, in rising to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, ownership of land should carry with it the duty of cultivation, and that in all cases where land capable of cultivation with profit, and not devoted to some purpose of pubilc utility or enjoyment, is held in a waste or uncultivated state, the local authorities ought to have the power to compulsorily acquire such land by payment to the owner for a limited term of an annual sum not exceeding the then average net annual produce of the said lands, in order that such local authorities may in their discretion let the said lands to tenant cultivators, with such conditions as to term of tenancy, rent, reclamation, drainage, and cultivation respectively as shall afford reasonable encouragement, opportunities, facilities, and security for the due cultivation and development of the said land,"

said, he was aware that abstract Resolutions moved in that House without the immediate prospect of legislation following were often a waste of time; but last year, when he introduced a Bill on this subject, he was told by many hon. Members on his own side of the House that no measure of that character ought to be brought forward except by one of the Members of the Front Benches. He could scarcely expect such a measure from the present Government, and he had seen no sign of any inclination towards such a measure from the Opposition Front Bench. For this reason, and because of the utter impossibility of carrying in this Session a contentious Bill by a private Member, he now attempted to proceed by Resolution to elicit through debate and in the Division Lobby an expression of opinion from the House on his proposal. He would remind the House that in the last Parliament he introduced a Bill involving the same principle— i.e., that of compulsory cultivation, but differing in some very important details from the Resolution now submitted. That Bill was fairly discussed on second reading, and then withdrawn. He would venture to submit three propositions, all of which seemed to him to be clear, and the acceptance of which by the House would involve the acceptance of the Resolution in spirit if not in each of its details. The first of these propositions was that the right of ownership of cultivable land ought to carry with it the duty of cultivation. He used the word "cultivation" in its widest sense as equivalent to utilization, not meaning necessarily cereal or green crops, but that it should furnish employment. The second proposition was that of the culti- vable land in the United Kingdom there were now 12,000,000 acres in an uncultivated state. He had heard strong denials from hon. Members, whose opinions were entitled to respect in that House, that there was a solitary acre of such land uncultivated except on account of the exigencies of a vacant farm; but he hoped to be able to satisfy the House that his view was correct. The third proposition, which followed upon the other two, was that, when the owner would not cultivate, means should be adopted to insure due cultivation. With regard to the first of these contentions, it had been said by a former Member of this House—one of worldwide repute as a political economist—that whenever in any country the proprietor, generally speaking, ceased to be an improver, political economy had nothing to say in defence of landed property, as so established, when the owner was merely a sinecurist quartered upon it. Without, however, relying upon political economy, he would submit that as a matter of law the principle had been recognized over and over again in this country that all holding of land was subject to the well-being of the population, and he submitted that Parliament was the supreme and only interpreter from time to time of what that well-being was, and there was no ownership of land known which permitted the owner to do what he pleased with it. On the contrary, Parliament had always claimed control over the manner of ownership, and even to deprive the owner of his possession when his ownership conflicted with something that Parliament considered to be for the well-being of the country. That was seen in the case of railways, canals, and town improvements. Even when the owner was left in possession, he was not allowed either by Statute or by Common Law to do what he pleased with the land. The Civil and Criminal Law contained remedies and penalties against him if he used or abused his ownership to the annoyance or injury of his fellow-citizens. In a crowded country like this, from which people were recommended to emigrate, a man who held large quantities of land in an uncultivated state was guilty of an offence which, if not yet a legal, was certainly a moral offence, and an offence which the law ought to step in and deal with. Here, where a large number of people were out of employment—and a little while ago the fact of their being out of employment was of interest to Conservative Members, and when there was land which would afford employment but did not, owing to the action or non-action of the owners, he urged that the Legislature had a duty as well as a right to step in and make that a legal offence which was now a moral offence. If land would provide reasonable and profitable employment for the unemployed, the owner should be warned that he would not be permitted to deprive the masses of facilities for honest existence. Unoccupied and unused land near great towns escaped the local rating, whilst its value for building purposes was enormously increased by the mere augmentation of population. Those who leave land unoccupied near large centres of population laid a burden upon the ratepayers, as the land escaped the burden which it ought to bear. The objection would probably be raised again—"May not a man do what he likes with his own property?" To that he replied, the law says "No." They had already legislated with reference to certain classes of property in the direction to which he had referred. No property could be more valuable to a man who had no other property than his labour, but an able-bodied man was not allowed to let his labour lie idle, and to live upon charity; he was not even free to transfer his labour suddenly, if he left behind him a wife and children. He would be punished as a rogue and vagabond. If labour was burdened with penalties, then land, which had none of the anguish, none of the misery, and none of the pressure which labour had to bear, might be made by the House subject to the same burdens. He asked the House to declare that here, where the struggle for life was a very bitter one, that bitterness should not be enhanced by the people being told that there was land across the Atlantic or across the Pacific for them when there was land in this country to cultivate if they were only permitted to do so. He had been asked whether he thought anyone would be idiot enough to have land in an uncultivated state which could be cultivated with profit? Without going into that question, he could assure the House that what he had stated was absolutely the case. He admitted that it was not easy at first to say how much of the uncultivated land was absolutely cultivable with profit. By that term he meant land which, as a first charge, repaid life to the labourer engaged in its cultivation, reimbursed all outlay of interest necessary to insure cultivation, and left any margin, however small, beyond, even if it did not produce enough profit for the tenant farmer. He quite admitted that before he could induce hon. Members to vote with him they would have to contradict flatly the doctrine laid down by the late Lord Beaconsfield, that there were three classes to be maintained from the land—the landlord, the tenant farmer, and the cultivator; and he urged that if the land in any case would only maintain two classes and not three, it was the duty of Parliament to see that it did maintain the two rather than it should be idle and maintain none. And if the land would neither maintain three classes nor two, but would maintain one, the cultivating labourer, then it was the duty of Parliament to see that it maintained the one rather than that otherwise helpless one should die. Now, there had been no investigation directed expressly to ascertain what uncultivated land was capable of cultivation with profit, and therefore the evidence upon that subject has been got incidentally. Mr. J. B. Denton—who was examined before the Royal Commission presided over by the Duke of Richmond—estimated the irreclaimable land in England and Wales at 4,722,100 acres; the cultivated land at 27,000,000 acres; and the uncultivated land capable of improvement at 5,596,000 acres. In Ireland, Professor Baldwin and Major Robinson, in their Report, showed that 6,000,000 acres of land were comparatively worthless, and the greater part of this was capable of being, and ought to be, reclaimed. On making a further examination into the subject Professor Baldwin said he was inclined to think there was some exaggeration as to the amount of waste lands in Ireland. There were not, he said, more than 1,500 acres of land capable of reclamation, 1,000,000 acres of bog land, and at least three or four times that amount of semi-waste which would admit of reclamation. The Professor afterwards admitted that, at the present, this semi-waste was absolutely worthless, pro- ducing no profit to the landlord or anyone else. Hon. Members might ask, with the distress in Ireland, how was it possible there could be so much waste; but he would show them. He might observe in passing that this statement of Professor Baldwin was corroborated by Major Robinson, these two gentlemen being Assistant Commissioners, appointed by the Duke of Richmond's Commission, and certainly they could not be accused of trying to make a case for the theory he (Mr. Bradlaugh) put forward. He thought it quite possible that some of the Irish Officials might express an opinion as to the value of Major Robinson's evidence; but certainly they would not suggest that any of the hon. Members sitting around him had had anything to do with fixing the kind of testimony which the Major gave. Mr. A. J. Kettle showed why this uncultivated land existed. In his evidence before the Commission, Mr. Kettle said that in a great part of Mayo and on the mountains and bogside of Tipperary and Kerry there had been endeavours to reclaim the land by the tenants, who had had no help but their own hands, with no capital advanced by their landlords, but done solely by the tenants with their own labour and the little savings from the earnings they might have got by harvesting in England and elsewhere; and, said Mr. Kettle, the moment they had by their exertions created property in a rude way and made the land furnish a crop, the landlords raised their rents, so that rather than that one class should live, the land was put waste again, not contributing its share of Imperial taxation, escaping what might be its burden of local taxation, and driving men to starvation and misery who were willing to earn an honest livelihood. No wonder they had Land Leagues and agrarian crime in Ireland. The bog lands themselves, it was shown, might be dealt with, and that was why, in his Motion, he preferred, as well for the bog lands of Ireland as of others, that where large drainage works were necessary to insure cultivation the Local Authorities should have power to raise money, and do that which the individual could not do by himself. As an illustration of what might be done in the reclamation of waste land, he might instance the case of Penstraze Moor, in Cornwall, which in 10 years had been converted from moorland into productive land, maintaining a considerable number of families, with cottages and flower and fruit gardens. The landlord, prior to his letting the land, got nothing whatever for it; but during the 10 years he had received from the willing tenants £1,084 in fine renewals which they were willing to pay, but which they ought not to have paid. He was pressing this upon the House because, sooner or later, the country would have come face to face with this question. The Land Question of this country would be the battle question of this country. It might be made a peaceful battle-ground if Gentlemen of large property on both sides of the House would understand that by small concessions they might grow richer as well as enrich the poor; and if they made none the crash would come which the wisest would be unable to prevent, and which would carry ruin on all sides. Taking the evidence as to England, Wales, and Ireland together, he estimated that there were 11,000,000 acres of cultivable land in these countries. He would not try and reckon the land of Scotland, because he could not do it with any considerable accuracy. The witnesses spoke of "immense tracts of land" lying uncultivated, and he admitted that a good deal of this land was at such a level above the sea as practically to make cultivation impossible. Still, there were many ways of utilizing the utilizable, if people were not too careful of themselves and too careless of the misery round about. One Selkirkshire farmer explained why waste cultivation did not prosper in Scotland. He had tried to reclaim some waste. He built a wall and drained the land, and then the landlord determined the tenancy and allowed him nothing for the improvement. As mischief had been made in Ireland by harsh, brutally harsh, action on the part of landlords, so mischief was being made in Scotland now; and to deal with it in small pieces of legislation here and there, when they might give the people the opportunity of dealing with it themselves in a way that would make them peaceable, contented, and happy—to deal with it by repression or armed force, when they might deal with it by enabling them to dig and plant—he maintained was a most unwise course, unless they wished to provoke conflict. He proposed that the House should decide that the Local Authorities should have power compulsorily to take away from the landowner land which he had not cultivated; that the land so taken away should be given to the tenant and cultivated for a limited term, with power on the part of the tenant to renew the tenancy on his showing that he had improved the land in his cultivation. To encourage increased cultivation and industry he would give a longer term at the same rental for every percentage of improvement the tenant had made. Where a man knew that he tilled the land for his own benefit the crop came richer to him. There was an energy in his cultivation of the land which no mere hired labour could produce. He maintained that this was no revolutionary measure. It was a measure which would give employment to the unemployed, make thrifty those who had now nothing to save, reduce the poor rates by putting fewer people with less claim upon them, and increase the purchasing power of every artizan's wage. This was no mere Land Question; it was a trade question as well. Employers of labour were coming face to face with terrible struggles, We, in this country, however, might say with pride that the men who had struck for higher wages since education had become more common and literature more cheap had become more patient, more law-abiding than any other people in the world. He would take as an illustration the recent strike in Northumberland. There had been no riot, disorder, or mischief; but there had been much hunger and misery. He intended to persevere with this Motion and to press it to a Division so that the people might judge between those who proposed employment for the unemployed which cost the Nation something, and those who proposed employment which cost the Nation nothing, but which brought money into the National purse. The Government and its Supporters proposed huge works of relief, costing millions of money; he, on the other hand, proposed works all over the country which paid their own profit. But he might be asked, "How can you expect produce to be reared here when you cannot compete with foreign produce now?" He had already tried to remove one of the difficulties which had handicapped this country against foreign competition in relation to market and dairy produce by destroying the infamous system of tolls. He frankly admitted that in this he had the most potent assistance from Gentlemen opposite. He would ask those hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who were directors of large railways, and who represented the large interest of capital, to consider how much they impoverished the people here by giving favourable preferential rates to people far off, thereby starving and killing the labourer at our own doors. He would tell those who represented landed interests, whether they sat on the Government side of the House or on his own side, that it was no use relying upon old Statutes and old deeds—old Statutes made when land and force made the law. Hammer, spade, and loom had to be heard to-day; and if this House would not hearken to them now, they would make themselves heard in times of hunger and of misery.

said, he rose to second the very conservative proposition of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). He (Mr. P. Stanhope) called it conservative, in the truest sense of the word, meaning as it did the gradual solution of the great land problem in such a rational and simple manner as might in time come to be accepted by the House. He desired, however, to speak on the Motion as it affected one branch of the subject. The Black Country, in which his constituency was situated, was the great centre of the iron industry of the Midland Counties. At one time it was a very fertile agricultural district, but owing to the action of mining and industrial operations it had become nearly a waste. Five hundred thousand people had to live a hard, painful, and weary life in this district; and, quite apart from the profitable character of the cultivation, he would urge in the interests of the happiness of the people, in the interests of their enjoyment, that it was desirable that some steps should be taken to put under the plough or the spade such plots and parcels of land as might be available for the purpose. In the Black Country there were 50,000 acres of waste land; and in Durham, North Yorkshire, and other mining districts there were thousands of acres lying waste. The original system under which the mines in this particular district were developed was by the landlord giving a lease to some person to get the coal or the mineral under the surface. Generally there was a condition in the lease that the surface of the land should be restored to cultivation after the mineral had been obtained, or in default a fine to be paid to the landlord. In the majority of instances the worker of the mine had preferred to pay the fine to the landlord, who, instead of using it for the purpose of restoring the surface of his property, had pocketed the money and kept the land in an uncultivated state. The result had been prejudicial to the population of the district, who could not, like the more fortunate landlord, migrate to more fertile places; and he would like to see the Local Authority empowered to compulsorily take over land surrounding these districts on equitable conditions and enabled to let it out in times of depression for the purpose of affording some means of subsistence to struggling families. There were a large number of cases, some of which he would quote to the House, where these lands had been restored either to cultivation or to the purposes of enjoyment. The House might be inclined to think that the plan suggested in the Motion possessed no possible means of profit. But in a district with which he was acquainted there were no less than 2,500 acres of mining waste which, though unprofitable at the present time, might under some power conferred on the Local Authority be restored, if not for the purposes of cultivation, at all events for purposes of recreation in which direction this sort of land had been successfully utilized, and the borough surveyor in that district said with regard to cultivable land now land now lying waste in these localities—

"I am bound to confess that where there has been a failure to make the land yield a profit by small tenants, it is due to the enormously exaggerated value which is placed on the land by the owners in the shape of rent."

The proposition of his hon. Friend was made for the purpose of avoiding the exaction of these high rents. Its object was that the Local Authority should step in between indolent and exacting landlords and those who on fair conditions were eager to become their tenants, and afford them facilities for cultivating land which was at present useless and unprofitable. In this time of distress the poor rate was enormous, and the whole of it fell upon the poorer class, and the great proprietors of land, who had worked out hundreds of thousands of pounds from the land, did not contribute one farthing in poor rates to the support of the people whom they had attracted to these centres of industry. He thought that the proposition advanced by his hon. Friend was one which would be generally accepted by the country, if for the moment it were not adopted by the House.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, ownership of land should carry with it the duty of cultivation, and that in all cases where land capable of cultivation with profit, and not devoted to some purpose of public utility or enjoyment, is held in a waste or uncultivated state, the local authorities ought to have the power to compulsorily acquire such land by payment to the owner for a limited term of an annual sum not exceeding the then average net annual produce of the said lands in order that such local authorities may in their discretion let the said lands to tenant cultivators, with such conditions as to term of tenancy, rent, reclamation, drainage, and cultivation respectively as shall afford reasonable encouragement, opportunities, facilities, and security for the due cultivation and development of the said land,"—( Mr. Bradlaugh, )

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

said, the hon. Member for Northampton commenced his speech with an appeal to the House to treat his Motion as a serious question, and he was not altogether indisposed to accede to that appeal of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), who, he frankly acknowledged, had, in the course of his observations, dealt with a variety of subjects the importance of which could not be overrated. He could not, however, help noticing the great discrepancy which existed between the Motion before the House and the views expressed by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope) who seconded it, for while the Motion, so far as he understood it, was limited to the acquisition by the Local Authority of land lying waste and uncultivated, the seconder went a great deal further—namely, that the Local Authority should be enabled to step in between indolent and exacting landlords and their tenants and reduce the rents. He would, however, have the two hon. Gentlemen to reconcile their views. According to the main contention of the hon. Member for Northampton, the ownership of land carried with it the duty of cultivation. Not only did it carry with it the duty of cultivation, but also the practice, unless there were some very good reasons to the contrary. It was an unfortunate fact that there were thousands of acres now lying out of cultivation, and the process was continuing. But why? Because, unfortunately, it had been found that to cultivate did not pay. No man, however, would let land lie idle of his own free will and desire, unless he were a lunatic. The fact of the matter was that it cost more to cultivate land than its produce realized. What was the hon. Member's remedy for all this? He said—"Give the Local Authority powers to acquire this land by compulsion. Let them buy it out of the Public Funds and let it out to new tenants." But why should the new tenants be able to make the land pay any better than the old? Did he understand the hon. Member to contemplate that no rent was to be paid for that land in the future? If that were so, how was the interest upon the purchase-money to be paid? If the land was to be taken by compulsion, without any purchase-money being paid, we should indeed have arrived at a new development in the doctrine of public plunder. The hon. Member spoke of heavy rents having been charged, and of tenants' improvements having been unjustly and unfairly confiscated by the landlords; but, surely, the hon. Member was sufficiently a master of this question to know that the confiscation of improvements by a landlord was not possible at the present day; and that every tenant who made improvements on his land did receive compensation for them, and, moreover, could claim compensation by law. The hon. Member also gave a definition of what he called cultivation and profit. He said that he meant by cultivation that which would give life to the person who cultivated, and any margin would be profit; and he spoke of 12,000,000 of acres in the United Kingdom which might be cultivated with profit. Where did those 12,000,000 acres come from? With all respect for the hon. Member, until he heard a further and more complete elucidation of his views upon the subject, he would be very much disposed to question the fact of anything approaching that number of acres being uncultivated at the present time. His objection to the Motion was that it was not only abstract, but also vague in the extreme. The principle of the Motion was that subject to certain conditions, where land was in a waste or an uncultivated state, the Local Authorities ought to be armed with compulsory power to take those lands. To the Broad principle that for the public good land might be taken by compulsion he had no opposition to offer, but it must be proved to be for the public good, and he did not think the hon. Member had shown that to be the case on the present occasion. Again, compensation must be given to those people from whom the land was compulsorily taken. The hon. Member defined the compensation which would be given to many persons, and it would be something of this kind. The only payment made to the owners would be for a limited number of years an annual sum, which was absolutely nothing at all. One of the hon. Member's conditions was that the land must be capable of cultivation with profit. If the description of cultivable land given by the hon. Member—"utilization affording employment and realizing a profit"—were adhered to it would be found that very little of the land of the country would come within the scope of this Motion—

said, that his definition was land which would leave any surplus whatever after providing life for the labourer and reimbursing with interest any capital invested in securing such cultivation.

Quite so; but whether land was cultivable to that extent or not could only be proved by trial, and in such a trial he did not think public money should be expended. Then, again, what did the hon. Member mean by waste land? Did the hon. Member propose to exclude grass land? Would he exclude land which, as the phrase went, laid itself down to grass? Did he exclude gardens and parks? Did he exclude land which had gone back to rabbits? These were all questions de- serving of answer and of some consideration from the hon. Member. Again, take the case of the Highlands of Scotland. Some parts of those Highlands were capable of cultivation, but other parts were not. He knew instances of enormous reclamations being made. Perhaps the hon. Member might say that this land was capable of being cultivated with profit and ought to be acquired by the Local Authorities, and paid for out of Public Funds. He might remark, however, that in many cases these reclamations had been enormous losses. Then, what did the hon. Member say about deer forests? According to his view deer forests did fulfil the hon. Member's conditions of cultivation by which they would be excluded from the operation of his scheme. They did afford employment, and they did produce a profit. He wanted to know on what grounds the hon. Member was going to dictate to persons whose capital was invested in land unless he intended to apply the same principle to those whose capital was invested in trades and manufactures. He recognized the difficulties of the situation quite as much as the hon. Member for Northampton, and he desired to meet the hon. Gentleman, and all who entertained similar views, in the spirit in which he appealed to hon. Members who sat on the Ministerial side of the House. If there were one thing which he desired to see more than another it was that there should be a large addition to the number of owners of land in this country. He wished to see more land brought into cultivation, but he was afraid we could only look for that to some future improvement in the prices of produce. Hon. Members opposite should remember the growth of mechanical science was such that to-day we—with our old and partially worn-out soil—had to compete on practically equal terms with the vast and fertile wheat fields of the far West of America aad the boundless plains of India. This was a fact that accounted to a great extent for the state of things which they all, equally with the hon. Member, deplored, and which Parliament and the country would have to look honestly in the face. It was not for him to-night to state by what means a remedy could be found, but it was his firm belief, if the Motion of the hon. Member were given practical effect to, it would only add to and increase our existing difficulties, and it was for this reason that he hoped it would be rejected by the House.

said, not only did he sympathize with the Resolution of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), but he agreed with almost everything that had fallen from him. The central principle of the Resolution he presumed to be this—that the ownership of land carried with it the duty of cultivation. That was the principle which the hon. Member asked the House to affirm, and it would remain afterwards for the House to determine the best means of giving practical effect to the principle. The cause of land going out of cultivation was in a great measure due to the conditions landlords attached to cultivation. A large portion of the land now considered to be uncultivable could be made so. There were thousands of acres which did not now yield 6 d. an acre which might be cultivated to pay at least 2 s. 6 d. an acre by industry under changed conditions. He had in his own experience seen small holdings on the hillsides of Scotland that had been reclaimed exclusively at the cost of the holders themselves; and in almost every case—he was sorry to say he did not know any exception—at the end of the lease the landlord had exacted something like 15 s. an acre, the full value of the land, from the man who had given it that value. The right hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) said farmers were now fully protected by the Agricultural Holdings Act. But such was by no means the case. He, unfortunately for himself, had reclaimed 250 acres of land at his own expense. Before reclamation the land was valueless, and the landlord had spent nothing. At the end of the lease he had to go out without receiving a farthing of compensation. He did not complain of this, because he made the bargain; but so long as the present system remained he was not disposed to renew the experiment, and such examples did not encourage others. Given a free hand and perpetuity of tenure, he believed a large proportion of the land now considered uncultivable would be cultivated with profit to the cultivators and with great advantage to the nation. He would urge owners of land to consider carefully their present position, and to accept some such proposal as that of the hon. Member. He was not prepared to deal with properties so hardly as his hon. Friend; but he thought that for land which an owner was not receiving 6 d. an acre, from 1 s. to 2 s. 6 d. per acre would be a good price to pay him for it. Small patches of land would be highly prized by labourers to eke out their wages. As the question of deer forests had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he would say that he believed the practice in Scotland had actually deteriorated the land; and instead of doing anything to increase the wealth of the country, the practice of afforesting had diminished it. Fewer men were employed, and until late years a smaller return was produced. He inquired into the circumstances of one deer forest in particular. He was sure it would have been far more profitably turned to sheep farming at that time. It was impracticable to carry on farming under the present system of tenure. The Motion of the hon. Gentleman was directed more to small holdings, and that was the direction in which the cultivation of the country in the future must proceed. He did not believe there would be much recovery from the present depression until they succeeded in inducing a larger proportion of the population to settle on the land, and relieve the congestion of large towns. By this means they would increase cultivation, and add generally to the welfare of the community.

said, he thought if the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), who made the Motion, had visited the Eastern Counties, and seen the state of things there, he would have put the Motion in a different way, for he would have found there was no great desire on the part of the agricultural labourers to occupy land other than garden ground, because they knew that to farm the land at the present agricultural prices meant that their remuneration would not be so good as what they now received for their labour. There was nothing easier than to put the theory of the hon. Member for Northampton to the test. There were thousands of acres in East Anglia which could be bought for less money than it had cost the owners to erect the buildings and effect the existing improvements upon them. And of all classes of farmers the yeomen had suffered most. He was one himself; and though he would not detail his own sufferings to the House, he could assure them that this class of farmers was hard pushed to make both ends meet. He could hardly accept the statement that there were 12,000,000 acres of land out of cultivation; but, unfortunately, large quantities of land were becoming more and more unprofitable, and, until prices improved, he saw no hope of a better state of things.

said, his complaint of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) was made on different grounds to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Motion was too vague and general in its terms; his complaint was that it was too specific. If his hon. Friend (Mr. Bradlaugh) had confined himself to the assertion that the State had a right, when necessary for the well-being of the community, to step in and expropriate the owners of the soil at the market value, he should not object; but the hon. Member had chosen by this Motion to introduce a series of propositions, every one of which appeared to him to be legally unworkable, economically unsound, and morally unjust. In the first place, the hon. Member asserted that there was a duty of cultivation on the part of every owner of the soil. That was a very general proposition. There was a duty of cultivation under one set of circumstances, and one set of circumstances only, and that was in so far, and only in so far, as non-cultivation meant injury to the community in which the land was situated. If the proposition of the hon. Member had been qualified in that way he would so far have supported it. But the proposition of the hon. Member seemed to go further, and amount to this—that the Local Authority was to be entitled to speculate, for speculation it would be, at the expense of the ratepayers in land which might not yield an adequate return. Then in regard to the mode of payment proposed by the Motion, assuming that the case was one in which expropriation ought to be carried out, it was, in his opinion, the case that there were conditions of land tenure which were in- consistent with the welfare of the community; but that was a state of matters which had grown up under laws for which the Representatives of the people were responsible. They could not, consistently with the system on which the government of the country was carried out, take away property which was acquired on terms held out to the purchasers by the State of which they were members. If the Government had made a mistake in those terms, it would be perfectly right that the Government should come forward and buy out those who held the land to the prejudice of the community on fair marketable terms; but the persons to suffer must not be the individual owners who purchased on the authority of the State guarantee. The sufferer must be the State who made the mistake, and the taxpayer whom the State represented. He himself should like to see the Local Authorities in our towns and villages armed with powers which would enable them to acquire such land as was necessary for the development and proper increase of those towns and villages, and to acquire such land on other than ransom or speculative terms. It ought to be possible to purchase land wanted for that purpose upon such terms as would be fixed for a Railway Company by a valuer in an ordinary case, and subject to the qualification, as regards the future, which he would state. He recognized the justice of the proposal that the special unearned increment arising from the fact that the town or village was developing ought not to belong to the owner of the adjacent land; but the law had in the past given him that, and while it would be perfectly right and proper to declare that this special unearned increment, as distinguished from the general increment due to any general rise in the value of property, where it accrued in the future should belong to those who had created it, the State could not take it away from those to whom the law in the past had given it. Supposing that a man should, with a view to building on it, have allowed his land to lie waste, and that the net annual value was, in consequence, only 3 s. 6 d. per acre or less, would the hon. Member propose that nothing more should be given to the owner? What he said was, that in the future it would be perfectly fair to declare that a Local Authority might buy land adjacent to a town or village necessary for its development on the terms he had indicated. In his opinion, the Motion, if carried and acted on, would lead to great injustice, and therefore he could not support it; but he was ready to vote for a Resolution affirming the right of the community to interfere with private ownership on good grounds, at a fitting time, and on proper terms.

said, that the expression "land capable of cultivation with profit" begged the question. He wished to bring to the notice of the hon. Member for Northampton the fact that it was because land was incapable of cultivation at a profit that it went out of cultivation. In many parts of the county which he represented land was going out of cultivation because of the incidence of local taxation and of the tremendous stress of foreign competition. Would the hon. Member explain how waste land was to be cultivated at a profit when good land was going out of cultivation because it would not pay?

In the same way as Penstraze Moor was made to pay when land near it was alleged to have gone out of cultivation?

said, he should like to know who was to pay for the amateur experiments in agriculture recommended by the hon. Member? The tenant-farmer certainly could not bear any increase of local taxation at a time when it cost 40 s. a quarter to grow wheat which it was difficult to sell for 25 s. a quarter. He questioned whether any good was likely to result from crude and abstract schemes, such as that of the hon. Member.

said, that the hon. Member for the Maldon Division of Essex had said that agricultural labourers were not anxious to obtain land; but, did not almost all hon. Members on the opposite side at the last Election state in their Election addresses that they were ready to give land to the labourers if they desired it? That showed they then thought that the labourers desired to obtain possession of land, as in fact they did, if they could get it at a moderate rent—that was to say, the same rent as was paid by the farmer. The fact was, that agricultural la- bourers could not get, at a moderate rent, the land which they were eager to cultivate in small plots. It was because he believed that the plan of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) would create an opening for these small cultivating occupiers of land that he thought it should have the support of those who were interested in the condition of the agricultural labourers. It was most unfortunate that we should now have millions of acres of uncultivated land, which was intended to be cultivated and to grow food. No one who looked at these millions of acres growing nothing but weeds, could help thinking that there must be something wrong with the legislation of a country which allowed land to go out of cultivation, when the labourers of the counties in which this land was situated were anxious to obtain land, but were not able to do so. He believed that the proposal before them, if it received the sanction of the House, would promote the establishment of allotments all over the country, which was most desirable. We had now an agricultural population which was fast disappearing from the country. Some 30,000 people migrated annually from the rural districts to our large towns or to foreign lands. That was not satisfactory. It flooded the labour market in the towns and destroyed the peasantry which was once the strength, and should be the pride, of the country. He wished to see these people attracted back again to the rural districts, and he believed that this would be the case if they could obtain plots to cultivate. Every acre of land cultivated by such small holders would add to the food production and the wealth of the country. We spent some £24,000,000 a-year in buying eggs, butter, cheese, and potatoes, and such produce, from foreign countries. Surely these things might be produced here as well as across the sea. [ Cries of "No!"] At all events, hens in this country ought to be as profitable as hens in any other country. The agricultural labourers should be allowed to try the experiment of raising poultry and vegetables. The right hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin) had said that this question should be settled by experiment. Well, all that the supporters of the Resolution asked was that it should be settled by experiment, and that to that end the Local Authorities, who were not likely to abuse or make a foolish use of the powers with which they were entrusted, should be authorized to acquire land for the purpose of letting it to small occupiers for the purpose of cultivation.

said, that in the absence of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord John Manners) he had been asked to say a few words in answer to this Resolution. Before he passed to the terms of that Resolution and the words with which the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had introduced it, he would like to say one word on the speech to which they had just listened. It was most extraordinary that many hon. Members who professed to take an interest in the Land Question should day after day, and year after year repeat assertions as to the demands of the labourers for land not being satisfied, in spite of the figures and facts shown in the Agricultural Returns. While he did not for a moment assert that the system was perfect, or deny that there were cases here and there where difficulty exists, he distinctly affirmed that in nine out of 10 cases where labourers wanted allotments and where the land was suitable they could get them, and at a fair rent. He admitted that there had been a time when there had been difficulty, and even now there were such cases; but they hoped that that want would be satisfied very shortly, and the demand was not sufficiently great to justify the adoption of this Motion, which, he thought, was of a revolutionary nature, and hardly showed the ability and great common sense which usually distinguished the hon. Member for Northampton. The hon. Member invited the House, first of all, to affirm that it was the duty of landowners and occupiers to cultivate their land. It was their duty, and they had been endeavouring to carry it out. The proposal of the hon. Member was that owners and occupiers of land should be left in possession of all the good land; but that their bad land should be taken from them and handed over to an unfortunate class of people. That, in his (Mr. Long's) opinion, was a proposal very favourable to the landlord. As the hon. and learned Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) had pointed out it was the ratepayers who would unquestionably suffer. With regard to the question of the amount of land under cultivation of all kinds, he would point out that in England and Scotland there was an absolute increase. In Ireland, it was true, there was a decrease; but he thought that the House would hardly expect him to discuss the painful subject of how that had been brought about, inasmuch as causes other than bad times and agricultural distress had had much to do with that state of things in the Sister Isle. Last year the hon. Member for Northampton had brought in a Bill even more hostile to the landlords than his present proposals. In that Bill it had been proposed to subject the landlord to certain penalties, and the hon. Member had justified his proposition by telling the House what happened in China.

said, that while it was true that the Bill had proposed to make non-cultivation a misdemeanour, the only penalty which he imposed was compulsory expropriation.

said, that while this Resolution did not go so far as the hon. Member's Bill of last year, it went further than he thought the House would venture to go, and further than the Government would ever dream of asking them to go. The hon. Member for Northampton had referred to the case of a moor in Cornwall which had been reclaimed to a certain extent, and upon which the condition of the people was satisfactory. On the other hand, in the Agricultural Returns for 1886 hon. Members would see that in Sutherland 7,000 acres which had been brought under cultivation by the Duke of Sutherland at enormous expense and with the greatest skill and industry had gone out of cultivation, and were now classed as mountain land. In the case of the moor mentioned by the hon. Member there had been particularly favourable conditions, such as a supply of stone for building cottages.

said, that there were six inches of shale on the surface.

said, he believed that there had been stone which had proved useful for building purposes. But surely it was not enough to show that there had been one or two or three successful cases in order to justify calling upon the House to say that a man should cultivate all his land or have it taken away from him, and that the Local Authority should be saddled with the unfortunate position of being landlords. There was already great complaint as to the burden of local rates, and yet the hon. Member proposed that the ratepayers should bear the expense of experiments of this nature, merely because here and there there were to be found men who wanted allotments and could not get them. If it could be shown that the passing of a law of such a nature could reduce the poor rates and pauperism and maintain unfortunate people who had now to find their way to the workhouse, that would be a much better reason to bring before the House, though even then such a proposal would have to be approached with very great caution, but he did not believe that such a state of things would be realized. The hon. Member for Northampton had told them that even a labourer was not allowed to let his labour go to waste. What was really the case was that a man was not allowed to run away and leave his wife and children responsible to the district. As long as he took them with him he was free to do the best he could for himself. But he was authorized to say that it would be impossible for the Government to accept, and he believed it would be a long time before the House would accept, such a proposition as that of the hon. Member for Northampton. The hon. Member had warned them of what might happen. Well, it was his (Mr. Long's) hope and belief that Parliament would give its time to furthering the cause of agriculture and the products of land; but he could not believe that they would do any good to the agricultural classes or the working classes generally, who had been so frequently mentioned in the debate, by passing a Resolution of this kind, which proposed to give them the waste land of the country and call upon them to cultivate it, remembering all the time that if they failed to cultivate and loss ensued the burden would fall upon the ratepayers. For these reasons the Government could not accept the Motion.

said, he repudiated the idea that the cultivation by small holders in Sutherlandshire could not succeed, and that the land had fallen out of cultivation because it would not pay. He admitted that it did not pay the big farmers, owing to the competition of the sportsmen; but he contended that if the land were given to the small farmers, who, with their families, would labour on it, they would make it pay, and turn it into a smiling garden. There were thousands of people in Sutherlandshire who would gladly cultivate the land, and pay a fair rent for it, if they had the opportunity; but they could not compete with the Duke of Westminster, who had a gold mine here in London to work upon. There was in the Highlands a condition of affairs which was very serious. There were many men who were going about idle because they could not get the land to cultivate they wished; and there were congested districts where the people were degenerating into paupers for want of land upon which to put their labour. That was the case in Caithness as well as in Sutherland. The people were willing to pay a fair rent for the land or to buy it. Arrangements must be made in the congested districts either for these people migrating to the lands at present uncultivated, but which were cultivable, or for their emigrating.

The case referred to was a well known one, and was in no way caused by the pressure of the Duke of Westminster—it was purely the result of trying to reclaim impossible land.

said, he felt it his duty to challenge the statement of the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) that labourers did not want allotments. As a proof to the contrary, he would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Earl of Onslow's book on Labourers' Allotments, in order to show that the reason was that labourers who had allotments were charged a higher rent for them than the farmers were for the same quantity of land. The fact was, he said, that great landlords were guilty of the meanness of making a profit out of the thrift of the labourers, and then hon. Members came down to the House and coolly told them that labourers did not want the land.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 97; Noes 173: Majority 76.—(Div. List, No. 279.) [7.15 P.M.]

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.

, who had the following Notice on the Paper:—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the present mode of assessment for local rates of mansions, demesnes, and parks in the rural sanitary districts is based upon a principle which is radically unsound and unjust; that the Local Assessment Committees, being usually composed of persons dependent upon those whose assessments they have to revise, frequently cannot or will not raise the assessments when they should do so, while the only appeal from their decisions is to the Quarter Sessions, consisting of the owners themselves; that the lettable value is, as a rule, a purely fictitious figure, and affords no real test of the true rateable value; that as a consequence of the foregoing the wealthy owners of mansions, parks, and demesnes are enabled to evade their just share of the local burdens, which therefore fall with increased weight upon the less wealthy classes of ratepayers—namely, the farmers and shopkeepers; that in any readjustment of the burdens of local taxation it is essential to provide—(1.) For a more effective and independent authority for fixing the assessments to local rates; (2.) for a more equitable basis on which such assessments shall be made; and that with a view to such readjustment, it is desirable that a full and complete return should be made, showing amongst other particulars the capital and rateable values of such mansions, parks, and demesnes, and the proportion of local rates to which they are subject, as compared with the rating of shops and farms,"

said, he believed it was useless to try and redress the anomalies and the irregularities complained of, until the establishment of a more satisfactory system of local government in the counties. At the same time, it was not perhaps entirely useless to call the attention of the Legislature and the public to some of the grievances connected with the subject of his Amendment. He contended, as specified in his Notice, that the local assessment committees, being usually composed of persons dependent upon those whose assessments they had to revise, frequently would not, or could not, raise the assessments when they should do so, while the only appeal from their decisions was to the Quarter Sessions, of which body the owners themselves were members. The lettable value was a purely fictitious figure and afforded no real test of the true rateable value, owing to the fact that many of these mansions had never been let. Con- sequently, the great complaint was, that the wealthy owners of mansions, parts, and demesnes were enabled to evade their just share of the local burdens, which fell with increased weight upon the less wealthy class of ratepayers, such as farmers and shopkeepers in the country districts. The system of assessing these properties was as unsatisfactory as the basis of valuation was unfair. In the first place, the local assessment committee which fixed the valuation was not sufficiently independent, and those whose property was assessed had the right of appeal not to any independent and impartial tribunal, but to the owners themselves. That the evil existed there could be no doubt. It was not desirable or necessary at that moment to elaborate any new method to displace the old at the present time, and, indeed, his contention was that before they could be in a position to define what actually was necessary, assuming for the moment that they should take any practical steps at all apart from a thorough system of local government reform, there were two things it was essential to provide for—first, a more effective and independent authority for fixing the assessments to local taxation; and, second, a more equitable basis on which assessment should be made. With a view to a readjustment he contended that it was further desirable that a full and complete Return should be made, showing, among other particulars, the capital and rateable values of mansions, parks, and demesnes, and the proportion of local rates to which they were subject as compared with shops and farms. He had made application for a Return embodying some of this information; but it had been refused, and therefore he thought he was entitled to trespass upon the time of the House, and to place those facts before it. He complained incidentally that the proprietors of these great properties were not only rated much lower than they ought to be, but that when they came to reside in the country they obtained their goods from the Stores in London, and the local dealers were passed over. All he desired was, to ascertain the actual facts, and if those principally concerned were not ashamed of the present condition of things, and the way in which the law worked, then there could be no possible objection to granting such Returns, without which it was impossible to propose any definite reform. There was a great disparity between the assessment and the capital value of country mansions, and he could cite a number of cases of unequal rating as between farms and shops and large mansions and castles. For instance, Floors Castle, belonging to the Duke of Roxburghe, was assessed at £350; Drumlanrig, belonging to the Duke of Buccleuch, and Taymouth Castle, belonging to the Marquess of Breadalbane, were each assessed at £300; and Culzean, belonging to the Marquess of Ailsa, was assessed at £150. Coming to Cornwall, he would refer to the case of Carnanton, which was rated at £70, and the capital value of which he believed was something like £50,000; of Treliske, a magnificent house rated at £80; Tregothnan, rated at £300, the capital value of which was estimated at from £100,000 to £150,000; and Glendorgal, which was rated at £85, the capital value of which he believed to be about £15,000. Indeed, Lord Falmouth's house at Tregothnan afforded a good instance of the unfairness of the present system of assessment. The capital value of that mansion, as he had already said, was probably not less than £150,000; but the assessment was only £300. Why, there was a farm on his Lordship's estate, the capital value of which was about £7,000, and the assessment was actually £250, or only £50 less than that of Lord Falmouth, though the latter's house and grounds were 20 times as valuable as the farm. Lord Falmouth had recently demanded an additional £100 a-year from this farmer, who was one of the most skilful in the neighbourhood and had occupied the farm for many years. The farmer, however, preferred to leave, rather than to pay the increased rent; but if he had paid it, his assessment would no doubt have approximated still more closely to that of his landlord. He would also ask the attention of hon. Members to the injustice of the non-rating of woodlands, which if not rightly subject to permanent rating, should be made so, at least in the years when the timber was drawn away over roads maintained out of rates to which timber value did not contribute. He had received many letters from poor persons, complaining of the pressure of rates which they were obliged to pay in the rents of their small rooms, while the owners of large mansions practically escape rating. In all these matters of taxation they should seek to place the heaviest burdens upon the shoulders of those most capable of bearing them. He thought, however, he had sufficiently shown that the present basis of assessment was extremely unsatisfactory and unfair; and though he had not sufficient knowledge and experience to define with accuracy the principles on which assessments should be regulated, he would venture to suggest it would not be unfair that an assessment upon one-thirtieth, or 3 per cent on the capital value, would afford a reasonable basis and do much to remedy the enormous disproportion which existed at present. He had no wish to set class against class, or to persuade the poor that they ought to have something which belonged to the rich; but, so far as abuse and injustice existed, it was material to the social welfare of the country that the matter should be looked into with great care and little delay, in order that the growing feeling of discontent might be set at rest.

said, he thought the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) would have had more sympathy from the House if he had avoided in his Motion casting reflections upon two sets of public servants—the Local Assessment Committees and the Justices of Quarter Sessions. Such reflections, in his judgment and experience, were not deserved. The hon. Member complained that the local assessment of mansions, demesnes, and parks in several parts of the country bore no reference whatever to the capital value of the estate. Capital value in this case would mean the cost, first, of the land, and, secondly, of the buildings erected thereupon. But when they came to a question of assessment, cost was not a fair mode of proceeding to arrive at the assessable value. Not only did it not apply to the great mansions of the nobility over England and Scotland, but it did not apply in places in London and places near London, where the cost of the structure could not be allowed to be considered, and had not been considered, in the rateable value assigned to it by the Local Authority. A thing was worth just what it would fetch, and the best test of value in regard to demesnes and mansions they could have would be the fact that they were offered in the market at prices which were simply ridiculous in relation to the cost, first, of the demesne, and, secondly, of the mansion. He (Mr. Isaacs) submitted that this was not the time when a question of this character should be raised. Agricultural depression had fallen with crushing effect, not only upon the tillers, but the owners of land; and it was notorious that the grand old country mansions of the landed gentry were tenantless, simply because the owners could not afford to live in them themselves nor find tenants for them. Speaking of capital value, hon. Members must entirely obliterate from their minds, when dealing with a large mansion, any thing like the cost. The cost, in many instances, was not subject to assessment. For instance, if he were to build a mansion with Sicilian marble staircases, the Assessment Committee would make a great mistake if they thought they could get him to pay an increased assessment. It had been held that a mere architectural feature in the construction of a house was not subject to assessment; so that if they took away the architectural adornments of historic mansions, and left practically the bare walls, a totally different figure in respect of rateable value was reached from that of the original cost, which was not a fair subject for assessment. A hard-and-fast line could not be drawn; the assessment must depend on the attendant and surrounding circumstances of the object to be assessed. The ruling consideration ought to be—"What is the thing worth; what is its natural value in the open market?"

said, the Government might well be content to leave the discussion as it stood after the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the Walworth Division of Newington (Mr. Isaacs), who had given as complete an answer as it was possible to give to the case submitted by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare.) He had no complaint to make against the hon. Member for having brought the subject before the House. It was a matter of considerable importance which had engaged the attention of Parliament more than once without leading to any practical result; and even now the hon. Member himself did not seem to be hopeful that the discussion he had initiated would be of any practical value. From the appearance of the Benches also, when the hon. Member was speaking, the House seemed to be very much of the same opinion. The hon. Member had spoken of Protection. Protection had been advocated by certain people as one of the remedies for agricultural distress; but he had never heard of the sovereign remedy which the hon. Member had brought forward as being an important factor in the solution of the question of agricultural distress. The hon. Member seemed to think that the cause of it lay in the fact, as he contended, mansions were not sufficiently rated. The heavier rating of these mansions was the hon. Member's remedy for the agricultural depression. Very few were likely to agree with him in that proposition as a remedy for agricultural distress generally, or for the fall of prices. He trusted that, in all the circumstances, the hon. Member would not think him wanting in courtesy if he did not unnecessarily prolong the discussion. He (Mr. Ritchie) was not prepared himself to say that the present mode of rating mansions was altogether satisfactory; but he was prepared to say that it had not yet been shown that any other method would be more satisfactory. It would obviously be undesirable that this kind of property should be assessed on a different principle to other kinds of property. As to the complaint that the assessments were quite out of proportion to the cost of building, the actual cost of building was an eminently unsatisfactory basis on which to rate mansions, because a very large sum might be spent on the adornment which really did not add to the letting value. Indeed, he would go so far as to say that large expenditure in building actually detracted from the letting value of a house. If mansions were assessed at anything like the cost of building the result would be that they would remain altogether unoccupied. Some of those mansions had been erected at one time or another at enormous cost, and if the hon. Member's principle of assessment were to be applied to them the result would be that the rates would be so heavy that it would be impossible for the owners or anybody else to occupy them. It would be a great misfortune if the owners were driven from the occupation of their houses by the weight of rates, and if the localities were to lose the benefit which was always derived from the presence of great landed proprietors living on their properties. The letting value of the mansion was, it seemed to him, determined by what a tenant would give for it—not by what it had cost, and great cost in structure and ornamentation would rather deter persons from taking such places than attract them. As an instance, he referred to the mansion erected by Baron Grant, which no one would buy or rent, and which had to be pulled down. He was bound to say that he felt sorry at the terms of the hon. Gentleman's Motion, which cast considerable reflection on both the Assessment Committees and Quarter Sessions. These Assessment Committees were drawn from the whole of the Union, which in many cases was very extensive, and he did not see how any case of dependence could be made out such as was suggested by the hon. Member. These bodies were not at all open to any such reflection. And what he said of the Assessment Committees he would also say of Quarter Sessions. He had never before heard it urged that there was the slightest reason to suppose that the members of Quarter Sessions were not absolutely impartial. Whatever tribunal we erected in their place, we should never get a more economical or more impartial administration for the work they had to do than the Quarter Sessions. At the same time he was prepared to admit that the Government desired to deal with this question at no great distance of time, and in a manner which he hoped would be satisfactory to the House and to the country. He wished now to say a few words with reference to the last part of the hon. Member's Motion as to the obtaining of a Return, which had appeared on the Paper for a considerable time in the name of the hon. Gentleman. He had no objection to give to the House whatever information was in the possession of the Local Government Board that was of a kind sufficiently accurate to form a guide to the deliberations of the House, or that could be given at anything like a fair cost to the country. The hon. Member had spoken of this Return as being a very simple one, but he could assure him that it was not of such a character. The hon. Member wanted to ascertain the number and names of all mansions, the assessment of which amounted to £30 and upwards. But the hon. Member did not explain what he meant by the word "mansions." He felt sure that the hon. Member must acknowledge that that at the outset presented considerable difficulty. It would be necessary to get these Returns from 10,000 parishes in the country, and the only available officers to supply the information were the overseers, who were in no way subject to the control of the Local Government Board, and who would, of course, have to be paid for their trouble. The hon. Member wanted to know the capital value of these mansions, and in order to get that information it would be necessary to employ an army of surveyors at an enormous cost. Besides, the hon. Member wanted also to ascertain the rateable value. He took it that what the hon. Member meant was that they were to ascertain, not what rates were in the books, but what the rateable value ought to be. It would be with anything but a light heart that he should enter upon such an inquiry. His own opinion was that it was desirable that the existing state of things should be inquired into locally by the local officials. The hon. Member had said that this was a matter connected with the Local Government Bill. He was getting positively alarmed at what was expected of the Board. It was expected that the Government would deal with the Licensing Laws, but the Government had never promised an absolute reform of the Licensing Laws. All that they had promised to do was to deal with the authority; they had never promised to deal with all the Licensing Laws. Then they were expected to deal with charities, and, in fact, every imaginable thing from Dan to Beersheba. He would throw out a warning to all and sundry that they must not expect every grievance under the sun to be remedied by the Local Government Board. However, the question of assessment was one which might be fairly considered in connection with that Bill, although he was afraid he could not promise to go very far upon the road indicated by the hon. Member. Yet he might fairly say that the question of assessment had not been lost sight of, and that it might be dealt with in a Local Government Bill when they had an opportunity of introducing one. He had now laid before the House all the difficulties of the case. He had told the hon. Member the reasons which had actuated him in not giving the Return. He could assure the hon. Member that the Government considered the matter as being one of importance. They did not see any better mode of assessment than that now fixed by the law. At the same time, he was always open to consider whatever suggestions might be made to him by any hon. Member with reference to this question.

said, he failed to see why people who lived in houses that cost an enormous sum of money should not bear their fair share of the rates. As long as the mansions of the country were rated at ridiculously low figures the demand would continue for a change in the principle on which the assessments were made. Under the present system the burden was very unequally distributed, and an undue portion of it was laid on the shoulders of the middle classes and the poor. He hoped that the Government would grant the inquiry for which his hon. Friend had made out so excellent a case.

said, he had given Notice that he would call attention to the want of suitable pier and harbour accommodation on the western coast of Donegal, and to move—

"That it is desirable that better public provision be made in aid of the construction of piers and harbours in Western Donegal and in other parts of Ireland where the subsistence of the people derived from their ordinary agricultural pursuits is precarious."

He called attention to this matter last September, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) admitted that the matter was worthy of consideration and should engage the attention of Her Majesty's Government with a view to seeing what could be done. Since then, however, no steps had been taken by the Government to carry out works which were an absolute necessity. In his constituency in Western Donegal, at a place called Portnoo, a deal of money was spent by the Government in erecting a pier; but the Board of Works carried out their part in such a manner that the pier was erected in a disgraceful way—that it crumbled away, and it was now a mass of rubbish. By the expenditure of a little money a serviceable pier could be erected there. At Bunbeg harbour accommodation was greatly needed. There was abundance of fish off the coast, and if such accommodation were provided the people of these districts would be able to prosecute the fishing industry, which would open out a means of employment for large numbers of an industrious population who were at present compelled to remain inactive. The Irish Members had to bring forward these subjects again and again, and still nothing was done. He hoped to have some satisfactory answer from the Government, who had now a chance of engaging in a higher duty than that of coercing Ireland.

said, that this question had been frequently before the House, and was, no doubt, irksome to the House; but it was still more irksome to the Irish Members. A definite promise had been made last September, but nothing had been done in fulfiment of that promise. Shoals of fish passed the shores of Donegal, but the people were unable to catch them because they could not use larger boats than open yawls, in which they could not venture to go far from the land. If the harbour accommodation were improved they would be able to go to sea in large fishing smacks, and to compete with the fisherman from England, the Isle of Man, and France. The money which was spent upon improvements by the Irish Board of Works was often disgracefully mis-spent. Two piers erected by the Board at a small sea coast village in Donegal had been successively swept away, whilst the people were now taxed in respect of the large sums which were thus wasted owing to the gross incompetency of the Board of Works. The industries of Ireland had, it was well known, been ruined by British legislation, and some restitution was therefore due to the Sister Island. The Government ought not to miss the opportunity which now presented itself. At a comparatively small outlay they could provide on the sea-board renumerative em- ployment for a large section of the population.

said, he must at the outset observe that he could not hold out any great hope that the Government would be able to spend much public money in the construction of fishery harbours without the most careful preliminary consideration, and without the most satisfactory evidence that the expenditure would be justified. He might recall to the memory of hon. Members opposite that the Commission appointed last year was still pursuing its investigations. The Commissioners had quite recently made a tour of the whole Coast of Ireland, and their object was to find out what ought to be done, and how best to do it. Until that Commission had concluded its labours and issued its Report the Government could hardly be expected to make any large promises. The Government had, however, already shown that they were not blind to the claims of Donegal to improved harbour accommodation. Already, 58 works had been sanctioned in Ireland, at a total estimated expenditure of £235,089. Up to the March 31, 1886, between £80,000 and £90,000 had been spent out of a sum of £250,000 which was set aside not long ago for the construction of piers and harbours. In the Report of the Commissioners of Public Works for 1885–1886 it was pointed out that 20 out of the 58 works sanctioned were being constructed by day labour. This showed how ready the Commissioners of Public Works had been to recognize the difficulties of the particular districts to which attention had been called by hon. Members opposite. The very numerous works which were now being carried on showed that the question had not been neglected; but, as hon. Members knew, they were works which could not be carried on the whole of the year, and during a very large portion of it very little progress could be made. Then hon. Members themselves had confessed that the supply of harbours would not remove the causes of the difficulty, because the fishing was carried on by boats from England and the Isle of Man, and from time to time by French boats. He thought that hon. Members would hardly expect the Government to supply not only piers and harbours, but also boats which would live out at sea. The Government, however, were most anxious, as far as they could consistently with their duty to the taxpayers of the country, to promote the industries and the welfare of the people along the Coast of Ireland. The fact that £250,000 was to be spent was ample proof that the works were being carried on, and would not be neglected by the Government. He hoped that hon. Members, having discharged a very proper duty to their constituents in having called attention to these matters, would now allow the Government to proceed with Supply.

said, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had exactly proved their case. The English and other boats to which the hon. Gentleman had referred were thorough sea-going boats because they came from ports which admitted of such vessels being used. A precedent condition of having good boats was to have harbours to which they could run in very bad weather, and that was where the Coast of Ireland was deficient. These boats were able to run considerable distances to get to a good harbour. It was not so much the unwillingness of the Government to deal with this question that they had to complain of as the obstruction and in-competency of the Irish Board of Works, who refused to do anything to repair their own blunders. There had been a great waste of public money by the Board on piers and harbours all round the Coast of Ireland, of which striking examples were the harbours of Arklow and Howth, the latter of which was the greatest possible disgrace.

said, that they constantly heard that the Government were willing to do all they could to assist the industries of Ireland; but nothing practical ever came of these professions. He would remind the House that the miserable sum of £250,000 which had been referred to was Irish money, having been taken from the Irish Church surplus. He submitted that in the Report of the Inspectors of Fisheries there was just as much information as could be obtained by the Commission now appointed. The plea that they should wait for the Report of the Commission was advanced nine months ago; but it need not apply to Howth Harbour, in which he was particularly interested, and in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) once professed himself specially interested. With regard to that harbour, the Inspectors of Fisheries had reported after a sworn inquiry held on 20th October last. At that inquiry Judge Boyd was examined, a gentleman who, he thought, was open to severe criticism in some matters, but who certainly, to his credit, had always displayed during his residence at Howth the liveliest and most practical interest in the condition of the fishermen. Judge Boyd said that in certain parts of the harbour at low tide there were only five and a half feet of water, though the ordinary fishing boats drew at least eight feet, and these boats were, consequently, obliged to wait for the tide. The condition of the harbour prevented the entrance of the English steamers carrying buyers. This lowered the price of fish, and was a most direct injury to the fishermen. All that was wanted for the purpose of making Howth Harbour fit for its purpose was £5,000. He warned the Government that if they continued to ignore these practical grievances they would find the fishermen, who now pursued their avocation without giving any trouble, organizing themselves into a fishermen's league.

said, he did not think that the fishermen's league with which they were now threatened would have much effect in preventing the winds and waves silting up Howth Harbour. He was willing to acknowledge that the people of Howth had somewhat to complain of in the way in which their harbour had been neglected; but he had not heard that they had done anything to help themselves.

Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that these poor fishermen should make the harbour themselves?

No; but there were hundreds of wealthy men in Howth, as well as poor fishermen, some of whom had given evidence before the Commission. He did not deny that it might be easy to find blots here and there in the action of the Board of Works; but he submitted that that Board had not been remiss in looking after the piers and harbours of Ireland. A large sum of money had been ex pended in aid of piers and harbours, and a large sum still remained to be expended. Hon. Members spoke as if all this aid had been rendered in the past, and that nothing was to be done in the future. But the previous day a promis was made that a certain sum of money would be expended on the completion of piers and harbours in the West of Ireland. This was a proof that the Government were not lacking in attention to this subject. As the Commission had not yet furnished the Government with its Report and with the information necessary to lay the details before the House, it was impossible for him to say more than that the Government were aware of the fact that a sufficient number of harbour works had been left in an incomplete condition, and that a sum of money would be voted in order to enable them to be completed.

said, he hoped the Government would not complete the piers and harbours in the West of Ireland. In his opinion, it would be far wiser to throw the money into the sea at once, or give it to some charitable institution. The best way of spending the money was to knock down the incomplete piers and reconstruct them where there was water, because most of those harbours were quite dry at low water; in some cases there was too little water at the piers for rowing boats. The only wealthy man at Howth who gave evidence before the Commission was Judge Boyd, who could not be expected to do as the Under Secretary suggested the Howth people should do—namely, make the harbour themselves. It should be remembered that in 1865 there was nine feet of water at low tide and steamers could come in, but the Government destroyed the harbour by their interference. They ended by sinking a dredger in Howth Harbour, and then they levied a toll of 10 s. a head on each vessel that came into it. A breakwater was also constructed by the Board of Works at Howth Harbour; but it was so carried out that it was practically useless, and refuse silted up to the mouth of the harbour without any hindrance. Instead of the water inside the breakwater being about eight feet deep, they could walk across two-thirds of it at low tide. Now, the smallest smacks which it would be practicable to engage in fishing were about 25 tons burden, and these would draw from eight to nine feet of water, so that during a most dangerous gale these fishing smaks would not be able to get into the harbour unless they happened to strike it at half tide, and the consequence would be that they would have to ride outside on a very dangerous coast for seven or eight hours. That was the result of the expenditure of money by the Board of Works. The toll of 10 s. a head on every vessel had proved actually ruinous; it had prevented English or other vessels coming into Howth, and the people, owing to their being taxed for the money expended already, were now in a very impoverished condition. Judge Boyd, who had resided in Howth for a good number of years, had been compelled to take his yacht out of the place, because he could not get her in and out of the harbour except at full tide. He hoped the Government would not spend a single penny on the work, as the money would be recklessly expended, and an almost starving people would be further taxed owing to the mismanagement of those who would be employed in the superintendence of the work.

said, he thought it was due to the House that the Government should give some explanation as to the sum to be spent on the piers and harbours in the West of Ireland. The Government said they were waiting for the Report of the Commission; but his experience of Commissioners was that they served as an excuse for the Government delaying its ordinary work. In his opinion the Government had not a single penny at their disposal to devote to the work of providing harbour accommodation, and that was the reason the Secretary to the Treasury had given the answer he had done. It was the duty of the Irish Members to insist that their representations should be listened to, and it was worth while to continue that discussion the whole of the evening in order to get some satisfactory statement from the Government.

said, that the same curse of incapacity followed the expenditure of all public moneys in Ireland. In Bantry Bay a comparatively small expenditure would do much to improve the harbour if rocks were blasted and other impediments to navigation removed. The £250,000 which it was said had been voted for the harbour and pier improvements was really the money of the Irish people, of which they ought to have the spending. But it was not really the intention of the Government to do anything, and no good result was ever derived from the numerous Royal Commissions which had been appointed.

said, that since 1853 the taxation of Ireland had been increased more than £3,000,000 a-year without any substantial advantage being conferred on Ireland in return for that additional expenditure. What the Irish Members complained of was that there had been no intelligent and scientific inquiry made into the works which were undertaken with regard to harbours.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and negatived.

Before we agree to this Resolution, perhaps the Lord Advocate can shortly explain the reasons for it? I believe it amounts to raising the salaries of Scotch Judges, but the Committee should be satisfied that it is justifiable.

The Royal Commission of 1867 unanimously recommended that the salaries of Scotch Judges, which were lower at that time and which are still lower than the salaries of Judges in England and Ireland, should be reconsidered. The matter has stood over for a considerable time, as such matters involving an increase of salary to anybody usually do, while meantime the expense of living and everything else have steadily increased. Proposals are now made by which the emoluments of Scotch Judges will not even be brought up to an equality with the emoluments of the Irish Judges, which I think I am right in saying is a salary of £3,500 a-year, in addition to which they draw allowances of £500 a-year more. The proposal of this clause is to fix the salaries of Scotch Judges at £3,600 a-year, but to give them no allowances at all for Circuit expenses. At present the Judges who do criminal work have £500 for expenses, and have drawn as much as £526 per annum. It is now proposed that all Judges shall do Justiciary work. The Lord Justice Clerk, who goes two Circuits, has a salary of £4,500, and allowances the same as the other Judges. It is now proposed to increase his salary by £300 a-year, and there will be no allowances for Circuit expenses. The Lord Justice General, who does not usually go on Circuit, has a salary of £4,800, and he had allowances of £200 if he should go on a Circuit. It is now proposed to give him the same salary as is given to Puisne Judges in England—namely, £5,000 a-year, and should he on any occasion go on Circuit there will be no further allowance. I may add that I should not have made these proposals had I not been able to satisfy the Treasury that by the Procedure Bill such economies would be affected that not only would there be no fresh burdens imposed upon the State by this reasonable increase in the Judges salaries, but in addition there would be an annual saving.

I cannot help thinking this statement of the Lord Advocate is very unsatisfactory. As I understand it, there is to be an increase in the salaries of Scotch Judges, and he has informed us there is to be a considerable saving, though I do not remember that the Bill we had before us last night proposes any alterations whereby these savings are to be effected. I am the last person to desire to underpay Judges; but I do think that the salaries of Judges might, if they are to be made uniform, be reduced in Ireland and in this country. The Lord Advocate seems struck with horror at the proposal; but, as compared with other countries, the salaries are high. I should like to hear from the Lord Advocate some further and fuller explanation how the country is to be benefited by the proposals he mentions.

The hon. and learned Member must have long had in his hands the Bill in which the proposals are clearly set forth, and I made a statement on the Motion for second reading. The hon. and learned Member asks how these savings come about? They arise in this way. For a good many years there has been a custom in the Sheriff Courts of bringing up prisoners on two separate occasions. On the first occasion, if they plead guilty they are at once sentenced; but if they decline to plead guilty they are brought up again after a certain number of days. This system of two diets in the Sheriff Court saved to the State about £ 1,850 per annum. We propose to extend the same system to the Supreme Court, and there will be a saving of about the same amount of money. Then we propose by the Bill to abolish three offices, saving nearly £360 a-year on each, the offices of Clerks of the Circuit; the net saving will be, I think, £800 a-year. Various other savings will be effected in consequence of a smaller number of jurors being summoned. We also propose to effect a saving in the expenses of trumpeters, &c. on Circuit. We do not propose absolutely to abolish these ancient customs, but we shall carry them out at a much cheaper rate. I am not quite in a position at this moment to go over in detail all the particular items in the Bill that will conduce to the lessening of expenditure; but I can assure my right hon. Friend (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), who knows perfectly well the usual course of business in these matters, that we have been able to satisfy those who look after economy on behalf of the Treasury, and inquiry will show that I am correct when I say that though I cannot say exactly the amount that will be saved, it undoubtedly would be expressed in four figures.

I certainly do not attach much importance to the amount of savings, for this should not enter into the question of the payment of Scotch Judges one way or the other. The contention of the Lord Advocate is very fair that Scotch. Judges ought to be on the same footing as regards emoluments with Judges in Ireland. I only raise the question because I think the intention of the change should have full notice, and I would impress on the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the absolute necessity of a distinct Treasury Minute or Record being made of this arrangement for the abolition of allowances, or I fear that in the course of a few years application will be made for Circuit expenses on the ground that similar allowances are made in England and Ireland. I think it ought to be put on permanent record beyond all dispute that this question is now finally settled.

This is directly stipulated in the Bill itself.

We do not object to the slight increase in the salaries of Scotch Judges, because I do not think you will be able to get able advocates to take seats on the Judicial Bench without adequate salaries. To place them in a position equal to Irish Judges is only fair towards Scotland, especially as the Lord Advocate says a considerable saving will be secured by the change in procedure.

One question I should like to have answered. What increase, if any, is to be made in the annual payment by the State of the allowances to Scotch Judges; what increase in the total sum?

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, of increased Salaries to the Lord Justice General, the Lord Justice Clerk, and the Lords of Session of the Justiciary Courts in Scotland, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to simplify and amend the Criminal Law of Scotland and its procedure, and to alter the Constitution of the Justiciary and Sheriff Courts in Scotland.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

I do not rise to object to this Bill, which has a useful object, and, I believe, attains that object to a considerable extent, and in a way to which no exception can be taken, and which certainly does not wish to contravene the doctrine of Free Trade. What I wish to speak about is this. As the Secretary to the Board of Trade is aware, among the few remaining manufacturing industries of Ireland that best known is the manufacture of Balbriggan hosiery. The House is aware that most of the industries of Ireland have been crushed out of existence, and I am sorry to inform the House that this particular surviving industry is also threatened with extinction owing to the fraudulent use of the word "Balbriggan" by other manufacturers than those who reside in that locality. I do not wish to allude to any manufacturer in particular; I will only say that by the use of the word Balbriggan for fabrics of inferior manufacture the reputation of the true Balbriggan hosiery has been greatly injured, and unless some steps are taken for its protection I fear it will be extinguished outright. I have been told by one of the principal Balbriggan manufacturers that he is afraid he must shut up his factory in six months from this date. Now this, in the present state of Ireland, would be a serious matter, and the question I rise to ask is this—I have not read the evidence given before the Select Committee to whom this Bill was sent for consideration, and I have not seen the Amendments made; but I wish to ask has this question of Balbriggan trade been considered in Committee; and, if so, whether any effectual steps have been proposed, or Amendments inserted in the Bill, calculated to carry out the object I have in view? I have no intention whatever of obstructing the Bill; but I ask this question so that I may know whether it will be necessary for me, or some other Irish Member, to move an Amendment for the purpose I have indicated. I may observe that the Bill has not been reprinted, and it may be necessary to postpone further consideration, unless it can be circulated to-morrow, or early on Monday. Obviously, it would not be possible for us, in a matter of this kind, involving legal questions, to draft, in a few minutes, the Amendment we might think necessary. I am sure, from the attitude of the hon. Gentleman, he will take a reasonable course, and give me the information I now ask for.

In reply to the question of the hon. Member, I am glad to be able to assure him that the subject of the Balbriggan trade was considered by the Select Committee, as he will find from the evidence; and he will find that, under Clause 3, it is clearly set forth that any imitation of a registered title would come within the penalties imposed by the Bill; and, further, there is a definition of what I may call generic names, by which any industry is qualified to have its origin fixed by the name of a particular place, and this was specially inserted to meet cases similar to that of Balbriggan. If the hon. Member will accept my assurance, when he comes to see the Bill he will bear me out in the statement that we have had special regard to preventing, as far as we could, the use of any name falsely indicating the place of origin of any manufacture. I may add that I hope the Bill will be in the bands of Members to-morrow; it is printed, and will be, I believe, circulated to-morrow morning. I trust, when the hon. Member reads the carefully considered clause to which I refer, and also the definition of what I have called generic names, and which was assented to by every Member of the Committee, he will not think it necessary to introduce any Amendments, for the clause will meet every case of the fraudulent use of names.

I just wish to ask whether, in the Bill, provision is made to protect an industry which is of some importance in the Midland Counties? I mean the manufacture of hand-made stockings. Of course, the title is not absolutely correct in the literal sense of the word—the goods are made on frames worked by hand. The public are aware that these stockings, made on hand-looms, are much more durable and comfortable than those made on frames worked by steam, and they, therefore, command a great sale. It would be satisfactory to know if under the Bill it is possible to protect these goods against the competition of steam-made stockings sold under the name of hand-made. I am perfectly well aware that steam frames can be brought to great perfection, equal to the hand frames; but still it is not right that an article of one kind should be known and sold under the name and reputation secured by another.

As my name is on the back of the Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to say that the Act of 1862 contained no words aimed at misdescription of the mode of manufacture, but the present Bill does. The present Bill, therefore, does provide against the use of words or marks recommending goods not actually so made as being made by hand.

I wish to observe that it will afford us but very little time for consideration if we only get the Bill to-morrow. I believe the Committee have made drastic alterations in the law; and some of us would like to give it earnest consideration before the Bill passes this stage.

As one of the Committee, I may say that in considering the Bill the Committee used the greatest exertions to make it practicable, as far as possible, for putting down fraud, in every shape. Of course, it was utterly impossible to refer to every special case—Balbriggan or any other manufacturer; but the utmost care was taken to make its general principles applicable to every case. I do not think that any hon. Member interested in any particular industry will have any great cause to complain when he sees the Bill in print. I understand that the intention now is merely to get the Speaker out of the Chair, and then to allow a couple of days to elapse before the Bill is passed through Committee; and in that way hon. Gentlemen who have the interest of any particular industry at heart will have the opportunity of preparing particular Amendments to carry out their views. But the Bill has been considered so carefully—I do not say it is perfect—that I think hon. Members will have considerable difficulty in proposing Amendments that will make it more clearly effective for its purpose.

If there is a desire on the part of hon. Members for further time for discussion upon this Bill, we will not object to postpone the present stage. It is the present intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill on Monday, and we shall do that unless hon. Members desire a further postponement.

I am anxious that we should proceed as soon as possible with the Bill; but I would ask that the Government should consider whether Clause 3 sufficiently covers the cases which have been mentioned. I am afraid that under it the marking of goods as "Balbriggan," which are not really manufactured in Balbriggan, will not be considered as fraudulent. I trust the Government will come down on Monday, and make some statement as to their opinion of the law on the subject. If they do that, I do not see why we should not go on with the Bill on Monday night.

It seems to me that we are venturing upon very risky ground, and I do not see that the locality from which I come will be beneficially affected by entering goods by the name of the localities where they are produced. Bradford is the centre of a very large munufacturing district—the district in which they make what is known as "Bradford goods," a term very well known throughout the Kingdom. On the other hand, however, these identical goods are made in Norwich and parts of Lancashire and elsewhere, and enjoy, even when coming from those places, the name of "Bradford goods." My hon. Friend (Mr. Chance) wishes to protect particular kinds of goods which bear the name of the localities in which they originated. I am afraid, if we introduce such grandmotherly legislation as this, we should be doing that which would involve us in litigation and complications to which there would be no end whatever. As to the suggestion that when an article bearing a certain name is manufactured by hand it shall be fraudulent to put in the market an article bearing the same name manufactured by machinery, it is admitted now that the goods which used to be manufactured by hand are not now so manufactured. The only difference between the small industries in some districts and the large industries in other districts is that, in the one case, steam power is largely used, and in the other case hand power is used. I look with suspicion upon legislation of this kind. Whatever protection can be given to the purchaser ought to be given. But if we attempt to regard all these small claims on the part of the various centres of manufacture in the country, I am afraid we are entering upon a course which must signally fail.

Perhaps the hon. Member opposite does not gather what the object of this Bill is. The Act of 1862 did not work well. It was thought that the procedure should be revised; therefore the matter was referred to a Select Committee. It is sought to prevent fraudulent descriptions; to impose restrictions as to fraudulent descriptions and trade marks, and to meet cases which would not be met by the Act of 1862. There has not been the slightest idea of interfering with any well-known trade description of goods. Such descriptions were preserved in the Act of 1862, and are preserved in the present Bill; and, certainly, "Bradford goods," "Leghorn hats," "Paris boots," &c, will remain as they are.

And "Balbriggan hose?"

Yes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

Having regard to the general arrangement of the Business of the House, I think it would be well for us to now adjourn. I do not know whether the Government will agree to it, but I will now move the adjournment of the House. I would take this opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House whether he has come to any definite decision as to the day when the third reading of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill will be taken?

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—( Mr. Henry H. Fowler. )

I will not oppose what I believe to be the general wish of the House that it should now adjourn. In answer to the question just put, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that I announced yesterday that the Government propose to take the third reading of the Crimes Bill on Tuesday. I had hoped that the Land Bill might have been in possession of hon. Members on Monday; but I find that it will not be read a third time in the House of Lords until Monday, and, therefore, it cannot be in the hands of Members until Tuesday morning. It will be read a first time pro formâ on Monday, and circulated the first thing on Tuesday morning. I hope that this is a sufficient fulfilment of the pledge I gave to the House. If hon. Gentlemen object to this view, I wish them to reserve the expression of their objections until Monday, when I propose to make a Motion in regard to further facilities for the conduct of Public Business with respect to Supply, and the conduct also of the Land Bill and other Business which remains to be considered. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are then of opinion that further delay is necessary for the consideration of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, I wish, in the circumstances of the case, to meet their views as far as possible; but only on the understanding that the House will be content that the Government should make the best use of the interval which must elapse for Supply, which is greatly in arrear, and which, in the public interest, ought to be considered by the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.