines with the sugar bounties. He thought they were wrong and should never have been put on, but he felt that if they were done away with by a stroke of the pen a great deal of misery and hardship would occur. He felt the same with regard to the proposals in this Bill, because it had now been in operation for nine years and they could not do away with it without doing a considerable amount of injustice. He thought he should only be acting consistently if he took the same view as he did in regard to the sugar bounties. Four years ago when the Bill was renewed they were in the middle of a very extensive war, and he thought it was the duty of those men of mature age like himself to make some sacrifice, and to make some contribution towards the expenses of the war. Circumstances were different now, because there was no war going on, and there was no necessity to make the same sacrifices. The First Lord of the Treasury had said that before this great question could be dealt with properly it would be necessary to pass a Valuation Bill. They had such a Bill brought forward last year which in his opinion formed a good basis for a settlement. He did not deny that there were difficulties in regard to any scheme dealing with the incidence of local taxation. He wished to point out, however, that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were the e to deal with difficult questions, and they had no more right to shirk them than a soldier had to shirk a
408
difficult situation in warfare. His hon. friend had suggested that the Scotch method was a very good plan. He did not think that it signified much who paid the rates in the first instance, because he thought that they would ultimately fall upon the landlord.
He was a small landowner and tenant farmer himself, and he viewed the subject from both sides. He felt quite sure that the rates did fall upon the landlord and he had never entertained any view to the contrary. Long before this Act was in force he made a speech in the country in which he spoke of the incidence of the rates falling upon the landlords, and a letter was written by a prominent Conservative pointing out that the incidence of the rates was upon the landlord. What would happen if this Bill were not renewed? On Michaelmas Day next every tenant would appear before his landlord and demand a reduction in rent, and if he did not get it he would give a year's notice. He quite agreed with his hon. friend the Member for Somersetshire that it was impossible to adopt the remedy suggested of assessing land at its unimproved value, because there was no such thing as the unimproved value of land. People got into a loose way of talking about the buying, selling, and hiring of land. What was bought, sold, or hired was the improvement of the land, the process of improvement having gone on from generation to generation. Sometimes it was a little more or a little less, but for the moment the improvement of the land had disappeared entirely, and the buildings were all that remained. There was no estate in his part of the world that could not be bought for a smaller sum than that for which the buildings were insured. Even the improved value had disappeared. Four years ago, as he had said, he was prepared to make a sacrifice of this subvention for the good of the country. He was very glad indeed that the sacrifice was not accepted, and he did not think he was required to make the sacrifice again. He did not think that any landowner should vote for the Bill because it would put money in his own pocket, but landowners were certainly not called upon to oppose it. He thought the hon. Member for Halifax would be wisely advised if he

409
would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. A. K. LOYDsaid there was a great deal of misunderstanding and misrepresentation in regard to this legislation which would be removed if it were borne in mind that the term "relief" as applied to this Bill was very ambiguous. Relief might be either a compassionate allowance or the removal of a grievance. He repudiated absolutely the idea that there was anything in the nature of charitable relief in this legislation. It effected only the removal of a long-standing and grevious injustice—an injustice not as between realty and personalty, but as between two sorts of rateable property—as between the occupier of agricultural land and the owner of clerical tithe rent-charge, and other owners and occupiers of rateable property. The farmer was rated not only on his dwelling-house and other buildings, but on the land which corresponded to the stock-in-trade of his fellow ratepayers. The parson was still made rateable in respect of his salary, though all other forms of personalty were released from liability as long ago as 1840. That was recognised by Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Gladstone, and Sir G. Cornwall Lewis, and that was why the Act of 1840 was made an annual Act. Each of these so-called favoured classes had still just the same grievance as the urban ratepayer in respect to his house and buildings, and had the same right to complain that the whole question of rating as between realty and personalty had not been dealt with. There was no injustice of the kind pointed out by the hon. Member for West Ham. The urban ratepayer had no grievance whatever that was not still resting heavily upon the agricultural ratepayer and the tithe-owner, and this Bill was directed to meet the extra injustice existing as between the latter and the general class of ratepayers. There had been no reversal of the order of the Royal Commission's Report. Hon. Gentlemen opposite came down to the House and imputed all the basest motives to hon. Gentlemen on his side for supporting that legislation, then said they were going to do the same thing, and afterwards asked the country to believe they were actuated by the highest motives and
410
hon. Members on his side by the worst, because the latter had never wavered in their opinion on that question.
MR. LAMBERTsaid that the President of the Local Government Board had told them that the first essential towards the solution of this matter was to have uniformity in valuation for rating. It seemed to him that the Government had been rather playing with the subject. They only introduced a Valuation Bill for the first time last year, and they made no attempt to push it forward. This year the right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was in an advanced stage of preparation. The Royal Commission on Local Taxation had reported, and the Agricultural Rates Act had been in operation for nine years. Surely the Government had had time to make up their mind, and yet the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to produce the Bill. One would have expected that by this time the Government would have been able to lay upon the Table their detailed proposals for the reorganisation of local rating. To his mind that was degrading the House o Commons, and absolutely playing with the country. He did not know any Bill which had been disparaged more by its movers than this Bill had been disparagd by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman stated that it was neither a complete nor permanent scheme, it was admittedly incomplete and provisional. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman, although he had not been long President of the Local Government Board, would admit that the present measure was crude and clumsy, giving most relief to the land which least needed it. The hon. Member for Essex stated that in his constituency there were thousands of acres of derelict land. How much relief had these acres got from this Bill? That derelict land ought to be benefited by this Act if any land was to receive benefit.
This Bill would perpetuate the inelasticity of the Act of 1896. The subvention amounted to £1,330,000, and they had been told that this had been the salvation of the agricultural interest. He had always contended that this Bill did not proceed on the right lines. It

411
did not take into account the fact that rates were rising, and that while the rates rose the Treasury subvention was stereotyped, and that, therefore, the farmer was hit if the rates increased during his tenancy. Unfortunately the grievance in connection with rural rating had been largely accentuated during the past nine years. Nobody could deny that rural rates had increased to an enormous extent. Local bodies had been created, and when a local body desired to show that it wanted to do good to its neighbours it could only do good by spending money, and the more it spent the more it had to take out of the ratepayers' pockets. His hon. friend the Member for the Tavistock Division had said that there had been a natural increase of rates.
MR. SPEAR: I said that a natural increase of rates had arisen very largely from the increased cost of main roads.
MR. LAMBERTsaid there was no doubt that the cost of main roads had contributed in some degree to the increase, but he apprehended that the Education Act had contributed in a far greater degree in Devonshire. He was afraid that the education rate there would be something like Is. in the £. In Surrey the education rate would be the same amount. Here was an admitted grievance, and the Agricultural Rates Act did not touch it at all. The benefits of the Act had been largely neutralised because of the enormous burdens put on the ratepayers by local bodies. If a farm was valued at, say, £100, and the rates rose 1s. in the £, the farmer would have to pay £5 a year more, but he could not go to the landlord and ask a reduction in his rent of £5. It cost a tenant farmer a considerable amount to move from one farm to another, and, therefore, rather than change he paid the increased rate, while getting no reduction of rent. If the Government had been in earnest in this matter they would have introduced a measure giving effect to the principle advocated years ago of a division of rates between landlord and tenant. If the rates increased the landlord should pay his share as well as the tenant.
There was one principle in this Act that had been valuable to the agricultural in-
412
terest and that was the rating of land at half its annual value. With the rising rates, if land had been rated at its full value there would have been a great deal more derelict land than there was at present. It was the splendid surplus which Sir William Harcourt left them that enabled the Government to pass this Act. If hon. Members opposite distrusted the future action of the Liberal Party in regard to this measure, why did they not make it permanent?
MR. A. K. LOYDsaid it was originally intended that it should be permanent. It was only made temporary in deference to the pressure of the Liberal Party.
MR. LAMBERTsaid he was in the House of Commons in 1896 and he knew that the Government had a majority of 160. It was ridiculous, therefore, to talk of the pressure of the Liberal Party. There was an essential difference between urban and rural rating in this matter. Urban land derived its value from the labour of the community and, therefore, he said to his friends in the town. "By all means tax this land so as to relieve the rates that fall upon those who live ill large centres of population." The hon. Member for West Ham denounced this Bill, but why did he and his colleagues who represented those highly-burdened communities not devote some of their energies to the taxing of ground which was of enormous value in the city of London? Many landowners derived princely revenues from the city of London, while they paid very little in rates. There was a difference between urban land and rural land. Rural land had no value except that which was created by the skill of the farmer and the capital of the landlord. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Elland Division said they must base taxation on the unimproved value of agricultural land. He could tell his hon. friend that value would be very small indeed. He looked over an estate the other day for the purpose of valuing the buildings for insurance. He was amazed to find that the buildings amounted to £4,800, though the whole value of the estate, if put into the market, would not be more than £8,000. He agreed with the hon. Member for Halifax that the present system did check enterprise, but in this matter they

413
had not a "clean slate." If they had a clean slate he would have no hesitation in voting for the Amendment. He was glad to hear his hon. friend say that he wished to relieve agriculture of national services such as the maintenance of main roads. Whatever might he the defects of the Bill he thought it was impossible at the present moment to withdraw it. The Leader of the Opposition had taken the right course in the matter. Land had now been bought and sold subject to half the rate being paid, and, unless they were prepared to introduce drastic legislation to enable every tenant farmer to claim the amount which he now received in subvention from his landlord, it would be impossible to withdraw the Bill. But the time would come when the problem of rural rating would be put on a sound basis, on the principle that those who had the most should pay the most in rates.
MR. PEELsaid hon. Members opposite had been escaping down the back stairs on this question. He thought it was almost time for the hon. Member who crossed the floor of the House on this very question to return to this side of the House, since his present associates had now been converted to views to which he so strongly objected. Hon. Members opposite seemed to have got fonder and fonder of this Bill, for which the hon. Member who spoke last had actually taken credit. He agreed with a great many of the observations made in the remarkable speech by the hon. Member for North Norfolk. A great deal had been said about the rates on land being an hereditary burden as the land had been bought and sold subject to them. He did not see how that argument Vanished away after an interval of five or nine years. How could they then be transformed into non-hereditary burdens? That was a very remarkable way of evading the question. There was the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, who said, "My views are exactly the same as they were four or five years ago, and yet my policy has changed." The policy was not founded on his own views, but on the views of other people. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Oldham said he was going to sup-
414
port the Bill although he disagreed with the principle of it. That was Very remarkable; the course was generally the other way, for some people agreed to support a Bill in principle but not in its details. He sympathised with the hon. Members for Oldham and Elland, because lie always sympathised with good men struggling with adversity. Then, the hon. Member for Barnstaple began by making a speech on the Bill four years ago, and then he suddenly changed his mind.
MR. SOARESsaid he did not speak four years ago.
MR. PEELsaid he sympathised with the hon. Gentleman that he did not get rid of his speech on that occasion. The hon. Member now said that a number of long leaseholders and small leaseholders would get considerable advantage from the Bill.
MR. SOARESsaid he had voted for the Bill four years ago.
MR. PEELsaid he was very glad to hear it, but he certainly thought from the remarks which the hon. Member had made about landlords, that he could not, consistently with his principles, have voted for the Bill. The fact really was, as stated very frankly by the hon. Member opposite, that the rent did not represent the value of the land. It represented a very small percentage on the capital cost and the improvements made on the land. A land agent told him the other day that all over Bedfordshire the rent did not represent more than, if so much as, one per cent, of the value of the land and the money spent in improvements and buildings. He was glad to see that the curious prejudice against landlords, which was due to causes which had long ceased to exist, was really dying out amongst hon. Members opposite.
Hon. Members had spoken about the grievances of urban ratepayers. He did not desire to minimise these grievances, but he thought the means for stemming the tide of municipal expenditure lay in the hands of urban ratepayers themselves, if they would only use them. It was a curious fact that in the election for the London County Council not 40 per cent. of the

415
ratepayers on each side could be induced to come and vote at the polls. That being so, it did not lie with the urban ratepayers to say to Parliament, "Do not give this relief to the agricultural ratepayers, but come to our assistance."
MR, GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that, seeing the hon. Member represented a Manchester constituency, did he think it fair that the ratepayers of Manchester should pay 7s. 8½d. a year in rates and be made to contribute also to the rural rates?
MR. PEELsaid he had not been much challenged on the question in Manchester. He maintained that if there was a definite unfairness on the agricultural interest of the burden of the rates that grievance ought to be removed, and if it was to be removed the money must come from somewhere.
MR. MARKHAMsaid he did not quite understand where they stood in this matter. At the time of the general election, when he was returned to the House, he received a large amount of printed matter from the Liberal Federation in London, and pamphlets were largely circulated among his constituents, showing the doles given to the parsons and squires. He believed that the statements set out in those pamphlets were absolutely true, and he still believed it. But, unhappily, there were divisions among hon. Members on his side of the House on this question, for reasons best known to themselves. Speaking for himself, he had only to say that he had been severed from his Party on one question only, the question of Chinese Labour; but he did not say one thing to his constituents for the purpose of catching votes, and on the eve of a general election say another. He approached this question, not from the standpoint of the landowner, but of the man connected with industrial enterprises; and he could not see why a burden should be taken off the landowners and placed on the shoulders of the ratepayers in the manufacturing and industrial districts. When a farmer took a farm he was bound to take into consideration the amount of rates he would be called upon to pay in
416
addition to his rent, and if the burden of the rates was taken off the land the landlord would get the benefit. They had been told from the other side that the farmers had been living on the verge of starvation, only able to earn bread and cheese. He knew it was said that a landlord was entitled to get the best rent he could from his tenant; but why should he come to the House of Commons and say that the farmers were living on the verge of starvation? If that were the case, why did he not reduce the rent to his tenants so as to enable the farmers to get a good living? Why should landlords ask the House of Commons to grant relief on rates to one section of the community, and place the burden on other industries who were not better able to bear it than the landlords. He, for one, should divide the House on this question.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that the hen. Member for the Mansfield Division had told the House, with great truth, that at the last general election Liberals obtained their seats by denouncing what they were going to vote for that night.
MR. MARKHAMsaid he entirely repudiated that. He stood by his condemnation of the Bill, and would vote against it.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that at any rate those Liberal pamphlets argued exactly contrary to the way the Liberal leader was going to vote that night. His hon. friend said that the landlords should reduce their rents, but in exact proportion as the landlords reduced rents they reduced the employment of the people and so drove the rural population into the towns. He agreed with the hon. Member on his side of the House that had it not been for this Act there would have been far more derelict land in the country than there was to-day. The hon. Gentleman who represented the Barnstaple Division said that the landlords had taken a very unfair advantage of the Act to raise rents. That was one of the chief weapons used against landlords in the country. He challenged the hon. Member to give one single instance, naming the man, the parish, and the farm, of a rise of rent which had resulted

417
from the passage of this measure. Until that was done he was justified in saying that this manner of abusing the landlords was unfair.
MR. SOARESsaid he could give the hon. Gentleman an instance.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he wanted the name, the place, and the date on which rent had been raised on account of the passage of this Act. Then, and not till then, would he believe in the value of these charges which, he repeated, were unfair and unmanly. The hon. Member for Oldham had said, fairly enough, that the agricultural Members did not always recollect that the urban ratepayers had a grievance. He insisted that they did acknowledge that freely, and hoped, when the proper time came, that that grievance would be remedied, and that the whole matter of local taxation would be put on an equitable basis. It had been very interesting to him to see the unanimity of the condemnation of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Halifax; and he hoped the result would be that the principle of the Bill would be acknowledged by the House as fair and equitable; and that its passage would lead to a still wider and broader treatment of local taxation which would remove every grievance. He could not forget, however, the strenuous opposition offered to the Act four years ago by the Party opposite, and if they had found out that the opposition was foolish,
The House divided:—Ayes, 174; Noes, 59. (Division List, No. 143.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Fisher, William Hayes

Malcolm, Ian

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Allen, Charles P.

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Flower, Sir Ernest

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Forster, Henry William

Morgan David J.(Walthamstow)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Gardner, Ernest

Morrell, George Herbert

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Garfit, William

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Mount, William Arthur

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Baird, John George Alexander

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Balcarres, Lord

Grant, Corrie

Nicholson, William Graham

Balfour.Rt.Hn. A.J. (Manch'r)

Green, WalfordD.(Wednesbury)

Peel,Hn.Wm. Robert Wellesley

Balfour,Rt.HnGeraldW.(Leeds)

Greene, Henry D(Shrewsbury

Percy, Earl

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Gretton, John

Pierpoint, Robert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamilton,Marq.of(L'nd'nderry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

Pretyman, Earnest George

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Purvis, Robert

Beach,Rt.Hn.SirMichaelHicks

Helder, Augustus

Rankin, Sir James

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Henderson.SirA. (Stafford, W.)

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Bigwood, James

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Rickett, J. Compton

Bingham, Lord

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Bond, Edward

Hope.J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Brassey, Albert

Houston, Robert Paterson

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St.John

Howard, Jn.(Kent,Faversham)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Bull, William James

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Caldwell, James

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

Chamberlain,RtHnJ.A.(Worc.)

Joicey, Sir James

Stevenson, Francis S.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kearley, Hudson E.

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Chapman, Edward

Kennaway.Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Stroyan, John

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.

Kenyon-Slaney,Rt. Hn.Col. W.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Kerr, John

Tollemache, Henry James

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Keswick, William

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Tuff, Charles

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Lamont, Norman

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Turnour, Viscount

Dalkeith, Earl of

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Ure, Alexander

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks. N.R.

Valentia, Viscount

Davenport, William Bromley-

Lee, Arthur H(Hants.,Fareham

Welby.Lt.-Col.A.C.E.(Taunton)

Denny, Colonel

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Leveson-Gower.Frederick N.S.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Wilson-Todd,Sir W. H (Yorks.)

Fergusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

M'Iver,SirLewis(EdinburghW.)

TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Mr. Rose and Mr. Allhusen.

Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

Majendie, James A. H.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cheetham, John Frederick

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Brigg, John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Atherley-Jones, L.

Bright, Allan Heywood

Cremer William Randal

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Broadhurst, Henry

Crooks, William

Barlow, John Emmott

Burke, E. Haviland-

Dalziel, James Henry

Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

Burns, John

Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets)

Bell, Richard

Burt, Thomas

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Benn, John Williams

Butcher, John George

Duke, Henry Edward

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Blake, Edward

Channing, Francis Allston

Ellice,Capt. EC(S.Andrw'sBghs)

Emmott, Alfred

Macdona, John Cumming

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Samuel,SirHarryS.(Limehouse)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Fen wick, Charles

M' Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Shackleton, David James

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Mooney, John J.

Soares, Ernest J.

Fuller, J. M. F.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Spear, John Ward

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morpeth, Viscount

SpencerRtHnC.R(Northhants

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Harcourt, Lewis

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Sullivan, Donal

Harwood, George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thomas, Sir A. (GlamorganE.)

Hayter,Rt.Hn. Sir Arthur D.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthy

Heath,SirJames(StaffordsNW.)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

ThomasJ.A.(Glamorgan,Gower

Higham, John Sharp

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Malley, William

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

O'Mara, James

Wallace, Robert

Jones, Lief (Appleby)

Perks, Robert William

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Kitson, Sir James

Priestley, Arthur

Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)

Lawrence,Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Pym, C. Guy

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Ratcliff, R. F.

Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Hudders'fd

Levy, Maurice

Rea, Russell

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Reid, James (Greenock)

Yoxall, James Henry

Lloyd-George, David

Renwick, George

Long,Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

Ridley, S. Forde

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir George Newnes and Mr. Brynmor Jones.

Lough, Thomas

Roe, Sir Thomas

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bigwood, James

Davenport, William Bromley-

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bingham, Lord

Denny, Colonel

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bond, Edward

Dickson, Charles Scott

Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brassey, Albert

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn. Sir H.

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Dyke, Rt.Hon.SirWilliamHart

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Butcher, John George

Ellice,Capt.E.C.(SAndrw'sBghs

Baird, John George Alexander

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Balcarres, Lord

Cavendish,V.C. W. (Derbyshire

Fardell, Sir T. George

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.A(Worc.

Fellowes,Rt.HnAilwyn Edward

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Chapman, Edward

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Fisher, William Hayes

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cust, Henry John C.

Flower, Sir Ernest

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Forster, Henry William

Fuller, J. M. F.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Galloway, William Johnson

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Renwick, George

Gardner, Ernest

Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.

Ridley, S. Forde

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Long, Col. Charles W..(Evesham

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Gordon, Hn.J.E.(Elgin & Nairn

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rose, Charles Day

Gordon,Maj.Evans(T'r H'mlets

Lowther, C,(Cumb., Eskdale)

Bound, Rt. Hon. James

Greene, Herny D. (Shrewsbury)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Greene, W. Rayrror.d-(Cambs.)

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Gretton, John

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Macdona, John Cumming

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Hambro, Charles Eric

Maconochie, A. W.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

Hamilton,Marq.of(L'nd'nderry

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Asbford

M'lver, SirLewis(EdinburghW

Soares, Ernest J.

Heath, SirJames(Staffords.NW

Majendie, James A. H.

Spear, John Ward

Henderson, SirA.(Stafford, W.)

Malcolm, Ian

Stanley, Rt.Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Marks, Harry Hananel

Stroyan, John

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield,Brightside

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.

Thornton, Percy M.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow

Tollemache, Henry James

Howard,John(Kent,Faversh'm

Morpeth, Viscount

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Morrell, George Herbert

Tuff, Charles

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Hunt, Rowland

Mount, William Arthur

Turnour, Viscount

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Nicholson, William Graham

White, Luke (York, E.B.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Peel, Hn.Wm.RobertWellesley

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh)

Percy, Earl

Williams, Colonel B. (Dorset)

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn.Col.W.

Perks, Robert William

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Kerr, John

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wilson-Todd, SirW.H.(Yorks.)

Keswick, William

Plummer, Sir Walter B.

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Kimber, Sir Henry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Lambert, George

Pretyman, Ernest George

Lambton, Hon.Frederick Wm.

Purvis, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Rankin, Sir James

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

Lawson, John Grant (YorksN. R

Ratcliff, B. F.

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

Reid, James (Greenock)

NOES

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bell, Richard

Joicey, Sir James

Roe, Sir Thomas

Benn. John Williams

Jones, William(Canrarvonshire

Shackleton, David James

Black, Alexander William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Blake, Edward

Kitson, Sir James

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Brigg,'John

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Sullivan, Donal

Broadhurst, Henry

Layland-Barratt. Francis

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Burke, E. Haviland-

Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington

Thomas,J.A(Glamorgan,Gower

Caldwell, James

Levy, Maurice

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lough, Thomas

Ure, Alexander

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Cremer, William Randal

Mooney, John J.

Wallace, Robert

Dalziel, James Henry

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whiteley, George (York, W. B.

Duncan, J. Hastings

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fenwick, Charles

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. B.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd

Grant, Corrie

O'Malley, William

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

O'Mara, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Markham and Mr. Yoxall.

Harwood, George

Priestley, Arthur

Higham, John Sharp

Rea, Russell

Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday, 3rd May.

they could not do better than follow the Unionist Party in future.
SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down had described the Amendment as one which had met with universal condemnation. He could not assent to that. It was a very useful Amendment, and had given a very much wider and more interesting character to the debate than they could have had without it. Therefore, he thought the House was indebted to his hon. friend for putting his Amendment on the Paper. At any rate, it had suggested an alternative, to the scheme of the Bill. However, the Amendment had served his purpose, and he thought in the circumstances his hon. friend would be wise to withdraw it. If the Amendment were got out of the way they would have a straight issue on the Bill itself.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he had put before the House what he regarded as a constructive policy rather than the confused makeshift put forward by the Government for the third time. He should not, however, trouble the House to take a division on his Amendment; but be content to take the division on the Main Question.
Question put, and agreed.
Main Question put.

PUBLIC ROAD (IRELAND) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for this day,
Adjourned at twelve minutes after Twelve o'clock.