I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, (1) whether he has any further information in regard to the knowledge possessed by Mr. Rhodes of the contemplated raid into the Transvaal before that raid took place since the publication of the "cyphered telegrams;" (2) whether, since these telegrams have been made public, the Directors have had under their consideration the acceptance of the resignation of Mr. Rhodes as Managing Director of the Chartered Company of South Africa, and whether they have come to any decision in the matter; and, (3) whether Herr Beit is still a Director of the Company, and whether he has furnished any explanation of the "cyphered telegrams," in so far as he was connected with them, to the Board of the Company?

The answer to the first Question of the hon. Member is in the negative. In reply to the second and third Questions I am informed by the Solicitor to the British South Africa Company that the Directors named and Dr. Rutherford Harris have tendered their resignations, which have been accepted by the Board.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exechequer, what is the amount of public money, if any, already expended in regard to the Military operations now taking place in Rhodesia, and what is the amount of obligations, if any, for which the Treasury is liable in regard to these operations; whether he is aware that the liability of the Chartered Company of South Africa is limited to the amount of its paid up capital; and whether, he has under these circumstances taken steps to insure that all public moneys advanced in respect to the Military operations, or for the payment of which the Treasury has assumed liability, will be repaid by the Company; if so, what these steps have been?

The only extra expense that can have been incurred in this matter up to the present time would be for the transport of about 600 men from Natal and Cape Town to Mafeking. Returns of this have been asked for but have not been received, but the whole could only amount to a small sum. Nothing is being advanced for the operations in Rhodesia, and the Treasury has undertaken no obligations with respect to them. The obligation on the Chartered Company to discharge claims rightly made on it is co-extensive with its assets, and I have no reason to question its ability and willingness to discharge them.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it is the case, as stated in the French Chamber, that the United States have given up their Treaty with Madagascar, or whether Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States continue to hold the same view with regard to the recent change in the international relations of that country?

We have not heard that the American Government have given up their Treaty with Madagascar as stated in the Question, but have reason to believe that communications are passing between them and the French Government. The American Government and Her Majesty's Government have not taken concerted action, their position not being identical as regards engagements.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. R. S. DONKIN), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether, to enable H.M.S. Medusa, now stationed on the Tyne, to make a short cruise at sea, the Admiralty have been compelled to send to Chatham for some 30 men, although daily some 20 to 80 Naval Reserve men are exercising on board?

No, when H.M.S. Medusa recently proceeded to sea for a short cruise not a man was sent to her from Chatham. Twelve Coastguardmen of the non-embarking section were embarked in the Medusa to carry out their annual 10 days drill, and 33 Royal Naval Reserve men went out in her.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, if he intends to proceed this Session with the Teachers' Registration Bill?

said he was very anxious to proceed with this Bill, but he confessed he did not see any prospect of doing so before the close of the Session.

asked, if the Bill were made non-contentious could he see his way to proceed with the Bill?

Oh, yes, certainly, if the Bill could be treated as entirely non-contentious, but I have always been stopped after Twelve o'clock when I have tried to take the Second Reading. [Laughter.]

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether the Irish Land Commission intend to evict Patrick McGinn, Corryogan, on decree got recently at Quarter Sessions, Castleblaney; (2) whether he is aware that McGinn sold his farm by auction in January last, and that Mr. Bailie, Crown Solicitor, Castleblaney, by letter dated 1st February 1896, directed the auctioneer to return the deposit to the purchaser, as the sale could not be carried out owing to McGinn not having the title-deed of his farm; (3) whether the deed of McGinn's farm has been with the Irish Land Commissioners since 1894; (4) whether he is aware that if McGinn had had his deed in January last the recent law proceedings would have been unnecessary; and, (5) whether he will stay the eviction of McGinn until he gets the deed of his farm and enable him to sell, seeing that only 12 months annuity was due against McGinn up to 1st May last?

The object of the proceedings referred to in the first paragraph was to recover on the decree, through the Sheriff, three instalments due by Patrick McGinn. The Commissioners do not intend on that decree to evict McGinn, but if the Sheriff fails to levy the amount, they will have to consider what further proceedings should be taken with a view to the sale of the holding. There is nothing at present to prevent Patrick McGinn selling the holding himself, and the Commissioners would much prefer that he should do so than that they should be forced to sell the holding for default. As to the second paragraph, it does not appear to be correct to say that Mr. Bailie "directed the auctioneer to return the deposit to the purchaser, as the sale could not be carried out owing to McGinn not having the title-deed of his farm." It does, however, appear that the sale fell through, partly, at all events, in consequence of Mr. Bailie's failure to ascertain that an application for registration had been duly lodged. Mr. Bailie was not acting in his capacity as Crown Solicitor, nor was he acting on behalf of the Land Commission. The Questions in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 seem to have been put under a complete misapprehension. McGinn could have sold his farm on the occasion referred to if proper searches and inquiries had been made in the Local Registration of Title Office. In no case, as has been before explained, are copies of deeds returned under such circumstances. As before indicated, the Commissioners are prepared to consider an application from McGinn to allow him a reasonable time to sell his holding before they take steps for that purpose. They are in no way responsible for the failure which appears to have occurred.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that he had in his possession a letter from the secretary to the Land Commission, stating that only 12 months' rent were due, and also that he had a letter——

Order, order! The hon. Member is replying upon the answer. The Question has been fully answered.

I shall forward the letters to the right hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Tables of the Pensions Commutation Board have been revised since the reduction in the rate of interest on Consols; if he will state when the Tables were last revised; and whether he will now consider the advisability of ordering a revision of the Tables?

No such revision has taken place since the Tables were promulgated, immediately after the passing of the Pensions Commutation Act of 1871. There is no power to revise the Tables so far as regards a reduction of the rate of interest on which they are based, which is prescribed by Section (4) (1) c. of the Act of 1871.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether the attention of his Department has been called to the desirability of supplementing the closing of watertight doors in Her Majesty's ships by automatic appliances; and, if not, whether he will cause an independent Inquiry and Report to be made on the subject?

Yes; the attention of the Admiralty has been frequently called to the adoption of automatic appliances for closing watertight doors, and no independent Inquiry is considered necessary. Stringent orders are in force as to the closing of watertight doors and automatic valves for closing apertures in watertight bulkheads and decks.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the appliance which had been submitted to and refused by the Admiralty was now being tried in the American Navy?

said that personally he was not aware of that fact.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that the canteen on Lanark Moor of the 3rd and 4th Battalions Scottish Rifles is open to supply civilians with excisable liquors on Sunday; and whether he will take steps to prevent this in future?

The officer commanding the 3rd and 4th Battalions Scottish Rifles reports:—

"The canteen (of those battalions) on Lanark Muir is not open to supply civilians with excisable or any other liquors on Sunday, or any other day ";

and he adds that any statement to the contrary is absolutely false.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to certain cases tried at the Bradford-on-Avon Petty Sessions on 27th May last, under the Vaccination Acts, in which Mr. William Grove Pariss appeared on behalf of George Henry Banks and others, under the powers conferred on him by the Vaccination Act, 1871, Section 11, final Clause, when the presiding magistrate refused to allow Mr. Pariss to be heard on behalf of the defendants, and proceeded to make vaccination orders without hearing any defence; and, whether he was within his rights in this action; and, if not, whether the Secretary of State will cancel the orders so made, and direct that the costs imposed shall be refunded?

I have already inquired into these cases. With regard to that of George Banks, I understand that he appeared in person to answer the charge, and the Justices, holding that Section 11 of the Act empowers only an absent defendant to appear by a duly authorised representative, decided that he could not be represented or assisted by a person other than a solicitor. I see no reason for questioning this decision. With regard to the other cases, I am informed that the Justices only declined to hear Mr. Pariss on his attempting to raise a discussion about them collectively, expressing the opinion that each case must be dealt with singly and on its own merits, but that Mr. Pariss left the court before they were taken.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has received a memorial from the inhabitants of Morris's Mills, county Clare, asking for the establishment of a post office in this district; and, whether it is proposed to grant the prayer of the memorial?

The memorial referred to by the hon. Member has been received, and inquiry is being made in the matter. The result shall be communicated to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what is the cause of the delay in the carrying out of the sales to the tenants of the Annaly Estate, county Longford; has the Inspector yet made his Report to the Land Commission; and is it the Land Commission that is causing the delay of completion of these sales?

I am informed by the Registrar of the Land Judges Court that since the 12th March last, when I replied to a somewhat similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member, some progress has been made towards a settlement of the rental. To facilitate the preparation of the rental and the sale of the holdings the Land Commission departed from their usual course and had the estate inspected prior to the preparation of the rental, and, as a rule, the Inspector's Report of his inspection was favourable. The Land Commission are in no way to blame for the delay that has occurred, and until the rental has been settled they cannot make an offer to purchase. Any delay that may have taken place rests, I am informed, with the solicitor who has charge of the proceedings.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can state if the Commissioners of Irish Lights when inviting coal tenders this year confined the competition to Whitehaven coal only; and, whether he will direct the Commissioners of Irish Lights in future, when inviting tenders for coal, to make the race open to all collieries that produce good house coal?

I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that tenders were invited by them for Whitehaven coal only, because they consider that that coal is most suitable for the special purposes for which it is required. The Board of Trade cannot interfere with the discretion of the Lighthouse authority in making a selection as to the coal best suited for their purposes.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether Messrs. Ross and Co., of Bermondsey, are to be placed on the list of Government contractors, although, owing to the Report of Sir W. Marriott's Committee on the adulterated and inferior goods supplied by them, they were in 1887 struck off the list by the Secretary of State for War and First Lord of the Admiralty ("Hansard," 854, vol. 327); and, whether this is the firm referred to by A. Wight in evidence before the Sweating Committee as the worst sweaters he was acquainted with?

The firm of Ross and Co., which was struck off the list in 1887, and to which Mr. Wight's evidence may have referred, has ceased to exist. A limited company using the old title was placed on the list of contractors at the time of its formation in April of last year, but no member of the former firm has any interest in that company.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to the inability of the British Consulate authorities at the port of Nicolaieff, South Russia, to induce the local authorities to take proper measures to prevent attacks by natives on British seamen landing at that port; and, whether instructions will be given to Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg to secure efficient protection from ill-treatment for such British sailors?

No information on the matter to which the hon. Member calls attention has been received at the Foreign Office; but a report will be called for from Her Majesty's Vice-Consul at Nicolaieff.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Cork and Coachford Railway is being utilised in any way for postal purposes; and whether, having regard to the long and hilly road between Coachford and Cork, he would take advantage for the postal system of the railway in question?

The Cork and Coachford Railway is not made use of for postal service. By mail cart the mails reach Coachford at 5.25 a.m., and are dispatched at 7.20 p.m., while the first train from Cork does not arrive at Coachford until 9.47 a.m., and the last train at night is dispatched as early as 4.35 p.m. There would be no advantage, therefore, but the reverse, in resorting to the use of the railway.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what is the sum spent annually by the Post Office on examination of telephones, and by whom is such examination made; and whether such examination is made by experts, and how are they selected?

The examination of telephones is carried out as part of the examination of telegraphic apparatus, and no separate account is kept of the cost incurred in respect of telephones. The examination is made by officers of the engineering staff, who are selected for their special fitness for the duty.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why the postal service to Donoughmore is still conducted by a mail car service, although the present light railway to Donoughmore could be utilised to facilitate and accelerate the service in question; and whether any additional cost would be incurred in utilising the railway for parcel post purposes?

Donoughmore is served, not by mail cart but by a postman using a bicycle, who reaches Donoughmore at 9.20 a.m. and leaves at 4.30 p.m. The trains available would afford no acceleration, but on the contrary there would be a slight curtailment of hours, and the change suggested is not therefore expedient. The Post Office would have to pay for the use of the railway for the conveyance of letter mails, but if used for parcel post purposes, little or no additional cost would be incurred.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he has received a resolution passed at a meeting of flax and corn millowners, held at Monaghan on Monday the 22nd instant, complaining of being excluded from the proposed benefits of the Irish Land Bill, and claiming to have the same privileges as other agriculturists; and, if he would re-consider this matter, and devise some means by which the owners of flax and corn mills will not be debarred from the justice which they claim of inclusion in the advantages of the pending land legislation?

I have received a copy of the Resolution. Owners of flax and corn mills, as such, have never been included in the scope of the Land Acts, and the Government cannot undertake to include them in the Bill now before Parliament.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Report of the British Vice Council at Kharput, relative to distress and acts of oppression committed by local authorities in that district, will be laid upon the Table?

Whenever a further collection of papers relative to the condition of the Armenian population of Asiatic Turkey is presented to Parliament, the reports received from Her Majesty's Vice Consul at Kharput will be included.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Guardians of the Rathdown Union have commenced to build the labourers' cottages which they have long since been urged to build by the Local Government Board; and, if so, how soon will they be completed?

The Provisional Order of the Local Government Board authorising the erection of three cottages in this Union was published on Saturday. Should an appeal be lodged against the Order within a month from the date of publication the case would then have to go before the caivy Council, but if, as seems likely, no such petition be presented the guardians would, at the expiration of the month, be in a position to proceed with the erection of the cottages without further delay.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, if he is aware that, in granting permission lately allowing boat-hiring on Linlithgow Loch during certain hours on Sundays, he has roused the feelings of the great majority of the people of the locality, as evidenced by a petition put into his hands signed by no less than 1,424 persons, including the provost, magistrates, and two-thirds of the Town Council, the whole of the Protestant clergy of the burgh and parish, and most of the residents of the districts, including a large body of working men; and if he will withdraw said permission.

The petition alluded to reached me on Friday last and is now under my consideration. I am bound to say that, as at present advised, I am not prepared to withdraw the permission.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether pensions will be granted to two artillerymen who were severely injured last week while engaged in a military display under the orders of their officers at the Royal Irish Military Tournament in Dublin?

If the injuries received by these men should unfortunately prove sufficiently serious to prevent them from continuing in the service they will be pensioned.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether they will receive any money grant as compensation for their injuries?

No, Sir. The matter would depend to some extent upon the nature of the injuries, and it is impossible to say at present.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, if he can say when a commencement will be made with the new works at Haul-bowline, and what works it is proposed first to proceed with; and, whether the machinery required to equip the Dockyard will be placed in position during the present year.

Orders have been given for the commencement of the following works as early as possible:—Roadways, tramlines, etc., pitching slopes at south-east corner of yard, dredging cambers, slipway, new building to serve as smithy, and supply of fresh water to dockyard. The sheers and crane have been already ordered, and the remaining machinery will be obtained during the financial year and fixed in place as early as possible.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, when these works are commenced, they will be proceeded with until they are completed?

replied that the works would be proceeded with as rapidly as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether Her Majesty's Government will, in view of the critical position of British Colonists in Mashonaland, send a force of Her Majesty's Indian Army via Beira.

If more troops are required for the suppression of the rebellion I am advised that it will be undesirable to employ Indian regiments, as this would be accepted by the natives as a confession of weakness on the part of the whites. General Good-enough and Sir F. Carrington have been informed that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to send any reinforcements which they may consider necessary, but they agree that no more troops are required at present. ["Hear, hear!"] Her Majesty's Government, however, propose to keep the Cape garrison at its full strength, and will supply the places of any troops which have been or may be moved to the front. With this object a battalion of the King's Royal Rifles has been ordered to the Cape from Malta. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can inform the House as to the reported arrest of British subjects by Venezuelan authorities, and as to the action taken in consequence by Her Majesty's Government?

Her Majesty's Government were informed by the Governor of British Guiana of the arrest of Mr. Harrison while engaged in survey work on the left bank of the Acarabisci River on 15th June. A protest was made against this action of the Venezuelan authorities; and information has since been received that on news of the occurrence reaching Caracas, orders were sent for Mr. Harrison's release.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will explain the present stage of the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Republic of Venezuela in relation to boundary disputes in that country; whether the Venezuelan Government has repeatedly offered to submit the whole matter in dispute to arbitration; and, if so, why these offers have not been accepted by Her Majesty's Government; and, whether Papers relating to these proposals for arbitration will soon be laid before Parliament?

No recent communications or negotiations have passed with the Venezuelan Government in regard to the boundary dispute. The offers of the Venezuelan Government to submit the matter in dispute to arbitration have all been laid before Parliament in the Blue-book, Venezuela No. 1, of this year.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he is aware that a syndicate has been formed to erect railings and a gate at the path leading to the Giant's Causeway, with the object of excluding visitors from the Cause way sights, except upon the payment of toll; (2) that workmen are actually engaged in the making of preparations to exclude the public from the Causeway, except upon the payment of toll; and that the services have been secured of an ex-sergeant of constabulary who is to act as toll collector; and, (3) what course does the Irish Executive intend to pursue in regard to this invasion of an old and important public right?

So far as I can ascertain, the facts are substantially as stated in the first paragraph. As to the second paragraph, suggesting that a public right of way will, or is being, encroached upon, this is a matter in which the Crown is not entitled to intervene.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether there is any foundation for the report that the rise of silver prices of produce has been steadily increasing for the past few years in China and notably in the district and port of Shanghai, and whether the low rate of exchange so long ruling is raising the prices of local produce?

Her Majesty's Consul at Shanghai, in his Report for 1895, which has just been issued, states that the low rate of exchange so long ruling is gradually having the effect of raising the prices of local produce. But exchange has been steadier in 1895 than it has been for a long time. At the beginning of the year the rate opened at about 2s. 8½d. per tael; by May 1st it had risen to 3s., and continued at about that point during the remainder of the year.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is now in a position to say when a Committee or Commission will be appointed to inquire into the subject of the incidence of Local and Imperial Taxation, as between movable and immovable property; and, whether the proposed Inquiry will extend to urban as well as to rural districts?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can now state what will be the form of the proposed Inquiry into the incidence of the local and Imperial taxation on the several classes of rateable property, and when the Inquiry will be begun?

The Committee has not been finally appointed, but the reference to the Committee is settled, and the reference is as follows:—

"To inquire into the present system under which taxation is raised for local purposes, and report whether all kinds of real and personal property contribute equitably to such taxation, and, if not, what alterations in the law are desirable in order to secure that result."

Am I to understand that this will be a Select Committee of the House of Commons?

No, Sir; it will be a Commission.

Will the Inquiry be limited to England?

No, Sir; it will be a general Inquiry.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he has received a copy of a Resolution from the Mulbuie Highland Land Law Reform Association, pointing out the injustice of excluding from the benefits of the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, leaseholders whose rentals do not exceed £30; and, whether, seeing that the Education Bill has been withdrawn, and that there is more time at the disposal of the Government, he proposes to amend the Crofters' Act this Session, so as to give small tenants holding under lease the benefits of the Act?

The Resolution to which the hon. Gentleman refers has been received, but I have been obliged to say, in answer to other questions of a similar kind that I do not at present see much chance of the Government finding unexpected leisure to deal with Bills not at present on the Paper.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there will be an early opportunity of discussing the present condition of affairs in Crete?

I bog to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will take the Foreign Office Vote on Friday?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what days it is proposed to make progress with Class 2 and Class 5 of the Civil Service Estimates?

The Government have no objection to take on next Friday or the Friday following the discussion on the Foreign Office Vote.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government will take the necessary steps to suspend or amend the Education Code of 1890 in regard to the increased expenditure upon teaching staff required of schools in August of the present year, pending the passing of a Measure for the permanent assistance of Voluntary Schools?

said he understood the Education Office thought it would be of advantage to suspend Article 73 pending further investigation as to its probable effects.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government have now come to a decision regarding the course which they will pursue on the question of the establishment of a Teaching University in London, as recommended by the recent Royal Commission; and, if so, whether he can state what that decision is?

Yes, Sir. A Measure on this subject will, I understand, be introduced in the House of Lords.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will include on any Commission or Committee appointed to consider old age pensions a representative from each of the great Friendly Societies of the country, such as the Ancient Shepherds, Foresters, Oddfellows, Buffaloes, etc., etc.?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, seeing that the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, and several other important Friendly Societies, have declared themselves, by resolutions carried at their annual meetings, to be in favour of State-aided old age pensions, will the Government recognise such an important expression of opinion by including a representative leader in favour of such State-aid upon the Commission or Committee now being appointed?

said the reference to this Commission was as follows:—

"To consider any scheme that might be submitted to them for encouraging the industrial population, by State-aid or otherwise, to make provision for old age; to report whether they could recommend any proposals of the kind, either based upon or independent of such schemes, and, with special regard to any proposals of which they might approve, the cost and probable financial results to the Exchequer and to the local rates; their effects in promoting habits of thrift and self-reliance; their influence on the prosperity of friendly societies, and the possibility of securing the co-operation of these institutions in their practical working."

He could not at present give the names of the small Commission of experts who would have to deal with this reference, but care would be taken that some members of it were thoroughly cognisant of the views and wishes of the Friendly Societies. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked whether the evidence taken by this Commission would be laid upon the Table of the House?

replied that it was not usual to make a promise with regard to the proceedings of a Committee or Commission before the appointment of such a body.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he proposes to take the Army Estimates on Friday next, and whether, in that case, he will take the Ordnance Factories Vote first?

I have already indicated in an official Resolution the intention of the Government to take the Foreign Office Vote on Friday, so the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that his Question does not arise.

asked the Secretary for the Colonies whether his attention had been called to the statements in Saturday's newspapers that the Legislative Council—which meant the Upper Chamber—of Cape Colony had adopted a resolution calling upon the Government of the Colony to approach the Imperial Government in order to ask them to extend to the Irish political prisoners similar clemency to that extended by President Kruger to the Reform leaders—[Nationalist cheers]—and whether that resolution had been supported by the Attorney General and adopted by the Legislative Council unanimously; and whether Her Majesty's Government had yet received any representation of the nature referred to from the Cape?

The Question was only put into my hands since I reached the House. Therefore, I have been unable to make inquiries. I have no information on the subject.

said he would repeat the Question in a couple of days.

said he desired to ask a Question arising out of an answer given by the Secretary for the Colonies in reference to Mr. Cecil Rhodes. He wished to know whether the House was to understand that the resignation of Mr. Rhodes was accepted by the British South Africa Company in consequence of advice given by the right hon. Gentleman to the Chartered Board?

I do not think that Question arises out of the answer I have given, and I prefer to have notice.

I will give notice.

said he wished to put a Question arising out of an answer——

Order, order! The practice of making inquiries at the end of Questions on matters arising out of answers previously given is irregular. If Questions are not put at the time they should be put on the Paper.

asked whether, in view of the fact that two matters of importance, in regard to the allotment of naval contracts and the conditions of dockyard employment, in respect of which notices for reduction had been given, had failed to be raised on Supply last Friday, owing to some misunderstanding, the First Lord of the Treasury could arrange to take the Report stage of these two Votes before 12 o'clock on any night?

I am afraid I cannot promise to take the Report stage of those Votes before 12 o'clock; but if other business extends beyond 12 I will not take them later. As I have been asked a question about the business of the House I may say that, after consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I find it will be inconvenient to break into the discussion on the Finance Bill. It is very important for financial reasons that we should proceed rapidly with the Uganda Railway Bill. Under these circumstances I shall take the Uganda resolution To-morrow as the first Order, then the Coal Mines Bill, and afterwards the Light Railways Bill.

What arrangement does the right hon. Gentleman propose with reference to the Finance Bill ?

I think in all probability it will come on on Tuesday next week. Probably Monday next week will be most convenient.

It will not be taken this week?

In all probability it will not be.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take the Scotch Rating Bill To-morrow?

Yes, I must apologise to hon. Members for having misled them. I said the Scotch Rating Bill would be put down as the first Order To-morrow and dealt with under the Standing Order, which limits Debate to one speech for and against. I find, however, that the Government have no power to put down Bills on Tuesdays for that purpose. Therefore I must defer the Scotch Rating Bill until Thursday.

Does the Bill come under the Standing Order?

Yes, Sir.

Will the Bill be taken as the first Order on Thursday?

Yes, Sir. Under these circumstances it will necessarily come "at the commencement of public business."

asked whether, considering the importance of the Coal Mines Regulation Bill, the right hon. Gentleman had resolved to withdraw the contentious clauses and restrict the Measure to simply dealing with the life-saving clauses?

In answer to that question I have already stated that I hope the House will read this Bill a Second time, and when it has reached Committee I shall propose to omit the check-weighing clause altogether.

Will the Irish Rating Bill immediately follow the Scotch Rating Bill?

The Irish Rating Bill will not be introduced the same day as the Scotch Bill.

Having regard to the important nature of the 9th clause—the definition clause—in the Agricultural Land Rating Bill, and the very brief discussion it received on a former occasion, I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is his intention to take that clause at any hour tonight?

The clauses preceding Clause 9 are not very important, and there is no reason at all why we should not reach that clause at an hour which will permit of ample and adequate discussion of it. [Cheers.]

whose speech was interrupted at midnight on Thursday 25th June, said the clause as it stood was calculated to produce disastrous results. It might be said that the Assessment Committees were upright and honest, but there was abundant evidence in connection with the old poor-law administration that Englishmen, like other people, fell victims to temptation. There was at present no guiding principle on which Assessment Committees were to act in dividing the assessment between the land and the buildings. The President of the Local Government Board, when pressed on the question, said the only principle he could think of was that they were to assess farm buildings at what might reasonably be expected to be their fair letting value divorced from the land. Many Assessment Committees might take the view that the value of the buildings, on that principle, was nothing at all, more especially when by taking that view they would largely increase the grant to which the parish was entitled from the Imperial Exchequer. It might naturally be argued by Assessment Committees that as the Bill provided a totally inadequate amount of relief from an agricultural point of view, there was no harm in so arranging the assessment as to draw the largest possible amount from the Imperial Exchequer. The House was entitled to know definitely what limitation the Government intended to place upon the power of Assessment Committees in this respect. As the clause now stood it would have a most injurious effect upon the moral tone of Assessment Committees. It would give a direct incitement to rearrange and "rig" the valuations with a view to getting more money from the Treasury. In regard to the criticism of the Amendment by the President of the Local Government Board, he maintained that the necessity for some Amendment had been shown, and if the right hon. Gentleman would propose some alternative it would meet with most careful consideration.

said this was a question which was specially reserved for Report. It would be remembered that the hon. Member for Hampshire and the hon. and learned Member for Stroud urged that it was impossible to distinguish between land and buildings. That was a view that was entirely rejected by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill stated that there was nothing-easier than to distinguish between land and buildings. [Mr. CHAPLIN dissented.] He did not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman in any way, but, at all events, he said that the Bill as it stood would be perfectly workable as regarded the separate valuation of buildings. The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed it very strongly upon financial grounds, and went so far as to say that it would be impossible to take the course recommended by the two hon. Members. It was obvious that the Imperial Exchequer might be, and probably would be, very seriously affected by the manner in which the assessment of buildings and land was dealt with. It was quite obvious, as his hon. Friend had said, that it was possible to manipulate this Bill—["Hear, hear!"]—and unless some precaution was taken to protect the Exchequer in regard to the assessment of buildings there would be very great danger, and no man could estimate the sum which might be extorted from the Exchequer. There would also be an injustice in regard to householders who were not leaseholders. Although objection might be taken to the Amendment now before the House, as there were a number of proposals upon the Paper with reference to this question, it would very much assist the House to know what was the view the Government took upon this subject of the assessment of the buildings and the land.

said the Amendment which was now before them was one for a specific purpose, and laid down that in valuing buildings which were rated together with agricultural land the sum should be taken which it would cost to rebuild them new, and that the rateable value should be 5 per cent on that cost. He did not think the question put by the right hon. Gentleman arose on this Amendment, but he would explain the views of the Government in regard to the matter on the next Amendment that stood on the Paper.

said he thought the right hon. Gentleman explained on Thursday that the intention of the Government was that one-eighth should be taken as the value of the buildings, and the other seven-eighths as the value of the land. At present every valuation was on letting value, but now they were going to have a special valuation of land and of buildings not upon letting value. If they were going to give up letting value they must adopt some new principle, and his hon. Friend's Amendment proposed that they should take capital value. He thought that was a very wise suggestion. It had the approval of the head of the Government and the First Lord of the Admiralty. Several Members of the Government, when they were members of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, recommended, not a 5 per cent., but a 4 per cent. basis upon the capital value, and the Marquess of Salisbury signed the Report of that Commission although he dissented from its being applied only to this kind of land. Had anyone any power of determining what new principle should be carried out? If they turned to Clause 6 of the Bill, they would find that there was an indication given under Sub-head A of the third section which provided that the Local Government Board might, by order, make regulations for fixing the minimum gross estimated rental and rateable value of the buildings and other hereditaments. The First Lord of the Treasury thought this was only a Bill of one clause, and some other clauses for machinery—[The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"]—and all the machinery and several of the principles were not to be considered at all by Parliament. There was nothing in the Bill to determine upon what principles the valuations should be made. If they were made, they must either be made on capital value, or they might take what was called the theory of use value. In the county which he represented, and in some others, there were buildings which cost about half-a-million which were only rated at about £500 a year. He thought that Parliament in determining a matter of this kind ought to lay down some uniform system throughout the three kingdoms, otherwise they would have in one district one system of valuation, and in another district another system. If this was really a fight for one-sixteenth he did not think it was worth while fighting for, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might well give in on that one-sixteenth. Anyone who had any experience in regard to the matter knew that the surveyors went as near as possible to the capital value. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, who knew something about agriculture, especially from the landlord's standpoint, what he thought the bulk of the landlords of England were getting as land rent separate from buildings. He could assure him that in a great many farms, especially in the heavy clay lands of Essex, the land rent had entirely disappeared. Just as economic rent had disappeared in Ireland, so it had disappeared in a great many portions of England. The only fair and intelligible method of valuation was to value on the cost; and he hoped they would get rid of those vague phrases which in the past had enabled landlords to escape their fair share of the rates. The great bulk of landlords were not getting more than 3 or 4 per cent. on the capital value of the buildings and improvements which they themselves had made.

pointed out that the clause under discussion was not a rating section at all, and that none of the arguments raised were applicable to it. They were applicable to Clause 5. The clause only dealt with the certificate of the Board of Trade.

thought the clause could not be regarded as other than a rating clause, because it assumed the rating of the hereditament under the Poor Law Act remained undisturbed, and to be taken as that out of which the valuation under this clause was to be made out. Under the Poor Law the test of what was known as "separate assessment" of a hereditament was, and only took place in, those cases where the hereditament assessed was capable of being let and occupied separately, and without such separation of occupation there was no power under the poor-law rating to sever or divide the hereditament, or to sever buildings on the land from the land itself. The word "land" in poor-law rating covered buildings, and they could only be separately valued when separately occupied. The whole object of this clause was to direct the Local Government Board to certify the division for poor-law purposes of that which was not yet in law divided into two parts, and to make two separate valuations, one for land and one for buildings. For the first time in a Bill relating to rating, including poor-law purposes, it was proposed to introduce a valuation of buildings by themselves. In the Rating Act of 1833, relating to lighting and watching rates, the word used was not buildings, but "buildings rateable" according to the valuation list for the poor rate. So that there was no greater power of division of buildings from the land than what existed under the poor-law rating, namely in those cases where the hereditament was capable of separate occupation. In the Act of 1875 the word "buildings" was not used at all, but "land," which carried buildings not separately occupied; and by the Act of 1875 buildings were not to be separately valued, but land was to be assessed at ¼ only of the net annual value thereof as entered in the poor-law valuation. Buildings did exist for the purpose of assessment to Imperial taxation, but that was quite separate, and they were under the two Acts—the one relating to the Property Tax, and the other to the Inhabited House Duty. In the Act of 1842, relating to the Income Tax, there were pages devoted to laying down rules for the separate assessment and valuation of buildings. So also, with respect to the Inhabited House Duty, there were statutory provisions for ascertaining how that which was to be divided ought to be divided. But there were no such provisions in this Bill; and, unless the division was made most carefully by competent persons, the result might be that the valuation of the land would be wholly inadequate to the real value. Whether the percentage laid down in the Amendment was correct or not, some such principle ought to be adopted, and the separate valuations ought to be carried out by those who had to do the work for the purposes of assessment to Imperial taxation.

pointed out that, in order to work out the sums which were required under Clause 4, the Local Government Board had to determine the separate value of buildings as distinguished from the land, and therefore he submitted that it was very relevant to consider upon what rules, or according to what principles, the value of buildings as distinguished from land in an agricultural holding were to be determined.

said that what he complained of was that there was no principle whatever foreshadowed in the Bill for dealing with the valuation now under consideration. While it was extremely important that the future valuation should be made on fixed principles by the overseers, it was also extremely important that it should be made upon some principles, whatever these might be, in the present instance. The two valuations they were discussing affected very different portions of the public interest. The valuation by the local authority which had been so much referred to, would affect only the relative amount that had to be contributed by the ratepayers in each locality. But in the initial valuation, where the Local Government Board had to separate between the values of lands and buildings in the first instance, the persons who would be affected would be not the local ratepayers at all, but the general body of taxpayers—that was to say, what would be determined would be the sum total that had to be given in each locality for the next five years from the central fund. The latter was much the more important as affecting the sum total which would be required in order to carry out the Bill. He pleaded, therefore, that the House should settle exactly what was to be the principle of separation between lands and buildings, in order to protect the public purse. If it were not settled beforehand what was to be the division between those two portions of the property concerned, then they had nothing but the absolute fiat of the Local Government Board. As to the particular Amendment, he could conceive considerable amendments to it. He did not think it was in the happiest form, but it would give definiteness to the matter. He would submit, however, that it was a fair plan to take what it would cost to erect the buildings, to take a percentage on that, and for his part he should like to see the percentage varied in proportion to the age of the buildings. But something of the kind would have to be done by this House, and should not be left to the Local Government Board. That Department must have made up its mind by this time as to the general lines they intended to go upon, and if the House were informed what those lines were, they would then know how far it was necessary to pursue the present Amendment.

was strongly opposed to the Amendment, but only intervened in the Debate because its hollowness was not exposed by hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, and people in the country would naturally suppose that no arguments could be offered against it because of the silence of hon. Members opposite. Now, in supporting the Amendment the hon. Member for Caithness laid it down that in making the calculation referred to the cost value of the buildings was the only value that ought to be taken. That was an entirely fallacious argument to use as regards farm buildings, inasmuch as buildings which might have had a high value 20 years ago might be of no practical use now at all. To say that such buildings should be valued at their cost of rebuilding and that the rateable value should be taken to be five per cent. of that cost would be very unfair. There was a general desire on the part of landlords at the present time to give all the advantages they could to their tenants by erecting and providing good and suitable buildings on their farms, but he believed the effect of the Amendment, if it were carried, might be to discourage them from doing so. He could give instances in which large and expensive buildings that had been used for cheese-making were now lying idle through the effects of foreign competition, the farmers having now to dispose of their milk by sending it to London instead of making it into cheese. The hon. Member for East Mayo, on the previous Friday, made a statement which, if accurately reported in The Times, entirely killed the Amendment. The hon. Member said that the buildings without the land would not let—that they would be useless. He believed that statement to be in accordance with the fact, and therefore he held that to value those buildings at the cost of rebuilding and to fix the rateable value upon that cost was unfair and unjust. He would only further repeat that he should not have intervened in the Debate, if any hon. Gentleman opposite had risen. He should have the greatest confidence in going into the Lobby against the Amendment, because he believed it would, if carried into law, set up a dangerous principle and inflict considerable damage on the agriculture of the country.

said that it was surprising that the Members who assumed to be friends of the landlords did not perceive the injury they were doing the landlords at times by the course they took. The hon. Member who had just spoken had stated in effect that, if any division of value was made between land and buildings, the landlords would not in future erect good buildings on their farms.

said he did not state that the landlords would not do so, but that the effect of the Amendment, if it was carried, might be to discourage them from expending large sums of money in erecting large buildings.

said the effect of the correction was to say that unless the landlords were encouraged by a sort of bribe from the Treasury they would not do their duty. He felt that he was bound to defend the landlords from any such insinuation. [Laughter.] He did not think they would be influenced by such sordid considerations, but believed that if a fair estimate was established between the value of buildings and land as regarded the proposed assessment they would act fairly in the matter. He supported the Amendment, as other hon. Members had done, because no definite plan, or any plan at all, was laid down in the Bill as to the distinction between buildings and land in regard to valuation. As to the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo, quoted by the hon. Member for Somerset, of course the buildings would not let, as he said, without the land. Both had to be taken in relation to each other. The value of the buildings was their position—the value of their power of use, and in that sense they certainly had a considerable value. But the objection to the Bill as it stood, and the reason why he and other hon. Members supported the Amendment, were that no distinction—no definite plan—was laid down in the Measure as to any rule of valuation in regard to the buildings and the land. The valuation must be based on either the capital or the letting value. The calculation on the letting value would of course involve great difficulty; for it would have to be left to the decision of each Board of Assessment in the different parishes. In that case would it not be better to take the capital value? But the Bill set forth no principle of action at all. It seemed to him that the best course to pursue was to adopt the Amendment, and make it the basis for further action if it were thought advisable to do so. Some clear and specific basis of action ought to be laid down in the matter. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he would take the opportunity on this Amendment to make a general statement as to the intentions of the Government on the subject. The questions put to him on the other side of the House amounted practically to this: Could a separation of the values of land and buildings be made as was proposed; secondly, if it could, what should be the proportion; and, thirdly, how was it to be done? Upon the first point, as to whether it could be done, he had received a good deal of information upon the subject, which proved conclusively that it could. The Clerk to the North Witchford Union, in Cambridge, wrote to him that throughout the whole of the Union farmhouses and buildings were separately assessed from the land occupied with them, and this practice had prevailed since 1881. He had received a letter from a gentleman in North Lincolnshire, who stated that for 30 years they had in his district valued houses, buildings, and land and farms separately. In an interesting communication, the Clerk to the District Auditor of the Nottinghamshire Audit District said his experience was that land only, exclusive of the buildings, was assessed at the reduced rate—namely, one-fourth of the rateable value thereof; and Lord Justice Lopes, in a judgment delivered some years ago, expressed the opinion that the scale of rating of one-fourth of the annual value was confined solely to land. The Clerk to the Sleaford Rural District Council wrote stating that the question had arisen in connection with the Agricultural Land Rating Bill as to how far it was practicable to separate farm buildings from farm land for the purpose of assessment to the local rates, and he added: "In this Union we divide farmhouses and buildings from the land." He would just quote from a section of the Lighting and Watching Act of 1833 to show that the existing law on this subject was perfectly explicit:—

"It shall be lawful for the overseers of the poor in such parish and they are hereby required, whenever, according to the rate made for the relief of the poor, one and the same person shall he rated one and the same in respect of land and also houses, buildings, and other property, to cause such land and also such houses, buildings, and other property, to be separately assessed, and the sum hereby authorised to he levied shall be assessed accordingly."

Upon the point whether it was practicable and could be done, he thought he had said sufficient, because he had shown the House that, as a matter of fact, in certain cases, perhaps in very many, it-was done already. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Plymouth, who spoke on the last Amendment, asked how was it to be done unless they laid down instructions in the Bill. The answer was that it was to be done as it was already done. There appeared to be no difficulty in doing it in the cases he had mentioned, therefore, anything in the nature of instructions in this Bill would be quite unnecessary and out of place. With regard to the proportion which ought to be borne by the one to the other, some alarm was expressed by an hon. Friend sitting behind him when he explained what the Government had in their mind in regard to the separation of land and buildings for the purpose of these returns and the statements which were to be made. He admitted that, for the purpose of their statement and the estimate for the grant that was to be made, there must be some protection to the Treasury, and for this reason. The returns were made for the purpose of the grant, and if would he the object of any one, he imagined, in the first instance, at all events, to put the building as low as possible in order to get as much money as possible. ["Hear, hear!"] It had consequently been necessary to provide safeguards against that operation, and in the course of the observations he made the other day he pointed out the various safeguards that were in the Bill. The Surveyor of Taxes was called in, for instance, and the matter had to be submitted to him, and there were various powers of appeal. In answer to the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire, he stated, roughly, what the Government had in their mind on that subject, and he read out some extracts from the Regulations which had been prepared just before for his consideration. These Regulations only applied to the returns which were to be made for the purpose of the Government grant. But if anyone felt himself unfairly rated in the future, after these returns were made, he would have the same remedies in future under the ordinary law that he had at present. The one-eighth must remain the general rule under the Regulations. Upon that the Government were quite decided. But there must obviously be some qualification and provision for exceptional cases, and it was impossible to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member and insert a hard-and-fast line. With regard to the Treasury, if hon. Gentlemen who were so alarmed had half the experience he had had of the Treasury they would find that their fears were unfounded, and that the Treasury were quite able to take care of themselves without the adoption of the Amendment. In some cases buildings and houses might be rated too low, and in others, in urban districts, where the Assessment Committee was composed of a large majority of the representatives of rateable property, and in others of the representatives of agricultural land, there might be a disposition to rate buildings unfairly high. With regard to this he could only repeat that he was disposed to look favourably on the Amendment of his hon. Friend behind him, and when it was reached he would give it his support.

said the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken referred to the powers of resistance of the Treasury. He himself had great confidence in the powers of resistance of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he had not confidence that all Chancellors of the Exchequer would be able to resist the pressure that would be put upon them. There were many other points of finance in which he had entire confidence in the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. But this matter ought not to rest on personal credit alone. They were dealing with millions of money and an exceptional system of rating, and to leave them in the condition which the President of the Local Government Board would leave them was not sound or proper. He was alarmed at what the right hon. Gentleman said of the Amendment that was to come. It would not be in order to discuss it, but anything more inadmissible he could not possibly conceive. It was fundamentally destructive of all the principles that should be embodied in this Bill. Where there was a disposition to rate houses too high the right hon. Gentleman was going to put security into the Act by accepting an Amendment in that direction; but where there was a danger of rating houses too low, he would not have security at all. It was impossible to conceive anything more inconsistent. He said there might be persons in an urban district who would rate houses high because they thought they should be rated high. Of course they thought they should be rated high, because they knew the land was highly rented, and had an exceptional value which they had created. So they were not likely to favour the notion that these men should be absolved from the rates the value of whose property they had created, and who were probably the richest persons in the whole district. The Member for Shropshire in Committee made some sensible remarks on the point, and said:—

"Take care what you are about! If you are going to rate the house of the farmer so low, what will the blacksmith, the carpenter, the village shopkeeper say when he finds his house rated two or three times as much as other persons who shared equally with him the result of agricultural depression?"

His own greatest difficulty in this matter was fixing a particular fraction. It must depend on the size of the farm. They could not touch the system of rating without falling into dangers to the public revenue, and the whole system on which the local taxation of the country rested. Yet this was the essence of the Bill. The Government were dealing with a subject they had not considered. They had brought in this Bill without any provision on the subject, and they were fishing among Amendments to see how they might meet difficulties they ought to have foreseen. Then they said the Opposition were taking too much time in considering questions they had not considered themselves. Here was a matter which lay at the root of their Bill, upon which the amount of contribution to be made by the Exchequer and the owners of house property depended; and the Bill would go forth with that blot upon it, and leak in it, which must inevitably work injustice to one kind of property or the other. It might work injustice by giving less than they intended to the land and more to the houses. It was more likely to work in the direction of giving more to the land and less to houses. But it was certain it would create a grievous amount of friction in all Local Government and Assessment Committees, and be the subject of the most bitter controversy. The Government had introduced for the relief of agricultural distress a "rate war" in every parish. One would say his house was being rated too high, and that another's land was rated too low. This battle would be fought out and would come home to every man in every parish. The Government had not taken the trouble to think out and consider these matters which lay at the root of the Bill, They did not seem to know their own mind on the subject. The President of the Local Government Board said he would favourably consider certain Amendments. That was not the way to deal with the reform of the rating system of this country, involving questions which affected millions of public taxation and the absolute necessity of every householder in this country to know what they would have to pay under the Bill and what differences would be made between one class and another. All this was in a liquid state, utterly unformed in the mind of the Government. They had not taken the pains to examine a question of this kind, which vitally affected the whole financial aspect of the Bill.

said he could not help thinking, when listening to the denunciation of the right hon. Gentleman that he had not considered the effect of one part of his speech upon another part of it. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman wanted them to define, either by this Amendment or by some other Amendment, how these matters were to be dealt with, but he had himself shown the extreme difficulty of any attempt of the kind.

My objection to your Bill is that it creates these difficulties, and that you ought to have left rating alone. [Cheers.]

said, with all respect, that that was a Second Beading speech. [Cheers.] They had had an almost unreasonable number of Second Beading speeches on the Bill. He asked the House to put aside the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence and consider the Amendment. They had, no doubt, a very difficult matter to deal with, but the President of the Local Government Board had shown, from practical cases, that where an Assessment Committee under the existing law had felt it its duty to do this very thing, the thing had been done without difficulty or friction.

You are going to lay down Regulations.

said they were going to attempt to lay down a general Regulation for the guidance of Assessment Committees, and it would rest with the Committees to apply the Regulation by the light of their knowledge of the circumstances of each case. He would take care—and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his confidence in him in this respect—that the Treasury would be adequately represented in the consideration of this matter by the Assessment Committees. [An HON. MEMBER: "How?"] By the Surveyor of Taxes. There was power to do that without any legislation at all. So far as the Treasury was concerned, he believed that would be a perfectly sufficient and satisfactory safeguard. The House must recollect, what he thought the right hon. Gentleman for the moment forgot, that, so far as the Treasury was concerned, the matter would be settled within the next nine months. The grant would be fixed for five years by the decision then arrived at, and whatever variation the Assessment Committees might subsequently make in the proportion of the valuation, as between land and buildings, would in no way affect the amount of relief given by the Treasury in future years. He hoped, in the circumstances, they might be able to dispose of the Amendment without undue delay. He thought it had been satisfactorily and fully shown by the right hon. Gentleman himself, that it would really interfere with a fair settlement of the question both as regards the Treasury and as between different classes of rateable property in the country if they were to attempt to lay down by an Amendment to the Bill a hard-and-fast rule upon a subject which could only be dealt with properly with reference to the particular circumstances of each case. [Cheers.]

said the question they were dealing with was what the Local Government Board were going to do in connection with this assessment which they were going to make. The Local Government Board was going to say in the first instance what amount was to be reckoned for land and what for buildings, and on that would depend the whole grant which the House was to make. Was the Local Government Board going to lay any Regulations before the House? The right hon. Gentleman had said that, generally speaking, the buildings were to be taken at one-eighth, and so, generally speaking, he accepted the principle of the Amendment. But he said there were many exceptions. What were the general lines of these exceptions? The House had a perfect right to know on what principle the Local Government Board was going to decide this matter. If the Government could not make up their mind now, let them take the rest of the Session to do so. It was more important that the House should know the Regulations which were to guide the Local Government Board in its decision in the first instance than the Regulations by which, under Clause 6, the Overseers were to be guided in making any further valuations. They wanted to know what were the considerations to which the right hon. Gentleman referred as justifying a departure from the proportion of one-eighth, and what was to guide the Local Government Board in its determination upon those considerations.

We have already undertaken to lay the Regulations as soon as they are ready.

said the Regulations that were to be submitted were Regulations that affected the action of Clause 6. What he desired to know was this—would the Regulations which were to be submitted to the House deal fully with the separation of the valuation of land and buildings by the Local Government Board for the purposes of Clause 4?

said there appeared to be some misunderstanding as to the operation of the Amendment. It did not fix, but limited, the amount to be allowed for buildings. It said that the amount "should not be less than one-eighth," not that "shall be one-eighth." If the House was not to put a limit in this way to the amount, it would simply be transferring its legislative powers to the clerks of the Local Government Board, who were to do as they thought best in the matter. If the clause were allowed to remain as it stood, it was certain that in urban districts, where the relief was least wanted, the Assessment Committees would make the assessment of the houses as low as possible, in order that they might get a big share of the Government grant, while in the purely agricultural districts, where distress really existed, and where the laud was worth little for rating purposes—such as in Essex—they would have to make that assessment on buildings as high as possible in order to get something out of the grant.

said the question at issue was whether the principle of fixing a limit should be in the Act or in the Regulations of the Local Government Board. The precedents were in favour of those who thought it should be in the Act. In the Taxation. Arrangements Act of 1888 there was an elaborate code for the arrangement of such business. The Regulations of the Local Government Board were either to be binding or were not to be binding. If they were not to be binding, that would be a most objectionable course to take; but if they were to be binding, why not put them in the Act? In regard to the proposal that one-eighth should be allowed for buildings, he did not think that it would be a fair allowance in the case of big farms, but as a rough average in the case of all the farms of a union it might fairly be accepted.

did not think that one-eighth was a fair sum to allow for buildings on an average. Rents were falling, but why?—not because buildings were deteriorating in value, but because land was deteriorating in value, owing to the stress of competition with the rich and cheap land of foreign, countries. As a matter of fact, buildings, houses, farms, roads, and other such improvements formed the only value that was left, generally speaking, to agricultural land, and if the two values—the value of the land and the value of the buildings—were fairly separated, it would be found that the agricultural value in the economic rent was gone altogether. In his opinion, seven-eighths was the value of the improvements, and only one-eighth that of the land itself. But things were to be reversed, and a fictitious value was to be given to land in the interests of the landlords.

asked whether, if the Regulations to be laid on the Table would not include Clause 4 in their purview, the Government would accept an Amendment which should secure the presence of an official assessor at the assessment of agricultural land and buildings for the purposes of the Bill? He thought that ought to be done for the protection of the general taxpayer. It would be most unfair to the general taxpayer to leave the making of the assessments entirely to a local body whose object would be to depreciate buildings in order to get as much as possible of the money advanced by the State.

said the Government were not prepared to accept the principle that there should be an official assessor present at the making of the statements and returns by the Assessment Committee. Clause 6 provided what they considered to be sufficient safeguards in the interests of the ratepayers. The statements and returns to the Local Government Board were to be made by the Overseers of every parish, corrected by the Assessment Committee, and sent to the Surveyor of Taxes, who was to have the right of appeal, and it was stated by the Attorney General in Committee on the Bill that he was prepared to accept an Amendment providing that any aggrieved ratepayer might also appeal. He would also point out, in answer to other objections, that Sub-section 3 of Clause 4 provided that the Regulations to be made by the Local Government Board for the purposes of the Act were to be—

"for fixing, with the concurrence of the Treasury, for the purpose of the division, in the statements, of agricultural land from buildings or other hereditaments, the minimum gross estimated rental and rateable value of the buildings or other hereditaments."

It was obvious that when that regulation was made it would control the statements which were to be prepared for the purpose of enabling the Local Government Board to give its certificate. Further regulations were not wanted. It would be preposterous to enact that the Local Government Board should make regulations for itself in dealing with each individual hereditament. It had not to deal with individual hereditaments; it had to give certificates of the share of the grant which was to be paid annually to the spending authority.

How is the Local Government Board to judge supposing that the directions given to the Assessment Committee are not fulfilled?

said that the Surveyor of Taxes was there for the purpose of seeing that the regulations were observed, and if they were not he might appeal. The statements were furnished to him. The right hon. Member for West Monmouth had said that while he had unbounded confidence in the present Chancellor of the Exchequer he was doubtful as to his possible successors. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that this grant was to be made once for all, and would be made within the next six months. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman must have unbounded confidence in proper precautions being taken to secure that this grant should be adequate and not more.

said that there was one material question which had not been answered. When were these regulations to be laid before the House? For the sake of the taxpayer and of the people whose property was to be assessed the regulations ought to be considered before the close of the Session.

They must be, to bring the Act into force.

Have we an assurance that there will be a discussion of them in the present Session?

Yes.

hoped the discussion would be taken before midnight.

rose to continue the discussion, when

claimed to move "That the Question be now put." [Cheers.]

As the Debate is apparently drawing to a conclusion, I will not stand between the hon. Member and the House. [Opposition cheers.]

pointed out that the appeal of the Surveyor of Taxes would be to the Court of Quarter Sessions—the very people who were likely to be offenders in raising the value of land and lowering the value of buildings. Further, as to the amount of the grant being fixed, the Local Government Board was given power to amend the certificates; so that provision was practically worthless.

proposed, after the word "accordingly," to insert the words:—

"(4) The Local Government Board shall lay before Parliament a statement showing the amount of the share of the annual grant to be paid annually to each spending authority."

suggested that, as the statement referred to was not one to be made up annually, but once for all, the proper course would be to move for it in a Return which, no doubt, would be granted.

explained that the figures would be at the disposal of the Government a considerable time before the end of the financial year, and he wished to know whether the President of the Local Government Board would consent to present such a Return to Parliament at as early a date as possible.

I hope the hon. Member won't press this. There will not be the slightest objection to give the information as early as required.

said the Amendment amounted to this—that the Local Government Board should undertake the enormous task of making an independent valuation—whatever that meant—of the whole of the agricultural land in the country. Surely the hon. Member must see that that would impose on the Board a task which it was practically impossible for the Department to fulfil. Moreover, it would entail an enormous expense. There was not, however, any real justification for the Amendment, because, as had been already shown, ample safeguards had been already taken against any unfair treatment in the matter of the assessments.

said he thought the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could not have heard the reasons given by the hon. Member for Carnarvon in support of his Amendment, and no wonder, considering the loud conversational interruption designedly carried on by hon. Gentlemen opposite while the hon. Member was speaking. ["Hear, hear," and Ministerial laughter.] If the right hon. Gentleman had heard what the mover of the Amendment had said, he would at least have appreciated the argument that it was in the interest of the Bill itself that no opportunity should be given to localities to make unfair assessments in their own interests. ["Hear, hear!" and interruption.] The hon. Member for Carnarvon had shown how the difficulty might be provided against, but no reply had been given to his arguments.

said the reply of the right hon. Gentleman to the Amendment did not commend itself to him. It was by no means satisfactory. ["Hear, hear!"] Both as to the great expense which the right hon. Gentleman alleged would be involved in providing for an independent valuation and as to efficient safeguards in the Bill against unfair assessments being made, he differed from him altogether. ["Hear, hear!" Amendment after Amendment had been submitted with the view of meeting obvious defects in the Bill, but no attention had been given to them by the Government. The object of the present Amendment was to ensure a protection against injustice, which the Bill did not give, and which was certainly necessary. ["Hear, hear!"]

said hon. Members of the Opposition only wanted some sort of security that a fair valuation, or assessment, would be made under the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] The fact that the Bill did not give that security was a defect in the Measure which had been pointed out again and again, and if that defect could be removed he believed the passing of the Bill would be greatly facilitated. [Cries of "Divide!" and interruption.] Unless some precaution was taken, there would undoubtedly be great danger of injustice being done in the work of assessment under the Bill.

hoped the country would take note of the distrust which hon. Gentlemen showed in the Assessment Committees. ["Hear, hear!"] The Parish Councils and the District Councils were created by the Party of the hon. Gentlemen opposite; the former appointed the Overseers, and the latter appointed the Assessment Committees, and both bodies were freely elected by the people, in whom Radicals pretended to feel such confidence. [Cheers and laughter.] Yet by their arguments in this case they practically declared that they had no confidence in the action of the public bodies elected by the people. [Cheers.] There was not, however, any solid reason to suppose that the Assessment Committees, under the operation of this Bill, would be composed largely of those who had a direct interest in the work—namely, landlords and farmers, and in illustration of what he said he might mention that he had just received a letter from a gentleman who stated that out of 12 persons appointed to form an assessment in his district, he was the only representative of the agricultural interest among them. ["Hear, hear!"] The distrust which had been expressed of the Assessment Committees was, in fact, very unjust, for, as a rule, they carried out their duties in the country with great judgment and fairness. The demand made by the Amendment for independent machinery to carry out the work of assessment under the Bill was, therefore, entirely unnecessary, apart altogether from the enormous expense it would involve. ["Hear, hear!"] In those circumstances he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.

contended that whenever the Imperial Exchequer was concerned in assessments on rateable property it was always protected by its own assessors, and by certain statutory provisions or rules laid down as to the mode or standard to be adopted for fixing the assessment. That was the case as regards assessments of lands, houses and buildings to property tax under Schedule A, and as regards houses, farmhouses and buildings under the Inhabited House Duty Acts. Here the Imperial Exchequer was interested in the first valuation of the land and buildings; and after the first valuation their assessors, rather than assessment committees, were the better authority for ascertaining the relative valuations as between the landowners and occupiers and those interested in buildings and houses. These Government assessors worked under the Inland Commissioners, and the Local Government Board had no such similar staff. If the officials proposed by the Amendment were good enough for the assessment of property to Imperial taxation, they were good enough to be intrusted with the apportionment of the poor-rate as between houses, buildings and land, though in the same occupation.

said that no attack was made on the Assessment Committees in the discharge of the duties they had been called upon to discharge up to the present. The Bill threw new duties upon them which might lead them to swerve a little from right and justice. He contended that his hon. Friend was absolutely right in asking that, as large Imperial funds were to be given out under this Bill, there ought to be an independent valuation. Somebody would have to make that valuation, and if the Government would say that the Local Government Board would take steps to see that a satisfactory valuation should be made by someone of whom they approved, the object of the Amendment would be secured. If some right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench would say that some such independent and reliable valuation would be made, he thought this discussion might come to an end.

thought the Amendment was a most serious one, and he hoped the Government would give a better answer. The Amendment sought to do nothing unreasonable, unjust, or unfair to anybody. It only sought to provide that a really effective valuation of agricultural land should be made by an independent valuer. The Assessment Committees were composed of men vitally and financially interested in this Bill, and, therefore, they were not the men to make the valuation. The real point of the Amendment was that these Assessment Committees, whether composed of farmers, tradesmen, landowners, or agricultural labourers, would all of them be desirous in the interest of the ratepayers they represented to get as large a subsidy from the Imperial Exchequer as possible. Therefore it was only right and reasonable that the Government should concede the point asked for in the Amendment, and make some arrangement whereby an independent tribunal should assess the value of the land to receive the benefit under this Bill.

proposed to leave out the words "may amend or." He explained that it was proposed that the Local Government Board should have absolute power to amend at any time the certificates respecting the amounts to be paid to spending authorities. The Department would be able to alter the valuation of buildings and lands in any part of the country by the simple expedient of amending the certificate. That was a very arbitrary power to confer upon the Local Government Board, and in no previous Bill had it ever been proposed to give such extensive power to a Government Department. In what cases did the right hon. Gentleman propose that this power of amendment should be exercised? Supposing that the rateable value of a parish went down with the result that the Treasury contribution became more than sufficient to meet the grant, did the right hon. Gentleman propose that the Local Government Board should have power to amend the certificate so as to reduce the amount contributable to that particular parish?. Or, supposing the rates went up in a parish, and the Treasury contribution was not enough to pay half the rates upon the agricultural land, would the power of amendment conferred by this section be exercised for the purpose of increasing the Treasury contribution? As far as he could understand, the section would give the Local Government Board unchecked power to increase or decrease, as it thought proper, the amount certified as that which a parish ought to have. He held that the clause ought to be amended in such a way as to protect the Treasury against attempts by the Local Government Board to make alterations in the certificates for the purpose of arbitrarily increasing the Treasury contributions. With that view, he begged to move his Amendment.

said that he did not know why the hon. Member should imagine that the Local Government Board would be governed by any sinister motives. Why should the Department wish to increase grants unjustifiably and without the knowledge of the House of Commons? He could assure the hon. Member that the Department had no intention of the kind, and he could not understand why the hon. Member should attribute to it a desire to do absurd things. ["Hear, hear!"] If this Amendment were accepted, the effect would be that the Board would only be able to alter a certificate for the purpose of meeting a case of alteration in an area or authority. It was obvious, however, that other circumstances might occur rendering amendment of a certificate necessary. Mistakes, for example, might be committed, and might have to be rectified. The Board might find that in consequence of some inaccuracy in a Return a certificate provided for a payment in excess of the sum that ought to have been certified originally. Similarly the sum originally certified might be too low. In such cases power of amendment was, of course, necessary. It was desirable to amend and rectify the certificate, and he thought that the hon. Member would see that the power to do so was only reasonable and right.

said there was no suspicion of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions, though according to his observation the greatest mischief in the world was occasionally done by relying on good intentions. The House had been assured that this matter was going to be settled within six months, but, considering the nature of the transaction, he thought it would take a great deal longer than that to settle whether the assessments over the country were or were not properly made. The right hon. Gentleman must see that this clause as it stood opened the whole question for the future. [Cheers.] The door, so to speak, was not closed in six months, and how wide it might be opened depended entirely on the discretion of the Local Government Board and its head. He thought that some limitation ought to be introduced in the clause.

said that the Opposition did not attribute any sinister motives to the right hon. Gentleman, but it was needful to remember that the policy of the Department was controlled by its head. The head of that Department was naturally influenced by his political opinions in regard to agriculture, or what might be done for its benefit by the general community. It was possible that the Minister's opinions might be unconsciously coloured in that way, and in consequence the community might suffer. For example, the right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. James Lowther) might be at the head of the Local Government Board, and the country might see some extreme things done in the interests of agriculture. It was dangerous to entrust the extensive powers of this clause to any Government Department.

thought that the right hon. Gentleman had missed the point. He suggested, however, that the certificate should be amended "in case of error." The clause as it stood was far too vague, and gave too much power.

said that he and his hon. Friends were not supporting this Amendment on the ground that they suspected the future action of the right hon. Gentleman. But they mistrusted his heart, and were suspicious of the fact that he was being pressed from behind by a greedy body of supporters. He asserted that amendment of certificate should only be "in case of error."

said the Government would accept those words and insert "in case of error."

thought that the reasons urged by the hon. Member were arguments in favour of the retention of the sub-section. Whatever date was selected, he should feel it necessary to insert a provision of this kind in order to guard against contingencies impossible to foresee or absolutely to prevent. If it was to be a final certificate, as was proposed by the hon. Member, delay on the part of a single authority to furnish the necessary Returns would prevent the certificates being given before the date named, whatever it might be, and under those circumstances the whole grant would be delayed. It was absolutely necessary to have some provision of this sort in the Bill, and he must therefore decline to accept the Amendment.

really thought the Government ought, out of respect for their own reputation, to accept this Amendment. What did the sub-section say? That the Local Government Board were to grant a provisional certificate if they had not got sufficient information! He would suggest that this clause should be put as the preamble of the Bill and that, not having sufficient information, this should be a provisional Measure. [Laughter and cheers.] That was really the history of the whole thing. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government were obliged to provide that this grant should be given upon provisional certificates. Why? In order that they may get the money before the Local Government Board had got the information. He was sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place, otherwise he would have appealed to him not to let them have the money until the information had been obtained. ["Hear, hear!"] This was carrying the greediness of the class for whom this Bill was promoted to an extent that was almost intolerable. [Cheers.] They were so greedy to swallow this money that there was actually a clause introduced into the Bill providing that there should be a provisional certificate to enable them—what should he say?—to collar this money, to use a vulgar expression, before they had the information which would justify the giving of it. [Cheers.] Who ever heard of a proposal being made in a Bill such as that? What would be the result of this provisional certificate and this giving of the money? It assumed that they did not know who had to pay what share of the rate. Nobody who was acquainted with a rural parish could conceive what a condition it would be thrown into by this Bill—a rural parish with a provisional certificate for a rate which nobody understood. This showed that this Bill had been drawn without information—[cheers]—and that, in its construction there had been no proper consideration of the question dealing with the rate. They had, in an old legal saying, "the culprit confessing" on the very face of the Bill. There was a blank cheque upon the Exchequer to be drawn without information by a provisional certificate! Was ever such a proposal made to the House of Commons, which was supposed to be the guardian of the public Exchequer? [Cheers.] Under this provisional certificate, was there money to be paid which, if it was too much finally, was to be repaid? And to be repaid by whom? If there was not enough money paid, how was anybody to discover, among the classes of ratepayers, who got too much and who got too little? In such a hurry were these gentlemen to get hold of this money that they would not wait until the case had been ascertained and a proper certificate could be given. If ever there was an Amendment to a Bill which was justified by the character of the Bill, it was the present Amendment; and certainly, whether they succeeded in the Lobby or not, the arguments in its favour appeared to be quite unanswerable. [Cheers.]

said the right hon. Gentleman opposite regarded this Bill with so much antipathy that he could never resist the temptation to make an attack upon the general principle of the Bill. [Cheers.] He thought it was not out of place to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the consideration of every Amendment was not a proper occasion for attacking the principle of a Bill which had been sanctioned by the House. [Cheers.] With the permission of the right hon. Gentleman—[laughter]—he should like to recall the House to the question of what the Amendment was. The right hon. Gentleman asked, were certificates to be granted without information? Surely there was such a thing as having enough information to know that the amount of the grant was certain to reach a certain figure and would probably be more than that. They did not know exactly what would be the amount, and they could not therefore give a final certificate, but they had enough information to be certain that a certificate for, say, £1,000 would be in the mark. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment spent a good deal of time in pointing out that it would be difficult to have the certificates ready by March 31. Was that not an argument in favour of the power to grant provisional certificates? [Opposition cries of "No!"] It might be an argument for throwing out the Bill altogether, but that was not the question they were now discussing. They were now debating this Amendment, and if they could not have these certificates ready, as the hon. Gentleman argued, by March 31, surely the right and sensible thing was to say that, as soon as they were able to see that the amount to be certified would certainly reach a certain figure and would probably go beyond it, they might give a provisional certificate. There was not, he submitted, as soon as the real character of the Amendment was looked at and as soon as the question was divested of the irrelevancies imported by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—[cheers]—the slightest ground for saying that this was intrusting any novel or arbitrary power to local authorities. [Cheers.]

said he would like to suggest another reason to the right hon. Gentleman for looking favourably on the Amendment. If they did not strike out the sub-section the right hon. Gentleman would, when they came to discuss it, find himself in very considerable difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman had himself put down Amendments to it, and if the sub-section was bad as it stood, it would be infinitely worse if they considered it in the light of those Amendments. The sub-section said one certificate. The right hon. Gentleman was going to suggest in his Amendments that many certificates should be given.

Order, order! The proper time to discuss those Amendments will be when they are reached.

thought it might abbreviate the discussion when the time came. All he suggested was that the right hon. Gentleman himself had seen the difficulties of this sub-section. It had received a good deal of his attention, and he was trying to lick it into shape by the Amendments of which he had given notice. It was a bad job making these payments at all, but if they had got to do a doubtful act they should do it at once, shut the door behind it, and forget all about it. Instead of adopting that policy, the Government were now opening the door to payments of cash on account continually. Once they got that door open, they would never be able to shut it.

said they were asked now to pay out a total sum from the Exchequer into the Local Taxation Account on a provisional certificate. To what did the certificate as in the Bill defined refer? Evidently to a certificate of the sum total of the deficiency mentioned in Clause 2—after examination of the amounts due to all the spending authorities had been ascertained. Now it was asked by the Amendment to substitute for this certificate of a total sum provisional certificates for each particular payment to each spending authority. It was irregular enough to ask that the Imperial Exchequer should be operated upon by even a provisional certificate of the total sum of deficiency, which could only be arrived at after careful investigation of the sums required in the case of each spending authority. If the Standing Orders had been amended so as to apply to this Bill, no dealing with Imperial funds would have been possible except after a Vote in Committee of the House specifying the total. But now provisional certificates were asked to be sanctioned. There should be no dealing with total expenditure except by a certificate relating to a total, and not to its component parts.

said that whoever was to blame in this Debate it was most certainly not his hon. Friends below the Gangway. They thoroughly foresaw what was coming when they proposed to alter the date of the Bill, and they had proved themselves responsible guardians of the public purse. This was a perfectly novel transaction that was now taking place, and for the very first time public money was going to be paid by a portion, instead of by the whole, in relief of public burdens. Under these circumstances all those guarantees and precautions provided in previous parts of the Bill should take place in their full chain of proceeding before one single halfpenny was paid out of the Treasury, and, therefore, it was proposed to alter the date in order that the process might be carried out in its entirety. Of course mistakes must occasionally be made, and for that reason the House passed the previous sub-section in this clause. This, however, was not a question of mistake, but of money being paid out of the Treasury at an earlier or later date. It did not concern the public that it should be paid at an earlier date; it concerned only the individuals, and when these individuals were receiving a large, immense, and anomalous advantage by this Bill, certainly Parliament ought not to disturb the course under which public money had hitherto been paid out of the Treasury for their advantage.

agreed that this sub-section was a mischievous one. It was to the interest of the Treasury and the Local Government Board, and it ought to be to the interest of everybody, to expedite the proceedings in order that when the time came the amount could be ascertained and fixed before it could be paid. If the local authorities knew that unless the valuation was complete, and had been submitted to the Assessment Committee, unless the appeals were disposed of they would not get a penny of the money, they would be more likely to make a fair valuation; they would be tempted to come to terms with the Surveyor of Taxes, not to court appeals, and get the whole machinery in order before the 31st March. But when they knew that there was a provision in the Bill that whether they got the machinery into order or not, whether they made an extravagant demand on the Treasury or not, there was a power of appeal, and when they knew they had a President of the Local Government Board who would regard every claim that came from the agricultural interest with indulgence, they would prefer dealing with provisional orders based upon insufficient information to orders which had been made after full examination, after appeals had been disposed of and after the Surveyor of Taxes had been consulted. They would prefer to deal, not with the Surveyor of Taxes, but with the President of the Local Government Board, and that was why this sub-section had been inserted. The Solicitor General had not answered the question how he was going to guess the figure for which he was going to make this provisional certificate. Suppose a local authority made a valuation which was too high, and the Government insisted on a repayment of the amount in excess, the whole local finance of the country would be disarranged. He prophesied that those provisional certificates would come into operation in hundreds of cases throughout the country, and if at the end of the year they were either in excess or less than they ought to be, the whole system of local finance would be thrown into utter confusion.

desired to know whether under the Bill as drafted it was possible for the money to be paid out of the Local Taxation Account to the spending authority?

Certainly.

Then we are in this position—the right hon. Gentleman does not understand his own Bill. He has said it is possible for the money to be paid out of the Local Taxation Account to the spending authorities. I say it is not possible.

That is the object of the Bill.

Then I will read for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill what this subsection is:—

"The Local Government Board may give a provisional certificate, if they think necessary for the purpose of enabling the first payments to the Local Taxation Account under this Act to be made, before they have sufficient information to enable them to give a final certificate."

Your provisional certificate does not deal at all with the spending authority. I say that as the sub-section stands you have no power at all under the Bill to pay from the Local Taxation Account to the spending authority. Will the right hon. Gentleman point out where he takes that power?

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is discussing an Amendment different to that at present under discussion. He is discussing a subsequent Amendment which proposes to add the words "and out of."

I at once bow to your ruling, Sir. I will point out that the right hon. Gentleman said this subsection gives him the power, and I am pressing him to tell us where that power is.

I did not under stand him to say that, but what I think he said was that the Bill gave such power.

contended that the Bill as drafted, and as it now stood, did not give the right hon. Gentleman power to pay money from the Local Taxation Account to the spending authority so far as the provisional certificate was concerned. He complained that the intention of the Government, in the first place, was evidently to limit the provisional order certificate to the Local Taxation Account, and that now, for some reason they had not explained in the course of the Debate, they intended it also to apply to the spending authority.

observed that by this clause the Local Government Board might give a provisional order certificate before they had sufficient information. He attacked a clause of this kind upon general principles. He thought such certificates ought not to be given before they had the information, and he had always had an idea that sufficient information was necessary to take any proceedings that might ultimately be found to be valid or safe. He listened with intense interest to the explanation made by the learned Solicitor General. He knew the value of a statement coming from his mind, and as far as he could make out the illustration the hon. and learned Gentleman gave them, was that if the Local Government Board thought they were safe up to, say, a thousand pounds, to be under the mark, they could proceed to give the certificate without sufficient information. But the hon. Gentleman was assuming that the Local Government Board with insufficient information would always be under the mark. But what security had they for that? None whatever. If they could proceed under the mark with insufficient information, they might also go above the mark, and he objected entirely to the Local Government Board, or any Board, or any people, or any authority whatever being intrusted with the power to do what they liked upon insufficient information. If a cause of this kind was set up by the authority of Parliament, there was no saying what it might lead to. He knew that when any authorities actually proposed to legalise procedure upon insufficient information, it would never lead to good, but could only lead to evil. He listened with great respect the other night to a lecture by the Leader of the House on the decadence of Parliament, and he would say that if a clause of this kind were to be legalised, there could not be a more perfect supplement to the observations which the right hon. Gentleman then made. He desired to speak in the most serious way he could, and to warn the House that if legislation of this kind were carried out, and authorities were to be armed with the power of doing what they liked upon insufficient information, Parliament would certainly become decadent to a degree that he, for one, had not before feared.

observed that in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill he had felt it necessary to call attention to the unbusinesslike arrangements in connection with it, and there could be no more unbusinesslike arrangement than that of authorising for the future the granting of a number of provisional certificates in order that a certain class of the community might receive money from the rest. The Local Government Board would have a lot of work to do under this section, and the Opposition had pointed out all along that the date fixed in the Bill was hardly remote enough for that work to be accomplished in. They were assured it was, and that all would be finished by March 31. They now found that the work could only be done by acting upon information which was incomplete. Even by the confession of the Solicitor General himself these certificates were to be made on a conjectural basis. This was a method of conducting business which would bring a private firm to ruin at once. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL said there was nothing conjectural about it.] The spending authority would give the information to the Local Government Board, and before there was time to analyse it they had to pay the amount. They had nothing to show they would be under the mark, and the tendency and interest of local authorities would be to make their certificates above the mark. No business could be successful which was conducted on a system of this kind, by which payments were made based on what were practically conjectures, because if there were not conjectures the Local Government Board would have sufficient information to make the proper amount payable. In the interest of the proper conduct of public business the Opposition were bound to protest against this provision of the Bill and to divide upon it. ["Hear, hear!"]

proposed to leave out the words "a provisional certificate," and to insert instead thereof the words "provisional certificates," for the purpose of enabling the first payments under the Bill to be made to the Local Taxation Account before they had sufficient information to enable them to give a final certificate.

thought that the evils of which complaint had been made would be multiplied indefinitely by the Amendment. During the five years the Act was to be in operation the Local Government Board was to be allowed to issue any number of preliminary certificates without sufficient information. That made the case against the clause all the stronger. And this indefinite multiplication of the gross, glaring, and enormous evils of the Bill—making the chaos of local government already created by the Measure worse confounded—was sought to be rammed down the throats of the House without a word of reason or explanation from the President of the Local Government Board. [Laughter.]

was sorry the hon. Member felt it to be his duty to expend so much oratory on this Amendment. Complaint had been made that his right hon. Friend had not explained it; but the fact was, the matter had been so fully discussed that it was felt not to be necessary to enlarge upon it. They had a series of Second-Reading speeches——

asked if the hon. Member was in order in speaking again on this Amendment.

The hon. and learned Member is not in order in speaking again except by the indulgence of the House.

said the hon. and learned Member had not asked the indulgence of the House. If he had done so, no doubt it would have been extended to him.

said he should not have spoken but for the invitation extended to him by the Member for Leicester.

said he understood that the Member in charge of the Bill had moved the Amendment,

Certainly not. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course he could only speak with the indulgence of the House, but it seemed to be thought necessary that someone should make an explanation. The House had already discussed whether it was necessary that the money should remain tied up to the last moment. He was quite aware of the objection taken, but it was not necessary to make these speeches over and over again.

said what they really liked to have was an explanation by the right hon. Member who put the Amendment down, not a vicarious oration from the Attorney General. They should discuss that Bill as often as they thought fit. [Cheers.] When the Attorney General indulged in the foolish taunt that they were making Second Reading speeches he only showed his inexperience and ignorance of Parliamentary practice. [Cheers and counter cheers.] They had a perfect right to discuss any clause which affected the complete texture of the Bill. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman in bringing forward an Amendment on his own clause. [Laughter.] The clause was closured against amendments proposed by the authors of the Bill.

The amendments were not then on the Paper.

said that all the amendments down were excluded, and he was glad that these discussions had opened the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, so that he was able to see the defects of his own Bill. Do not let them be charged with a factious opposition to the Bill. This Amendment showed that the Bill wanted amending. What they objected to was the multiplication of the provisional certificates; they might have a succession of them. He could not conceive why these words were introduced.

said he could quite understand the irritation of the right hon. Gentleman at being reminded that he had made so many Second Beading speeches. The way in which the Bill had been discussed was an entirely novel feature in Parliamentary proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman had taunted the Attorney General with not being so long in Parliament as himself. Well, he had been as long in Parliament as the right hon. Gentleman.

Yes, we were born together. [Laughter.]

No, the right hon. Gentleman has the advantage of me by more than a dozen years. [Laughter.]

May I ask what is the Amendment before the House?

having read the Amendment,