had given notice of the following Motion:—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which this Bill stands referred to consider the accommodation provided by the Railway Company at their Aberdare Junction Station, and, if they see fit, to insert provisions for improving the accommodation and approaches thereto."

rose to move:—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which this Bill stands referred to consider the accommodation provided by the Railway Company at their Aberdare Junction Station, and, if they see fit, to insert provisions for improving the accommodation and approaches thereto."

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom this Bill is referred to take the evidence of farmers and traders, if tendered, upon the tolls, rates and charges which Clause 5 of the Bill proposes to authorise the Great Western Railway Company to demand and take for the conveyance of passengers, parcels, and merchandise over the lines of the Vale of Llangollen, Llangollen and Corwen, and Corwen and Bala Railway Companies. That all Petitions against the Bill presented throe clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill. That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."

said it would be a great convenience to him if the Instruction could be taken any day except to-morrow.

said it could be put down for to-morrow and the hon. Member could make any arrangement in the meantime for its being taken on a more suitable day if that could be done.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, (1) if he is a ware that the Federal Council of the German Empire determined on the 13th May last to allow a drawback on all cocoa butter manufactured in Germany and exported to England of 37·50 marks for 100 kilos, that is about equivalent to 2d. per English pound; and (2) whether Her Majesty's Government will take any steps to remedy the grievance of the manufacturers of the commodity in question in Great Britain, who have to pay the Customs Duty now levied at English ports for their raw material, while the same article manufactured by Germans and Dutch comes in to compete with them in English markets absolutely duty free?

The Customs inform me that the facts stated in the first paragraph are correct. In accordance with the promise I recently gave my hon. and gallant Friend, the Treasury have inquired into the legal point connected with the second paragraph, and it seems that cocoa butter is apparently not liable to taxation under the existing law. The matter is only a small one, but an opportunity will be taken, should any present itself, to amend the law on it.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he has yet succeeded in ascertaining if it is true that in the largest penal establishment in Belgium, a German professor of the art of brush making for the English market has been engaged for the instruction of the prisoners, and that the produce of this branch of manufacture has been added to the export of £400 worth of mats per week, and is now consigned to Great Britain by a circuitous route to make believe that such imports come from free labour?

No, Sir, but I hope to have further information next week.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the expert evidence given before the Prisons Committee of last year as to the Customs Returns of Foreign imports being generally filled up by the carriers' boys, without regard to accuracy; and what steps he has taken or proposes to take in the matter, so as to secure more correct information as to the increasing volume of Foreign competition?

It is the case that the declarations of imports are in many instances filled up by youths in the employ of the carrying and railway companies from the documents in their possession, but the careful checking of the returns by the Statistical Department of the Customs tends to insure the general accuracy of the particulars.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether his attention has been called to the transfer of an assistant mistress, on the 29th ultimo, under the Egremont School Board, from Bigrigg Mixed School to the Bookwell Infant School, Egremont; and whether such transfer will delay the teacher's certificate under paragraph 63 of the Education Code; and, if so, whether he will intervene to prevent any injustice being done?

The attention of the Committee of Council has been drawn to the matter. If the teacher had remained in her former school, her parchment certificate would not have been issued before the 1st November 1897. She will now become entitled to it on the 1st December 1897, under Article 63 of the Code; and, under the exceptional circumstances, the Committee of Council will be prepared to issue it on that date, if she applies for it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether it is a fact that the Government of the Transvaal Republic lay claim to the property of miners and other persons who may die in the Transvaal; and, whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in more than one instance, surviving relatives have been unable to obtain property for the abovementioned reason; and, if so, whether he can take any steps to remedy this injustice?

The Government of the South African Republic does not lay claim to the property of miners and other persons who may die in that country. I am aware that friends of deceased persons have in some cases been led into the mistake of supposing that such a claim is made. This is due to the fact that, according to the law of the Republic, a public official takes charge of the property of a deceased person until an executor is appointed, whose duty it is to administer the estate and hand over the balance to the parties entitled to it by law.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at the recent burial of a Wesleyan local preacher, with a Nonconformist service, in Hunwick Churchyard, in the county of Durham, the gates of the usual entrance to the churchyard were locked, and the funeral procession had to enter by a bye-way used only for carting purposes; and whether he will inquire into the facts, and take steps to prevent a repetition of such an occurrence?

I am informed by the Vicar of Hunwick, of whom I have made inquiries, that there are two entrances by which the present burial ground may be reached, one which is away from the burial ground but, being the entrance to the Church, is used when, as is generally the case, a service is first held in the Church; the other, which leads directly to the ground, and was the nearest for the funeral on the occasion in question. Both entrances, he informs me, are used equally for carting purposes; and the entrance used on this occasion was used for the only previous funeral under the Act of 1880 since he came to the parish, and no complaints have reached him from anyone concerned. The matter is not one in which I have any power to interfere.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that the gates were looked by order of the Vicar?

said he was not. He was not aware of any circumstances beyond those given to him in the letter of the Vicar.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would inquire whether there was a case for prosecuting the persons referred to under Clause 7 of the Act of 1880 for obstructing funerals?

Order, order!

Will the right hon. Gentleman let me see a copy of the Vicar's letter?

said he should be ready to give the hon. Member all the details of the matter in his possession, and if the hon. Member gave him any further information to justify it, he should be quite ready to make further inquiries. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he will state the expenses of the police protection (including travelling expenses of the escort and the cost and maintenance of the horses and vehicles) in connection with Mr. E. S. Tener, of Portumna and Loughrea, agent for the Marquess of Clanricarde, in county Galway, since his appointment as agent there, and whether any, and, if so, how much of the entire amount has been charged to the county of Galway; (2) whether he is aware that the Marquess of Clanricarde owns 56,000 acres in county Galway; and, (3) if he will state how much of these expenses has been borne by him?

The expenses of the special police protection (varying from three to six men), which it has been found necessary to afford to Mr. Tener since his appointment as agent on this estate nine years ago are estimated at £2,960, which sum includes the travelling expenses of the police escort. One-half of this sum, i.e., about £1,480, has been charged to the county. The fact is substantially as stated in the second paragraph. As a cess payer the Marquess of Clanricarde has doubtless borne his share of this charge on the county, and in addition he has provided house accommodation, together with fuel and light for the protection party, as well as forage for the horses.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that London district offices require parcels for registration to be sealed, and if sealed only on the string to be sealed over the knot; and that officials of sub-offices are fined for accepting parcels not thus secured: and, whether he can see his way to revising the regulations in the "Post Office Guide," so as to make clear to the public and to the officials what exactly is required by the instruction for refusal "obviously such as to afford inadequate protection to the contents."

There is no regulation requiring registered parcels to be sealed by the senders. The rule is that a parcel intended for registration must be securely fastened, whether by sealing or otherwise, so as to preserve the contents from loss and prevent them from being tampered with. No fines are inflicted on any officer for accepting a parcel not properly fastened. The Postmaster General has received a report respecting the case to which the hon. member presumably refers, and he finds that the parcel was properly refused when tendered for registration because, although sealed, it could have been opened without the seal being broken. The regulations on the subject appear to be clearly stated in the "Post Office Guide."

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Drapers' Company's Estate, County Londonderry, who purchased their holdings six years ago, under the Land Purchase Acts, on a rental fixed by arbitration, have been recently served with processes for arrears of rent due before and subsequent to the arbitration; that there is a general opinion on the estate that the arbitrators fixed the rents too high; and that, in the case of John Diamond, of Boveagh, whose purchase money was fixed at £60 by the arbitrators, Mr. Murrogh O'Brien, the Land Commission Valuer, considered £50 the outside value of the holding; and whether, as Diamond and the other tenants are likely to be evicted for nonpayment of this rent, and their purchase arrangements for which the State credit is pledged rendered void, he will cause an Inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of the case.

The first part of this Question appears to be framed under a misapprehension. Where sales have been completed, tenant purchasers cannot be ejected by a former landlord, and the third section of the Act of 1888 releases such purchasers from all rent and arrears. The proceedings referred to by the hon. Member could not, therefore, be taken against tenant purchasers. Possibly he has in mind the service of ejectment processes on some of the tenants to whom the Land Commission refused to make advances for the purchase of their holdings, though I am informed that in none of these cases are arrears claimed for the period prior to the arbitration. The Land Commissioners were not parties to the arbitration as to certain holdings on the Drapers' Estate, though the Commissioners are aware that at the close of the arbitration a very large number of agreements were entered into by the tenants on the basis of the prices named by the arbitrators. As to the case of John Diamond. In 1888 he agreed to purchase for £76, but the application was refused, the Inspector having reported that the holding was in a very bad condition, that the tenant was a pauper, and that no rent had been paid for years. In 1890 a new agreement was entered into for £60, being the price fixed by the arbitrator. The Inspector suggested that if an advance were made to a tenant circumstanced as Diamond was, it should be limited to £50 with an increased guarantee deposit of one-third, but the vendors declined to accept the terms suggested and the case was dismissed. Mr. Murrogh O'Brien never inspected the holding or made any report on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, (1) whether he is aware that some postmasters in the Metropolitan district insist on charging the word bonheur in a telegram as two words, and the word "alright" also as two words; (2) whether the contraction mp is in the body of a message charged as one word, but mp, whether written as one or two words in the address, and referring to a Member of Parliament, is charged as two words; (3) whether any instructions have been issued to the officials of the Department to prevent the conflicting charges now made for the names of racehorses and stocks, such as Le Var or West Australia; and, (4) whether he will direct that clear and definite rules, embodying one intelligible principle, shall be substituted for those on the subject in the Post Office Guide?

The Postmaster General is not aware that the word "bonheur" has been charged for as two words. If the hon Member will bring specific cases to the Postmaster General's notice he will cause inquiry to be made. The Postmaster General is also not aware that there is such a word as "alright." "All right" would properly be charged as two words. The answer to the second paragraph of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. No such instructions as those referred to in the third paragraph have been issued. If the hon. Member will inform the Postmaster General of instances of conflicting charges being made, the matter will be inquired into. The Postmaster General is not aware that the rules in the "Post Office Guide" as to counting have not been found clear and sufficient for all practical purposes. The anomalies which the hon. Member so frequently points out are the result of concessions, and if a hard-and-fast rule were to be laid down, these concessions must be withdrawn. The result would be to increase the charges for telegrams, in which compound words and names, now accepted as one word, appear.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could explain why "Hyde Park" was charged as one word and "Charing-Cross" as two words [laughter]; and further, on what ground the Department charged "father-in-law" as three word and "mother-in-law" as one? [Loud laughter.]

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what powers have been conferred on the Corporation of Dublin with regard to the supply of electric light in that city; whether he is aware that no light has been supplied to certain traders and others who applied for it as far back as November 1894; and whether, under the conditions of their authorisation, they are bound to supply it within the municipal boundary in a reasonable time?

By a Provisional Order under the Electric Lighting Acts 1882 and 1888, confirmed by Parliament in 1892, the Corporation of Dublin were authorised to supply electricity in the City for all public and private purposes. The attention of the Board of Trade has not been called to any case in which there has been delay in meeting a demand. The Corporation are, on a requisition from the owners or occupiers of premises, bound to give them a supply within a reasonable time under the conditions specified in the Order. If the requisition is not complied with, the Corporation are liable to penalties which may be recovered in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the judgments given by one of the Sub-Commissions at its sitting in Newtownards on Thursday last, in the second judicial term cases from county Armagh, whether he will state in how many of these cases decisions were then given; how much respectively were the total old rents, the total rents for the first judicial term, and the total rents fixed for the second judicial term, in respect of these holdings; and whether, taking the entire number of Armagh cases then decided, the total amount of the rents fixed for the second term was above or below the total amount fixed for the first judicial term, and what is the difference in the amounts?

The Chairman of the Sub-Commission, to whom this Question has been referred, reports that judgment was given at Newtownards on the date mentioned in 43 Second Term cases from the county Armagh; that in these 43 cases the total old rent amounted to £829 11s. 11d.; that the total of the rents fixed for the first judicial term amounted to £633 0s. 2d. that the total of the rents fixed for the second judicial term for these holdings amounted to £445 18s. 6d., which sum is less than the aggregate rents for the first judicial term by the sum of £187 1s. 8d. The Chairman adds that he is not quite sure that these figures are absolutely correct, as he had not the files of Papers with him at the time he received notice of the Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he has received a memorial from the Board of Governors of the Armagh District Lunatic Asylum, urging inquiry into the cases of idiots and imbeciles in asylums and workhouses in Ireland; (2) whether he can state how many of this class of inmates are in the workhouses in Ireland, and how many in properly equipped asylums; (3) whether he will consider the suggestion made by the memorialists as to the training and education of idiot children and young persons; and, (4) whether he will now consider the desirability of having a Committee appointed to make inquiry as to the admission, treatment, and classification of paupers in Irish workhouses, and also generally into the present working of the Poor Law system there?

The memorial referred to in the first paragraph has been received. According to the latest available returns there are 1,781 idiots and imbeciles in the several workhouses in Ireland, and 575 in properly equipped asylums. As to the third paragraph, I stated on the 11th instant that I was aware of the views expressed by the Inspectors of Lunatics on the subject of providing State-aid towards the establishment of an Institution for the training and education of idiots and imbeciles in Ireland, that the matter is one which has my sympathetic consideration, and that I hoped to be able at some time to introduce legislation dealing with it. With regard to the last paragraph, I have stated several times, in answer to questions in the House, that I do not think that such an Inquiry as suggested is necessary.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Clogher Board of Guardians, South Tyrone, on the 20th instant, Mr. J. K. Andrell, J. P., presiding, declaring that the judicial rents were fixed taxing the tenants' improvements, and requesting the Government to make a reduction of 50 per cent., dating from 1st March 1895; to amend the clauses regarding improvements; that improvements be deemed the property of the tenants unless the landlord could prove claim to them; that the judicial term should be reduced to ten years; that half the Land Commissioners should be appointed by the tenants and the other half by the landlords; that the right of pre-emption should not be allowed, thus securing free sale to tenants; that all agricultural tenants should be allowed to have fair rents fixed; and that the purchase clause be made compulsory; and, whether he proposes to take any and, if so, what action to give effect to the opinions and recommendations of the Clogher Board of Guardians?

My attention has been directed to the resolution referred to; and the opinions and recommendations of the Clogher Board of Guardians have been duly noted. From most of these opinions and recommendations the Irish Government ventures respectfully to dissent.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that owing to the deficient drainage of Lough Erne great floods take place annually in the neighbourhood of Bally-connell, Belturbet, and Swanlinbar, and that in autumn especially the heavy rains of recent years have done immense damage to crops in low lying ground around these several towns; and could any more thorough and complete system of drainage be inaugurated that would prevent these disastrous floods, and so save large quantities of hay, oats and potatoes to the poor farmers of West Cavan?

The Board of Works have no information as regards the flooding complained of. There are five drainage districts in which works have been carried out in the neighbourhood of the places mentioned, namely, Kinmeen, Drurncliff, Drumbominy, Ballinamore, and Ballyconnell, under the Act 5 and 6 Vic. cap. 85, and the Swanlimbar district under the Act 26 and 27 Vic. cap. 88. All of these discharge into Lough Erne. If the flooding complained of is due to inefficient maintenance of the districts, there is a remedy provided in the Drainage Maintenance Acts. If the question however refers to lands not included in any of the above districts, the only way to remove the complaint is for the persons concerned to form a Drainage District under the Arterial Drainage Acts.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the fact that the British postage on a book of the size and weight (11 lbs.) of the "Times Atlas" is, to French Guiana 3s. 11d., to Dutch Guiana 4s. 6d., and to British Guiana 7s. 6d., to Cochin China (French) 4s. 8d., and to Hong Kong (British) 5s. 10d., to the Congo Free State (Belgium) 3s. 5d., to the Gold Coast (British) 8s. 3d., to New Guinea (German) 4s. 10d., and to New Guinea (British) 9s.; that any of the Parcels Shipping Companies will carry a parcel weighing 11 lbs. for about one-fourth, or less, of the postage charged by the British Post Office, he will take steps for a substantial reduction of the postage on parcels to all British Colonies and Dependencies?

I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar Question which he asked in the House of Commons on the 13th of May 1895. On the 13th of May last year it was explained that the rates quoted by the hon. Member applied to an 11-lb. parcel sent by parcel post to various places abroad by British, Colonial, or Foreign services, or a combination of such, as the case may be; that the endeavour of Her Majesty's Government in entering some years ago on this service, of which it had no experience, was to fix the rates in accordance with the estimated expenses, with some margin to secure the State against loss; and that as experience had been gained, rates found to be more than duly profitable had been reduced. That process is still going on. The attention of the hon. Member was drawn to one important difference between our system and that of the Postal Union, which is to be found in the fact that we recognise the difference of cost as between light and heavy parcels, while the Union does not, hence, while a comparison of rates to foreign countries and colonies shows an advantage to foreign countries in regard to heavy parcels such as those selected by the hon. Member, it shows a great advantage to colonies on light parcels—a fact which his Question does not mention. As stated in the previous answer, a comparison of parcel post and freight rates would not be apposite, as the latter do not include collection, inland conveyance, customs formalities, or delivery.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that the Officer commanding the 83rd regimental district has prohibited the band of the 5th battalion of the Royal Irish Rifles, at present training at the Palace Camp, Holywood, county Down, from playing the regiment to church, although 583 out of 682 of the men composing the regiment are Members of the Church of Ireland; and whether, seeing that it has been the invariable custom of the regiment for the last 40 years to play to church wherever the regiment was quartered, he will direct that the order for the discontinuance of this practice be withdrawn?

This is one of the matters in which the Secretary of State is reluctant to interfere with the discretion of the General Officer commanding the district, who, no doubt, had good reasons for the course he has adopted.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, since the establishment of the present system of purchasing remounts for the Cavalry, Foreign-bred horses have been purchased and introduced from abroad into this country for the purpose; and, whether the Officers, whose duty it is to purchase remounts for the Cavalry, buy direct from the breeders in the United Kingdom, or if in some instances they buy through dealers, thereby causing the breeders of suitable horses to lose much of the profit that they would obtain if such horses were purchased directly from them?

Since the period referred to some 20 horses have been purchased in Scotland which were said to have been bred in Canada or the United States. About one-third of the horses bought are purchased from private owners; who, however, are not necessarily the breeders. We have every desire to deal directly with breeders—but it is impossible to decline sound and suitable horses coming from other sources.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a large increase in rates has been charged to traders of Ballybay by the Great Northern Railway, Ireland, on quantities under two tons; and whether, if he finds an increase of rates, he will urge the Great Northern Railway to revert to the old rates charged to the merchants of Ballybay?

The hon. Member's Question is somewhat indefinite. If he refers to rates to Ballybay on traffic less than two tons for flour, meal, and the like, the Railway Company assure me that there has been no increase in such rates since 1893. It is impossible for the Board of Trade to consider such matters without having before them precise details of the rates complained of, and these can best be afforded if those traders who are interested proceed under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received confirmation of the terrible reports appearing in the public Press as to the operations of the Turkish troops in the island of Crete, and the work of devastation by them of the Christian villages in the mountain districts; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to arrest these proceedings, and to press upon the Porte the urgent necessity of making due and adequate concessions to the people of Crete?

The reports from Her Majesty's Consul in Crete give a general confirmation to the statements that have appeared with regard to the pillage of villages inhabited by Christians. There is no authentic information that Turkish troops took part in the proceedings, but they were not employed to prevent them. On the other hand, it is stated that Mussulman villages have been attacked and plundered by the Christians. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Constantinople recently called the serious attention of the Turkish Government to the state of affairs in the island, urging that the greatest care should be taken to keep the troops in check, and that if military measures were decided upon the Commandant should give the strictest orders to maintain discipline and to prevent any attempt at pillage and massacre. The representatives of the six Powers, who are acting in entire accord, have since made joint representations to the Porte with regard to the measures necessary for the restoration of order.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Ambassadors of the Powers in conference on the affairs of Crete have come to any conclusion as to the steps they are prepared to urge upon the Sultan, with a view of securing the good government of the Island; and, if so, whether he will state them to the House?

The representatives of the Powers at Constantinople have been instructed by their Governments to urge on the Porte the immediate adoption of the following measures for the restoration of tranquillity in Crete. (1), the nomination of a Christian Governor; (2), the revival of the Halepa Constitution; (3), the convocation of the Assembly; (4), a general amnesty. The Assembly has been summoned for June 29th.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could say if there was any reasonable prospect of these recommendations being attended to by the Porte?

These representations were addressed to the Porte only yesterday morning, and I think, perhaps, it would be a little premature for me to answer that question now.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Lord Salisbury's attention had been called to the Report of the Commissioner of the Armenian Relief Fund, dated 27th May, respecting his visit to the province of Kharput, in which he states (inter alia) that the terrible desolation of fire and sword passes imagination; that, in spite of the fullest reports of the Consuls, the reign of terror and death goes on unchecked, splendidly organised and directed from the palace at Constantinople; and that, without security for life and property, permanent relief is impossible; and, what steps the Government are taking in respect of these matters?

Attention has been called to the letter from the Commissioner of the Armenian Relief Fund dated Kharput May 27th, and published in the newspapers of the 23rd instant. Reports have recently been received from the British Vice-Consul there relative to the distress which exists in the district and the acts of oppression committed by the local authorities, and strong representations have been repeatedly made to the Turkish Government by Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Constantinople.

asked whether the Government were doing anything more than make these strong representations.

Of course, we must wait and see what effect these representations may have.

Have the Government not been waiting for 12 months?

Will these representations affect the prestige of the Porte?

asked whether representations had been addressed by any other Power than those which were communicated by Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires.

The question relates to the province of Kharput. I do not know that representations with reference to that province have been addressed, but numerous representations on the general question are continually reaching the Porte.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is in a position to make any statement with respect to recent incidents and the present situation at Van?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the terms of the proposed mediation between the Turkish authorities and the Armenians at Van are those submitted by the Porte, and not the conditions demanded by the representatives of the Powers; and, whether the British Ambassador will be instructed to adhere to the conditions laid down by the above-mentioned representatives?

Telegrams have been received from Her Majesty's Vice Consul at Van reporting serious disturbances and loss of life there since the 16th instant. The local authorities and the regular troops are stated to have behaved well. The Representatives of the Powers at Constantinople have not, as is suggested in the second Question, themselves demanded any conditions for an arrangement between the Turkish Authorities and the Armenians at Van. Proposals were made by the Turkish Government, but were considered by Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires to require important modifications. The Sultan having asked for the local mediation of the British Vice Consul at Van, and of a delegate appointed by the French Ambassador, they are now endeavouring, in concert with the Russian and Persian Consuls, to effect a settlement.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government had any information as to how these disturbances in the province of Van began?

I am sorry I cannot give an authoritative explanation at present, because the only intimation we have received is by telegram, which does not convey a clear account of the origin of these disturbances.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he could state to the House severally what has been the total cost of editorship, compilation, and printing of the newly issued Catalogue of National Portraits at the South Kensington Museum; whether this volume includes all the portaits of English, Scottish, and Irish notabilities in the Art Library; and, if not, for what reason; and how many more portraits have been catalogued up to the present time?

The cost is about,£499. The catalogue includes all the engraved National Portraits in the National Art Library, except three which have been catalogued since the work went to press.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a certain number of these engravings are not merely cuts from the Illustrated London News?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the correspondence between Lord Brassey, Governor of Victoria, and Admiral Bridge, recently published in the Sydney and Melbourne newspapers, has yet come under his official cognisance; is it usual for the Admiral in command of the Australian Station to formally report to the Admiralty any correspondence he may have with Australian Governors on naval matters; and, whether there are any insuperable difficulties that would prevent compliance with Lord Brassey's request that one or more of Her Majesty's ships in Australian waters should pay periodical visits to the harbour of Melbourne?

The answer to the first question is "No." In regard to the second question, the Commander-in-Chief would exercise his discretion in reporting his correspondence with Governors to the Admiralty. The third question is not intelligible, as Her Majesty's ships do pay periodical visits to the harbour of Melbourne.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the immediate appointment of an Australian judge as a Member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is contemplated; and, if so, what plan of nomination will be adopted?

I have been in confidential communication with the Australian Governors upon the subject, and I cannot at present give the hon. Member any further information.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been drawn to an advertisement for a chief constable for the county of Bucks, and to the fact that 62 applications have been sent in, some of the applicants being gentlemen of considerable police experience, and that the list for final selection has been reduced to five, not one of whom is reported to have had any police experience; and whether, in justice to those gentlemen who have given long years to service and training in the police profession, and for the advantage of the public service, he will consider the advisability of amending the rules for the government of the police, so as to make such previous training and experience a condition of his sanction to the appointment of chief constable?

The facts to which the hon. Member refers have not been brought to my notice. When the recommendation of the Standing Joint Committee reaches me, it will of course be considered carefully in all its bearings; but no one, it appears to me, can be more interested in making the best selection for this important post than the public body with whom, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, the appointment rests; and it would be unwise in my judgment to narrow the field from which they are able to select in the manner suggested in the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether it is still intended to appoint a Joint Committee to inquire into the offences of the Chartered Company, or whether the Committee will consist exclusively of Members of the House of Commons; and, whether the Committee is to be empowered to sit during the recess or prorogation of Parliament?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, when searching Inquiry into the origin and circumstances of the invasion of the Transvaal by forces under the control of the British South Africa Company, promised in the Queen's Speech, will be instituted?

The House is aware that Her Majesty's Government have promised to make proposals for a further Inquiry to the House as soon as the trial of Dr. Jameson is concluded. I am very desirous that this Inquiry shall be divested of anything approaching a party character, and I propose, therefore, to take the usual means to find out the general feeling of the House in regard to this matter, in the hope that a unanimous agreement may be arrived at, both with regard to the form of the Inquiry and the terms of the reference. ["Hear, hear!"]

desired to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question he addressed to the right hon. Member on Tuesday, which at his request he postponed till to-day, but which from some reason did not appear in to-day's Paper. It was, whether the promised Inquiry into the administration of the Chartered Company of British South Africa would include an investigation into the origin and the events of the present alleged rising of the Native races in Matabeleland?

I have already answered this inquiry by saying I shall endeavour to come to a general agreement as to the terms of reference. As far as the Government are concerned I am quite willing to include the subject named by the hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Dispatches published in Saturday's papers as addressed by the Boer Government to Her Majesty's Government, and demanding the prosecution of Mr. Cecil Rhodes and others and the revocation of the charter are genuine; and, if so, what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take with regard to such demands?

The telegrams have been received in the terms in which they were published by the Government of the South African Republic. As regards the second part of the question, the hon. Member will remember that objection was taken to the publication of a Dispatch in this country of which only a summary had been received by the Transvaal Government. I am, therefore, unwilling to give any information as to the tenor of the reply now sent until I hear that it has been received by the Government of the South African Republic.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India—(1) whether the Resolution of the Government of India, dated 22nd June, 1895, alters the leave rules of Indian Uncovenanted Civil Servants, in accordance with the ruling of the Secretary of State's Dispatch No. 188, dated 21st September 1893, on a review of the whole subject; (2) whether the concessions to these officers, all of which are granted in the first paragraph of the Resolution, can only be enjoyed by any officer on condition of his consenting to come under the serious disabilities imposed in a subsequent paragraph; (3) whether he is aware that in many cases the disabilities authorised in that paragraph more than neutralise the concessions of the first paragraph, and actually diminish the amount of furlough to which the uncovenanted officers concerned were formerly entitled; (4) whether he can state the grounds on which these disabilities were imposed; (5) and, whether he will move the Government of India to amend the rules so as to afford the relief recommended by the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1890?

The answer to the first question is in the affirmative; to the second and third, that it is possible that some of the officers would not benefit by accepting the new concession. To the fourth, that no new disabilities have been imposed. As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for the Faversham Division on the 21st May, the rules must be accepted as a whole. To the fifth, that very considerable relief has been given to the "uncovenanted" servants since 1890 in the matter of leave. I cannot admit that the recommendations of the Select Committee have not had justice done to them.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he will consider the advisability of reducing the period for which the Director General Army Medical Staff is appointed from seven to five years, this latter being the period for which all other Staff appointments in the Army are held?

The Royal Commission of 1858 on the sanitary condition of the Army, over which Lord Herbert presided, recommended that the appointment of Director General should be for a longer period than five years, and Lord Herbert himself, when Secretary of State, fixed the period at seven years, which has since been maintained. Nothing has occurred to induce the Secretary of State to think that any alteration in the period of tenure is necessary or desirable.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether he can state the number of skilled and unskilled labourers at present employed by the Government at Woolwich whose wages are less than 24s. per week?

As regards the ordnance factory at Woolwich, 428 skilled labourers and 645 unskilled labourers receive pay less than 24s. a week. Of the 428—

Will the hon. Gentleman kindly state the number of hours the men have to work for the pay he has stated?

The men employed work 48 hours a week.

asked if the figures quoted represented the actual earnings?

They represent actual earnings.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, seeing that the figures approach so nearly as what was recognised to be the proper minimum standard, he is willing to take steps to raise the wages of all the labourers to 24s. a week?

asked for notice of the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will consider the desirability of making provision in the Labourers (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill for a reduction in the rate of interest at present charged upon loans granted for building labourers' cottages?

The rates of interest on loans for the purposes of the Labourers Acts are fixed by Treasury Minute. As the result of representations on the subject from the Irish Government, the terms for loans under these Acts have recently been revised, and the rates of interest are now the same as those fixed specially under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the rate of interest still charged on these loans seriously crippled the working of these Acts by inflicting a heavy tax upon the ratepayers?

said he believed the rate charged was as low as any rate charged for loans by the Treasury, except that, perhaps, charged on loans to tenants for the purchase of their holdings.

I beg to ask the Secretar of State for the Colonies, whether he can give the House any further information with reference to the extension of the revolt in Matabeleland and the movements of the Chartered Company's troops?

All the important information I receive is at once given by me to the Press, and I have nothing further to communicate, except what is contained in a telegram which has been received since those published in the morning. It is a telegram received from Sir F. Carrington addressed to Lieutenant General Goodenough at the Cape, and is to the following effect:—

"Regret to inform you that Lieutenant Bremner, 20th Hussars, reported killed by Mashonas at Marandellas, 60 miles south of Salisbury. Turner's patrol to Beatrice mine suprised rebels and destroyed Oloki's kraal, but met severe opposition during retirement, abandoned wagon, lost two natives killed, four whites wounded, six horses killed, nine wounded; rebels fought exceptionally well. Request your sanction 200 additional Imperial troops being ordered to Macloutsie from Mafeking; Lord Grey concurs."

"I have sanctioned movement of troops. Bremner was on leave from 20th Hussars, and had applied for Carrington's permission to serve Regret loss of promising officer. Inform Secretary of State for War."

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can explain why it is that these people are called rebels when they are only fighting to protect their own country?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the serious character of the disturbances in British South Africa, and the large number of settlers who have been murdered by the natives, Her Majesty's Government intend to increase the number of Imperial troops in the district, with a view to bring to as speedy a termination as possible the present state of affairs, and not to continue to rely upon the Chartered Company's forces or volunteer efforts?

I am already in communication with the Acting High Commissioner, who has been requested to consult Sir F. Carrington.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, considering that the wreck of the Drummond Castle took place close to the electric lighthouses of Ushant, and that the great electric light failed to penetrate fog, and that the wreck of the Eider took place close to the St. Catherine's Lighthouse, containing the most powerful electric light in this country, and that, at that time, the late Dr. Tyndall, Mr. John R. Wigham, and eminent shipowners and shipmasters, pointed out the uselessness of the electric light in foggy and hazy weather, the Board of Trade will withhold their sanction to any further installations of the electric light for lighthouse purposes until such an Inquiry shall have been made?

An Inquiry has been ordered into the loss of the Drummond Castle, and until it is held I am not in a position to form any opinion as to the causes contributory to that lamentable occurrence; but I may state, for the information of the hon. Member, that no electric light for lighthouses has been sanctioned for the last ten years.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to the statement that, owing to the fear of fresh massacres at Diarbekir, M. Cambon, the French Ambassador, and Mr. Herbert, the British Chargé d'Affaires, have made representations to the Porte, and reiterated their demand for the immediate recall of the Vali; and, what result (if any) has followed from these representations?

Owing to the danger of fresh massacres at Diarbekir, which the continued presence of the present Vali is not likely to avert, the French Ambassador and Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires have made strong representations to the Sultan and to the Porte with regard to the necessity of his removal. We have not yet heard what result has attended these representations.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, when the Major who should by seniority be appointed second in command of an infantry battalion is employed extra-regimentally, the next senior Officer is appointed to fill the position, or whether it is kept open for the senior Officer on reverting to regimental duty?

In future, the appointment of second-in-command of a battalion will be given by selection. If the officer proposed to be selected be employed extra-regimentally, he will be given the option of returning to the regiment or continuing in his extra-regimental appointment. If he choose the latter alternative, another officer will be selected for second in command.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, what provision has been made for the inspection of education in Poor Law schools; and, whether it could be at once arranged that the Inspectors of the Education Department should perform this duty?

The Local Government Board are quite willing to concur in the proposal that the inspection of education in Poor Law schools should be undertaken by the Education Department, and the President is in communication with that Department on the subject.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it will be possible to give an opportunity for discussion on the labour questions involved in the Ordnance Factory Vote by placing that Vote on the Paper for an early Friday, either after Navy Votes on Friday next, or otherwise?

Yes, Sir, I propose to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and to put the Vote to which he refers immediately after the Navy Vote.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, having regard to the increased time now at the disposal of the Government by the withdrawal of the Education Bill, he can see his way to afford facilities for the discussion of the Prison-made Goods Importation Bill?

As my hon. Friend is aware, I am in entire agreement with the views expressed in the propositions embodied in the Bill to which he refers in this Question, and I shall be glad to do anything in my power to have that Bill passed into law. But he must be aware that the present condition of Business is such that I am not in a position to give him any pledge upon the subject, at all events at the present time

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he had received any information as to the boiler accident on board H.M.S. Blake?

replied that no detailed report as to the cause of the accident had yet been received. One man was unfortunately killed and five were reported to be slightly injured. He should be sorry to give any information until an Inquiry had taken place, but so far the opinion was that the accident was due to shortness of water in the boiler.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he received on the 17th June from the Royal Commission on Agriculture a statement of particulars of expenditure and out-goings of certain estates in Great Britain, together with a reprint of the farm accounts extracted from the Reports of the Assistant Commissioners which the Commission decided to publish in a separate volume; and also whether he has been requested by the Agricultural Commission that the statement may be presented forthwith to Parliament, and when such statement will be laid upon the Table of the House?

said he had that day presented the Report to Parliament.

submitted that there was no necessity whatever for the Amendment. The words proposed to be left out showed the purpose of the grant given under the Act, and it was usual in a Bill of the kind to insert such words. The grant would not vary with the amount of the deficiency, which would be calculated on the estimates of one year. He did not think there would be any deficiency with regard to land going out of cultivation. He did not think it would be possible to find a case under the jurisdiction of a spending authority in which all the land would be out of cultivation.

as one who had practical acquaintance with the subject of rating, contended that the words were absolutely unnecessary. They were, moreover, misleading and difficult to interpret.

said the Government had considered this Amendment, and he preferred to adhere to the language of the Bill, which was more acceptable than was the Amendment to his advisers. If he was to accept the Amendment, it would be necessary to make several consequential Amendments, and that was a necessity to be avoided, if possible.

said the right hon. Gentleman had not given any substantial reason why he declined to accept the Amendment. As a matter of fact, the matter had been carefully thought out, and the Amendment would vastly improve the Bill from a drafting point of view. The word "deficiency" was not at all a correct word to use, and this was so obvious that there ought to be some good reason given for not accepting the Amendment.

said that, if this was a mere drafting Amendment there was no occasion to accept it unless it could be shown to be of substantial importance. The deficiency referred to in the clause was the deficiency that would be arrived at by a calculation upon the rate of last year—the year fixed for the purpose by the Bill, whereas the words proposed to be introduced referred to the varying amounts and differences that would take place in the rates during the five years the Act would remain in operation.

pointed out that if the Amendment were not accepted particular spending authorities would be deprived of all benefit under the Act. Take the case of an urban authority that had got scarcely any agricultural land in its district, or perhaps only a single farm which might be unlet. In that case, the farm being unlet, there would be no rate from agricultural land, and of course there could be no deficiency. Consequently, no relief would be paid to that particular spending authority under the Act. That was the great objection to using the word deficiency. Unless there was a deficiency, spending authorities, which were not intended to be deprived of the benefits of the clause, would be deprived of those benefits if the words in the clause were allowed to stand.

replied that the objection raised by the hon. Member to the employment of the word "deficiency" would equally arise if the word used were "difference."

said the Amendment raised the difference in meaning between "difference" and "deficiency." Supposing that last year—which was the year taken for the purpose of the Act—£1,000 was produced in a particular district from rates on agricultural land, the deficiency payable under the Act would be £500. But supposing that in the following year the rates fell to £800, it was not half of that amount of £400 that would be payable, but £500, if the clause was allowed to remain as it stood. They contended that all that ought to be paid in the latter case was £400, and therefore they desired that the word "difference" and not the word "deficiency" should be used in the clause.

said that, under the clause as it stood, in the case mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy—in which the rates fell from £1,000 to £800—£500 a year and not £400 a year would have to be paid for five years. Did the Solicitor General think in these circumstances that "deficiency" was a proper word?

said that he readily admitted that the hon. Member who had just sat down had made a speech to which he was fully entitled to receive a complete answer, and he thought to give such an answer before he sat down. He could not accept the Amendment because it proposed to put a fixed limit upon the relief to be given by the Bill, for a reason that might commend itself even to hon. Members opposite. The House had already laid down in Clause I. of the Bill that agricultural land was to be relieved from one half of the burden of the local rates. The Government had made the best estimate they could of the sum that the Imperial Exchequer would have to contribute to carry out that object, but if they accepted the Amendment, in the event of their having made a mistake in their calculation, the deficit would have to be made good by an increase in the rates which were paid by other property, which in his view would be most unjust. The hon. Gentleman suggested that people would be interested in making low valuations; but there was a provision in the Bill by which the Local Government Board were empowered to make regulations, and among them a regulation for fixing, with the concurrence of the Treasury, the minimum gross estimated rental and rateable value of the buildings and other hereditaments. He also proposed to insert a provision that "the rateable value of the house, whether with or without buildings, should not be less than one-eighth of the gross estimated rental of the hereditaments—that is, land, houses, and buildings, if any." There were further precautions in the Bill. When these valuations had been made they were to be sent to the Surveyor of Taxes, and were subject to his revision and to a right of appeal by him. As to the estimate which he had made, he would explain how it was arrived at. Taking the rateable value at£33,364,000, deductions were made for buildings (one-eighth) and for tithe, etc. An allowance was also made for a fall in values of the same proportion as the fall for the last few years, and those deductions brought the estimated value to £26,250,000. He had taken a rate of 2s. 4½d. in the pound, and that would produce £3,100,000. Half of that would be £1,550,000, which was the deficiency he anticipated. It was a rough estimate, of course, but he would not consent to put a fixed sum in the Bill, because the burden might then fall in an unfair proportion on houses and buildings.

said that in the right hon. Gentleman's calculation, the deduction in respect of buildings was far too small; it ought to be at least 100 per cent. higher. But the right hon. Gentleman had brought in a factor which would disturb all previous calculations, and that was the allowance for a fall in values in the future. There was no allowance for a possible rise in values, and the House of Commons had no right to speculate in future values. It ought to take the depression as it now existed. As to the regulations referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, the Surveyor of Taxes had no concern whatever in a valuation of this kind. It was more necessary than ever that Parliament should fix a definite limit, as it had been shown that the Bill could be stretched in all directions in favour of the landlord.

said that he hoped his right hon. Friend was mistaken when he said that in future buildings were not to be assessed at less than one-eighth. He surely meant "not more than one-eighth," for that was now the general method of rating them throughout the country. It would be bad if these buildings were to be put up in valuation, because, where they were valued and rated separately from the land, they were not rated at anything like the high figure which the hon. Member had put them at. That was so, because it was recognised that the buildings without the land were useless. He had taken some copies of the valuations of Assessment Committees in different parts of Lincolnshire. In one Union, on one farm, the house and buildings were taken at one-fourth, on another at one-thirteenth, on a third at one-seventeenth, on a fourth at one-thirtieth, and on a fifth at one-twelfth. The first farm was 59 acres, and the second was 732 acres. Although one-eighth might be a fair average sum all round, it would be too little in the case of small farms, and too much in the case of large farms.

said that the calculations of the President of the Local Government Board were incorrect. The estimate of the total rates at 2s. 4½d. in the pound did not allow for the provision in Sub-section 2 of Clause 1, by which certain rates were excepted from relief. There was another item the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten. In Committee on the Bill the right hon. Gentleman was good enough in the early hours of the morning to accept an Amendment to Clause 6, specifying that the amount to be taken under Clause 2 should be the actual amount raised during the year preceding the passing of the Bill. That affected a sum of no less than £60,000 a year. That Amendment altered the amount to be paid to the Local Taxation Account, from the amount the rate nomally produced to the amount it actually produced. The right hon. Gentleman's figures were based on the terms of the Bill as it was originally introduced. The estimate of his hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon was far more correct, and therefore he should have pleasure in voting for the Amendment.

said he quite recognised the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had tried to meet the objections of his hon. Friend; but of course the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the point that in the estimate he had laid before the House; he had taken no notice of the fact that the district rate was not included. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stick to one-eighth, but he would like to ask whether the eighth was to apply to individual farms or to unions. If it was to apply to individual farms, it would make a very great difference to the estimate the right hon. Gentleman had made. The most important point in connection with this Amendment was the question of a limitation being fixed in the Bill. The Government had not, up to the present, got to the point when they could tell the House exactly how much they were to be asked to vote. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the estimate was made too low there would be a difficulty; but the estimate need not be made too low. Let the right hon. Gentleman make it too high, if he liked, but let there be a limitation in the Bill. Unless the right hon. Gentleman would consent to insert a maximum in the Bill, he hoped his hon. Friend would divide the House.

contended that the right hon. Gentleman's figures would not stand any investigation whatever. The right hon. Gentleman took the rural rate at 2s 4d., but he ignored the deductions that ought to be made from that amount. He would have much pleasure in supporting his hon. Friend's Amendment.

said that as the right hon. Gentleman had told the House that he was going to put the minimum value at one-eighth, that would afford a basis for the calculation that was asked for. The right hon. Gentleman might, with the staff at his disposal, easily find out what the amount would be at one-eighth. He thought that before the discussion was closed the House had a right to ask also whether the one-eighth would apply to Unions generally or to individual farms.

hoped that the hon. Member would forgive him if he did not go into the figures he had quoted; that was really not necessary. There were three reasons why he could not accept the Amendment. In the first place the grant was to be a fixed sum. It seemed to him to be very unfair that if, because for any reason there had been a larger expenditure in one year, which had led to smaller expenses in the following year, that therefore the ratepayers in the second year were to be deprived of the advantage which they would derive from the payment of the full grant. If it happened that the contribution from the State was larger than was required for the second year, and there was a surplus, then that surplus would go in relief of the rates generally; and to that extent the representatives of houses, buildings, and property other than land, whose interests hon. Members had particularly championed throughout these Debates, would derive an advantage of which it would be very unfair that they should be deprived. Another reason against the Amendment had reference to the question of practical difficulty. The payments from the grant were made at the beginning of each half-year, and until the end of the year the amount derived from rates on agricultural land in that year could not be ascertained, and thus it would be impracticable to give effect to the Amendment.

said that the object of the Bill as stated in the first clause, was to give relief to agricultural land as opposed to buildings and other hereditaments. His hon. Friend had clearly established that in the event of the rates diminishing in any year and falling below the standard which was set forth in the Bill, there would be money paid out of the Exchequer by virtue of this Bill which would go, not to agricultural land, but to buildings and other hereditaments. The right hon. Gentleman said he saw no reason why they should not enjoy that benefit; but this seemed to him to be inverting the whole position of the Bill; and the right hon. Gentleman ought to adduce some reason to show why buildings and other hereditaments ought to benefit by this grant of public money. In his judgment the Amendment met the point in dispute.

cited the case of a district in which there were collieries and other industries. Assuming that in this district £800 was raised in rates—£400 on agricultural land, and £400 on buildings and the colliery interest. If the whole of the industrial population migrated in the course of the next two or three years owing to the closing of the colliery, the expenditure might go down to £150. Thus they would be receiving £200 from the Exchequer in order to help the local rates, while the total amount required to be expended in the locality might only be £150. In his opinion, therefore, the attitude of accepting a fixed amount was an untenable one.

thought that the Government would be well advised to give a more adequate answer to the Amendment. The point was a clear one. Here was a Bill which proposed to relieve the rates on agricultural land to the extent of a half. A quite possible case—nay, a probable one—had been quoted where, if the Bill remained as at present, the contribution paid out of the Exchequer must necessarily not relieve agricultural land, but the rating on other subjects. No one had attempted to make out a case showing that this class of property was in need of relief from the Exchequer. It was true that the Opposition throughout these Debates had constantly emphasised what they conceived to be the injustice done to the occupiers of buildings and other property as compared with agricultural land; but there was another interest which they equally represented—namely, the general taxpayers; and in the interests of the taxpayers they were bound to make this protest, and to ask the Government how they could justify this application of public money.

pointed out, as one of the objections to the Amendment, that if it was provided that the grant should go down as the rates go down, then it ought also to provide that the grant should go up as the rates go up. The arguments used in support of the Amendment had involved that proposition, that the grant should vary according to the necessities of the year. The answer to the proposition was that, practically speaking, for the purposes of working such a Measure as this, it was impossible. How could they provide the machinery for ascertaining year by year what should be the grant from the Exchequer? The only practical way, and that adopted in the Bill, was to take a fixed grant which would meet the justice of the case. If the rates go down they would not get less; if they go up they would not get more. Suppose that in the year 1898 there happened to have been a considerable expenditure out of the rates. The result of that would be that the rates would be higher in 1898, but the further consequence followed that less expenditure would be needed in 1899. In 1898 they would get, according to the Bill, the fixed grant; in 1899 they would also get the fixed grant. Thus, on an average of years justice would be done by the machinery of the Bill without an attempt at working a system which in practice would break down. His hon. and learned Friend said that the wrong people would get the benefit. But the benefit would not go, as was supposed, only to the owners of buildings; it would go to the ratepayers of the district. His hon. and learned Friend actually objected to distressed agriculture being relieved, because at the same time and incidentally, some benefit would go to the owners of houses.

said what he objected to was that, whereas the design was to relieve agricultural land, they could not do it without squandering money on people who were not entitled to it.

submitted that he had accurately represented the argument. In his opinion, it would be very unreasonable to do injustice to agriculture in order to prevent some little benefit going to the owners of houses.

offered an undertaking that if the Amendment were accepted, the omission referred to by the Solicitor General would at once be supplied. It was true the Amendment only provided for the rates going down, but the Government neither provided for their going up nor down; it was a go-as-you-please affair altogether. To take the case which had already been referred to in the Debate, the result, according to the Bill, would be that they would be paying three-fourths of the rate on agricultural land instead of one-half. That was unanswerable, and it showed how difficult it was to carry out the wishes of the Government. Nevertheless, it was the duty of the Government to insert such provisions as would bring the money in excess of half back into the general taxpayers' pockets.

said that under the provisions of the Bill as now explained by the President of the Local Government Board, in some cases more than half the rate would be paid. That was not consistent with the framework of the Bill, and it was a gross injustice to the general taxpayer. It was quite conceivable that instances might occur whereby an industry moving from one place or failing in one district, the local rates might be materially altered; they might, by giving a fixed sum, be paying nearly all the rates of the district. That was contrary to the most rudimentary notions of justice. Yet the matter could be considered very easily by the distributing authorities. If every year the spending authority sent in its estimate it would receive a sum on that estimate, and if in one year it exceeded the estimate, it would in the next year be able to make it up, but in the meantime the money would be saved to the general taxpayer.

thought a fallacy underlay the argument of the Solicitor General in assuming that both the cases he put would occur in the same parish. That would not be the case at all.

I did not say that the rates might rise and fall in the same parish in the same year, but they might in successive years, and commonly do.

thought only to a slight extent, because, roughly, the amount of rates depended upon population, and change in population was usually gradual. The argument of the Solicitor General was no defence whatever for giving State money to people who were not entitled to it.

accepted the Amendment. Subsection (2) accordingly struck out.

The hon. Member is not in order in going into the general question of subventions or even into this particular subvention. The House has already decided in favour of the subvention by voting that there shall be paid money to the local taxation account, and this is only machinery for carrying out what the House has already voted.

Well then, Sir, as you rule the principle of giving Imperial subventions is not to be discussed, I would ask the House to support the Amendment, because the section hands from the Estate Duty certain sums, in a way which is opposed to sound finance, and is a mere device opposed to all sound bookkeeping principles. It is not possible to earmark revenue as items for expenditure. The revenue is derived from the taxpayers, and the whole of it applied to the items of expenditure. I oppose the sub-section because the proposal is injurious to urban populations, demoralising to those who are intended to benefit by it, and detrimental to the interests of the whole nation.

said he did not desire to repeat the arguments he used in Committee against this sub-section, but he wished to take this opportunity of entering his protest against what he could only call the false pretence that this money was to be paid out of a particular fund of the taxation of the country. It was not the fact that the money was to be paid out of one fund rather than another. The principle of the interception of taxes had been admitted to be a false principle of finance, and to prevent the repetition of it the House was going to amend the Standing Order. This money was being voted by the House contrary to all the rules relating to the finances of the country. ["Hear, hear"] The real point to which he desired to draw attention was that the pretence that this money came out of the Estate Duty was altogether a misrepresentation of the fact. It came out of the general taxation of the country. [Cheers.] It was quite obvious that this was the case, and the money to be applied under the Bill might have been devoted to the reduction of the Tea Duty, to the diminution of the Income Tax by a penny, or to the general relief of the taxation of the country. [Cheers.] Therefore, to say that all that was being done was that the Government were taking so much money out of the Estate Duty was really to place the financial part of the Bill disingenuously before the House and the public. [Cheers.] He desired it to be perfectly understood, in spite of this ingenious manœuvre, that the fact could not be concealed that this money was being taken out of the pocket of the general taxpayer. [Cheers.] It was a contribution from the pockets of the taxpayers of the country without distinction for the purposes of this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was useless to argue this question over again, because it had been fully discussed in Committee and on the Second Reading. He would not quarrel with the somewhat violent language of the right hon. Gentleman, who had been good enough to say that this sub-section was a disingenuous manœuvre, that it was a farce, and a misrepresentation of the fact. [Opposition cries of "Hear, hear!"] He consoled himself, however, with the reflection that he was a humble imitator of the right hon. Gentleman himself in this matter. [Cheers.] In the year 1888 Parliament deliberately chose to give up a certain proportion of the Probate Duty on personalty to the relief of local taxation. When the right hon. Gentleman in the year 1894 abolished the Probate Duty, what did he do? He made himself guilty of the very proposal he attributed to the Government now. [Cheers.]

In Committee I explained that I continued this offence—[Ministerial laughter]—because I had not at that time means or the opportunity of redressing it. [Ministerial laughter.]

said that what the right hon. Gentleman did was this. He abolished the grant out of the Probate Duty because he abolished that duty. He made a substitution for that grant, and provided that the money should be taken "out of the proceeds of the Estate Duty derived from personal property." [Cheers.] Therefore the right hon. Gentleman adopted precisely the same words as appeared in this Bill. [Cheers.] He accepted the epithets of the right hon. Gentleman, and returned them. [Cheers.]

Order, order! I do not think the hon. Member is in order on this Amendment in going into the general financial question. The only question before the House on this Amendment is whether it is necessary, having regard to the provisions of the Act of 1866, to insert these words. That is a mere drafting question.

did not argue that it was necessary, but it was certainly advisable in the interests of the decency of drafting that these words should be inserted. It was not proper to repeal a very serious section of a very serious Act embodying a most important financial principle by mere implication and inference. [" Hear, hear!"] They had had enactments by implication and inference alone, and other Acts repealed by implication and inference alone. He admitted that enactments had been repealed in this very Bill by implication and inference, but it was a practice which should not be allowed to continue, and when they proposed to repeal so important a section as this to the extent of £2,000,000 a year, they ought not to do it by mere implication and inference, but ought to indicate clearly what they were doing. In a matter of this kind it was proper that reference should be made to the nature of the act that was being committed, so that the student of the statutes when he came to this particular Act should be enabled to see on the face of it that to a large extent it repealed a most important section of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1866.

observed that his hon. Friend had admitted that this Amendment was not necessary, and he thought he should be able to show him that not only was it not necessary but that it might be mischievous. In drafting it was requisite to make Acts of Parliament which proposed to do the same thing identical in their terms. The Act of 1888, which was the first Act establishing the local taxation account, directed that certain taxes should be paid to it, but made no reference whatever to the Exchequer and Audit Act. That again was repeated in 1890, when the additional duties on spirits and part of the duty on beer were directed to be paid to the local taxation accounts, and no words of the kind now proposed by the hon. Member were inserted in that Act. ["Hear, hear!"] Again, in 1894, when the proceeds of the Estate Duty, derived from personal property, were directed to be paid to the local taxation account in substitution for the old Probate Duties, no similar words to these were inserted in the Act. He thought it would be extremely inconvenient in the interpretation of these Acts to have a phrase of this kind inserted in the present Bill, which did not occur in any previous Act, authorising precisely the same thing being done. This Bill, when it became law, would authorise the duties to be intercepted in spite of the Exchequer and Audit Act, exactly as other Acts had done; therefore he was afraid the Government could not accept the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]

thought the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the hon. Member for King's Lynn was simply an attempt to show that two blacks made a white. There was no doubt that what was done in 1888 was indefensible and wrong.

Why did you not object to it? ["Hear, hear!"]

replied that they had so much to object to in the whole scheme of 1888, so far as finance was concerned, but that, of course, was bygone history. He considered no answer had been given to the Amendment, and tacitly the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that this was indirectly a violation of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1866, but that it was inadvisable to say so on the face of the statute. His hope was that this was the last time the blunder would be committed, and he thought that the discussion that had taken place with reference to this clause would prevent any future Chancellor of the Exchequer—and he was sure it would prevent the existing one—from repeating the mistake that had been made here. He rose, however, for another purpose of a personal character. He argued this question at length the previous day, and submitted it to the Speaker, and he was not going to raise the question again. But he found himself charged in the Press with having sprung a mine on the Government, with having stated something for the first time without giving notice, and thus been guilty of something rather in the nature of a trick. He had a great dislike to accusations of that sort, and he wished, as a matter of personal explanation, to call the attention of the House to the fact that on May 21, when the Bill was in Committee, and this clause under discussion, he then stated that of course it was not a question on which they could take the ruling of the Chairman of Committee, but that it was a question for the Speaker to decide. He gave notice at that time that when the Report stage was reached they should publicly ask the Speaker for his ruling on the clause. He made this statement in order to discharge himself from any appearance of having been guilty of the conduct which had been imputed to him. [Cheers.]

said the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for King's Lynn might be good enough, but it amounted to this: The Front Bench of the Opposition must not find fault with the refusal of the Government to insert this Amendment, because they had done as badly themselves. He would point out, however, that the Amendment did not come from the front Opposition Bench, but from an independent Member. When a mistake had been discovered that mistake should be corrected as soon as possible. While it was right for them to follow a good precedent, it was also right for them to cease to follow a bad one as soon as they possibly could. He was disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not accept this Amendment after the concession he had made to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, to whom, at the commencement of the Report stage, he had made a promise, on behalf of the Government, that steps would shortly be taken to put an end to these financial operations.

remarked that the hon. Member was now going into the general financial portion of the section, but it was not open for him to do so on this Amendment.

desired to point out that the Amendment had not been moved in a hostile spirit, and all that was asked was that as they had come to regard this plan with suspicion these harmless words should be inserted in order to inaugurate a better state of things.

said the only word he should have to say on this Amendment would be out of order, because Mr. Speaker had ruled the general financial consideration to be precluded from discussion in the Debate on this Amendment. Although it was out of order he was afraid they should have regard to it in the votes they should give, and he should support the hon. Member on the grounds he had so well put forward.

said that Section 10 of the Act of 1866 laid down a salutary rule as to the payment of revenues into the Imperial Exchequer. It provided that the Commissioners of Customs and Inland Revenue, the Postmaster General, etc., should cause the gross revenues of their respective Departments to be paid at such times and under such regulations as the Treasury might from time to time prescribe, to the account of the Imperial Exchequer at the Bank of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and all other public moneys payable to the Exchequer should be paid to the same accounts. It was most important that this rule should not be departed from.

said he really thought they had decided the question on the proposal to omit the earlier words of the subsection. The clause directed the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to make a cash payment to the local taxation account; they could only make such a payment out of some tax which must be named, and it had not been proposed that any other tax should be substituted for the Estate Duty or personalty. The proposal in the Bill was that the payment should be made in exactly the same manner that it was made under the Act of 1894. That might be right or it might be wrong; the question had been argued already, and it was hardly necessary to argue it again. The omission of the words proposed to be struck out would make the sub-section meaningless.

said that if the words objected to were omitted, it would be proposed to insert other words which would make the clause much better. The House could hardly be called upon to decide an unimportant question. It was proposed to add £2,000,000 to the £7,000,000, which by various surreptitious methods was intercepted and given away without being voted by the House; there was therefore an extension of an unsound system of finance. The defence of the clause on the ground of precedent had been sufficiently met by the answer that the creating of a bad precedent was no reason why it should be followed. We had now a chance of retracing our steps, of leaving the downward path, of getting off the slippery slope that would precipitate us into national bankruptcy, of departing from a thoroughly unsound system of finance, which deprived the House of Commons of complete control over the expenditure. As to the £2,000,000 being a tax on personal property, it could not be so; it would be simply taken from the Imperial Exchequer, and no one could know how much came from personalty and how much from realty and from taxes on coffee and beer. The words of the clause were unnecessary and meaningless, and therefore ought to be struck out.

said he supported the Amendment on the ground that the words of the clause were entirely misleading, because there was no such thing as "Estate Duty" derived from personal property in England. There was up till 1894 a Probate Duty, and an Estate Duty levied on what was in law called personalty. Out of that Probate Duty there was a proportion carried over to grants in aid. Up till the Finance Act 1894, Probate Duty was levied on personalty only, and by the term personalty was meant property which in law was so defined, that is to say, leaseholds of 99 years as in London, and the leaseholds of 999 years which form the tenure system in Lancashire. But all those duties were abolished by the Finance Act of 1894, and Estate Duty on personalty ceased to exist. That Act established and created an "Estate Duty" so designated by the Act; and this Bill referred to the "Estate Duty" so defined. By the First Section the duty granted and therein call Estate Duty was a duty to be "levied and paid upon the principal value (ascertained as thereafter provided) of all property real or personal, settled or unsettled, and which passed on the death of such person, and this duty the Act called "Estate Duty." The Act proceeded to define the property and conditions on which the duty should be paid, and by Section 22 the definition clause of the Act defined property as meaning "real and personal property." The Estate Duty was levied out of a mixed fund of realty and leasehold, or personalty in England as defined in law. This included all sorts of property, and was not pure personalty or moveable as they knew it. ["Hear, hear!"] In Scotland personalty meant moveable property, and the Finance Act so defines, so that whilst Estate Duty derived from personal property exists in Scotland, it did not exist in England, and the Estate Duty of the Finance Act of 1894 was not as described in this Bill, and the words improperly described the fund. It had been attempted to justify the use of the words by the 20th Section of the Act which relates to the grants in aid clause out of the Estate Duty; but those words did not describe the Estate Duty, but laid down administrative directions subject to Treasury resolutions, for ascertaining what on certain calculations would be a sum to represent that amount which was under the Probate Acts levied formerly as Probate and Estate Duty on personalty, the personalty of legal and not of economic conditions. This was recognised in Sir A. Milner's memorandum appendix to Volume 4 of Royal Commission, who said that no materials existed for ascertaining the difference of taxation levied on moveable and immoveable property. For these reasons he supported the Amendment.

said if these words were struck out the clause would still provide that the money should be paid by the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue. What they objected to was the earmarking of the fund which occurred in these particular words. He agreed with the description given of it by his hon. Friend who had just sat down. All this Estate Duty had gone into a common purse for two years. It had not been separated before. A great many persons on the opposite side of the House seemed to think that this was a new imposition on personal property. They were doing nothing of the kind. They were dipping their hands in a fund which had existed for two years, and they were taking it as they would take it out of any other cash of the country. A great many people were induced to take a more lenient view of the Bill owing to these words, and it was highly judicious indeed to move that they be struck out of the Bill.

said as regarded this Amendment, he was in a little difficulty because if they were to pay a certain sum they must determine out of what they were to pay it. The words used here should be struck out, leaving it to the Member for King's Lynn to move his Amendment by and by. He supposed it was necessary to have definition or they would have no money out of which to pay it; but why on earth the Chancellor of the Exchequer should desire to keep in the words "derived in England from personal property," he could not understand. They were going to pay half, and whether the money came from the Estate Duty or from the Inland Revenue, was a matter of no importance whatever. If the Estate Duty was not sufficient, they might have to bring in a Bill; but why they should restrict the payment to one class of property and one mode of assessment, he could not imagine. It was laying down a very ambiguous phrase to be paid out of Estate Duty in England. He hoped they would have some reason why the time of the House was wasted in discussing this point. [Ironical Cheers.] There had not been a single argument urged from the Treasury Bench in favour of it.

said if they passed this Amendment, they would be ordering the Inland Revenue to do that which would be physically and morally impossible for it to do. A portion of the revenue had been already intercepted by a previous Act, and unless in this case you marked the particular part of the revenue they were going to intercept, they would get no money at all. There was another Amendment later on, and he urged that this Amendment should be withdrawn.

could not agree that the Amendment should be withdrawn. If reliance was placed solely on the Estate Duty it might happen that some year the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget would introduce a new system of taxation, and there would be no funds out of the Estate Duty to meet the purposes of the Act. He thought the grants under the Act ought to come from the whole Exchequer of the country.

said the point at issue was whether the money to be applied to relieving the rates on agricultural land was to come out of a particular fund, and if so, whether that fund should be the proceeds from taxes on personal property. He thought the money ought not to come from personal property. Take the case of two houses in the same street of the town—one held under lease for 99 years and the other a freehold. The first was personal pro perty; the other was real property. Why should the house which was personal property be called upon by the words they were now discussing to con tribute to the relief of agriculture while the house that was a freehold was exempted? Again, there were cases of houses held under leases for 999 years. Such a lease was practically, but not legally, a freehold. Yet while the house which was technically a freehold was exonerated by the clause, the house that was practically a freehold had to bear the burden of relieving agriculture. Take another case. The owner of a villa in the country, which would be real property, was exonerated—though he might be deriving his income from land—from any charge for the relief of agriculture, while the tradesman in a town who had a lease for 21 or 100 years—though he had no direct connection with agriculture—was to be taxed, or the duty derivable from his estate was to be ear marked, for the relief of agriculture. He asked upon what ground such a distinction could be defended? There was no distinction made in the Estate Duty Act between real property and personal property——

rose in his place, and claimed that the question be now put.

I do not think it is necessary to accept the Motion, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will not prolong his remarks. I would remind him that he is about to read an Act which has been read already in the course of the discussion. I think this point has been fully debated, and that a decision might speedily be taken upon it.

said he was merely about to call attention to the first section of the Estate Duty Act in order to press for an answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth.

said he had an Amendment to move which he had some hopes that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would accept. According to the Bill, relief was to be given to agricultural land after the 31st day of March next, so that no occasion for relief arose until that date. But by this sub-section it was proposed to pay during the six months ending the 31st March from the Local Taxation Account, that was, to pay a sum of money which was not due. It would be impossible, moreover, from a practical point of view, for the right hon. Gentleman to get his machinery into order to ascertain the amount which was to be paid. In the first place, he would have to get a separate valuation throughout every rural district in the whole kingdom. [Cries of "Oh!"]

said that point was dealt with on the first clause.

said he was not discussing that point, but was pointing out that it was a question of time. The first thing that would have to be done was to get a separate valuation of farms, land, buildings, and farmhouses.

Order, order! I think this was discussed on the First Section, and if the hon. Member wished to raise the question of the date he ought to have done so then.

said that the first Section dealt with the date when relief ought to come into operation.

said he was quite aware of that, but if the hon. Member was going into details which were used in a previous argument as to whether the 31st of March should be the date fixed for the Act, that was ground which had been gone over.

said it was a physical impossibility for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to ascertain the amount before the 31st of March.

said he rose to a point of order. He wished to ask whether this question as to what had to be done before the 31st of March was not discussed upon the first clause of the Bill.

said that on the point of order he would ask whether it was not the case that the point discussed on Clause 1 was the question of the moment that the occupier of agricultural land would commence to pay a half of the rate, and whether the point now raised, namely, whether or not the payment should be made in the six months preceding the 31st of March, was not an altogether different question.

on the point of order, submitted that the sub-section which they were now considering was a piece of machinery absolutely necessary for working purposes, as the money must be paid in before the first half-year in order that payment might be made.

said that did not appear to be a point of order, although it might be a very good reason for not accepting the Amendment. He thought the hon. Member was entitled to raise the question, but he hoped he would do so with more brevity.

submitted, as a point of order, that these words were absolutely inconsistent with those in the first clause.

said that was not a point of order, although it might be a reason why the hon. Member's Amendment should be accepted.

said he would then argue the question simply on its merits. As a point of drafting, the words were wrong. He submitted, in the first place, that they could not ascertain the amount by the date fixed in this sub-section, owing to difficulties to which he had referred; in the second place, that they would be paying in money before it was due; and in the third place, that these words were absolutely inconsistent with the words they had already enacted in the first subsection of the first clause. He therefore begged to move to omit the words "thirty-first day of March" and to insert the words "thirtieth day of September."

said if they were going to pay money when it became due it was necessary that they should have it ready, and this subsection provided that money should be paid into the local taxation account during the six months before the 31st of March next. There was nothing in the contention that these words were inconsistent with the earlier words in the Bill. It might as well be contended that the fourth clause, which provided for certain certificates being made by the Local Government Board "as soon as may be," was inconsistent with the provision that relief should be given during the five years from the 31st March. The provision in this sub-section and the other provisions in the Bill were in preparation of the relief which was to be given during the five years.

said the relief to be given started on the 31st March next. The money which the Committee was voting was to meet a deficiency, but there could be no deficiency on the 31st March. It could only occur six months later.

said that the deficiency would occur in the half-year ensuing after the 31st March, and the money must have been paid into the local taxation account so that it might be paid out during that half-year.

said that that was his argument. There would be six months in which to pay the money and before the deficiency occurred.

said that the words "as soon as may be" in Clause 4, to which the Solicitor General had referred, were followed by the words "after the passing of this Act," and hence an express exception was made. For this cause it was necessary to know the exact amount of the deficiency, and every operation must be finished before the 31st March next. That meant the re-rating of all agricultural land to discriminate between land and buildings, and it could not be done in the time available.

said it was impossible for any deficiency to arise before the 31st March next. Time was always given to the ratepayers by the authorities to pay their contributions, and it was quite evident that whatever was the right date to put in the Bill it could not be the 31st March.

said that the spending authorities did not do their business on credit to the end of the year. They made disbursements as they were due, and the money must therefore be lodged in the local taxation account.

rose to move the omission of all the words in the clause down to the words "and the net amount," but wished first to ask whether the Motion would exclude subsequent Amendments to the clause or whether the omission of the words of the clause up to the next Amendment would be the question put from the Chair?

said that in putting the Motion he should folow the usual course, so as not to exclude subsequent Amendments. He might add that the next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, did not make sense as it stood upon the Paper. Perhaps some mistake had been made in printing it. If no mistake had been committed he could not put the Amendment.

said that he did not propose to move it.

said that it was quite true that when the clause was last under discussion he undertook to ascertain, with the help of the Attorney General and Solicitor General, whether the provision required amendment and whether it could be made simpler and clearer. The clause had been considered accordingly, and the conclusion that had been come to was that it was quite intelligible and clear. It related to the question of contributions from more than one parish, and the effect, as he maintained, of the clause was to distribute the payment fairly between the different parishes according to the amount of the grant to which they were justly entitled. The contribution as certified by the Local Government Board under the terms of the Bill would be handed over in the first place to the spending authorities. Supposing that a spending authority required to raise a certain sum, say £500, and that the contribution as certified by the Local Government Board would be £100, then £400 only would be required to be raised by that authority instead of £500. The first part of the clause therefore provided that the contribution which was to be received by the local authority according to the certificate of the Department should be deducted from the amount to be raised. Then came the question of distribution among several parishes, and how much they were to have. How was this to be done? In order that each parish might get the full share of the grant to which it was entitled, the net amount which was required, after the deduction of the contribution—that was to say, £400—was to be raised on the assessable value instead of the rateable value, the assessable value meaning the rateable value of the parish minus half of the rateable value of the agricultural land in that parish. If the net amount after the deduction were to be raised on the rateable value this would follow, the greater or the less amount of the agricultural land in that parish would not be taken into account in the share they would receive. The consequence of that would be that in the case of a parish with a large amount of agricultural land, that parish would get less than its fair share of the contribution to which it was entitled. The further consequence was that more rates would have to be raised. There would be an increase of rate to make up for the deficiency caused by their receiving too small a share of the contribution, which would fall on account of property in that parish, and the further effect would be that property other than agricultural land would have to pay towards that increase of rate in the proportion of twice that of agricultural land. That was the general effect of this clause; that was the difficulty against which they wished to provide. But it was not so difficult or so unintelligible as hon. Members seemed to assume. At least, he hoped he had done something to make the clause clearer to hon. Members than it was before.

acknowledged that the right hon. Gentleman had given a lucid explanation of the clause, but he did not think that it worked fairly. In cases where parishes were grouped it would introduce confusion. In the first place, the buildings and the land would bear a very different portion of the rate where the rate was levied for one parish than where it was levied for two parishes. Supposing they levied a rate for one parish and not a group. After the rate had gone up then the balance was divided between the buildings in that particular parish and the land. Supposing they grouped parishes in the way proposed by this clause. Assume, for the purposes of argument, that there were three or four, more or less, urban districts in the union. In that union there were two or three small boroughs, the rest being agricultural parishes. How would the clause work there? There was a contribution from the Imperial Exchequer of £100. If the rate went up next year, in all the agricultural districts there was only a half for the land in that parish; the rest of the parish would make up the difference—the tenant farmer, as the occupier of buildings and farmhouses, and the squire, of his mansion, would have to make up the difference. It was clear that it was intended to shift the burden from the owners of buildings who, in agricultural districts, were farmers and landowners, to the owners and occupiers of buildings in the small boroughs. That was not fair.

agreed that the right hon. Gentleman had explained what no doubt was the object of the clause. He should like to know why, in the first place, it was considered necessary to deduct the money received from the Treasury under the Bill?

thought some answer was due to the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, who had pointed out a serious difficulty in combined parishes, where the deficiency caused by the relief given to some of the agricultural parishes would fall unfairly on those which were non-agricultural parishes. As far as they were able to understand this clause, the right hon. Gentleman had given a lucid explanation of it; but the right hon. Gentleman must excuse them as to their difficulty in the matter, when he pointed out that on a former occasion the First Lord of the Treasury agreed with him in saying that he had not the remotest idea what the clause meant. [Laughter.] He remembered that in one of the great State trials in the last century the Attorney General made a speech lasting three days in order to convict the prisoner, who was unanimously acquitted because the jury said that if it required three days to prove the prisoner's guilt he must be innocent. [Laughter.] So obscure was this clause that it seemed to prove the object intended to be carried out was wrong, otherwise an attempt would have been made to express that object more intelligibly. A friend of his in command of a Volunteer regiment, through giving the proper words of command, got his regiment into such confusion that it could not move. [Laughter.] He hit upon the expedient of dropping the use of technical terms, and said to the men, "You fellows know what I mean; go up Regent Street." [Laughter.] He had always held up that example to draughtsmen. He had said to draughtsmen, with reference to a Bill, "Could you not say, 'Go up Regent Street?'" [Laughter.] If there was an object to be accomplished by this clause, he recommended the right hon. Gentleman to say to the draughtsman, "Don't you think you can go up Regent Street?" and say in plainer words than these what the clause really meant. [Laughter.] However, that really was a question of drafting, but as regarded the substance of the matter they ought to have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman to show that the allegation put forward by the hon. Member for Carnarvon with great force was not well founded, and that in combined parishes the relief given to the agricultural portions of them would not throw an undue burden upon the industrial parts of the community.