Sitting of 10 May 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 continued 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.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Abergavenny, Atherton, Keighley, Richmond (Surrey), and Whiston (Rural)," 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 209.]
PETITIONS.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Brims; Edinburgh (two); Glasgow (five); North Walls; Paisley (three); Partick; Springburn; Whiteinch; and Zetland; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY) BILL
  Petitions in favour; from Birmingham; and Probus; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Kirkintilloch; Oxford and Sheffield; Stockport; and West Renfrewshire; to lie upon the Table
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented, of Statute made by the Governing Body of St. John's College, Oxford, on 20th January, 1905, amending Statutes III. and XVI. of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 157.]
  NATIONAL DEBT.
  Copy presented, of Return showing (1) the Aggregate Gross Liabilities of the State as represented by the Nominal Funded Debt, Estimated Capital Liability in respect of Terminable Annuities, Unfunded Debt, and other Liabilities in respect of Debt, the Estimated Assets, and the Exchequer balances at the close of each financial year from 1835–6 to 1904–5, both inclusive; and (2) the Gross and Net Expenditure charged annually during that period against the Public Revenue on account of the National Debt, and other Payments connected with Capital Liabilities (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [C. 2065] of Session 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACTS, 1859 AND 1876.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 4th May, 1905, declaring Yunnan-fu and Tengyueh to be unhealthy places within the meaning of The Superannuation Act, 1876 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY RETURNS (PRELIMINARY STATEMENT).
  Copy presented, of Return relating to the Railways of the United Kingdom for the year 1904 (Preliminary Statement) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Return of Stores and Supplies despatched to South Africa during the period 1899–1901 destroyed locally [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3367 and 3368 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Postage on Parcels addressed in Irish.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why parcels addressed in Irish are surcharged to letter post rate by a recent rule of the Post Office; and whether private instructions are issued to Post Office authorities directing that such surcharges be made and that the parcels be delayed as much as possible.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) There is no rule such as that which the hon. Member describes, nor have any such instructions been issued.

  Moyvore Postmastership.
  MR. HAYDEN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on the recommendation of Lieutenant-Colonel Digby, Ballinacuna, Moyvore, county Westmeath, a police constable named O'Hara was appointed to the charge of the Moyvore Post Office; whether he is aware that on the death some five months ago of Mr. S. Forbes, the then postmaster of Moyvore, his widow and one of his daughters took charge of the Moyvore Post Office and gave satisfaction; and whether, in view of the fact that there has been no complaint against the management of the post office by these people, he will explain why they should be disturbed, and also if it is usual for police officers to hold such appointments.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that Mr. O'Hara was recommended to me by Colonel Digby. On the occurrence of the vacancy, the claims of Mrs. Forbes and of all the candidates were considered, and the conclusion was come to that Mr. O'Hara was the best suited for the appointment, and he was appointed on the condition that he should retire from the Royal Irish Constabulary.

  The Engrossing Staff of the Sasine Office, Edinburgh.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: To ask the Lord-Advocate if he is aware that a
  1472
  member of the engrossing staff in the Sasine Office, Edinburgh, has, at the age of seventy-five, after thirty-three years-service, become incapacitated for work, and now is dependent for support on a small weekly allowance from a benefit society composed of members of that staff; and whether, in view of this state of matters in a branch of Government employment, will the Government be prepared to consider the adoption of means whereby the engrossing staff may be put on a footing more in accord with the rules of employment recognised in public service.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The member of the Sasine Office staff to whom the hon. Member presumably refers is eligible on retirement for a gratuity in terms of a Minute issued by the Secretary for Scotland after consultation with the Treasury on 14th September, 1893, when the position of the engrossing staff was fully considered. I may add that the gentleman in question has, through not being a member of the establishment of the Civil Service, had the advantage of continuance of service at the full rate of pay he was competent to earn for ten years beyond the age of sixty-five, which is the ordinary age limit. His application for a gratuity has just been received.

  Defective Water Supply in Island of Lewis Public Schools.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state the number of public schools in the Island of Lewis for which the water supply is defective.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) I am informed that there are twenty-two schools in the Lewis in which the water supply is defective.

  Unemployed Workmen.
  MR. WHITMORE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the promised Report of the Central Mansion House Committee on the Unemployed, and the Return, Unemployed Relief Expenditure (London), will be made public before the Second Reading of the Workmen's Employment Bill.

  1473
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I regret that I am not in a position to give my hon. friend the information for which he asks.

  Worsthorne Council School, Lancashire.
  MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that a Board, now a council, school has existed in Worsthorne, Lancashire, for many years, and is still a recognised working and necessary school under the Education Acts, and that an attempt is being made to bring about the closing of the council school and to leave the inhabitants no school for their children to attend but a Church of England school; and, if so, whether the Board of Education will make inquiry into the matter and enter into communication with the Lancashire education authority, with the view of preventing the closing of a school which is required in order to afford a choice of schools to the inhabitants of Worsthorne.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Worsthorne Council School is still open, and cannot be closed without the consent of the Board under Section 18 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870. No application for such consent has yet been received from the Lancashire local education authority, and until it is there appears to be no ground for the intervention of the Board.

  Meeting of the Postal Union—Reduction of Postage to the Continent.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state when and where the next meeting of the Postal Union will take place; and whether efforts will be made to secure a reduction in the rate of postage from this country to the Continent.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The Postal Union Congress which was to have met at Rome this spring, has been deferred, and I am not yet aware when it will meet. The rates of postage for correspondence passing between countries of the union generally will be fully discussed; but I cannot at present pledge myself as to. the attitude which the
  1474
  British delegates will be instructed to take.

  Postal Rates for Printed Matter to Canada.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, with a view to facilitate the circulation of newspapers and periodicals to Canada, he can arrange for reduced postal rates from this country, especially taking into consideration the facilities afforded by the United States for the transmission of printed matter to Canada and the fact that the postal rates from Canada to the United Kingdom are less than the British rates to Canada.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The reasons for not taking the course suggested by the hon. Member were fully explained by me to a deputation recently, and I shall be pleased to furnish the hon. Member with a report of the remarks I then made.

  Postage on Assessment Notices.
  MR. CROMBIE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he contemplates issuing an order to raise the stamp on assessment notices from a halfpenny to a penny; and whether, before doing so, he will consider the expense which this will entail on local authorities.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Before the 1st of January, 1904, local authorities had the privilege of sending notices by halfpenny post under certain conditions, and probably the assessment notices to which the hon. Member refers were so sent. As, however, I informed the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty yesterday,† under the present regulations which came into force on the date mentioned, the only public officers who are entitled to send notices (other than those which come within the postal definition of a "circular") by the halfpenny post are officers of a Court of justice.

  Split Duties in the Central Telegraph Office, London.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: To ask the Postmaster-General whether,
  † See page 1330.

  1475
  in view of the fact that the Tweedmouth Committee stated that split duties weighed very heavily upon the postal staff, and that every effort should be made to abolish them by a readjustment and redistribution of duties, he will state whether he is considering proposals for the constitution of these duties in the Central Telegraph Office, London; and, if so, whether he will refuse to sanction the suggestions.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The view of the Tweed mouth Committee was that at the chief offices in London split duties might weigh very heavily on the staff and should be abolished as far as possible. Effect has been given to this view, and I have no intention of establishing such duties in the Central Telegraph Office. At the same time the Committee recognised that the conditions were different in the provinces (except at some of the larger towns), and they contemplated the continuance of split duties at offices where the pressure would be less severe.

  Treasury Regulations for the Annual Drawings of the new Exchequer Bonds.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer will he issue as a Parliamentary Paper, or place copies in the Vote Office, of the Treasury regulations for the annual drawings of the new Exchequer bonds; and will the first million so drawn be paid off on 18th April, 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The regulations contemplated by the Finance Bill will be drawn when the Bill has passed. They will be made public in the ordinary course as statutory rules, and copies can be made available for the House. As announced in the prospectus of the loan, the first million of the Exchequer bonds will be paid off on the 18th April, 1906.

  Ballyshannon Union Nurses.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many nuns are acting as paid nurses in the Ballyshannon Union, county Donegal; is he aware that one of the nuns who was in charge left off duty on 14th February last and has not
  1476
  returned since; and, if so, will he say if she has sent in her resignation, and, if so, on what date; who is the nurse in charge at present; and on what date was she appointed.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Three nuns are employed as paid nurses in tin infirmary of the Ballyshannon workhouse. The Local Government Board have no information to show that one of these nuns has vacated her position, either temporarily or permanently. The fever hospital nurse obtained a week's leave of absence at the date mentioned, but she is not a nun.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Military Expenditure in South Africa.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War can he now state the total of the military expenditure in South Africa for 1904–5, and its estimated amount for 1905–6, corresponding to the total of that expenditure of £7,760,653, shown to have been incurred in 1903–4; and can he state approximately the additional military expenditure incurred in 1903–4, 1904–5, and 1905–6, estimated respectively in respect of headquarter administrative expenses, deferred pay, and recruiting expenses, non-effective charges, and expenditure under the Military Works Acts.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,): The estimated figures for 1904–5 and 1905–6, corresponding to the figure of £7,760,653 for 1903–4 are £2,900,000 and £2,400,000 respectively, exclusive of the value of stores for which figures are not yet available. The figures for expenditure under the Military Works Acts are, so far as they are available, in 1903–4 £1,424,000 and 1904–5 £1,191,000, as given in the reply to the Question† recently put by the hon. Member. It would hardly be possible to estimate how much of the expenditure on headquarter administration and on the other items mentioned
    † See page 819.

    1477
    can be attributed to South Africa, and I could not undertake to give any approximate figures.

    Sandhurst Cadets.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can say whether complaints have been made to the War Office in regard to drunkenness among the Sandhurstcadets; and, if so, how many cadets were unfit for duty during the past six months from that cause.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: In reply to a previous Question†, I informed my hon, friend that matters of this sort are dealt with by the Commandant, with whose discretion I am not prepared to interfere.

    Primary Education in India.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what is the total increase in the number of schools and the number of school-going children resulting from the grant for primary education of last year; and whether the same system of distribution will be followed with regard to the 25 lakhs of rupees provided for the same purpose in the present Budget.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): The educational statistics for the year 1904–5 have not yet been received, and in their absence it is not possible to give the figures asked for in the first paragraph of the Question. The special grant to provincial funds for primary education in the Budget for 1905–6 is 35, not 25, lakhs of rupees, and it has been distributed between the several provinces as follows:—Bengal, 10 lakhs; Madras, 6; Bombay, 5; United Provinces, 6; Punjab, 3; Burma, 2; Central Provinces and Berar, 2; Assam, 1; total, 35 lakhs.

    Revised German Tariff.
    COLONEL SADLER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the new revised German tariff,
    † See page 818.
    1478
    and particularly to the complete change in the classification of iron and iron alloys and wares, which increases the duties on manufactured articles according to the amount of labour expended on them; and, if so, whether, in view of its effect on the British iron and steel industry, he will say what action he proposes to take.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): Representations with regard to the effect on British trade of the new German tariff, including the duties on iron and steel manufactures thereof, have already been addressed to the German Government on the lines of the Report of the Commercial Intelligence Committee (Appendix D. to Cd. 2044 of 1904). I fear that no useful purpose would be served by further representations at the present stage.

    Terms of Treaty with the Mullah.
    MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to inform the House of the terms of the treaty recently concluded with the Mullah.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): The provisional agreement signed at Berbera was, in substance, of the same character as that concluded by Monsieur Pestalozza, the provisions of which were announced by Signor Tittoni in the Chamber of Deputies, and correctly reported in The Times of April 15th. In so far as that treaty concerns this country, there are a few small points which still require elucidation and with regard to which we are in communication with the Italian Government.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Can the noble Lord state where the Mullah now is?
    EARL PERCY: He is in Italian territory.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked when the House might expect to have copies of the agreement.
    EARL PERCY: The agreement will be laid on the Table as soon as the explanations are received from the Italian Government.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then has not the treaty been concluded in consequence of the lack of explanations?
    EARL PERCY: The provisional treaty has been concluded.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can we have that?
    EARL PERCY: There can be no object inlaying the provisional agreement. It is merely the Italian agreement in a short form.

    Scottish Church Dispute
    MR. WALLACE: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that interdict has been applied for in regard to the West United Free Church, Perth, where, out of a membership of over 700, only three have joined the legal Free Church; and whether he will take steps to accelerate the introduction of the promised Scottish Churches Bill.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): I am aware that interdict has been applied for in the case of the church mentioned. I have no accurate knowledge as to the number of members of this congregation belonging to the United Free Church or the Free Church. I hope there will be no delay with regard to the promised Bill.

    Irish Teachers' Pension Fund.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will appoint a small Committee to inquire into the Irish Teacher Pension Fund, the adequacy of the present capital and Government contribution, the necessity or otherwise of increasing the pensions given, and of altering the conditions required for getting pension.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): I cannot see any sufficient reason for appointing a Committee until the results of the quinquen-
    1480
    nial valuation, which is to be held at the close of this year, are known.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: But could not a small Committee get the facts together? It is a most difficult subject.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I will consider that.

    Moyvore Postmastership.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on the recommendation of Lieutenant-Colonel Digby, Ballinacuna, Moyvore, county Westmeath, a police constable named O'Hara was appointed to the charge of the Moyvore Post Office; whether he is aware that on the death some five months ago of Mr. S. Forbes, the then postmaster of Moyvore, his widow and one of his daughters took charge of the Moyvore Post Office and gave satisfaction; and whether, in view of the fact that there has been no complaint against the management of the post office by these people, he will explain why they should be disturbed, and also if it is usual for police officers to hold such appointments.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that Mr. O'Hara was recommended to me by Colonel Digby. On the occurrence of the Vacancy, the claims of Mrs. Forbes and of all the candidates were considered, and the conclusion was come to that Mr. O'Hara was the best suited for the appointment, and he was appointed on the condition that he should retire from the Royal Irish Constabulary.

    Postage on Parcels addressed in Irish.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why parcels addressed in Irish are surcharged to letter post rate by a recent rule of the Post Office; and whether private instructions are issued to Post Office authorities directing that such surcharges be made and that the parcels be delayed as much as possible.
    LORD STANLEY: There is no rule such as that which the hon. Member describes, nor have any such instructions been issued.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: If I send the noble Lord definite facts will he take some steps to see that the Post Office officials do not repeat this conduct?
    LORD STANLEY: I am glad to hear from the hon. Member, but I may tell him beforehand I know perfectly well the case he will bring forward.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: And I know beforehand that the Answer the noble Lord will give will not be correct.

    Irish National Schools
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether Rule 127 (b) of the National Commissioners has been withdrawn or modified; and, if modified, what is the present form of the rule.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I beg to refer to my reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, put on Thursday last†
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the purport of that Answer?
    MR. WALTER LONG: That at the last meeting of the National Board of Education certain modifications were unanimously agreed to and that they had been forwarded to the Treasury
    MR. FLYNN: What is the objection to making them public now?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot say. I was under the impression that the modifications were generally approved.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Have the Treasury signified their approval?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have not had the answer yet.
    † See page 929.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that this was a matter of great importance to the people of Ireland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that the modifications were made public before they were approved by the Treasury. Why should there be secrecy or any hugger-mugger about the work of the National Board?
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was not aware, personally, of any reason; he was not responsible for the proceedings of the National Board, but would make inquiry.

    Irish Labourers' Cottages—Single Men's Claims
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the resolution passed by the Delvin Rural District Council, on April 21st last, in reference to observations made by the Local Government inspector, at a recent inquiry under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, to the effect that the Local Government Board would not sanction the building of houses for single men except under very special circumstances; if he is aware that a number of the applicants at the inquiry were unmarried men between twenty-one and thirty-five years of age, who mostly lived in overcrowded houses and were anxious to get cottages before getting married; and will he say if it is the rule or practice of the Local Government Board to refuse to sanction cottages for single men, and if he can state what statute sanctions such rule or practice.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The resolution has not been received. The fact that an applicant for a labourers cottage is unmarried is not a bar to the grant of a cottage if it be shown that other members of his family are living with, and dependent upon, him and that the house occupied by the family has been condemned as unfit for human habitation. Under the Labourers Act, local authorities are not bound to provide cottages for people about to marry.
    MR. HAYDEN: But have the Local Government Board given instructions to

    1483
    its inspectors, when holding inquiries, to reject the claims of unmarried men?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I must have notice of that.
    MR. HAYDEN: It is the very Question on the Paper.

    Goff Estate, County Roscommon.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why a letter addressed to the Estates Commissioners last October by Michael Gilleran, Maggie Gilleran, Patrick Gilleran, Patrick Kelly, Thomas Burke, Patrick Moran, and Michael Nolan, relative to an agreement entered into with them by Mr. Holmes, agent of the Goff Estate, Kennity, county Roscommon, when the above-named tenants arranged to buy under the Land Purchase Act, 1903, has not been answered; and whether the Commissioners will proceed at once to investigate the claims of the tenants for the carrying out of the agreement on which they purchased, namely, that Mr. Holmes should have fourteen acres of their land, which they state is often covered with water for nine months in the year, drained, so as to make their land of use to them; and will he say whether the land was ever inspected.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The lands in question have been inspected and reported on, but the letter referred to was not received until after the inspection had been made, and the matter, therefore, is not referred to in the report. The facts as to the alleged agreement will be inquired into before the advances are made.

    Trinity College Leases
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the subject of Trinity College leases; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of their recommendations and how far it is intended to act upon them.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Report has been recently received, and is at
    1484
    present under consideration. I cannot conveniently, within the limits of a reply to a Question, state the nature of the recommendations in the Report, and. would ask my hon. friend to await its presentation to Parliament.

    Clonakilty Agricultural Station.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Agricultural Department have recently acquired land at Clonakilty, in the county of Cork, for an agricultural institution; if they have placed the contract for iron and other buildings with Messrs. Speir, of Glasgow; if so, how much land has been acquired, at what price, what is the amount of Messrs. Speirs contract, and why was the same not given to an Irish firm; and when the Department intend to make prevision for corresponding educational facilities in Armagh, Down, Antrim, or Londonderry.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Department have not purchased any land at Clonakilty, but a farm of 347 acres has been placed at their disposal for the purposes of an agricultural station. A contract for iron buildings, amounting to £1,859, has been placed with the firm mentioned, whose offer the Department considered the best; and a contract for the remainder of the work, amounting to £483, has been given to a local contractor. The Department are not aware that there is any Irish firm which makes a speciality of the construction of iron buildings. Provision for agricultural instruction is being made at Ballyhaise, county Cavan, but the Department are at present unable to state when like provision will be made for the other Ulster counties named. The matter however, is engaging their attention, and they look forward to increasing in due time the number of these stations.

    House of Commons—Members' Writing Room
    COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the growing practice of Members turning down chairs to reserve places at the writing tables, while not using them at all or only at

    1485
    long intervals, is causing much inconvenience in the limited accommodation of the Libraries of the House; and whether he can see his way to recommending the appointment, discontinued since 1857, of a Library Committee to make rules like as the Kitchen Committee does for the dining-rooms.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)replied that this was not a matter within his Department, but if the hon. Member would wait till the return of Mr. Speaker, who was unfortunately absent from ill health, he would consult as to what could be done.

    Importation of Alien-made Goods
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the policy of the Government to take steps for the exclusion from this country of alien-made goods, as well as of alien persons.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The policy of this country is not to exclude aliens, but to exclude undesirable aliens; and we do, as a matter of fact, exclude undesirable goods.
    MR. BLACK: Then is the Government in favour of free imports?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not of undesirable goods.

    The Aliens Bill.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the protective character of the Aliens Bill, and to his pledge that nothing should be done to advance the policy of protection during the present Parliament, he intends to proceed with the further stages of the Bill.
    MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: Before the Question is answered, I desire to call the attention of the First Lord of the Treasury to its terms, and to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any ground for the statement that the Aliens Bill has been declared to be of a protective character, and whether such a declaration has been made by the Government or by any
    1486
    person authorised to speak on behalf of the Government.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether it will be necessary to answer the Question of my hon. friend behind me. It is sufficient to say I do not consider that the exclusion of lunatics and other undesirable aliens is a branch of the fiscal question.
    MR. LOUGH: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the Member for West Birmingham is authorised to declare what the nature of his own policy is, and. has he noticed the declaration of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who is a member of the Cabinet, that the Aliens Bill will put an end to a condition of things which displaces British labour.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The reasons why I desire to proceed with the measure were fully stated by me on the Second Reading. I do not think it is necessary for me in an Answer across the floor of the House to add anything to that statement.
    MR. LOUGH: But is the right hon. Gentleman not responsible for the declaration of a member of his own Cabinet?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member will put that down on the Paper I will answer it to-morrow.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman responsible for anything?

    PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
    Second Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896, ETC. CONTINUANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.), in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
MR. TREVELYANsaid he wished to move an

1487
Amendment to except from the operation of the Bill one of the Acts referred to in it, namely, the Tithe Rent-Charge Rates Act, 1899. This was a Bill of an entirely different character to the Agricultural Rating Act. It concerned a different part of the community to the farmers and the agricultural interest. It referred to the tithe rent-charge which was paid to the clergy of the Church of England. It was relief given to the clergy of the Church of England at the expense of the general ratepayer, by the remission of a large part of the rates upon their tithes. When the Bill was introduced it was opposed from his side of the House as vigorously—and with additional reason—as was the Agricultural Rates Act. It was alleged in support of the Bill by the Government that the clergy of the Church of England were, in many parts and in the rural districts especially, very poor, and that they deserved consideration at the hands of the country, that their rates were rising on the tithe rent-charge, and that out of consideration for them, a large part of those rates ought to be remitted. The measure was opposed on the ground that the Church of England was the richest Church in the world, that it was a Church which from the private subscriptions of its supporters ought to have been able to make good any deficiencies which might occur owing to the larger charges on the rent-charges resulting from the rise of rates. They pointed out that the original tithes, of which the commuted tithe rent-charge was the direct successor, were, in the first instance, given very largely to the poor, but that as time went on they became devoted more exclusively to the Church, and it was urged that in view of that fact, and in view also of the fact that at the time of the passing of the Tithes Commutation Act the question of the amount of rates "paid on the tithe was taken into consideration, and the amount was decided in view of those facts,—it was urged that the clergy ought to have been content to go on paying charges which had been borne up to that time by the tithe they were drawing.
As a matter of fact, when the Tithe Commutation Act was passed and when the arrangement was made which fixed
1488
the amount of the tithe, the rates throughout the rural districts were actually higher on the average than they now were. The rates at that time averaged 3s. 8d. in the £., and certainly in rural districts they were not more than 2s. 6d. before the passing of the Education Act, and taking into consideration that Act they could not possibly be above 3s. in the £. It appeared to them it would have been better for the clergy of the Church of England to have relied on the voluntary efforts of those who supported them, as did the ministers of other churches throughout the country. It might be pointed out that there was an additional reason in the last few years for revising the decision which the House of Commons then came to and that was, that since the last Agricultural Rates Continuance Act—which included this Bill—was passed the Education Act of 1902 had been put on the Statute-book, by which the Church of England had been relieved of a very large part of those subscriptions which they formerly devoted to their schools, and which might now, with advantage, be handed over to the clergy. Lastly, he would point out in reference to the Bill, that while it professed to be a Bill for the relief of poor clergy, it distributed something like £100,000 broadcast among the Church of England clergy, and the greater part of that money did not go to the poorest clergymen. Like the Agricultural Rates Act, it was indiscriminate in its relief, and it really did not assist those who most needed help. The relief given under it was a gift from the general taxpayers' pocket to a particular class, and as such they objected to it, and in opposition to it as such he begged to move his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 6, after the word 'effect,' to insert the words 'except in respect of The Tithe Rent-Charge (Rates) Act, 1899.' "—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said he was astonished that this Motion should have

1489
been brought forward without having been placed on the Paper. They had a whole day's discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill, and, as far as he could remember, the question of excluding the Tithe Rent-Charge Act was not once mentioned in the course of that debate, yet the hon. Member now came down to the House, and without the slightest notice proposed that that Act should be excluded from the operation of the Bill. The hon. Member had given no reason for his Amendment, or, at any rate, he had heard absolutely none, except the single, one that by the Education Act of 1902 so much had been done for the schools of the Church of England that less subscriptions than heretofore would be expected from the supporters of that Church.
MR. TREVELYAN: No; what I intended to convey was that the voluntary subscriptions which previously went to the schools might very well now be given to the clergy.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he did not think that that very much improved the position. Did the hon. Member seriously suggest to the House that the clergy of the Church of England ought in future to be made more dependent than heretofore upon the subscriptions of their parishioners. They had not hitherto derived their income from that source and they, on that side of the House at any rate, were not prepared for one moment to support the idea. He would like to remind the House in connection with this proposal that the Act which the hon. Member was led to exclude was based on the Report of a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the question of local taxation, and that one of the members of that Commission who differed from his colleagues on almost every other subject agreed with them that tithe rent-charge attached to benefices should enjoy the same privileges as agricultural land. He might, too, remind the Committee that tithe rent charge had already been included, together with agricultural land, in the exemptions from rating under the Public Health Acts. It was, in fact, treated on the same footing as agricultural land, and he failed to see any reason whatever
1490
why such an exception should be made as had been proposed. He trusted the Committee would reject the Amendment of the hon. Member.
MR. PURVISsaid that the Amendment was moved for reasons which the House fully appreciated, and that the question of tithe rent-charge had been imported for a specific reason, although it was very remote from the subject-matter of the Bill.
MR. TREVELYAN: It is in the Bill.
MR. PURVISsaid the Bill, the renewal of which they were discussing, was most carefully debated when it was originally before the House, and he remembered that in 1896, for no less that twenty-one hours at a stretch, the House was engaged in discussing it. The question of tithe rent-charge, like many other questions connected with local taxation, was too remote for a practical House like the Mother of Parliaments to attend to at that moment. Times had changed very much since 1896, when they discussed the Agricultural Rates Act. Since then a Royal Commission had given its Report, and he submitted that the most practical thing they could do would be to act on the specific recommendations of that Commission without allowing this red herring to be drawn across the trail. He did not wish to say anything objectionable, but he might use an expression which he had heard in the North, and tell the hon. Member that he must put his red herring into his pocket. The Committee had met that day for a specific object, and in these times, when revolution was in the air in regard to ideas of land taxation, it would be an appalling and even a disastrous thing to allow what was already the law of the land to be thus changed. It would be most inexpedient and unworkmanlike for the Committee to allow itself to be drawn aside in the immediate presence of a great revolution in regard to rates and taxes by allowing this Amendment to be passed. It would make confusion worse confounded if any such thing were permitted, and he was quite convinced that hon. Members on that side of the House knew full well what the reasons were which induced hon. Members opposite to bring

1491
forward such an Amendment. It was simply intended to promote sectarian and Party purposes.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he really could not understand why the President of the Local Government Board and the hon. Member for Peterborough had expressed such extreme horror and astonishment at the action of the hon. Member for Elland in moving his Amendment without notice. Naturally they disagreed with its object, but the hon. Member had acted entirely in accordance with practice, and he failed to see why special complaint should be made against him. With regard to the Amendment, he thought it was fair to argue that tithe rent-charge in its essential elements differed from the other hereditaments which had enjoyed the benefit of these exemptions, and that the laity of the Church of England should be asked to do more than they now did to support their own clergy, after the manner of the Nonconformists. A Bishop of the Church of England made a speech only the other day in which he declared that the comparison between the voluntary subscriptions to the Church of England and to other denominations should make the laity of the Church of England ashamed of themselves.
MR. CHAPLINsaid the noble Lord had declared it was the right of any Member to move an Amendment which was in order when it pleased him. Of course it was, but his complaint was that the bon. Member for Elland had taken an extremely unusual course. Nobody would deny that. Here they had a Bill practically accepted by the larger number of Members opposite, and to which a certain number of Amendments had been on the Paper for some days, y et at the last moment they had sprung upon them an Amendment with reference to a matter to which no allusion was made in the course of the Second Reading debate. He thought that under the circumstances the criticisms of the President of the Local Government Board were perfectly legitimate. His right hon. friend had said that only one reason had been advanced in support of the Amendment, but as a matter of fact there were two others which he personally
1492
thought were absolutely futile. No doubt it was true that when the Bill was introduced in the first instance the opposition to the proposal regarding tithe rent-charge was as great and as bitter as to the Agricultural Rating Act it self. But he did not consider that a sufficient reason for continuing the opposition to the Bill now. Then another reason advanced was that this was the richest Church in the whole world. He was not sure of that fact, but he was sure that the revenues derived from this particular source had fallen enormously in late years, and, therefore, that reason lost force. He sincere trusted that the hon. Member would not persevere with an Amendment which, to-his mind, was uncalled for in the extreme.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford preach the doctrine that an Amendment in Committee ought to be given notice of before the Committee stage was-reached.
MR. CHAPLIN: I did not say that; I said nothing of the kind.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: You endorsed the complaint that had been made of the way in which the Amendment had been brought forward.
MR. CHAPLIN: I said that, under the circumstances which I specified, the course adopted by the hon. Member was unusual in the extreme, and I do not think that that can be denied.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he thought it was very usual indeed to move an Amendment in Committee without giving any notice of it. He had even seen the Government bring forward proposals in regard to the Standing Orders of that House without any notice whatever. There were occasions on which notice could not be given. As a matter of fact, hon. Members often did not examine Bills until the day they were coming on for discussion; and it was perfectly conceivable that the hon. Member who moved this Amendment only thought of it as he came into the House that afternoon. But, apart from the merits of the Amendment, he had

1493
some objection to the Bill. First, he objected because it was a very special instance of illusive, referential legislation. It proposed to renew one Act, but, as a matter of fact, it would actually renew four other Acts, and thus they would be renewing in one Bill—in one very short clause of four lines—five Acts of Parliament altogether. So far as he could see, there was no reason why the hon. Member should not move to except the other Acts. It certainly was putting the House in a very awkward position in calling on it to discuss five Acts when only one was actually before it in the Bill. Again, he ventured to point out that every one of these five Acts was founded upon an absolutely false system of finance, because the payments in respect of them were obtained by anticipation, and every farthing was excluded from the national accounts. This raised a very large financial question. The particular amount which would be affected by the operation of this Bill was comparatively small. Reference to the Finance Act would show that probably about £1,500,000 was paid in respect of the Agricultural Rates Act in the year 1894, in addition to £119,000 in connection with the tithe rent-charge. But his objection applied to the manner in which the money was raised, because it was most unconstitutionally intercepted from the Revenue on its way to the Exchequer. He submitted that that was a most irregular method of raising money, for the Bill escaped the usual financial guarantees relating to money Bills. There was no doubt, as the hon. Member for Peterborough had said, that the most pressing need of the day was the reconstitution and recasting of the whole of our rating system, and this was a consequence of their having neglected it for so many years, in spite of repeated promises from both sides of the House to attend to it.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That subject is not in order in discussing this Amendment.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid his desire was to point out that this was a most inopportune moment for dealing with this question, because the renewal of
1494
Acts of this nature prevented them dealing with much more serious questions which were becoming most pressing, and he hoped that the attention of the Government would be given to them. In regard to these particular Acts the principle had been agreed to long ago, it had twice been approved by the House and he, therefore, agreed with the right hon. Gentleman behind him that the Act ought to again be renewed. He could not, however, allow it to be renewed without making one more protest against the evil which Bills of this nature produced. He protested against them as illusive, referential legislation, and as perpetuating the grossly false and misleading financial system of anticipating revenue and not allowing it to pass into the Exchequer.
MR. DILLONsaid he understood that the object of the Amendment was to withdraw from tithe rent-charge in this country the rating exemption it had hitherto enjoyed. The Bill did not apply to Ireland, although they had tithe rent-charge there. But the difference between the two countries was, whereas in England tithe recharge went to the support of the clergy, in Ireland it was paid into a great public fund which was reserved for public uses. In England the rating relief was fully extended to the tithe rent-charge because it was the property of a powerful and influential Church; but in Ireland, because it went to a fund held in trust for the general benefit of the country, no such relief was granted to it. Under these circumstances there was a good deal to be said for the Amendment. Personally he took an active part with the Radical Party in opposing the Agricultural Rating Act, because he believed the principle embodied in it to be essentially vicious financially as well as demoralising, and he remembered he was among those who were suspended in the course of the discussion. The evil of such an Act as the Agricultural Rating Act was that, once passed, the mischief could never be undone. Vested interests grew up and the Act could never be repealed. The whole system of equivalent grants was bad; and the sum they received in Ireland might be infinitely better disposed

1495
of than it now was. Too much of it went into the pockets of the landlords.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That question does not arise on this Amendment.
MR. DILLONadmitted it had nothing to do with it, but he was explaining the reasons which induced him to support the Amendment, and was explaining there was no analogous relies in Ireland to that given to England under this Bill.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: But the hon. Gentleman has no right on this Amendment to discuss the system obtaining in Ireland.
MR. DILLONsubmitted that he was absolutely in order in drawing an argument from the Irish system and in arguing that the principle which was applied to Ireland should be made to apply to England. He would not, however, pursue the matter further.
MR. TALBOTsaid he had no desire to prolong the discussion, but he would like to point out that whilst hon. Gentlemen opposite did not appear to have very strong objection to this Bill the Amendment raised a very serious issue. Tithe rent-charge had an intimate connection with the question of agricultural land, and they could not separate the rating of tithe rent-charge from the rating on such land. To divorce one from the other as a subject for exemption would be to do injury to a very deserving and certainly not a wealthy class of men, viz., the rural clergy. He was not going to discuss the question whether or not more should be done by voluntary effort to augment their incomes; on this point he was largely in agreement with what had been said by the noble Lord, but he did wish to draw attention to the fact that this Amendment, if carried, would inflict a great hardship upon the class to whom he had referred, some of whom he had the honour to represent in that House, and so great a change to their detriment in a Bill largely non-contentious ought not to be sprung upon the House in the way in which it had been. He appealed to the hon. Member in the interest of
1496
the courtesies of debate not to press his Amendment.
MR. EMMOTTadmitted the difficulty arising from the fact that this point had been raised so suddenly, out he thought it was going a little too far to say that it showed a lack of courtesy to the House on the part of the hon. Member for Elland. It was not unusual and it was not against the rules, and, therefore, he thought enough had been said upon the point. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke had told them that they could not logically separate the rating of tithe from the agricultural rating generally, but he believed the separation was already made so far as lay tithe was concerned, because the Bill only dealt with tithe paid to the Church of England. That argument, therefore, fell to the ground. He was the last man in the world to desire to adopt a policy of pin-pricks towards the Church of England, and he thought that sometimes, perhaps, that course was adopted on his side of the House. He desired to dissociate himself entirely from it; but, on the other hand, the worst thing that could be done for the Church, was to pass special legislation of this character, which was felt as a hardship by a great many of the people of the country. There were other hardships in connection with rating to which he need not refer, and this question of the rating of tithe might surely have been left until the larger question of rating was dealt with. The other day they had brought before the House another rating question in connection with East Ham, and the Prime Minister in speaking on it told East Ham that it ought to cut its coat according to its cloth. Now that argument went a very long way when they were dealing with the question of rates, and it might be applied to tithe as well as to other matters. He did think the Government had made a very great mistake in trying to pass a measure regarding clerical tithe without dealing with the whole question of rating upon a broad basis. They were told that a revolution was approaching. That was exactly the point—the revolution took such a desperately long time in coming. He would not care if there was any chance

1497
of its coming within the next year or two, but he was not sure that they would get it so soon, and, because the policy of relieving certain classes and omitting to give relief to other classes was being adopted, he should support his hon. friend if he went to a division.
MR. A. K. LOYDrose to make a protest against the way in which this Amendment had been brought forward. It was a very serious matter. The hon. Member for Elland put down an Amendment at the last minute, when the House had assembled under the belief that they were going to discuss a totally different matter. The matter he charged himself with was a matter requiring the most careful study and impartial statement, and yet he furnished himself with all the fallacies which had been exploded over and over again, and he fired them off at the clergy of a Church with which his Party had no sympathy, making his attack under circumstances which, rendered it almost impossible that justice should be done to the rural clergy throughout the country. But the hon. Member had undertaken a job which was too big for him. He had not really gone into the matter; if he had, he would have found that it was not a case of giving relief to the clergy at the expense of the general ratepayers at all, The relies was given out of the Local Taxation Account in order that it might not be taken at the expense of the other ratepayers of the parish from which the tithe was drawn. The hon. Member had said it was alleged by the Government in support of the Bill that the clergy were very poor, and in consequence this relief ought to be given to them. He did not know where the hon. Member was at the time the Bill was discussed. He spoke very positively, but that certainly was not the ground on which the Bill was advocated by the Government.
MR. TREVELYAN: I remember the debate very well. The hon. Member is stating the arguments which his side used. I have stated those which were advanced on our side.
MR. A. K. LOYDregretted that the hon. Member had so entirely lost recollection of what took place. He had no hesita-
1498
tion in saying that the "poverty of the clergy" was not the ground advanced, and there was no Government of modern times which could push through the House of Commons a Bill to compensate a number of persons because they were poor. The thing was absurd on the face of it. The "poverty of the clergy" might have been one of the expressions used in the course of the debate, but it certainly was not the ground on which the Bill was brought in. The real ground was that as long ago as 1840 a grievance existed about the way in which the clergy were rated, and that grievance was acknowledged by Mr. Gladstone, the Poor Law Commissioners, and Sir George Cornewall Lewis. It was one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners who at that time insisted that the grievance was one which ought to be looked into, and when the Bill of 1840 was passed there was an express undertaking that it should be dealt with, but such was the helpless condition of the clergy that they had been swindled from that time to this. The clergy of the Church of England were not able to fight for themselves in a matter of this kind, and in consequence it was a notorious fact that they had had to submit to a gross injustice all these years. The old fallacy that rates were taken into consideration at the time of the commutation had been exploded over and over again, and he asserted it was a monstrous shame that such a charge should be brought out simply for the purpose of belabouring the clergy of a Church with which the hon. Gentleman was not in sympathy. He noticed that the noble Lord the Member for Cricklade was much more careful of the way in which he put the matter, for he admitted the difficulty of the subject. The real facts were that when the returns were-sent in for the purposes of commutation it was found that there were a number of cases in which the tenant paid the rates and deducted the amount from the tithe. It was true that that was brought into the calculation, but there was not one particle of truth in the assertion that the general question of rates was taken into account. There was a real grievance in this matter. The Royal Commission had reported in favour of this relief, and consequently everything said

1499
against this Bill was equally directed against the Royal Commission He protested most earnestly against this matter being brought forward without notice in order to snatch an advantage against the rural clergy who for so many years had been suffering under the grievance relieved by this Bill.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken entirely misunderstood the case. This Amendment was not brought forward from any special antagonism to the Church, or with any idea of attacking the Church. The present rating system inflicted great injustice on many classes of people, and if one class was dealt with all should be dealt with. That was the foundation of the opposition to the Agricultural Rates Act and to the Tithe Rent-Charge Act. It was true that many of the country clergy were poor, but it might equally be said that many livings were paid much better than the services of the clergy demanded. But that was not the point. The clergy had their rating grievance in common with many other classes, and the only reason for their being singled out for relief was that they were poor.
MR. A. K. LOYD: It was on account of this specific grievance.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERheld that many other classes had specific grievances, and would doubtless have been singled out for relief if they had had the additional claim of poverty. There was a great difference between the two Bills here concerned. The depression in agriculture was injurious not only to the class employed, but to the whole country, because land was being driven out of cultivation, so that
a strong case could be made out for the relief of those who paid rates on agricultural land. But in the case of the clergy the whole of the tithe might be taken away without the country as a whole being a penny the worse. Therefore the two Acts were on an entirely different footing. He agreed that the tithe rent-charge should be treated in the same way in England as in Ireland. In the latter country it had been left unrelieved, and he failed to see why the relief should be renewed in England. He submitted that the question had been brought forward in a thoroughly constitutional way. The House was in Committee, and this was a small question, and he failed to see how the supporters of the clergy could complain because the matter had been brought on. Seeing that so many hon. Members took so much interest in the matter it was perhaps a pity that the Amendment had not been placed on the Paper, but that was no reason why it should not be considered. Exceptional legislation with regard to rates was mischievous and dangerous. Every time the rating question was dealt with piecemeal it deferred the day when justice should be introduced into the whole rating system, and for that reason he would oppose all measures for altering the rating system piecemeal. He trusted that before long the question of rating would he forced upon the Government and that it would be dealt with in such a way as to do justice to all classes. By supporting such Amendments as the one before the Committee he believed they would be taking a step towards securing that justice for all.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 138; Noes, 217. (Division List No. 153.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Brigg, John

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Crooks, William

Allen, Charles P.

Burt, Thomas

Cullinan, J.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Dalziel, James Henry

Austin, Sir John

Caldwell, James

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cameron, Robert

Delany, William

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Benn, John Williams

Cawley, Frederick

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Black, Alexander William

Cheetham, John Frederick

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Blake, Edward

Clancy, John Joseph

Dillon, John

Boland, John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Dobbie, Joseph

Donelan, Captain A.

Lamont, Norman

Power, Patrick Joseph

Doogan, P. C.

Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)

Price, Robert John

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Reddy, M.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Edwards, Frank

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Richards, Thomas (W. Momn'th

Ellice, Capt EC (S Andrw'sBghs

Levy, Maurice

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

Lough, Thomas

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lundon, W.

Roche, John

Farrell, James Patrick

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Runciman, Walter

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Crae, George

Shackleton, David James

Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

M'Fadden, Edward

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

M'Kenna, Reginald

Sheehy, David

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Mooney, John J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Flynn, James Christopher

Moss, Samuel

Soares, Ernest J.

Fuller, J. M. F.

Murnaghan, George

Sullivan, Donal

Gilhooly, James

Murphy, John

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hammond, John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Harcourt, Lewis

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Harrington, Timothy

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thompson, Dr EC(Monagh'n, N.

Hayden, John Patrick

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Higham, John Sharp

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Whitley, J. H (Halifax)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

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

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf d

Johnson, John

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Young, Samuel

Joicey, Sir James

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Yoxall, James Henry

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

O'Shaughnessy, P.J.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Shee, James John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Trevelyan and Mr. Emmott.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Parrott, William

Jordan, Jeremiah

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Joyce, Michael

Perks, Robert William

Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W

Pirie, Duncan V.

NOES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

Fison, Frederick William

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Ark wright, John Stanhope

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Flower, Sir Ernest

Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A (Wore.

Forster, Henry William

Arrol, Sir William

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S.W.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Chapman, Edward

Gardner, Ernest

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hn. Sir H.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Garfit, William

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Coates, Edward Feetham

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Baird, John George Alexander

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Balcarres, Lord

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gorst, Rt Hon Sir John Eldon

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

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Graham, Henry Robert

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Gretton, John

Balfour, Kenneth R (Christch.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

Gunter, Sir Robert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashf'rd

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Harris, Dr. Fredk R. (Dulwich)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Davenport, William Bromley

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Heath, Sir James (Staffords N W

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Bill, Charles

Doughty, Sir George

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Bond, Edward

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hobhouse, Rt Hn H. (Somers't, E

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hogg, Lindsay

Boulnois, Edmund

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Hope, J.F. (Shemeld, Brightside

Bowles, Lt-Col. HF (Middlesex)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Howard, John (Kent, F'verh'm

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasgow)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Campbell, J H M (Dublin Univ.

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

Hunt, Rowland

Carson Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fisher, William Hayes

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

1502

1503

Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Kerr, John

Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

Spear, John Ward

Keswick, William

Morpeth, Viscount

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Morrison, James Archibald

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Knowles, Sir Lees

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Stanley, Rt Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Mount, William Arthur

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

Myers, William Henry

Stroyan, John

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks NR

Parkes, Ebenezer

Talbot, Rt Hn. J G. (Oxfd Univ.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead

Pemberton, John S. G.

Tollemache, Henry James

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Percy, Earl

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Pierpoint, Robert

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Tuff, Charles

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Turnour, Viscount

Long, Rt. Rn Walter (Bristol, S.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Walker, Col. William Hall

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Walrond, Rt Hn Sir William H.

Lowe, Francis William

Purvis, Robert

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Randles, John S.

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

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Rankin, Sir James

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

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Macdona, John Cumming

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Maconochie, A. W.

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Majendie, James A. H.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wilson-Todd, Sir W H (Yorks.)

Malcolm, Ian

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E R (Bath)

Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E.(Wigt'n

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Maxwell, W J. H. (Dumfriesshire

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Wylie, Alexander

Middlemore, John Thr'gm'rton

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Younger, William

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse

Milner, Rt Hn Sir Frederick G.

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Viscount Valentia.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

MR. BLACKsaid the Amendment he proposed emphasised the necessity of making this Act purely temporary in its character. When the principal Act was introduced it was denounced as a gross and flagrant instance of class legislation, and it had supplied doles totalling £2,500,000, which amounted to 5s. per household of the population. Therefore the labourer earning 15s. a week had to work two days a year in order to provide this dole to the wealthy landlords. He did not move his Amendment having in view any proposal for a root-and-branch repeal of the original Act, because, as in the case of individuals, if an ill-considered course was embarked upon it was much more difficult to alter that course than to enter upon it. What was true of the individual was still more true when they came to deal with public questions affecting a great many rating
1504
authorities. Once they established vested interests they could not all at once repeal and alter the measure which created them. They would either have to make any alteration gradually, or make it as part of a general alteration of the rating system. He moved this Amendment because the reform he had alluded to was largely overdue. The Government ought to have undertaken the recasting of the rating system at an earlier date. The Royal Commission upon Local Rating, presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, was appointed in August, 1896, and reported in May 1901; and they had now reached May, 1905 without a single step having been taken to give effect to the recommendations of that Commission. Legislation dealing with the whole recasting of the rating system in England and Scotland was largely overdue and ought to be undertaken before the expiration of

1505
the next four years, for which period the principal Act was being extended by this Bill.
Apart from the general recasting of the rating system and what might be called piecemeal legislation, there were several matters of detail which ought to receive early attention either at the hands of the present Government or the Government that was likely to succeed them. Complaints were forthcoming from all parts of the country that the method of distribution of the grant under the principal Act was inequitable and worked badly. In every case where the parish rate had been raised the system of distribution adopted both in England and Scotland under the principal Act had operated very injuriously because the system of distribution was that the rates contributed in 1896 should form the criterion for the distribution of the grant-in-aid. Where there had been an increase the result was that the grant conferred by the principal Act had been insufficient to meet the shortage in the rates upon agricultural land. In the case of Scotland, with which he was most familiar, although it applied to both countries equally, he understood that the effect of the principal Act was to restrict the rateable value of agricultural land to three-fifths of the true value appearing in the valuation roll, and in order to make good the deficiency of the rateable value thus created the subvention provided for in the principal Act was granted on the basis of 1896.
Take the case of a parish whose valuation had been going up, and whose valuation was, say, £15,000 in 1896, composed to the extent of £3,000 of rating upon buildings, and to the extent of £12,000 of rating upon agricultural land, and let it be supposed that in such a case the amount required to be raised by rates had risen by £375, the net result of applying the Act was to transfer from the shoulders of the agricultural ratepayers to the shoulders of the urban ratepayers a proportion of the burden which would otherwise have been borne by the agricultural ratepayers. In the case supposed, where the amount required had risen £375 the burden would have been borne to the extent of £75 by the urban rate-
1506
payers, and to the extent of £300 by the agricultural ratepayers, but under the Act as applied the urban ratepayers had to pay £125, and the rural ratepayers had only to pay £250, with the result that the urban occupiers had to pay nearly double the amount which they would, otherwise have done. He was assured that was not an isolated case, In that particular the Act required modification. It would be convenient that in passing this Continuance Act the Government should feel itself free in such a matter of detail. The Amendment was not necessarily directed against the principle of the measure.
Take another illustration of how unjustly the original Act operated—the case of a parish whose rates had fallen. There was a parish within his own knowledge which had a poor rate of 1s. 4d. falling upon occupiers in 1896. The rate h id fallen in the meantime, with the result that the subvention given under the principal Act paid the whole of the poor rate and entirely relieved the occupiers. Surely that was a very anomalous and extraordinary result. Then in another parish the subvention was paid for the rate which was imposed in 1896, but which had since been taken off, so that the parish actually got from the grant under the Act payment in respect of a rate it did not levy. That also seemed to be a very anomalous result. Therefore he submitted it should be made perfectly clear that the continuation of the Act was only temporary, that it might be amended during the four years, and that it should in any case be amended at the end of four years.
He desired also to draw attention to the necessity for dealing in a different way with site values. He understood that when the principal Act was under discussion this matter was raised and discussed, but, as the Committee had been more than once reminded in the course of the debate, matters had progressed since 1896. A Royal Commission had sat and taken evidence, and there was appended to the Report of the Commission a vary weighty and important recommendation by a minority of their number, including so good a Conservative as Lord Balfour of Burleigh, pointing out that site value should not be rated on the same basis

1507
as agricultural land and that it ought to bear an additional burden. What was the present position with regard to site values and agricultural rating? However much ground might have a value, over and above its agricultural value, that additional value attaching to it by the proximity of population was not subjected either to Imperial or local taxation. The population of large towns was pressing out to the suburbs anxious for land, and they found that the land was held by speculators. He instanced a case which had come under his own observation in Edinburgh. A piece of land there was feued for a feu-duty of £2,000 a year. There was no building on the ground; it was only occupied as agricultural land.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are dealing only with agricultural land at present.
MR. BLACK: With all deference it is a rating Bill for agricultural land, but I am going to show that under the Act which is being renewed certain land is treated as agricultural land. I am adducing that as a reason why the Continuance Act should be made temporary.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is out of order to have a discussion on that matter on this occasion. This is a Continuance Bill and the question is whether the Act should be continued or not.
MR. BLACK: With great deference my point is that the principal Act, being a faulty Act, should not be continued for four years. The extension should be plainly only until something better can be done. I am surely in order in saying that the Act is a faulty Act. I am only showing why it should not be extended definitely for four years.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that is outside of the scope of the Act altogether.
MR. DALZIELasked whether it would not be in order to urge that the Act ought to be made temporary on the ground that site values should be dealt with in the meantime.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I think that would be out of order.
MR. BLACK: Of course, I must bow to your ruling, but I think it is wrong. [Cries of "Order."]
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to challenge the ruling of the Chairman.
MR. BLACK: I bow to it at all events. The Continuance Act, the hon. Member submitted, should be so framed as to make it plain to all parties called upon to contract under it that it might be altered in the course of the four years. Hundreds of contracts would be made during the next four years throughout the country, and thousands of rates would be fixed on the terms of this Act. Was the measure to be temporary during the four years, or was it to be recast during that period? It should be explicitly stated what the duration was to be. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 6, after the word 'if,' to insert the words 'for a period not to extend beyond the thirty-first day of March.' "—(Mr. Black.)
Question proposed, That those words be there inserted.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the mover of the Amendment was a lawyer, but he could not help thinking that the hon. Member had formed an extraordinary idea in respect to the powers of Parliament. He seemed to think that if this Amendment were introduced, it would be quite competent to do that which otherwise it would not be competent—to alter the Act in the next four years. He further seemed to think it would be impossible for Parliament to pass a further Continuance Bill after the year 1910. Those were very extraordinary propositions to come from a lawyer.
MR. BLACK: I did not advance them, I may say.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid if the hon. Gentleman did not advance them the effect of his Amendment was nil.

1509
It would not make any difference whatever in the Act the House of Commons had now to pass. There was another point to which he should like to call the attention of the hon. Member, namely, that if the Act as drafted was passed the effect would be that the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, would be extended to March 31st, 1910. If the hon. Member's Amendment were accepted the Act would be extended "for a period not to extend beyond the 3lst day of March" in whatever year might be substituted for 1910 by the hon. Gentleman. He himself did not know whether it would have the effect of extending the Act or not. The Committee would observe that the hon. Gentleman did not say that the Act should be extended for a certain period; he merely proposed that the Act should not be extended for more than a certain period. He himself was not a lawyer, but be was free to confess that if the Amendment were passed he should not know whether the Act had been continued or not. It seemed to him to be a very serious and substantial objection to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment that he had practically asked the Committee to introduce words which, in his opinion, would bind either a subsequent Parliament, or this Parliament at a later date. It was impossible for any Act passed through this House to bind either the same Parliament or a future Parliament, and on that ground he submitted that the hon. Member's Amendment would make no practical difference. The hon. Member might say that he desired to introduce a warning to agricultural ratepayers that in the opinion of this Parliament at the present time it was inexpedient to continue the Act beyond a certain date, but the suggestion of the hon. Member appeared to him to be wholly out of place. Even supposing it was in the power of this Parliament to bind its successors, was it a desirable thing to do? It seemed to him that it would be an eminently undesirable thing to do. This Bill did meet a very serious grievance. Supposing it was in the power of this Parliament to bind its successors, it appeared to him that it would be an undesirable thing to do. They were all agreed that this Bill did
1510
meet a very serious grievance. Would it be desirable at the end of four years, granting they had the power to bind themselves not to continue this Act, even though a comprehensive scheme of reform of local taxation had been passed? It would be the height of folly. When the Second Reading of this Bill was being discussed the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs stated that a measure which had lasted for nine years ought not to be abruptly brought to a termination. But supposing this Bill were continued for two or four years longer, the argument of the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs would be all the stronger. He could not accept the Amendment, which appeared to him to be absurd.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEthought, they were all agreed that his hon. friend had made out a very good ground for bringing forward his Amendment. On both sides of the House it was admitted that the existing law of rating was most unsatisfactory and urgently called for redress. As he understood, the object of his friend was to place certain words on the Paper, and get them incorporated in the Act, which would, as far as possible, bind Parliament with in a period of four years to legislate upon this question in a shape, not temporary, but permanent. Although he quite recognised the excellence of the object and intention of his hon. friend, he very much doubted whether it was really possible, from a constitutional point of view, to mortgage the time of our Parliamentary posterity. Even if the Bill passed as it had been presented by the Government, and if within the period of four years Parliament succeeded in passing a financia1 measure for the reform of local taxation, it would be within the constitutional rights of Parliament to repeal an Act of this kind, for it was well known that Parliament was supreme and could do anything, as the saying was, except turn a man into a woman, or a woman into a man. He believed his hon. friend would serve no object in pressing his Amendment. They were all agreed that this Bill was a temporary measure and that nothing

1511
they could do could bind the hands of their successors.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he would support the Amendment of his hon. friend. Any Amendment which would shorten the duration of the Act or bring pressure upon Parliament in the future to deal with the whole question of local taxation he considered laudable. The Government would have done better if they had asked for a yearly renewal. If he had been on the Government side of the House he would have tried to get the Government to regard it as a temporary measure, and renew it year by year until the whole question of local taxation was dealt with. But that might be when, in the whirligig of time, a large Liberal majority was returned to this House which were stronger in their principles than some of his hon. friends. They might say, if a proposal were made to renew the Act again: "Oh, no; the land has had its run, and it is high time that these doles should cease until everyone can join in." He suggested that his hon. friend should withdraw his Amendment, and another should be proposed for a yearly renewal. In that case he did not think there would be much opposition to it from that side of the House.
MR. SPEARsaid he hoped the Government would resist the Amendment. Although the Act fell short in some respects, yet in the main they believed it gave to the agricultural industry some degree of relief, which it justly required and demanded. Agriculturists did not want this to be a permanent settlement. They claimed it was merely carrying oat the recommendation of the Royal Commission, who saw the injustice which the agricultural classes suffered. They claimed still that the relief was inadequate, and they were as anxious as any section of the community, not only in the interests of agriculturists, but also of the trading classes, whom they recognised had a grievance, that there should be a complete rearrangement of the basis of local taxation. They welcomed this measure, and were not afraid to have the question reopened, because they were satisfied that the more closely the question was examined
1512
into the more just and equitable it would be found. But he objected to the Amendment because the impression created by it in the minds of agriculturists would be that the hon. Gentleman wanted to curtail the advantage given by the Second Reading of the Act. The removal of the unjust burden from agriculturists was due not only to the farmer, but it did something to retard rural depopulation, and in the interests of the whole community it was an essential measure of justice. The agriculturists only accepted it as a temporary arrangement, however, and if a rearrangement of local taxation could be made next year certainly the advantage under this Bill would go, and therefore he failed to see the use of the Amendment. As it would probably take three or four years to deal with the question of local taxation, the Amendment would cause unrest, and lead agriculturists to feel there was a possibility, if Liberals came into office, of their being deprived of this simple measure of justice.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid he had voted for the Second Reading of this Bill, but he wished to say a few words in support of this Amendment. He would not have voted for the original Act, but it had been in force for nearly ten years, and when one realised that in the county of Cumberland, for instance, twenty per cent, of the farms had been estimated to change hands annually, one saw that in nine years rents having adjusted themselves, to withdraw suddenly the grant under the Act would be to inflict a great hardship upon the occupying tenants. But, none the less, although he voted for the renewal, he felt that this question of the overhauling of the rating system was among the most pressing and important work which Parliament could undertake, and his objection to the lengthened period proposed was that for four years the subject would be withdrawn from the consideration of the House, and his desire was that the Bill should be brought up as often as possible, until permanently settled. It was for that reason he supported the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill said it made no difference whether this Amendment was

1513
carried or not in its effect upon the action of the House, but it seemed to him that if this Amendment were carried the Act would come up automatically until the subject was dealt with. It had been urged that if it came up yearly the agriculturists would never know whether the Bill was going to be renewed or not for another year, but he did not know that that would be any great disadvantage from the point of view of the occupying farmers. If the tenants were to derive benefits from this Act it was essential that it should be understood that it was not permanent but only temporary, pending a final and equitable settlement.
SIR CARNE RASCHsaid that one was not often surprised at anything that happened in that House with regard to agriculture, but he confessed that he was astonished to see hon. Members of the House interested in land righting for the limitation of the Rating Act. One was surprised to hear the other night hon. Members getting up and speaking against the Rating Act and then walking out without voting. He could not understand why hon. Gentlemen desired to limit the operation of the statute to two years, and did not know whether they thought they were going to have the millenium and a new Heaven and a new Earth at that time, or that they thought that then they would be on the right and they on that side on the left of the Speaker's Chair. If they thought that agriculture was going to look up under those circumstances he did not think they were very good students of history. He remembered that in 1894, when hon. Members opposite were on the Front Bench on the Government side, they used to get up and thank God that wheat was 19s. a quarter. He remembered that Sir William Harcourt, whom he always thought of with affection and regret, by his Budget Bill of 1894 put the last straw upon the back of the agricultural camel. What they wanted was not a Rating Act for a few years but a perpetual Rating Act. Did hon. Members think that agriculture was so prosperous now that they could do without this measure when they knew that last year there was
1514
30 per cent, less of arable land under cultivation than there was the year before. According to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, who knew what he was talking about, the farmers had lost £300,000,000 of their capital, and somewhat less than half the number of labourers were now employed upon the land than there were thirty years ago. Moreover, half of the land had in that period gone out of cultivation. What could be worse than a condition of things like that, which was owing to the incidence of taxation on land. Land was going out of tillage, fences were straggling into the fields, gates were off, cottages were falling down, and the agricultural population of the villages consisted of old men and boys.
This was an important matter nationally. It was not so important where a squire here and there went down or a farmer here and there went to the workhouse. The important thing for the country was the decadence of the agricultural population, which was due to the present rating and taxation of land. Out of 75,000 recruits for the Army, 25,000 were sent back because they could not comply with the wretched requirements of the War Office. It was because as time went on the population was being driven out of the villages and into the towns, that instead of getting as recruits the residents of the country sides, the Army only obtained mill hands and other people of that stamp who had resided in towns. It was not however, by mill hands that the battle of Waterloo was fought and won, and in order to foster rural life again it would be worth the while of this country, instead of paying only half the rates of the agriculturists, to pay the whole. Under the present system they were losing the agricultural population of the country, and with it they were losing their virile force. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would vote against the Amendment, and if they did not he hoped their constituents would have something to say to them.
SIR WALTER FOSTERthought that under the circumstances the Amendment of his

1515
hon. friend behind him might be advantageously withdrawn in favour of a time limit of a year or two years. They had to remember in connection with this Act that all of those who passed it originally would be very glad to see the question of rating taken up, and they would be very glad to encourage any Government to grapple with that problem. He did not like the idea of the Act being continued for four years; he thought it ought to be brought up from year to year, which would force the Government of the day to take into consideration a real solution of the general problem of rating. If they had year by year brought before them the general necessity of meeting and dealing with this question they would be more likely to grapple with the difficult problem before them than if they put it off for four years. They had renewed the Act before, and the result was that for nine years the House of Commons had been neglecting the great subject of rating, and although they had had the Report of the Royal Commission they had not dealt with the problem. He did not want to encourage a policy of that sort. It was an urgent problem, and therefore he thought that in the interest of all parties, those who were anxious to relieve the agricultural population and the congestion of the town population would do well to renew this Bill only from year to year, and he would ask his hon. friend to consider whether he would not withdraw his Amendment and support an Amendment to renew the Bill from year to year, so that whatever Government, whether Liberal or Tory, was in power they would have to deal with that question.
MR. CHANNINGasked as a point of order whether if a division was taken upon this subject it would preclude the Committee from dealing with and deciding a definite time for the duration of the Bill—whether it precluded the discussion of the question of two years.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANdid not think it would preclude such a discussion.
MR. CHAPLINsaid he simply rose in the interest of the progress of debate,
1516
and hoped the Amendment would not be withdrawn. They had discussed this question for a considerable period, and now his hon. friend on the Front Opposition Bench suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that they should have another discussion as to whether the Act was to be renewed from year to year. He should take the opportunity of preventing the Amendment being withdrawn.
MR. DALZIELsaid that he could not agree with the appeal which had been made to his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment before the Committee, because, in his judgment, it raised a separate and distinct issue from that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench. He, therefore, hoped this Amendment would be disposed of. They had had a little homily from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, who lectured his hon. friend on his want of legal knowledge. It was, however, a remarkable fact that with a Bill of this character which raised legal issues they had not had previously any speech from any member of the legal profession, and he was much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, anxious as he was to get this Bill through without unnecessary debate, should have thought it useful to introduce outside issues which had no connection with the arguments of his hon. friend. The proposal of the Amendment was that it should be possible for Parliament at any time to deal with the rating question. That was the simple issue. [Cries of "No!"] That was why hon. Gentlemen opposite failed to appreciate the bearing of the Amendment of his hon. friend. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be possible, even if the Amendment were not adopted, to alter the provisions of the Bill. It was possible, but if it was going to be in operation for four years, was it conceivable that any Government would interfere with it. It was idle to say that if the Bill was to go on for four years any Government would interfere with it at any particular time. If it was accepted in its present form its principle would be adopted and the Bill, for all practical purposes, would be in operation for fou years.

1517
The reason his hon. friend had not been able to put his Amendment in a more simple form was that the Government, in order to limit debate, had had resort to the method of reference. This Bill referred to a past Bill, and therefore they were unable to understand the issue before them, as they had to speak within one clause. He objected to a Bill of this important character being brought forward in this manner. What, however, was the main reason of his hon. friend for bringing forward this Amendment? It was the reason adduced by the Government itself when the Bill was originally brought forward, viz., that in the interval before it came up for renewal inquiry would be made, the Report of the Royal Commission would be presented, the whole question could then be reopened and it could be considered whether or not the Bill should be renewed. That was the principle which his hon friend wished to introduce at the present time. What his hon. friend said was that the Government had had the Report of the investigations; that they paid no heed to the investigations; that they had shut their eyes to the whole question of rating which ought to be considered in a matter of this kind; and that they were going beyond their power in tying up, for the next four years, the question of rating in this Bill.
He did not know how those who, representing town constituencies had voted for the Land Values Bill, were going to vote on this Amendment, but he was certain that if they voted against the Amendment that fact would be taken notice of in their constituencies. He could understand Members representing agricultural constituencies voting against the Amendment, but those who represented urban constituencies, if they were in favour of site values being properly dealt with, were bound to support the Amendment, and to make it possible for the Government to deal with the whole question of rating, in the near future, on proper lines. Did the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid-Essex suggest that this Bill was going to deal with all the questions to which he referred in the short speech he made? He himself did not agree with the facts put forward by the hon. Baronet
1518
with regard to the diminution of labour in agricultural districts. World the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford declare that this Bill was going to deal with every grievance from which agriculture suffered at the present time. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman had a far different scheme. He. had no doubt that a duty of 2s. a quarter on wheat would be far more acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman than anything contained in this Bill. He doubted whether this Bill would be of any real value to agriculture, or whether the land which was said to have gone out of cultivation would get any relief from it. He should vote for the Amendment because it limited the operation of the Bill.
MR. RANDLESsaid he could conceive of nothing more mischievous than the Amendment. Nothing could be more mischievous than to always harass those who paid the rates. It might be a useful measure for the purpose of bringing before the House the views of hon. Members to the advantage of getting a better system of rating, but considering the time that must necessarily elapse before that question could be dealt with, it was, to say the least, mischievous to limit the term of this Bill. Agriculturists must look ahead more than twelve months, and this limitation for twelve months was simply keeping the farmer, who had to make provision for the future, in a state of unnecessary uncertainty. It was absolutely certain that the Act would not be allowed to drop during the course of the next two or three years, and if that was so why not let the farmer know that there was no intention of keeping from him the benefit he conceived himself to be entitled to under the Bill. He thought the House would be ill-advised in accepting the limitation proposed.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken was under a misconception as to the scope of the Amendment. There was no suggestion to limit the period of the Bill to one year, and, so far as harassing the farmers was concerned, he would point out to the hon. Member that his own Party, had for nine years been debating this question

1519
and if anybody was harassing the farmer it was the Government. It had been said, too, during that discussion that the Amendment would prevent the Bill being made perpetual. But the Government itself had no intention of making the Bill perpetual. The Bill was to continue the Act till 1910, and the Amendment was to continue it till 1908. That was the only difference. The reason for this Amendment was that this question of rating ought to be dealt with at the earliest moment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, who introduced the measure originally, wished to make it perpetual, but after it had been discussed for some time it was shown quite clearly that the Bill was faulty, inadequate, and so unfair, that the right hon. Gentleman himself decided to limit it to five years. If the right hon. Gentleman thought the Bill was so good why was he ready to adopt that limitation. In 1896 or 1901 the Secretary to the Local Government Board said that the urban ratepayer had many grounds for receiving assistance. His calculation was that it would require £2,000,000 per annum, and they were unable to provide the money, although he quite admitted that the urban ratepayer ought to receive his fair share as well as the agricultural ratepayer. There were still four sessions during which this question might be dealt with, but the action of the Government would put off all discussion upon it till 1910. Why should the Government object to this matter being dealt with at the first possible moment, either by themselves or succeeding Governments. No hon. Member would say that farmers would think it was right that this question should be dealt with merely by the present Government, and not by any succeeding Government. District councils which were composed mainly of farmers had sent representations to him on the subject. He had received one of them that day calling attention to the enormous deficiency in the average of the grant under the Act, and stating that, in fact, the Act was of very little value to them. They calculated that the average loss of the last two years or so was £814 a year, as compared with what they would have received if they had received what they
1520
were entitled to when the Act was passed originally. This great loss had been brought about by the increased taxation put on them by the Government, and to the great expenditure entailed in the upkeep of the roads owing to the heavy motor traffic.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member must not make a Second Reading speech on the Bill at this stage.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he was simply giving an illustration showing the necessity of this matter being dealt with as soon as possible. If rates had not been increased so much of recent years there would not be the same necessity for immediate action. The whole argument in favour of the Amendment was that rates had increased so much that the grant was entirely inadequate, and that was the only reason he supported it. He was a supporter of the Act, and if he thought the Amendment would take away the advantages of the Act he would be the first to oppose it. His constituents on the small parish council to which he had referred were losing £800 a year, and they felt it was very necessary that something should be done at once to remove this unfairness. It was too often forgotten that although agricultural land was relieved to the extent of half its rates, the houses and buildings received no relief whatever.
THE DEPUTY - CHAIRMANruled that the hon. Member was travelling beyond the Amendment.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he would not pursue the subject. His only reason for supporting the Amendment was to force the Government to deal with this question earlier than they would otherwise do.
SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSONdiffered entirely from the object of the Amendment. He was one of those who believed that the relief afforded by the Act ought to be made perpetual. The justification for the Act in the first place was that an unfair amount of public

1521
burdens was thrown upon the owners of real property as compared with the owners of personal property. The latter had already in two particular instances received large permanent relief at the expense of the owners of real property. The first of those instances was with regard to tithes, which were originally intended to apply to all personal as well as real property.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the subject of the hon. Member's remarks would arise more properly on the next Amendment.
MR. CHANNINGappealed to the hon. Member for Banffshire to withdraw the Amendment, as the next point the Committee were anxious to discuss was a specific proposal to limit the Act to a definite time one way or the other, such as was embodied in the Amendments standing in the names of the hon. Member for South Molton, himself, and others. Such a proposal could be discussed in an intelligible way, and might lead to a practical result.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the point of the Amendment was that it would not only shorten the period of the Act by nearly two years but it would put the Act in such a form as to indicate that it was a purely temporary measure and that legislation on the subject was expected at any time during the period of the continuance of the Act. It was practically pressing on the Government the necessity of further legislation. Agricultural Members on the other side of the House were alarmed because they thought that if the Bill came to an end two years earlier the question would have to be dealt with while the Liberal Party was in power. They seemed to forget, however, that the strength of the Liberal Party now-a-days was in the counties rather than in the towns, and was growing more rapidly in rural than in urban areas. The Liberal Party, therefore, would be to a great extent dependent upon its agricultural Members, and, consequently, there need be no fear that that Party would not endeavour to do something for agriculture. Supporters of the agricultural view seemed to be
1522
afraid that when the whole question of rating came up for consideration the case for agricultural land would not stand investigation. He protested against that view, for he believed that agricultural land paid more than its fair proportion of rates. What was needed was a thorough not a piecemeal investigation, followed by a permanent settlement. If the subject were properly investigated the claims of the farmers would be recognised and conceded. He pressed, therefore, for a general investigation and a speedy permanent settlement. He supported the Amendment because it would bring the measure to an end two years earlier and would make it the duty of whatever Government might then be in power to effect a settlement.
MR. AINSWORTHsaid the debate had been useful in that it had brought out the different points of view from which the two sides of the House regarded this measure. Many hon. Members opposite held the view that the grant should be made perpetual. That was an unworthy way of approaching the great question of rating. Whatever the claims of the applicants were they should be considered fairly and thoroughly and the matter put upon a sound basis for the future. Many members of the Opposition supported this Act strictly on the ground that it was a temporary measure, and they wanted a definite statement as to what the Government intended to do. Whatever Government was in power they would insist upon something being done as soon as possible.
MR. CHAPLINasked whether the remarks of the hon. Member were relevant to the Amendment.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member is out of order. The hon. Member, however, must not go into the principles of the whole Bill.
MR. AINSWORTHsaid he wished to draw attention to a point which he thought had an important bearing upon the question they were considering, and it showed the urgent necessity of having a definite statement from the Government as to how soon they intended

1523
to deal with the whole question. Here was a dole being given to a particular class, but what had happened to the rates in the meantime? There had been an enormous increase on account of the education rate. Did hon. Members consider that the renewal of the present Act dealt with the grievance of the agricultural interest in having had their rates increased in consequence of the Education Act?
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question does not relate to the renewal of this Act.
MR. AINSWORTHsaid his object was to show that as the education rate had become a great burden the sooner they remedied that state of things the better. They ought to have a definite statement from a responsible member of the Government as to when they were going to deal with this important question of rating which pressed so hardly upon the agricultural community.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he did not propose to go into the principle of the Bill, and he would simply give one or two reasons why they ought to make a stand against the policy of drift. On previous occasions they had been given some hope that after the Royal Commission had reported the Government would deal in a general way with this question, but now they had relapsed into the policy of drift. It was not only hon. Members on the Opposition side who felt uncomfortable about this policy, because the hon. Member for Essex had stated in a speech to his constituents that he should be glad to be rid of the relief which he got under the Bill. This Amendment would give the hon. Member a chance of doing that.
MR. DILLONsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford had raised a point of order which clearly showed that he did not in the least understand the Amendment before the Committee. The words which had been proposed would have no legislative effect whatever.
MR. CHAPLINsaid the hon. Member must take this Amendment in connection with the other Amendments following it, which would reduce the period from four years to two.
MR. DILLONsaid the other Amendments had no necessary connection at all. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that because a series of Amendments were put down in the name of the hon. Member that they necessarily hung together. This Amendment stood on its own basis and it had no necessary connection with the subsequent Amendments, which raised a totally different issue, namely, the limitation of the period to 1908 instead of 1910. The object of the present Amendment was to put into the Bill words which would give notice to all concerned that it was the intention of Parliament probably to do away with this Bill and substitute a general settlement of the rating question before the date mentioned in the Bill. In his opinion the words now proposed would have no legislative effect, but the hon. Member for Banffshire thought they would act as a note of warning to those making contracts that there was a chance of repealing this Bill and introducing another system of taxation before the date fixed by this Bill. Under this Act contracts were continually being made, and when they put in a date it was held to be a pledge that the Bill would not be altered until after that date. Men making contracts took that into account.
MR. BLACKsaid a good deal of misapprehension existed as to the effect of this Amendment. The hon. Member for East Mayo had exactly expressed the object he had in view, and what he intended by his Amendment. The qualifying words he had moved would show all parties that they might look out for changes within four years, either great or small. He proposed to press his Amendment to a division.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 163; Noes, 253. (Division List No. 154.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Ambrose, Robert

Atherley-Jones, L.

Barlow, John Emmott

Harwood, George

Parrott, William

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hayden, John Patrick

Partington, Oswald

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Philipps, John Wynford

Boland, John

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Brigg, John

Higham, John Sharp

Power, Patrick Joseph]

Brown, George M (Edinburgh)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Price, Robert John

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Reddy, M.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Burt, Thomas

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Richards, Thomas(W Monm'th

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rickett, J. Compton

Caldwell, James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Cameron, Robert

Johnson, John

Robson, William Snowdon

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Joicey, Sir James

Roche, John

Cawley, Frederick

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Channing, Francis Allston

Jordan, Jeremiah

Runciman, Walter

Cheetham, John Frederick

Joyce, Michael

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Clancy, John Joseph

Kearley, Hudson E.

Schwann, Charles E.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kitson, Sir James

Seely, Maj J E B (Isle of Wight

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Labouchere, Henry

Shackleton, David James

Crean, Eugene

Lamont, Norman

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Cremer, William Randal

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cullinan, J.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Sheehy, David

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Delany, William

Lloyd-George, David

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Lough, Thomas

Slack, John Bamford

Dewar, John A, (Inverness-sh.)

Lundon, W.

Spencer, Rt Hn C R (Northants)

Dillon, John

Lyell, Charles Henry

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dobbie, Joseph

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sullivan, Donal

Donelan, Captain A.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Doogan, P. C.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Duncan, J. Hastings

M'Crae, George

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Dunn, Sir William

M'Fadden, Edward

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

Edwards, Frank

M'Kean, John

Toulmin, George

Ellice, Capt E C (SAndrw's Bghs

M'Kenna, Reginald

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Emmott, Alfred

Mooney, John J.

Tully, Jasper

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Moss, Samuel

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Farrell, James Patrick

Moulton, John Fletcher

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Fenwick, Charles

Murnaghan, George

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Ffrench, Peter

Murphy, John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whiteley, George (York, W. E.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

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

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, JW (Worcestersh. N.)

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersfd

Furness, Sir Christopher

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Young, Samuel

Gilhooly, James

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Grant, Corrie

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Black and Mr. Dalziel

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Hammond, John

O'Mara, James

Harrington, Timothy

O'Shee, James John

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Baird, John George Alexander

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Balcarres, Lord

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

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

Bigwood, James

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Bill, Charles

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Bond, Edward

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Arrol, Sir William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Barry, Sir Francis T (Windsor)

Brassey, Albert

Austin, Sir John

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Bull, William James

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bentinck, Lord Henry C

Butcher, John George

1526

1527

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Rankin, Sir James

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

Hobhouse, Rt Hn H. (Somers't, E

Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hogg, Lindsay

Ratcliff, R. F.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Reid, James (Greenock)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Hoult, Joseph

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Renwick, George

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Ridley, S. Forde

Chapman, Edward

Hudson, George Bickereteth

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hunt, Rowland

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Coates, Edward Feetham

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Coddington, Sir William

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Kerr, John

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Kimber, Sir Henry

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Knowles, Sir Lees

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lambert, George

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Oossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Law, Andrew, Bonar (Glasgow

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R.

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)

Davenport, William Bromley

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Denny, Colonel

Legge, Col. Hon. Honeage

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Levcson-Gower, Fredenck N.S.

Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

Dickson, Charles Scott

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Soares, Ernest J.

Doughty, Sir George

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

Spear, John Ward

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Lowe, Francis William

Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

Stirling-Maxwell Sir John M.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Macdona, John Camming

Stroyan, John

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

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Talbot, Lord E (Chichester)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Maconochie, A. W.

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxfd Univ.

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

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n. N

Fison, Frederick William

Majendie, James A. H.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Fitzroy, Hon. Ed ward Algernon

Malcolm, Ian

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Flower, Sir Ernest Martin

Richard Biddulph

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Forster, Henry William

Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

Tuff, Charles

Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S.W

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfnesshire

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Galloway, William Johnson

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Turnour, Viscount

Gardner, Ernest

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Garfit, William

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William. H.

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Milvain, Thomas

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

Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

White, Luke (York. E. R.)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Graham, Henry Robert

Morpeth, Viscount

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord,

Grenfell, William Henry

Morrison, James Archibald

Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

Gunter, Sir Robert

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Mount, William Arthur

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

Hain, Edward

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Hambro, Charles Eric

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nderry

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Percy, Earl

Wylie, Alexander

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

Perks, Robert William

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Pierpoint, Robert

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Younger, William

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Heath, Sir James (Staffords, N W

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Helder, Augustus

Purvis, Robert

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Randles, John S.

MR. LAMBERTrose to move an Amendment to leave out of the clause the words "one thousand nine hundred and ten" in order to insert the words "until Parliament shall otherwise determine."
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYrose to a point of order. He said the effect of this Bill was to provide for the payment of money out of taxation for four years, and his hon. friend seemed to him to propose to extend that for time immemorial. He did not mean "time immemorial," but indefinitely. He wanted to know whether it was in order for any hon. Member to propose in this way an extension of taxation.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the Act had been extended from year to year, and there was no question of adding to taxation raised by the Amendment.
MR. LAMBERTsaid he did not propose that the original Act should be continued for time immemorial, but only suggested that it should be continued until Parliament should otherwise determine, which was a considerable difference. It seemed to him that no useful purpose was served by making this Bill a temporary measure, so that it should lapse in 1910. It was perfectly obvious to anybody who had followed this debate that it was intended by both sides of the House that the subject of the reorganisation of rural rating should be thoroughly overhauled, and the basis of taxation put upon a more just foundation than it was at present. He thought that when that time came it would be impossible to withdraw from the agriculturist the relief which was granted by the Act of 1896. What ever view might have been taken of the Act at that time of its passage it had been in operation for nine years. and it was now impossible, without putting some equivalent in its place, to withdraw the £1,330,000 which now passed to agriculturists under it, and to increase the rating of land to more than half its value. The President of the Local Government Board had said that two conditions were necessary for dealing with the question of local taxation. The first was an overflowing Exchequer
1530
and the second a Parliament with plenty of leisure. Could they ensure that those conditions would prevail in 1910? If they could not, what was the use of allowing the Bill to lapse automatically in that year? Since the original Bill was passed in 1896, a Royal Commission on Local Taxation had been appointed, and had reported in favour of this relief being continued in the agricultural interest. At all events he thought the Government would not dispute the fact that it was their intention when they appointed that Commission to deal with the whole' subject of rural rating. They had not done so and he very much regretted it.
The first thing they would have to do would be to give a uniform system of valuing all over the country. That would take very nearly a session, and then a review of the question of rural rating would take another session. The present Chief Secretary for Ireland stated very clearly in 1901 that the position was not the same as it was in 1896. It was trebly accentuated now. In 1896 they were dealing with an Interim Report, and now they had the complete Report of the Royal Commission. Out of fifteen members thirteen reported that the case of agricultural land must be considered. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was the hope and desire of the Government to deal with the whole question, but it was obvious that the Government had not dealt with the question and therefore he did not see any reason why this Bill should lapse in 1910. If the Bill was just and politic in 1896 it was doubly more so now. The rates all over the country had increased since 1896. In the county of Devonshire the education rate was now treble what it was in 1896, and in other ways there had been an increase. Therefore the land would, if this Act were repealed, have to bear a greater share of taxation than it did in 1896.
But there was one other reason, and he thought it was a very strong one, why this Bill should not be allowed to lapse in 1910. When the Act of 1896 was passed there was no equivalent grant to Ireland, but by the Irish Local Government Act of 1898

1531
there was now more than an equivalent grant. Ireland by that Local Government Act received a grant far and away in excess of the sum granted under the original Act. The grant to Ireland amounted to £730,000 a year, and that was given to Ireland permanently and nobody had ever dreamed of withdrawing it. The grant to Ireland was for the relief of rates on agricultural land, and, it being made permanent, it would be an obvious injustice to the rural ratepayer in England if the relief to him should drop in 1910 unless, indeed, a parallel course was pursued in regard to Ireland. On the Second Reading of the Bill a good many arguments were adduced and a good many statements made as to the defects of the measure. He did not want to go into the subject in that way at all. It was sufficient to say that the Bill was rather severely riddled at the time it came before the House. His contention was that from the agricultural point of view this Bill was better than nothing, and therefore he hoped it would not be allowed to lapse until Parliament passed something in its place. If the Bill were allowed to lapse in 1910 or at any time without the question of rating being dealt with, the confusion which would result would be enormous. He did not think that anybody understood what enormous complications there would be, because the farmers who were paying the rent would suddenly have their rates increased, not only by the large increase which had taken place by their growth since the Act was passed, but they would lose the remission of half of them which the statute provided for. For these reasons he thought that, although this Act should not be made a permanent one it should not be repealed until Parliament had thoroughly dealt with the question of rating. He therefore moved the Amendment which stood in his name.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'one thousand nine hundred and ten' and insert the words' until Parliament shall otherwise determine."—(Mr. Lambert.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'one thousand nine hundred and' stand part of the clause."
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that on one point at all events he might congratulate the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment. He meant the very extraordinary change of sentiments which had taken place among hon. Gentlemen opposite which had made it possible that such an Amendment as this could be moved from the benches opposite. He quite agreed that some hon. Gentlemen had been quite consistent in this matter, but he thought that the action which had been taken on the other side of the House showed great inconsistency. It was only necessary to recall one sentence of a speech by the Leader of the Opposition in 1896 in describing this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said it was selfish, it was unjust, the reasons for it were inexplicable, and that if it were passed it would be perilous in its consequences. After a declaration of that sort, one did not expect to have the spectacle of an hon. Member from those benches rising to move that a Bill so described should be made permanent, or at least should be permanent until Parliament should otherwise determine. He thought that such a circumstance was an eloquent description of the very remarkable change which had come over the Liberal Party.
MR. DALZIEL: The hon. Member does not speak for the Liberal Party.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Government had of course had to ask themselves what attitude they should take in connection with this Amendment, and to the principle of it they could take no exception. In 1896 the Government introduced the original statute as a permanent measure, but to conciliate hon. Gentlemen opposite its duration was reduced to five years. Again, when the first Continuance Act was introduced in 1901 it was proposed to make the measure permanent, and the duration was again reduced to four years. Again, on the present occasion, the Government had introduced a temporary instead of a permanent Bill in order to conciliate opposition. The history of the whole question showed that the Government would have preferred to have the Bill worded in the sense of the hon. Member's Amendment. After all that had been said, it must be admitted that it would

1533
be necessary to continue these Acts until some more comprehensive system had been devised and carried through the House. But if, unfortunately, that proved to be impossible, whatever Government might be in office, before 1910, he was as certain as he stood there that this Continuance Act would have to he renewed. Therefore, it might save time to make the Act permanent. But, on the other side, he remembered that the Government had introduced the Bill.as a temporary measure, and that it passed the Second Reading on the understanding that it was to be a temporary measure. The Amendment, therefore, was one which it would have been clearly improper for the Government themselves to introduce. Such an Amendment ought not to have the weight of the Government's authority thrown on its side, and the view of the Government, therefore, was that the question should be left to the decision of the Committee. [Cries of "Oh" from the OPPOSITION benches.] The Government did not desire to influence the votes of their supporters for or against this Amendment. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh" and "Report progress."]
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that the extraordinary speech which the Committee had just heard announced a most astounding breach of faith which deserved the prompt attention of the House. Here was a Bill introduced as a temporary measure and raising a most controversial question—controversial as raising a variety of other questions beyond the simple agricultural aspect of the case—which he might say in passing was not the most important part. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, who had championed the original Bill in 1896, had laid stress on the fact that the Bill was a temporary one; it was to be only in force pending the result of a future inquiry by a Royal Commission. The right hon. Gentleman then admitted the force of the arguments used by the late Sir William Harcourt and himself that there was as great a grievance in the urban districts as in the agricultural districts; and admitted the principle that the Bill
1534
was to be for only a limited period. After a long fight the House accepted the measure on the understanding that it would come again under the cognisance of Parliament when the Royal Commission had reported. He thought the way in which the Government had treated the Report of that Commission was not the least significant of many of their proceedings during the last nine years. That Report was a most able dealing with the whole question of local taxation; but, after it was presented, it was practically flung upon the scrap-heap by the Government. It had served their purpose; and so far as the present Government was concerned they had left out of sight all consideration for any other class in the community except the one class benefited by this Bill. He held that our system of local taxation was wholly indefensible. The whole burden was thrown on one kind of property, which was most unfair. If the question of local taxation was allowed to remain in abeyance much longer it would be a public sandal, no matter what Government was in power. The Government now proposed that by this Bill their temporary Act should be extended for a short period. His hon. friend the Member for South Molton—who in no way represented the Opposition, but who had been a consistent supporter of the Bill—proposed an Amendment to make the Act perpetual. The Government were pledged to the lips not to accept such an Amendment, and yet the right hon. Gentleman turned round and asked his supporters to vote for it—for that was the effect of saying that the Government Whips would not be put on and that the Conservative Party were to vote freely. The action was most un-Parliamentary and without parallel, and he moved, therefore, that Progress be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)asked whether the merits of the Question could be discussed on this Motion, and whether he

1535
would be in order in replying to the impassioned oration of the right hon. Gentleman.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I am afraid not. I have put the Question of progress, and the debate must be curtailed to that.
MR. DILLON: Was not the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton an argument in favour of reporting Progress?
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman made his speech on the Amendment before the House. [OPPOSITION cries of "No!"]
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I rose at once to make a charge of breach of faith against the Government, and I repeat that now. We are surely entitled to a reply from the Prime Minister.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that I am not anxious to give him a reply.
MR. DILLON: I beg to point out that the speech from beginning to end was an indictment of the action of the Government and not addressed to the Amendment.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: l am quite clear on the question. The right hon. Gentleman made his speech on the Amendment before the House. There was no other Question before the House, and now that he has moved to report Progress the discussion must be confined to that.
MR. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to me, and in one sense made an attack upon me. In various of his statements he was absolutely incorrect. Shall I be allowed to reply?
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Member withdraws his Motion speeches can be made on the Amendment before the House. [OPPOSITION cries of "No!"]
MR. DILLON: On a point of order, may I say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton's speech' was altogether direct to the Motion which he has moved, that Progress he reported. That Motion is now before the House and surely the Leader of the House ought to reply to the speech which was made in moving to report Progress.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not know that the right hon. Gentleman was going to move to report Progress. I thought his speech was directed to the Amendment.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he presumed that it would be allowable on a Motion to report Progress for the Leader of the House to reply to the allegations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton of improper conduct on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.
MR. KEARLEY: On the point of order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, after your ruling, might I ask what would be in order?
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite in order to discuss the conduct of the Government in having given their approval to this Amendment.
MR. EMMOTT: Have the Government given their approval?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he understood that what the Deputy-Chairman had laid down was that it would be improper to discuss whether this were a good or a bad Amendment, but that it would be in order to discuss whether the Government had committed anything in the nature of a breach of faith or of dereliction of duty in saying they would leave this an open question; and he should, therefore, abstain altogether from the discussion of whether the Amendment ought to be accepted or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had told them that, in his opinion, this was a breach of faith—a violation of a pledge; but he was at a loss to know when the pledge was given, or in what

1537
the alleged breach of faith consisted. While the right hon. Gentleman in his speech, addressed, he presumed, solely to that purpose, dragged in all sorts of topics which, in his (Mr. Balfour's) opinion, were not relevant, he omitted to touch a matter which was relevant, viz., what was the character of the pledge he said they had violated?—what was that pledge?
SIR HENRY FOWLER: When you introduced the Bill and took the Second Reading, it passed, if not without a division, at all events practically with the support of a large section of the House upon the faith of the allegation that the Bill was of a temporary character. Your action in accepting this Amendment reverses that intention. That is the pledge which was given and which I complain, is being broken.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman declared that it was a breach of faith to alter a temporary Bill into a permanent one in Committee. If that were so, then he presumed it would also be a breach of faith to alter a Bill from a permanent into a temporary one. But twice they had done this. Let them be perfectly clear what was meant by the allegation of breach of faith.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: What about the borough Members who are not here to-night?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he failed to see that that had anything to do with the alleged breach of faith. The accusation made was that the Bill having been introduced as a temporary measure was being turned into one of a permanent character, and he asked whether it would not equally be a breach of faith to introduce a Bill as a permanent measure and turn it into a temporary one. [Cries of "No, no!"] The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton seemed to think it was a matter of enormous importance whether the Bill were temporary or permanent, but personally he did not think it was, either from the point of view of those who liked or of those who disliked the Bill. The truth was a Bill of this kind was quite certain to be renewed unless a
1538
general reform, a much needed and desired reform, of local taxation was meanwhile brought in, in which case, of course, this Bill would be supplanted and would not be required. This Bill, in their opinion, was an act of justice to a particular class, and it did not affect to be a general solution of the rating question, which was one of the most difficult and complex of problems and one which appeared to him, the more he studied it, to become more difficult and complex. It had been brought prominently before their notice by a recent debate in the House, and he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that matters were approaching something in the nature of a scandal; but this was no reason in the world why a Bill which he believed to affect a just reform, as far as it went, should not be either made permanent or renewed from time to time, as he did not doubt it would be, until the general reform was brought in. Therefore, the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton was wholly without warrant, was based, upon no argument whatever, and was quite uncalled for. If they thought the Bill was likely to be dropped when its term came to an end, he could only remind them of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on the Second Reading He tried to get out of the difficulty in which, he and his friends had placed themselves by their violent opposition to the measure in the first instance and by the calmness with which they had accepted its present renewal, and he said that when a scheme of this kind was once in operation it must go on; they could not drop it; it was sure to go on; they had to accept the fact and make the best of it; and they assented to its renewal. This argument would, of course, be used every time the Bill came on for renewal, should it be found necessary to again renew it in the absence of general legislation. He should, however, regard it as a great public calamity if a period of four years should again elapse without the House having either the time or the opportunity to deal with this complicated and thorny question of general justice in our rating system, and if the House did indeed take up this duty, as he hoped it would, then whether

1539
this measure were temporary or permanent in form it would certainly come to an end. The sooner they were able to place upon the Statute-book a general scheme which would introduce order into the chaos, and justice into the anomalies, which now affected almost every part of the rating system of the country the better.
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he was perfectly in harmony with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton in charging the Government with a breach of faith. This was the third time this Bill had been introduced as a temporary measure.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I have stated that the Bill was introduced as a permanent measure on both previous occasions.
SIR JAMES JOICEY, proceeding, said that the Government had not introduced it as a permanent measure on this occassion, and therefore they presumed it was not the intention of the Government to make it permanent. When the Bill passed its First and Second Reading it was passed as a temporary measure. The House and the Opposition believed this to be so; had this not been the case it would have received most strenuous opposition on the part of those opposed to the principle of the Bill. The Government secured the Second Reading pledged to this being a temporary measure, and he could not understand anyone defending the Government in taking such action as it was now doing. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, who was in charge of the Bill, wanted to shuffle off and leave it an open question, whilst he intended his followers to make it a permanent measure.
MR. GERALD BALFOURdissented, saying that making it an open question meant that they left their supporters to vote as they thought best.
SIR JAMES JOICEYasked how would the Government vote.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he personally should not vote.
MR. DALZIEL: Running away again?
SIR JAMES JOICEYthought things were coming to a pretty pass when the Government introduced a Government measure, and the Minister in charge of it said they were not going to make it a Party question, but were going to leave it to their supporters to do as they thought best, and that he would not vote at all. A more extraordinary position he had never seen during his whole twenty years experience in this House. The right hon. Gentleman might think he would deceive the country, but he would not. The Leader of the Opposition would never have advised his followers not to oppose the Act if it had been a permanent measure; and this attempt of the Government to get it made permanent was a most mean one. For his part he should give it his strongest opposition.
MR. CHAPLINsaid that when any charge of breach of faith was brought against the Government, those who made it ought to be fully informed as to the facts. The right hon. Gentleman opposite and his friends were wrong in saying that this Act had always been treated as a temporary measure. Both when originally introduced and upon its renewal five years afterwards it was brought forward as a permanent measure, and there was absolutely no foundation for the charge of breach of faith against his right hon. friend. It was true that on both occasions changes were made in Committee for reasons stated at the time, and hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to be the last persons in the world to raise the difficulties they were now raising. The whole afternoon they had been clamouring for the reduction of the period of the Bill by two years—
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANreminded the right hon. Gentleman that the question before the Committee was a Motion to report Progress.
MR. CHAPLINsaid he was giving reasons for not reporting Progress. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had been declaring all the afternoon that if the measure was made temporary it would be impossible; to deal with the question until the

1541
period of the Act had expired, thereby expressing the desire that it should be made permanent.
MR. ASQUITHquite agreed that when charges of breach of faith were made they should be based on accurate information, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said nothing in his remarks to minimise the gravity of the charge or to show in any way that it was unfounded. According to the right hon. Gentleman's own confession the original Bill was introduced as a permanent measure, but in order to get it through the House the concession was made that it should be only a temporary measure. Then when its first term of currency was expiring, the measure was reintroduced as a permanent proposal, and again for the purpose of obtaining the assent of the House it was given a temporary character. Therefore, so far as the Bill had ever been an Act it had been nothing but a purely temporary measure, and the Second Reading of the Bill this year was obtained on the assumption and the express understanding that it was to have the same temporary character as the two Acts which had preceded it. But what, after all, was the description the Government themselves had given of the measure? In the King's Speech they announced their intention of introducing Bills "for the renewal of the Agricultural Rates Act and other temporary Acts." It was therefore distinguished from other proposals as a renewal of a temporary measure. How under these circumstances the Government could affect to treat it as an open question passed his comprehension, and he thought his right hon. friend was perfectly entitled to take the sense of the House upon his Motion.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought hon. Gentlemen opposite hardly realised the position in which they were placing themselves or the claim they were making. An Amendment moved from the other side of the House had been favourably—perhaps too favourably—received by the Minister in charge of the Bill, and their claim really was that no Minister should be allowed to accept an Amendment, however reasonable, moved by his opponents. The President of the Local Government Board, while recognis-
1542
ing that the Bill was introduced as a temporary measure, saw no objection in principle to the Amendment moved by an hon. Member opposite. Was he, there fore, to array the whole forces of the Government against what he considered to be a reasonable proposal? Was the right course to make a violent speech against it and call all the forces of the Government into the lobby against it. He thought not. Whether the right hon. Gentleman had taken the most prudent course was another point. The Prime Minister said he would leave the Amendment to the House. He wished the Government would always take that course and leave the decision to the House without putting on the Party Whips, whenever they saw certain merits in an Amendment. He had risen to say that he thought it was very unfortunate that hon. and right hon. Members opposite should accuse the Government of a breach of faith because they had shown a readiness to accept an Amendment proposed by an hon. Member opposite.
MR. BLAKEsaid that upon this question differences were fundamental, particularly with reference to the concrete question which they had before them. The renewal of this Act was a question which ought to be kepi within the control of the House of Commons, because the landlords' House would have the determination of the question whether it should remain perpetual. So long as the Act remained a temporary one so long they would know that those? who opposed it would have an opportunity of taking the sense of the House of Commons effectively upon the question whether it should continue in force or not; but the moment they made it a perpetual measure they would place it beyond the power of the House of Commons and hand it over to the House which was most interested in the question, namely, the House of Lords, whose consent would be necessary to repeal it. In the past there had been an abortive attempt made to introduce this Bill as a permanent measure, but the Government gave up attempting to make it permanent and proposed it as a temporary Bill. The House of Commons had twice insisted upon this Bill being converted from a

1543
permanent to a temporary measure, and upon the third occasion the Second Reading was obtained upon the understanding that it was to be temporary. To make it permanent would be to remove the greatest lever that existed in favour of that effort, which all sides agreed ought to be made, to alter the whole basis and reorganise the whole system of rating. So long as the measure remained temporary they acknowledged that there ought to be a complete solution and they had a lever, and power, and inducement, and some compulsion, to bring to bear on whatever Government might be in power to undertake that difficult task; but when they removed that lever by making the measure permanent they postponed the redress of that grievance which everybody agreed existed, and which they were unanimous in believing ought to be remedied.
MR. MILDMAYsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension. The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Molton was merely an indication that the Bill was to be a temporary expedient. He was voting for a temporary expedient until a larger measure of local taxation reform was introduced. There were a great many Members on that side of the House who would not vote for the Amendment for one moment if they thought that the Bill was anything but a temporary expedient. They only wanted justice for the agriculturists, and they were convinced that this Bill would give it to them.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid it was perfectly true that the Bill as originally introduced in 1896 was permanent in its character, but in its passage through that House it was altered to a temporary measure. And why? The reason for that alteration was the pressure put upon the Government by their own supporters who were borough Members. He took an active part in opposing that Bill, and a full score of borough Members came to him upon its introduction and informed him that in their judgment it was an unfair and unjust Bill for the boroughs, and they said that unless the Government could see their way to introduce a temporary clause
1544
they would join with him in opposing it. It was a wrong action on the part of the Government at the present time, without any notification to the large band of their borough supporters, practically to accept this Amendment. They should have had warning of what was going to happen. His right hon. friend had informed the House that if the Bill were passed as a permanent measure it would require the assent of another place in order to repeal it. It was possible that the financial clause might be repealed by the Finance Bill, but the first clause could never be repealed without the assent of the House of Lords. He appealed to Members and especially to the London representatives, whose constituents were already being charged the equivalent of a 3d in the £1 rate in order to make good the funds necessary for carrying out that Act, to say whether it was fair of the Government to spring this mine upon them without due notification, and to make the Act a permanent measure. He would suggest to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Local Government Board that it was not fair to their own constituencies to act in this manner. Would it not be an error in tactics on the part of the Government to oppose this Motion? Let the matter be well considered by every Member of the House, and that if, after the lapse of a week, they were in favour of the measure being made permanent it would be a different thing altogether.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that all difficulty would be got rid of if the hon. Member for South Molton would withdraw his Amendment, which, he assured the Committee, the Government did not wish to press upon him. It was a bomb thrown from the other side of the House. There were many hon. Gentlemen on that side who would like this to be a permanent measure, and many who would not like it. The hon. Gentleman who had thrown this apple of discord into their midst was evidently regarded by all his own friends as having suddenly raised a question of which they had had no notice, although it was down on the Paper, and if he withdrew the Amendment they might resume in tranquillity the further consideration of the measure.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the Government had been in favour of the principle contained in this Amendment. The Bill had been described in the King's Speech as a "temporary measure." [Cries of "No."] Yes, that was so. It was stated that the Agricultural Rates Act, and other temporary measures, were to be renewed. The renewal of temporary measures did not mean that they were to be made permanent by any possible twisting of words. The hon. Member for South Molton had always disagreed with the whole of his Party on this question—[An HON. MEMBER: No!]—and he believed he was quite alone to-day in the position he had taken up, just as he had very often been alone before. The Government were at one time in favour of the principle of this Amendment, but they deserted it under pressure from the borough Members. Now when the proposal came from the Opposition side of the House it was to be accepted when the borough Members were not there. When the Opposition accepted the Bill on the Second Reading it was understood on both sides of the House that in Committee only technical alterations would be made. It was certainly not understood that the great alteration which the Amendment would nvolve was going to be made without the House of Commons having notice about it. He put it to the Prime Minister's sense of fairness not to press the matter further that day. He supported the Motion to report Progress. He was speaking in the interests of agriculture and he hoped the Motion to report Progress would be carried. He believed the Government were under quite a misapprehension as to the opinion of their own followers on this question.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he wished to submit a point in support of the suggestion made by the Prime Minister in order to get the Committee out of the difficulty. If the Amendment were adopted it would make this Act of Parliament permanent; and this was how the Courts would have to interpret it:—Clause 1 of the Act of 1901 would read as follows: "The period of the continuance of the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896 is hereby extended until the 31st day of March
1546
until Parliament otherwise determine." Now, that was absolute nonsense. The hon. Member for South Molton moved his Amendment in the wrong place.
MR. LOUGHthought that some other course should be adopted from that suggested by the Prime Minister. The Deputy-Chairman should rule that the Amendment was out of order because it would not read in with the Act of 1896. He thought the Prime Minister must feel some hesitation in carrying the point further when he considered the position of the borough Members of the House. It was said that the proposal now made was a breach of faith. Ten years ago it was promised that the case of the great cities in regard to rating should be considered in the time to come. The time to come had come and the case had not been considered. There never was a case of so much urgency for reporting Progress in order to let the outside public understand what was being done by this Act being made permanent. It was perfectly unprecedented that the President of the Local Government Board, who was in charge of the Bill, and whose duty it was to advise the House, could not advise them when the case was not clear.
THE DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord has asked me a point of order. The Amendment has come in the wrong place and it makes nonsense of the original Act, without some additional words.
MR. DALZIELsaid that the debate they had had was a most interesting object lesson of the manner in which the House was led; and he thought the statement which the Deputy-Chairman had just made was sufficient to induce the Committee to register their votes to report Progress. The Amendment of the hon. Member for South Molton was moved in a very small House, with very few Members—almost half-a-dozen—on that side; and he maintained that the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had taken was not proceeding fairly, inasmuch as he seemed to regard the alteration of the whole character of the Bill as a

1547
minor matter. In the first place, it was unfair, because he brought forward the Bill as a temporary measure in order to get a Second Reading for it; in the second place, he got it into Committee as a temporary measure, knowing that scores of Members who voted for the Second Reading of the Bill would have been there that afternoon to vote against altering it from a temporary to a permanent measure. The right hon. Gentleman got the Second Reading under false pretences, because he must have known that at that moment the Government were willing to alter the whole character of the Bill. They all knew the reason of the change. The right hon. Gentleman had been "nobbled "—not for the first time—by the right hon. Member for Sleaford.
MR. CHAPLINwas understood to dissent.
MR. DALZIEL: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman knew how near he was to the truth.
MR. CHAPLINwas again understood to dissent.
MR. DALZIELsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford would say that he did not know that the Government were going to treat this Amendment of the hon. Member for South Molton as an open question he would withdraw his remark. The right hon. Gentleman remained silent. Many hon. Members knew it. The hon. Member for South Molton knew it; but it was kept a secret. Why were these secret conclaves held? This decision was to be taken in a small House in consequence of private discussions and arrangements. He said chat to take such a course was not treating the Committee with proper respect, and they ought, he thought, to protest against the shabby treatment of the Government in taking off their Whips in regard to this matter. Did any Member of the Committee ever hear of such a condition of things as a Minister in charge of a Bill running out when a division was called, and, having his own opinion on the subject, not coming forward to express it. He did not know whether
1548
the Prime Minister thought he was going to save the time of the House by taking this sort of course. The right hon. Gentleman could have had the whole Bill two hours ago but for this, and he thought they ought to protest against the Government's action.
MR. DILLONsaid the Chairman's ruling was an absolutely unanswerable argument in favour of reporting Progress. What had occurred was an unprecedented thing in the history of the House of Commons. Here was a Minister leading the House in regard to a Bill of his Department, and here was an Amendment which had been on the Paper for days, if not a week, and the Minister got up and announced in a solemn speech that he was going to leave it an open question, and after wasting an hour of the time of the House they found they were talking about a nonsensical Amendment all the time. The Minister in charge of the Bill apparently never took the trouble to examine the Notice Paper and satisfy himself that this Amendment was sensible. [An HON. MEMBER: It is not the first time that the House has done it.] Quite so; it was not the first time that the House had done it, but it was the first time that a Leader of the House, and a Minister in charge of a Bill, had accepted an Amendment which was nonsense. He would not blame the President of the Local Government Board if this had been an Amendment sprung upon the Committee, because it was not very easy all of a sudden to tell whether an Amendment fitted in the Bill. When, however, an Amendment had been on the Paper for a week the matter was different. In this case not much labour was involved in examining the Notice Paper as there were only three Amendments to this Bill. Yet the Minister in charge of the Bill could not find out whether the Amendment was sensible or not. Under these circumstances he supported the Motion to report Progress in order to give the President of the Local Government Board time to study the Amendment.
MR. KEARLEYthought they were entitled to ask the Minister in charge of

1549
the Bill to have the other Amendment on the Paper properly examined so that the House of Commons might be prevented from making itself extremely foolish. They had wasted a couple of hours on this Amendment, and it seemed an extraordinary thing that the right hon. Gentleman should stand up and debate
an Amendment when he had not discovered whether the Amendment was sensible or not.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 170; Noes, 219. (Division List No. 155.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Malley, William

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Hammond, John

O'Mara, James

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harrington, Timothy

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Allen, Charles P.

Harwood, George

O'Shee, James John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hayden, John Patrick

Parrott, William

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert

Henry Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Partington, Oswald

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Paulton, James Mellor

Barlow, John Emmott

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Higham, John Sharp

Pirie, Duncan V.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Benn, John Williams

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Price, Robert John

Black, Alexander William

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Priestley, Arthur

Blake, Edward

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Reddy, M.

Boland, John

Jacoby, James Alfred

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Johnson, John

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rickett, J. Compton

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jordan, Jeremiah

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Burt, Thomas

Joyce, Michael

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Caldwell, James

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robson, William Snowdon

Cameron, Robert

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

Roche, John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Lambert, George

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cawley, Frederick

Lamont, Norman

Runciman, Walter

Channing, Francis Allston

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Schwann, Charles E.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Shackleton, David James

Crean, Eugene

Levy, Maurice

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Cremer, William Randal

Lewis, John Herbert

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Crooks, William

Lloyd-George, David

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cullinan, J.

Lougn, Thomas

Sheehy, David

Dalziel, Jamos Henry

Lundon, W.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Slack, John Bamford

Delany, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Soares, Ernest J.

Devlin, Ch. Ramsay (Galway)

M'Fadden, Edward

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

M'Kean, John

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dillon, John

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Sullivan, Donal

Dobbie, Joseph

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Donelan, Captain A.

Mooney, John J.

Tennant, Harold John

Doogan, P. C.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Moss, Samuel

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Duncan, J. Hastings

Moulton, John Fletcher

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Edwards, Frank

Murnaghan, George

Ure, Alexander

Ellice, Capt E C (S. Andrw'sBghs

Murphy, John

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Emmott, Alfred

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Norman, Henry

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Farrell, James Patrick

Nussey, Thomas Wilans

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fenwick, Charles

O'brien James F. X. (Cork)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Ffrench, Peter

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

Field, William

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Findlay, Alexander (L'na'k.Ne

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Young, Samuel

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

O'Dowd, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.

Gilhooly, James

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Grant, Corrie

J O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N

NOES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Faber, George Denison (York)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Arnold-Forster Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

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

Milvain, Thomas

Arrol, Sir William

Fisher, William Hayes

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fison, Frederick William

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Morpeth, Viscount

Austin, Sir John

Flower, Sir Ernest

Morrell, George Herbert

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Forster, Henry William

Morrison, James Archibald

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

Mount, William Arthur

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Parkes, Ebenezer

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Percy, Earl

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Graham, Henry Robert

Pierpoint, Robert

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Gunter, Sir Robert

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Purvis, Robert

Beach. Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Randles, John S.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Bigwood, James

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Reid, James (Greenock)

Bill, Charles

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Bond, Edward

Heath, Sir James (Staffords N W

Renwick, George

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

Helder, Augustus

Ridley, S. Forde

Brassey, Albert

Henderson. Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hogg, Lindsay

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Butcher, John George

Hoult, Joseph

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Houston, Robert Paterson

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hunt, Rowland

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

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

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kerr, John

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Chapman, Edward

Kimber, Sir Henry

Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

Clive, Captain Percy A.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

Coates, Edward Feetham

Knowles, Sir Lees

Spear, John Ward

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stroyan, John

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Cust, Henry John C.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tollemache, Henry James

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lowe, Francis William

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Davenport, William Bromley

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tuff, Charles

Denny, Colonel

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Turnour, Viscount

Dickson, Charles Scott

Macdona, John dimming

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Doughty, Sir George

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Douglas, Rt- Hon. A Akers-

M'lver Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

Warde Colonel C E

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Majendie, James A. H.

Welby Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.)

Duke, Henry Edward

Malcolm, Ian

White Luke (York E.R.)

Dyke.Rt.Hn. Sir William Hart

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Maxwell. Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

1552

1553

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

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

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

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

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

Wylie, Alexander

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Younger, William

Question again proposed, "That the words 'one thousand nine hundred and' stand part of the clause."
And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

EVENING SITTING.

  ROYAL HIBERNIAN ACADEMY, ETC.
  MR. MOONEYsaid those who knew Ireland at the present time knew that a great revival was taking place there; that a new spirit had been created amongst the people of Ireland by awakening them to the beauties of their old language and literature, and their ancient position amongst the artistic nations of the world. It was his hope that this spirit might be properly developed, and that by interesting the people in these things at home, emigration, the worst curse of Ireland, might be stopped. The question of the nurture of art was one which nearly every civilised Government in Europe had recognised to be the duty of the State. That was the policy long acknowledged and acted upon in England, Scotland, and Wales with success. The English Government had officially recognised this feeling as far back as 1858, when the Treasury in a Minute defined the position. That Treasury Minute had been largely acted on in England, Scotland, and Wales, but in Ireland the matter had Teen treated in a very different manner. Let them take the case of Scotland alone and compare it with that of Ireland, and the House would see the enormous difference in the treatment of this question in Scotland and in Ireland.
  In Scotland and in Ireland there were two separate art institutions. In Scotland there was the National Gallery and the
  1554
  Royal Scottish Academy. In Ireland there was the National Gallery and the Royal Hibernian Academy. The point to which he desired to address himself that evening was the treatment of modern art in Ireland and Scotland, and the moment this question came to be discussed they were met by this curious difference between the two countries, namely, that, although Scottish Members had over and over again alleged that the position of modern art in Scotland was not satisfactory, the position there was far and away better than, and not to be compared with, the position of modern art in Ireland. The Royal Scottish Academy was derived from three different sources. It derived its establishment and buildings from the Corporation of Edinburgh, it got a grant from the Scottish public funds, and a grant also from the Imperial Treasury. The modern side of art in Ireland was established by the Royal Hibernian Academy, which was itself established in 1826. That Academy had no grant whatever from any public fund. In 1826 a solicitor of Dublin named Johnson bequeathed his establishment and its buildings to the Royal Hibernian Academy, and the latest valuation taken of the buildings was £7,000. That, however, was at a time when its value had not declined so much as it had now, and to bring that valuation up to date it would be necessary to reduce it by half. That was the way in which the Scottish and the Irish Academies were founded. It might be said that the National Gallery in Ireland was extremely well off; he did not dispute it, but the Treasury Minute of 1858 laid it down that the two things should go on side by side; that when an establishment was set up for ancient art an establishment should also be set up for the accommodation of modern art. For some extraordinary reason which they had not been able to discover, that system, so far as Ireland was concerned, had not been followed, but had been deliberately set aside, so much so that some years ago an attempt was made

  1555
  by the Irish Local Government Board to suppress the Royal Hibernian Academy altogether, and so strangle the modern side of art institutions in Ireland.
  The Royal Scottish Academy in 1902 came to the House and complained that even with the endowments that they bad they were not in a proper position to tarry on the artistic education of the nation, and asked that a further grant should be made, and for an inquiry upon two points. They said, first, that the site was not a sufficiently good site for the establishment and was not sufficiently large for the Academy school, and, secondly, that the endowment was not sufficient for the purposes of the schools teaching modern art. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day appointed a Committee to inquire into the fact whether the site of the Royal Scottish Academy was a fit and proper one, and secondly whether the administration was as efficient as it might be. That Committee reported that certain grants ought to be made from the Treasury to bring the Royal Scottish Academy up to date, and that the site was not in their opinion a proper site for an institution which was doing so much good work for the artistic benefit of the nation. The terms of his Motion went no further than that. It only asked that the Secretary of the Treasury would appoint a Commission to inquire into the fact whether it was not necessary to give Ireland a new site for the Royal Irish Academy, and whether the grant given was sufficiently large for the purposes of this institution. In 1903 a Bill was brought into this House entitled the Public Offices (Dublin) Bill. That Bill authorised the taking over of a large plot of land in the heart of the city of Dublin to be utilised for public offices. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee of which the hon. Member for Durham was the Chairman. Mr. Thomas Drew, the president of the Royal Hibernian Academy was, among others, examined by the Committee, and gave evidence as to the area which would be necessary for the Royal Hibernian Academy. Nothing was done then, but at the end of the inquiry the Chairman said—
  "I think it might go out that the question has come before us, and I should not mind saying
  1556
  myself that it has been shown to be very desirable, if possible, that at all events a better site should be found for the housing of the Royal Hibernian Academy."
  Very little evidence had been necessary to convince that Committee that the present site was not one in which justice could be done to modern art in Ireland.
  With regard to the second branch of his Motion he had already read to the House the amount of money which was at the disposal of the Royal Scottish Academy, which was for all purposes an identical institution with the Royal Hibernian Academy. The Royal Scottish Academy had an annual income of about £2,000, the Royal Hibernian Academy an annual income of £50. It was perfectly true that the Treasury gave them £300 a year, but before that sum was given to them, they had to bind themselves by resolution to keep up modern schools of art for which they had to pay £250. Did the hon. Member think it right to' give the Royal Hibernian Academy £50 to-keep up a school for modern art, when in Scotland they got £2,000 for the same purpose, and were not even satisfied with that. The position of affairs was one they could not understand. In Scotland it was laid down that these two things should be going on at the same time, but by one of the secret processes, the working of which they could not get at, the National Gallery in Ireland was given everything, including powers given to the director which in Scotland a director did not possess, and there was an endeavour to strangle the Royal Hibernian Academy.
  He wanted also some information from the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the College of Science. It was the intention of the Government of Ireland to build a new College of Science in Dublin. They had acquired the site, but when it came to the question of appointing an architect to draw the plans for the new college an Englishman was appointed to do the I work, while at the same time they went to Scotland for a clerk of works. He thought the Secretary of the Treasury ought to have made a purely Irish job of this. There were many Irish architects who would have drawn equally good if not better plans

  1557
  and it was not necessary to get the services of either an English architect or a Scotch clerk of works. Ireland objected to undesirable alien immigration just as strongly as England, and, when they had people in Ireland who were as well or better qualified to do the work, they objected to the English and Scotch aliens being imported into the country to take the bread out of Irish mouths. As he had said, they had acquired the site for the new College of Science in one of the best parts of Dublin, and were now going to pull down some of the best old houses in that city and in their place erect the new College of Science. But in the upper part of that building they were going to house, not the College of Science, but a number of clerks from every other Government Department in Ireland, and they were going to put the College of Science in the basement. A portion of the building was also to be devoted to technical instruction, and the director of technical instruction was asked to specify what particular things he wanted. One of the things he asked for was a forge, for which, however, provision was not made, although the architect had made provision for everything else that had been asked for. He would like to know how that was going to be provided now. He would also like to know what the hon. Gentleman intended to do with the building which would be vacated by the College of Science when the new College of Science was built. He would suggest to the hon. Member that there was another institution in Dublin which was at present housed in an outlying portion of the city—the Irish College of Music—which might be housed in that building He begged to move.
  MR. BOLANDsaid he seconded the Motion of his hon. friend, who had shown so conclusively the necessity for it that he had left him very little to say upon the subject. He thought that his hon. friend had made it perfectly clear with regard to the Royal Hibernian Academy that the action of the Treasury in the past had been to cause a real set-back in the development of modern art culture in Ireland.
  1558
  As regarded the endowment of the Royal Hibernian Academy the amount given by the Treasury amounted to only £300 a year, out of which £250 had to go to the keeping up of the free school. The value of the site might be reckoned as equivalent to an extra £200 or £300 a year, but out of that the Academy had to pay its keeper, porter, and other fees of that kind. Making all allowances, the money which the Academy could devote to its maintenance was little over £100 a year, only £50 of which came from Government sources. Moreover, the site was not granted by the. Government as was done in the case of London and Scotland. In years past the Academy had sometimes had to depend on voluntary gifts to pay the ordinary honorarium to its President and Secretary. A site was desired near the other Art Institutions in Dublin, and in any proposal that might be made the proper autonomy of the Academy should be preserved. If Irish art was to flourish the Academy must have a free hand. It was further submitted that whatever future arrangements were made the small sum now granted should not be cancelled. These demands were. made not only by Nationalist Members, but by every shade of opinion in Ireland, and they had the support of two successive Lords-Lieutenant. It was much to be regretted that the opportunity of providing a suitable site in 1903 was not availed of. It was a curious anomaly that while the National Gallery, the School of Art, the Museum, and the Library were all together, the one institution necessary for the development of art was hidden away on the north side of the city.
  In connection with the Royal College of Science a great opportunity was afforded for properly housing the Royal Academy of Music. The cultivation of music in Ireland was growing to a greater extent than at any time during the last fifty years, and the present accommodation of the Academy was altogether inadequate. The great belief in the permanence of the movement for the encouragement of art in Ireland—the language revival, the learning of folk songs and the cultivation of

  1559
  Irish art in all its phases—rested upon the fact that the movement sprang from the people themselves. He hoped, therefore, the Government would see their way to appoint the Commission asked for, provide a proper site for the Royal Hibernian Academy, and also see that there was no overlapping of functions on the part of the art institutions in Dublin.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary in the interest of the development of modern art in Ireland to provide the Royal Hibernian Academy with a new site, and also to appoint a Commission to inquire whether the present system both of endowment and administration of this and other Art and Science Institutions in Ireland is as equitable and efficient as that of similar institutions in Great Britain."—(Mr. Mooney.)
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid it was so often the fate of Ulster representatives to differ sharply from Nationalist Members that it was a double pleasure when they found themselves able heartily to agree with them. He had often wondered why it was that Ireland, with all the natural gifts and qualities of her people, was so backward in matters affecting art. The Irish people had the gift of imagination, the romantic poetic temperament, and the love of the beautiful, and yet they had not taken a prominent place in art movements. Ireland had produced great soldiers out of all proportion to other parts of the United Kingdom, and had been prolific in the production of great orators, but she had not produced many great painters. Nor had she produced any really great poet, though there were a number of distinguished Irish poets and a school of Irish poetry which was claiming increased attention. It was commonly said that Ireland could not afford to encourage art. But Scotland, which also was a comparatively poor country, had produced many great artists, though one of the most prominent members of the Glasgow School was really an Irishman. He hoped the Commission, if appointed, would take
  1560
  into consideration the possibility of creating large loan exhibitions which did so much to cultivate a love of art. He heartily welcomed the Resolution and would give it his best support.
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid that as an old citizen of Dublin he could endorse everything which had been said by previous speakers. Everybody who knew the topography of Dublin knew what a shabby and miserable abode the Academy was for one of the principal of the Muses. He wondered the representative of the Treasury did not blush when the net amount of the grant from the Government was named. He hardly agreed with the last speaker that Ireland had not produced some great votaries of painting, but they were by no means indebted to the Government patronage or to the existence of the Royal Hibernian Academy. Hogan, the sculptor, and several others might be named as showing that the Irish people had the imagination, the natural love of art, the romantic disposition and all those elements which went to uplift a material nation. They did not possess the art of making money, but they only needed fair play to excel almost every other country in Europe in producing modern artists. What was wanted by this Resolution was that the Government should institute an inquiry and provide a proper site. Dublin was rich in public buildings, but they were all built in the time of the Irish Parliament and not since that Parliament had been taken away. He hoped the discussion would lead to something being done, as the Academy at present was a standing reproach to the country. It was not reasonable that such institutions should be practically dependent on charitable subscriptions. £40,000 was given to endow the Scottish Academy. Without wishing to enter into any national rivalry, it had always seemed that Scotland took care of itself in its own quiet way, and, while the Irish were knocking at the door and vociferously demanding help, the Scotchman got in at the back and emptied the purse. As to the Academy of Music, that was wretchedly housed. He trusted that the endowment of that institution would be enlarged, because of all countries in

  1561
  the world Ireland ought to be productive of the greatest musicians and artists. Nothing would so far soothe and generally improve the rather depressed condition of the country as the encouragement and cultivation of music. He asked those at the British Treasury to put their hands in their pockets and give them a proper site for the Royal Academy of Music, and thus carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Dublin. Irishmen believed that justice had not been done to Ireland in this matter, and that no encouragement whatever had been given to art and science in Ireland.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON, in supporting the Resolution, said that nobody could dispute that the public buildings which had been referred to were not so good as the country was entitled to demand. He considered, however, that the demand for improvement in art and science in Ireland was a modern one. [NATIONALIST cries of "No, no!"] He did not think that it had been an earnest demand until quite recent years. He thought that Ireland was now waking up to the necessity for having the opportunities for acquiring science and art decidedly improved, and he hoped there would be some improvements carried out in the buildings in which science and art were taught. There was no doubt that the public buildings which had been alluded to in Dublin were in a very bad state. Frequently he had taken people up to Dublin when visiting Ireland, and he had always been ashamed of the buildings of the Hibernian Academy. There were some fine buildings in Dublin, but the outside of the public buildings devoted to art were very shabby. A suggestion had been made that some good might be done to Ireland by a loan collection, but in his opinion Ireland was entitled to have such works of its own. He did not think it would be for the benefit of art in the United Kingdom as a whole to have the great national treasures now kept in London moved about from place to place. He thought such a course would distinctly lessen the value of London Museums. If foreigners thought that these valuable treasures were not always
  1562
  kept in London, but were sometimes kept at Edinburgh, Dublin, and other centres, it would do much injury to the London museums.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he only meant that specimens of some of the great painters should be lent to other parts of the country occasionally, and he had no idea of denuding the London collections.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid that, in his opinion, the taking away of a certain number of the best works would be an injury to a collection, and it would not do a corresponding amount of good to the country to which they were sent. It had been pointed out that at the present moment there was a movement on foot to increase the property of the Irish nation in works of art. It was clear, therefore, that the first step to be taken was to provide suitable buildings to receive works of art, and then it was more likely that works of art would be given to Ireland. As long as the art buildings remained in their present state there was no inducement to anyone to give works of art to Ireland.
  MR. FIELDsaid he wished to put it plainly to the hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench that the Hibernian Academy was a disgrace to the country. Everybody who had the slightest acquaintance with the rudiments of art must be aware of the fact that there was no encouragement whatever given to an Irish artist in Ireland. And why? Because the provision for teaching art was not sufficient. Irish artists had first of all to produce "pot boilers," and then, when celebrity came to them, they had to migrate to England. Indeed, there was no room for art production in Ireland, and the blame of starving art in Ireland was due to the policy of the British Exchequer. Scotland received forty times as much from the Treasury as Ireland did for art education. He supposed it was because the majority of Irish Members were looked upon not as art critics but political critics. Those who had visited the Academy of Music and the Royal Hibernian Academy in Dublin would at once

  1563
  see that the Government did not foster art in Ireland. Those acquainted with the history of Ireland could not deny that Ireland had produced a much greater crop of first-class artists in proportion to its opportunities than this country had. He hoped the Treasury would raise no objection to the terms of this Motion, because it was a very reasonable one, and ought to be granted immediately. He hoped that all the art buildings would be put together and arranged in one artistic group so that those using them would be able to visit them together. Those who had studied the question knew that art entered very largely into commercial education in Ireland. In the manufacture of lace it was admitted that in artistic design the Irish people were ahead of England and Scotland, and they only wanted the opportunity of still further developing the artistic talents which undoubtedly were to be found in the Irish people. He recommended the Chief Secretary to spend an afternoon in the so-called Royal Hibernian Academy, and he would come back convinced that the sooner it was rebuilt the better it would be, not only for Irish art, but for the reputation of the British House of Commons, which was responsible for this state of things. The policy of starvation had undoubtedly kept art back in Ireland, and that policy had been adopted by this country in regard to everything artistic in Ireland. He had much pleasure in supporting the Motion, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would not offer any objection to its adoption by the House.
  MR. WYLIEsaid that in 1902 the Scottish Members found that Scotland was not getting its fair share from the Imperial Exchequer for art. Ireland during thirty-three years had got £34,000, while Scotland during forty-five years only got £6,000. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for West Bristol said that the contributions from the Imperial Exchequer for art were in proportion to the local donations, and that Scotland showed parsimony in that respect. But the Scottish Members demanded a Commission on the subject,
  1564
  and the investigations of that Commission proved that, on the contrary, no country in the world had been so generous in its private contributions to art as Scotland. In Edinburgh one private person had given £60,000; the city of Edinburgh had given a site for £1,000 which was valued at £30,000; and Glasgow had, during the last twenty or thirty years, expended £750,000 between private munificence and municipal enterprise upon the development of art. Out of private munificence the citizens of Glasgow had erected the finest art gallery in the world. And this was the country which was held up to ridicule not many years ago for its parsimony in connection with art. He sympathised with the demand of the Irish Members. The truth was that in grants for art London was the great monopolist.
  MR. HUGH LAWsaid that he should like very briefly to support his hon. friend in the Motion which he had brought forward. He did not think the language which had been used was at all too strong in describing the extraordinary buildings in which certain of our Science and Art Institutions were housed. Certainly he did not think that his right hon. friend had exaggerated the dinginess of the surroundings or of the edifice itself in which the Royal Hibernian Academy was to be found, nor did he think anyone had described adequately the amazing condition in which the only public institution in Dublin prosecuting the art of music was to be found- He certainly thought that the transference of the College of Science to another building afforded a very proper and obvious means of providing an institution doing most excellent work with a building which would be more suitable to its requirements. He hoped the suggestions put forward by the mover of this Amendment would be favourably received by the Treasury. It would not cost a very big sum, and it was practically all that was asked by Ireland for the encouragement of the art of music.
  If the Commission asked for was appointed it should be given as wide a scope as possible so as to include

  1565
  not only those institutions which had been mentioned but others also. At the present time the National Library in Dublin was suffering from many quite avoidable defects. Its accommodation, whether for books or readers, was wholly insufficient. If the Secretary of the Treasury would look at the reports presented by the trustees, he would find that the growth in the number of readers in that institution had increased in the most remarkable way from year to year, and he would find that, as compared with the total population of Dublin, it compared in the most striking and favourable way with such a place as the reading-room of the British Museum. The trustees had reported that the lighting was extremely bad and the electric lamps were almost worn out, and that there was not sufficient accommodation for the books. At the present time the hall of the library was full of immense packing cases containing the proceedings of a learned society in America which had been presented by that society, but for which the Library was quite unable to find room. The accommodation for readers, especially in the evening, was wholly insufficient. He understood that the original plan contemplated the erection of a wing which had not yet been built, though the building as it stood was quite unfit for its purposes. He did not ask the Secretary of the Treasury to give any pledge on the subject; he merely pointed to these facts as showing that any Commission which might be appointed should be given sufficiently wide powers to enable it to take into consideration all the institutions of science and art in Dublin. He did not know that it ought not also to take into consideration the present constitution and working of the Royal Irish Academy. There had been in many quarters great dissatisfaction with the working of that institution. That dissatisfaction was felt not by hostile critics, but by members of the Academy, who desired that a Commission should be appointed to consider the working of the institution. He heartily supported the Motion.
  SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid that, as a Scottish
  1566
  Member, he felt that he owed hon. Members opposite an apology for intervening in the debate, but he assured them that he did so in a very friendly spirit, and with every desire to help them in the important movement of which he hoped the Motion would be provocative. He felt that both Scotland and Ireland had been starved in regard to the institutions which were the subject of the Motion, but in justice to Scotland he must say chat the real difference between England and Scotland lay, not so much in the amount of money paid, as in what the character of that money was. The Scotch grant was not very large, but he thought it was equal to, if not larger than that received by Ireland, since the agitation on the question—an agitation which, he thought, had been successful. The great grievance was that the modest grant of £2,000 was not Imperial money at all, but money of which they should have, and he hoped would have, the capitalised value to spend on any building or public undertaking, while the charges now defrayed by the £2,000 a year would in decency have to be defrayed by the Treasury. In Scotland they were very grateful to Ireland for giving, a few years ago, the opportunity which led to a rather unwilling Chancellor of the Exchequer paying attention to their appeal. He could not say that either country had received anything like justice in this matter.
  He did not presume to go into the details of the administration of the Irish institutions in question, but there were two things he should like to say. In the first place it was a very strange thing that in this country few people seemed to appreciate the importance of the subject, or to realise that the institutions now under discussion lay at the very root of the higher part of our commercial prosperity. If they dried up the wells of design their commercial prosperity would not be carried much further. It was of importance that every country should attend to this matter, but it was not attended to in the United Kingdom. We seemed to forget these things, but other countries

  1567
  did not forget them, and on the Continent, not only the capitals and great provinces, but the chief towns of every department, had institutions of which our Capitals would be very proud. In France and Italy, and even in such countries as Spain, these things were much better attended to than in this country. No people could take too much trouble in seeing that this class of institution was well managed. He did not say that these institutions in Ireland were not well managed—he believed most of them were well managed—but he did say that like institutions in Scotland had been worse managed than he had ever heard of in any country. They had a system under which one body threw a network over the great institutions of the kind included in this Motion and some others, and unfortunately it was a body of an extremely incompetent character. They had allowed these institutions to sink into a position which it was a scandal to witness. He was anxious to warn hon. Members opposite not to allow institutions of this kind to go under the management of such a body. In Scotland their institutions had sunk to an almost contemptible position through the neglect of the body who was supposed to look after them, and the effect had been that Scotland had I received in the last twenty or thirty years much less than she should have received of public money. While Ireland was getting the equivalent of private gifts their stupid governing body in i Scotland allowed such opportunities to pass. That was a warning to keep a strict eye on the governing body, and he hoped Ireland would not fall into difficulties from which Scotland was just beginning to emerge.
  If a Committee was to be appointed for Ireland, he could not wish anything better than that they should have the same Chairman as they had in Scotland, namely, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who, by his perseverance and courage, had secured evidence and a Report which, it was to be hoped, would make a complete reform in these matters in Scotland. Some people seemed
  1568
  to think that matters relating to the adornment of life were, perhaps not trifling, but comparatively unimportant. He thought that was a very shallow view, and when he looked into history he felt convinced that that was the cause, why Spain, once a great commercial country, had lost its commercial greatness. These were not trifling matters, for they related in a very true sense to our national work, and to the conditions on which our commercial prosperity in a great measure depended.
  MR. DOBBIEassured hon. Members from Ireland that the Scotch Members would do what they could to assist in getting this matter adequately settled. He was bound to say that the picture drawn by his hon. and learned friend gave too rosy a view of the relative financial position of Scotland and England, and perhaps even of Ireland. On some points Ireland was more favoured. He hoped that, if a Commission was appointed and there was a result favourable to Ireland, nothing definite would be done until the existing inequalities between Scotland and England had also been to some extent redressed. Reference had been made to the annual grant given to Scotland. That represented part of the repayment of a debt which was contracted at the time of the Union in return for burdens which were then imposed on Scotland, and the Report of the Departmental Committee bore out the view that in getting the £2,000 a year they were merely getting an annuity in respect of value given, and not getting a contribution from the Treasury. In regard to the £30,000 received by Scotland towards the cost of sites the House should bear in mind that it represented only a fifth of the value of the sites, and that four-fifths of the cost had come from private benefactions and the contributions of municipalities. As to the annual payment for maintenance he thought the treatment of Ireland compared favourably with that of Scotland. The figures for 1903 showed that while Ireland

  1569
  received several thousand pounds, Scotland only got £100. London got no less than £80,000. Looking at all these facts the House would realise that on the question of Treasury contribution Scotland had a great deal of leeway to make up before she could be said to be treated on favourable or just terms. He had received a print of a letter from Sir William Armstrong, director of the National Gallery of Ireland, in which that great authority on art said—
  "It is impossible to deny that Scotland, not the least artistic of the three countries governed from Westminster, has been treated very badly indeed by the central authorities. The whole blame for this must be borne by the Scottish representatives in Parliament."
  He was unwilling to lie under that censure any longer, and he hoped the Scottish Members would soon get an opportunity of ventilating their grievance on this question. He hoped that the Commission proposed by his hon. friend would be appointed, and that it would result in a rearrangement of the grants to Ireland and Scotland, which would remove the present inequalities and give great satisfaction to both countries in this matter.
  MR. CUMMING MACDONAsaid the Royal Hibernian Academy had carefully preserved many valuable manuscripts, and he supposed the reason why they had not preserved or published a larger number was that they had not been given sufficient money to search the libraries of the Continent, where these magnificent manuscripts were to be found, having been lodged there for safety hundreds of years ago by the great chiefs of Ireland driven from their country by the ruthless marauders who invaded their territory from here in 1641, and the subsequent risings of an indignant race, famed all over Europe for their magnificent manuscripts and illustrious literature up till then carefully preserved by themselves. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, and the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow, had talked of the liberality of the
  1570
  Scotch people in supporting art, and they had also borne generous testimony to the position of Ireland in this matter, but both had admitted—and they were Bill agreed in this—that both countries had been treated very illiberally in the matter. If Scotland had been treated scantily, Ireland had, so far as he could see, been treated shabbily by the paltry grant given to it. The Academy had republished the Book of Ballymote, the Book of Kells, and a number of magnificent manuscripts in their charge. These ware amongst the most magnificent productions in the world, full of the choicest gems of literature, and the rarest specimens of medieval illumination of the most brilliant and artistic description; and if funds could be provided to enable them to continue this work the House would be able to congratulate itself on having done a great deed.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,)said that before referring to the subject brought forward by the Resolution, he felt that he must touch on the aspersions cast on the Treasury by the mover in regard to the Royal College of Science in Dublin. In securing Sir Aston Webb as the principal architect of the Royal College of Science in Dublin, the Treasury had reason to congratulate themselves, for Sir Aston Webb had as great experience as any man in England. They had also availed themselves of the valuable services of an Irish architect. The clerk of the works, although he was by ancestry a Scotsman, had spent most of his business life in Ireland, and done a great deal of private and public work there. If they had gone outside Ireland for men in certain cases, he would point out that they were not the sole offenders in this respect. In The Times of the 2nd instant he read that the Dublin Corporation refused, by a considerable majority, to ratify the acceptance of proposed Irish contracts for cement and dustbins which were much higher than the lowest tenders. As far as was possible the Treasury would employ Irishmen and Irish materials,

  1571
  He was unable to state definitely that night what were their intentions with regard to the allocation of the rooms within the new building of the Royal College of Science, Dublin, but he would give his most careful consideration to the subject, and would most willingly bear in mind the suggestions which had been made from various quarters of the House.
  With reference to the main portion of the Resolution, a great many comparisons had been made during the debate between Scotland and Ireland. He noticed that there was a very formidable combination between representatives of Scotland and Ireland—whatever differences otherwise they might have—to make a raid on the Treasury. The success which had attended the efforts of his hon. friends from Scotland a few years ago had been quoted as an additional inducement to continue that course on both sides of the House. He had no doubt that on the next occasion when his hon. friends from Scotland desired to make another demand on the Treasury they would receive the same amount of generous assistance from hon. Gentlemen from Ireland as they were giving that night to their Irish colleagues. But he would tell the House that the benches were not so full at that moment as they would be on Monday and Tuesday of next week when they would be discussing the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. He dared say much would be heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite about the waste and squandering of the public money by the Government in all directions. It was very easy to talk of economy, but these small sums demanded for various purposes amounted to an enormous total. As to comparisons between what had been given to Scotland and Ireland, he was not sure that they were not dangerous to Ireland, for he could adduce figures which would go to show that Ireland at that moment was receiving more than Scotland. However, he thought that those who had instituted those comparisons had not taken sufficient account of the facts of the case. He believed it had not been sufficiently present to the minds of those who had
  1572
  made these comparisons that much had been done by various corporations, and by private individuals.
  The wish had been expressed that night that better arrangements should be made for the housing of the Royal Hiberian Academy. He thought he could take it that there was a very general agreement on that point. But there were two possible objections to which he would like to refer. In cases where an institution receiving Government aid, and bringing a certain amount of traffic to the district in which it was situated, was suddenly transferred elsewhere, there was very often a considerable outcry in the locality from I which the removal took place. He hoped he might take it that the Government would be free from attacks on that line. There had also been a good deal of criticism in the last, though he had not heard it in the case of Dublin, on plans for bringing all buildings of this nature within a small area. If anything were done to bring this academy nearer the other science and art buildings in Dublin, he hoped the Government would not be accused of improperly concentrating them in one comparatively small district.
  He had given careful attention to the debate, and had noted a unanimous feeling in favour of inquiry. While unable, in any degree, to commit the Treasury to expenditure, he admitted that a case for inquiry had been made out. He was not at all sure that full value was obtained for the money expended. He, on behalf of the Government, would undertake that there should be an inquiry, though he was unable at the moment to describe the nature and scope of it. He gathered from what had been said that there was a desire that the inquiry should follow the lines of that which was held in reference to Scotland, and upon that he would consult with the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whether upon the Report of the tribunal the Treasury would be justified in making a further demand upon the taxpayers he could give no pledge;

  1573
  he would agree there should be an inquiry, and later, by private communication with hon. Members, or discussion upon the Estimates, details should be arranged. Upon this assurance he hoped the Motion would be withdrawn.
  MR. MOONEYsaid that after the speech of the hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Motion on the understanding that the hon. Gentleman would do his best to appoint this Committee of inquiry in the same manner as the Committee had been appointed for Scotland. As to the personnel of the Committee, he would be perfectly satisfied I if it were of the same stamp as the Committee for Scotland.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ALIEN PILOTS.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid the question he wished to bring
  1574
  before the House might be summed up in a few words. It was that the practice of granting certificates to aliens, enabling them to act as pilots in British waters, constituted a national danger, was an injustice to duly qualified British subjects, and ought to be discontinued. This subject related to what was really a very anomalous state of things if the law in this country was compared with the pilotage law in all the other countries in the world. In proof of the dissatisfaction and alarm caused by the existing state of the law he would refer to certain circumstances which took place in March last.
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present.
  The House was adjourned at twenty-eight minutes after Eleven of the clock till Tomorrow.

VOLUME 144
  BUDGET SPEECH, 1905.
    ERRATUM
    In column 1050, line 20, for "6s. 9d. per proof gallon," read "6·9d. per proof gallon"; line 23, for "14s. 3d.," read "14·3d."