Commons Sitting of 29 April 1890

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
QUESTIONS.

  THE VOLUNTEER REVIEW AT FOLKESTONE.
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary for War if he has informed himself of the reasons why regular troops were kept in barracks, and not allowed to take part in the recent operations by the Volunteers at and near Folkestone?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I think I cannot do better than read the explanation which the general officer commanding at Dover has furnished. He says—
  "The original programme that the Volunteer marching column was to come to Dover (in which case manoeuvring ground for them and the Dover and Shorncliffe garrisons would have been provided by the town) was altered by the Volunteers electing to go to Folkestone. The officer commanding the Volunteers then
  1634
  went to Folkestone and made private arrangements for ground for his force to manœuvre on on Saturday and Easter Monday. This precluded the presence of Regulars, the ground found by Folkestone being only for the small force under the officer commanding Scots Guards, and this was clearly understood at a previous meeting in the presence of His Royal Highnessthe Commander-in-Chief. As, however, Colonel Hozier's Volunteer Artillery were not prepared to march to Folkestone from Dover, I decided on placing a battery of Field Artillery at Colonel Stracey's disposal to take their place, and sent a troop of Hussars to assist him in keeping the ground."

  THE LATE GENERAL SIR W. JONES.
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary for War whether he has further inquired as to the refusal of a military funeral (as desired by that distinguished General) to the remains of General Jones, G.C.B., and what further information is to be imparted to the House; and if the statements in the Times are correct, what apology or reparation is to be offered to the General's friends and comrades in arms? I also wish to know whether the attention of the hon. Gentleman has been directed to a letter from Mrs. Griffiths, a sister of the late General Jones, in which she states that all the arrangements for the funeral were made on the understanding that it was to be a military funeral, and that the countermand only came the night before the funeral was to take place?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Secretary of State for War has already explained that the Regulations did not admit of a military funeral for the remains of the late Sir William Jones, and if the inadvertent promise of one by the Local Authorities before they had consulted Headquarters has been the cause of pain or annoyance to the family of the deceased officer, I can only say that no one can regret it more than the Staff in Dublin and those in authority at the War Office.

  INDIA—EXPENDITURE IN GWALIOR.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has yet received any information from the Government of India respecting the question asked on 8th April of last year, respecting the number of highly-paid officials in Gwalior, and the desire of the Regency that they should be dis-

  1635
  missed; whether he is aware that the sum of 20 lakhs per annum is being expended on the maintenance of the so-called Public Works Department at Gwalior; whether all buildings and main and feeder roads of any value have been completed; whether there has been any effective audit or checking of the accounts of the Department during the past three years, when nearly a crore of rupees has been expended; and whether, in regard to this State, the Ruler of which is still a minor, the Government of India will use its influence to prevent the continuance of this expenditure.
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): In reply to the first question of the hon. Member, I have to say that the hon. Member himself asked on the 8th of April, 1889, whether the Secretary of State was aware that Mr. Henvay, the Agent of the Governor General, on the 5th of March met the Maharajah of Gwalior, and, in deference to the wishes of His Highness and of the Council of Regency, arranged that a number of the highly-paid foreign officials should leave Gwalior. The Secretary of State was informed by the Government of India on the 28th of June, 1889, that there was no foundation for the statement made, and that during Mr. Henvay's visit to Gwalior no reference was made by the Maharajah, by the Mahareni Regent, or any of the members of the Council of Regency, to the employment of highly-paid foreign officials. The answer to the second paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The expenditure on public works is about 20 laks per annum. The answer to the third question is in the negative. All the works of value have not been completed. The answer to the fourth paragraph is that the Secretary of State has no information as to the audit of the accounts of the Gwalior State. The answer to the fifth paragraph is that the Government of India will use its efforts in the State of Gwalior, as in every other Native State in India, to discourage expenditure which is not for the benefit of the people.

  THE CRAWFORD CASE AND THE MAMLATDARS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India
  1636
  whether the Secretary of State is aware that, in addition to the documents given in the recent Return, East India (Crawford Case), there have been Notes, Memorials, Opinions, and Reports to the Bombay Government and to the Government of India respectively, from various high officials, relating to the pledge given to the incriminated Mamlatdars, to induce them to give evidence; and, if so, whether he can state their tenor and effect; and whether he will lay such further documents upon the Table of this House?
  SIR J. GORST: In the Papers already presented to Parliament the Government of India gives an account of these Memorials, their tenor and effect and its reason for not forwarding them to the Secretary of State. As the Secretary of State has not received the documents he cannot lay them on the Table. He considers the reasons given by the Government of India for not forwarding them satisfactory.

  THE CHIN-LUSHAI EXPEDITION.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I wish to put a question to the Under Secretary of State for India of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether the information now received from the Government of India as to the sickness enables him to correct the answer which he gave to a question addressed to him on the 24th of February, that the accounts of the sickness prevailing in the Expedition had been greatly exaggerated.
  SIR J. GORST: No, Sir; I am not able to say that more recent information has produced in the mind of the Secretary of State that alteration of opinion which the hon. Member appears to expect.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Does not the information which the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to furnish me with, show that in the months of December, January, and February a very large number of British officers and British troops were sick? Take, for example, the 21st of December, when 50 men of the Scottish Borderers were sick and 13 out of 49 officers. Under those circumstances, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that my question fairly represented the state of health of the troops at the time I put the question?
  SIR J. GORST: The hon. Member is now asking me for my opinion; but I must leave that subordinate to the opinion of the Secretary of State.

  THE BRISTOL PILOTS.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Bristol Pilotage Authority have raised any objection to the application made to the Board of Trade by the Bristol pilots for a Provisional Order under "The Merchant Shipping Act (Pilotage) Act, 1889,"making provision for the direct representation of the pilots on the Pilotage Committee of the Authority; and, if so, on what grounds?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The Bristol Pilotage Authority, to whom the general application of the Bristol pilots for a Provisional Order was, in pursuance of the Act, referred, have replied generally that the application of the pilots seems to point to the constitution of a new Pilotage Authority, upon which the pilots, and, if it seems expedient, shipowners also may have direct representation; and that if the Provisional Order to exempt vessels from being obliged to employ pilots in a part of the Bristol pilotage district for which the Corporation have applied becomes law, the Corporation would not object to the establishment of a new Pilotage Authority, provided the interests of the city are sufficiently represented thereon, and that provision is made for the expenses of such Authority from some other source than the Borough Fund, from which all the expenses of the present Authority are paid. The Draft Provisional Order in which the specific proposals of the pilots are embodied has, however, been only very recently received from them, and sufficient time has not yet elapsed to obtain the definite observations or objections of the Pilotage Authority thereon.

  THE QUEEN'S STUD.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Minister of Agriculture why none of the Queen's premiums stallions have been allotted to District D, which comprises the 10 important counties of Berks, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Hants, Kent, Somerset, Surrey,
  1638
  Sussex, and Wilts; whether he is aware that the Royal Agricultural Society of England have subsidised the above district with three stallions for this season only; and whether he will undertake that the said counties shall have their fair share of the 22 Queen's premiums stallions next year?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The reason why none of the stallions which won the Queen's premiums have been allotted to District D is that their place is taken this year by the winners of the prizes given by the Royal Agricultural Society. Twenty-two Queen's premiums are annually given by the Royal Commission on Horse Breeding, and three by the Royal Agricultural Society, the two bodies working in conjunction. The winners of the prizes offered by the Royal Agricultural Society are located for the season in the district in which the Society's show is held, which is this year District D. This arrangement has hitherto been found to work satisfactorily. Next year stallions which have won the Queen's premiums will be allotted to the district referred to by the hon. Member.

  H.M.S. VICTORIA AND H.M.S. TRAFALGAR
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is true that Admiral Hoskins, prior to taking over the command in the Mediterranean, caused alterations to be made in his own private cabins of H.M.S. Victoria, at an extra cost of £2,000, and that Lord Walter Kerr has had similar alterations made on board the Trafalgar, at an increased cost of £4,000; and whether, if true, these alterations were sanctioned by the Admiralty?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The statements to which the hon. Gentleman calls my attention are both untrue. No alterations were made in the admiral's private cabins on board the Victoria; but this ship, as is customary with flagships of a high freeboard, was when selected to carry the flag of the commander-in-chief in the Mediterranean fitted with a stern walk, at a cost of £593. No alterations have been made in the admiral's cabin on board the Trafalgar since 1887, when a re-arrange-

  1639
  ment of the bulkheads was carried out, while the ship was in course of construction, in consequence of a representation from the Admiral Superintendent of Portsmouth Dockyard, that the cabins as designed were inadequate. This change entailed but little cost. It has been recently found that in the case of all low-freeboard ships, such as the Trafalgar, a cabin for the captain and admiral is required on the upper deck in immediate proximity to the bridge. The Trafalgar, therefore, in common with ships of her class, has been so fitted at a cost of £69 for each cabin.

  H.M.S. ANSON.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the House any information relative to the cause of the carrying away of H.M.S. Anson's port cable when the squadron under Rear Admiral Tracey's command were weighing anchor in Vigor Bay on the 10th instant; and if he can state the size of the cable, and when and at what strain it was tested prior to being put on board; and how long the vessel was detained in consequence of the accident?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Information has been received at the Admiralty as to the breaking of the port cable of the Anson, when anchoring in Vigo Bay, on April 10. The accident appears to have been due to a failure in the action of the compressor, the brake of which set itself up before the anchor reached the bottom, the sudden jerk breaking the chain. Inquiry is now being made into the circumstances. The cable in question was 2⅜ inches thick, and the proof strain to which it was subjected before delivery by the contractors in 1885 was 101½ tons. The cable was surveyed in November, 1889, and was hen reported to be in a very good condition. The official Report of the accident does not state whether the movements of the ship were delayed in consequence.

  PORT OF CHUNGKING.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can confirm the correctness of a telegram that appeared in the Times of 5th April relative to the opening of
  1640
  the Port of Chunking, in Western China, to British trade, and whether from this-date British goods will be admitted into Chunking free of all further taxation after payment of the one Import Duty in Shanghai; whether the sale of Mr. Little's steamer to the Chinese Government had been effected with the knowledge of Her Majesty's Minister in China; and, if so, whether the right, held under the Chefoo Convention, of British steamers to run to the Port of Chungking, has been waived until such time as the Chinese themselves shall run steamers to that port; whether, in opening the port, arrangements have been made for the setting aside of a piece of ground for the occupation by British residents, as has been done in Hankow and other places; whether the Government has retained the right to send men-of-war to visit the port from time to-time, as is the custom in the other Treaty Ports of China and Japan; and whether he can give the House any information as to the probability of British merchants-eventually being permitted to run steamers to this new Treaty Port?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): Generally the purport of the telegram in the Times of April 5th is correct, but the Article will not come into force until the ratifications have been exchanged at Peking. The text of the Article is on its way to this country, and will be published after ratification. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. It is not possible to reply to the remaining paragraphs of the question until the text of the Article has been examined in this country.

  GAS COMPANIES—PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in the event of it being brought to the knowledge of the Board that certain members of Corporations are directors and shareholders in Gas Companies situate within the jurisdiction of such Corporations, whether, in pursuance of the powers vested in the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts to dispense with the consents of the Local Authorities, this would be deemed a sufficient reason for the Board to

  1641
  dispense with the consents of such Local Authorities, and grant Provisional Orders to other undertakers, who might be applying for Provisional Orders in the district affected?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The mere fact that certain members of Local Authorities are shareholders in Gas Companies within the district of the Local Authority would not of itself be -deemed a sufficient reason to justify the Board of Trade in dispensing with the consent of such Local Authorities to Provisional Orders applied for by private promoters. If, however, it could be shown that the refusal of a Local Authority to give their consent is due to the votes of any members who were improperly influenced in giving those votes, by their personal interest in local gas undertakings, I should be disposed to consider the expediency of directing an inquiry into an application to dispense with that consent.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it may be expected that the hitherto unpublished Papers relating to the condition of things in Armenia from 1881 to 1889 will be presented to Parliament?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I must ask the hon. Member to repeat the question on Thursday.

  MEETINGS OF POST OFFICE EMPLOYÉS.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the tickets for a "social gathering," "tea," "concert of vocal and instrumental music," and addresses by General Sir C. Teesdale, Coningsby Disraeli, &c., on 30th April, are being sold at the Bognor Post Office; and, if so, whether this is in accordance with Post Office Rules concerning political matters?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): In reply to the hon. Baronet I have to state that time has not admitted of my making-inquiry; but upon the question itself I must remark that it contains nothing to show that the social gathering referred to has any political bearing, or
  1642
  that tickets for it might not be sold within a post office without any breach of rule. I should, however, have thought the hon. Baronet would have been the last person in the House to object to a "social tea."
  SIR W. LAWSON: By some inadvertence a portion of the question has been omitted. It stated that this meeting was held in connection with a local habitation of the Primrose League.
  *MR. RAIKES: Those words do not appear in the question.

  IRISH LIGHT RAILWAYS.
  MR. MARUM: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that many Light Railway Schemes that have been scheduled or declared by the Privy Council to be desirable of construction have been thrown out by the refusal of Grand Juries to sanction guarantees, and also that many other proposed lines have been postponed, so that there must remain a considerable portion of the "free" grant money under the recent Act unappropriated; whether, in view and in lieu of the foregoing, the Government are prepared to recommend to the consideration of the Privy Council other proposed meritorious schemes, especially the proposed line of railway in reference to the "Leinster Coal Field," in North Kilkenny, as to which a Memorial has been long since duly lodged with the Clerk of the Privy Council, signed by over 2,000 of all classes of the inhabitants of the district; whether he is aware that the Royal Commission on Public Works (Ireland), in their Report dated 4th January, 1888, specially called attention to the remarkable absence of railway communication in regard to the "Leinster Coal Field," the strata of which contains a large deposit of anthracite coal, and whether he is further aware that the recent Naval Manœuvres have impressed the Authorities of the Admiralty with the special value of "smokeless" coal in Naval strategy; and whether, in view of the above, the Government are prepared to aid in the development of the home supply of such a valuable adjunct in Imperial Naval defence?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The cases of such of the lines

  1643
  already scheduled as have passed the Grand Juries are under consideration, and until a decision is arrived at as to these lines it is impossible to say how much of the money granted under the Act of 1889 will be required; and it would therefore be premature to enter upon the consideration of any schemes not already scheduled.

  TUBERCULOSIS.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he proposes to take any action in view of the facts laid before him by a deputation on the 24th instant relative to the disease of tuberculosis in cattle?
  MR. CHAPLIN: Yes, Sir; I stated to the deputation that the first thing, in my judgment, to be done was to obtain an authoritative opinion as to how far and at what stages of the disease meat derived from animals suffering from tuberculosis was unfit for and dangerous as human food, and that I would consult with my right hon. Friend and my Colleagues without delay as to the most satisfactory means of obtaining such an opinion. I have taken an early opportunity of doing so, with this result: that as this is a question primarily affecting the public health, my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board proposes to institute a scientific inquiry into the question without delay.

  THE BALACLAVA CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE.
  MR. NORRIS: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary for War whether he can state if it is a fact, as reported, that more than 30 men who took part in the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava are now in absolute want; if so, whether any steps have been or will be taken to afford them some relief; and if any balance remains out of the Patriotic Fund, or if there is any other fund applicable to such a purpose?
  MR. BRODRICK: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone the question until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can be present.

  THE NEW CODE.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether Article 73 of the proposed Code is intended to be retrospective in its operations; and, if not, whether he will state what will be the position, under that Article, of teachers who, though they may have passed the examinations for their certificates under the conditions of previous Codes, have not received a course of training in a Training College?
  *THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The object of the distinction to which my hon. Friend refers is to encourage teachers to go through a course of training in a Training College. Representations have, however, been made to me that the Article, as it stands; will injuriously affect the position of many teachers who have gained valuable experience by actual service, and I am, therefore, inclined to limit its operation to those teachers who pass the certificate examinations after the 1st January, 1891.

  IRELAND—EVICTIONS—DEATH OF P. CRAIG.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of an evicted tenant named Patrick Craig, of Clooncara, Kilmovee, County Mayo, who was released from Castlebar Gaol on the 30th of December last, after enduring an imprisonment of two months for re-taking possession of his old home subsequent to his eviction; whether he is aware that it is alleged that, as the result of his imprisonment, Craig was compelled to take to his bed, and that he died there after much suffering on the 26th of February; whether ho would say if Craig's condition in Castlebar Gaol was such as to obtain special treatment for him in hospital; and whether ho will inform the House what Report in this case has been made to him by the prison doctor?
  MR. MADDEN: The General Prisons Board report that Patrick Craig when in Castlebar Prison had been treated by the medical officer for some trifling ailments, which did

  1645
  not necessitate his removal to the hospital, as his cell, a boarded one, was comfortable, well-aired, and warm. On the termination of his sentence he was examined in the usual way by the acting medical officer and found to be in proper health for discharge. The information before the Board does not lead to the conclusion that imprisonment had impaired Patrick Craig's health.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
  MR. PETER M'DONALD: I beg to ask the Minister for Agriculture whether he is aware that during the past year the South Dublin Union was called upon to pay £8,000 compensation for the compulsory slaughter of cattle suffering from pleuro-pneumonia; have any steps been taken to meet the views of the deputation from 100 Agricultural Clubs and Societies which waited upon him early in February to complain of similar burdens being imposed on other market centres, and dairy and grazing districts, with the object of pressing on the attention of the Government the desirability of making such payment from the Imperial Exchequer instead of the local rates; and whether he has had submitted to him a remedy by Mr. Johnson, of Blackrock, Dublin, for effectually stamping out this disease; and, if so, whether in the public interest he has caused inquiry to be made into the nature and merits of such remedy, and afforded its author an opportunity of putting it to a test; and, if so, what has been the result?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The South Dublin Union was not, I am informed, called upon to pay £8,000 during the past year as compensation for the compulsory slaughter of cattle suffering from pleuro-pneumonia. The amount so paid in that Union during the past year was £384 15s. Besides this sum, £3,502 was payable as compensation for cattle in South Dublin Union slaughtered as being in contact with cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia, making a total of £3,886 15s. in the South Dublin Union in the past year. As to the steps which have been taken to meet the views of the deputation from 100 Agricultural Clubs and Societies, which waited upon me in February, I may remind the hon. Member that I have
  1646
  introduced a Bill which I have reason to believe substantially meets the views of the deputation. The Bill has been already read a second time, and I hope I may be successful shortly in passing it through its remaining stages in this House. A letter has been submitted to me from Mr. Johnston, of Blackrock, Dublin, stating that he knew of a remedy for the disease, and asking that a certain number of diseased animals should be placed at his disposal for experiment, and offering to place it at the services of the Board of Agriculture for a stipulated sum if successful. I have carefully considered the proposal. But we constantly receive applications of this character, and with no evidence of the value of the remedy before them the Board have not thought it desirable to accede to this request.

  THE PONSONBY ESTATE EVICTIONS.
  MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary for War whether he is aware that during the recent evictions on the Ponsonby Estate, near Youghal, Surgeon Raymond, of the Cameronians, was called in by the sub-sheriff to certify to the fitness or unfitness for removal of an old woman, the mother of a tenant, although a certificate of a duly qualified medical man practising in Youghal had been previously furnished to the effect that the woman was not fit to be removed; and whether an Army surgeon accompanying Her Majesty's troops on such duty is at the call of a sheriff or sub-sheriff for such a purpose?
  MR. BRODRICK: The medical officer in question did, at the request of the sub-sheriff, examine a woman and certified that she was unfit for removal. An Army surgeon is certainly not at the call of a civil official, if compliance would interfere with his proper duties; but otherwise he would be expected to give his professional advice or opinion if asked to do so in a case of illness.
  MR. BRUNNER: Arising out of the answer, may I ask whether steps will be taken to minimise the employment of our gallant soldiers in connection with disagreeable work of this character?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir; as far as possible.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  SIR W. FOSTER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to fix a day for the discussion of the Allotments Act (1887) Amendment Bill? I think it would be greatly for the advantage of the House if a day were fixed, and that it would tend to shorten the Debate?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I hope to be able to fix the day before the House rises at this Morning or Evening Sitting. At all events, I will do so before the close of the day.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill in reference to licences will be before the House?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope that the Bill will be circulated by Thursday next. If not, it will be in the hands of Members by Friday.

MOTION.

  PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND) (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Johnston, Bill to amend "The Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Johnston, Mr. Sexton, Sir James orry, Mr. Thomas Dickson, Sir Edward Harland, Mr. Webb, and Mr. Macartney.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 241.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  KEW AND PETERSHAM VICARAGE BILL.—(No. 229.)

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 199.)

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [21st April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    And which Amendment was to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. HAYES FISHER: The only ground I can conceive for the prolongation of this debate is that hon. Members opposite may be able to agree upon some intelligible principle of action. Some years ago the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) became committed to a policy as a settlement of the land question in Ireland, but I have not yet heard any Member of the Opposition say that he is satisfied with the settlement as created by the Land Act of 1881. The nearest approach to an assertion of that kind came from the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), last night, when he told us that he did not think dual ownership was at all a necessary evil. Neither do we think so, but the right hon. Gentleman laid down the conditions under which alone dual ownership can work in Ireland, or in any other country, namely, that the advantages can only be brought out by the dual owners dealing fairly by each other. The right hon. Gentleman went on to tell the House that that Act has failed to secure peace to Ireland and to bring contentment in its train, even upon such estates as those of Mr. Olphert and Lord Lansdowne, on which it has been most recently brought into operation. We have, therefore, to look ahead, and we say that it was the inevitable consequence of the Act of 1881, that during a certain stated term of years the question between the two partners in the property should be re-opened. But in certain parts of Ireland, where there is not that fair dealing between the two partners, to which reference was made earlier in the debate, how can the House expect any definite settlement of the question? No one has risen in this House to say that he sees in the settlement of 1881 anything like a permanent agrarian policy of this country with regard to Ireland; and, therefore, we are justified in calling in some auxiliary aid to settle the Irish land question. I am far from saying that dual ownership has not worked well in

    1649
    certain parts of Ireland, but this has been mainly in those parts which have not been disturbed by agrarian disputes between landlord and tenant. We have, however, to look to other parts of Ireland, and the only policy which has met with any success in the somewhat more disturbed portions of the country has been a Land Purchase policy. That is the policy the Government are trying to carry further by means of this Bill. They are not acting without experience on their side. They have already taken two steps towards a Land Purchase policy in 1885 and 1888, by the passing of the Ashbourne Acts. Now it is proposed to take a big stride towards the same end; and the experiment of 1890 is fully justified by the experience which has been gained from the passing of those Acts, but I cannot believe that any agrarian scheme can be a good scheme which it is necessary, year after year, to doctor. The only way to settle the Irish question in the more disturbed portions of the country, and to end the difficulties arising from the dual system of ownership established by the Act of 1881, is, in my opinion, to extend the single ownership system begun by the Acts of 1885 and 1888. A great deal has been said as to the success which attended the system of Land Purchase from the point of view of restoring social order, and the great benefits which have been secured from the operation of the Acts in certain districts; but I do not think sufficient has been heard of the great results which have been derived from the fact that the tenants have been induced to extract the extreme value from the land. By restoring single ownership in land there is no longer a conflict of interests. I have received reports from persons who have gone over estates on which the Ashbourne Act has come into operation, which show that the tenants, since purchasing the land, have made improvements which have added considerably to the value of the security. They have kept the land in good order, have made fences, and added to the comfort of their homesteads. Many of them who had not cattle before now have them. On Lord Normanton's estate in Tipperary, which has recently been purchased by the tenants, there is great prosperity. An interesting report from a friend of mine states that according to the parish
    1650
    priest of Emly, milch cows have increased by 250 in that dstirict.
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: Upon what estate?
    MR. HAYES FISHER: Mainly on the estate purchased from Lord Normanton. And I think it will be found that the new purchasers are displaying much more intelligence, and taking a much more active interest in the question of taxation. That is a result which will greatly facilitate the successful operation of a Local Government Bill. Men who, in 1887, had no cows now have several, while others have increased their stock greatly. From reports of this kind we may fairly draw two deductions; first, that the manner in which these tenants are cultivating their farms has added greatly to the value of the security upon which the country is advancing its money. Every improvement made is an improvement of the security, so that in numerous instances the security will be much larger than when the money was advanced. The second deduction is, that, when we add to the marketable produce of a district, or of Ireland as a whole, we add to the general prosperity of the country. One great objection to the manner in which these advances are secured was stated by the hon. Member for Cork. He said that, supposing these aristocratic tenant farmers made default in their payments, the State would recoup itself by taking funds and taxation which were the property of the neighbourhood, including many not interested in the advances. But if it can be shown that the purchase system has largely extended the general prosperity of the district and of the country at large, then we have a weighty argument for saying that, as the benefit has been shared to a certain extent by the people of Ireland generally, so the penalty for default must also be shared. With regard to the default in the payments to be made by the tenants, it would be either accidental, economic, or wilful, and probably political. If the default were accidental, arising from agricultural depression, then the Insurance Fund would probably meet the case. If economic, as through being caused by general famine, then Great Britain, as in 1847, would put her hand in her pocket and come to the relief of Ireland. If default arose from any other cause it would

    1651
    be wilful and political, and this country could enforce its guarantees. I do not think that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has made a worthy contribution to this debate. No doubt, as the responsible editor of a newspaper, which referred to the Bill as "The Idiot Bill" before it had been seen, we could hardly expect from the hon. Member criticism which would be worthy of notice at any length, even by a young Member like myself. The remark I will make upon the hon. Member's speech is that the impotency of its criticism was only equalled by the potency of its language, and the single striking thing about it was the threatening attitude adopted towards the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. W. Sinclair). There was, however, one observation of the hon. Member with regard to repudiation which I will refer to for a moment. The hon. Member actually declared that he thought the tenants of Ireland would be morally justified in refusing payment of the instalments which they have deliberately and voluntarily undertaken to pay, if by so doing they could only manage to turn out the Government. That may be the morality of the Star, but it is not the morality of British statesmen. What would be the situation if there was any general repudiation? It would be limited to those over whom hon. Members opposite have political power, and would not extend to the farmers of Ulster. What, in that case, would the British taxpayer say? I am sure that my own constituents, looking to the fact that these men have received 30 per cent reduction, and that they have availed themselves of the option offered them, would say to those responsible for the government; of Ireland, "Enforce with all your might and power every guarantee you have taken against such dishonest men." I refuse, however, to believe that the tenants of Ireland, even under the guidance of hon. Members opposite, would ever take such a course as that. I do not in any case think the Government need have any serious difficulty with the question, as the favourable terms on which the farms would be offered to incoming tenants would produce a healthy competition for them. At any rate, I am prepared to take the risk. It would, however, be to the
    1652
    interests of the tenants themselves, for the sake of their own pockets, to maintain the integrity of the contract. Then it is said that it would be impossible to enforce the guarantees, and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool stated that, although a Grand Jury might make a rate, the people would never pay it. I have in my own mind instances where taxes have been violently denounced, and yet not much difficulty has been experienced in the collection of them. I would ask hon. Members opposite to give me a single instance in which the authorities have been unable to collect a tax.
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: The Police Tax at Limerick.
    MR. HAYES FISHER: One of the most interesting relics in my possession is one of the green placards posted in the neighbourhood of Mitchelstown callingon the people on no account to pay the so-called "blood tax," levied in consequence of the unhappy occurrences there a few years ago. That tax, nevertheless, was collected without any very great difficulty, being paid sometimes after dark, sometimes under divers cloaks and covers, as so many rates and taxes in Ireland are paid. Experience, therefore, would lead as to believe that this, rate also, which would be imposed by the Grand Jury, would be collected without great difficulty. With reference to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) I think, speaking for myself, that the experience of the existing Ashbourne Acts proves that it is better to deal direct with the tenants than with the Local Authority. On that question, however, I will keep an open mind. If the speech of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham is reckoned by the Opposition as being against the Bill, I claim the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as being distinctly in its favour.
    MR. DILLON: Quite the contrary.
    MR. HAYES FISHER: There were some valuable comments in the speech of the hon. Member as to dealing with the congested districts, and this Bill, whatever its defects, embodies the only scheme ever pat forward for solving that great problem in a practical way.
    MR. DILLON: My plan was altogether on different lines.
    MR. HAYES FISHER: The Bill of the Government has been described as a measure to buyout landlords, but it may more truly be described as a Bill to buy in tenants, and it is impossible to set up a peasant proprietary in a fair and honest way without buying out the landlords. Hon. Members have joined in a general denunciation of absentee landlords, but is the 8th Commandment to be limited in its applicability, and not to apply to absentee landlords? If not, you must deal with them in a fair manner. Then, again, the complaint is that this is an oppressive Bill, and it is said that the tenants will be coerced into buying at extravagant rates; but that complaint was corrected by other speakers, who say that it will be compulsory and oppressive upon the landlords. For my own part, I do not think it will be either the one or the other. There may be a good deal of pressure put on some of the landlords to sell, but it is a pressure which is not altogether unknown in England. A small landlord, with no other means of obtaining a livelihood, finds himself sandwiched between two large landlords at a time when agriculture is much depressed. The wealthy landlords make large reductions of rent to their tenants, but he cannot afford to do so. If he is a good landlord, taking a general interest in everything that goes on in the locality, he will be able to stand his ground and remain there. And so it will be in Ireland. If a good landlord is pressed to sell he will say, "No, I cannot afford to accept your price," and he will remain there for generations to come. I myself can have very little sympathy with tenants who desire to force landlords to sell at a price at which they cannot afford to sell. Nor, can a policy of this kind be carried out with out British credit, and I claim that, the object being a great national object—the settlement, complete or partial, of the Irish agrarian problem—it is one in which it is perfectly legitimate to employ, and even to risk, to a certain extent, British credit. If we are able to settle the agrarian problem, we shall have gone a long way towards the settlement of the great Irish question, and it is because I believe that this Bill is the corner-stone of a great agrarian policy
    1654
    for Ireland that I heartily support it, and, so far as my own constituents are concerned, I am only too glad to take the risk incurred in the adoption of it.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not attach much importance to the eloquence of hon. Members sitting immediately behind the Treasury Bench, because I find that they are utterly wanting in independence. No matter what a Minister proposes, they rain down blessings on his head, or if they do criticise, they do not give practical effect to their criticisms by their votes. I oppose this Bill because I am against the Imperial credit being used, in whatever form or shape, for the object aimed at. The policy adopted in the last few years for Ireland has been a policy of kicks and ha'pence. I have been opposed to the kicks; I am equally opposed to the ha'pence. The ha'pence are, perhaps, more demoralising, and would more lower the patriotic fibre of Irishmen than the kicks. I do not admit that all the industries of this country should incur heavy liabilities for the sake of one industry; still less do I admit that all the industries of this country should incur heavy liabilities for the sake of persons exercising one particular industry in one particular part of the Empire. We are told that we have grossly ill-treated Ireland; that we have sacrificed her interests for our own; and the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) has pointed out that by the apportionment of the National Debt at the time of the Union, Ireland was unfairly dealt with. That may be all very true; but whether this measure is injurious to Ireland, or not, I shall equally vote against it, on the ground that if the Bill becomes law, we must inevitably become the owners of the whole of that country. Whether regarded from a political or from a financial aspect it must prove ruinous to Ireland, because the landlords, having got the price of their land in their pockets, would immediately come to England, and the result would be that we should set up a great system of absenteeism. What would be the consequence if the whole of the rents of the English land were taken over to France? Why, the people would not stand it, and they would repudiate any arrangement which led to

    1655
    such a consequence. I cannot help thinking that too much importance has been attached to the scheme that has been proposed by the hon. Member for Cork, because it was evidently only put forward as an alternative to that of the Government. Perhaps if it were a mere matter of Hobson's choice between the schemes of the Government and of the hon. Member for Cork I might prefer the latter, because it is cheaper and seems to be of a more final character than that of the Government. At the same time, however, I am bound to say that I object entirely to both proposals. The proposal of the hon. Member is to subsidise the landlords by converting the 6 per cent. interest which they now pay upon their mortgages into a 2¾ per cent. interest by means of an Imperial guarantee. The advances which have been made by the State to the English landlords have been expended in effecting permanent improvements in the land, whereby the whole community is benefited, whereas the advances that are to be made to the Irish landlords under this Bill would be applied to wiping out second mortgages, the proceeds of which have already been expended and wasted, and would thus be of no benefit whatever to the community at large. In such circumstances the State would naturally fall into the position of the second mortgagees, and it would have to pay off the first mortgagees if it wished to realise its security by foreclosing. Therefore, before the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork can be accepted it would have to be modified in many respects, and even then it would not do any great good to the people of Ireland. But the right hon Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has also come forward with an alternative scheme of his own. The right hon. Gentleman appears to have a perfect mania for propounding land schemes, whether he happens to be sitting at a Round Table, standing on a platform, writing to a newspaper, or speaking in this House. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be able to pass three months of his existence without putting forward some new scheme for Land Purchase in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman is a sort of Solon unattached—a heaven-born legislator—and he is highly indignant when anybody else has
    1656
    the effrontery to come forward with any other scheme, and he asks, "Why do they look at that other man's scheme when they have a man like me with not only one but a dozen schemes ready cut and dried?" I hope that the Government, following the example set them on this side of the House, will treat the right hon. Gentleman's schemes with the most absolute contempt. The right hon. Gentleman represents no one but himself. I should like to know whether the followers of the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) approve of the schemes of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and will pursue them to their logical conclusion by voting against the Second Reading of this Bill. But no, those hon. Members are too much afraid of the result of a General Election ever to put the Government into a minority. For instance, there is the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison), who is now sitting opposite, and who was only returned by a casting vote. I believe honestly and conscientiously that we should have won the last election had it not been for the Land Purchase Bill of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. Hon. Gentlemen opposite used that Bill for their own purposes. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian said that he did not intend to re-introduce the Bill, but hon. Gentlemen opposite mistrusted him. If ever a Parliament was bound by a direct mandate from the people it is this Parliament, the mandate being not to use the Imperial credit for Land Purchase in Ireland. If hon. Gentlemen opposite have changed their minds, as they have a right to do, the honourable course is to dissolve the present Parliament, and ask the electors to absolve them from the veto which they imposed upon them. In such a case they might, with some show of honesty and fairness, come forward with a proposal of this kind. But we know that they were against the Land Purchase system at the last election, and I have seen no sort of proof that they have changed their minds. The arguments of the Government are nothing but pleas in mitigation of their inconsistency. They say, in the first place, that the Bill is a small one, and secondly, that the risk is merely a nominal one. Now, the Bill is not

    1657
    small. If we grant these £33,000,000 we must inevitably become the owners of the whole of Ireland. I can understand hon. Members opposite being in favour of that, but I cannot understand how any human being can deny that this is the necessary consequence of the present Bill. I hope every elector will remember that this will amount to 3d. on the Income Tax from every person who pays it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham admitted that every supporter of the Government was pledged against giving any guarantee, but, he said, the risk is nominal. But there is no such thing as a nominal risk when you have put your name to a bill, provided you are solvent. I appeal to every solvent Member of this House—an hon. Friend says the minority—whether he has ever been asked by a friend to put his name to a bill with the assurance that it was merely a nominal proceeding find has not had to pay for doing it? I know that has invariably happened in my own case. Let us look at this as a business transaction. We buy this land, and upon what terms? We must remember that half of the land of Ireland has not been subjected to reductions of rent in the Land Court. Reductions have been made amounting to 20 per cent., but, as to all that land which has not been dealt with in the Land Court we should have to buy on the actual rents without reduction. It must also be remembered that the Chief Secretary stated that he would only take off 5 per cent—it appeared from a subsequent statement that it ought to be 3½ per cent., but I take it at 5 per cent.—for the cost of management. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian estimated, in 1886, that for bad debts and management, there should be allowed a difference of 10 per cent. between net and gross; the total, therefore, to be deducted, between the value put on the estate of which purchase is to be made, and the real value, would be 35 percent. in regard to every estate not brought into the Land Court. The Chief Secretary supposed a case of a farm bought at a rental of £105; he takes off £5, and the price would be £1,700, or 17 years' purchase, the amount of the rent less the landlord's rates. Now, what is the
    1658
    real case? If you take off 35 per cent. you find the real value of the farm, £1,005, and the real and bonâ fide rental £65 a year. But you have to do more, because the right hon. Gentleman proposes to add two years' arrears. We, therefore, should be paying £1,900 for a farm, the value of which we ascertain to be £1,005. But when I say a value of' £1,005 I should like to know who would give half that amount? What an ad vertisement it would make—"To be sold, an eligible property in Kerry; the rent is now £107, but deducting the amount which will probably be taken off by the Land Court, £65; the tenant has not paid any rent for the last two years." The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken told us of himself and his constituents going to Ireland to take farms, but he and his friends must be more foolish than I take them to be if they take farms under such conditions. Can anything be more monstrous in these monstrous proposals than the suggestion that we pay not only for the estates but for arrears? Irish landlords, as well as English landlords and English traders, make bad debts, but here is a proposal to pay an excessive price, and also to pay in full for the bad debts incurred. I confess I see nothing so admirable in the Irish landlords to induce me to make any such sacrifice. Through generations they have practised heartless exactions upon the Irish tenantry. Swift has described how the very vitality of the tenants was sacrificed to Irish landlords. Lord Clare, in 1787, showed how they exacted excessive rents, and what do hon. Gentleman opposite say to the opinion of an authority they will not question—their Bible—the Times, which, in 1852, declared "the name of Irish landlord stinks in the nostrils of' Christendom." Yet these are the men on whose account we are called upon to incur this enormous liability. We are to buy for cash, at excessive prices, and how do we sell? We sell upon credit; that is the first thing objectionable. We take an estate worth £1,005 at £1,900, and then we sell it again for an annuity over 45 years. Everybody knows that the price of land may fall. We are told this will not happen; but who, before the last 10 years, would have predicted the fall there actually has been, and who shall say there may not

    1659
    be another heavy fall in the next 10 years? There may be bad years, and what is to be done then? But even if there are not, individual farmers may have bad years; they may be extravagant and they may have to be evicted, some of them. Does anybody think that it will increase the love for the British connection if evictions are carried out in the name of the State instead of the landlord? When 180,000 tenants have to pay the rents in the form of taxes to an alien Government, will there not be a very considerable temptation not to pay? We shall have to become the owners of the whole of Ireland, and if there should be a general strike against the payment of rents, how are we to enforce payment? What shall we do with the land if we evict? Where are you to find the men to take the land? Where will you find labourers to cultivate it, with the whole country under a strike against rent? Why, the English Government would become nothing more than a, huge Smith-Barry concern. It is a most remarkable thing that this transaction is to take place with men who hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have told us, again and again, are not fit for self-government, not to be trusted to legislate for themselves or for landlords. But why this political incredulity on the one hand, and this financial credulity on the other? The Government know that the land is no security, and, therefore, they have inserted these contingent securities. Now the right hon. Member for Derby has treated these in so drastic a fashion that there is absolutely nothing left of them; as an existing entity they have disappeared. If Ireland is to be deemed an integral part of the British Empire, why, if the Kerry farmer fails to pay, should the responsibility fall upon the Ulster farmer and the Dublin shopkeeper, any more than upon the farmer in Kent and shopkeeper in London? The multiplication of securities is like trying to give additional value to a bill by having it signed six times by the same person; and in this case it is the forgery of the same name six times over. These contingent securities are illusory and unjust, and they are merely put in to hoodwink the British public, and make them believe that the risk is merely nominal. Certainly the securities are of no value, because they are not pledged with the con-
    1660
    sent of the Irish people. There is no such thing as taxation, whether Local or Imperial, without the consent of those who are to be taxed. I have seen it discussed who is the real author of this Bill, whether it is the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I never entertained the slightest doubt about it after I heard the speech of the Chief Secretary. There is a sort of Egyptian Loan Prospectus flavour about these contingent securities, in which I recognise the "fine Roman hand" of the ex-partner in the firm of Fruhling and Goschen. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is an excellent financier, and he knows well enough that not by the addition of any number of rotten eggs can you make a good omelette, and that it is no use multiplying rotten securities to make a sound security. But, instead of coming here to try and hoodwink poor innocent people like us, let him go with his proposals to that eminent firm I have mentioned. Let him ask Messrs. Fruhling' and Goschen if they will guarantee this loan without English credit, and I know Messrs Fruhling and Goschen would reply, "Go to—the House of Commons; do not come here with such a proposal." With regard to the congested districts, the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has made some cogent remarks, but I confess that, even for the congested districts, I am not disposed to use Imperial credit unnecessarily, and certainly not in the mode proposed by the Bill. These districts are absolutely valueless from an agricultural point of view, though persons live there because it is traditional to live there, and it appears that Irishmen have a partiality for living where their forefathers lived before, and yet we are to buy their lands at residential value, and sell them at the supposed agricultural value, taking the difference out of a fund that belongs as much to the English as to the Irish nation. Then, I want to know what you will do in regard to tenant right? We are to pull down the houses; how are we to pay the people? This does not come out of the Church Fund; this cost the taxpayers will be required to pay. Everybody knows we have unsanitary rookeries in London. We condemn them, but we do not buy them up at habitable house

    1661
    price, pull down the rookeries, and erect new buildings, and take the difference out of the Public Exchequer. Yet that is what we are called upon to do for these unsanitary rookeries in Ireland. This is not the way I should deal with Irish landed property of this sort. The question has been much discussed as to whom this Bill will really benefit. At first sight it seems as if the tenant would benefit, but though the immediate result will be to lower his rent, yet he will be bound hand and foot in the grasp of a machine, and will have to pay this rent, or instalments, in bad times as well as in good. It would be far better for him to bide his time until the Liberals come into office and bring in legislation which will be still more favourable to him. The real gainers will be the larger landlords and the English mortgagees. The extent to which the large landlords have availed them selves of the Ashbourne Acts is an indication of this. Members of the House of Lords have received between them £930,000 and the City Companies £450,000 under those Acts. Large landlords have to recognise the principle that property has its obligations as well as its rights, and their income is reduced by the contributions which decency compels them to make to local and charitable funds. It, therefore, pays them very well to sell their property and get rid of these calls upon them. The small landlords, however, are generally mortgaged to the full extent of their property, and are merely squatters on a field or two surrounding their house, and which they term their demesne. They are not turned off, because it is nobody's business to turn them off, and so they go on from year to year. For Irish landlords a sale would be ruinous, but if this Bill is passed their mortgagees will compel them to sell. The London Insurance Companies have advanced an immense amount of money on Irish land at 5 per cent., and they have hitherto not pressed for foreclosure, as the estates would not realise the full amount of money advanced upon them, and they do not like to appear to their shareholders, from the balance-sheet, that they have had to write off a certain portion of their assets as bad debts. This Bill will enable these English Insurance Companies to realise the money they have advanced at the high rate of 5 per cent. interest. The
    1662
    attitude which we take up on this subject is that there can be no property in extortionate rents; that either the rents are fair, in which case there is no necessity to reduce the rents, or they are excessive, in which case there is no necessity to compensate the landlords. But then it will be said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has prejudiced the question of establishing the principle of dual ownership, and single ownership is better. This is nonsense, and the very worst of nonsense—sentimental nonsense. Irishmen have gained considerably by dual ownership, fixity of tenure, compensation for improvements; and they pay rents which theoretically are fair rents. Irish farmers are much better off than English farmers, and why should the latter pledge their credit to assist the Irish farmers to whole ownership, while English farmers have not even the advantages of half ownership which the Irish farmers enjoy? Why should Imperial credit be brought in to enable tenants to buy their holdings? There are many hon. Members who are in favour of leasehold enfranchisement, but no one proposes to carry it out by providing funds by means of Imperial credit. The land question would solve itself if the principle of "live and thrive"—that rent should only be the surplus left after the tenant lived and throve—were thoroughly carried out. I would warn my hon. Friends from Ireland against accepting this scheme or suggesting any other which would involve Imperial credit. The Government realise that the people are coming more and more to understand Home Rule, and their object in forcing this Bill on Ireland is to strengthen their arguments against Home Rule by being able to appeal to the English people not to give up the government of a country of which they are practically the mortgagees. I appeal to my hon. Friends from Ireland not to renounce their birthright for a mess of pottage, especially as the mess of pottage will go not to the tenants but to the landlords. Irish Members ought to mistrust anything offered to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham or the Government; they ought to say to the Government, "We claim the right to govern ourselves, but we do not want your money." If they are offered any species of Local Govern-

    1663
    ment it might be wise to accept it, but I hope, in taking it, they will be frank and candid, that they take it not as a final settlement, but to use as a means for obtaining Home Rule. It may be a useful means of securing that end, the County Councils constituting so many branches of the National League with a recognised official position. If Irishmen adopt this attitude Home Rule is absolutely certain. The English Liberal Party has declared itself in favour of it, and I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to show any one single reform for which that Party ever declared itself that in the end has not been carried? If we on this side of the House intend to stand by the Irish, I submit that the Irish have no right and no claim to ask us to incur a species of liability direct or indirect in respect of the relationships between landlord and tenant in Ireland. The scheme of the Bill is bad; it is a thoroughly treacherous Bill; it puts forward sham contingent securities, and it pretends that it only involves the expenditure of a sum of £33,000,000, whereas a sum of £165,000,000 is involved. But even if it were the best scheme that could be devised by the wit of man, if it were a final settlement of the Irish question, I should, even if I stood alone in doing so, oppose it, because I object to the use of Imperial credit for such a purpose.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I shall not endeavour to treat the question, which is a most important one, in the same way as has the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He has treated it as if he believes that the first and only object which the Government of the country has is to keep itself in power by any moans. I venture to say that the one object the Government have in view in dealing with the matter is, if possible, to settle this most difficult and dangerous question of Land Purchase, as it now exists in Ireland. The difficulties which exist have been augmented and intensified by the very hon. Gentleman with whom the hon. Gentleman acts, and by what they have done from the time of the Act of 1870, and especially since the Act of 1881. I myself opposed that Act at every stage. I opposed it because I saw in it no final settlement whatever, and because I believed that under it the landlords would suffer far more than
    1664
    they deserved to suffer. Will hon. Gentlemen opposite deny that it was the opinion of the Government at that time that the Act of 1881 would be a security to the landlord, and that the rent that was left to them when the dual ownership was in full play would be absolutely secured to them? Has that been the case? Was not the land worth something like 27 years' purchase at that time? What is it worth now? I will ask the hon. Gentleman in all sincerity how he would like, in any enterprise with which he is connected, to have a dual ownership forced upon him in that enterprise. How would he like to have his profits pulled down by others, whose sole endeavour would be to make him pay as much as possible to their account? I will answer that question for the hon. Gentleman, because I know there is no man in the House who would be less liberal to those with whom he has to deal than the hon. Gentleman. When I board the hon. Gentleman refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I thought the hon. Gentleman must have known in his long public life that when a statement has been publicly refuted and done with it is usual not to refer to it, and I think the course taken by the hon. Gentleman was neither generous nor just. The hon. Gentleman talked about the landlord selling off a portion of his property. I will put it to any hon. Member sitting below the Gangway, if he were in the position of many of the landlords with large mortgages upon their properties, whether he would not like to sell off a certain portion of it in order to clear off some of the encumbrances, and thus enable him to live in respectable circumstances and with the honest wish to do his duty to those living under him on that property which he had inherited and which had been owned by his family for generations—yes, and more than generations—for hundreds of years many of these estates have been in the possession of one family. The great object of the landlords is to get their property cleared and be able to live upon it. The question raised by the hon. Member for Mayo was one which must touch the heart of any one who knows the localities and districts referred to. I have known these districts for many years—perhaps even better than many hon. Members opposite.

    1665
    I saw them under the worst circumstances which it was possible to conceive—namely, in the days of the first famine—when I was on duty there, and I said that any man's heart must be made of stone if it did not bleed at what was to be seen at the time, in the district. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Has any thing ever been done from that day down to the present time in the interests of those districts? Both Governments have alike neglected that which they ought to have done, and have never taken account of these districts which have made all the disturbances in Ireland. Whenever there is anything wrong in those districts where men are generally nearly at the verge of starvation—when anything of that kind does occur, agitation always springs up and is taken advantage of for the worst purposes. In 1846–7–8 the disturbances were very great; but the district itself was in an awful condition, and no one will deny that the English people, with great generosity, sent over large sums of money to assist the people. As to the present Bill, I am not in love with it, but the one part Hike is that part which deals with the congested districts, and it is on that account I give my support to the Second Reading of the Bill. I hope the Bill will be much amended in Committee. I want to see it made a Bill which shall, if possible, be a final measure; and if it is not to be a final measure, then I am quite sure it will be a mischievous one. If it does not settle the question I know we shall have more agitation, and perhaps worse agitation than we have had before. I think my right hon. Friend also in charge of the Bill knows that as well as I do; and I must say that knowing and feeling that, and knowing my right hon. Friend's anxiety to make Ireland prosperous, contented, and happy, though some may deny it, I hope my right hon. Friend will accept and put into the Bill such amendment as he may think will be found effective to make it, at any rate, a permanent measure so far as human forethought can secure that end. I admit the question is a very difficult one, and I am very much struck with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Mayo. But I certainly did not think he was just in his remarks with regard to the landowners occupying in that
    1666
    part. I have in my hand a Return of an estate in Mayo; and on that estate, ever since 1884, by the action of the Land League, not one single farthing of rent has been paid to the landlord up to 1887. The hon. Member for Mayo and his friends cheer that statement. But this is a good landlord, and one who is anxious to do his duty. Out of 190 tenants no less than 186 were under £4 valuation. What has happened? Not one single farthing of rent has been paid during the time I have mentioned, but the landlord has had to pay all the poor rates, which amounted to a very large sum the half of the poor rate was only paid by the poor tenants. The House will not doubt be astounded to hear that the poor rates amounted to over 10s. in the £1, and not one farthing of rent paid. Let hon. Members look at the matter in any sense they like, and say whether they call that justice as between man and man. Looking at the whole case, and at the way in which the poor rates are paid by many landlords, and how property has been transferred to the tenants, it seems only fair that the poor rate should be transferred to the tenants, and a proper deduction from the judicial rents. That would be a step in the right direction, and it would quiet a great number of people and give a good effect to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. I recollect the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, when the last Act was being passed, stating what a good thing it would be if the tenant could only have the land which he tilled. He gave an instance of how he had been to Ireland, and had seen where that was done cottages and land had improved, and the people were happy and contented in every case. And now the right hon. Gentleman is going to vote against the Bill which is to settle the whole question, and give the tenants more power to get the land than they have had in any previous Bill. Looking at the way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite once dealt with the question, I do not think there ought to be any difficulty made about British credit. I know perfectly well it is a difficult question, and an unpopular question; but, at the same time, when any improvement is to take place in Ireland—when Ireland is to continue to belong to England, as we are all determined it shall—when

    1667
    we intend that the Union shall be kept, we ought to be prepared to make some sacrifice to enable Ireland to place herself in a position in which she will be peaceable, contented, and happy. As to the proposals made by the hon. Member for Cork, I thought at first the hon. Gentleman was going to be liberal to the Irish landowners, who are run down by everyone unfairly and unjustly. There are many in Ireland who do their duty as well as those who live in this country, and those who do so ought to be maintained in that position in Ireland which they previously held. I believe many of these are a great benefit and a blessing to the county. It is quite evident to any one who has heard the debate that the hon. Member for Cork consulted neither his Colleagues nor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian with regard to his proposals. He evidently thinks that with his 85 followers he is master of the position, and that he can dictate terms, and accordingly he expresses himself in the way he has done. I certainly tried to master the views enumerated by the hon. Gentleman, and I was in hopes that the landowners were to have some small modicum of money to pay off their mortgages. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman wanted these mortgages to disappear, and that the landlord would then be able to claim what little would be left of his own property. But I was disappointed to hear that the hon. Gentleman proposed a rent reduction of 30 per cent. with a certain modicum to be paid to the landlord. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman was really anxious to establish the landlord firm in his saddle in Ireland. But that is contrary to anything he has ever said before; indeed, he and his Colleagues have wished to get rid of the landlords. Then I had to look to the other alternative, which was, first, reducing the landlords' rent by 30 per cent. after the judicial rent had been fixed, and after the reduction made by the Act of 1887; and then, after things had gone on pleasantly for a year or two, there is the unpleasant alternative shadowed forth by the hon. Members for Mayo and the Scotland Division of Liverpool of a repudiation of the obligations of the people. So that when another difficulty occurs the people will again say to the landlord, "Down with another 30 per
    1668
    cent!" until they got the unfortunate landlord into a corner, and prairie value will be all he will get for his land. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian thought something of that kind might occur, and that was why he was anxious to pass his Land Bill of 1886. In these circumstances, I think, the Chief Secretary, being forewarned, ought to be forearmed, and that we should not have added to his Bill the scheme of the Member for Cork, which is open to the objection which I have stated, and which I think would prove prove a cruel one for the landlords. As to the scheme of local self-government referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, that requires most careful consideration, and I will only say that if that scheme is passed at the present moment—if all the resources of Ireland are placed in the hands of the County Councils of Ireland—hon. Gentlemen opposite, with perhaps the best intentions, will be able to manipulate the County Councils, and things will work into their hands certainly very much against the interests of the landowners, and even perhaps for some of the tenants, for whom they profess to act. I hope nothing will be done in that matter without due consideration; but I am sure the Chief Secretary has done his duty in all matters pertaining to Ireland to the best of his ability. We have never had a Secretary for Ireland who has more earnestly carried out his difficult and dangerous task, and I hope the House will now concur with him and assist him in taking care that the present measure which he has introduced shall be so amended and carried that it will be of use and benefit to Ireland for many generations, and that it will do a great deal in the immediate future towards making that country contented, prosperous, and happy. I believe that when the tenants are in such a frame of mind their great desire is to be let alone in the position in which God has placed them. I shall, on these grounds, support this Bill.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONT: The hon. Member who has just sat down seemed to regard most philosophically the idea that the British taxpayer will become the owner of the land in Ireland, and I should

    1669
    have thought that the illustration he himself cited of a landlord having to pay the poor rate of 10s. in the £1 and getting no rent for years would have been a warning to him not to be too eager to embark in such a speculation. What excellent security would the estate in question afford! What an admirable property for the British taxpayer to lend his money on! After the remarkable speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham last night, we are in somewhat of a difficulty in discussing this measure. I think, however, from the reception given by the Chief Secretary to the criticisms of that speech by the Member for Dover, that I am entitled now to proceed on the assumption that the suggestions of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham will not be accepted by the Government, and therefore I contend that this measure will take Irish security without the consent of the Irish people, that it will be partial in its operation, will settle nothing, and increase the difficulties of the situation. My great objection to the Bill is that you will commit a gross injustice by taking Irish securities without consulting the Irish people, and against their expressed wishes. You are going to take from them for a period of five years a sum of £40,000 annually, which you have admitted the Irish people are justly entitled to. Hon. Members opposite are very fond of telling us that one of the great causes of difficulty in Ireland is the poverty of the people. Yet you are taking from them for five years £40,000 to which they are entitled. That is the generosity of the English Government. Then you are going to lockup, if necessary, year by year £200,000, in addition to which they are also justly entitled. You have no right to take this money against their wishes, not for the benefit of the many, but the few. As regards contingent securities, you talk about your responsibilities in Ireland. One of your great objections to Home Rule is that you cannot relieve yourselves of the responsibility of governing in Ireland. How are you going, by these contingent securities, to accept that responsibility? Either these contingent securities are necessary or they are not. If they are not, you have no business to put them into the Bill. If they are, then you
    1670
    must admit that there is a possibility of their being used; and if they are used you incur the responsibility of leaving Irish children uneducated and Irish lunatics and paupers without support. There are two absolutely necessary conditions to any scheme of purchase. One is that it must be complete, and the second that it must be equitable. Both are wanting in the present scheme. Personally, I doubt whether it is a very wise course, after having found that one body of landlords has done great injury to the country, to create another body of landlords as a remedy for the evil. However, that is a minor point, and one which may be practically met by very large controlling powers over those landlords who are to be created. But as regards the completeness of the Government's scheme, I say it cannot be complete. We are entitled to know from the Government whether they intend this scheme to be a final one, or whether they intend to act on the same lines until they have bought out all the landlords in Ireland. I press that point. About the circulating fund, I want to dispose of that—to get it out of the way. We are told that, when the £33,000,000 is spent, there will be still money available for the purchase of land, because the repayments will be available for fresh purchases. Hon. Members forget that the repayment takes place to a very small amount every year at compound interest, and that it is in the last few years that the real repayments take place. Imagine the impossibly favourable circumstance of the £33,000,000 being expended this year! What would be the position as regards repayment in 1900? A small fraction over £3,000,000 would have been repaid, with the result that you would have killed, or put into a state of somnolence for a very long period, the goose that laid the golden egg. This circulating fund is worth nothing for practical purposes; therefore, all you have at the present moment is £33,000,000 provided by this Bill. I think it is admitted that any partial scheme of purchase in Ireland will lead to great discontent and great difficulty. I have here some very weighty remarks made by a right hon. Gentleman in whom the Government have very

    1671
    great confidence. In fact, they credit him with a depth of sagacity as regards Ireland that they would hardly attribute to any other Member of the Government. I mean the right hon. Gentleman who, in a 24 hours' visit to Ireland at the beginning of 1886, was able to alter the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Ireland. I refer to the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith). Now, on April 16th, 1886, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian offered to provide £50,000,000 to buy out the Irish landlords, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) spoke as follows:—
    "By what means is the Chancellor of the Exchequer to distinguish one application from another. The purchase must be complete or it cannot be carried out at all. If you leave portions of Ireland undealt with by the Bill you will leave an interest which will be an object of attack, for everyone knows that if there is anything unpopular in Ireland with the distressed classes it is that which is prosperous and successful. I doubt very much the wisdom of introducing this apple of discord."
    If you were going to introduce an apple of discord by proposing to give £50,000,000 for land purchase in 1886, I should like some explanation as to how the smaller sum of £33,000,000 to be given in 1890 is going to escape the description of being an "Apple of discord." We are entitled to know why the Government have changed their minds upon this point. If I am told that they have not changed their minds, and that they intend to go on until they have completed land purchase, we are entitled to ask how they intend to go on. The Chief Secretary said the Bill will put no burden on the British taxpayer, because he has got, in the securities which are to be taken under the powers of the Bill, the exact amount which will guarantee the repayment of the £33,000,000. But that amount will not settle the question of land purchase. What are you going to do after it is spent? Where are you going to get the rest of the money? There is no Irish security left for it; you must go to the British taxpayer. If that is your position, I think it is your bounden duty to say so now, and not to leave the difficulty to some future Government. The right
    1672
    hon. Gentleman knows that there is great difficulty in this matter, that it will lead to a reduction of rent, and that it will be the cause of agitation. That is clear from his own observations in introducing the Bill. He said that so-large a reduction as from £107 to £68 may, and will, produce considerable difficulty on adjoining estates whore purchase may have taken place. Therefore, he proposes that for the space of five years the reduction shall not be quite so large. What is to happen when those five-years are over? We will have a state of things which will produce considerable difficulty on adjoining estates. Therefore, by his own confession the right hon. Gentleman is only legislating for a period of five years, and after that five years there will be, according to his own showing, difficulty and danger on the adjoining estates. Now, Sir, the Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded to the Bill of 1886, and told us we ought to be grateful to the Unionist Party for having saved the tenants of Ireland from having a great burden thrown on their shoulders. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in 1886 made a distinction between the gross and net rent, and the landlord was only to receive 20 years' purchase on the net rent, and the result of that would have been that whereas the tenant would have paid £80 a year, the Irish State would only have had to pay to the British State £60 or £64 a year on the loan, and the difference between those two sums would have gone to the direct benefit of the Irish taxpayer, and it would have formed an absolute security to the British taxpayer. Before the British taxpayer could lose a single farthing the Irish State would have been able to give the Irish tenant a reduction varying from 36 to 40 per cent., and still have been able to pay the whole of its debt to the British State. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to have forgotten the further protection afforded by Clause 15 of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Gladstone's) Bill. That clause directed the Land Commissioners to take into account the circumstances of every holding, and not to advance 20 years' purchase unless they thought there was security. Before that Act came into operation, the Land Commissioners would have realised the

    1673
    fall in prices which has prevented them giving 20 years' purchase under the Ashbourne Act. We are told that the terms of purchase; are comparatively unimportant, because the whole thing is based on freedom of contract. We have heard of freedom of contract until we are sick. Why, if freedom of contract existed in Ireland the Act of 1881 was of gross robbery and injustice. An hon. Gentleman opposite says that that was an act of gross robbery. If that is so, in the name of common sense and honesty why did he support the present Grovernment in extending the principle of that Act; because he supported the extension of the Act of 1881? Talk about freedom of contract! Not only did freedom of contract not exist in the past, but even at present it does not exist in regard to land purchase in Ireland. I have here the Official Returns to November 30, 1889. They refer only to the Land Purchase Department up to that date. There were 2,188 cases in which the Commissioners refused to sanction the terms which the landlord and tenant had Come to. We do not know their reasons in all these cases; but we do know their reasons in 743 cases, because in these cases the tenants had agreed voluntarily by freedom of contract to pay to the landlords £362,790, and the Land Commissioners refused to sanction the terms thus voluntarily arrived at; but they subsequently sanctioned them on an alteration of the terms from £362,000 to £302,000. These were all cases of small tenancies, taking the average. In those 743 cases, by some means or another, the landlords had been able to compel the tenants to agree to pay £60,000 more for the farms than they were worth—ah! but it means more than that, for the present Attorney General for Ireland, in his wish to prove the largeness of the security, said—
    "Everybody knows in Ireland that in a large number of cases the interest of the tenant exceeded the interest of the landlord."
    For my part, I am satisfied if the House will accept the proposition that in all cases of dual ownership the tenant has a real property of some value. As it is, when the Land Commissioners send their valuers, they value the whole property as they find it, including the tenant's improvements, as well as the landlord's
    1674
    interest, therefore, in these 743 cases the tenants have been compelled voluntarily to agree to pay for the landlords' property £60,000 more than the landlords and tenant's property combined is worth. Is not that evidence of compulsion? If it is not I do not know what would be. If these men do not pay, or cannot pay, do you not think the feeling of the rest of the Irish people would be with them? Yet, if they do not pay, what is the next thing? Their interest has to be sold. The Report of the Irish Land Commission for the year ending August, 1887, refers to the cases of tenants who purchased under the Church Act, and who had a sense of wrong upon their minds, and whom their neighbours believed to have been unfairly treated. This is what they say—
    "There has been some increase also in arrears due by tenant purchasers, and here we think it our duty to bring under the notice of your Excellency the very significant fact that in cases where we have been obliged to take legal proceedings against such purchasers we have been able, in hardly a single instance, to effect a sale of a purchaser's interest against his will. As one example of the difficulties we have to contend with, we mention the following case in the County of Louth. A purchaser and mortgagor who owed 12 half-yearly instalments was evicted from his farm after all attempts at compromise had failed. The farm was then set up for sale by us, and we were obliged to buy it in, as the sale was boycotted, The farm still remains on our hands, though it is a very desirable piece of land, close to the town of Ardee, and in addition to heavy costs and expenses which we have already incurred we have now to pay a caretaker to take charge of the property. The certainty that we have felt that a similar result would follow whenever we endeavoured to effect a sale of lands of which we had dispossessed the purchaser for non-payment of his liabilities has seriously embarrassed us."
    So that not only had the British taxpayer to lose his money advanced for buying the property, but he had to pay a caretaker to look after the property. I think I have shown that, under the existing system, there are cases in which pressure is brought to bear on the tenants to induce them to make unfair bargains in the purchase of their improvements. When the Ashbourne Act was being extended two years ago I tried to get the Chief Secretary to accept an Amendment which would prevent the tenant having to buy his own improvements. I was then told that it was impossible that such an Amendment could be

    1675
    worked; but now the right hon. Gentleman has put a clause in this Bill which shows that in certain cases what I proposed can be done. He will deal with cases in which there is an agreement between landlord and tenant that the Land Commissioners shall fix the price, but he will not meet the cases in which no agreement is come to, nor where under unjust pressure the tenant is induced to make an unfair bargain. What is the state of things now? There are at the present moment in Ireland about 18,000 persons who were formerly tenants, but are so no longer, and are merely caretakers. Does the House realise the position of these men, who cannot legally get back the possession of their farms except they can agree with their landlords? Are they in a position to make a free bargain? Will not the temptation to make an unjust bargain be too great for them? You say we cannot blow hot and cold at the same time by saying the terms are too favourable to the landlord and too unfavourable to the tenant; but I say that that is not the case. There are substantial tenants in Ireland who can well take care of themselves; but there are numerous small tenants who are not in that position, but who are encumbered by unjust arrears and who are not able to take care of themselves in the same way. When you say that those tenants who are more favourably circumstanced than others would not join in repudiation, I ask are you sure of that? Have you read the history of Tipperary, where men have gone out and left property amounting to thousands of pounds rather than pay a comparatively small sum to the Member for South Hunts which would help him in his warfare against their fellow tenants in Cork. I may add that I served on the Commission for the relief of distress in the congested districts of Ireland. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) on the subject of the congested districts. The hon. Member speaks on this subject with an authority and knowledge that I cannot pretend to, and he has the confidence of the poor people of the congested districts, which the Government lack. In these districts there is an amount of distrust and suspicion of the Government that is not
    1676
    equalled in any other part of Ireland owing to past misgovernment. Right hon. Gentlemen claim our consideration for this portion of the Bill, but what is it going to do for the congested districts? They could not do anything without funds, and the Bill did not profess to find funds for carrying out public works or improvements in these districts except some merely nominal in amount. The money provided by the Chief Secretary was not for the purpose of improving the districts, but for the purpose of protecting the British taxpayer, and that money is to be provided from a purely Irish source. If you desire to do anything to promote the industrial prosperity of these districts you must devote your attention mainly to the fishing industry, and you cannot develop the fishing on the West Coast unless you build several good and safe harbours, and you have no funds provided in the Bill for that purpose. The people also require boats of considerable size but there are no funds provided for that purpose. I have heard it said that the people on the West Coast are not capable of using large boats, but that is not true. Before the famine they had large boats. The people of the Island of Arran had several large boats which they used with skill; but during the years of terrible trial and distress, these boats were lost. If they could be restored, there is no doubt that the fishing industry could again be prosecuted successfully. As to migration, hon. Gentlemen opposite scoff and sneer at the idea; but do they realise the peculiar condition of many parts of Mayo? I know a district 8 or 10 miles from the town of Westport, where the people are living on patches of reclaimed bog, and where, a few years ago, we had to start public works in order to save the population from starvation. Well, in spite of the miserable condition of these people, there was, close at hand, a large tract of land of infinitely better quality than that they endeavoured to exist upon which was going back to a state of nature and barrenness for want of tillage. Surely migration could be effected in this district to advantage; and there are other instances of a like nature I could mention if it were necessary. In conclusion, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will deign to listen to a remark from one of the rank and file of

    1677
    the Irish Party; to answer me two questions at some later stage; first, what right he considers the Government have in a matter affecting Ireland alone to take Irish taxation for a benefit of a section of the people against the declared wish of the vast majority of the taxpayers of Ireland; and, secondly, is this intended to be the final settlement of the land question in Ireland? Is this Bill the beginning and the end, or is there another Bill behind it? If it is not a final settlement, then, having taken by force all the Irish securities to provide for this Bill, how is he going to find the money for the final settlement without coming to the British taxpayer? I ask him as a matter of honour and consistency to make that clear and unmistakeable to the House, and to say whether it is intended at some future time to come directly to the British taxpayer for further powers, and not to try and-shelter himself behind the sham argutment that this Bill does not really rest on British security.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): I shall only ask the House to give me its indulgence for a short time whilst I endeavour to explain, in a very general way, the reason why I intend to give my hearty support to this measure; and in doing so I shall ask the leave of the House to speak, not so much as a Member of the Government to which I have the honour to belong, but rather as an Irishman anxious for the welfare of my countrymen, and as a Representative of a section of the community, especially in the South-West of Ireland, who have not much representation otherwise in this House. I could not expect the House to listen to me were I to pretend to examine all the objections which have been raised to this measure; but I desire to call attention to the extraordinary fact that hardly any two hon. Members on the opposite side of the House have based their opposition to the Bill upon the same ground. The right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir G. Trevelyan), who spoke first on behalf of the English Opposition, said that he should be in favour of any measure that would enable
    1678
    substantial tenants to purchase their holdings, while the hon. Member for Cork, who spoke first on behalf of the Irish Opposition, asserted that such tenants are well able to take care of themselves, and that he would give such facilities only to the smaller occupiers. Other hon. Members declare that the tenants will not avail themselves of the unattractive terms offered by the Bill, while others, again, assert that there will be a rush to participate in those advantages, which will be followed by general repudiation on the part of the tenants. Then it is also said that only good landlords will sell their estates under the provisions of the Bill, while, on the other hand, it is complained that the good landlords will have no chance of selling under the Government proposal. It is further alleged that this Bill should be resisted because it is an insidious attempt to wean the Irish people from their adhesion to Home Rule; while, on the other hand, it is with equal confidence boasted that the more independent you make the tenant as a peasant proprietor, the more admirable a Nationalist he becomes. Then it is said that,£33,000,000 is too much to provide; while, on the other hand, it is insisted that that sum is not half enough. These objections, therefore, are inconsistent and mutually destructive of each other. Yet all these objectors are, or have been, ardent advocates of some scheme of land purchase for Ireland. Again, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labou-chere), supported by "patriotic fibre"—as he described it—said we ought not, under any circumstances, to make any advance upon British credit for the creation of a peasant proprietor; and, finally, what struck me most of all was that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down intimated to the House that he was disposed very much to doubt whether it would be a good thing to establish peasant proprietors in Ireland, because that would be establishing a new class of Irish landlords. Well, I am under the impression that the hon. Member himself is either a purchaser or a seller under the Ashbourne Act.
    *MR. MAHONY: I purchased a small farm from my brother, who had sold his property to the rest of the tenants in a certain district, and as I happened to hold a farm I also purchased.
    *MR. PLUNKET: The hon. Member must not imagine I am charging him with any offence; but it struck me as a strange thing that this throwing doubt on the general policy of the Act should come almost alone from the hon. Gentleman -who has himself availed of the provisions of a similar measure.
    *MR. MAHONY: Under the original Act before coercion.
    *MR. PLUNKET: There have besides been two or three suggestions of alternative schemes; but it occurrs to me, as I believe it will to many outside the House, that opposition of this kind is not of a very formidable character. There is confusion in the camp and conflict within the ranks of our assailants, and if those who have put forward these various objections and different schemes should succeed in all getting together in one Lobby, they will form for the moment a congeries of atoms; but it does not follow that their attitude and conduct will amount to a solid, consistent, or strong opposition to the measure which is now before the House. For myself, I support this Bill because I believe, in the first place, that it will be of great advantage to all classes of the Irish people, It will be so, because, as far as it goes, it will mark great progress in the direction of getting rid of the conflict between landlords and tenants, which hasever been such a hindrance to the prosperity of the one great industry of Ireland. It will release the country from the trouble and shame that have been brought upon it for a long time, and recently in an acute form, by the conflicts between landlords and tenants. That has always been, as all who have spoken or written on the history of Ireland agree, the one great source of difficulty and danger in Ireland. But if that source of difficulty and danger was great in former times, how much greater has it become since the passing of the Land Act of 1881. Whatever the merits or demerits of that Act may be, which is a question I will not enter into at this moment, the Act of 1881 created dual ownership in two persons who must have opposite interests and objects. The situation was summed up in a single phrase by Lord Dufferin, when he said that the Land Act of 1881 was an attempt to put two men into one bed under one blanket; one man was sure to
    1680
    kick away at the other until he has succeeded in kicking him on to the floor, and thus securing the whole bed and blanket to himself. A broader ground on which I myself would advocate the adoption of the Bill, even if much greater risk and difficulty were involved in it, is that it will help to modify the political deadlock in which we are fixed from the present social condition of Ireland. I am not now going to argue fully a matter of such immediate controversy, as the effect which the creation of a large number of peasant proprietors is likely to have on the Home Rule movement. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) says that he is confident that the Bill will strengthen the Home Rule movement. But I remember that at the commencement of the Land League agitation those who invented it declared that they had found it necessary, in order to induce the Irish people to take an active and energetic part in it, to use the land question as a steam-engine in order to drag along the national question. It has occurred to me that if the land question were settled and the steam-engine were thus unhooked, the speed of the train might slacken, and before long it might come to a standstill. Setting that aside, however, I am convinced that so long as the minds of the Irish people are agitated in regard to a great predominant interest like the land question, it is impossible to carry on a system of self-government, at all events of representative government by political parties; for so long as this question is open it is in vain to appeal to the tenant-farmers upon any other subject of public importance whatever. The Irish people are consolidated by that question, and progress must be retarded for all other reforms until that controversy is eliminated from the discussion of public affairs. I advocate this measure also in the interests of the tenant. Whatever may be said by those who represent them in this House, I believe the tenantry of Ireland do take a most keen and deep interest in the success of some such scheme of Land Purchase. The zeal and energy with which tenants have thrown themselves into the experiments which have been already made is a sufficient confirmation of what I say.

    1681
    The master passion of every Irish tenant is the absolute possession of the land on which he was born. All this was acknowledged by the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division when, speaking for the Government of 1884, he said—
    "The Government earnestly believed that the social and political state of Ireland was such that there never was a country in the world in which it was more important that those who tilled the land should also own it."
    Great success has attended the measures that have been already passed with this purpose. In almost every instance in which tenants have been made owners there has been seen a most marked improvement in their condition. There have been signs of contentment and prosperity in their homes, and there has been peace in their localities. And now, Sir, let us look at it from the Irish landlords' point of view. Their position at the present time is one of extreme difficulty and danger. For many years abuse has been heaped upon them—mark you, not upon the bad ones only, but upon the Irish landlords as a class, and they have been singled out and marked down for destruction as a class for a well-defined political purpose. Of course I do not deny that there have been landlords whose conduct I should be the last to defend, but they have always formed a small minority among the landlords of Ireland, and here today I claim for that body, as a whole, that whenever their conduct has been brought under the review of any fair and impartial tribunal they have passed through the ordeal scatheless. We may be sure that we have heard the worst that can be said. Vigilant eyes are ever on the watch. Every error, great and small, has been paraded on the political stage and dragged under the limelight of public opinion. Their conduct during the famine time has been described as that of ogres and monsters. It has somehow or other been made a charge against the landlords that they were responsible for that awful calamity when for two years the food of the people rotted in the ground. I will not defend them in words of my own. Let me read to the House what was said of them in New Ireland by Mr. A. M. Sullivan, than whom no one was better able to speak on this subject with knowledge and authority—
    1682
    "The conduct of the Irish landlords throughout the famine period has been variously described and has been, I believe, generally condemned. I consider the censure visited on them too sweeping. I hold it to be in some respects cruelly unjust."
    Then, after condemning many of the landlords individually, and especially the absentees, and referring to cases of heartless conduct on their part "here and there," he continues—
    "But granting all that has to be entered on the dark debtor side, the overwhelming balance is the other way. The bulk of the resident Irish landlords manfully did their best in that dread hour. No adequate tribute has ever been paid to the memory of those Irish landlords, and they were men of every party and creed, who perished martyrs to duty in that awful time; who did not fly the plague-reeking workhouse or fever-tainted court. Their names would make a goodly roll of honour. If they did too little compared with what the landlord class in England would have done in a similar case, it was because little was in their power. The famine found most of the resident landed gentry of Ireland on the brink of ruin. They were heritors of estates heavily over weighted with the debts of a bygone generation. Broad lands and lordly mansions were held by them on settlements and conditions that allowed small scope for the exercise of individual liberality. To these landlords the failure of one year's rental receipts meant mortgage, foreclosure, and hopeless ruin. Yet cases might be named by the score in which such men scorned to avert by pressure on their suffering tenantry the fate they saw impending over themselves. They 'went down with the ship.'"
    This is the impartial summing up of a man who, if ever there was one, was the tenant's friend, and who, from personal experience, knew well the history of that time. For a while after the famine better and happier fortunes came upon Ireland, and prosperity seemed determined to return to the country. I remember that all classes were full of brighter hopes for the future. The relations of landlords and tenants greatly improved, and just before the year 1879 the number of evictions had fallen to something like one-fortieth what they had been in the famine time. I will not quote the Reports of Commissions, lest I should be told they were, more or less, landlords' Commissions; but I will quote the words of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), who, in introducing the Land Bill of 1881, referred to the Report of the Bess-borough Commission, which he said was, "certainly not deficient in popular sympathies." He also said:—

    1683
    "We do not think it just to propose legislation on this great matter on the ground, whether express or implied, of great misconduct on the part of the landlords of Ireland. On the contrary, as a rule, they have stood their trial, and they have been, as a rule, acquitted."
    Again, in 1886, the right hon. Gentleman brought in his Land Purchase Bill, and said that he had to frame an indictment against the Irish landlords, but he added—
    "I frame that indictment against many in the past, but against few, I hope, in the present."
    It was upon that judgment of the action of the Irish landlords of this generation that the right hon. Gentleman framed those two great proposals he made for the settlement of the Irish land question. But arguing this Session in the Debate on the Parnell Commission the right hon. Gentleman said the large reductions of rent had forced to his mind a different conviction and conclusion; and yet only the other day the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division said that the landlords in Ireland had no right to complain if they had had their rents cut down, because the reductions had been much larger in the case of the English landlords. We may be told that the English landlords made reductions voluntarily, whereas the Irish landlords were compelled by Act of Parliament to reduce their rents. What I have to say is, that from the time the Land League was instituted it was not possible for the Irish landlords to make reductions in a friendly spirit in any place where the Land League had the power to prevent them. The object of the Land Leaguers was not to make the landlord system tolerable, but to make it intolerable, in order that it might be abolished. Conciliation between landlord and tenant in Ireland was made impossible. The door was shut in the face of any attempt on the part of the landlord to come to terms with his tenants. I am sorry to detain the House so long upon this subject, but the Irish landlords have but few Representatives in this House, and as they have been so roughly used in recent times, it is not, I think, unfair that I should defend them. I am glad to say that in many parts of Ireland it was not in the power of agitators or anyone else to step in between landlord and tenant, and that in those parts of the country there have
    1684
    always been, and there still continue to be, happy and friendly relations between landlord and tenant. There is only one other accusation that is hurled at the heads of the Irish landlords that I want to refer to. The right hon. gentleman the Member for Derby, who has lately made himself a pastmaster in the art of denouncing the Irish landlords, says that now the English Garrison want to abandon their posts and carry off the plunder. Sir, there is no ground or foundation whatever for such an accusation, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to produce any warrant for it. The great landlords of Ireland who have been in the position to sell their estates to their tenants have not left the country, and they have declared over and over again, both in speeches and in resolutions which they have agreed to at the meetings of the Association that represents them, that their desire is to remain in the country, and that the ground upon which they support this Bill is, as stated by Lord Waterford the other day, that although there is much in the Bill that, is injurious and destructive of their interests, they regard the measure as a great statesmanlike measure for the improvement of the general condition of the country. They desire to live in their own homes, amongst their own people, and they desire to live on more happy and friendly terms than in the past. While they recognise the injury which, in many instances, this Bill must work, they realise the desperate position in which they have been placed. Their property has been reduced enormously in its value to them by a reckless agitation, and rendered absolutely unsaleable by the agency of boycotting, as the hon. Member for East Mayo boasted the other night, and they are, at the same-time, threatened by the Party oppesite with measures for further reducing their rents—measures which the same Party only a few years ago declared to be unjust and indefensible in principle, and which will almost annihilate what remains of the landlord's property. They have been accused, on false testimony, on reckless exaggeration and monstrous falsehood; they have been sentenced to an unjust sentence, and now they are to be "left for execution" by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have placed them in this position

    1685
    of difficulty and peril by the Act of 1881—the Act by which those right hon. Gentlemen promised that what property remained to them should be absolutely secured to them. Speaking in my capacity of an Irish Member, I wish to say I cannot hide from myself the fact that some, at least, of the landlords of Ireland may be exposed to considerable injury by some of the provisions of this measure, but I feel very confident that if Amendments to such clauses of the Bill should be proposed not inconsistent with its principles—not inconsistent with what is right and reasonable, this House will listen to such arguments as may be advanced in support of them in a spirit of fairness and justice to this unhappy class of men. There is only one other subject on which I wish to make an observation, and it is the proposals with regard to the congested districts. Though I listened with admiration, as I of ten do, to the eloquence—the somewhat volcanic eloquence—of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I must say that when he came to deal with that part of the Bill which affects more particularly his own constituents and those parts of the country which lie close to the constituency he represents, I heard with great regret the tone in which he spoke. Whatever you may think of the relations of landlord and tenant in other parts of Ireland, however much you may be heated by Party debate and Party passion, is it not worth while for Irishmen on both sides to lay aside such feelings and prejudices in the presence of the problem which is here brought before us? This is the first honest and great attempt that has ever been made to deal with this part, the saddest part, of the Irish social problem. Whatever may be the prosperity of the rest of Ireland, there is always a certain amount of distress, if not existing, at all events hovering over the parts of the country which are called the congested districts. I have spent a great deal of my life in some portions of the congested districts of the West of Ireland. The people who live there are, in good seasons, a light-hearted and happy people. They live in wonderful contentment, notwithstanding the hard circumstances of their case; but whenever a time of distress falls upon Ireland, when the seasons are unfavourable, when the food
    1686
    of the people fails, then there comes a cry of agony and great distress from that desolate part of the island, there comes a cry like the hollow hopeless sound of the waves when they break upon the inhospitable rocks of the coast—a wail of misery and despair. There is no subject in the whole range of Irish social and political history so sad and so difficult to deal with as the question of these congested districts. The Government of the present day have, at all events, endeavoured to face this state of things, and I appeal to the House whether it would not be better for the hon. Member for East Mayo to apply his great ability and knowledge of the case in assisting the Government, if he can, to deal with this awful or terrible difficulty, rather than to heap contempt upon them and to throw every possible obstacle in the way of their solving the problem.
    MR. DILLON: That is exactly what I expressed a readiness to do.
    *MR. PLUNKET: I am extremely glad now to learn that I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, and if he will really go into this business with us he will find there is not a Member on this side of the House who is not as eager as he is to help the congested districts in their difficulties. And now, before I sit down, I venture to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on the duty which has fallen to him, and the great opportunity, the great and well-deserved and well-earned opportunity, which he has achieved for dealing with the Irish land question. Two tasks the present Government undertook when they accepted office, besides, of course, the maintenance of the legislative union between the two countries. The one was to restore order in Ireland, to establish the sovereignty of the law of the Queen, and to make safe and sure what we considered was then wanting in many places—individual liberty. But the second task was to do something by practical legislation for the material prosperity of Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has, in my judgment, with extraordinary ability and courage and industry achieved almost completely the first task we undertook to perform. Save in a few an I isolated parts of

    1687
    Ireland where the wretched land war is still waged, peace, order, liberty and respect for law have been restored, restored far faster than I—though I know something of the country and of its history—believed to be possible. But now it is, I am sure, a great pleasure and satisfaction to him to turn from that task, which, however necessary, must be for all public men a painful task, and standing on the firm ground which he has won by the policy which he has hitherto pursued, and following up some smaller efforts which he made last year and the year before to advance the material prosperity of Ireland, to propose to this House and this country and to the Irish people a measure for improving the Land Tenure of Ireland, a measure to deal with the great historic difficulty, that which has been so often the cause of the ruin and shame of Ireland in former times, a measure to give to the one great industry of that country the means of going happily forward on a prosperous course. These ends, I believe, will be to a great extent achieved by this Bill if only it is accepted and carried out in the same spirit as actuates those who are offering this "enormous boon," as it has been truly called, to the people of my native land.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I think I reflect the opinion of all hon'. Members when I say we always listen with pleasure to speeches from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket), and only regret that he does not more often speak in the House upon these subjects, with which he is so familiar. I listened to his speech just now with peculiar interest, for I could not but re-call the day, when, not so many years ago, he and I sat on the same Committee on the subject of Land Purchase in Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman occupied a very different position in reference to this subject. I have no desire to refer to what took place on that occasion, but I confess I was curious to learn by what process the right hon. Gentleman had persuaded himself of the expediency of supporting a measure so far in advance of anything he then contemplated. As I understand, from the speech just delivered, the right hon. Gentleman has been mainly influenced by the passing of the Land Act of 1881,
    1688
    and the creation of dual ownership under that Act. Now, for my part, I have been influenced in a contrary direction by that Act. It has always appeared to me that, since the passing of that Act, it has become less important than before that a peasant proprietary should be established in Ireland on a very large scale by means of advances of English capital. It appears to me that the Act of 1881 gave to the Irish tenants an enormous boon by conferring security of tenure, judicial rents, and complete protection for their improvements. It has been said that the dual ownership created under that Act is a false and dangerous position, and one which ought to be got rid of. But may I remind the House that dual ownership is not an unfamiliar condition of things. It exists in many parts of Europe, and it exists in India, and even in Ireland it was not created by the Act of 1881. It practically existed in a part of Ireland before the Act was passed, and was known as the "Ulster custom," and the Act of 1881 only had the effect of giving statutory sanction to that custom, and of extending it to the whole of Ireland. It has long existed in the North of Ireland, and the agricultural prosperity which has existed there, as distinguished from the other parts of the island, is undoubtedly due to the fact of the existence of dual ownership there. Since the passing of the Act it appears to me to be vastly less important from an economic point of view to use State capital for the purpose of creating individual ownership of tenant farmers on a very large scale. I cannot regard the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken as the Representative of the Irish landlords. They have their Representatives from the North of Ireland, who, so far, have not spoken a single word in favour of the Bill. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham has grossly exaggerated the numbers of the minority in Ireland, and there is not the slightest proof that any considerable proportion of them are in favour of the Bill. It is well known there is a very great difference of opinion, even among the landlord class, with regard to the proposals of the Government, many of the landlords thinking, and with good reason, that the Bill, if passed, will ultimately bring about the extinction of their class in Ireland.

    1689
    At all events, there is the gravest differences of opinion, and the principal organ of the class, the Dublin Express, is a vehement opponent of this Bill. Even among the tenants in the North of Ireland, a very sensible section of the minority, there is to be observed a considerable difference of opinion as to the expediency of the measure, and, so far as I know, at meetings held among Ulster tenants, the conclusions arrived at are that the Bill is unsatisfactory as it stands, and can only be made satisfactory to their interests by being made universal and compulsory in its application. The hon. Member for Fulham appears to think that those who have advocated moderate schemes in the direction of creating a peasant proprietary are bound to support the present Bill in all its extreme proposals. For my part, I protest against that doctrine. I have never been in favour of the total abolition of landlordism. The discussion of this Bill has been complicated and embarrassed by the number of alternative schemes which have been suggested. Suggestions have been made by the hon. Member for Cork, the hon. Member for Mayo, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham. The hon. Member for Cork has proposed a scheme limited to tenants below £50 rental. He suggests that their rents should be fined down to the extent of 50 per cent. by means of advances to their landlords, out of which their mortgages could be reduced. The scheme has much to recommend it in preference to that of the Government. It has, at all events, the great advantage of restricting the proposal to the smaller tenants, and it is to these and not to the larger tenants I have always considered any proposal of the kind should be extended. There is no more reason for extending that boon to large tenants in Ireland than to similar tenants in England. Without committing myself to the details of the scheme of the hon. Member for Cork, which are not fully developed, I will say it offers some very great advantages. It has the element of finality. It would not leave the Government face to face with a large body of small debtors, as the landlords will be primarily responsible, and would collect the interest due. The scheme would have the enormous advantage of the assent of the Irish Representatives. The
    1690
    scheme has been put forward as a compulsory measure; it would, therefore, exhaust the whole of the advance which the Government think it safe to propose. I will only say that, as part of a settlement of the Home Rule Question, it is eminently worthy of consideration, and every way preferable to the scheme of the Government. Then we have had the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman practically admitted all the many objections which have been urged on this side of the House to the measure of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out the danger of legislating without the consent of the people of Ireland, and has merely stated, as against that, that there is a minority, numbering 2,000,000, which may take the opposite view. But there are no indications whatever that that minority thinks differently upon the Bill from the majority of the Irish tenants. By far the most important part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that in which he stated that it would be desirable to give popular Local Authorities a veto upon transactions under the Act. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman is practically an entirely new scheme, quite inconsistent with the scheme of the Government, and one which, in my opinion, has many advantages over that scheme, but it would inevitably necessitate the postponement of a scheme of purchase until after passing a Local Government Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham has said that he hopes to press this scheme on the Government, but he has not stated what steps he proposes to take, or what the effect would be of his suggestion not being adopted. The right hon. Gentleman does not threaten to vote against the Second Reading, which is the only effective way of bringing pressure to bear upon the Government. Nor have we had any intimation as to what course the Government propose to pursue with regard to those proposals. I will, under these circumstances, we have only to consider the Bill before the House, devote my remarks especially to the question of whether the Bill is likely to be a settlement of the question, even from the point of view of those who propose it. If the

    1691
    measure is likely to be a full and final settlement of the land question in Ireland, as the Government hope, there might be much to recommend it, and the use of English credit for that purpose might be justifiable and advisable. But it is my confident belief that the Bill will not prove to be a final settlement of the question, but, on the contrary, will raise up further difficulty and agitation, and must inevitably give rise to a demand for its being made universal and compulsory throughout the whole of Ireland, involving an advance of £150,000,000 or £ 160,000,000 before this question can be settled on the lines of the Bill. Let me assume that the measure has all the success hoped for by the Chief Secretary. Assuming that within four or five years the whole of the sum allocated under the Bill is applied for by tenant purchasers, what will the result be? We shall have within a reasonable period 120,000 tenants turned into owners under the operation of the Act, including those who already own their land under the two Ashbourne Acts. I will assume, also, that the price between them and their landlords is that which has been the average under the Ashbourne Acts, of which I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has spoken with approval, and which I assume that the right hon. Gentleman supposes will continue to be the average price.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOB IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The right hon. Gentleman must not draw any such inference. I merely based an illustration upon what had actually taken place; I have no ground for assuming that the average value of land will remain the same.
    *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I will assume that it will remain the same, and that on those terms the Bill will not be otherwise than successful. At any rate the right hon. Gentleman has spoken without disapproval of the effect of the Ashbourne Acts, and I am justified in assuming that for the next three or four years the average will remain the same. Of this I am quite certain, that if this average is very much higher there will not be many transactions under this Bill. The only chance of many transactions is that the average of the recent past will be maintained in the future. This average price has been 18 years' pur-
    1692
    chase. The result will be that 120,000 tenants will be turned into owners upon the terms that their average payment for interest will be 28 per cent. less than their previous rents, spread over a period of 49 years. But that is not the full measure of the advantage, for of these annual payments, one-fourth will represent re-payment of capital, and, therefore, ought not to be taken into account in a comparison with the previous rent. The boon to the tenant purchaser will be enormous, and can be at once realised by the purchaser selling his interest. Speculators in Ireland are already buying land in order to get the difference in price. A case has come under my notice where a man bought the tenant's interest in two farms, the one for £550 and the other for £650. He then agreed with the landlord to purchase these holding's under the Ashbourne Act at 19 years' purchase, and, having done so, he sold the holdings, subject to the reduced payments, for £960 and £1,220 respectively, making use of the Act to obtain the value of the State advances, although he had never been in possession and occupation of either farm. Now, under the full operation of the Act, and suppose it comes into effect in the manner I have suggested, we shall have two classes of occupiers, one class deriving these enormous benefits under this Act who are converted into owners in fact, and paying instalments much less than the amount of their previous rent; and then there will be a larger class still under the obligation to pay rent for ever. Of the whole number of tenants, three-fourths will be of the class under the obligation of paying rent for ever. Now, I ask, is it possible for such a condition of things to exist? Is it possible that there can be two classes of occupiers in Ireland at the same time, one paying rent for ever, and the other paying a reduced rent for a limited number of years, and then becoming absolute owner of his farm? Such a condition of affairs would be unstable, and the three-fourths of the tenants who will not benefit by the Bill will make a claim to be brought within the terms of the Act, and you will be unable to resist their demand to make the Act compulsory and universal. I have always realised this difficulty, and when I was Chairman of the Committee on the Bright Clauses, which sat in

    1693
    1878–79, I always resisted any attempt of this kind, which would make the terms of purchase so favourable as to create an enormous difference between the two classes of occupiers. The clauses in the Act of 1881 were purposely restricted in this view, and framed so as to avoid turning tenants into owners upon the terms that they would pay considerably less than their previous rent. In 1885, when Lord Ashbourne's Act was passed, I raised the same objections; and again in 1888, on the renewal of the Act, in almost the same words as I have used to-day. In the General Election of 1886 I took the same line with reference to the scheme of purchase of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. I predicted the time was not far distant when there would be an agitation on the part of the tenants left out from the operations of the Act, and I pointed out in, 1888, that the difficulty was already arising, and that comparisons were being made between tenants who had availed themselves of the Act and those of their neighbours whose landlords had not sold under the Act. My predictions are already in course of verification. In the autumn of last year an important deputation from the tenant-farmers of Ulster waited on the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in Dublin, with reference to the proposed Land Bill, and insisted that no scheme would be satisfactory which was not compulsory and universal. At the same time they pointed out that the contrasts being set up between the two classes of tenants, the purchasing tenants with a reduced rent gradually obtaining ownership and those less fortunate tenants continuing under the old rents, were creating much dissatisfaction, discontent, and agitation throughout the country. But I have still another witness to call in support of this view, namely, an hon. Member of this House with whom I do not often happen to agree on questions affecting Irish land. The hon. Member for South Tyrone, in an interesting article which he contributed to the Nineteenth Century, in October last, asserted that every estate sold under the Act rendered the position more intolerable in his own constituency, making discontented those tenants who were unable to reap the benefits of the Act.
    1694
    That is exactly my contention, and I say the result will be to produce a universal and irresistible movement on the part of the tenants throughout Ireland to make the terms of the Act compulsory throughout the country. Unless this is acceded to you will get an agitation for a further reduction of judicial rents. The position of inequality will be greatly aggravated by the provision in the Bill making those who have been unable to become owners guarantees for the payment by the favoured minority of their debts, and discontent and agitation will necessarily arise. Not only will the tenants not benefited by the Act have to guarantee the payments of those who are benefited, but for five years they will be deprived of the advantage of the £40,000 a year admitted to be due to the ratepayers of Ireland. I believe that the more this principle of purchase upon the suggested terms is extended the greater will be the discontent and the stronger will become the demand for the Act to be made universal and compulsory. It may be said that the Bill contemplates an ultimate extension by providing that the capital repaid may be advanced again; bat this would mean for years to come no more than £400,000 a year, which would be a mere fleabite in proportion to the number who will demand a share. The measure, therefore, cannot be a settlement of the question. It must create a demand for its being made universal and compulsory or for a reduction of rents. I believe the former to be the more likely result, and in this view we must contemplate an ultimate advance, not of £33,000,000, but of £150,000,000. In fact, the scheme is open to precisely the same objections which were raised in 1886 to the scheme of Mr. Gladstone, when it was said, in opposition to his proposal to advance £50,000,000 to landlords who wished to sell, that it would ultimately involve £150,000,000. I always thought there was much force in the objection, and I stated at that time that I could not support the proposal as it then stood. But, whatever were its defects, the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman had some great merits which are wanting in this Bill. In the first place, it was part of a great scheme for settling the whole of the Irish question. It had also the hearty approval of the Irish people through

    1695
    their Representatives, and it also interposed between the Imperial Government and the class of small debtors a representative body whose interest it would be to collect the payments, and thus the danger of bringing the State face to face with a multitude of small debtors would be avoided. The present scheme, however, has none of these advantages. It is not part of a great settlement of the Irish question; on the contrary, it is an isolated measure which is not even immediately connected with a scheme of Local Government short of Home Rule. It is avowedly put forward in the hope of withdrawing the tenants from their natural leaders and inducing-them to give up the demand for Home Rule—a most vain delusion. It is an idle dream. It leaves the State in direct relation to the multitude of small debtors, a position which every one who has looked into the question has admitted to be one of great danger. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in 1883, on a Motion for the extension of land purchase on the basis of this Bill, said that few conditions would be more dangerous to the Government than that it should be the creditor of a large portion of its subjects to whom it might be politically opposed, for it would be brought face to face with hundreds of thousands of tenants, to whom the doctrine of the repudiation of rent is too familiar. I agree with the noble Lord that it is a position of the greatest possible danger, and therefore I am opposed to this Bill. But, above all, I think a far more serious objection to this measure is that it has not received, and will not receive, the support of the Irish Members. That raises both financial and political dangers. If the Government have not the assent of the Irish people in the first instance to a proposal of this kind the fact will always be recorded against them, and will always be a source of financial danger and difficulty. It appears to me that the political danger is even greater, for it is wholly without precedent to pass a remedial measure against the will of the majority of the Irish people—with the single exception of the extension of Lord Ashbourne's Act. Now, however, the Government are going to propose a remedial measure, and to force it upon Ireland against the wish of the Irish people.
    1696
    That I conceive to be a dangerous policy, and one wholly unprecedented in the history of this country.
    It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

  ALLOTMENTS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 147.)
  Order for Committee read.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: In reference to a question which was addressed to me early in the Sitting, I wish to say that after full consideration it has been decided to take this Bill on Friday at 2 o'clock.
  Committee deferred till Friday, at Two of the clock.

COMPANIES (MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION) BILL.-(No. 114.)
A Clause (Preference shares.)
"It shall be lawful for any Company by special resolution, if authorised to do so by its Articles as originally framed, or as altered by special resolution, and whether so authorised by its Memorandum of Association or not, to affix any preference in payment of dividend or in repayment of capital to any of its shares,"—(Mr. Edmund Robertson,)
—brought up, and read the first and second time.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words—
"But such special resolution shall not take effect until it has been confirmed in England and Ireland by the High Court, and in Scotland by the Court of Session."—[Mr. Whitley.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause added.
Amendments made.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION AND REDEMPTION OPERATIONS).
Copy ordered—
"Of Statements relating to the completed operations under' The National Debt (Conversion) Act, 1888' (51 and 52 Vic. c. 2), and 'The National Debt Redemption Act, 1889' (52 Vic. c. 4)."—(Mr. Jackson.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 153.)

COAL, IRONSTONE, AND OTHER MINES (RATING).
Return ordered—
"Showing the gross estimated rental and rateable value of the several Coal, Ironstone, and other Mines in each Poor Law Union in England and Wales, together with the basis or mode of assessment (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 457, of Session 1877."—(Mr. Burt.)

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir JOHH MOWBRAY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged Mr. Henry H. Fowler from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Bankruptcy Bill, and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Causton.
Sir JOHN MOWBRAY further reported: That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Directors' Liability Bill, the following fifteen Members, namely: Sir Horace Davey, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Hankey, Colonel Hill, Mr. Kimber, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Mackintosh, Mr. Neville, Mr. Quilter, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Royden, Mr. David Thomas, Mr. Warmington, Mr. John Wilson, and Mr. Powell-Williams.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to make better provision for the exercise of the right of Presentation to Benefices in cases where the Right is now exerciseable by Parishioners or others forming a numerous class." [Presentation to Benefices Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to amend the existing Statutory Provisions respecting the Canonries, Prebends, and other Ecclesiastical offices of the Cathedral Church of Lichfield." [Lichfield Cathedral Bill [Lords.]
The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

MOTIONS.

  LICENSING LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL, in rising,
  "To call attention to the Licensing Laws, and to ask for leave to bring in a Bill consolidating and amending the Law of Licensing,"
  said: I must confess my regret that the fortunes of the Ballot wore unfavourable, and that instead of submitting a Second Reading discussion to the House, as I might have done had I been more fortunate, I am obliged to take advantage of a Motion asking leave to introduce a Bill in order to bring on a discussion which must, to a great extent, be of a somewhat indefinite nature. I should have been glad, if possible, to have moved a Resolution; but I believe that it has been decided by you, Sir, that a Resolution on the Licensing Laws, while a Bill dealing with them is on the Order Book of the House of Commons, would not be in order. Therefore, I take this opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a subject which I think the House will admit, is of the greatest possible importance. The Licensing Laws of this country, whether they ought to be amended or not, are a matter which, in the opinion of many in this House and of multitudes outside it, take a first and foremost place in public problems, although undoubtedly they have not for a long time come before Parliament in a comprehensive form. This is a question which for years past has attracted public and Parliamentary attention, and it is a question which has been examined by more than one Parliamentary Committee. But the House is aware that the examination of a great question by a Committee by no means implies that the question will be dealt with by Parliament. Parliament has got into the bad habit—apparently the inveterate habit—of referring great social questions to Committees, and then of imagining that, having taken that action, it has dealt with them. It reminds me of a gentleman with whom I am acquainted, who was in the habit of dealing with his bills in a very methodical way. He docketed them, arranged them in alphabetical order, tied them together very neatly,

  1699
  and then put them away in a drawer, with the remark, "Thank goodness! I have done the civil thing by them." So Parliament, with its Committees, thinks it has done a civil thing to great questions, and has then banished them altogether from its mind. It is difficult to over-estimate the magnitude of the evils which arise from the excessive consumption of alcoholic liquors by the people. Crime, poverty, and misery of every kind have been authoritatively and directly traced to the excessive consumption of alcohol. I do not intend in these matters to rely, or ask the House to rely, on anything which I might adduce as my personal opinion. I must confess that I am a somewhat recent recruit to the forces which have been endeavouring to bring this question before the House, and I have no claim whatever to take up the position of an authority, or even of an apostle. But I would venture to quote to the House—though that is generally a wearisome proceeding—extracts, some of them lengthy, from various Reports of Committees and speeches made by high authorities. I hope the House will bear with me if I somewhat excessively trespass on their attention, because of the great importance and weight of the extracts which I shall read. So long ago as the year 1849 a Committee of the House of Lords, under the Presidency of the late Lord Harrowby, investigated the evils arising from an excessive indulgence in alcoholic liquor by the people in consequence of the inordinate multiplication of the establishments for the sale of liquor. That Committee used these remarkable words—
  "It was already sufficiently notorious that drunkenness is the main cause of crime, disorder, and distress in England, and it appears that the multiplication of houses for the consumption of intoxicating liquors, which under the Beer Act has risen from 88,930 to 123,396, has been thus in itself an evil of the first magnitude, not only by increasing the temptations to excess which are thus presented at every step, but by driving houses, even those under the direct control of the magistrates, as well as others originally respectable, to practices or the purpose of attracting custom, which are degrading to their own character and most injurious to morality and order. Coincident with this increase in the facilities for intoxication is appears that crime has increased in a frightful ratio, the commitments for trial in England and Wales in the years 1848–49 being in the proportion to those of 1830–31, the two
  1700
  first years after the enactment of the Beer Act* of 156 to 100; and that is not a mere casual coincidence, the Committee have the strongest reasons to believe, from the general evidence submitted to them, but more especially from that of the chief constables of police and the chaplains of gaols, who have the best opportunities, the one of watching the character of the beershops and of those who frequent them, the other of tracing the causes of crime and the career of criminals."
  I must point out that that is no fanatical teetotal pronouncement, but the Report of a practical Committee of Peers, presided over by a noble Lord who, in his own day, was highly respected as a practical man. I come to a more important Committee—that of the House of Commons, which sat in 1854, and I would particularly draw attention to the composition of that Committee. It was presided over by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Charles Villiers), and it contained, amongst others, Mr. Lowe (afterwards Chancellor of the Exchequer), Sir George Grey (afterwards Home Secretary), Sir John Pakington, Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, and others of like ability. They were men of moderation, experience, and authority; and what language do they use on the subject? They say—
  "Your Committee do not feel it necessary to follow further the evidence upon the connection between intoxicating drinks and crime. It has directly or indirectly been the subject of inquiry at different times, and has been reported upon by numerous Committees of your honourable House, who bear unvarying testimony to the general intemperance of criminals and the increase and the diminution of crime in direct ratio of the increased or diminished consumption of intoxicating drinks. It is universally admitted that the great majority of criminals are intemperate, and that, as might be looked for from the hours at which their unlawful pursuits are carried on, their idle and lurking habits, their necessity to meet their associates without being open to suspicion, and their rapid alternations of abundance and want, the lowest class of public houses and beershops are their most frequent haunts. The evidence already referred to (and which, coming from persons of such ample experience, is entitled to especial weight) goes further and tends to establish that whatever individual propensity there may be to crime is with few exceptions brought into activity by habits of intemperance, that children are driven forth to crime to feed an appetite for drink which bears no control and knows no natural affection, and that even criminals cease from crime if they cease to be drunken."
  This is no teetotal sermon. It is the grave pronuncement of a Committee of this House, and no Committee could be

  1701
  entitled to more respect. I had the greatest difficulty in procuring a copy of the Report of the Committee, and the one I obtained was an old copy which bore the name on the outside of Gathorne Hardy—that is the present Lord Cran-brook—and which was fully annotated by him on the margin. I do not know whether the Government may consider the propriety of re-printing that Report. Although it was made in 1854, an enormous portion of it bears directly on what we have to deal with now. I went over to the Mast End of London one night to observe, as far as I could, the practices that went on at the various drinking establishments in that part. I saw a sight which I did not know how to adequately describe to the House; but in reading this Report I came on a passage which practically describes what I saw that night. This is what the Committee of 1854 state—
  "A witness who acted as temperance missionary in St. Giles's states that he lately visited the whole of the public houses in the New Cut.…In one house he counted 50 persons drinking; they were serving as fast as they could. Among the number were women with children in their arms. Upon one butt there was an infant fast asleep, and the father and mother were drunk by the side. Against the counter was a little child fast asleep. At one house the police were obliged to stand with their staves to prevent the people from pushing the doors in as the publican and his servants drove them out to prevent them getting more drink and to enable the public house to be closed at the time prescribed by Act of Parliament."
  Practically, I saw that sight with my -own eyes in 1889, which shows how little progress has been made in spite of all these weighty pronouncements. I saw practically the same state of things, and relatively—considering the advance of civilisation—a worse state of things than existed at the time when the Committee repotted. Then there was a Committee of the House of Lords which reported in the year 1879, and which went very fully into the question of drunkenness. But I think I have quoted enough authorities to render it beyond dispute that an excessive consumption of alcoholic drink by the people and excessive crime are merely cause and effect. Now, Sir, I pass on to consider what has been the course of recent legislation. Very little has been done. The present Lord Aberdare, when
  1702
  Home Secretary, as Mr. Bruce, introduced a Bill for the comprehensive reform of the Licensing Laws, which I greatly regret to say led to no result. It was produced by him in a speech of great power, and curiously enough it was received by the House with great approval. Speeches were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Sir W. Lawson), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Essex (Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson), who has done me the honour to put his name on the back of this Bill, and by others, all of whom approved with great cordiality of the Bill produced in 1871. I am not old enough to recollect, and I have not been able to ascertain, the precise causes which led to the precipitate abandonment of that Bill. It was abandoned, owing to the Party feeling of the time, and considerable unpopularity accrued to the Government, very unjustly I think, for having introduced the Bill. In 1872 Mr. Bruce produced a much smaller Bill, which practically had the effect of enacting stricter police regulations and earlier hours of closing. But the main question, namely, what was admitted to be at the time, as I think it will be admitted even now, the greatly excessive number of public houses in proportion to the number of people, was untouched by the Bill of 1872, and has remained untouched. Sir, the House will, perhaps, allow me to quote from the speech of Mr. Bruce, who was one of the most distinguished Home Secretaries this House has known—a man of perfectly cool, calm, and moderate character, with a very clear head, with great experience of business of every kind, and who, when he made his speech, bad been Home Secretary for nearly three years, and spoke with all the authority and knowledge and experience that the Home Office could give him. What did he say? Mr. Bruce said—
  "That the measure he was asking leave to introduce was one which had been demanded by the general voice of the country, with an earnestness and unanimity to which he recollected hardly any parallel. The question was one which had deeply stirred the hearts and feelings of all classes of Society. Committees of both Houses of Parliament, the Church in Convention, Ministers of every Religious Denomination, Judges and Magistrates collectively and individually, Boards of Health and Boards of Guardians, had all united in proclaiming and

  1703
  impressing upon Parliament the mischiefs which had arisen from the existing facilities for the purchase of intoxicating liquors. Social and sanitary reformers, who spent their lives in doing good, had declared that their labours for the moral and social improvement of their fellow men were baffled at every turn by the recklessness and moral degradation which sprung from and were occasioned by the liquor traffic. They told us how our prisons, lunatic asylums, and workhouses were filled with inmates whose career had originated in their passion for intoxicating liquor. The back streets, courts, and alleys of most large towns were filled with a squalid and dangerous population, who owed their degradation to the same cause, and even the rural districts were not free from the curse. Above all, the working classes of this country, who were the most sensitive to its effects, and who were affected by and felt most the consequences of the system had, with united voice, called upon Parliament to deliver them from temptation."
  Mr. Bruce went on to say—
  "That he would not pause to ask whether drunkenness was, or was not, on the increase, because he felt satisfied that the evil was so great, as to be a blot upon our social system and a disgrace to our civilisation."
  Now, that is not the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, but the Home Secretary of a Liberal Government, and perhaps, I may be allowed to say, with all sincerity, one of the best Liberal Governments this country has ever seen. Surely, such a pronouncement on the subject is of immense authority. There is nothing rhetorical in it. It is the deliberate statement of the opinions and views of the Secretary of State, Minister of the Interior, upon the excessive facilities for the consumption of alcoholic drinks by the people, in words that apply almost entirely to the state of things at the present day. Mr. Bruce made five propositions, to which he expected the general concurrence of the House, and for which he apparently obtained concurrence that night. His first proposition was that there were far more licences than were required—the proportion being one to every 182 of the population. His second proposition was that the method of issuing licences was un-satisfactory, that there was no guidance to the Magistrates as to the number required, and that they had no responsibility whatever. Again, that proposition is as true now as it was then, and can be proved to demonstration by the Return which the Government have been good enough to give me, showing the number of licensed
  1704
  establishments in various Petty Sessional Divisions, in proportion to population. What it shows is this, that the Magistrates act without the slightest system, method, or order, that licences are issued, as a general rule, with some bright exceptions, in a purely haphazard way, that there is not the slightest consideration by modern Licensing Authorities, or—I do not say it is so now—at any rate, there has not been in recent years the slightest consideration as to how many premises for the consumption of alcoholic liquor were really required. That has been a consideration totally absent from the minds of the Licensing Authorities. The third proposition made by Mr. Bruce was that there were no sufficient guarantees for the orderly management or effective supervision of public houses. That has been dealt with, to some extent, by the Bill of 1872. The fourth proposition, which still exists, in spite of legislation, is that the laws against adulteration are insufficient and imperfectly enforced. That is true at the present day, as it was true then. The quality of the liquor supplied, certainly as regards spirits in a greater degree, and as regards beer in a smaller degree, is often of a most inferior character, and often most villainously adulterated. The House will agree that the adulteration of English spirits by German spirits is most abominable; yet such spirits are served out, dram after dram, by hundreds of thousands and by millions annually to poor people, in a manner such as the House would hardly credit. I do believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Her Majesty's Government ought to take seriously into consideration the policy of not allowing spirits to be taken out of bond until they have been at least two years in bond, for I am assured by a high authority that if that could be carried out an enormous importation of German spirits, inferior spirits, poisonous spirits, into the country would be materially curtailed, and the spirits which would be afterwards supplied to the classes would be of a far less poisonous description. The fifth proposition was that the hours during which public houses were allowed to be kept open admitted of reduction. That was dealt with, to some extent, in the Bill of 1872. But I must point out to my great

  1705
  regret that Mr. Bruce's Bill of 1872 excited unpopularity at the time, from some cause or other, and that unpopularity was naturally taken advantage of by political opponents. And the Government of 1874, which came into office, passed an Act which seriously impaired the provisions of the Act of 1872. I would wish to draw the attention of the House to a very important matter in connection with this subject. Mr. Bruce, in his Bill of 1871, laid down the standard for the number of public houses, which, in the opinion of the Home Secretary and of the Government of that day, were the maximum which was requisite for the wants of the people. Mr. Bruce laid down that in towns of under 1,500 population, one public house was sufficient; in towns of under 3,000, two were sufficient; under 4,000, three; and over 4,000, he allowed one public house for every additional 1,000. In the country, he prescribed in his Bill that where the population was under 900 one public house was sufficient; under 1,200, two; under 1,800, three; and one more for each additional 600 of population. I attach importance to this standard, made by a responsible Minister, who had studied the question with more care and attention than had ever been brought to bear upon it, perhaps, by any Government. What would have been the effect of the Bill if it had been passed into law? The number of licensed houses in London, which, in 1872, was, roughly speaking, 10,000, would have been reduced in 10 years to 3,000. In England and Wales, the number, excepting the Metropolis, amounted to 109,000, and that would have been reduced in 10 years to 33,000. The House should bear in mind that this standard was not seriously attacked by the trade. I have a pamphlet attacking the principles of compensation which were provided by the 10 years' limit. But the standard of limitation was not considered by the trade in any degree unreasonable, and, so far as the Parliamentary debate shows, it was taken to be as fair and equitable. In the days of Mr. Bruce, premises for the consumption of intoxicating liquors numbered one to every 182 of the population. In 1854, the public houses and beer houses numbered altogether 131,413. In 1861, the number was
  1706
  108,155, or one to every 185; in 1871, the number was, as I have said, one to every 182; in 1888, the number was 105,302, or one to every 283 of the people. But, of course, it must be borne in mind that the population since 1861 has increased by 48 percent., and, therefore, the decrease of 2 per cent. in the number of public houses per 100 people is relatively larger than appears for the figures which I quote. There has been a decrease in the number of public houses, and the decrease, taking the population into account, is by no means to be ignored. But against that decrease, I must set off three very important factors. In the first place, the large increase since 1861 in the number of off-licences, which have increased from 11,614 in 1861 to 28,649 in 1888. In another year or two it will be trebled. Another point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is the recent springing into existence of a very large number of clubs among the working classes—clubs which are brought into existence for no other purposes than the illicit and illegal consumption of intoxicating liquors. I must also set off against the decrease in the number of public houses another fact, which was commented on by the Committee of the House of Lords in 1879, namely, that a very large number of licensed premises in this country have made very great increases in their size and accommodation. The large number of what are called gin palaces, which now are to be found on a comparatively gigantic scale in many of our large towns were almost unknown in the days when Mr. Bruce brought in his Bill. Now, Sir, I want to put a practical question to the House. Does the amount of drunkenness in the country depend upon the number of public houses? That is a question which has been debated very much by authorities on the Licensing Laws. My own opinion is that we have at present hardly any facts before us that will enable us to answer it. Superficially it would appear that drunken-ness among the people must depend to a large extent upon the number of houses which exist for providing alcoholic liquor, or, in fact, upon the profusion or non-profusion of facilities that exist for obtaining liquor. That view, I must admit, has been contested

  1707
  by persons of high authority, but the decrease at any particular time has been, relatively to the population, so small that it is difficult to draw any conclusions from it. Very strong evidence was given before the Committee of 1854 to the effect that a reduction of public houses did produce a reduction in the consumption of alcoholic liquors, and it is clear that the Committee to a large extent agreed with the evidence. The Committee of the House of Lords took similar evidence, and among the witnesses was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), who, in his evidence on this subject before the Committee, said—
  "The enormous number of public houses, which is clearly out of all proportion to anything like the legitimate wants of the people, must tend to increase the temptation. In the first place, it has its effect on the people; people cannot pass this number Of houses without being more tempted than they would with a fewer number. I do not attach much importance to that; but I attach great importance to the number of persons directly interested in increasing the trade. There are 1,900 people in Birmingham with their families, and all the members of their little circle who are under the necessity of making a livelihood out of this trade. If there were only half the number they would do less trade; perhaps not in proportion to the reduction in the number of persons, but still there would be a greater diminution. Then the number of houses excites competition. Those men living so close together cannot afford to offend their customers in any way, and any demand that is made upon them they must meet, not merely from fear of losing the immediate custom, which they are unwilling to lose, but from fear of losing the whole custom of the man; and there is no doubt that improper practices, such as gambling and such things, are allowed to go on because the publican, although he may not approve of it, does not like to set his face directly against it."
  Now, Sir, that is a remarkable, a telling, and an important statement bearing on this question, and the Committee state that the majority of the witnesses held the opinion that the number of licensed houses had a direct effect on intemperance. The question of the number of public houses in proportion to the people is one to which I attach enormous importance. I noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), who above all other Chancellors of the Exchequer would be most careful in the expressions he made use of in his Budget Speech, the
  1708
  other day in his Financial Statement talked of "the enormous multitude of licences, which have so largely contributed to the drink bill of the nation." I take it that the great authorities in this House, representing, probably, the great bulk of opinion in this House, concur in the view that the number of public houses in the country is largely in excess of the wants of the people. But I go further, and say that the leading representatives of the licensed victuallers are by no means disposed to dispute that opinion. I cannot help saying that my experience of the trade, whether wholesale or retail, is that the most representative, the most powerful, and the most experienced members of the trade are sincerely and genuinely desirous of considerable reforms on this question of the Licensing Law. They are most anxious to see the trade placed on a sound, sensible, and statesmanlike footing which may be reasonably expected to endure for another 25 or 30 years. Now, if, as I hold, the number of public houses is largely and grossly in excess of the legitimate wants of the people, what does that mean? I hold that it brings responsibility home to all of us in this House, and it means that Parliament and the State, by allowing such a condition of things to exist, force upon the people the consumption of alcoholic liquor, which, without such pressure, would not be consumed. The system of reckless profusion in the sale of alcoholic liquor, and the fatal facility of recourse to the public houses makes it extremely difficult for multitudes of persons, in view of the hardships of their lives, to avoid or resist intemperance. I should like to give a curious illustration of how "great effects from little causes spring," and how the State, by unreflective action, may contribute to the consumption of alcoholic liquor. I happened when I was at the Treasury to meditate the abolition of the half-sovereign. I was persuaded that the half-sovereign was an altogether wicked little coin, that it was expensive to maintain, that it was easily lost, and that if it were abolished we might make a very handsome profit on the coinage of silver. I found that the half-sovereign was not only a wicked little coin, but an extremely profligate

  1709
  coin, and that it was largely responsible for the consumption of alcoholic liquor. I ascertained that, as a rule, workmen's wages are paid in half-sovereigns, and they resort to the public house for change, and, naturally, in an enormous proportion of cases, a considerable portion of the half-sovereign is left behind in the public house. Therefore, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer should think fit to abolish this wicked, profligate little coin, and to replace it by silver, he will make a profit on the silver, and, I think, appreciably injure his Excise revenue. But to go back to the point I was on. We know that, whether for the purpose of obtaining change or drink in town or country, public houses meet us at every step, inviting and almost compelling the entrance of passers by, and I hold it to be certain that in nine cases out of ten, if the public house were not there, the people would not miss it, and would not wish to have recourse to such an establishment. You have now great forces at work in favour of temperance, forces which were not at work in 1854 when the Committee of that day reported. In the first place you have your education, on which you spend £4,000,000 a year, and from which you expect to obtain great results in the moral elevation of the people. In 1854 State education had but very slender operation. Then you have in the present day what you did not have in 1854 elaborate facilities for the promotion of thrift. You have also a force in favour of temperance which the Committee of 1854 desired to see established, namely, a large number of parks and gardens, museums and libraries, maintained at the public expense, to which the masses are invited to resort, and do resort, in preference to the public houses. You have all these great forces working in favour of temperance, carried on, no doubt, at considerable expense either to the State or to Local Authorities, and yet this is absolutely certain—having been curiously brought out by the Committee of 1879—that the consumption of alcohol is much about the same as it was 30 or 40 years ago. It has hardly decreased at all. All the reports are negative. They say that probably the consumption of alcohol has not increased, and that, on the whole, the state of things is probably not worse than
  1710
  it was 10 years ago. And yet it clearly ought to be much better, and would be had we earlier dealt with these Licensing Laws. And now I should like to draw the attention of the House to the numbers of arrests for drunkenness in England and Wales, although the arrests are in one sense very misleading, as they do not show the amount of drunkenness. In the three years ending 1887 there were 40,384 arrests on Sundays and 402,352 on week-days; and in the three years ending 1888 there were 41,316 arrests on Sundays and 444,944 on week-days. So that absolutely the arrests for drunkenness have increased. That proves as clearly as possible what I shall, I hope, drive home, that drunkenness is on the increase. The tendency of the police is to interfere as little as possible with a drunken person, unless he is violently disorderly and a nuisance and danger, and, there fore, the only arrests made are of persons in an extreme state of drunkenness. I have it on authority that, in order to arrive at the number of persons who get perfectly drunk, we might safely multiply the number of arrests by six, which would give for three years 240,000 persons arrested on Sundays and 2,700,000 on week-days. In addition, if we want to realise the consumption of alcohol by the people we must argue in this way. If there are these enormous numbers of drunken persons, how great are the numbers of those who have undoubtedly taken a great deal more than is good for them, and a great deal more than their scanty earnings would justify? If we speculate on figures of that kind we then begin to realise the gigantic drink bill of the country of £130,000,000 or £140,000,000, an expenditure on alcohol estimated at £22 per annum for each family of five persons; and if we only think of the enormous number of families earning between them less than £100 a year, we are led, if there is any foundation for these figures, be the conclusion that the consumption of alcohol is a matter which deserves the immediate consideration of Parliament. I deduce this as the consequence of these statistics, that the great temperance forces at work have had no effect in decreasing drunkenness. I have heard former Chancellors of the Exchequer, the right hon.

  1711
  Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) and the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), descant on the slackened yield upon the Estimate for beer and spirits, and I have heard them comfort themselves by expressing the opinion that the diminished consumption arose from the temperance movement, and from forces operating in that direction. But the recent Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has absolutely dissipated such an idea, and proved that it is a fallacy. It has opened the eyes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the existence of an evil of the magnitude of which we none of us had any conception. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, which I will describe as a great temperance speech, told us that—
  "Nearly £2,500,000 out of a surplus of £3,250,000 were due to an absolutely extraordinary circumstance. The £2,500,000 excess of revenue of which I have spoken have been due to an extraordinary rush to alcohol. I now wish to call the particular attention of the Committee to the fact that the increase in the consumption of alcohol in the past year as compared with its predecessor has augmented the receipts from alcoholic beverages by a sum exceeding £1,800,000. Let me remind the Committee that for 11 years the revenue from spirits had been declining, and for two years it had remained stationary. And speaking of forecasting a revenue, if I had come before this House and said I believed there would be an increase in consumption of alcoholic beverages in the year which would bring in £1,800,000 more, I should have been considered either a lunatic or a libeller of the consuming classes of the country."
  That shows that the doctrine of former Chancellors of the Exchequer, that the spread of the temperance movement was checking the consumption of alcohol, was unfounded and mistaken. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said to the House of Commons that—
  "The net receipts on all consumable articles except spirits, wine, and beer actually fell short of my Estimates by, in round numbers, £130,000. But when we come to alcoholic drinks I admit there is a very different tale to tell. The net receipts from all alcoholic drinks amounted to £29,265,000, as compared with the Estimate of £27,430,000, and as compared with the net produce of £27,157,000 in the year before. The Beer Duty exceeded my Estimate by £270,000, foreign spirits by £421,000, and home spirits by no less than £1,010,000; and the duty on wine exceeded the Estimate by £120 000. It is on drink, and on drink alone, that as regards consumable articles the revenue was under estimated for the last year. And the Committee will
  1712
  notice that this rush to alcohol has been universal Some have rushed to the beer barrel, others to the spirit bottle, others to the decanter, but ail classes seem to have combined in toasting the prosperity of the country, and have largely increased the revenue. I call the special attention of the House of Commons to this extraordinary circumstance—a circumstance which will be deplored by almost every one, for many reasons, and which places upon the Government and upon the House an increasing liability to deal with the question of the consumption of alcoholic drinks."
  The House can hardly pass by with neglect such strong language from so high a Minister of the Crown, and one so well entitled to speak on such a subject with unquestioned authority. The Chancellor of the Exchequer goes on to say—
  "The consumption of rum has increased by 12 per cent.; British spirits by 7 per cent.; brandy by nearly 6 per cent.; and other sorts of spirits by nearly 5 per cent. I cannot exaggerate the impression which these figures make upon myself. The more you look into them the more extraordinary they seem to be. I have wanted to show what this additional consumption of 12 per cent. in rum means if reduced to intelligible proportions. I understand that rum is generally asked for in public-houses by the half-quartern or the half-gill, either of those terms meaning about one-eighth of a pint. The retailer is allowed by Act of Parliament to mix water as long as the spirit is not reduced below 25 degrees under proof. The price asked for a half gill of rum is 2½d. or 3d.; thus the whole of the rum consumed in the United Kingdom, if supposed to have been drunk in these drams, in the year 1888 was 245,000,000 of drams, and that enormous amount has been increased by 30,000,000 drams during the course of the past financial year. I hope the Committee will consider that this is a matter which we ought to look fully in the face. We ought to understand, not only what 12 per cent. means, but, when you go into detail, how it works out. It is an extraordinary historical fact that in the year 1875–76, which was the greatest drinking year on record, there was precisely the same rush in precisely the same proportions of these different classes of spirits, and at that time, too, the consumers of wine followed generally in the wake of the consumers of spirits and beer; and so it appears that, notwithstanding all our hopes, increased prosperity means, not an increased consumption of all the other great articles, but has unfortunately meant, and does mean, a great increase in the consumption of alcoholic liquors. I have now explained how we have a surplus of £3,200,000, of which £1,800,000 is accounted for by the increase in alcoholic beverages. Let me now descent from these stupendous and sensational figures to the more ordinary figures of the Budget."
  That extraordinary speech, coming on the top of every other authority which I have quoted in this year

  1713
  1890, when we thought that we were getting so temperate, and that the habits and morals of the people were improving, shows that if we were, as undoubtedly we were 30 years ago, a drunken people, that adjective can be applied to us now. I think the House will admit that nothing can be more serious than the facts and figures to which I have ventured to direct its attention. For that reason I welcome the intention of the Government with respect to a Bill which they propose to introduce dealing with the question of licensing. I understand that Bill is directed to prohibiting the granting of new licences, and I had such a measure as an indispensable preliminary to any reform of the Licensing Laws. But such a measure as that touches but a very small part of the evil it is sought to remedy. If it is the duty of the Government to deal with this question, that duty they will readily admit is not even approximately discharged—even if they are successful, as I hope they will be—by bringing forward such a Bill. I have, I fear, somewhat rashly attempted a more ambitious measure, which I will explain to the House. The Bill I ask leave to introduce is as wide in its scope as the Bill of Mr. Bruce in 1871. It attempts to amend, simplify, and consolidate the law on this subject. I may say in my defence, if I am regarded as presumptuous, that I have been for weeks past in communication with many authorities on this licensing question. I have had the advantage of the freest and frankest communication with the repersentatives of the trade, and have received from them every possible assistance. I have also had the great advantage of communication with my hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Sir W. Lawson); and I gladly acknowledge that if any good should result from the action I invite the House to take the hon. Member will have mainly contributed to it. I have also been in communication with various Temperance Associations, notably that most excellent institution the Church of England Temperance Society. I have studied many Blue Books; I have waded through many speeches; I have read many pamphlets; I have endeavoured to the best of my ability, before venturing to subject a project to the House of Commons,
  1714
  to master the whole of the subject The main principle of the Bill is popular control over the issue of licences. That is a principle which has been accepted, I think I may say, by both sides of the House, although it is carried to a different extent by some persons than by others. Though the Returns which I have obtained do and must be taken by all persons, to condemn the results of magisterial discretion, I do not wish to be understood in any way to blame the magistrates, who, I believe, have done their duty as well as they could. Nothing like corruption, or a trace of it, has influenced them in the discharge of their duty; but from one cause or another it must be admitted that the magistrates have not been able or willing to decrease the number of licences. I do not imagine for a moment that the giving over of the issue of licences to popular control is going to make the people of England sober in a year or two. There is an expression much made use of in former days by those who opposed Licensing Law reform, that "You can't make people sober by Act of Parliament." You cannot—it is quite true—but I tell you what you can do. You can give the people by Act of Parliament powers to make themselves sober. My belief is that the whole instincts of the people are really on the side of sobriety if they have the [lower to get their own way; and the blame for the drunkenness that exists cannot be laid on the people, because they have not had even the shadow of power over the issue of licences. The popular Representative Bodies which I propose in my Bill to control the issue of licences are the Municipal Councils in the boroughs and the County Councils in the coun-ties. I know it has been urged that it would be better to give the power to bodies elected solely for this purpose; but after long consideration of the point I have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, the arguments are in favour of entrusting the power to the existing Councils. In the first place, they are bodies of great weight and authority; they are less liable to be swayed either in one way by trade interests or in the other by temperance fanaticism than a body which had solely to deal with licences; they will on the whole, I think, be moderate, and will not be inclined to

  1715
  go ahead of public opinion; they will be found to be composed of probably the best and the most experienced men in the locality, men accustomed to matters of local government; and lastly—recognising the extreme importance of dealing with this question rather by a consensus of Parties than by a conflict of Parties—I think it will be found that this proposal will encounter the least opposition either in this House or in the other. There is also this to be said in its favour, that the establishment of a separate body for licensing purposes would mean additional elections. The recurrence of elections of public Local Bodies is already quite frequent enough, and if we increase the number we shall run some risk of wearying and nauseating the public, who would cease to take an interest in them; and without public interest these bodies would become useless and impotent. I proceed in a simple, and what may be called a rough and ready fashion—in my Bill to direct the Councils to divide the areas under their authority into Licensing Districts, and to divide themselves into as many Committees as there are Licensing Districts, each Committee to be the Licensing Authority for the district. But I go even further in applying the principle of popular control. I have provided that, in certain circumstances, and under certain conditions, there should be brought into operation that which is called the direct veto—that is to say, that if in a certain parish two-thirds of the ratepayers on the municipal register voted for the prohibition of the granting of licences, the vote should operate against the granting of all retail licences. There is a good deal to be said in favour of the equity of such a proposal. On the face of it it is not unfair that where you find a large and preponderating majority in a restricted area who desire to live under conditions which in their belief conduce to order and morality—it is hard on such a majority that a comparatively small minority should be able to prevent them having their way. And what makes it especially hard in this case is that the power which you refuse to entrust, or which you may possibly refuse to entrust, to so large and preponderating a majority is a power which under the law of the land is actually enjoyed by the owners of pro-
  1716
  perty. An owner of many thousands of acres or of a large portion of a town may, and frequently does, no matter how much the persons on that property may object, prohibit the establishment of a single house for the sale of intoxicating liquor. Therefore, you allow to the owner of property a power which may be exercised in the most tyrannical manner, which I believe in certain cases has been exercised tyrannically, and which may be exercised against the wishes of the majority of the people. I think that there is a great deal to be said for allowing a preponderating majority of the inhabitants to prohibit the establishment of houses for the retail sale of drink. I will give the House a curious instance of what I have been saying. The town of Jarrow is alluded to in the Report of the Lords Committee of 1879. One-half of that town belongs to a firm which employ large numbers of working men and allow no licensed establishment in that half of the town. The other half of the town is not so owned, and licensed houses largely prevails. That is a large power to be exercised by one firm over hundreds of working men. Another instance is the town of Middlesbrough, which stands out rather well in the Return which I moved for, the percentage of public houses per 1,000 of the population being only l·3. But a gentleman wrote to me from Middlesbrough to explain how that is. A very large portion of the town belongs to-the Pease family, and they do not allow, or they prevent as far as they can, the establishment of any house for the sale of intoxicating liquor; while another portion of the town belongs to a gentleman who absolutely prohibits the opening of such houses. Therefore, the real proportion of licensed houses in Middlesbrough per 1,000 is, in reality, greater than the Return makes it, because they are all established in one restricted area. I must say that if you give that power to an individual—I do not say that I wish to see that power taken away—I think it is hard to say that under certain circumstances you will not intrust similar power to the popular vote. At all events, the House will admit that the matter is one which is deserving of argument and discussion. I do not regard the question of direct veto

  1717
  as absolutely material to my Bill or to any Licensing Law reform; but I know that the Temperance Body attach enormous importance to such a provision, and, considering their long labours in the cause of temperance, I frankly admit that they have a right to some concession in this matter, at least as a subject of experiment. I would also point to one beneficial effect of the establishment of the direct veto. It has been argued on more than one occasion that if you make the County Council the Licensing Authority you will introduce into its election violent party feeling between the Temperance Party and the anti-Temperance Party—in fact, introduce into the election what I may call the odium alcoholicum. But if you, under certain circumstances, give to the inhabitants of a parish power to prohibit the issue of licences, obviously the effect of that will be to relieve the County Council of an enormous amount of pressure which might be put upon them by one party or the other. The Temperance Party will then concentrate their efforts on parishes or localities where they think they will be able to work themselves most beneficially, while those interested in the trade will concentrate their efforts in the same parts, and we shall thus relieve the County Councils of an enormous amount of trouble. The next provision in my Bill is one for the simplification of the licences. Under the present law there are 12 different forms of licence, only three of which are at all generally applied for. Under this Bill the chief licences will be what are known as the full publican's licence and the refreshment house wine and beer licence. The only licence which the Licensing Authority will be able to grant for consumption on the premises for the wholesale and retail sale of wines, spirits, and beer is the full publican's licence. Another form of licence which is provided for is the refreshment house wine and beer licence, which I am led to believe may be a useful licence in the rural districts, where houses may be established at a lower rating than is provided for in my Bill for public houses in towns, and where facilities for meals to the customer may be afforded as well as facilities for drinking; but under the Bill if a person wishes to get a licence for the retail sale of spirits he will have to obtain a full publican's
  1718
  licence. Then there will be a restricted form of licence to be granted to hotels which are not public houses and railway refreshment rooms. The off-licence will be reduced to a combined wine and beer licence. One of the effects of the Bill will be that beerhouses will be abolished all over the country. For this proposition there is great authority. The Committee of 1854 said—
  "The beershop system has proved a failure. It was established under the belief that it would give the public their beer cheap and pure, would dissociate beer drinking from drunkenness, and lead to the establishment throughout the country of a class of house of refreshment altogether free from the disorders supposed to attend exclusively on the sale of spirits. The Committee of the Lords which sat in 1849–50, however, report that of the beerhouses a very large proportion are, as in the case of public houses, the actual property of the brewers, or tied by advances to them, that they are notorious for the sale of an inferior article, that the consumption of ardent spirits has from whatever cause far from diminished, and that the comforts and morals of the poor have been seriously impaired. Much of the evidence before your Committee is to the same effect."
  The Committees of the House of Lords in 1849, and of the House of Commons in 1854, reported as to the evil effects of the establishment of beerhouses under the Act of 1830. I do not believe that the evil effects of beerhouses can be controverted, and therefore in my Bill I propose to abolish them. At the same time, the existing owner of a beerhouse will be able to apply to the Licensing Authority for a full licence, and the Authority may grant it if they think fit. I would point out that the whole object of this measure in regard to licences is to raise the character of the public house, and to insure, as far as possible, that the person conducting it shall be a person of capital and respectability, who has everything to lose either by misconduct or excess. I would direct the attention of the House to the operation of Clause 11 in the Bill, which prescribes the necessary rating of the houses for which these licences may be granted, and which will operate to reduce largely the number of licences in the country. I have said that off-licences will be restricted to wine and beer, and I am aware that that proposal will excite opposition. But I must point out that the object of the Bill is to put great difficulties in the way of the

  1719
  consumption of spirits. I do not believe that off-licences have up to now proved so mischievous as is sometimes alleged; I do not believe that the evidence given against them has been satisfactorily substantiated. But this must be realised—that if the House reforms the Licensing Laws in the sense I propose there will probably be at first a great desire and demand on the part of persons accustomed to drink spirits to obtain them, which will be satisfied by the on-licence houses, and in that case there may be a prejudicial effect in the development and increase of off-licences which may go a long way to neutralise any reform which may be made. I was obliged to consider whether we could allow off-licences for the sale of spirits to continue if we suddenly check the sale of spirits in other directions, and I believe it is absolutely necessary in the public interest generally, and I think in the interest of the licensed victualler also, that the sale of spirit sunderoff-licencesshould be stopped. The Licensing Authority under this Bill is given full power to regulate the hours at which publichouses shall be open both on week-days and on Sundays. The Bill remits that question entirely to the Local Authority, and, generally speaking, I may say that the Licensing Authority of every district will absolutely control all retail sale of alcoholic liquor in the district. There is, however, no standard provided in the Bill, such as in that of Mr. Bruce, as to the number of publichouses in proportion to the population. The operation of Clause 11 will be more effective in this respect than any scale laid down; but what I want to point out is that the policy of the measure is not to interfere with the liberty of the people by the measure itself. The object of the measure is rather to give to the people themselves, through their Representative Body, the power of interfering with their own liberty. I come now to a very important point, perhaps the most important point of all, which is not dealt with in the Bill—I mean the question of compensation for vested interests. My reason for not including in the Bill any provision in regard to compensation is that it would entail taxation in some form or other, and it is not in the power of a private Member of
  1720
  Parliament to propose to the House any taxation of any form or kind. Every such proposal must come from a Minister of the Crown. But I hold that compensation for vested interests is an indispensable accompaniment to any scheme of licensing reform. Any such reform not accompanied by compensation for vested interests would be sheer confiscation and robbery. On this subject perhaps the House will allow me again to recur to the speech of Mr. Bruce in 1871, because he stated the case in a most impartial manner. He said—
  "He could not assent to the proposition of the Member for Carlisle that these houses had no sort of interest. They had an interest, although it was undoubtedly of a qualified description. His hon. Friend founded his proposition on the superficial fact that these licences were annually renewed, and that the Justices might any year refuse to renew them; but the fact was that the Justices nearly always renewed these licences unless the holders of them by bad conduct had rendered themselves unfit to hold a licence, and it must be borne in mind that they could not be refused without an appeal to Quarter Sessions, and had anyone ever heard of such an appeal being decided except with reference only to the conduct of the holder of the licence? On the other hand, the House had never recognised any vested interest in this species of property or any right to compensation, yet it had frequently interfered with the trade. It greatly interfered with it when it passed the Beer-house Act; again, when spirit dealers were allowed to have retail licences, and, again, when an Act for closing publichouses was passed, and in 1854 Mr. Villiers's Committee proposed to introduce free trade into the business without providing compensation. The knowledge of the holders of these licences that their right to compensation was of a very qualified character made them extremely anxious for anything like a fair and equitable arrangement of this question."
  It has been admitted on both sides of the House that the custom of renewing licences had become so prevalent, so strong, that the licences so issued had become property, and I think that in the discussion of this question the arguments in favour of compensation for vested interests have predominated. And how is it possible to deny the existence of property in these licences, when on every day of the year they are openly bought and sold, sometimes enormous sums of money being given for them? It is impossible to deny the existence of property which passes from hand to hand every day, which is sold, and in which Trustees may invest and do invest; and as such property exists it is impossible

  1721
  to say that Parliament is not bound to give compensation for it, if Parliament deems it necessary to abolish it I come to a much stronger argument even than that. The hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth and his friends refuse to recognise the existence of any property in a licence; but the State has been much more quicksighted than they, for the State has recognised the existence of a property, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted in answer to a question which I put to him some days ago, because it taxes the goodwill of a public house, both for annual taxation and under the Death Duties. If a man has bought a public house for a sum of money and dies, his outlay on the purchase of that public house will be taken by the Commissioners of Probate as a part of the estate, and Probate Duty will be levied upon it. How can you deny the existence of property which the State recognises for the purpose of taxation? If the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth gives a fair consideration to such arguments, I think he will admit that a property does exist, and that compensation ought to be given to persons who are, for State reasons, summarily deprived of property. I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he brings on his Licensing Bill will deal more fully and more authoritatively than I have done with this question of compensation. Although I am interested in a reform of the Licensing Laws, and am in favour of a reform of a drastic character, personally I will oppose any measure which, by non-provision for compensation for vested interests, would be an act of confiscation, spoliation, and robbery. I pass rapidly to the conclusion of my remarks. The second part of the Bill relates to the registration of clubs. The Under Secretary of State for the Home Department has written me a letter in which he refers to the opinion of the Chief Commissioner of Police as to the existence in this Metropolis and in many other large towns of bogus clubs, that exist merely for the unlicensed sale of intoxicating liquors; and he expresses his opinion that the formation of those clubs had received a great impetus from the restrictions on the sale of alcoholic liquor. In many cases, the
  1722
  Chief Commissioner observes, these clubs are merely unlicensed taverns, where drinking and gambling is indulged in with impunity. These remarks apply only to the lower order of clubs, though the Chief Commissioner does not recommend legislation which would not apply to all clubs alike. The licensed victuallers complain, and, in my judgment, rightly complain, of the increased drinking in these bogus clubs, which are able to sell liquors at all hours, and which escape altogether the rigid control which applies to public houses. I will not go deeply, at this hour of the evening, into this question of clubs; but I will merely point out that under the provisions of the Bill a bonâ fide club would be entitled to be registered by the County Council upon payment of a fee which is graduated according to the rating of the premises of the club. In an ordinary working men's club the fee might amount to 30s. a year, while the great West End clubs of London would have the satisfaction of paying to the County Council sums ranging between £1,000 and £2,000 a year. I have now explained to the House the nature of the measure, and I have given to the House the opinions, which cannot be neglected, of Committees, and also of statesmen—of some who have passed away, and of others who are still in our midst. I claim for the Bill certain merits. It consolidates, simplifies, and amends the law. It is so drawn, that everybody who is at all acquainted with the subject can easily understand it; and although it consolidates some 20 or 30 Statutes, it is all—with the exception of Part II., dealing with clubs—contained in 16 clauses. I think that, unless I have spoilt my case by over-length in stating it, the House must be of opinion that legislation on this subject is demanded, and legislation without delay. It is quite possible that we may be entering upon a new era of prosperity for trade and industry; but experience tells us that that period will certainly be followed by years of depression. During the period from 1868 to 1874 the people of this country made enormous sums of money and were apparently almost as affluent as one could desire. But if they made a great deal of money

  1723
  an enormous portion of their earnings at that time was expended on alcohol. If there is a good time before us, let us try to do something by legislation to prevent the recurrence of such a calamity, of such a want of thrift as has marked former years of prosperity, and as has increased the difficulties of the recent years of depression. The great poverty and distress in the recent bad times arose to a large extent from the profuse expenditure of money by the people, when times were good, on the consumption of alcohol. Let us give them the opportunity of interfering with themselves, and the liberty of cutting down, if they so desire, the sources of alcoholic supply. Let Parliament perform a duty which it has for, at least, half a century neglected—a duty vividly described in the extracts I have read. I quite recognise that it will not be possible in the present state of public business that a Bill of this kind should be passed into law this year. I do not know whether the details of the measure would be likely to meet with a favourable reception in the House; but, if by any good fortune, the general principles and policy of the measure were favourably considered by the House of Commons, then I would venture to suggest that it might be possible, either by some slight facilities being offered by the Government, or by the general concurrence of the House, to carry the Bill as far as the Second Reading and then to send it upstairs to a, Select Committee. The examination of the measure by a Select Committee would be of immense public utility and advantage, and would prepare the way most effectually for Parliament to deal finally with the subject next Session. Whether that be so or not, it is my duty now to express my sincere gratitude to the House for the great favour they have conferred upon me in permitting me to trespass so unduly on their time. And, in conclusion, I earnestly appeal both to the Government and the House to give to the large question I have brought forward their most careful and serious consideration.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Law of Licensing,
  1724
  and to provide for the Registration of Clubs in which Intoxicating Liquors are supplied."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
  SIR W. LAWSON: I think it was Mr. O'Connell who used to say that he went on repeating the same thing over and over again until at last it came to him as an echo from the mouths of his opponents. I was delighted at hearing my noble Friend describe this great evil in the words I have had the honour of describing it for many years past. I congratulate the noble Lord most heartily on having turned his attention to the mostimportant question of the day, and on having made the speech which he has just made. I think the noble Lord is—if he will allow me to say so—a most promising member of the Baud of Hope. The noble Lord has secured a good opportunity of bringing the question forward, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech on the Budget 10 days ago, excited attention by his account of the drinking that was going on in the country. Of course, we are told that although there is more money spent on drink there is no proof of increased drunkenness. But I am not concerned to argue that now. I am content to rest on the fact that more money is spent on the consumption of alcohol. The statement has excited such great interest in the country that hardly ever on a private Members' night has there been such a rush to get into the House. Would there have been half as many people to hear about Disestablishment, or Bimetallism, or Hares and Rabbits, or the Deceased Wife's Sister, or anything of that sort? People have come because they are more interested in this question than in any other question of the day. Someone has sent me a cutting from a paper in 1838, announcing that a firm of colliery proprietors had given notice that they would dismiss all of their men who became teetotallers, because those men were doing an injury to the country. At that time the idea was that it was a pious and patriotic duty to consume intoxicating drinks. It is pretty much the same thing now, in some respects, for no persons are held in

  1725
  such high estimation as those who make and those who sell these drinks. If a man sells a sufficient quantity of beer he is made a Peer. A Liberal brewer is made a Peer, and then a Tory brewer is made a Peer. Both sides do that, and all are made Peers in their turn. But gradually a sect has arisen which demands that if these drinks are found to be injurious the people should have the power to say, "We will have no licence here." The noble Lord has spoken of the magistrates as being a pure, noble body of men. I am a Magistrate myself, and I know that the noble Lord spoke the truth. The publicans are the picked men of the country; if there is a stain on their moral character they are not allowed to have licences. Every body, then, has done his best; but, after all, this licensing system is the most miserable, ghastly failure that the history of legislation has ever shown. The noble Lord has spoken of the evils caused by the facilities for obtaining drink, but why should not the public houses do a large business, like other trades? Yet the noble Lord is horrified at the large business done by the public houses. Does not this condemn the whole thing? I have three times carried a Resolution in the House of Commons, declaring that local communities should be entrusted with power to prevent licensed liquor shops being established amongst them, and in 1883 the subject was declared "urgent," but nothing has been done. Two years ago the Government did make an attempt to meet the demand for a reduction of the number of public houses, and the President of the Local Government Board proposed in his Bill to put licensing into the hands of the County Councils. He might have got that through the House, only—and here let the noble Lord take warning—he put compensation into the Bill, and that wrecked the whole tiling. Does the noble Lord think that when compensation has wrecked the scheme of a great Government, the same thing in his scheme will help to carry it? The Government proposed to turn a yearly licence into a permanent one, and to put hundreds of millions into the pockets of the publicans and brewers, but the country rose against it, and in a few
  1726
  weeks' time the strongest Government we have had for years—I do not say the best—were obliged to give up their Compensation Clause. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now going to recognise by law any value in a licence beyond the value for a year, he will have just as big a hornet's nest about him as there was two years ago. We who have been working in this cause for the best part of our lives have come to the conclusion that the principle of compensation in a licence granted for one year is utterly inadmissible. The people of the country will not stand it—the noble Lord may be sure of that. They will honour and applaud him for the words he has used against the Drink Traffic, but they will not swallow compensation.
  *LORD R. CHURCHILL: It depends a good deal on where the compensation comes from.
  *SIR W. LAWSON: It must come from public funds. The noble Lord says that "compensation entails taxation," and that taxation is public money. He proposes in his speech to give public money as compensation, and he talks about this compensation being justifiable because the publicans are taxed on their licences.
  *LORD R. CHURCHILL: The goodwill of the publican is taxed.
  *SIR W. LAWSON: I am only talking about licences. A town clerk who wrote to me the other day has put the matter on a post-card—"Licences for a year, not permanent; value subject to yearly taxation." Let us put a tax on the yearly value, but when that yearly value is taken away we will not tax it. We will not have compensation—we intend to fight against it to the death. The only other thing we want is to carry out the Resolution which has been three times passed by this House, and to give the people power to protect themselves against any Licensing Authority what ever. Surely they have a right to protect themselves. What is this trade as described by the noble Lord? He calls it a "devilish and destructive trade," and surely the people have a, right to protect themselves against, the devil! I hope the noble Lord will go on in his

  1727
  way nobly as he has begun; but I advise him to get rid of compensation, and then his course will be clear for him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his memorable speech that the state of things is such that the country is bound to interfere. And so it will interfere, and in the way I have described, that is the way on which the people have set their hearts. Do not suppose I am too sanguine. Let me before I conclude, read an extract from words used by the noble Lord himself, and I read these words because I think they afford great encouragement to all prohibitionists in the House and outside—
  "The present House of Commons has only two more years of life before it, and it might come to an end any day. Its successor may be constituted in a widely different manner."
  *LORD R. CHURCHILL: What is the hon. Baronet quoting from?
  *SIR W. LAWSON: From a periodical called Short Cuts. The noble Lord went on to say that every Radical or Liberal supporter of Mr. Gladstone now pledges himself, as a matter of course, to popular control of the liquor traffic, and against compensation to brewers, distillers, and publicans. A few years ago, said the noble Lord, the Members of Parliament bound to such pledges were a mere handful, "in the next Parliament they will comprise the entire Gladstonian Party." The House of Lords will have its hands full of other matters, and will be in no condition to offer resistance to licensing reform. That is a most encouraging statement of the noble Lord, and should send us home to bed in good heart. I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, as I did in the beginning, for what he has done. Let him go on as he has begun, and he will be thanked, not only by me, but by thousands of the poor and distressed in the country, who will pray heartily for his success.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I will not trespass on the time of the House at any length, but I desire to offer a word or two of friendly criticism on the speech of the noble Lord. I take exception to some of the noble Lord's remarks about the Magistrates acting in a haphazard way, and doing nothing to check the issue of licences for years past. I cannot think
  1728
  the noble Lord meant his words to apply as censure to Magistrates of the present day; and, if he did, I presume he must have made the remarks without having made very careful inquiry into the action of Magistrates. As one of that much abused body, one who has taken great interest in the question for many years, and one who has acted as a Licensing Authority, I beg to say the noble Lord is wrong as far as Hampshire is concerned. In that county we have started a policy which is accepted by the trade with beneficial results. We have distinctly laid down that the number of licences in our division is largely in excess of the wants of the population. We have resolved to issue no new licences, and we have given valuable hints to the trade for meeting the wants of outlying districts, by working the removal clause, and these hints have been acted upon. For years past we have required the trade to surrender two licences for every new one granted for the outlying districts. If the plan were adopted in other parts of the country, by a slow but sure process, the number of public houses would be reduced. In one parish six houses were closed in this way. In Hampshire a very important Committee has been appointed to inquire into the whole system of licensing, and they have agreed upon a Report which is approved by Quarter Sessions. Thus, there will be unity of action in dealing with licences and renewals. The Magistrates for a long time were under the impression that they had no power to refuse renewal, but they are now told by the highest authority—a Court of Appeal—that their powers have not been altered since the old Licensing Act of 1829. If the Magistrates had known their power after the passing of the Act of 1872, depend upon it the Returns to which the noble Lord has referred would have had a very different complexion. It is a misfortune that the Bill of 1872 did not specify in distinct terms that nothing in this Act was intended to detract from the power of the ancient Licensing Authority. Had there been such a clause, the noble Lord would not, in his able speech, have had so much reason to complain of the action of Magistrates. The noble Lord is in favour of popular control. That is the

  1729
  principle of his Bill. For my own part, I think it the most mischievous form of control which could be devised. That the County Council should have the control is greatly to be deprecated. In Hampshire, since the Isle of Wight was taken away, the County Council is composed of 80 or 85 persons. We have 14 divisions, and, according to the noble Lord's proposal, there will be power to divide the county into areas. I presume Hampshire would be divided into 14, so that there would be barely five County Councillors for each division to adjudicate upon licences as against 14 or 15 Magistrates, and I certainly have much more confidence in a Licensing Authority which is in the habit of dealing with such a question than I have in any body of five Councillors in any part of the country. Let me also point out this objection, that if the Licensing Authority is transferred to County Councils we shall see the trade using its vast power and machinery to the extent that every public house will be turned into a Committee room to promote the return of County Council candidates favourable to the brewing interest. That, I think, is much to be deprecated. The matter requires very careful thinking out before you make a transfer from the old Licensing Authority. We are a much-abused body, but those who abuse us most know least about our discharge of a very disagreeable public duty. The noble Lord says the number of licensed houses is largely in excess of the requirements of the populaticn, and that is true. But, as I have said, we did not know until the decision in the case "Sharp v. Wakefield" that we possessed these powers of refusal which now undoubtedly will be used. I would appeal to the Government that in any Bill they may introduce suspending the granting of new licences they will not suspend the power which now exists under the present law of working the removal clause. If the Government can introduce into their Bill a power of demanding two surrenders in all cases for every removal of a licence, I think that a very great improvement will be effected in the course of a few years in the condition of the country. Then we shall not frighten the people by any large schemes of compensation.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: During the few years I have sat in this House I have never listened to any speech which gave me more satisfaction than that of the noble Lord. Not that I agree with everything he said, but I recognise that the licensing question is no longer a Party question, confined to the interest of a few Members, and a drastic measure of reform may be said to be within measureable distance. The noble Lord has paid a tribute to the services of Lord Aberdare as Home Secretary, and he attributed the excellence of the proposals in his Bill of 1872 to three or four years experience at the Home Office, but I think this was due to the early training Mr. Bruce had, as a Magistrate, at Merthyr, and among the Welsh coal fields, where he gained knowledge that stood him in good stead, afterwards, at the Home Office. In the matter of off-licences I am glad to hear that the noble Lord proposes to deal with the sale of spirits. I should regret to see the off-licences done away with altogether, because they give women and girls the opportunity of going to a grocer's shop for the dinner beer rather than to a public house. Many of the public houses in London are totally unfit for any decent person to enter by reason of the dissolute persons who congregate therein. I believe, however, that were the proposed power given to the County Councils the elections would be fought very largely on the temperance question. We might, in this way, obtain the services of many men on the Councils who would be very desirable acquisitions for dealing with the temperance question, but, perhaps, not so desirable for dealing with other matters. I also think that, whatever laws we may pass, we should see, as has already been indicated, the public houses used more or less as Committee rooms. I understand that every public house in London is considered to be equal to seven votes. I do not know how far that is true, but if this is the case it shows, at any rate, the great influence of the liquor trade. I believe that the publicans could bring immense pressure to bear on local elections; and, therefore, if the licensing question is to

  1731
  be dealt with by the County Councils, the temperance party will have a very hard fight, and it is very likely will often be defeated in the elections. In my experience as a member of a Licensing Authority I know the influence the trade can bring to bear to produce Petitions in favour of new licences. I know that formerly every application was supported by the churchwardens of the parish. We rather made a joke of this practice, and of late years it has been given up. But I know that persons often sign Petitions in favour of a licence simply to get rid of the persistency of those who collect signatures. I once saw on a Petition the signature of a friend of mine whom I knew as a strong temperance advocate, and when I asked him about it he said, "Oh, I was so pestered about it that I, to get peace and quiet, signed the paper; but I relied upon you to use your influence to prevent the licence being granted." So it would be, I am afraid, with regard to Members of County Councils or Municipal Councils, if they were entrusted with the Licensing Authority. My own view is that the Local Representative Body dealing with licences should be elected for that special purpose, and this election might be held on the same day as the General Council Election, and the objection to multiplying days of election would be met. I have been under the impression that there has been less drunkenness in this country of late years. I see fewer drunken men, and certainly much fewer drunken women; but, unhappily, the quantity of liquor consumed is still very large. I believe that as inducements are offered to the people other than the public house there will be a a change for the better. In the poorer parts of London means of recreation are few, but I am glad to see something is being done by the spread of Free Libraries and Polytechnics. As regards London, the public houses are kept open much too late, the extension of the hour of closing to half-past 12 o'clock being, in my opinion, a criminal blunder which has been productive of an immense amount of mischief. In the Metropolis there ought, I think, to be a graduated system of licensing. Taking premises with a licence of £50 a year, I would reduce the charge to the occupier
  1732
  to £25 a year, on condition that he closed, say at 10; while if he wanted to keep open till 11 or 12, I would make the charge not £50 but £100, or, at all events, enough to make it worth while for the publican to close his house early. In the poorer parts of London there is no reason why the public houses should be open after 10 or half-past 10. I believe there is hardly a working man's club in London that could continue to exist if it were not for the sale of drink, and it will be necessary soon to introduce legislation dealing with that branch of the question.
  MR. BARTLEY: I congratulate the House that this great subject has been approached in a reasonable and sensible manner. There is a very strong feeling among the London constituencies that there should be some control over the number of public houses, and that in a great part of London especially facilities for drinking are a great deal too numerous. Whether or not it is the case that an increased number of public houses leads to an increase of drinking, those who have to do with the people must know conclusively that it is a slight matter which induces men to go in or not. I am informed that even one or two steps up to a public house will largely influence the trade of that public house. Institutions for thrift, libraries, and recreations of a reasonable character do much to reduce the evil of over-drinking, but still it is obvious something must be done to reduce the number of houses, and the hours also are too long. The noble Lord has described the condition of some public houses he saw in the East End of London, and I may state that I have seen very much the same sort of thing myself. I venture to say that if all the Members of this House went round and saw what was going on in the low-class public houses of this Metropolis, we should very soon pass a new Licensing Bill. As it is, however, no one seems to believe the statements as to what is really going on in these places. Grown up men and women may be considered old enough to look after themselves, but, when you find children of a tender age, say of 9, 10, 11, and 12 years, dragging their drunken parents

  1733
  away from public houses late at night, the horror of the situation becomes more apparent, and the necessity of doing something to curtail the hours during which drinking is carried on becomes more obvious. If Parliament had ordained that there should be Free Trade in alcohol our responsibility would have been less, but as we have ordained by our legislation upon the subject the hours at which these places may remain open, I think we are bound to consider whether it is right to allow them to continue open until half-past 12 at night, when the great bulk of the people are in bed, and cannot possibly require to make legitimate use of them. With regard to the question of compensation, I was extremely glad to hear the noble Lord say that there is a bonâ fide claim for compensation if these places are closed. This seems to me be the crux of the whole question, for I do not see how we can possibly compel the closing of these houses unless compensation is given; but hon. Gentlemen opposite take a different view, and they demand that the houses shall be closed without compensation. We have been considering this matter for the last 20 years, and I have no hesitation in saying that if some agreement had been come to upon the question of compensation a Bill in this direction might have been carried without difficulty. I trust the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir W. Lawson) will take the advice of the noble Lord, and adopt the principle that there should be compensation to a certain extent. I advocate compensation not because I am a friend of any particular class, but because I regard it as the only way in which we can reduce the great evils arising from the superabundance of public houses. The last point I desire to touch upon is the question of working men's clubs. Undoubtedly, a great deal of harm is brought about by these unlicensed public houses. I know of one of them which exists in a certain part of London—not in my own constituency—which receives monthly from one brewer no less than £400 worth of beer per month, or £4,800 worth per annum. That is a very large figure. The worst part of the evil attaching to those houses is that there is no supervision over them, and no limit as to the hours during which they may
  1734
  remain open, Sunday being just the same as week day. On the other hand, their existence is not only unfair to the publican who has to pay Licence Duty, and is under police supervision, but they also tend to encourage the great evil of intemperance, which this House is determined to put down. I must say that I do think we are to be congratulated in the course we now propose to take in this great question. As the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. O. V. Morgan) has stated, this question is now ceasing to be a Party question, and hon. Members on both sides of the House may set to work and do their best to decrease the evils of intemperance by decreasing the temptations which are offered, not only to the poor man, because this is not a poor man's question only, but to people in much higher positions. I sincerely trust we may be able greatly to reduce the evils I have referred to, so that the money which is now spent on drink may be devoted to purposes that will promote the well-being and happiness of the great masses of our people.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have waited in hopes of hearing the sentiments of Her Majesty's Government on the interesting question the noble Lord has introduced to the House to-night. Prom this side of the House the noble Lord can expect nothing but support, for all who sit here are in accord with the principles upon which his Bill is founded. I may say that the great majority of those who belong to the Liberal Party are pledged to the principle of vesting the control of the liquor traffic in the inhabitants. I have heard to-night with no little surprise the panegyric which the hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Admiral Field) pronounced upon himself and his brother Magistrates in Hampshire. I am in that county, and I have been able to see the effect of their action. The Licensing Returns show that that county presents one of the most unfavourable percentages of any county in England. According to my own observation, living in the midst of a sparsely-populated district, I can say that the proportion the public houses bear to other habitations is one of the most remarkable features of that part of

  1735
  the country. The hon. and gallant Admiral says that the Bench of his county are ignorant of the power they possess to exercise control over public houses. I am surprised to hear that statement. I thought everyone knew that except the Solicitor General. It is common knowledge up to his time certainly. While I was at the Home Office the Magistrates of Kent came to me and asked me to diminish the number of licences. I looked at them in surprise, and said, "I am astonished at this deputation coming to me, because I have the honour to receive gentlemen who have granted these licences, and who could put an end to them to-morrow if they wished." One of the Magistrates said, "Oh yes, that is perfectly true, but we do not like to take the unpopularity." I said, "Then you have come to ask me to undertake the unpopularity you will not undertake yourselves." To say, therefore, that it is not perfectly well known that the Magistrates have an absolute control over these licences is an assertion that cannot be maintained. Therefore, I felt it necessary rather to comment upon the action of their predecessors on the Bench, and I saw, with great satisfaction, that they passed a Resolution to which, I hope, effect will be given. If that is done there will be a considerable diminution in the number of public houses in England. In my opinion, the principle of popular control is the one that ought to be followed, and the popular areas ought to be very small, so that the authority exercising control will be able to ascertain the wants and wishes of the community. Thus a County Council sitting in a country town would be well able to judge of those wants and wishes. The rest is a matter of detail. The point that is most open to dispute is that which relates to compensation. The noble Lord opposite has been so fortunate, or so skilful, as to omit from his Bill any reference to this great subject of dispute, and has clothed himself in the immunities which are at once the pride and the safety of private Members, by leaving the responsibility of dealing with the question of compensation with the Government. I must say I do not envy the Government such a responsibility. The noble Lord says that this is a question of taxation. I am not going to
  1736
  enter upon this thorny and vexed question, but I wish the noble Lord had told us a little more of his mind with regard to it. He has not told us whether, in his opinion, the withdrawal of the annual licence is to be regarded as a taking away of a freehold, and compensation given accordingly. Another question I should have liked to have heard the noble Lord's views upon is whether the compensation is to be given to the publican, or to the brewer who has lent the publican money. If compensation is to be given at all, those are matters upon which we ought to make up our minds. With regard to the Bill itself, all I can say is that it is one which I should welcome from any quarter, and I welcome this one all the more because it will be supported with all the ability and authority of the noble Lord. Men of all parties concur in this, that we have to deal with an enormous evil, one which cannot be exaggerated, especially in view of the fact that was brought before us the other night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the consumption of intoxicating drinks, instead of having diminished, as we hoped that it would have done, has largely increased. I rose from these Benches to declare my concurrence, shared, I am sure, greatly by hon. Gentlemen on this side, in the policy which the noble Lord has happily embraced, and the principle of the Bill which he proposes to introduce.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am sure, Sir, there is one portion of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman with which we shall all agree, that when this question comes to be dealt with we ought to avoid all Party recrimination, and that in dealing with a matter so vitally affecting the public welfare, all Parties ought to combine to put an end to the evil the existence of which we all so much deplore. When the proposals of the Government on this question are, as I hope they will be this week, laid before the House, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends will approach their consideration in the spirit which he has indicated, and that they will show a desire to assist the Government in

  1737
  carrying those proposals into effect. I do not think that I need notice any of the other observations of the right hon. Gentleman, which were rather in the form of inquiries directed to the noble Lord as to the form and scope of his Bill, and I suppose that the best opportunity which the noble Lord will have of clearing up any doubts upon those points will be given him when his Bill is before the House. Whatever may be the difference of opinion in this House upon any of the details of the scheme sketched out by the noble Lord, all Parties will agree with me when I say that we are greatly indebted, and the cause of temperance is greatly indebted, to the noble Lord for the position he has taken up with regard to this extremely difficult subject, and I also think they will agree with me in this, that a more lucid, more full, more complete, and more comprehensive speech has never been made in this House on this subject than that which has been delivered to-night by the noble Lord. He Las acquired a remarkable grasp of all the details of this question. My noble Friend has afforded me an opportunity of seeing a draft of the Bill which he proposes to introduce. I can tell the House that, whatever may be thought of some of its provisions, it is a masterpiece of construction, dealing with every possible detail of this complex question, and it is a credit, not only to my noble Friend, but to the gentleman who is responsible for the draft. My noble Friend drew a terrible picture of the evils of drunkenness, which I do not think many of us will consider greatly, if at all, exaggerated. Familiar as I am with a large community in the East End of London, I can say with the utmost confidence that the evils of excessive drinking are at the root of all our crime and pauperism. I can assure my noble Friend that we are as deeply impressed as he can possibly be with the enormity of the evils with which we have to grapple, and that we are as desirous as any one can be of dealing with this great and burning question in a way which will conduce to the general good of the people. The noble Lord compared the period of 30 years ago with the present, both as regards the relative number of public houses and the greatness of the evil with which we have to contend. I
  1738
  I think that in the comparison he made between 30 years ago and now he hardly did full justice to what has been done in that time. The effects of the temperance agitation have, I think, been greater than he appears prepared to admit. The results have not been very rapid, but they have certainly been sure. From inquiry and observation I am led to believe that, whether it be true that there is as much drink consumed now as then, there is a smaller amount of drunkenness than 30 years ago, and that we shall see in a progressive degree a still further reduction in the drunkenness of our people, similiar to that which has been witnessed by the force of public opinion in the higher circles of Society. There is a healthy public opinion growing up among the working classes, and the time, I believe, is not far distant when we shall see working men regard their fellows who exceed in this matter with the same abhorrence as that with which similar excesses are regarded in the higher circles. I am not one of those who believe in making people sober by Act of Parliament, but I think that those who desire to see drunkenness reduced may be greatly assisted by legislation. The noble Lord asserted that, though the number of licensed houses has been reduced in recent years, the proportion to the population is still too large. All my Colleagues and I are also of that opinion, and the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Lawson) will remember that when a deputation waited on me with regard to the Local Government Bill, I stated my view to a similar effect then. My noble Friend went on to say that a heavy responsibility rested on us. I do not deny that great responsibility rests on us, as it rested on previous Governments, including that of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was the Home Secretary. We feel that responsibility, and we have made some attempt to discharge it. This licensing question was one of the important features of the Local Government Bill of 1887, and I am bound to say that the attempt we then made to deal with the subject, and which would have had great and important results, was not fairly dealt with by the Opposition, and not fairly dealt with by the Temperance Party in this House. As the hon. Baronet has referred to this

  1739
  attempted legislation of ours, I may be permitted to take this opportunity of saying a few words as to the nature of our proposal at that time. It was asserted that we were giving the publicans a right in their public houses that they did not possess, and that, in order to purchase out and diminish the number of licences, we were going to make a claim upon the ratepayers to the amount of £200 or £300 for each public house. No such proposal was made by the Government. If any power existed in the Magistrates to refuse to renew licences we expressly preserved that power to them in our Bill. We laid down distinctly that whatever power the justices possess of refusing to renew licences they should still continue to possess. If the Magistrates have the power to refuse to renew licences without compensation, they will be as fully able to refuse those licences without compensation after the passing of our Bill as before it. That was a proposition which was studiously and, in my opinion, deliberately concealed from the people it was desired to influence. All we did was this. We said—
  "We are changing the law, we are creating a new authority, a representative authority to deal with this question, and when the representative authority we create chooses to deal wholesale with the licences in their districts without giving a reason they shall be at liberty to recognise the principle of compensation."
  But that was coupled with the express provision to which I have alluded. And, further than that, a very large annual sum, was, under our Bill, to be derived from the licence-holders themselves, to be used for the purposes of compensation. That was not proposed as a final proposal, from which we would not recede. It Was proposed in the hope and in the belief that the Temperance Party would give us their assistance in dealing with this difficult question, so that it might be discussed in this House in a fair and temperate spirit, with a view to seeing whether we might not together arrive at some plan which would have the result we all desire. But every step we took, every proposal we made, was opposed by the Temperance Party. Every means was taken to prevent even the discussion of the proposal we made, and I, therefore, say that while
  1740
  we recognise our responsibility in this matter, we have endeavoured to discharge that responsibility and shall always endeavour to do so. If responsibility rests with us, there is also a grave responsibility resting with the Temperance Party; and I can only say this, that if the Temperance Party make up their minds to thwart every Government or every Member who proposes to legislate upon this subject with a due regard to the rights of those affected, then a settlement of the question is yet a long way off. My noble Friend who proposes to deal with this question has, I think, rightly and properly placed in the forefront of his proposal the principle of compensation, and he sees and knows that it is impossible for any Government to deal with the question unless the principle is recognised. How compensation is to be paid, what are the principles upon which it is to be dealt with, are, of course, matters for discussion; but I venture to think that most reasonable-men in the House of Commons and in the country will recognise that the publican's licence is an interest which is recognised not only by the State, but also day by day in the commercial communities of this country, where licences are bought and sold for large sums of money. When the hon. Baronet says he declines absolutely on behalf of his wing of the Party to recognise any compensation whatever, he says in effect "ratherdrunkenness than compensation."
  *SIR W. LAWSON: Do the public houses mean drunkenness?
  *MR. RITCHIE: Unquestionably. We say that the excessive number of public houses promotes drunkenness, and the hon. Baronet agrees with that; but-he says, "I will not allow you to disestablish one of these houses if you attempt to pay compensation," and that in effect means, "I will not allow you to do it at all." The hon. Baronet knows perfectly well that there-are large numbers of the Temperance Party who do recognise the principle of compensation. I believe the Church of England Temperance Society would not endorse the observations of the hon.

  1741
  Baronet when he says he declines to recognise any property whatever in licences. I am satisfied that there are large numbers of members of that Society who would altogether repudiate the position the hon. Baronet has taken up. I do not think we can be too particular in making this matter plain. We are all desirous of promoting temperance. We think the number of houses is too great, and that the excessive number promotes drunkenness. The hon. Baronet agrees with that; but he absolutely declines to recognise a principle without the recognition of which, I venture to say, in the minds of nine out of every ten men in this country, the legislation he desires cannot be carried out. At any rate, I think hon. Gentlemen will recognise this—that the time is yet far off—that temperance legislation must be postponed for many years—when the question can be settled on the lines proposed by the hon. Baronet. I think, therefore, I am justified in the observations I have made when I say that the result of the policy of the hon. Baronet is "rather drunkenness than compensation." The hon. Baronet will not even recognise the principle that compensation shall be provided out of the pockets of the people who hold the licences; because he says distinctly that he declines to recognise the principle of paying compensation out of money drawn from taxes on drink or from an increase of the Licence Duty.
  *SIR W. LAWSON: I said I considered that the money you raise as taxes is public money, from whatever quarter you raise it, and I object to public money being paid in compensation.
  *MR. RITCHIE: That is to say that if this matter can only be settled, as I contend it can only be settled, by recognising that these licences are marketable commodities, treated as such by the State, and by recognising the principle of compensation, the hon. Baronet says, "I would rather have the matter postponed to the Greek Kalends than permit compensation, even if paid out of drink or out of the licences themselves." Now, a few words as to my noble Friend's proposal. He proposes that this matter shall be dealt with by the County Councils
  1742
  and Municipal Councils, and in that I entirely agree with him. They were the bodies which we proposed should deal with this question in the Bill of 1887. The principle of my noble Friend is the principle which the Government are prepared to accept—that is, that the matter shall be dealt with by popular control; but he also proposes a form of control in which I do not gather that he has much confidence himself, namely, control by popular veto.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Why not?
  *MR. RITCHIE: The right hon. Gentleman asks, "Why not?" But speaking some years ago as Home Secretary, on the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Lawson) proposing Local Option, the right hon. Gentleman took good care to express his entire dissent from the principle of popular veto.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I beg pardon. I was speaking on that occasion upon the election of bodies ad hoc, not upon the question of popular veto.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The right hon. Gentleman's speech was made to protect himself against being supposed to assent to the proposal in the speech of the hon. Baronet that this matter should be intrusted to the people of a district. The hon. Baronet made no proposal to elect a body ad hoc. I remember quoting the right hon. Gentleman's view as expressed in the speech to which I have referred to a deputation that waited upon me before the introduction of the Local Government Bill, and I am glad to find that I qualified the reference by saying that of course I could not undertake to say that the right hon. Gentleman had not changed his opinion.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am just of the same opinion now.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I leave that as it stands. At this hour of the night I do not propose to detain the House by arguing against the question of the popular veto. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish me to argue against it I do not think it can be necessary, as

  1743
  the right hon. Gentleman is not in favour of it.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am in favour of it.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I do not know where to have the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman is really so rapid in his movements that it is impossible to follow him. So far as popular veto is concerned, I am afraid that if my noble Friend were to adhere to that as a fundamental part of his Bill it would not be possible for me to agree with him. It might be worked in a very arbitrary manner. Under the system of popular veto which he has dealt with to-night I understand that the whole of the public houses in a parish might be closed. What becomes of the compensation there? There would be nothing but the rates to fall back upon. But I have a stronger objection than that. I think it is very desirable that the number of public houses should be reduced; but I am not at all sure whether the sweeping away of public houses altogether would be a beneficial change. It might lead to a reaction, which would do harm rather than good to the temperance cause. Of course, my noble Friend will understand that it is not possible for us to discuss the proposals he has laid before the House in anything like detail. We must wait until we have the Bill before us. Nor do I think he would wish the Government to answer some of the suggestions he has made. He has suggested that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. It is difficult to say absolutely what would be desirable until we see the Bill itself; but I see many difficulties and objections to referring such a great and burning question as this to a Select Committee. It would probably be considered in Committee of the whole House just as fully as if it had never been before the Select Committee at all. I can only assure my noble Friend he may rely upon it that the Bill will receive the most careful consideration of the Government when it is produced; and whether or not we are able to agree with him
  1744
  upon the principle or upon the details of the Bill we warmly and cordially welcome his assistance in dealing with this great and burning question. We believe that, whether the result is the passing of the noble Lord's Bill or some other Bill, he has done to-night a great service to the temperance cause in the able, full, and lucid manner in which he has placed before the House the great evils which attend drunkenness. I cannot but believe that the question of temperance legislation has been greatly advanced by the position which my noble Friend has taken up to-night.
  MR. CAINE: I think it necessary that someone connected with the temperance movement should make some reply to what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He charged us with having represented him two years ago as proposing in the Local Government Bill what would be equivalent to a tax on the ratepayers of £100,000,000 or £200,000,000. What we said was very different from that. We said he wished to confer on the publicans property worth £150,000,000 at least. I, myself, stated that again and again, and I am quite prepared to stand by it. I recollect very well either the Law Journal or the Law Times stating that the right hon. Gentleman gave a new legal estate to every publican in the United Kingdom. It seems to me a very great pity that a portion of the speech the right hon. Gentleman has delivered to-night was not delivered two years ago on the Second Reading of his Local Government Bill, for it would have saved a good deal of misunderstanding. I understand him to say that if no legal compensation had been due before the passing of the Bill, the Bill would not confer any.
  *MR. RITCHIE: What I said was that in our proposal we expressly reserved all the powers possessed by Justices at the time of the passing of the Bill, and if they possessed the power of refusing to renew licences that power was preserved to them by the Bill.
  *MR. CAINE: Yes; but with compensation.
  *MR. RITCHIE: No.
  *MR. CAINE: Take the well-known case of "Sharp v. Wakefield." The magistrates refused to review the sentence, as it is called, for any reasons whatever, except that, in their opinion, it would be better for the district that the licence should be taken away. What I want to know is whether supposing that Bill had become law it would have been competent for any Licensing Authority to take the same course and refuse to renew one or two or a dozen licences without compensation.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I will endeavour to explain to the hon. Gentleman that the position of things after the passing of the Act would have been precisely the same as before. It would have been perfectly competent when the publican appeared before the County Council to anyone to object that the licence was unnecessary in the neighbourhood. The County Council would then have referred the matter to the Justices, who would have considered it. They would have had the same power of refusing the renewal as they have now. The applicant would have had the same right of appeal to the Quarter Sessions and the High Court; and if it was decided that the Justices were warranted in refusing the renewal, the publican would have had no more claim to compensation than he has now.
  *MR. CAINE: Well, it would have been a very remote opportunity, it is quite certain, after it had gone through all those stages. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the noble Lord in his views as to compensation, and it is clear that the compensation proposed is an equitable compensation for a real property. The compensation proposals of the Local Government Bill were quite simple. The difference between the value of the public house as a licensed and an unlicensed house was
  1746
  taken, and a certain number of years' purchase of that difference was given as compensation. It is now proposed that the compensation should be got out of the trade. We have all heard from the right hon. Gentleman that if every licence in any place were taken away by the direct veto there would positively be no one from whom any compensation could be obtained. Supposing there were 2,000 licensed houses in a town, and the Magistrates wished to reduce the number by 250, what would they have to find for compensation? The value of a public house is what it will fetch in the open market. There has been a sale of public houses by Messrs. Peter Walker & Co. in Liverpool lately, and the sum obtained for 250 public houses was about £2,500,000, or £10,000 each. I know the rateable value of these houses. As shops or private houses they would not fetch more than £2,000 each. Well, in a case of this kind it would be impossible for the local magistrates to reduce the number without paying the difference between the value as licensed houses and the ordinary value. The proposal to give compensation to publicans out of the other public houses is absurd. In the Liverpool cases, if the houses I have mentioned were closed by means of the local veto no less a sum than £1,700 apiece would have to be found by the remaining publicans for the purpose of compensation. I wish to tell the House that the Temperance Party as a solid whole are going to resist any proposal for giving compensation for public houses to the bitter end. We are going to have no compromise, and nothing would induce me to vote in this House for a Bill containing such a proposal, or to support it in the country. There is no such thing as renewal of licence; a new licence is granted each year for 12 months. We are to be asked to vote enormous sums of money to compensate a class of men who as a privileged class have been making money by that privilege all along the line.
  *LORD R. CHURCHILL: Is the hon. Member aware that the London County Council has been purchasing public house promises in the course of their

  1747
  improvements at the market value, that they do not contemplate using them as public houses, and have put the expenditure or compensation on the rates?
  *MR. CAINE: I do not approve of their doing anything of the kind, but that is altogether apart from the question. I do not desire to occupy the time of the House. I merely wish to make it clear to the Government that whatever proposal they bring forward for compensating publicans will be resisted by the Temperance Party on this side of the House. There are only two ways in which this question can be approached. Either the publicans are entitled to compensation or not. If anybody contends that they are, it means that they are entitled to the full compensation proposed by the Government two years ago. A compassionate allowance is nonsense. They are entitled either to full compensation or nothing. We say they are entitled to nothing, and we shall oppose compensation from the rates or from any other source.
  MR. BRUNNER: I should like to recommend to the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) an idea which I think has not been put before his mind. It is that the veto ought to be brought down into the smallest possible space. I think it ought to be allowed to the very next neighbour of the publican. We have heard plenty about compensation, but not a word about compensation to those who live on either side of a public house, though their houses are very seriously injured by the public house. In the State of Georgia there is a law in existence by which no publican can obtain a licence without the consent of his 10 nearest neighbours. That law has been in operation for 10 years, and the result is that in only three large cities of the State can any licences be obtained whatever. As we are all great respecters of property, I would suggest
  1748
  that those whose property is on either side of a public house are just as much entitled to compensation as the publican himself. There is one other idea I should like to bring forward. I heard it from the late Mr. Thomas Knowles, formerly Member for Wigan. He was a man who had a very open mind, and who studied the interests and circumstances of the class from which he had risen. He told me that over again he has seen men come out of the pit after an exhausting period of eight or nine hours' labour and get drunk on a pint; and he was satisfied that if it had been provided that no publican should be allowed to sell liquor unless he also sold food the men would have had something to eat and would have gone home sober. I would recommend the noble Lord to adopt a provision that no person should be allowed to sell liquor unless he also sold food unless he was really a victualler—and that publicans should be compelled to provide larger and better rooms for their customers than they now do. When half a dozen or fewer men are in a room together they are all apt to get drunk; but when 50 are assembled in one room they are all banded together to rid themselves of anyone who becomes a nuisance. I thank the noble Lord for having introduced the subject.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I do not think I need apologise to the House for saying a few words on this Bill, because a few days ago both English and Scotch Members interfered by their voices and votes in a measure almost of a similar character in which I was interested. I had not the good fortune of being able to listen to the entire speech of the noble Lord, and, therefore, I cannot say whether, when the Bill comes before the House for consideration, I shall support it in all its details or not; but, as far as I have been able to gather from the speech of the noble Lord, there are some principles in it which command my approval and endorsement. First and foremost, I am glad to find that it is proposed to curtail the number of licences, for I have always thought that the unlimited

  1749
  number of licences has led to many evils, among which the sale of adulterated liquor and illegal trading are not the least. Another principle which I shall support in the Bill is that of local veto. I opposed a short time ago a Local Veto Bill, not because I objected to the principle, but because it was proposed to place a power in the hands of the Magistrates in Ireland, to which I object. But the noble Lord has stated that it is his intention to set up a Local Licensing Authority, and this removes the objection I held in the other case. As to compensation, I am quite in accord with the noble Lord, and the reason why the proposals of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland have met with no favour in this House is that there has always been attached to them, and to the proposals of his Party, the abiding injustice of spoliation and confiscation. I rejoice that the noble Lord has taken the cause of temperance out of the hands of men who are themselves intemperate, in so far as their principles of legislation on the question are concerned. I am glad to find the noble Lord proposing temperance legislation upon the lines of common-sense and statesmanship, upon lines that will secure him the support of many who have hitherto opposed the efforts of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cocker-mouth and of the hon. Member for South Tyrone.
  *LORD R. CHURCHILL: I trust the House will now allow me to bring in the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord Randolph Churchill, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir Algernon Borthwick, and Mr. Johnston.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 242.]

  LICENSING LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

    ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.
    On Motion of the Lord Advocate, Bill for the better prevention of Corrupt and Illegal Practices at Elections in Scotland other than Parliamentary Elections, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General, and Sir Herbert Maxwell.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 243.]

  GLASGOW LICENSED PREMISES.
  Return ordered—
  "Of Particulars relating to Premises Licensed for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors in the City of Glasgow, stating separately for each of the 16 Wards, in form as follows:—

  Address of Premises, Street, and Number.

  Name and Address of Factor of Premises.

  Name and Address of Owner of Premises.

  Name of Holder of Licence.

  Annual Rental of Premises.

  Population of each Ward.

  Number of Licenses per 1,000 of Population.

  Grocer.

  Number of Licences.

  Public House.

  Hotel.

  —(Mr. Provand.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SALARIED SHOP ASSISTANTS' WEEKLY HALF-HOLIDAY BILL.—(No. 203.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    DR. TANNER: I regret that the hon. Member should endeavour at this unreasonably late hour to force on this Bill without any explanation of its provisions, or any statement as to the benefits it may be supposed to confer on the people. The hon. Gentleman asked me earlier this evening not to oppose the Second Reading when reached. The hon. Gentleman knows very well he cannot expect very much consideration at our hands, but I will not go into that matter. I desire, however, to explain that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock) brought in a Bill dealing with this very question, and that subsequent to the introduction of that measure the hon. Member (Mr. Maple), against whom many grave accusations in connection with sweating in the City of London have been made, introduced his Bill to jockey the measure of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet will, perhaps, excuse my speaking in this way. He differs from the Party to which I belong on the question of Home Rule; but I know he is far more competent to deal with this matter than the hon. Member opposite. Certainly, as long as I remain in the House, I shall try to promote fair play between Parties. I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.
    MR. CALDWELLseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Dr. Tanner.)
    *SIR J. LUBBOCK: I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion and allow the Bill to be read a second time. I do not pretend that I entirely agree with the proposals in the Bill, but I would be glad if the House would send this Bill and also my Bill to a Select Committee. I think we might feel confident that a Committee, after hearing the opinions of the mercan-
    1752
    tile community, would arrive at a wise decision. I therefore appeal to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate and to allow both Bills to go to a Committee.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: This is a question affecting the commercial community, and I do not think we should be expected to pass the Second Reading without a word of explanation from the Mover. The commercial community of London cannot be regulated by the commercial community of the country, and vice versâ. I trust the Motion for adjournment will not be withdrawn, and that if this legislation is brought on it will be at a time when hon. Members can have an opportunity of expressing the opinion of their constituents.
    *MR. J. E. ELLIS: We are all aware of the anxious care which the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Lubbock) has given to the subject. But this Bill stands on an entirely different footing to the Bill of the right hon. Baronet, and it seems to me it would be unworthy of the House to pass the Second Reading of such a Bill without the slightest explanation from the Mover.
    MR. BAUMANN: I do earnestly hope that both this Bill and that of the right hon. Baronet may be referred to a Select Committee; but if such a proceeding is prevented, I hope the public of London will see that the fault does not rest with the right hon. Baronet or the hon. Member for Dulwich.
    DR. TANNER: I trust the House will excuse my pressing the Motion for adjournment. In a spirit of fair play——
    It being One of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till to-morrow, and M. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
    House adjourned at One o'clock.