quisite number of Members as compared | proposed, not on that occasion, but pubwith other counties. Now, I must point licly and in the Committee Room of the out to him that, as far as regards the non- House, to take from Stirlingshire, as a burghal part of Ayrshire, it has a popu- shire, all the small populous places in lation of something over 161,000, and it, and re-group them with a few larger for that it has two Members; while Fife- burghs. But, finding that the arrangeshire, with a population of 101,000, has ment would not be entirely satisfactory, only one Member. In the allocation of he also proposed to add to that group a the new Members what has been done populous place of his own district. And is strictly to follow the state of popula- not that only, for it would not be suffition, taking the largest first, and then cient to make the hon. Member secure ; coming downwards. If my hon. Friend and accordingly he proposed to take out had studied the statistics he would have of Dumbartonshire many of the popuseen that regard has been had to the lous villages of that county, and add subject of population. However, I will them to a new group of burghs. His not pursue the argument on this matter hon. Friend had told the Committee now, because when the Schedules come that Dumbartonshire was one of the to be considered any proposals made by most rapidly-increasing counties in Scotthe hon. Member will receive ample land, so far as population was concerned, consideration; but the Government do and in that statement his hon. Friend not see that there is any necessity, either was not far from the truth. But the in the nature of the thing or in any Dumbartonshire which he would leave prevalent or general desire in Scotland was not that part of the county which for the extension of this system, that was rapidly increasing in population. would make it proper for them to pro- The part which was increasing in popupose such an extension. lation was that composed of small vil| lages, which the hon. Member would take out of the county altogether and group with the burghs. He had risen chiefly to say that the electors of Stirlingshire were perfectly satisfied with the present arrangement, and that nothing could be more unpopular, not only in Stirlingshire, but throughout Scotland, than the adoption of the principle which the hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple) had proposed. He believed that if the Scotch Members were polled, they would, with one or two exceptions, vote against the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. He would also like to say that the announcement made that day by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that the door was still open for reconsideration of the question whether places or burghs, not now grouped in Scotland, should be added to existing groups would cause considerable consternation; and he could not but regret that a statement so distinctly made had not been as distinctly withdrawn. For the explanation, it appeared to him, left the question in such doubt that it would very much unsettle men's minds in Scotland with respect to this Bill. MR. BOLTON said, that the two hon. Members opposite appeared to speak of Stirlingshire as if with some knowledge. He claimed to have more knowledge of Stirlingshire than either of those hon. Gentlemen; and he said, without fear of contradiction, that the constituency or the electors in Stirlingshire were perfectly satisfied with the proposal of the Government, which was to leave Stirlingshire as it stood in the Bill. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr Ewing) took a paternal interest in the affairs of Stirlingshire. [Mr. ORR EWING: I live there.] He was aware of that, and it was very natural that he should take that paternal interest. But the hon. Member would eliminate from Stirlingshire all the small populous places. [Mr. ORR EWING: I did not say that.] If he had not said so that day he had on many occasions previously and publicly. But he wanted not only to do that, for, by a re-arrangement of Stirlingshire, he proposed to relieve his own constituency of Dumbartonshire. [Mr. ORR EWING: I have not proposed that.] Now, he thought it was very desirable that the real object of hon. Gentlemen opposite, in proposing a re-arrangement or re-grouping of the burghs, should be well and thoroughly known. That object was nothing else than jerrymandering; and the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire MR. PRESTON BRUCE said, with reference to what had been said about the over-representation of Fifeshire, he would content himself by saying that the constituencies in that county had [Third Night.] been treated on the same principles | to introduce large schemes of re-groupas had been applied to all the other ing, such as had been anticipated by hon. constituencies in the country. He re- Gentlemen opposite. He repeated his gretted that the right hon. Gentleman satisfaction with the declaration made the President of the Local Government by the Government, and would ask leave Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) should to withdraw his Amendment. have used words capable of being construed into an invitation for proposals to create new Parliamentary burghs. Not only was that totally inconsistent with what were understood to be the views of the Government, but they had it on record that the Lord Ad vocate himself considered any proposals of the kind inadmissible. A letter, read, he had no doubt, by all Scotch Members, had been published in the newspapers addressed to some Association in Dumbartonshire, and written by the Secretary to the Lord Advocate and by his directions, stating that, in the Lord Advocate's belief, the creation of new burghs, either to form new groups or to be added to existing groups, was outside the scope of the measure. Therefore, this subject of grouping had been discussed in Scotland on that basis, and the assumption had been that new burghs would not be created; that declaration of the Lord Advocate being taken as conclusive, so far as this matter was concerned. He felt certain that the Government could Question put, and negatived. MR. WARTON said, he gave the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) credit for perfect accuracy based upon the fullest knowledge in this matter; but he would ask him whether he was satisfied that the list in the second part of the first Schedule comprised all the counties of cities and towns in England? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am satisfied that it is so. Clause agreed to. Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow. QUESTIONS. PARLIAMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. MR. R. N. FOWLER said, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state what would be the Business taken to-morrow? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): We take to not intend to throw over their own official, the Lord Advocate, and tomorrow, first, the remainder of the raise a question of this kind, when it and then the Vote on Account. If there Supplementary Civil Service Estimates, was far too late to consider properly should be any time afterwards, we shall what new Parliamentary burghs should be created, and the forming of which go on with the Parliamentary Elections would entirely upset the present ar(Redistribution) Bill. rangement. CENTRAL ASIA-RUSSIA AND MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR said, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there was any truth in a telegram which had just been received in regard to a further advance of Russian troops in Afghanistan? MR. DALRYMPLE said, that, after the discussion which had taken place, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment. He was not aware that at that time of day anyone proposed to produce fresh schemes of grouping in Scotland. He spoke for himself only when he said he was satisfied at the time with the answer obtained from the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who had charge of the Bill, and he still remained satisfied, although they had had a somewhat different version of that answer from the Lord Advocate. He thought there was some satisfaction in LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS hearing that the subject was still open for discussion on the Schedules; and he could only say it was not his intention Mr. Preston Bruce THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I have no information since 3 o'clock to-day. MOTIONS. (BOLTON, &c.) bill. On Motion of Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Boroughs of Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 91.] INLAND REVENUE-INCOME TAX (IRELAND).-QUESTION. LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE asked Her Majesty's Government, Why (in Ireland), in calculating liability for income tax payable under Schedule B., it is, in lands let to tenants, calculated on rent actually paid, while on lands farmed by the owner it is calculated on ordnance value, when the owner can show from previous lettings that the letting value of such lands is considerably higher than the ordnance value? LORD SUDELEY, in reply, said, that the Income Tax under both Schedule A and Schedule B in Ireland was calculated upon the Poor Law valuation, known also as Griffith's, and called by the noble Lord "ordnance." The landowner was supposed to receive as rent the amount of the valuation, and he was taxed on that. The occupier was supposed to make as profit, in addition to the rent, one-third of that amount, and he was taxed on that-i.e., nominally on the whole valuation at onethird of the general rate of the tax. VOL. CCXCV. [THIRD SERIES.] These amounts were maxima, which could not be increased, and which were only reduced by way of remission in special cases. When land was in hand the landlord paid under both Schedules (A and B) on figures calculated as thus explained. If, at the end of the year, he considered that his profit as occupier was less than the amount so calculated, he could appeal; and if he could put in figures to prove his case, the overcharge, under Schedule B, was repaid to him. In such figures on appealand this was the point to which the noble Lord was supposed to refer the rent theoretically payable by him as occupier to himself as owner was put at the amount of the Poor Law valuation. This was obviously just, because that was the amount on which he was taxed as owner under Schedule A. If a larger allowance were made on the one side he ought, in equity, to pay the tax for a larger receipt on the other. Where the owner did not farm his own land, and actual rent paid was a fact which apthe occupier applied for a remission, the peared in the accounts, and if it was larger than the valuation it was possible he might get a remission where the owner would not, if the land were in hand. But this was no hardship to the latter; in fact, it was the contrary, because he got a higher rent than the amount on which he was taxed. short, the owner who had land in hand paid no more than was just and lawful, while on let land the occupier paid as much as could be properly claimed from him. Rents in all parts of Ireland except Ulster being even now sensibly, often considerably, in excess of the Poor Law valuation, landlords there habitually paid Income Tax on less than they received, and provision was made that in no case should they pay it on more than they received. In have an opportunity of becoming acquainted | marked changes had been made. Inwith its provisions?" stead of time being given the Bill had been rushed through. More time to consider it and the republication of the Bill in the vernacular were all that was asked for. But the Viceroy had to meet and he was glad of it-the Ameer of Afghanistan on the 27th, and it was held that this Bill had to pass before the departure of the Viceroy. He could not but think that this matter had been followed up and pressed with unduethat was, unwise-haste. But the Bill would not become law until it received the sanction of the Secretary of State; and what he asked was, that the noble Lord would not give his assent to this Bill until there was a full opportunity of ascertaining what was the opinion of the public with regard to it both in India and in England. LORD ELLENBOROUGH also complained that sufficient time had not been given for the consideration of the measure in its altered state. It should be remembered that the means of circulating information in India were not so good as in England. It seemed as if the Bill had been hurried through in order that the Viceroy might hurry off to the North-West Provinces to meet the Ameer of Afghanistan. said, that he found that he stood somewhat in the position of the man who locked his stable door after his steed was stolen, because he had read in The Times of that morning a telegram to the effect that the Bill had been passed with little alteration, and that, though 250 zemindars and other proprietors of land protested against the measure, and the Viceroy received a deputation, he refused to delay the passing of the Bill. Thereupon the zemindars held a meeting and contributed a large sum of money to continue the agitation against the Bill. That showed a reason for bringing on the question two days ago. It appeared that the Under Secretary for India said in "another place" on Tuesday that there, had been no haste; but the announcement to-day came upon those interested in the matter by surprise, and he trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would permit him to say a few words with regard to this measure, so as to explain the nature of the Question he was about to put to Her Majesty's Government in reference to it. In his view this Bengal Tenancy Bill was intended practically to extend to India the principles of the Irish Land Act. That was a fact. The history of this Bill was a somewhat curious one. A Bill on the subject was introduced in 1877 to enable the zemindars to collect their rents, such as was introduced into Parliament to enable Irish landlords, as it was stated ad nauseam, to collect their rents. But in 1883 another Bill appeared of a totally different charactera purely Irish Bill, having in it the principle of the three F's-namely, fixity of tenure, free sale, fair rent, as well as compensation for disturbance, and other points of similarity to the Irish Land Bill. In 1883-4 this Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and after various procedure, the Select Committee, composed of 11 Members, agreed to their Report by only three of a majority. The Report recommended various unfounded. Bill already twice translated into changes, and the Bill was not published or printed with these changes made in it till the 13th February. The object of himself and all those for whom he spoke was that some time should have been given-for it was now a matter that was past-for the consideration of the amended Bill, in which great and The Earl of Wemyss THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, that before he went into the details, he thought it would be better for him to read copies of the telegrams which had passed between himself and the Viceroy since the discussion of Tuesday evening in the other House of Parliament. On that evening he telegraphed to the Viceroy as follows:— "From Secretary of State, 10th March, 1885. "Statement telegraphed by Durbhunga made in Parliament that you are pressing through Rent Bill without giving time for translation into vernacular; reason given that you must go to Simla. What shall I reply?" He received the following reply: "From the Viceroy, dated and received 11th March, 1885. "Your telegram 10th. Statement absolutely vernacular. Select Committee held 64 meetings. Of these, 28 held in Calcutta within last few months, Maharajah attended only seven. Com. mittee consisted of 11 members, of whom only two go to Simla, and decided vernacular republication unnecessary because almost all alterations were excisions favourable to zemindars night elapsed before considered by Legislative and not new clauses. After Bill reported fortCouncil. First motion in Council was for sus pension by zemindar representative, which was Tost by majority of 18 to 2. Two native members who do not go to Simla had voted before members of Executive Council were called upon to vote. Members representing ryots' interests voted in majority. Bill passed to-day without division, after seven days' debate." matter to a Select Committee. On February 12, 1855, the Select Committee reported, stating that the measure was not so altered as to require to be republished, and recommending that it should be passed as amended. THE EARL OF WEMYSS: How many said that. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, that he did not know, as he had not the numbers. The Select Committee consisted of six official and five non-official members, three Natives, and eight Europeans. The Government of India followed their recommendations. The important question was whether it was desirable to delay this legislation any further, and whether the alterations were of such a nature as to render it absolutely necessary there should be such delay. As he was informed, the alterations were not of a very serious or substantial character, and were, at all events, principally in the interests of the zemindars, who now came forward and complained of undue haste. So far as he could judge, the Government of India had acted perfectly right in not postponing this legislation for another Session, as the matter was pressing and had been under consideration a number of years. Information had reached him from India to the effect that the zemindars considered the legislation extremely unfair as regarded them, and that the ryots also looked upon the legislation as unfair towards them. Therefore, he thought, there was a strong presumption that the whole question had been treated in a fair and impartial manner. The noble Earl had spoken of the Bill as an attempt to introduce the three F's into India. He thought it was clear, from this, that not only had there not been haste in the passing of the Bill, but that the matter had received an extraordinary amount of deliberation and discussion. In 1877 there was a Bill introduced. That Bill was directed to giving more facilities for the recovery of rents; but it was considered it was impossible to deal with one branch of the subject only. The result was that it was thought desirable by the Viceroy of that time-not his noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon) that there should be an inquiry into the whole subject of Bengal tenancy. In 1880 the Commission reported, their Report occupying about 500 pages. A Bill was brought forward in 1881. In March, 1882, the Indian Government sent home the Report of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, and the Report of a Commission founded upon it. On August 17, the matter was considered by the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington), and a despatch sent, stating the opinion of the Secretary of State in Council that the necessity for legislation had been established, and going into the matter, as would be seen from the Papers which would shortly be presented to Parliament. After the receipt of his noble Friend's despatch, the Bill was printed by the Legislative Department of the Government of India, and, in conformity with the views of Lord Hartington, a Bill was introduced into the Legislative Council on March 12, 1883, and referred to a Select Committee on the 13th, being then published in English and three vernacular languages. The Bill was then fully exa-jesty's Government. mined and criticized. An amended Bill THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, the was prepared, which was published in the early part of 1884. The Select Committee having expressed a wish for further information, reports, opinions, and criticisms were obtained from a vast number of officials and other persons and published. With all these criticisms before them, he should have thought it might be imagined that the subject was ripe for some decision, some legislation. Upon the consideration of all this evidence, the Bengal Government again referred the THE EARL OF WEMYSS observed, that he only said that it proceeded on the lines of the Irish legislation of Her Ma Bill was prepared by gentlemen versed in Indian affairs, but who had nothing to do with Ireland. The Government had acted in the matter entirely upon Indian principles, and in accordance with Indian precedents. If the Indian legislation had any resemblance to Irish legislation it was merely a coincidence, as it was never intended to apply the same principles in countries so utterly dissimilar. The interference in India by the Courts between the zemindars and |