said that the Motion made by the hon. Member for the Harbour Division (Mr. T. Harrington) on Friday last, had placed the promoters of the Bill in a position of great difficulty and anxiety. Their expenses had been between £8,000 and £9,000; and those of the opponents had been almost as much. All the questions relating to gas, water and fire brigade had been thrashed out in the Lords' Committee and the Commons' Committee. Under those circumstances the hon. Member for the Harbour Division moved to recommit the Bill generally and in respect of all its clauses. Now the hon. Member sought to repair his error by limiting the scope of the new Inquiry by a Motion that the Minutes of Evidence before the former Committee be referred to the new Committee, and that it should be an Instruction to the Committee to take no further evidence with respect to parts 1,2 and 4 of the Bill, thereby nullifying practically the Motion he had already carried, and depriving the opponents of the Bill of the opportunity of again stating the case which apparently his first Motion contemplated they should make. Therefore he conceived that an inconsistent position had been assumed. He submitted to the Government that the true course would be, unless they agreed to the Motion which his hon. Friend had moved, to accept an Amendment somewhat like the following:—That it be an Instruction to the Committee that the preamble be deemed proved, and that the Committee make only such Amendments to Clauses 15 and 23 as will bring them into accordance with the instructions of this House and such consequential Amendments to Part 3 as the said Amendments may render necessary or desirable. That would not in any way conflict with the ruling already given; on the contrary, it would harmonise with it, because it dealt with Part 3 of the Bill as a whole, and enabled the Committee to have seisin of that portion of the Bill. By deeming the preamble proved, they would free the promoters of the expenses they would undoubtedly incur in regard to the water clauses, and would liberate the gentlemen connected with the Select Committee from the arduous and invidious task, at this period of the Session, of considering once more the clauses which another Select Committee had already considered. The Dublin Corporation, he pointed out, had come to a very important conclusion on Saturday, which greatly strengthened the view he put forward. The Committee having charge of this Bill, under the Presidency of Sir R. Sexton, one of the most eminent Conservative members of the Corporation, and respected by all classes in Dublin, met to consider this Bill on Saturday, and arrived at the following unanimous resolution. The hon. Member for the Dublin Harbour Division had posed here as the representative of the Dublin Corporation. He was nothing of the kind.

, was understood to say that he did not profess to represent the promoters, but the citizens of Dublin.

said that being so, the hon. Member occupied exactly the same position as any other Member of the House, whose arguments had to be considered solely upon their merits. The promoters of the Bill had passed the following resolution:—

"That the law agent be instructed to advise counsel and to take all possible means to obtain the passing of the water clauses with or without the franchise clauses."

In other words, the Committee having charge of this Bill had arrived at the conclusion that, with the franchise clauses or without them, they were anxious for this Bill. The points raised, therefore, were extremely narrow ones, and he begged to move his Amendment.

said that the Amendment and the Instruction which the hon. Member had just read were ruled out by the decision which the House arrived at on Friday, and the Amendment the hon. Member now sought to introduce was precisely the same Amendment in another form which was negatived by the vote of the House on Friday night.

submitted that his Instruction was different in several respects.

It seems to me that what the hon. and learned Member proposes would be something extending the Instruction which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Cork. An Amendment by way of extension would be out of order. I would suggest to the hon. and learned Member whether Instruction No. 6, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division, might not be utilised by him by way of Amendment. That Instruction proposes to admit the evidence given before the former Committee, and that it be an Instruction to the Committee to take no further evidence as to Parts 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill, thus leaving No. 3 untouched, and the Committee entirely at large. Therefore it would be in order for the hon. Member to move as an Amendment to that Instruction some Instruction limiting the authority of the Committee to deal with Part 3, which was not touched.

thanked Mr. Speaker, and suggested to his hon. Friend that he should withdraw his Motion and take the discussion on the Instruction of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division.

said that the hon. and learned Member had spoken to the House on an Instruction from the Committee of the Dublin Corporation in charge of the Bill, but he was most careful not to inform the House that this Committee consisted of three members, one of them being a species of politician rare in Dublin—a supporter of the hon. Gentleman himself. The Committee was convened at an hour's notice, and to speak of that Committee as representing in any way the Corporation of Dublin with regard to the Bill was only another endeavour added to the many already made to deceive the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Member seemed to be extremely anxious about the fate of this Bill; but it was curious that he spoke with different voices on the Bill, so much so that they found it difficult to find where exactly the hon. Member was. The hon. Member's complaint on Saturday was that the Committee had been formed so speedily that the Chairman was not communicated with, and he assailed the appointment of the Committee, and raised a question of breach of privilege. But there was a safe remedy open to the hon. and learned Member. He invited the hon. Member, if he wished to facilitate the passage of the Bill, to allow the franchise clause to be negatived as well as the other clauses by which he sought to give permanent positions with the right of pensions to officials of the Corporation annually elected, and who did not give evidence with regard to the claim. In the six or seven townships surrounding Dublin not a single Nationalist could get a seat on one of the Boards, but the hon. and learned Member wished to try his experiment of minority representation on Dublin. The hon. Member had misrepresented him by stating that he moved to recommit the Bill as a whole. The House would not be deceived by those tactics. His Motion was followed by an Instruction that the Bill be recommitted with respect to Clauses 20 to 26; but that Instruction he was not permitted to move.

pointed out that the suggestion he made was that the Bill should be recommitted as to Clauses 15 to 26, and the hon. Member moved that the Bill be recommitted generally, though not by any direction of his.

said that in this case he must have misunderstood the directions given by the Chair.

said that the Motion of the hon. Member on the Paper was to recommit the Bill.

Followed by an Instruction dealing with the clauses to which he took exception. He understood that it was incompetent for him to move this as one Motion. He appealed to the Government, who must to some extent be responsible for private Bill legislation dealt with in the House, to assist the House in getting out of the difficulty with regard to the Bill. Here was a Bill strictly limited in scope to the one principle of charging townships a price agreed upon with the Corporation, and because there was a technical flaw in the Acts by which the price naturally came to be charged, the extension of the municipal franchise was introduced in a clumsy, unworkable clause without consultation with any body of citizens as to how it might be worked and how it might interfere with any previous rights of the citizens. If the hon. Member was anxious to pass the Bill, let him agree to strike out the franchise and other clauses. They did not want minority representation in Dublin, while the Nationalists were not allowed to get "a look in" in any of the townships around Dublin. Another set of clauses dealt with a number of officers temporarily appointed by the Corporation of Dublin. The City Marshal, for example, was paid by certain fees derived from the pawnbrokers of Ireland; but according to this Bill, without evidence taken, he was to receive a permanent appointment with a right of getting a pension from the Corporation. He submitted that this was a scandalous use to make of the procedure of private Bill legislation, and called upon the Government to take up a strong attitude with regard to it. He spoke for the citizens of Dublin and for the majority of the Corporation, and he appealed to the Government not to allow private Bill legislation to be made the vehicle for the carrying out of a corrupt bargain.

asked whether it was in order to apply the words "corrupt bargain" to Members of the House?

I did not catch the whole of the sentence. If the hon. Member used the words "corrupt bargain" with reference to the conduct of a Member in this House, he would be out of order.

said he used the words with reference to certain officials of the Corporation sent over here to promote a Water Bill, and who had no instructions to make a bargain and to allow certain clauses to be introduced in a Bill by which they were to get a permanent appointment.

I understand that the hon. Member did not apply the words "corrupt bargain" to any hon. Member of the House?

No, Sir.

In justice to these gentlemen, may I say that I never saw them before the appearance of this clause. The clause was proposed on my own responsibility, without any communication with them

did not deny that the House was in some difficulty. He guarded himself from expressing any opinion on the merits of any part of the Bill. He was not acquainted with its provisions, but his observations would be confined to the general principle which ought to guide the House. There was another point on which he guarded himself from expressing a reasoned opinion. This Bill, as originally introduced, was in the main a Water Bill. By an Instruction passed in the House it became possible for the Committee to make the Bill not only a Water Bill but a Franchise Bill. Whether it were expedient on the ground of policy that Bills dealing with small local matters, such as gas and water, should be capable of this abnormal extension after leaving the House was a question which ought to be seriously considered by the House, but as to which he did not at present offer an opinion. There were precedents for the cause without doubt. Nothing irregular had taken place; whether what had taken place was expedient was another matter, and whether, if the Bill went up to the House of Lords in this shape it would be consistent with the Standing Orders of that House to pass the Franchise Clauses he could not say, but a rumour had reached him that in all probability the principles which governed the conduct of private business in the House of Lords would necessitate some material alteration in the Measure in that House. But he merely mentioned these questions in order to put them aside, because he did not think that they were very material. As a matter of fact, whether it was right or wrong, whether wise or unwise, the House of Commons had, by an Instruction, he would not say compelled the Committee, but more than hinted to the Committee that it might with propriety introduce Franchise Clauses into the Bill, and it was in consequence of that Instruction, after eight weeks' inquiry, that the Committee did introduce these Franchise Clauses.

observed that the inquiry lasted eight days, not eight weeks, and that no evidence was given in support of the view of the hon. and learned Member for Louth.

said that the evidence which his hon. Friend said was not given occupied no less than 40 pages of the printed proceedings.

said that he was only imperfectly acquainted with what took place in the Committee, and therefore he could not attempt to decide between the two hon. and learned Gentlemen who differed upon that point. The broad fact remained that the Committee, after a prolonged inquiry, did think itself more than justified in converting this Water Bill into a Franchise Bill. He did not think the decision come to last week to recommit the Bill to a private Bill Committee must be supposed to convey a suggestion that the informal Instruction of the House was one that ought to be departed from. The question, it seemed to him, was narrowed down to this—what ought they to do in view of the fact that the Committee in making this a Franchise Bill had in two respects exceeded the powers given to them. They had exceeded their powers in respect of Clauses 15 and 23. What course ought the House to pursue in view of that fact? On Friday they had decided that the Bill should be referred to a Private Bill Committee. To require a Private Bill Committee at this time of the Session to go through again all the evidence which the previous Committee had before it with respect to Parts 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill would be really an absurdity. He hoped that in any case the new Committee, by an exercise of their own native good sense, would absolutely refuse to reconsider all the questions arising upon that part of the Bill, and to hear again all the evidence which, at so much cost and trouble, was laid before the previous Committee. The question remained, what ought to be done with respect Part 3 of the Bill? On Friday last a Division was taken upon that point, and Mr. Speaker pointed out with unanswerable force that to ask the Committee merely to regularise Clauses 15 and 23, without giving them power to consider the effect which the alterations which they might make might have upon the general scheme of the legislation in the 3rd Part of the Bill would be to impose upon the Committee a duty which could not be properly and adequately fulfilled. The question now was whether they ought to recommit the whole of Part 3 of the Bill, in order to give the Committee power to rehandle the whole question of the Franchise, or whether they ought to limit the Committee to the consideration of clauses 15 and 23, giving them, at the same time, power to introduce into the remaining clauses such Amendments as followed naturally from the alterations which they were directed to make in Clauses 15 and 23. He advised the House to adopt the second of these courses rather than the first. He did not think it possible for the Committee to go with advantage into the question of the Dublin Franchise at this time of the Session. He regretted that that question was ever remitted to a Committee of that House, but it was so remitted and had been examined by the Committee, and he did not think that its labours should be rendered fruitless unnecessarily, or that its decisions should be traversed unnecessarily. Then he thought the House would be well advised to limit as far as possible the labours of this new Committee, so as to give the Bill some chance of becoming law in the course of the present Session.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to recommit the whole question to the Committee, giving them power to amend or to reject the clauses. If so, he should accept the proposal.

said that the best course to take in the circumstances would be to withdraw the Motion before the House, by leave of the House, and then to proceed to the consideration of alternative proposals.

explained that what he proposed was that the Committee should consider Part 3 of the Bill with the view only of bringing Clauses 15 and 23 into harmony with the Instructions of the House, and of making such alterations in the remaining clauses of Part 3 as might be necessary in consequence.

said that he would assent to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. He had always been in favour of minority representation. He thought it was a sound principle in dealing with a country like Ireland, and would lead to contentment and peace. It was from that point of view that he had made his proposition. He had never communicated with any member of the Dublin Corporation in this matter. They were all either Parnellite or Conservative, and there was not a single man of them who was a friend of his, and he had neither touch nor contact with any of their views, but he thought it was only reasonable that these gentlemen should not be disquieted in the possession of their offices at the moment when a large extension of the Franchise was granted.

said that the Amendment was precisely the same Amendment as that against which the House voted on Friday night.

said that, as he thought he pointed out at the time, the words proposed before were practically the same words which appeared in Motion No. 9 on the Notice Paper, and strictly confined Amendments to the two points of abrogating any existing Municipal Franchise and of conferring additional powers on the Lord Lieutenant in respect to the appointment of revising barristers. But when the Committee had amended Clauses 15 and 23, they might desire, though it was impossible for the House to say in what respect, to amend the other clauses of Part 3, in consequence of having amended Clauses 15 and 23, and therefore this Amendment proposed that it should be left to a Committee to consider generally what Amendments were in their opinion desirable in consequence of having amended 15 and 23.

contended that the Amendment proposed by the Government precluded the Committee from considering the whole question of the Franchise. He thought it was rather unfair that all this controversy should have been raised on a narrow question of order. He need not dwell on the speech the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth had made, but he hoped the House would note how dearly he loved his enemies. If the hon. Gentleman would only be as generous and as courteous to his friends as he was to his opponents on the Dublin Corporation, he thought he would find himself more in harmony with them. He regretted that he could not assent to this Amendment, as it would prevent him from raising all that which was most objectionable to the citizens of Dublin. He would point out that the Chairman of the Committee personally was against the introduction of the Franchise at all, and, having regard to the fact that no evidence of any kind was offered on these clauses, he could not accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.

said that, having been nominated to act as Chairman of the new Committee, he wished to say a few words. The amended reference was of a very narrow description, and it would have been much more, suitable that the Bill should go to the old Committee. At this time of the Session, however, Members were not always present, and as any hesitation on the part of the new Committee might imperil the Bill, they would of course be very glad to do whatever the House directed. He begged leave to point out to the House what mischief might occur if the House departed from the old and well-established order of Private Bill Committees. If Instructions were constantly moved and the scope of Measures enlarged beyond all proportion to what was intended by the promoters, it would amount to tacking in the worst and most exaggerated form, and against that the House had always set its face. He believed this was the first time a Bill which had been passed by a Private Bill Committee in the usual way had been referred back to an entirely new Committee, and he could not but deprecate the adoption of such a course.

said he understood that on Friday night the Bill was referred without any reservation at all to a new Committee. Consequently, he had received representations from all parts of his constituency—and he believed that the hon. Gentleman who represented the other division of the county had received similar representations—asking him to do his best to take advantage of the opportunity to remedy some very serious grievances that had been inflicted on the county by the Committee. The House would easily understand that the highly-contentious issues that had surrounded the whole conduct of this Bill had inflicted some hardship on those who wished to treat it purely as a business Measure, and to have it discussed on its merits. The hon. Member for the Harbour Division had told the House that this was an attempt on the part of the township he represented to cheat the Dublin Corporation. That he wholly and entirely denied, but he did not wish to characterise the action of the Corporation in this matter. His constituents thought that, by placing upon them an extravagantly high rate in perpetuity——

This does not relate to the Amendment before the House.

submitted that, if the Amendment was carried, it would not be possible for him to move the Amendment in his own name, and it would be impossible to enlarge the scope of the Committee's inquiry.

said that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman would be in order when he put the main question.

said he would reserve what he had to say.

said he was bound to protest in the interest of a large body of his constituents, who would be very seriously injured if they had no further opportunity of resisting the inequitable provisions of the Bill with regard to the water supply.

said that he would like to point out that, whatever distinctions might be drawn between what had been suggested by Mr. Speaker and the Amendment now before the House, the substantial question put to the Committee was the reverse of that which was put and carried in the House on Friday last. What was done within the understanding of the House on Friday last was to refer the whole of the Franchise Clauses to the consideration of the Committee for them to deal with as they liked. Now that decision to his mind had been practically reversed at the instance of the Government. He really thought that if the Government intended to take that course they ought to have taken it at the beginning, and not have invited the House to reverse on Monday what was carried on Friday.

, as a Member of the Committee which considered this Bill, desired to explain the position which the Committee actually assumed in dealing with the townships around Dublin. It was quite true that, as the Bill at present stood, while the Corporation were borrowing an amount of £1,200,000 to be repaid in 1944, a perpetuity payment for water would have to be made by these townships. He and other Members of the Committee considered that that was a grievance, but they did not embody their views in any clause or do anything to alter the Bill which was put before them by the promoters. The reason why they took that course was that they considered that when the year 1944 came, those townships could come to the House and propose an alteration in the Scheme.

asked whether the Motion would be in order which stood upon the Paper in his name to the following effect:—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to make provision for placing on the Burgess Roll, in respect of any qualification which enables male persons to vote for an alderman or councillor, any person who but for her sex would be entitled so to vote."

said that the remaining Instructions upon the Paper were now out of order.

Am I not in order in dealing with the Franchise? I merely propose to give women the same rights as the men.

The Instruction of the hon. Member is not in order after the Resolution which has just been passed by the House.

When shall I be in order? [Laughter.] I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question when the Bill comes back to the House.

gave notice that he would, early next Session, call attention to the duration of speeches in Parliament, and move a Resolution.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the Kirk Session of Laurencekirk, on the 7th January 1873, acknowledged holding £734 8s. 6d. for behoof of the poor of the parish, irrespective of sums held for education, also of £300 left to the minister of the parish for the poor of the parish, and have handed none of the revenue to the Parish Council, and only a small part to the parish trust; whether the Kirk Session can evade accounting for and paying the revenue to the legal poor, by stating that their predecessors in office dissipated the fund in the belief that they might lawfully spend the principal; and, whether he will instruct a transfer or cause an inquiry to be made?

I am aware that the Kirk Session of Laurencekirk hold certain sums for behoof of the poor, but I am not aware of their amount, nor can I state whether or not they are held for the legal poor, as this is a question which can only be decided by a legal tribunal. In terms of Section 30 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1894 a committee of management for parish trusts has been formed, consisting of equal numbers from the Kirk Session and the Parish Council; this committee would be entitled to make all necessary inquiry.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. J. TUITE), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the decision of the Lords Justices in the cases of the two young men who were sentenced to three years' penal servitude at Mullingar Quarter Sessions, October 1895, for throwing a stone from a bridge on a passing train, and on whose behalf a memorial was presented to the Lord Lieutenant in March last?

The County Court Judge in sentencing these men to three years' penal servitude expressly stated he had regard to several previous outrages of a similar character in the same locality, and the Lords Justices decided in March last that the law should take its course.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with reference to the proposed acceleration of the mails by one hour between Euston and Kingstown, whether he is aware of the great convenience it would be to merchants in Belfast and generally throughout the provinces to receive the London mails an hour earlier in the morning, and to be allowed an hour later in the evening for posting replies; and whether, considering that such an arrangement would give two hours longer each day for attending to the letters from London, he would make an effort to have it carried out?

The Postmaster General does not doubt that the receipt of the English mail an hour earlier in the morning and the dispatch of the English mail an hour later at night would be received in Belfast and in Ireland generally with much satisfaction, but no such arrangement would be possible without disregarding other considerations of equal moment, and, as he explained to the deputation from the Irish Chamber of Commerce which waited on him on Friday, he is not in a position to give effect to such an arrangement.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the mails between Dublin and Clonmel missed the connection at the Limerick Junction on three successive days during the present week, and that, in consequence, the English and Dublin letters did not arrive in Clonmel until five hours after due time, thereby causing serious inconvenience and loss as well as general inconvenience to the merchants and traders of Clonmel through the loss of a day's post; and, what steps can be taken to compel the Great Southern and Western and Waterford and Limerick Railway Companies to discharge their respective duties to the public for which they are paid from the public purse?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the fact that for the third time in succession the English and Dublin mails missed the connection at Limerick Junction, immediate arrangements could be made for the running of a special train from Limerick Junction to Limerick when the morning mail train is late?

I beg to answer the Questions of the hon. Members for West Limerick and East Tipperary together. As I informed the hon. Member for West Limerick last Friday, the question of the connection between the mail trains at Limerick Junction is to be considered in the pending negotiations with the railway company for a new contract.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, is he aware that at a recent petty sessions at Newbliss a man named Kelly was summoned, at the instance of the Great Northern Railway Company, Ireland, and fined 1s. and the costs of Court, for using threatening or abusive language to a person outside the railway station; was it competent in the railway company to be complainants in this case, where the alleged offence was not committed on their platform, and did not involve any of their porters or other officials; is he aware that the Chairman of the Petty Sessions Court is a shareholder of the Company; and, was it competent for a magistrate having interests in the railway to adjudicate in this case; and, if not, will he have this conviction quashed?

Kelly was summoned by the Great Northern Railway Company on two charges of trespass and using abusive language. Both charges were proved, and a fine of 1s. and costs was inflicted in each case. It was also proved that Kelly had been repeatedly cautioned against trespassing on the railway premises, and that both of the offences with which he was charged were committed on the company's premises. I have no information as to whether the Chairman of the Petty Sessions Court is a shareholder of the company.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Irish College, Paris, about the year 1818, made claims upon the British Government, in virtue of Treaties with France, for large losses and injuries received at the hands of the French Government; that the French Government acknowledged its obligation to make such restitution, and placed the requisite funds in the hands of the British Government; did the British Government withhold payment; and that the claim of the college in 1830 amounted in 23 separate items to a total of £103,604; was this claim ever discharged; and, if not, what has become of the money and its accumulations since the year 1830; and, is there any hope that this claim will ultimately be paid over to the college?

I can find no authority for the statement that the French Government acknowledged its obligation to make restitution to the Irish College, Paris, for losses and injuries received at the hands of that Government, and placed the requisite funds for that purpose in the hands of the British Government. The fact appears to be that by two separate Conventions, in 1815 and 1818, the French Government assigned annuities of three and a half million and three million francs respectively to a Commission appointed to adjudicate on the claims of British subjects for losses sustained in the French Revolution. The Irish College presented a claim for an annuity of £3,398 15s. 2d., which was rejected by the Commissioners. They then appealed to the Privy Council, who endorsed the Commissioners' refusal in 1832. In 1871 the Roman Catholic Bishops and Archbishops of Ireland appealed to Mr. Gladstone as Prime Minister to appoint a Select Committee inquire into the claims of the college and the state of the Indemnity Fund, and he declined on the ground that full information as to the state of the fund had been given in a Parliamentary Return of that year, that all the alleged diversions of the fund to public objects had been disproved, and that with the exception of £900, the fund was exhausted. This £900 and more was, however, due for various admitted claims. Parliamentary Papers C. 376 of 1871 and 239 of 1872 give full information as to the expenditure of the fund.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he is aware that the flax crop in Ulster is very inferior and in many cases a total failure, and that in several instances, owing to the dryness of the months of April and May, the flax-seed did not grow and the land had to be ploughed up; and (2) whether, having regard to the failure of the flax crop in Ulster, he will cause an immediate revision of rents or some other means of relieving the farmers of that province?

I have not before me detailed reports of the yield of the flax crop during the present season, though I believe it is a fact that the crop has been, on the whole, a poor one. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative. I may add that inquiry has been commenced by the Government into the means best adapted for improving the cultivation and treatment of flax in Ulster. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of estates for sale of which petitions are now pending, how long has each estate been in court, the date of the last steps taken in connection with each petition, and how many receivers are connected with each estate?

I am informed that the number of estates for the sale of which petitions are now pending in the Land Judge's Court is 3,890, and that there is only one receiver over each estate, though the same receiver may be connected with several estates. Information on the other points referred to in the Question could not be furnished without an investigation that would occupy several months. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of the recent court-martial on Sayers, until then a sergeant in the 2nd Royal Berkshire Regiment, the Judge Advocate General was informed that Rule of Procedure 82 was violated at the trial to the detriment of the prisoner's case; and, if not, whether the War Office will lay the facts relating to the violation of Rule of Procedure 82 before the Judge Advocate General, with a view to the rescinding of his decision as to the regularity of the trial?

The Judge Advocate General, with all the circumstances before him, did not consider that any injustice had been done to the prisoner, and did not feel called upon to advise any interference with the finding and sentence.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) with reference to the contracts for the Purdysburn Asylum, Belfast, whether he is aware that tenders were invited by advertisement in the Belfast daily papers in respect of the last contract; (2) whether he can state if any of the five contractors selected by the medical superintendent of Belfast Asylum to tender for the previous contract, succeeded in the last competition for furniture and bedding, where it was open to all the trade; and if he will state the names of the firms who got the last contract; and (3) whether he will now see that invitations to tender will be published in the local papers in respect of all contracts for asylums in Ireland?

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. I will forward to the hon. Member, if he so desires, a list of the firms selected in respect of the last contract. The general practice of the Board of Control has been to invite tenders by public advertisement for all asylum works, except in some few cases of furniture supplies, and works of a special character. In future, this rule will be enforced in the case of all supplies of furniture.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that the representatives of deceased testators whose wills are written in the Welsh language are now called upon to pay a charge in addition to the ordinary probate fees for the translation of such wills into the English language; and, whether, having regard to the fact that a large number of Welsh testators are unable to speak or understand the English language, and that their wills are for official purposes required to be translated into English, the Treasury will in future bear the charge for translation?

If the President of the Probate Division is prepared (as I understand he is) to recommend that in future the cost of translating Welsh wills should be paid by the public, the Treasury will not raise any objection.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, considering the very small number of 1,700 available in Mashonaland, he will recommend the employment in Rhodesia of porters and police selected from Sierra Leone and other native constabulary forces in West Africa, and especially men who served and native levies in the late expedition to Kumasi; whether he is aware that the Colony of Sierra Leone can furnish trained constabulary members of the late Gambia Frontier Police, besides upwards of 2,000 native porters, without difficulty, for service in Rhodesia, providing the men are led by officers with whom they are acquainted; and whether he will consider the advisability of obtaining reinforcements for the relieving column operating from Beira for the relief of Mashonaland from amongst the Hausas, Mandingoes, and other native levies who have been enlisted in the various constabularies of our West African possessions and of the Royal Niger Company, under their own officers and officers chosen from amongst those selected for service with the special service corps, with the Hausas and native levies in the campaign against Kumasi in 1895.

As regards the importation of porters from West Africa, I am advised that the step would be useless, as the men could not carry even their own food supply and would have no strength for carrying stores. In West Africa the porters obtain their food supply as they go along. As regards the importation of combatants from West Africa, I am advised that no considerable numbers could be spared, and that there is in South Africa ample material from which to recruit local levies. The hon. Member will have observed that the Cape boys have been doing particularly good work in the present war. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that farmers in Natal had suffered very considerably from the want of native labour, owing to that labour having sought employment in the mines?

That is a totally different Question, and I must ask for notice. ["Hear, hear."]

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education will he explain why the school managers of Aldingham Parish School, Ulverston, have been ordered to take children into their school from neighbouring parishes, which have sufficient school accommodation for the children in their own parishes, notwithstanding that taking in such children involves the necessity of adding to the staff of the Aldingham School, and the school managers have not sufficient funds to add to their staff; and, if so, whether the Aldingham School managers can be relieved from taking in children from districts outside the parish for which the school was provided?

The general rule of the Committee of Council is to require all children to be admitted to a school, so long as there is room for them, whether they belong to the parish in which the school is situate or not. Without such a rule the administration of the Education Department would become exceedingly difficult.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact appearing in the recent Return of Profit and Loss on the Savings Banks (No. 254 of the present year), that while there was a loss to the National Exchequer of £22,891 1s. 1d. on the Trustee Banks, there was a profit of £16,983 2s. 11d. on the Post Office Savings Bank; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the sum paid annually into the Exchequer as the surplus on the working of the Post Office Savings Bank since the year 1877 (when by the Customs, Inland Revenue, and Savings Banks Act, 1877, it was for the first time enacted that such surplus should be paid into the Exchequer instead of forming a reserve fund for the benefit of the depositors), and of the aggregate sum thus contributed by the Post Office Savings Bank to the relief of the taxpayer?

The figures for which the hon. Member asks are already before the House, being given on page 86 of the Report of the Postmaster General for the year ended 31st March 1895 (C. 7,852.)

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether application for annual grants has been made by the managers of St. Peter's Free School, Chelsea (Subdivision V. 2); what is the playground accommodation of the school, and how many feet per scholar does it contain; whether the Department will apply to the school the requirements of Schedule VII. of the Code; whether the School Board for London has complained of unequal treatment in the case of Allen Street School, Chelsea (Sub-division IV. 1), which has been warned for unsatisfactory premises; and, whether the Department will enforce the same requirements as to structural suitability on all schools, whether under a school board or under other managers.

The St. Peter's Free School, which has recently applied for annual grant, has been recognised since 1877 as a certified efficient school under Section 48 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876. When such a school applies for annual grant, the Committee of Council treat it as an existing school and do not require complete plans of the school to be submitted to them if, as in this case, the inspector is able to certify that the school buildings are up to the average standard of schools in the district. The Committee of Council are not aware of the exact size of the playground of St. Peter's School, but the inspector has always reported it as being sufficient for the purpose; and in London the requirements of Schedule VII. as to playground are not, as a rule, strictly insisted on. The London School Board have protested against the condemnation of the boys' department of the Allen Street School after the 30th September 1897, and of the girls' and infants' departments after the 30th September 1899. But the Committee of Council see no reason to alter their decision, which was arrived at after a special inspection of the premises by their travelling architect

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he is aware that certain persons representing the Military authorities have been visiting a number of sheep farmers residing on the Imaal Mountains, county of Wicklow, and have informed those farmers that their lands are required for an artillery range; and whether the Military authorities have decided to disturb a number of the inhabitants of the Imaal Mountains, and take their lands for an artillery range?

The Field Marshal commanding in Ireland has been making inquiries about artillery ranges, and among others, Glen Imaal has been inspected. No decision has been come to on the subject, and if there is any disturbance in connection with a range, full compensation will be given.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has concluded his inquiry into the confession of Hugh Beattie, a prisoner at St. Helens on a charge of burglary, who is reported to have stated that 12 months ago a man named Brady was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment for a burglary which he (Beattie) had committed at Rainhill; and what is the result of the Inquiry?

No, Sir, the Inquiry, which presents several difficulties, is not yet concluded.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has been able to come to any conclusion with reference to the completion of the decoration of the Lobby by filling up the vacant spaces on the wall in harmony with Poynter's mosaic of St. George?

I have been in communication with Mr. Poynter, but I have not yet been able to complete the inquiries I thought it necessary to make before coming to any conclusion. The matter shall have the fullest consideration before the next Session of Parliament.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of appointing a Consular Officer to reside at Aintah or Marash in Northern Syria, having regard to the disturbed state of that country and the danger of further massacres of the Christian inhabitants?

The opinion of Her Majesty's Ambassador will be obtained, but in view of the proximity of these two places to Aleppo, where a British Consul is stationed, it seems doubtful whether there are sufficient grounds for such an appointment.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would say whether the Government had any objection to receiving evidence tending to show the great danger that existed in these and other places with which the Consul at Aleppo was not able to deal.

referred the right hon. Gentleman to the Under Secretary of State.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has had any recent communication with the Education Board with regard to the erection of a school for the use of young children at Lettergunnell, in the parish of Drumlish, county Longford; and what decision, if any, has been come to on the subject?

I have not been in communication with the Commissioners on this subject since the 12th June, when I fully explained to the hon. Member, in answer to a Question put to me on that date, the circumstances connected with the proposed school and the decision arrived at by the Commissioners in the case.

was understood to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had received any communication on the subject.

said he had received no communication on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed to abolish the first class of out-door officers of Customs; and, if so, whether it is intended to grant compensation to those officers who entered the Service in 1891, and who, during the next five years, will lose considerably by their promotion to the new grade of assistants of Customs?

The first class of out-door officers will eventually be abolished, when the men who now remain in it (owing to their failure to qualify for the new class of assistants) have retired. An arrangement has been made by which no second class out-door officer of good character, whether appointed in 1891 or later, will receive on entering the assistant class a lower salary than £85 (the minimum of the old first class), provided he has then served not less than eight years, that being the minimum period in which, up to now, any second-class out-door officer has obtained promotion to the first class. It is believed that this will equitably meet the requirements of the case.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the desirability of having a revision of the examination papers of the National School teachers who presented themselves for promotion at the July examinations 1896; whether he will suggest that the district inspectors of the different districts may assist in the revision; and, whether the teachers who presented themselves for promotion will get the benefit of the good marks for teaching in the schools in connection with their answering in the recent examination papers?

I have referred this Question to the Commissioners of National Education, by whom it will be considered at their next meeting to be held on the 11th instant.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the frequent instances in which persons in a state of intoxication are landed from excursion steamers, and to the fact that the Licensing Act of 1872 does not apply to the licences granted to such steamers, and that there are no provisions in the Act under which such licences are granted dealing with the sale of drink to intoxicated persons, Her Majesty's Government will introduce a Measure to put the sale of intoxicants on these vessels on a more satisfactory footing?

I agree with the hon. Baronet that the law on this subject is in an unsatisfactory state, and I think a strong case can be made out for fresh legislation. He will see, however, that the Government would have some difficulty in proposing any amendment of the licensing laws until the Royal Commission has reported; the most that I can do at present is to bring the matter specially to their notice.

Might I ask whether there is any legal definition of drunkenness?

I think that hardly arises out of the present Question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury—(1) what course he intends to take with regard to the Military Works Bill promised in February last; and (2) whether that Bill contains, in addition to necessary Military works, works such as those for protecting harbours for cruisers, deemed necessary for Naval purposes by the Admiralty?

The answer to the second paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the first paragraph, I believe that the Leader of the Opposition took some constitutional, or quasi constitutional, objection to a Bill of this character being introduced so late in the Session, and the Government therefore propose to postpone it till next Session.

With a view to its passing before the end of the financial year?

Yes.

asked whether, looking to the urgency of the matter, special facilities would be given by the Government for the passing into law this Session of the Bill for making provisions relating to the offices of Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of the Court of Quarter Sessions for the County of London?

I am aware of the extreme urgency of this Bill for the carrying on of business of the Quarter Sessions, especially as regards the power which it is desired to take for paying a deputy-chairman in the absence of the chairman through illness and for the payment of a clerk to the chairman. The Bill, as I understand, has been introduced with the unanimous approval of the London County Council, and if I can get an assurance that there is no opposition to it in this House I will use my best endeavours with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to secure the assistance of the Government towards its passing.

To move:—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to introduce provisions for the relief of the occupiers of lands and heritages other than agricultural lands and heritages."

To move:—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to introduce provisions for applying part of the funds allotted by the Bill for the purposes of higher, including technical, education."

To move:—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide that in the case of any holding in a crofting parish, the Crofters Commission, in fixing whether for the first or any subsequent time a fair rent for such holding, shall not be entitled to take into account the relief effected by the Act from a proportion of the consolidated rate, poor rate, and other rates there mentioned."

To move:—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to introduce provisions for applying part of the funds allotted by the Hill for the purposes of agricultural experiment and research."

The first Instruction to the Committee, which is on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, that the Committee have power to introduce provisions for the relief of the occupiers of lands and heritages other than agricultural lands and heritages, appears to me to be out of order, as it is altogether beyond the scope of the Bill. The next Instruction, in the name of the hon. Member for Forfar, that the Committee have power to introduce provisions for applying part of the funds allotted by the Bill for the purposes of higher, including technical, education; and the fourth instruction, in the name of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, that the Committee have power to introduce provisions for applying part of the funds allotted by the Bill for purposes of agricultural experiment and research—both appear to me to relate to matters foreign to the proposals of the Bill, and they are out of order. The third Instruction, in the name of the hon. Member for Hawick Burghs, that the Committee have power to provide that in the case of any holding in a crofting parish, the Crofters Commission, in fixing, whether for the first or any subsequent time, a fair rent for such holding, shall not be entitled to take into account the relief effected by the Act from a proportion of the consolidated rate, poor rate, and other rates there mentioned, would be a legitimate subject for an Amendment to the Bill. As an Instruction, therefore, it is unnecessary and out of order.

said he could not accept the Amendment. The main provision of the Bill, the classification of lands and heritages for purposes of rating, naturally took its place in the first clause, and the fact that there were five pages of Amendments down to that clause was a very good reason for proceeding with it at once. Besides, the Amendments he had put down to the clause were circulated amongst Members on Friday morning, and their object was to limit the operation of the clause in a way to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, as expressed on the Second Reading of the Bill.

said the Bill, though exceedingly small and compact, was a complex Bill. It dealt with a variety of subjects. It abolished the Land Tax in parts of Scotland, it did something for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, it professed to give relief to agriculture in Scotland; but perhaps its most intricate and most important provision was the alteration of the incidence of taxation in Scotland by the abolition of classification, as embodied in the first clause, and most of the Amendments put down by the Lord Advocate referred to that provision. Classification was, no doubt, one of those blessed words which were very desirable, but it was not understood by the vulgar, which most hon. Members were. [Laughter.] They had not all been brought up in the same atmosphere as the Lord Advocate, who had, perhaps, "classification" engraved on his heart, and they therefore required some little time in order to arrive at the scope of the alteration which the right hon. Gentleman proposed. The right hon. Gentleman had said, when introducing the Bill, that classification was voluntary; that it operated in one parish and not in another, creating great anomalies, and that unanimity was the ideal to be sought for. And yet the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman had placed upon the Paper departed altogether from that ideal, and perpetuated the very evil he previously desired to put an end to. ["Hear, hear!"] The Amendments were, in one sense, a recognition of the justice of the arguments used by the critics of the Bill on previous occasions. They had pointed out that this elaborate system of classification in parishes appeared to work well, that those who were subject to it were satisfied with it, that upon it they based the amounts of their rents, and that to sweep it away and establish one form of classification only was a supreme step to take. ["Hear, hear!"] But the Government were now going back on their first proposal. He did not know what had influenced them to make this new departure. Perhaps it was because the abolition of classification would cause an amount of discontent in towns and boroughs when shopkeepers found it meant a considerable increase of their rates. But the new proposal of the Government appeared only on Friday. The result was that many hon. Members had not yet realised what it meant, even if they had seen it, and, apart from that, the people of Scotland should have some consideration shown them in this complicated matter. He therefore hoped that the Government would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs.

said the financial year in the county and parish was from May to May, and they ought to follow the metes and bounds of the financial year, and that was why "May" was inserted.

, in opposing the Amendment, said that, seeing the character of the Inquiry to be made, it might be supposed that Parliament would have the result of the Inquiry and the possibility of legislation before the date mentioned. Meantime agriculture was suffering, and its ills should be rectified at once.

said that this was a mere concomitant to the English Bill. In Scotland there were 166 parishes classified. Under the Amendment of the Lord Advocate that classification might continue if certified by him. Therefore in those parishes the money would not go, as in England, to the agricultural population. Most of it would go to the dwellers in houses, and not to agricultural people at all. It was one of the most dangerous doctrines to lay down that such a question could not by industrious men be mastered in the course of a year. He did not think they wanted a Commission at all, but the announcement of the decision of the Government. By May 1898 the Government would be in full possession of all the materials they wanted, and they would then be able to say what they were going to do for the whole of the ratepayers of Scotland who were not agriculturists. By this Bill, in the most random manner, in 166 parishes out of 750, taken merely by chance, in which the urban ratepayers were not a bit more meritorious or had greater claims on the Treasury than in the other 600 parishes excluded, they were to be given something like five-eighths of their rates. This was extremely unjust, and an iniquitous proposal for which no defence whatever had been made. The Bill was for the relief of occupiers of agricultural land and heritages; it was not for the relief of the occupiers of other land and heritages. That alone should be sufficient to make the Government pause. But there was a stronger reason. The Government were going to pick out a certain part of Scotland, and then give an advantage to urban and none, in fact, to rural ratepayers. Before they carried out this operation in such an irregular and sporadic manner there should be a careful examination into the whole question, so that all parts of Scotland could be treated justly and equally instead of by a method for which not one single argument had been advanced.

said the argument of his hon. and learned Friend came to this—that, inasmuch as there was going to be an Inquiry, he disliked the continuation for five years of the statutory classification which was introduced into the Bill. The simple answer seemed to him to be that it was not certain when that Inquiry would be concluded and when the legislation that followed upon that Inquiry would be introduced. The injustice under which agriculture, as they considered, suffered cried for remedy at once. If, as a matter of fact, the Inquiry was concluded and legislation followed in a sooner period than five years, then, of course, nothing would be easier than in the Bill in which that was dealt with to sweep away the effects of the present Bill. This was necessarily a temporary proposal, and must come to an end when the operation of the Measure ceased to lie. Therefore he submitted that the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument was not an argument for limiting the tenure of the Bill to less than five years, that being the period taken in the English Bill. As regarded the effect of his Amendment, it was sufficient to say at that point that, inasmuch as the Amendment, so far as it went, was for the maintenance of the status quo, there did not seem to be any good reason for limiting the operation to two years instead of five.

pointed out that the Government, after they had introduced this Bill, had found it necessary, upon the eve of going into Committee, to make most substantial changes in this particular section of the Bill. That showed at once that the matter had not been carefully thought out. It showed that if a matter of this kind was to go on without inquiry, and without being able to test the effect of the Bill and of its practical operation in the districts of Scotland, they ought to have a reasonably limited time fixed for giving it a fair trial without committing Scotland to a very lengthy period. Even supposing this Inquiry concluded, and the Committee reporting, what guarantee had they that the Government would introduce the Bill of which the Lord Advocate had spoken with the same alacrity they had shown in this case. The object they had in view in this Amendment was to insure that a certain reasonable time should be given, and the proposal was to substitute two years from the 15th of May next—two years and a half practically. What was there to inquire about, so far as Scotland was concerned? The whole facts regarding the principle and expediency of classification were well-known, and they could not possibly be altered. The Lord Advocate put the whole case of classification upon one particular point, and that was that in the case of agricultural lands they were unfairly treated, because they were assessed at present upon their stock-in-trade instead of, as he maintained, upon their proportionate means and substance. If that was all that was involved in the Bill and in the classification of rates, what was there to take up an Inquiry for any length of time? These were matters which a Committee would be able to deal with in three or four days.

said the Lord Advocate stated that this Bill followed the lines of the English Bill, but here, at all events, it differed, because in the English Bill the first clause represented that "during the continuance of this Act for five years," and so on. The Lord Advocate did not adopt that, but fell back on the expedient of adding a clause at the end of the Bill in which he limited the operation of the Act to five years. He would also remind the Committee that at the commencement of the discussions on the English Bill "during the continuance thereof was inserted," but during the Debates it was pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that the words were really not necessary, and they were subsequently dropped entirely. He maintained, therefore, that the words were not really necessary. The Act would cease, as proposed, in 1902. In the ordinary course of events he supposed they would have a General Election in 1901, so that the effect of extending the duration of the Bill to five years was to take away from the present Government the responsibility of dealing with the question of rating as a whole unless they happened to get a majority at the General Election. The position of the Government upon this question had been all along that they were going to deal with it. If that was so, then there was no reason why they should postpone this Act until a future Parliament.

said there was one argument used by the Lord Advocate which he should always resent. The Lord Advocate said that this Bill was the complement of the English Bill, and that, therefore, because the Bill relating to rating in England was limited to five years, Scotland should be placed in exactly the same position, for the sake, he supposed, of uniformity. But uniformity, when it was not coupled with any consideration of expediency, was not necessarily a good thing, and he entirely repudiated it being said that because the English Bill did this or that, therefore the same considerations should weigh in the case of the Scotch Bill. He should support the Amendment for two reasons. The first was that he thought the classification proposed in the clause was a bad classification in itself and contrary to the spirit, and, he might almost say, the letter, of the previous statutes which from ancient times had governed rating in Scotland. The principle which governed rating in Scotland was that persons were to be rated according to their ability to pay, and not according to the particular class of property they happened to own. It I was perfectly true that in many burghs and districts, where classification had been applied, the authorities had taken a rough-and-ready method of ascertaining ability by reference to the employment of persons. The real principle was that persons should be rated according to their ability to pay. But according to this clause the farmer who paid £2,000 a year of rent and made £700 a year profit would have this relief, while the small shopkeeper in the counties, who often had a difficulty to make two ends meet, would get no relief. That was bad in principle. ["Hear, hear!"] Another consideration which induced him to support the Amendment was that, if this was to be a temporary Measure, it should be as short as possible in order to induce the Government, if possible, to take some trouble to ascertain what was fair and right with regard to Scotland and to put it into law within two years.

said he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. As to what the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had said, he might state that, though there was a difference in drafting, there was little or no difference in substance between the English and Scotch Bills. In drafting the Scotch Bill it was imperative to introduce the words referred to where they were inserted, because there was a Standing Order which required that the precise duration of every temporary law must be stated in an express provision at the end of the Bill. The point had been carefully considered by the law officers for Scotland.

said the Lord Advocate and the First Lord of the Treasury had minimised the importance of the Amendment. In his opinion, it was one of the most important that could be put before the House of Commons. It was a matter upon which he thought the Scotch Members should give the reasons for their vote; it was a point for which they must strive, and as far as he could see it was the only occasion for saying whether or not they were going to put into an Act of Parliament a declaration that for five years special relief was to be given to agriculture in Scotland. If those words on the Paper went unchallenged, Scotch Members would have so far declared their sanction of the principle that agriculture in Scotland was in such a state, and was likely to be so for the next few years, that special relief ought to be given to it, not for two or three years, but for five years. He should not refer to the past, but confine his remarks to the prospects of Scotch agriculture in the immediate future, and he maintained that they would not be just stewards of the public funds if they voted the proposed relief to agriculture in Scotland. A Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the condition of agriculture, and a large sum of money was spent over it. Were they going to set aside the Reports and evidence of that Commission, so far, at least, as related to Scotland I He maintained that the evidence showed that rent was rising all over Scotland. Before that Commission a farmer of great experience in Fifeshire said—

"When you find one farm let at £200 of a rise, and the other going to be let at 40s. an acre, and an offer conies in for 50s. an acre, in one week, it is difficult to find a remedy."

Mr. Davidson, a farmer of considerable importance, was asked whether there was still a demand for farms in Scotland, and he replied, "Yes, there was one let in East Lothian the other day, and I understand that the rent is £200 a year higher than before." Taking another part of the country, the convener of the county of Aberdeen and a prominent Member of the County Council, stated in evidence before the Commission—

"So far as I can see there is very little difficulty in letting all good farms, and sometimes even at a considerable rise of rent, even in these present times."

Lord Aberdeen's agent had stated that within the last year rents had been advancing. He might quote other evidence to the same effect, showing that rents were rising all over the country. The Times a fortnight ago published a very interesting account of Scotch agriculture, in which it was said that whilst dire misfortune had fallen on the farmer in the south-west of England and in many parts of Wales, the state of affairs in the north-east of Scotland was probably never more hopeful. Journals in Scotland had also written in a very hopeful and favourable strain of the agricultural prospects, and on that very day The Times had published a succedaneum to its previous account, and spoke of the extraordinary heavy crops for the moment proving a source; of weakness on account of the heavy rains, but remarking that the country was in so favourable a condition that, with seasonable weather, Scotland would have an abundant crop. With such a state of the facts, did the Government expect that the borough Members would acquiesce in their constituents being asked to contribute something equivalent to what would be a penny on the Income Tax for five years in order that the tenants of farms that were rapidly rising in value should have five-eighths of their rates paid out of the taxes, which came mainly from the pockets of the urban ratepayers? The present prospects of the Scotch farmers were good, and so were those of the labourer. The labourer now had good wages, and was in every way well off, and nothing was more gratifying than to hear the farmer in Scotland expressing his joy that the labourer had plenty of work. The fact was that prices had come to the lowest point. One of the most important of Scotch products in agriculture was wool, and while in 1894 wool was selling for 7d. a 1b. in parts of Great Britain, British wool was now selling at from 9d. to 11d. per lb., and never below 9d. Prices were improving, rents were rising, and labour was plentiful, and in these circumstances—when it was shown, moreover, that agriculture in Scotland was in a better condition than it was in England—they were asked to sanction this relief to the Scotch farmer on the ground of the depressed condition of agriculture.

was astonished that the Lord Advocate should display such warmth in speaking of the terrible injustice which beset the agriculturists. He had always thought this proposal was a mere matter of expediency and not of justice. The object of the clause was to reduce, first of all, the occupier's rate in the county. Until the passing of the Local Government Act of 1888 the county rate was paid by the landlord, but now one-half was payable by the occupier. The terrible injustice related to the rate imposed on the occupier by the last Conservative Government. The second relief was in respect of the parochial rates. Until the Act of 1845 the parochial rates were payable by the owners, but since the passing of that Act one-half of those rates had been payable by the occupier. Both of the changes had been made by Parliament, and he did not know that there was any terrible injustice unless it consisted in the changes themselves. They were now arguing for limitation; they did not want any hard-and-fast line adopted. The Bill was drawn up, not because Scotland wanted something, but in consequence of the English demand it was necessary there should be a grant equivalent to that given to England. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division had pointed out that there were not the same conditions in Scotland as in England. Undoubtedly in England, especially in the south and east, there was agricultural depression, but in Scotland the condition of things was quite different. After the Bill was drafted the Government found, from information afforded them by Unionist Members, that the Bill would not do, and that they must modify it. The Amendments they proposed entirely changed the character of the Measure, and all that was asked was that Parliament should not have their hands tied, but if in two or three years they found it necessary they should make another change. Nothing had been advanced by the Government to cause him to dissent from the Amendment.

did not think the Bill should last a day longer than was necessary, because, in the first place, however loud the cry for justice to agriculturists might be, there could be no doubt that the method by which it was sought to bring about that justice was a wholly indefensible one. Again, the Inquiry into the incidence of local taxation need not be a too long one. The Inquiry was one which should not last for two years, and it was desirable that action should be taken as soon as the Commission reported. If the Government meant to deal with the whole question of local taxation, they ought to do so long before two years had elapsed. The Amendment was one which would be accepted by the great mass of his countrymen, and as such he should give it his support.

said that all the facts were known and nothing remained to be done but for the Government to make up their minds as to the proper proportions of local taxation and for a skilled draftsman to frame a Measure. If, on the other hand, it was necessary that a Committee should inquire into the incidence of local taxation, could anyone imagine a better incentive to accelerated action on the part of the Committee than a limitation of the operation of this clause to two years? If the Lord Advocate held the view there was an injustice to be remedied, he had better consent to have this Amendment made part of the Bill.

said the duration of the Bill would bring them up almost to the conclusion of this Parliament, with the result that, before the General Election it would he proposed to continue it in the Expiring Laws Continuation Bill. The effect of that might be that another place would prevent them dealing with the matter in a proper manner.

urged that, as compared with other industries in Scotland, that of agriculture was greatly depressed. The opposition of the Member for Bridgeton was not well founded.

mentioned the case of the Bill which a few years ago was brought in for the relief of local ratea, the money being, after a year's reflection, given to the establishing of free education, with the approval of the whole of the people of Scotland. They only asked for a reasonable time to consult the feelings of the local authorities. He thought a period of two years would be sufficient.

said that the words "and heritages" were put in the clause to secure the benefit of the Definition Clause in the Valuation of "Land Act, 1884. In this particular there was a necessary divergence from the English Bill. In that Measure the amount of relief given was conditioned by the amount of agricultural land. But in this Bill for Scotland the amount of relief was simply a proportion of the English amount. All that had to be done, therefore, was to see that agriculture was relieved, and that as between different agriculturists the money was fairly divided. As there was approximately a constant ratio between the buildings and the land, a fair division of the relief could be given without separating land and buildings, and thus an expensive inquiry was rendered unnecessary.

pointed out that, if the whole of the sum available were not required, there would be more money available for other purposes.

objected to the Amendment, because it would make it impossible that any portion of the money would find its way into the pockets of those who were not actually owners and occupiers of agricultural land as opposed to agricultural cottages. One of his complaints against the Bill was that, taking money for agricultural purposes, it did not fairly distribute the money to persons who were suffering more or less from agricultural depression, and he thought the Government Bill was more liberal and fair in that regard than it would be if the Amendment were accepted.

supported the Amendment, and said he should be curious to see how hon. Gentlemen on the other side who supported a similar Amendment on the English Bill would vote on this one. In the English Bill it was land and land alone they wanted to relieve, and so they kept out buildings—or heritages. Now, in Scotland they were going to relieve both land and heritages. Why not apply the same principle to both countries? They were passing a temporary Measure for the relief of a class, yet that class was exactly the same in England as in Scotland. Another important reason why he supported the Amendment was this—that if they gave this relief to land only, then the class of people for whom he had peculiar sympathy, the small working agriculturist, would get the benefit, whereas at present the benefit, especially in the northern counties, would go to the largo capitalists.

could not accept the Amendment. They had not said that the classified parishes exhausted the whole of the parishes in which there was anything else besides agricultural land. They said that in a good many parishes which were not classified there was not the same call as in the case of parishes which were classified. The effect of the Amendment would be to stop the relief of any grant to any parish that was not a landward burghal parish.

could not accept the Amendment. He was sorry to say that there were many owners in Scotland who were taking to agriculture as an industry very much against their will. Everyone knew that again and again the necessity had been forced upon owners to take land into their own hands pending the prospect of re-letting. In all these cases the owner was occupier, and paid the full rate; and therefore the Government thought that it was only logical to put him in the same position as everyone else receiving relief.

did not agree with his hon. and learned Friend the mover of the Amendment. He was interested in developing the system of small holdings, and he should like to see more agriculturists own as well as occupy their holdings. But, as the Amendment would act as a discouragement to any scheme of that kind, he must oppose it. In the rich and prosperous county which he represented farms were easily let, but, if they went to the more distressed parts of Scotland, it was extremely difficult to get tenants. The persons who had farms in their own hands were not the prosperous owners of the rich and fertile parts, but were comparatively poor persons who ought to be assisted.

also said that he could not support the Amendment. If they were going to give relief to the agricultural tenant, it was due just as much to the man who farmed his own land as the ordinary tenant-occupier. The Amendment would, besides, act as a deterrent to the creation of small holdings.

reminded the Government that a pledge had been given that a provision would be introduced into the Bill for the purpose of preventing the relief from going to the Scotch landlords. Now, however, the Government were opposing an Amendment which would prevent the money from going into the pockets of a certain class of landlords. Many of the landlords would not reduce their rents to the market level. They were telling the farmers that they did not want them, that they could do as they did after the war in 1815, and that they could deal with the labourers themselves directly. In fact, they threatened to farm the lands through the agency of their own bailiffs, and to wipe out the farmers. They were trying an experiment, and some of the owners were already finding out that it was not a paying experiment. Be that as it might, he did not think that they ought to aid men who did not reduce their rents. He trusted, therefore, that the Amendment would be pressed.

said that he had no particular sympathy with landlords, and that perhaps he should not be sorry if money were diverted from their pockets. He had, however, great sympathy with small holders, of whom there were a considerable number in the county which he represented. They belonged to a class whom it was desirable to encourage in the interests of agriculture and the country. He hoped on this account that the Amendment would not be accepted.

was in favour of limiting the relief to owners of holdings of a certain size. What was needful in the North of Scotland was that holdings should be of a reasonable size and let at fair rents.

, in asking leave to withdraw his Amendment, reserved his right to raise the question again on the Report stage. The objections against his Amendment might be met by the introduction of words providing that the size of the holding to which relief was to be given should be limited. He had been influenced to move this Amendment by a flagrant case which had come under his notice. A man who had bought a big estate as a pure speculation, had turned out the tenants one by one. He could not consent to giving public money to men of that kind.

had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, after "Scotland," the words "not situated within any burgh, as defined by the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892." He said that he did not now intend to move the Amendment, as it was put upon the Paper to prepare the way for raising later on the subject of classification, and it would probably have been held that without some such Amendment the subject could not be raised. The Lord Advocate, however, had given notice of an Amendment which, while it did not go as far as he wished, would to a certain limited extent provide for the case of burgh classifications. It might be well, therefore, to wait to see whether it would not be possible to make amendments in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, either in Committee or on the Report stage. The Amendment which he had placed on the Paper also referred to the question of accommodation land, because lands within the area of burghs were generally, although not universally, accommodation lands. Seeing, however, that the object which he had in view when he put the Amendment down might now be attained in other ways, he did not propose to move.

said that as there were Amendments of a similar kind put down by several hon. Members, he should put the hon. Gentleman's Amendment in such a way as not to prevent other hon. Members from moving theirs as Amendments to this one. He therefore put the question that the words "in any parish where the value of agricultural land and heritages" be added to the Bill.

said this was not an agricultural relief Bill, but one for the reform of rating. [Cheers.] Considering that the Bill had been approved upon Second Reading, and that he put in the forefront of his speech that it was a Bill for rating reform, the hon. Gentleman would hardly expect the Government to accept his Amendment.

said the right hon. Gentleman was very ingenious in shifting as much as he could on to the particular leg on which he desired the Bill to stand. But, whatever the right hon. Gentleman might say, the Committee could not forget that the original purpose and intent of this legislation, both for England and for Scotland, had been professedly to relieve agriculture; and, although from the point of view of the readjustment of the incidence of taxation this Amendment would appear somewhat out of place, yet the rise and fall in the value of the farms had something to do with the other aspect of the Bill. Therefore, on that ground, he hoped a good many of them would support his hon. Friend. The I Amendment, however, had certain words at the end of it which he could not support, though his hon. Friend told him they were adopted from the English Bill. The truth was that this Amendment was a very reasonable and moderate statement of the arguments that had been used against the proposals in the Bill. From the first what the Opposition had maintained was, that while they sympathised with the depressed condition of agriculture, they sympathised also with all other trades and industries in the country which were depressed, and they thought that it was unfair, at all events, that those other industries and trades which were grievously distressed and had been for the last 10 or 20 years, should be called upon to pay for the relief of this one particular industry of agriculture, and they had argued with regard to the case of Scotland that there had been no such reduction in rents, and no such distress in agriculture as to justify any extraordinary steps being taken. This view, which had been expressed from the Table at considerable length on the Second Beading of the Bill, had been very remarkably strengthened and endorsed by a Blue-book which had been circulated not many days ago, giving elaborate statistics of the history of the expenditure and receipts on certain great estates during the last 30 or 40 years. Those returns bore out exactly what had been said upon this subject. There was no doubt that 30 years ago rents in Scotland were abnormally high, and therefore they ought not to be accepted as the standard for normal rents in the country. Taking rents as they stood at the present time, farms in Scotland could be let easily, and were even competed for when the rents were reduced 20 or 30 per cent. upon those of 30 years ago. That was borne out by the Return to which he had referred. Bents had been steadily reduced for many years, and now they appeared to be settled to a considerable extent. The hon. Member's Amendment proposed that relief should not be given in cases where the rents had not fallen 10 per cent., and he thought that that was a very moderate demand. He thought that there was nothing to be said against the equity, justice, or the reasonableness of such a proposal. The Bill was open to many epithets, but its original object had been the relief of distressed agriculture, and hon. Members on the Opposition side would continue to regard it in that light. Whilst they admitted the great losses which farmers had sustained, and whilst they admired the way in which those losses had been met, they could not help feeling that other sections of the community had suffered equally. The man with capital got less interest for his money than he formerly received for it, and the profits of trade had fallen. The only redeeming fact was that the wages of the workmen had not fallen. ["Hear, hear!"] But with that exception the profits of all trades had fallen equally with those of agriculture. He did not wish to push this point too far—he did not deny that there was distress in agriculture, but he maintained that other trades had suffered to an equal extent. In these circumstances he should support the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that he must protest against the right hon. Gentleman's view as to the sweet reasonableness of this Amendment. He could not see why a farm in a particular parish should not receive relief when the rent had fallen 50 or 60 per cent. merely because the rent of other farms in the same parish had not fallen to such an extent as to effect a reduction of 10 per cent. upon the rents of the whole of the parish. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the assertion of the right hon. Member for Stirling, "that other trades had suffered to an equal extent with agriculture," was erroneous, and asked him to specify any leading industry in Scotland which had done so. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that he entirely concurred with what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling. His difficulty, however, was to appreciate exactly the meaning of the Amendment and its bearing upon the Bill. The proposal contained in the Amendment was that no farm should receive relief unless the rent had fallen 10 per cent. But why should the farmer be refused relief because his rent had been increased instead of reduced? He sympathised with the object of the Amendment, but he thought that it had been drawn in a wrong form. He hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn, and be reintroduced in an amended form on the Report.

said that this point had been fully discussed when the English Bill was in Committee. There could be no doubt that the object of this Bill was to relieve agricultural distress. But were there no other Scotch industries that were depressed? The mining interest of the country had suffered greatly, and by this Bill the burdens upon it would be largely increased. It was clear that the Government did not look on this Bill as one for relieving agriculture. In Ayrshire there had not been the same fall as in the Lothians, because the produce was entirely different, and the distress was not equal in different parts of the country. He supported his hon. Friend on I he ground that those who did not require relief ought not to get it.

suggested that the word "case" should be substituted for "parish."

said he understood the suggestion was that the Amendment should be withdrawn in order that it might be put in the altered form. He did not in that case object to its withdrawal.

objected to the Amendment being put in any but the original form.

said this Amendment was the first which raised the distinction of value. If the Amendment were put in the suggested form he should put the question that the words "in any case where the value of agricultural lands and heritages," be added, so that, if carried, it would not preclude further Amendments.

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

We have already passed words in the clause implying that this relief would be applicable to agricultural land cultivated by the owner. This Amendment applies only to land let on lease, and I wish therefore to know whether it is in order?

I think the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman will require alteration, because it would imply that all lands to which the Bill applies are let on lease. I would suggest that the Amendment should run "during the currency of existing leases of such lands as are subject to lease," so as to show that it is intended to apply only to lands under lease.

said he would move the words suggested by the Chairman. At the end of an existing lease the land would fall, of course, into the hands of the owner; and in any new letting the tenant would not get the benefit of the Act, because the amount of the rent depended upon the amount of the local rate. Where local rates were low the rents were high, and where the local rates were high the rents were low. It was, therefore, perfectly clear that the Amendment should be accepted in order to carry out the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that every effort would be made to prevent the benefit going to the landlord.

said he could not accept the Amendment. It was a fantastic proposal, for it meant that the rating authority would have in every case to consider not only the state of the valuation, but how many years of a lease were unexpired. Another result would be that, in cases were lands were in the occupancy of the owner, the owner would get relief so long as he kept the lands in his own hands, but the moment he let them go he would lose the relief.

thought the right hon. Gentleman had not at all met the point that the relief would go to the landlord at the expiration of a lease. The North British Agriculturist had written that the right policy for the Government to have adopted was to have advocated a reduction of the rents on agricultural land on the ground that agricultural land was paying more than its just share of rating; and to have recognised the indisputable fact that on the expiration of leases the benefit of the reduction would be secured by the landlords in the shape of increased rents. That was evidence as to the necessity of the Amendment from practical authorities on the subject.

said that if the Lord Advocate was honest in his desire that the full relief should go to the tenant—as no doubt he was—he would accept the Amendment.

I have great doubts now whether the Amendment is in order, not on the point which has been already raised, but on another point. The Committee have already decided that this clause is to come into operation on the 15th day of May next after the passing of the Act, and during the continuance of the Act certain things are to happen. The effect of the Amendment would be to limit what the Committee has already decided. There is no proof that existing leases would continue for five years during the whole of the continuance of the Act. Indeed, some existing leases might only run for six months. The Amendment is, therefore, out of order.

said he thought he might be relieved from answering the hon. Member for Mid Lanark in so far as his speech had been a Second Reading speech, because it must be perfectly obvious to the Committee that this clause was the first clause in which the general purpose of the Bill was put into expression, and the general purpose of the Bill was the relief of certain rates. He was not going to argue the propriety of giving the proposed relief under the Act. The only point that might be properly argued on the Amendment, was whether the particular rate specified in the sub-section was a rate that ought to be relieved. He contended that it was. The argument of the hon. Member was reduced to a very narrow compass, for it was to the effect that, because the Unionist Government did not deal with this consolidated rate in 1889, because they did not at that time introduce a compulsory system of classification, therefore they should not do so now. The hon. Member was not quite accurate in telling the Committee that prior to 1889 all the county rates were payable by the owner alone, because he had forgotten the road rate, because it was leviable, half upon the owner and half upon the occupier. The road rate, which was introduced in 1878, was part of the occupier's consolidated rate. The point was whether the consolidated rate should be relieved or not, and the consolidated rate included the road rate. The reason why the Government did not deal with the matter in 1889 was because at that time there had not been this project of rating reform brought forward; and it was certainly a very extraordinary thing to say, that because the Government did not introduce a good reform in 1889 they ought not to do so now. ["Hear, hear!"]

pointed out to the Lord Advocate that there was a great difference between the position of the occupier in the parish and in the county. He had recently read a book which he regretted he had not with him—the Official Guide of the Conservative Party—in which the contention was that, instead of the occupier paying the half in the county he was, as a matter of fact, not; paying more than the third. In the county, therefore, the position was entirely different from the parish where rates were equally divided. He contended that the rates which fell upon agricultural occupiers were very light indeed, except in a few of the more northern counties. He thought that what applied to a parish did not apply to the counties, therefore, in order to do anything like justice, they ought to have an entirely different classification. There was another point to which he wished to refer, and that was that the agricultural occupier was only called upon to pay rates for those particular objects for which he received benefit, such as the road rate. No class received greater benefit from the road rate than the agricultural occupier, and he contended that all that ground also there ought to be an entirely different treatment for the county as compared with the parish. So far as the county was concerned, there was no grievance whatever. For these reasons he should support the Amendment.

said he rose for the purpose of eliciting information, and he was not going to make a Second Reading speech. What he wanted to put to the Lord Advocate was, assuming that the Public Health rate as now classified, was that classification abolished by the Bill as it stood? Was it or was it not abolished by the Bill? Why did it not apply in the case of agricultural lands?

said the answer to that was that the portion of the rate was levied in the same manner as the Public Health rate. Where there was no classification there was no classification. The rate was levied as if there was no valuation. He should say more about this when he came to his Amendment. This did not apply to the Public Health rate, but his hon. Friend, would see that the poor rate was different.

said the reason why the Government proposed to apply the sub-section to the Consolidated rate was the general reason that, as between occupiers and occupier they thought it unjust that agriculturists should be rated at the full amount, and the particular reason that they could see no difference between the Consolidated rate and any of the other rates.

hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment. He thought there was a great deal in what his hon. Friend had urged, but if the Committee went to a division they would be only repeating the decision they had already given on the Motion to omit the sub-section.

said the Amendment had been moved in a very fair spirit, but it was not in accordance with sound principles. There were two principles running side by side in this Bill. [Opposition cheers.] They contended that realty was unduly pressed in comparison with personalty, and where the State made a grant from the Imperial Exchequer, it was right to give it to the person who had borne most of the burden; that was why the grant was given in the way in which it was given. He might remind hon. Members that the proposal was the same in the English Bill. He could not consent to the Amendment.

noticed the ingenious way in which the Lord Advocate admitted that there were two entrances to the burrow. They must bear in mind that they were not at the end, but at the beginning of inquiry. There was a strong reason for expediting inquiry, and that was that the greatest objection to the whole scheme of aiding local rates out of Imperial grants was that it had a tendency to diminish the interest in economy. It destroyed local responsibility to make the locality see that they had the national ratepayer to fall back upon. It would be very hard on those who would have to bear the additional burden. He did not agree with the Lord Advocate, and he hoped his hon. Friend would take a division on the question.

took the same exception to the Clause. The Committee was now dealing with a fixed sum. In the case of England the sum required was to be adapted to the requirements of the case, but when they got a little further on in the discussion they would have to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the distribution of that sum had been so nicely calculated that this Amendment would make no difference as to the way in which the money was to run out. Supposing, however, the rating expenditure of the parish rose in the course of five years, how would that money be met? Was it not desirable to stereotype the amount of the expenditure incurred during the past year in order that the financial effect might be the same? There was obviously a considerable chance of a deficit or a surplus unless it was carefully managed, and therefore the Amendment was a perfectly sound and reasonable one. It was true that a similar arrangement was not accepted in the case of the English Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman could not expect them to be bound by the English Bill, seeing that they voted against this proposal in it. He and his hon. Friends must again support this proposal, that there should not be a varying amount of assessment to be dealt with, but that it should be estimated on a stereotyped figure of the past year.

said that the amount of the Government grant was stereotyped under Section 2, and would not be affected by the amount of the rate. The effect of the distribution of the rate would be the same as in the English Bill, and as between the occupier and one kind of property and the other that was fair.

supported the Amendment, and protested against the clause as it stood. In Lanarkshire and Ayrshire the miners were at present suffering from serious depression in the coal trade, and unless this Amendment was accepted any increase in the rate would simply impose additional burdens on these poor men.

, dealing with the argument that realty paid too much in comparison with personalty, asked to whom realty belonged? It belonged to the owner, and, unless the Government were prepared to say that the rates were borne by the owner, he did not see how the Government could say that the rates were paid by realty. The rates referred to in this clause were the occupiers' rate, and that was a rate paid out of the labour and industry of the agricultural tenant. He understood that the object of the Bill was to relieve agriculture, but he did not understand that the object was to impose increased taxation on occupiers of non-agricultural property. That was what the Bill did, and the Amendment made sure that while giving relief to the agricultural tenant they did not impose an additional burden on the other non-agricultural tenants in the county. Rates were an increasing quantity in every community, and it was not fair that the tenants of dwelling-houses should be compelled to make up for the five-eighths reduction of the agricultural rate.

said that in his constituency, if this Amendment were rejected, the burden of any new rates would have to be borne mainly by poor farm labourers, small shopkeepers, and fishermen. The larger agricultural tenants, who would receive a considerable amount of relief under this Bill, would pay nothing like the same proportion of new rates. It would be very unjust to render it impossible for any increased rate to fall with anything like due incidence upon large agricultural tenants who were capable of paying the burden. He hoped, therefore, the Amendment would be accepted.

hoped that the Lord Advocate would reconsider his decision. It was admitted by the Government that, when there was an increase in rates, that increase would be borne in a larger ratio by the non-agricultural occupier. Whenever a subsidy was given from the Treasury in relief of rates, the rates increased as surely as night followed day. Would it not be wise to accept a moderate amendment of this kind, which would prevent friction in parishes? If the cast-iron rule which the Bill as it stood would establish were adhered to, there would be occasions in nearly all parishes where class would be set against class. In many counties in Scotland there were three classes, the agricultural, the mining, and the fishing. The first of these would of course vote with the greatest alacrity for any increased expenditure, knowing that the burden would be borne by the two other poorer classes. The position of the agriculturists would in fact be that of gamesters playing with loaded dice.

remarked that, if they were to accept this Amendment the Government would not only be modifying the Bill, but abandoning every principle upon which the Bill was based. The hon. and learned Member had pointed out that, if the rates should increase after the Bill had passed, the increase would fall unequally upon different classes of property, and that land would suffer from the increase in a smaller proportion than other kinds of property. That was perfectly true, but it was only the corollary of the system of classification which had been adopted in Scotland for many years.

pointed out that the Amendment referred to the First subsection of the clause, which would chiefly affect county rates, which were not classified.

said that the question of area was irrelevant to the general argument, which was founded upon this, that both in justice, according to the Government's view, and in law, the principle of classification was an admitted principle in Scotland. The Government held, as the law did, that agricultural land ought not to be rated at the same rate as other classes of property; and when the hon. and learned Member stated that to establish this difference of rating was to introduce a principle likely to cause constant friction and heart-burning between different classes of the population, he would point out that the Bill was not responsible for that consequence, if it should be found to exist, but that the existing law of Scotland was responsible. The Government held that the present principle of classification as between land and other classes of property had long been recognised as unjust, and that that injustice ought to be put an end to. They also held that this was a convenient time for putting an end to it, because that could be done now without throwing any additional present burden upon any other class of the community. They held further that the broad principle of classification as between agricultural land and other kinds of property was recognised so completely in the Scotch system of rating and so clearly also in the English system of rating that they were amply justified in making a general rule for the whole country. Holding these views, the Government could not assent to the proposal that the principle which they had adopted should not apply whenever any increment of rating was imposed upon a parish.

said that, so far from classification being completely adopted in Scotland, as the right hon. Gentleman had declared, only about one in five parishes had adopted it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Well they knew their own business best. ["Hear, hear!"] Since the Parish Councils had been adopted what had been the case? If he was not misinformed, about eleven parishes had abolished classification, and some eight or nine had adopted it. Now, in a country where for half a century every parish parochial board had been allowed to adopt classification and only one out of five had adopted it, in a county where since the vote had been free and universal other parishes had abolished classification—he must remark that the right hon. Gentleman was not well informed in saying that classification was completely recognised in Scotland.

illustrated the working of the provision in a parish consisting of, say, 100 agriculturists, 100 villagers, and 100 fishermen. At the present moment the fishermen along the coast of Scotland had to pay road rate from which they practically got no benefit whatever. In this respect the fishing community especially had a great grievance. Under the proposal of the Bill the road rate was to be classified in future; the agricultural tenants were only to pay upon three-eighths of their valuation, and if any increase in the road rate should take place, in this particular parish, where two-thirds of the inhabitants already derived no benefit from the road, they would have to pay more than their full proportion of the increased rate. This was an obvious injustice, for which surely it was the duty of the Government to devise a remedy.

commented on the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that the principle of classification was in law and in fact recognised in Scotland. The principle of classification in so far as it was recognised was a classification of all interests; but the classification which was now advanced was a classification between agricultural land and non-agricultural land only—a totally different thing; and not only so, but any classification now recognised, instead of being perpetuated, as the right hon. Gentleman said, was in great part abolished by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, without intending it, had conveyed a false impression as to the relation between this new classification and the classification with which Scotland was familiar at present.

said that in his own county of Dumfries-shire there were men who would benefit to a certain extent by this Bill, but they were the wealthy men of the county. He had also a large number of his constituents who were quarrymen, miners, and fishermen, poor men who had a hard struggle for existence. Now these poor men would have to pay the rates of the rich farmers; and here was a new and additional burden which was being put upon the poorest class of the community. If a road was built for the benefit of the farmers, the fishermen and the quarriers and the miners would have to pay a considerable proportion of its expense. He could not see why the Government should not accept this Amendment. He would in the circumstances ask the Government to reconsider the matter, seeing that this was only a temporary Measure, and that at the end of five years if they found that the Act did not work well in respect of the point now raised, the Government might set the matter right, if necessary, when a continuation Bill was brought in at the expiration of the present Bill.

said that he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire on this subject. The Amendment had brought to light very strongly the principle that underlay this Bill. If the Government had brought forward a Measure that would have thrown the increased burden of the rates upon those who were able to bear it, he should have been disposed to have supported it, but unfortunately under the present Bill the burden would be thrown upon those who were least able to bear it. Under the old Scotch method the rates were so apportioned that the burden was thrown upon those who were able to bear them, but the Government now appeared to have assumed that the agricultural interest was a poor one, and that all the other interests were wealthy ones. He thought that it was a great pity, that the Government did not reconsider their position in reference to this matter. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that it was undoubted that under this Bill the rates would be considerably increased, and therefore it was most necessary that care should be taken that they should be properly apportioned in the future. A large portion of agricultural land in Scotland was held by rich farmers who occupied from six to 20 farms, and who paid from £2,000 to £4,000 a year rent. It was these people who would be relieved from rates, while the poor fishermen's and quarrymen's villages would have to make good the deficiency. He was glad to see rates increased, because it showed that the locality was being developed, and that greater comfort was being enjoyed. He believed that the rates ultimately came out of the pockets of the landlords, but at the same time it was necessary that the burden should be fairly distributed among the ratepayers.

, in reply to the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that the cost of construction of new roads fell upon owners only, said that under the Local Government Act of 1889, the burden of maintaining the existing roads and constructing new roads, was thrown upon the landowners and occupiers equally.

said he could not accept the Amendment. The three-eighths classification brought very much the relief which was as a rule given in the classified parishes under the old classification, for although the classification varied in certain particulars, they had this in common—that they put agricultural land at the bottom of the list. The three-eighths, moreover, was conditioned by the money they had in their possession to spend under the Bill.

, in supporting the Amendment, said it was extraordinary and unfair treatment of Scotch rating to classify proportions not according to the intrinsic merits of the parts, but because the particular proportion happened to suit the exigencies of the English Bill.

said one-half of the county rate, poor rate, school rate and the rate levied by Parish Councils would be payable by the occupier, but the larger proportion, at least two-thirds and in some counties three-fourths of the rate, would be payable by the owner, and all the occupier would pay would be one-fourth or two-fifths of the rate. In 1889 there was placed on the owner a consolidated rate equal to what the entire rate had been on an average of ten years, and now this consolidated rate was all that was required beyond that. So the owner paid his own consolidated rate, and paid one-half of the new rate. Let the money that would be available be used in the counties where it was required and not in all the counties alike, whether required or not. They desired that this proportion should be limited so that there might be more money for other purposes under the Act.

said he felt somewhat embarrassed by the double barrelled character of the Bill as explained by the Lord Advocate. It was all very well to contend at one moment that the Bill really aimed at readjustment of the rates, and at another that its motive was the relief of agricultural distress. With regard to the former contention he would simply say, with deference, that if the Bill was intended to effect a readjustment of the rates as between realty and personalty such a reform should not be sought by way of subsidy from the Imperial Treasury. The Lord Advocate proposed to allocate the sum of £192,500 to the relief of agricultural distress. If the Amendment were carried, £38,500 of that sum would be released, and might be devoted to some other purpose. As an inducement to the Lord Advocate to accept this Amendment he would like to point out that it was not necessary to deprive agriculturists of this sum at all. So far from that being the case, it would place at his disposal something like an effective sum for the alleviation of the congested districts in the Highlands. The Lord Advocate, in his Second-Reading speech, in substance, told the House that the gift of £15,000 to the crofters in the Highlands was so inadequate that it was proposed to appropriate it merely as a sort of a nucleus of a fund which was some time or other to mature, and come into operation when the Government had created the authority by whom it was to be administered, and had made up their minds as to the purpose to which it was to be applied. If the Lord Advocate really meant to do any good to the crofters in the Highlands he ought to be glad that this opportunity had been afforded him of swelling the sum of £15,000, and of so increasing it as to make it, at least approximately, adequate to the purpose for which it was intended. If they were going to endeavour to do as much for the agriculturists of Scotland as had been done for the agriculturists of England, then this Amendment ought to be accepted, for, as far as there could be given to the agricultural occupier in Scotland any equivalent to the gift to his rival in England, it would be found in the limitation of his relief to half the rate that was now payable by him. Another reason which ought to operate in favour of the acceptance of the Amendment was the much greater ease in calculating the changes in the rates which the Amendment would insure as compared with the complicated calculations rendered inevitable by the proposal of the Government.

said that undoubtedly the low-priced land had suffered most, and yet the cost of labour and of fertilisers was not much less than it was on dearer land. For example, land that was worth only 10s. an acre required very nearly as large an expenditure on it as land worth £2 an acre. Then again, this cheaper land was generally furthest away from the populous centres, and this Bill did not take sufficient cognisance of the fact, that while the price of agricultural produce had gone down, the rates for bringing that produce to markets had not gone down. This was shown by the fact, that if one had invested say, £100,000 in railway shares 15 or 16 years ago, and had also invested £100,000 in land at the same time, while the £100,000 in land would have been worth now, only £60,000 or £70,000, the £100,000 in railway shares would have been worth double that amount.

reminded the hon. Member that he was now discussing an Amendment standing in his name which might never be reached. The question he had put from the Chair was that three-eighths stand part of the clause.

said he was endeavouring to show that this low-priced land had suffered most, and that they should have a graduated scale of relief for that reason. He thought he had put before the Committee a fair statement of the case.

said the object of his Amendment, and the three subsequent Amendments which stood in his name, was simply to give practical shape to his recommendation on the Second reading to double the amount which the Lord Advocate proposed to apply specially for the Highlands and Islands. The total agricultural occupiers' rate in Scotland was £308,000. Of that it was proposed to relieve the occupier by five-eighths, equal to £192,000—he was speaking in round figures—still leaving to the occupier £115,000. If the Amendment he had put down were accepted, the grant in aid would be reduced to £173,000, and £19,000 would be left to be added to the £15,000 which had been set aside for the Highlands and Islands. He was quite sure that the farmers who were occupiers of agricultural land, and who were going to be relieved to this very large amount of five-eighths should be quite willing that this sum of £19,000 should be added to the £15,000 already proposed to be appropriated to the Highlands and Islands. The Highlands and Islands were suffering from the agricultural depression to a much greater extent than the lowlands, and even than some of the worst districts in England, as might be proved by the comparatively large decrease in population. £15,000 was therefore a small sum for the various purposes to which it was to be applied in the Highlands, and it would be a paltry sum to administer. If the sum was increased to £34,000, it would be a reasonable amount, and much really practical work might be done with it to develop and benefit this part of Scotland. ["Hear, hear!"] Several hon. Members had suggested various sums, ranging from £20,000 up to even £200,000, and he thought the amount of £34,000 which he suggested would be a fair compromise. While he wished to pay the Lord Advocate a high tribute for the skill and ability he had shown in framing the Bill, and to thank him for introducing into it the beneficent principle that the prosperous parts of the country should assist the poorer and weaker parts, he regretted that he had not had the courage to apply the principle a little further and give them more than the bare £15,000. Seeing the general acceptance the principle had received in the House, he thought the Lord Advocate might have made the grant to the Highlands and Islands £30,000 at least. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give this matter further consideration, and by increasing the grant even still further improve an excellent and useful Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the effect of the action of the Government by stereotyping the rate over an average of ten years had been to put a new rate, and a heavy rate, too, on the occupier which was formerly an owner's rate, and which they now placed under the consolidated rate in this case. He asked upon what principle the Government proposed to give such a large amount of money to the agriculturist in Scotland, and to apply so little comparatively to other purposes. In England the agricultural tenant paid all the rates, and the Government were going to relieve him to the extent of one-half. But in Scotland no occupier paid more than one-half, the other half being paid by the landlord, so that by this Bill the Scotch tenant would be placed in a more favourable position in this respect than the English tenant. This Amendment provided that the agricultural tenant was only to pay half the occupier's half of the rate; that was to say, the tenant would pay one-fourth of the total rate. He would, therefore, pay one-half of what the Government thought the English tenant ought to pay. The Amendment treated the Scotch agricultural tenant in the most liberal manner, and the effect of it would be that money would be left at the disposal of the Government to be devoted to other and more necessary purposes.

thought that, after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, the Lord Advocate might very well reconsider his position in this matter. There was a considerable grievance between the northern and southern counties, and that grievance would, to some extent, be redressed by the adoption of the Amendment. As the Bill now stood, the bulk of the relief in the Highlands would go into the pockets of a few pluralist farmers, while the small agricultural occupier would not get more than two or three shillings per annum. He earnestly appealed to the Lord Advocate to modify the present arrangement.

said he did not complain of the temperate way in which his hon. Friend had stated his case, but it only served to accentuate the difference between the Government and the Opposition on this Bill. The view of the Government was that this Bill in no sense inaugurated a system of national poor rate. By the Bill they were putting agricultural land in its proper place in respect of local rating. The effect of that was to make a hole in the local Exchequer, and this hole was being filled up by a contribution which was partially owing by personalty to realty. By the principle of the Bill as it stood there was no reason to make any distinction between the poor rate and the other rates paid by occupiers. In respect of this rate, as well as the other rates, agricultural land ought not to be rated on the full value, but it ought to take its classified position, which was the effect of the Bill.

said that the right hon. Gentleman had passed over the real gist of the argument, and it was that subventions from the Treasury in general relief of rates were very demoralising and led to extravagance. Up to 1891–2 there might be said to have been no general relief of poor rate in Scotland; but in 1892–3, for the first time, £50,000 a year was given in general relief of rates to the parochial boards, and that grant had been continued since Between 1879 and 1891 the expenditure on Scottish poor law was as near as possible £840,000 a year. It scarcely varied from year to year, but, when relief was given, it rose the first year, and two years afterwards it rose again, by £25,000 to £894,000. The effect of that £50,000 given every year to the Scotch Boor Bate, had been that the expenditure of the poor had increased by £50,000, beginning from the year 1877. By this Bill a still larger grant was to be given in a still more demoralising manner. He was quite certain that, looking to the general interest of the community, and still more to the interest of individual holders of house property, the effect, so far from being a relief, would prove an additional burden.

said he contended that more harm was done by the adoption of a principle temporarily as a means of relief than by its permanent adoption. He should not have been so apprehensive if the Lord Advocate had come forward with arguments in favour of a national poor rate. What excited apprehension now was that this principle was introduced by a side wind for another purpose, in a manner which was calculated to make Parliament forget the dangerous nature of the course on which it was asked to embark. Of all the kinds of expenditure to which it was dangerous to give subventions, and from which it was dangerous to remove the security of local economy, the expenditure on the poor rate was the most dangerous. He regarded with great apprehension the proposal to remove by this Bill the security to which local administration surrounded the expenditure on the poor. There could be no doubt that when any Government proposed hereafter to give larger subventions for this purpose, this instance would be cited as a precedent, and the House would here, without any deliberate purpose, have opened the door to a very large and dangerous deflection from its ordinary course.

said the point which his hon. Friend had raised was not one which the Government ought to pass over lightly. The Bill was for the relief of agricultural distress, but they ought to be careful lest they interfered with a principle well established which had worked satisfactorily, and on which it was not desirable to infringe without careful consideration. The poor law had larger latitude in Scotland than in England. It was true that an able-bodied man had no right of relief from the poor rate, but in the case of the aged and infirm the law of Scotland was different from the law of England. It was open to the Parish Councils, who now stood in the place of the old parochial boards, to administer the poor rate with a latitude and freedom unknown to the law of England. In Scotland you could give relief in a form which practically amounted to the grant of an old age pension to the aged and infirm. It was being done by Parish Councils in his own experience, and he believed satisfactorily. But it was a large problem to intrust to these Parish Councils the power of administering rates so freely that they might grant outdoor relief to the aged and infirm without check or restraint of law such as existed in England. What had worked satisfactorily so far was the feeling that funds were raised in the locality. But, without consideration of the difference they were making, they were interfering with the check on local responsibility, and handing over to these bodies considerable sums of money which would be applied without any sense of the necessity of raising them or contributing to them, to be administered by the Parish Councils in a fashion wholly unfamiliar to Members for English constituencies. He should have thought it desirable to keep the poor rate in Scotland intact and exempt from the operation of the Bill. He wished to have local responsibility intact, and bring home to the people who made large grants a sense of the responsibility they owed to their constituents who had to bear the burden of the rates. If they did not preserve that state of things he would not say that they would have extravagance, but a lessening of local restraint and responsibility without due realisation on the part of the committee of what a large infraction they were making on a principle well established in Scotland.

did not think the hon. Gentleman had really shown any practical difference between this and the First sub-section, and if he were to make a reply to this Amendment he should simply have to repeat the arguments he had already advanced in reply to proposals that had been made on the previous sub-section. He would only say that the matter of the amount of relief had been carefully considered, and the sum fixed was that which would afford the greatest amount of benefit to those whom it was desired to serve.

observed that the rates indicated in this sub-section were different to those referred to in the previous sub-section. The latter rates were levied according to the annual value, but in the case of the rates dealt with in the present sub-section they had classification for one thing, and deductions which were allowed in the case of the poor rate and the school rate, which were not covered in the other rates. The rates in this sub-section, the poor rate, the school rate, and the other parish rates—were certainly very much heavier than the rates dealt with in the First sub-section, and therefore it was more important that they should have consideration shown to them than it was in the case of the others. The effect of reducing the grant to one half, which was the Amendment, would undoubtedly be to give a less reduction to the agricultural tenant than the Bill proposed; but, on the other hand, a larger sum would be released which could be devoted to other purposes. Anyone acquainted with the law of rating in Scotland knew it had been a matter of repeated complaint that there existed parishes where there was an inordinate amount of poor rate and school rate, especially in the case of parishes in the north which were the very poorest. In the case of the wealthier parishes, where the valuation was very high, the rate was low, and they might have a poor rate of sixpence in the pound; but in a parish like Ross, in the Highlands, where the valuation was low, there might be a poor rate of seven shillings in the pound. If they had a little money ought they not, obviously, to take advantage of the opportunity of applying it to equalise an excessive rate which did not arise from local mismanagement at all, but because the valuation of the parishes concerned was so low, compared with the population, that it was impossible to provide the poor rate and school rate except at an enormous expense? When they had undoubted poverty, and rates were so notoriously different in the case of poor crofting parishes in the Highlands compared with the rest of the country, he thought it was a great pity, when they had this money available, that they did not apply it for the purpose in some way of redressing what had always been found to be an inordinate burden. It was evident the Government were determined to accept no Amendments and to consider nothing that was advanced from that side of the House.

said Sub section (1) applied to the whole county, but Sub-section (2) applied only to certain parishes in that county. Ross-shire had been mentioned. Sub-section (1) would not affect Ross-shire very much, but to both Ross-shire and Caithness Subsection (2) would be a very important matter. In Ross-shire there were some parishes where the rates were 10s. in the pound. In the same county there were parishes where the Poor Rate was only 2d. or 3d. Why should they not have some limitations—say 6d. or 1s.—and why should they not give this money only to parishes paying more than 6d. or 1s.? They would then have a much larger sum to give to parishes where there was a congested population. There the rates were very high. The average School Board Rate was 2s. 6d., and the average Poor Rate 3s. 4d.; whereas in the eastern portion of the same county the rates were merely nominal. All they now asked for was some differentiation between those parishes where the rates were high and those where the rates were low. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to get the Bill through, he could assure him that by differentiating between the parishes as he had been suggesting, and then distributing the money where it was most wanted, he would find it an easier means of getting the Bill through. He hoped the Government would consider the matter, and not stick to a cast iron rule, giving to all alike, but would so distribute the grant that the money would be given where it was most needed.

said that before the Debate closed, they were entitled to some further explanation than had already been given with regard to this Amendment. One or two points of importance had been raised on the Amendment. The first was, that if this was a Bill, as the Government had said, dealing with the reform of the rating as well as with the relief of agricultural depression, how was it that the Government took no notice of the variation of rates in different parishes? As the Bill now stood, the parish where the rates were only 6d. in the pound would receive just as much as the parish where the rates were as high as 7s. 6d. The next point raised was the contention of the Government that this Bill followed on the lines of the English Bill. If it was so, surely the same amount of relief should be granted to both countries; whereas, five-eighths was the proportion of relief given to Scotland and only one-half was given to England.

did not think the point raised was germane to the present Amendment, but still he was ready to say that obviously the parishes which paid the most would get the most.

said it was not correct to say that the relief would be the same in the parish which had a low rate as the parish which had a high rate. For instance a parish with a 6d. rate would be left with only 3d. in the pound to pay, while a parish with a 7s. rate would still have 3s. 6d. in the pound to pay.

hoped the Lord Advocate would see his way to accept the Amendment, on the ground that the acceptance of the Amendment would enable the right hon. Gentleman to deal a little more generously with the crofters.

appealed to the Leader of the House at this stage to consent to report Progress, in order that the Committee might apply themselves with fresh minds to important new matter which would be raised by an Amendment in the name of the Lord Advocate.

said he had hoped, and still thought, that it would be possible for the Committee to finish the Bill to-night and to-morrow. ["Hear, hear!"] But he quite admitted, if the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was followed, and if there was to be a lengthened discussion on the Amendment referred to, without putting a great, if not an undue strain on hon. Members, to ask them to finish the Bill on Tuesday. He, on his part, was ready to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman if it were a distinct Parliamentary understanding that the Committee stage should close on Wednesday afternoon. He hoped the discussion would continue in the same friendly spirit which had marked the proceedings to-night. If he understood that the present stage should close at the time he indicated he should be glad to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman.

thought the right hon. Gentleman might count upon that understanding so far as the Opposition side of the House were concerned.