Commons Sitting of 4 December 1890

MR. SPEAKER'S CONTINUED ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House that Mr. Speaker was again unavoidably prevented from taking the Chair of the House this day.
Whereupon Mr. Courtney, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table; and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

QUESTIONS.

  THE NEW MAGAZINE RIFLE.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he would state how many magazine Infantry rifles of the present pattern were sent to Hythe for trial and report prior to the adoption of the new arm; when they were so sent down and reported upon; who is the official at Hythe responsible for such Reports; whether the Report was favourable or the reverse; and whether he will lay such Report or Reports upon the Table of the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: No rifles were sent to Hythe at that time, and, as I understand, for the reason that the Commandant, Colonel Tongue, was one of the Committee who chose the new rifle. One rifle was sent there in September, 1888. In August, 1888, five magazine carbines were sent there for trial, and the Report upon these and upon the rifle, which appears to have been tried with them, was received in November, 1888. The officer generally responsible would be Colonel Tongue, but, in the circumstances, he very naturally offered no remarks on the Report. The Report was generally unfavourable, and was curiously at variance with the tone of all the Reports which had been made by regimental officers and others, after the rifle had been placed in the hands of the private soldier. I will not produce any particular Report by itself, but I have not
  518
  the least objection to producing all the Reports made before the adoption of the rifle, if the House wishes to have them.
  MR. HANBURY: Will the Reports be laid on the Table?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I will begin by placing them in the Library, where any hon. Member can see them. Although it would involve considerable expense, I would not oppose the printing and circulating of the Reports if it is desired.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. HANBURY,
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid no orders had been given to withdraw the ammunition marked I. for the magazine rifle.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state who is the official responsible for the introduction of a new small arm, such as the magazine rifle, into the Navy; whether he will lay the Report of such official upon the Table; and what trials were made by naval experts before it was adopted?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,: The Director of Naval Ordnance is responsible for the introduction of a new small arm into the Navy. There is no Report such as is implied in the question, since the rifle was accepted as adopted by the War Office. Before the magazine rifle was accepted a certain number of the rifles were issued to Her Majesty's ships for trial, and the Reports were generally favourable.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will place in the Tea Room drawings or models of the mechanism of the new rifle, and also a detail of its trajectories at various distances?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I shall have much pleasure in meeting the wishes of the hon. and gallant Member.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain the reasons why it was necessary to introduce Mark II. of the magazine rifle?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The reason why Mark II. is to be introduced is that an improved magazine has been adopted, which presents several great advantages, especially because it is easier to load and holds 10 cartridges. The other

  519
  small improvements which are being adopted could easily have been introduced (and some of them have been introduced) into the manufacture of Mark I. Perhaps I ought to explain that we allowed the new rifle to be used in the drilling of the troops this year, in order to expose it to the roughest possible test, and we ordered that at the end of six months the rifles should all be examined by experts. Out of this examination have come various suggestions, some of which have been adopted. If the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, would like to see them, I will direct that rifles of Mark I. and II. shall be brought down to the House at 5 o'clock on Monday. I may perhaps add that all my advisers, technical as well as military, are absolutely unanimous with respect to the general merits of the rifle.

  DANGEROUS USE OF FIREARMS.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the following remarks of Mr. Justice Denman, reported in the Times of 27th November, in passing sentence on a prisoner named Sharpe, who was indicted for sending a letter threatening to kill a young woman, and who,
  "When arrested, was found to have a loaded revolver in his pocket." He "urged the necessity there was for putting a check on the facility with which revolvers could be obtained. He had many times pointed out to juries and Grand Juries that it would be a very good thing if some enactment to this effect could be passed, that no gunsmith should be allowed to sell a revolver to any person who could not produce his right then and there to carry one, and there should be a certain fee to the Exchequer due in such licence. It would be a wholesome thing if such an enactment could be passed, and he hoped shat these cases would have the effect of calling the attention of the Legislature and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day to the subject, to see if the evil could not be turned into good;"
  and whether he can hold out hopes of being able to take measures to prevent the indiscriminate and irresponsible use of the most dangerous firearms?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,: I cannot say if it is generally known sufficiently that every person who carries a revolver at present is bound to pay the same Licence Duty as a person who carries a gun. Whether he
  520
  always does so I am not aware. There is the same obligation to take out a licence, and certainly anyone carrying a revolver without having taken out a licence ought to be prosecuted, but the general question of taking any further measures with respect to the sale of revolvers remains with the Home Office, which has the matter under consideration.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the expediency of increasing the amount of the Licence Duty?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have considered the amount with my official advisers, but they do not see their way to recommending an increase. I will consider the matter further.

  PENAL SERVITUDE.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he contemplates taking any action towards giving effect to the recommendation of the Directors of Convict Prisons that Her Majesty's Judges should be empowered to pass sentences of three or four years' penal servitude instead of the present minimum of five years?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: Yes, Sir; I hope to be able to introduce such a Bill this Session.

  ASSISTANCE TO THE POLICE.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to some observations recently made by Mr. Horace Smith, the Clerkenwell Police Magistrate, when hearing an application for a summons by Inspector Dixon against a young man for refusal to assist the police when called upon in the Queen's name; whether the learned Magistrate is correctly reported to have said—
  "That it was a matter for discretion on the part of a man whether he assisted the police or not,"
  and
  "That he (the learned Magistrate) should hesitate before going into the midst of a violent crowd to assist the police;"
  whether the police are instructed to demand the aid of any of Her Majesty's subjects whenever such a course appears

  521
  to them, to be necessary; and whether they are entitled to receive the same?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the learned Magistrate that what he said was that it was a matter of discretion for the police whether they would call upon a stranger to assist them, and he added that he himself would hesitate, except in a case of grave necessity, to go into the midst of a violent crowd to assist the police, because at his time of life it would be foolish in the same way as it would be foolish for a policeman to call for assistance from a cripple, a woman, or a child. He expressed his full intention of committing the prisoner for trial, but it having been proved that the defendant suffered from rheumatism in the arm the prosecution was dropped. The answer to the last two paragraphs is in the affirmative. The law is well known that where there is a reasonable necessity, and a parson is called upon to assist the police, and there is no physical impossibility or lawful excuse for his refusal, he is bound to render assistance, and is guilty of a misdemeanour if he refuses.

  JURISDICTION IN PETTY AND QUARTER SESSIONS.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH: I bag to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has observed any report of the remarks made by Mr. Justice Hawkins, on 22nd November, in charging the Grand Jury at Nor wich, especially those in which he commented on the "cruel hardship" suffered by men who are kept in prison two months or more after committal for trial at the Assizes for offences that would be adequately punished by six weeks' imprisonment, and on the necessity thus imposed on the Judge of Assize of discharging on the spot a man found guilty, for example, of a robbery deserving six weeks' imprisonment, but already punished by a longer term; whether the same consequences frequently follow committal to Quarter Sessions; whether the Government intend to take any action upon the subject and to adopt the suggestions of Mr. Justice Hawkins; whether any steps will be taken to remind Magistrates of the discretion which they already possess, enabling
  522
  them to deal summarily with some of these cases, and in others to admit to bail; and whether he will bring in a Bill "enlarging;" as the learned Judge advises, "the jurisdiction of Magistrates not only in Petty Sessions, but in Quarter Sessions"?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have seen a somewhat confused newspaper report of the remarks made by the learned Judge, who, as I understand, was referring to the power given to Magistrates by the Assizes Relief Act to commit to Quarter Sessions cases triable at Quarter Sessions, unless special reasons exist for committing to an intervening Assize. It is, I believe, generally understood that long detention in prison constitutes a "special reason" under the Act, which was passed with a full knowledge that it would in some cases cause a longer period of detention, but it was believed that on the whole there was a balance of advantage to prisoners in the principle which the Act contains. The Government are not prepared to reverse that legislation upon such short experience of it. I have no reason to believe that the Justices generally are not fully aware of the powers they possess. I have on one or two occasions called their attention to those powers where cases have been brought to my notice, and will continue to do so. A Bill has more than once passed the other House adding burglary to the list of offences triable at Sessions, and if the right hon. Gentleman will promote such a Bill, the Government will not oppose him. The Judges, as shown by their Report of April, 1878, are strongly opposed to any enlargement of the jurisdiction of Sessions in other respects, and the Government would not favour any such proposal.

  CRIEF CONSTABLE OF CARDIGAN SHIRE.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to his refusal to sanction the appointment of the late Mr. David Evans, of Aberystwyth, to the office of Chief Constable of Police for Cardiganshire, whether there was any correspondence relating to the subject of the appointment between the Court of Quarter Sessions, or any magisterial members of the Joint Standing Committee, and the

  523
  Home Office; and, if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House?
  MR. MATTHEWS: In order to form the best judgment I could in this matter, I saw and corresponded with various persons who appeared likely to be able to afford useful information. But these communications were all of a confidential character, and it would be contrary to precedent and public policy to make them public. I must, therefore, decline to lay upon the Table any correspondence on this subject, or to answer the hon. Member's question more particularly.

  THE CONVERSION SCHEME.
  MR. DILLWYN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average number of transfers of small amounts (say under £1,000 each) of Stock in the New Converted Two and Three-quarters per Cent Stock made in the course of any week during the last month as compared with the average number of like amounts of Consols Three per Cent., Reduced Three per Cent., and New Three per Cent., made in the corresponding week in the year 1880?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The total number of transfers for the last week in November, 1880, was 2,093, and for the last week in November in this year, 2,330.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
  MR. WALLACE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the pay of the 1st and 2nd class attendants in the South Kensington Museum of Science and Art is much higher than that of the same classes of attendants in the corresponding Museum in Edinburgh; whether the qualifications for both classes of posts are identical; and whether he will state by what consideration the inequality in pay (if any) is explained?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: The pay of the 2nd class attendants in the Edinburgh Museum is nearly the same as that of the attendants at South Kensington, but the pay ef the 1st class attendants is certainly lower. The qualification—if by this is meant the examination they have to pass before the Civil Service Commission—is identical.
  524
  The rates of pay have been fixed in consultation with the Treasury on a consideration of the duties and responsibilities of the men and of the scale of living, together with the general level of wages in the two capitals.

  THE TEA ROOM TABLE.
  MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can give the House any information relating to the old table lately placed in the Tea Room?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,: The table now placed in the Tea Room is the table of the House of Commons in use from the year 1706 until the fire of 1834. To meet the requirements of the Union between England and Scotland, in 1706, Sir Christopher Wren was employed to enlarge and re-construct the internal fittings and furniture by which St. Stephen's Chapel was adapted for the reception of the House of Commons, and Sir C. Wren's arrangement and fittings remained without material alteration until the burning of the Houses of Parliament. The table corresponds both in ornament and workmanship with the style which belongs to the commencement of the last century, and it can be identified with the table represented by the artist Hickel in his picture of Pitt addressing the House of Commons, presented to us by the Emperor of Austria. The table contains the recess in which the Mace was placed when the House went into Committee, and the brass sockets which receive the metal work which ran round the table where the Mace was deposited. And, to complete the authentification of the table, I may mention that one of the officials in attendance at the Office of Works assisted in dragging the table out of St. Stephen's Chapel whilst the fire of October, 1834, was proceeding. It was taken then to the Office of Works, where it remained until the other day, when I bad it brought down to this House.

  INTIMIDATION.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of intimidation tried under "The Conspiracy and Property Act,

  525
  1875," by Mr. Preston, Stipendiary Magistrate, at Birkenhead Police Court, on Friday, October 31st; whether the accused were arrested under warrant; whether it is true that Mr. Preston declined to hear more than two witnesses for the defence, although the case for the prosecution occupied nearly five hours; whether he is aware that the licencee of the hotel where the men were arrested stated in evidence that the men said to have been intimidated
  "came to the hotel by themselves, and could have left the place at any time if they had cared to do so;"
  and whether, under these circumstances, he can see his way to a remission of the sentence?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. The Magistrate did not decline to hear more witnesses, but intimated that to call more would be superfluous. Counsel complied with the suggestion, and thanked the Magistrate. The words quoted do not appear in the notes of evidence. It was a clear case, and I must decline to interfere.
  MR. FENWICK: In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the question on the Home Office Vote.

  WORKING HOURS OF RAILWAY SERVANTS.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received any Returns from the Railway Companies under "The Regulation of Railways Act, 1889," as to the hours worked by persons in their employment; and what limit of hours has been fixed by the Board of Trade beyond which limit the Companies are obliged to make Returns of the hours worked?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: A Return in pursuance of The Regulation of Railways Act, 1890," of certain classes of railway servants who were, during the months of September, 1889, and March, 1890, on duty for more than 12 hours at a time, and who, after being on duty more than 12 hours, were allowed to resume work with less than eight hours' rest, is in an advanced stage of preparation, and will be laid
  526
  upon the Table in the course of the next few days.
  MR. PHILIPPS: What limit has been fixed by the Board of Trade beyond which the Companies are to be obliged to make Returns of the hours worked?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Act of Parliament leaves it open to the Board of Trade to name any limit, and I have that matter under consideration now. What I should like to obtain is some kind of distinction between different cases in the same employment. It is perfectly obvious there is great distinction.

  ARRANGEMENTS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has yet matured his scheme for establishing communication between the House and the Libraries and Smoking Rooms?
  MR. PLUNKET: There would be no difficulty in establishing communication between this Chamber and the Library and Smoking Rooms, as suggested by my hon. Friend, if it were quite clear that it was desired by a considerable majority of Members, and I do not forget that my hon. Friend presented me with a Memorial in support of his proposal numerously signed; but, on the other hand, I know that many Members are opposed to the plan, on the ground mainly, I think, that the House is already ill enough attended, and when a Motion was formally made on the 8th of April, 1889, on the subject it was negatived.
  MR. COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a proposed counter Memorial on the occasion in question failed for the absence of signatures?
  MR. PLUNKET: No, Sir; I was not aware of that.
  MR. COOKE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give directions for the National Standard to be hoisted on the flagstaff on the Victoria Tower of the Palace of Westminster during the Session of Parliament?
  MR. PLUNKET: The Houses of Parliament are technically a Royal Palace, and, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, when Her Majesty opens Parliament her Royal Standard is displayed on the Victoria Tower, but I have no power in the matter at all. The

  527
  Lord Great Chamberlain is the proper authority.
  MR. COOKE: May I ask who is the Lord Great Chamberlain?
  MR. PLUNKET: That is rather a difficult question to answer offhand. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to give a longer notice of the question.

  EDUCATION OF THE BLIND.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I bag to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he proposes introducing a measure conferring the same educational advantages on the blind of England and Wales as are afforded by the Scotch Act of last Session?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: It is the intention of the Government to introduce ii measure dealing with the education of the blind hi England later in the Session, so soon as the progress of public business will justify their doing so.

  THE ROYAL ENGINEERS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to the case of a retired officer of the Royal Engineers, who presented on or about 10th July last, through the Home Office, a Petition of Grace to Her Majesty the Queen, asking that £30 a year be granted by reason of his 31½ years' service and that of his father, a Major-General Royal, and for certain other detailed reasons set forth in the Petition, if he can explain why the Home Secretary did not lay that Petition before Her Majesty, but transmitted it to the War Office to be dealt with; whether such a course is constitutional and according to Statute; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of this Petition?
  MR. MATTHEWS: This Petition was laid before the Queen by the Secretary of State for War, to whom it was forwarded by the Home Office in the ordinary course, as relating to matters within his jurisdiction. Constitutionally, the functions of the Secretaries of State are interchangeable, and there was nothing irregular in the way this Petition was dealt with. I have no objection to laying it on the Table of the House.

  PROMOTION IN THE CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any, and what, progress has been made regarding the promotion of Second Division clerks of the Civil Service under the Orders in Council and Treasury Minute alluded to by him in his statement of the 28th of last March; and whether he can state from what date such promotions will take effect?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I do not know that I clearly understand the question of the hon. Member. I have referred to my answer of the 20th March, and find that it lays down correctly the conditions under which clerks of the Second Division are selected for higher posts. As cases occur they receive our consideration, but there is no general progress on the subject, as I understand it, to report.
  MR. COBB: Since the end of March has nothing been done to remedy the grievance complained of?
  MR. JACKSON: Oh, yes. As vacancies arise there are three ways of dealing with them; one is not to fill them up at all; the second is to fill them up by transfer; and, in the third place, they can be filled up by promotion.

  THE COUNTY COUNCILS AND EDUCATION.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that many of the County Councils of England are setting apart sums of money under "The Local Taxation Act, 1890," for important educational purposes, and that the Joint Committees of Wales are embodying the grants under this Act in their schemes for intermediate education, he can give an assurance that these grants are not about to be applied to some other purpose, but will continue to be available for intermediate, technical, and agricultural education?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not consider that I am in a position to give any formal or official assurance, but I may say that there are no suggestions before me for applying these grants to some other purpose, and I may add, as my personal opinion, that if County Councils set themselves heartily to work, as in

  529
  many places they appear to be doing, to utilise the grants for important educational purposes, it would probably be difficult for any Minister to persuade Parliament to divert them, even if he himself desired to do so.

  CASE OF COLONEL MITCHELL.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any complaint from the suppliant in "Mitchell v. Regina," that in consequence of not having received the balance of compensation on retirement from the War Office, and being thereby unable to pay a certain debt, he was arrested by the head bailiff of Salford Court, Manchester, lodged in Strange ways Prison, Manchester, placed in a cell on the criminal side of the prison, assaulted by a warder, kept for a whole day without proper food, and refused permission to see any doctor; whether, inasmuch as the complaint was investigated by the Home Office, and the statements found to be correct, and the warder officially and seriously admonished, he can explain why all compensation has been refused the officer; and whether the warder who assaulted the gallant officer is the one who was lately tried at the Liverpool Assizes for the murder of a prisoner in Strange ways Prison?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The petitioner in the case quoted complained to me in July, 1888, that, being detained one day in Strange ways Prison, between the hours of 6 a.m. and 4.50 p.m., he was treated in a manner not in accordance with the rules. I inquired into these allegations, and, having reason to think that one of the warders had been rough in his manner and language, I caused him to be reprimanded and cautioned. I was not able to discover that there had been any breach of the Prison Rules, or that there was any ground for compensation. In September, 1888, the petitioner caused the Governor of the prison to be served with notice of action, but has not since proceeded with the action. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will, in view of the decision in the Courts of Law in "Mitchell v. Regina,"
  530
  cancel the official letter to the Secretary of State for War, dated Treasury Chambers, 31st March, 1888, printed in the Army Appropriation Accounts, and the Report of the Auditor and Controller General, 1887–8, laid upon the Table of the House of Commons, stating that the Secretary of State for War's contention to be the sole interpreter of Royal Warrants is "unconstitutional, ultra vires, and contrary to the Statute?"
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: The letter to which the hon. Member refers does not relate to Colonel Mitchell's case, and is not inconsistent with the decision of the Law Courts. The view of the Treasury is that—
  "It would be ultra vires for a Royal Warrant to give to the Secretary of State such a power of interpretation as would prevent them (the Treasury) from forming and expressing their own judgment on the meaning of the Warrant in any points that can affect Treasury action."

  THE PAY OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has sanctioned an improved scheme of pay for the Metropolitan Police; and, if so, what are the terms of the scheme?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; I have sanctioned an improved scheme of pay for the Metropolitan Police, but all the details are not finally settled. I shall have no objection to laying the Police Order, in which those details will appear, in due course upon the Table of the House.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has had under consideration the question of the pay and allowances of the Metropolitan Police Force, and particularly the question of lodgings for the married men stationed in the highly rented inner divisions; and if he has come to any decision on the subject?
  MR. MATTHEWS: These questions have, during the Recess, been receiving the anxious consideration of myself and the Commissioner. I have already informed the House that I have sanctioned an improvement in the scale of pay, and I have every hope that the arrangements made will remove any ground of complaint that may have existed.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will be good enough to state what is now the position of things as between the Board of Trade and the Railway Companies with respect to the carrying into effect of Section 24 of "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888?"
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Board of Trade have made to Parliament the Reports provided for by the section in cases of disagreement in respect to nine great Railway Companies. They are at present making further efforts to adjust the limited number of differences which still exist between traders on the one hand and the companies on the other, and I hope at an early date to be able to introduce Bills confirming Provisional Orders as regards those companies. The schedules of the other companies are still under consideration.

  PR1NTING OF FARES ON RAILWAY TICKETS.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to his answer on the subject on 17th April last, it may be taken that Section 6 of "The Regulation of Railways Act, 1889," providing for the fare being printed on every passenger ticket, will become universally operative on and after 1st January 1891?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir.

  WEIGHING MINERALS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, inasmuch as the House of Lords has decided that the "Billy Fairplace" system of weighing minerals belonging to miners is illegal, he will take steps to have the instrument removed from the pit banks at Burnbank Colliery, Scotland?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Before I can answer the question of the hon. Member I must have from the Inspector of the District a Report, for which I have asked, as to the nature of any instrument in use at Burnbank.

  THE GAS STRIKE.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Her Majesty's Government, during the month of October 1890, promised to supply the Gas Companies of London with labourers in the event of a strike, as was generally recommended at the time?
  MR. MATTHEWS: In reply to an. application from the Gas Light and Coke Company, Her Majesty's Government pointed out that they could not interfere in any way in disputes between employers, and employed so long as both parties kept within the provisions of the law, and that the facts then before them did not require them to adopt any distinct course of action, but that they would think it right to take whatever action, might be necessary to avert or minimise the grave public danger which would be involved in allowing London to be plunged into complete darkness for an indefinite period.

  THE DYNAMITE PRISONERS.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, according to his promise made at the conclusion of the last Session of Parliament, he has made inquiries into the condition of certain prisoners confined in Chatham Prison, with a view to their removal to another prison; and, if so, with what result?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; I have inquired into this matter, and am satisfied that the prisoners referred to have not suffered any ill-treatment or been placed under any disadvantage on account of the complaints that they have made Circumstances will, however, make it necessary before long to make a transfer of prisoners from Chatham to some other convict prison, and the prisoners referred to will be among those transferred, as soon as the requisite arrangements are completed.

  "HEFFERNAN V. CARTER."
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he has had brought under his notice the verdict in the case of "Heffernan v. Carter and Tuohy," in which the jury found that

  533
  "The filing of the shot which killed Heffernan was not necessary for the self-defence of Carter and the police;"
  and whether the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland will now institute proceedings against the officer who ordered the shot to be fired and the policeman who fired it?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: Proceedings were instituted on behalf of the Crown against District Inspector Carter and Constable Tuohy as long ago as the month of November, 1889. The Magistrates refused to return them for trial on the ground that they acted in discharge of their duty, and were justified in the course which they took in the circumstances in which they were placed. This decision is fully supported by the evidence in the civil action and by the findings of the jury in this action upon the issues with respect to which they were able in the first instance to agree. They found without any hesitation that it was the duty of District Inspector Carter and his police to disperse the crowd, and that the performance of this duty was attended by personal danger to the Inspector and the police. Having agreed on these issues, they came into Court and told the Presiding Judge that they were unable to agree on the remaining issues, namely, whether the firing of the shot was necessary for the self-defence of Carter and the police, and whether the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit from the continuance of the deceased's life, and they suggested to the Judge whether they might not return an answer to the former of those two issues conditional upon the answer to be returned to the second. On being informed by the Judge that such a verdict could not stand, they again retired, and ultimately returned with findings answering both these questions in the negative. This amounted to a verdict for the defendants. I have, of course, no information as to how a unanimous decision on the two last mentioned issues was arrived at, but, having regard to the decision of the Magistrates, to the facts proved in evidence in the civil action, and to the verdict and action of the jury taken as a whole, I see no reason to direct any further proceedings in the case.

  COUNTY COUNCILS.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, considering the difficulty in which the Councils of counties and burghs in Scotland are placed as respects the application of the sums which they are empowered to apply for the purposes of technical education under Section 2 of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act of last Session, owing to the uncertainty of the continuance of the fund whence such sums arise, he can hold out a prospect that in future legislative steps will be taken to provide some fund from which sums may be available for the above-mentioned purpose?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I have already given to my noble Friend the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington).

  SENIOR COLONELS.
  GENERAL FRASER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the Royal Warrant which comes into force on the 1st January, 1891, whether a Senior Colonel, who fulfils the conditions of Clause 136 of the Royal Warrant of 1878, wherein it is stated
  "That a Lieutenant Colonel appointed as such before 1st November, 1871, if he shall have attained the rank of Colonel, shall retain his right to succeed in his turn to the Establishment of General Officers,"
  is now assured of his promotion; and if, in justice to the Purchase Officers of the Army, he will take into consideration the recommendation of Lord Penzance's. Royal Commission in 1876, that the Establishment of General Officers shall remain at 275, as fixed by the Royal Warrant of 27th December, 1870; and also these words in their Report—
  "We do not think that we should be justified in recommending the application of compulsory retirement to the rank of Colonel?"
  MR. E. STANHOPE: There are not more than four of the present Colonels, who were Lieutenant Colonels before the 1st of November, 1871; and, as they only held that rank in virtue of commanding companies in the Foot Guards, they were not qualifying for the rank of Colonel. As regards the number of

  535
  General Officers, I may point out that the vacancies which have given promotion to Colonels since 1871 have, as a result of compulsory retirement for General Officers, been much more numerous than they would have been if the Establishment then subsisting had been retained without any such retirement. The result has been a considerable increase of charge.

  THE ESTIMATES.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has considered the proposal to refer the various Classes of Estimates to Grand Committees specially appointed to consider each Class, with a view to careful examination by such Committees, instead of the desultory discussion in Committee of the whole House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I concur in the view of the hon. Baronet, which I understand to be implied by his question, that the working of the existing system of the consideration of Estimates by Committee of the whole House is unsatisfactory. There is an absence of all proportion in dealing with the questions involved in the Votes, and there can be little doubt that a remedy is very urgently called for; but I have not yet perceived any indication of a willingness on the part of the House to delegate this portion of its duties to a Standing Committee in such a fashion as to deprive Members in the House of the power of raising questions on every item of every Vote. It will be obvious to the hon. Baronet that no Government could with advantage propose a vital change in practice without a very general consensus of opinion on such an important matter, and any changes that may be made must secure that the authority and responsibility of the House of Commons with regard to the expenditure of public money shall remain unimpaired.

  REGISTRATION.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, having regard to the calculation that upwards of £300,000 is anually spent by Political Parties in registration matters, whereas in other countries the registration of persons having the public right
  536
  to vote for representation in Imperial or Municipal Government is a matter of public concern, Her Majesty's Government will consider whether it will be possible to deal with the matter before the next General Election?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government are not at present prepared to deal with this question.

  ASSISTED EDUCATION.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consideration of the great interest which is felt throughout the country as to the Government measure relating to assisted education, he will arrange for the introduction of the Bill before the Adjournment for the Christmas holidays, so as to afford time for its consideration by the country?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government are not prepared to introduce the measure relating to assisted education before Christmas.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Will the right hon. Gentleman give ample time, so that the intense interest taken in the subject by all sections of the community may be satisfied?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Undoubtedly it is a question upon which ample time should be afforded to the House and the country to consider the proposals of the Government before they are sanctioned.

  PRISON CLERKS.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state why it is impossible to include the clerks employed in Her Majesty's prisons in the new Second Division scheme, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, and adopted by the Treasury Minute?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No new scheme for the prisons clerks has as yet, so far as I can understand, been promulgated, and I cannot, therefore, undertake to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill?
  MR. T.W. RUSSELL: May I ask when the Government will take the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill, No. 2?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill is down for Second Reading to-night, and I am in hopes it may be reached, but it will not be possible to proceed with it unless with the consent of the House.
  MR. J. MORLEY: We all understood that it was not to be taken now?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I agree that it shall not be taken if there is any general objection.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Was it not understood we should adjourn after certain Bills were disposed of?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly; and we should not think of keeping the House sitting for this Bill.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I have not received a reply to my question.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Second Reading will be on Monday.

  THE TITHES COMMISSION.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the terms of the Reference to the Royal Commission on the Redemption of Tithes, or if it is intended to allow the Commissioners to inquire into cases of tithe rent-charge which are at present admitted to be excessive?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am not prepared to state the precise terms of Reference to the Royal Commission on the question of the Redemption of Tithe. The question of the incidence of tithe rent-charge in certain parts of the country must come before the Commission.
  MR. H. GARDNER: Will the Commission inquire into the revision of tithe?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I shall be very sorry if my answer has led hon. Members to think so.

  CLARE SLOB LANDS.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government, in carrying out their proposed Irrigation Scheme, contemplates the allotment of the lands known as the
  538
  Clare Slob Lands, containing 1,200 acres, at present in the possession of the Irish Board of Works, to small holders; and, if not, to what use it is intended to devote this valuable property?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's reference to the "proposed Irrigation Scheme," or how it can be connected with the Clare Slob Lands.
  MR. COX: It should be "emigration," and not "irrigation."
  MR. JACKSON: I can only answer the question as it appears on the Paper. Petitions have been presented to the Landed Estates Court, and if nothing unforeseen occurs the property may be put up to public tender in January.

  LIGHT RAILWAY BETWEEN ENNIS AND SCARRIFF.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a large and influentially signed Memorial in favour of the construction of a line of light railway between Ennis and Scarriff; and, if so, whether the Government intend to agree to the request of the Memorial?
  MR. MADDEN: I am informed that the Memorial was received on Saturday last. No decision has yet been arrived at.

  SEED POTATOES IN IRELAND.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the provision he is making for a change of potato seed in Ireland, in sufficient time to permit of arrangements being made for the purchase and distribution of seed, without the hurry and confusion of 1880?
  MR. MADDEN: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is pledged to bring in a Bill, and he proposes to introduce it to-night.

  WRECK OF THE HAROLD.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the danger to fishing boats caused by the wreck of the Ss. Harold, which is lying submerged off the North Rock, Portavogie, County Down; and whether, considering the

  539
  frequent complaints made by the fishermen as to the danger to life and property caused thereby, he will consider the desirability of having the wreck removed?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Commissioners of Irish Lights, in the interests of general navigation, placed in May last a buoy to mark the position of the wreck of the Harold, and issued a notice to mariners to that effect. Under the Removal of Wrecks Act, the Commissioners and not the Board of Trade would be the authority to act if they thought the wreck to be an obstruction or danger to navigation, and by their action in May it is to be assumed that removal is not, in their opinion, necessary. I am now in communication with the Commissioners in the matter.

  SUNDAY DELIVERY OF LETTERS.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I had intended to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that, during the present year, a written request for a Sunday delivery of letters from Millisle to Carrowdore was made to the Secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin, by a large and influential number of the inhabitants of the district of Carrowdore, Donaghadee; and whether, considering the general complaints made by the people as to the serious inconvenience which non delivery of letters there on Sundays causes to the residents of the district, he will consider the advisability of instituting a Sunday delivery of these letters? At the request of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to postpone the Question until tomorrow.

  FAIR RENT APPEALS.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of fair rent appeals heard and decided by the Chief Land Commission during its last sitting at Belfast; in how many cases were the fair rents reduced and increased respectively; what number of appeals were dismissed; how many appeals were listed from the Union of Down Patrick, in the County of Down; why the farmers and their witnesses were put to the expense and inconvenience of traveling such a considerable distance, from Down Patrick, which is an Assize town, to Belfast, to attend the hearing there, and why the Land
  540
  Commission did not hold a sitting at Down Patrick; whether the gentleman who is Court Valuer for the Land Commission in County Down was formerly a Sub-Commissioner in Down; and why the rents fixed by three Sub-Commissioners in County Down were increased at this sitting on the Report of one ex-Sub-Commissioner?
  MR. MADDEN: The Land Commissioners report that during their last sitting at Belfast 83 fair rent appeal cases were heard, with the following results:—Rents reduced, 5; increased, 27; decisions of Sub-Commissioners affirmed, 39; originating notices dismissed on law points, 6; judgment reserved, 6. From Downpatrick Union 54 cases were listed for hearing. Of these 45 appeared before the Court. The Commissioners state that it has been their practice to hear appeals from Downpatrick Union at Belfast, except on one occasion when the Appeal Court sat t Downpatrick for that purpose. Mr. Bomford, the valuer, has not acted as an Assistant Commissioner in Down since upwards of four years ago. He did not act as Assistant Commissioner in any of the cases listed at Belfast. The Commissioners, in arriving at their decisions, had before them not only the Reports of their Court Valuer, but also the evidence produced before them, both on behalf of the landlords and the tenants.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only additional evidence was that of the Court Valuer, who was, to some extent, the representative of the landlords?
  MR. MADDEN: I have given the hon. Gentleman all the information I have.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these poor tenants had to travel a distance of more than 40 miles, and to pay their own expenses?
  MR. MADDEN: I will call the attention of the Commission to the fact.

  DRAINAGE OF THE RIVER SCARRIFF.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in 1879 it was proposed to borrow £32.000 from the Board of Works, under the Relief of Distress Act of that

  541
  year, for the purpose of the drainage of the River Scarriff, and that advance of said sum was agreed to by the Board of Works; whether he has received a resolution, adopted by a large and influential public meeting of landlords and tenants, and others interested, recently held in Scarriff, urging on the Government the necessity of going on with this work; whether a resolution was also adopted, asking that the Drainage Acts might be so amended as to enable tenant farmers, holding judicial leases, to become proprietors within the meaning of the Act; and what action the Government intend taking in the matter?
  MR. JACKSON: The statements in paragraph 1 of the hon. Member's question are correct. I understand that the scheme for the Scarriff Drainage fell through, as no action was taken within the time allowed by the Provisional Order, and extended by the Board of Works to the 1st March, 1887. I have received the resolutions referred to. As to the last paragraph, I should be glad if the hon. Member would address his inquiry to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.
  MR. COX: In view of the distress prevailing, do the Government propose to take any action in the matter?
  MR. JACKSON: It is not in my power to say. The hon. Gentleman had better give notice of a question to the Chief Secretary.

  THE LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution, adopted by the Ennistymon Board of Guardians, complaining of some recent decisions in that Union of the Land Sub-Commissioners (Messrs. James Greene, Chairman, J. Martin, and J. J. Ginny), as being in excess of the reductions the landlords offered beforehand, and entirely beyond the paying capabilities of the tenants; and whether he will direct the attention of the Land Commission to these facts?
  MR. MADDEN: Any person aggrieved by a decision of a Sub-Commission can appeal. The Government cannot interfere.

NOTICE OF MOTION.
  THE CASE OF WALTER HARGAN.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I beg to give notice that upon the earliest available day I will call attention to the grave miscarriage of justice which has taken place in the case of Walter Hargan, who has been sentenced to a long term of penal servitude for having protected his own life, and I will move for an Address to the Crown for a free pardon.

  NORTHAMPTON (PROHIBITION OF PUBLIC MEETING).
  Address for—
  "Copy of Correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Northampton Magistrates with reference to the prohibition of a meeting intended to have been held in the Market Square, Northampton."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  First Report brought up and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
MOTIONS.
  COMPANIES' ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Bill ordered on November 26 [see page 112]; presented, and read first time. [Bill 146.]

  ELECTORS REGISTRATION (ACCELERATION) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Ritchie, Bill to accelerate the proceedings for the Registration of Electors in England and Wales, and to alter certain dates connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Long.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 147.]

  SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Arthur Balfour, Bill to provide for the supply of Seed Potatoes to occupiers and cultivators of land in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 148.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE.
  £5,000, Supplementary, Relief of Distress (Ireland).
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: Mr. Courtney, as the Committee will see, the sum which I now ask them to vote is relatively a trifling one, but I think that this will be the most convenient opportunity for me to explain on behalf of the Government our views as to the character of Irish distress, and the methods by which we propose to deal with that distress. I am afraid that in dealing with that subject I shall have to trouble the Committee at length, although I will make my observations as brief as I can. I propose to lay upon the Table of the House Reports which will show the character of the failure of the potato crop in various districts in Ireland; but for the purposes of the present Debate I may take it as a matter of notoriety and of common knowledge, requiring no special proof and not requiring the production of documents, that in a considerable portion—the larger portion—of the western seaboard in Ireland the failure of the potato crop has been a very serious one. The amount of the failure of the crop varies in the different districts in which it has failed from half the average crop to a quarter, or even to less, and of this half or quarter crop a large proportion are immature, when not diseased, and although I will not go the length of saying that they are unfit for human food, they have certainly not the sustaining qualities which the average potato in ordinary years possesses. Now, the question that we have to determine is what amount of distress this admitted failure in the potato crop involves in these districts, and how that distress ought most properly to be met. I think it will fix the idea of the Committee upon the subject if I attempt to lay before them a concrete case which will show how this failure affects the life and mode of existence of an
  544
  ordinary small occupier in the distressed districts, but of course no single statement will be applicable to all these districts. The following will be a not unfair example of what will happen, in one of the worst parts of these districts. Under ordinary circumstances the occupier's crop of potatoes would supply him in each year with two meals a day from the 15th of August to the l5th of February, and with one meal a day from the 15th of February to the l5th of April, and after that date he has to depend largely upon other food bought upon credit from the local shopkeeper. This year I am told that, instead of having sufficient potatoes for two of his meals per day from the 15th of August to the 15th of February, he will only have them at one of his meals per day to the 15th of December, and that after the 15th of December he will probably have no potatoes at all. The result will be that, instead of being dependent upon other food stuffs bought chiefly upon credit from the 15th of April to the 15th of August only, he will have to depend upon those other supplies for about 17 weeks more, and the House will readily understand that although the local shopkeepers might be prepared to give credit—as is unfortunately the custom in Ireland—from the 15th of April to the l5th of August, they may by no means be prepared to extend that credit from the 15th of December to the 15th of August. It must be recollected that in other large parts of Ireland, as in the north and east, the crops are distinctly good this year, as I am glad to say they are where the crop has not failed, and the occupiers have other crops which they can fall back upon to meet the pinch of distress; but in these poor districts in the West of Ireland the occupier has but a very small margin upon which to economise; in fact, he has, I am afraid, no margin at all. No doubt in many instances it will be found that these small occupiers have a considerable amount of stock upon paper, but that stock is of very poor quality, and if brought to market it would certainly not fill up the gap caused by the failure of the potato crop, while to draw upon it would diminish in future years the power of the man to meet the difficulties of his situation. For example, in some of the poorer districts of Donegal

  545
  I find, from inquiries I have made, that a number of these sheep, if taken to market, would not realise more than 18s. each, and the better opinion is that they would not fetch more than 15s. each. Thus to say that a man had 10 sheep without giving their market value would convey a very misleading idea of his real position. I do not think that I need labour further the point of the degree and character of the distress caused by the failure of the potato crop. The first consequence of that failure is that there will be no seed for the next year's crop; and the second consequence is the actual want which may be apprehended this year, and for the relief of which we must provide at once. I will deal with these two consequences in their order. It was brought to my knowledge about the middle of August that the failure of the potato crop was so serious that some steps will have to be taken to provide seed for next year. I was acquainted with the difficulties and also the great abuses which attended the administration of the Act of 1880. I at first entertained the idea that it was possible the best plan would be for the Government itself to take advantage of the market, and privately to obtain the requisite amount of seed supply, and then to give it out on such conditions as Parliament thought fit to the localities where it was required. I made considerable investigation into both the amount and quality of the potato crop in England, Scotland, and the North of Ireland; and I believe the potatoes of the North of Ireland are every bit as suitable for the South-West of Ireland as any grown in England or Scotland. I consulted experts upon the subject of seed potatoes, and I thought at one time I saw my way to ordering, in the hope of obtaining subsequent Parliamentary sanction, a sufficient number to meet the necessities of the case; but this problem soon presented itself to my mind—what kind of potato ought to be planted? Those who have followed the question closely are probably aware that. consequent upon the distress of 1879–80, the Champion potato was almost universally planted along the west coast of Ireland; and the Champion potato is still the popular potato in Mayo, Galway, Cork, and other counties. Curiously enough, the Champion potato is not popular in Donegal. The farmers of
  546
  Donegal are not of opinion that it is the most disease-resisting potato; they have by no means made up their minds as to what potato they ought to have; but they have come to the conclusion that the Champion potato has many defects. I myself am disposed to think that it has not the disease-resisting qualities it had at one time; and experiments that I caused to be made last year have confirmed me in that opinion. Long before anyone could have suspected that there would be a failure in the potato crop this year I had £500 or £600 worth of Champion potatoes brought from Scotland and planted in Donegal. I have reason to believe they were excellent seed potatoes; I Lave no reason for believing they were planted under worse conditions than ordinarily obtain on the west coast of Ireland; and the failure is, I am informed, as complete as that of any seed which has been planted during the last 10 years in that district. The result of that experiment, the discovery I made of the views of the Donegal farmers, and other circumstances brought to my notice, showed that the Government would take upon them selves a great responsibility if they selected the kind of seed that was to be used by the people. Although I am only too painfully aware of the defects that will attend the administration of the Poor Law Unions in this matter, I was reluctantly driven to the conclusion that we had to fall back upon the machinery of 1880, or some machinery like it. I do not see in his place the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), who has brought in a Bill framed very much on the lines of the Act of 1880. The Bill I have just asked leave to introduce does not differ very materially from the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member. I have no desire to compete with him; he is entitled to credit for his action 10 years ago and now. My Bill differs from his in small details and in two important points, which I will mention. In the Act of 1880, and in the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member, the loan was and is a loan without interest, and, therefore, it amounted to a free gift of the interest during the continuance of the loan. The loan of 1880 was within a few thousands of £600,000; it was £590,000; and the interest on that at 3 per cent. was a gift from the

  547
  British taxpayer to the Irish farmer of several thousand pounds. It may be said I am proposing to give a great deal too much from the British taxpayer; but I do not think this free interest on the money lent should be paid out of the Imperial funds. This part of the contribution, I think, should be paid out of the Church surplus, and in the Bill the Church Surplus Fund will be required to pay the interest on this money. In the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member it is assumed that nobody who takes advantage of this loan can pay ready money; but I should hope that in these districts there are some small occupiers who can pay, and I think they should be encouraged to do so. Very few Englishmen, and no Irishmen, would pay ready money when they could get a thing on credit. That will not be interpreted by any Irishman present as an attack on his country. [An hon. MEMBER: Scotland.] Certainly, no Scotchman would do it. If the tenant buys on credit, the interest is lost for two, three, or four years; and if we simply say, "You may pay ready money if you like, but if you do not like you shall have the loan without," of course the tenant will not pay ready money. I propose that if any man chooses to pay ready money he shall obtain the article at 20 per cent. discount. It will be seen that this is not in the nature of a gift, because you save to the Church Surplus Fund the interest that would otherwise be lost, and you save the cost of collection and insurance. There is, therefore, a financial as well as a moral gain in giving some privilege to those who are prepared to pay ready money. I shall further make an endeavour to provide, as far as regulation and inspection can do it, that the abuses which prevailed in 1880 shall not prevail again. The Committee may like to be reminded of some of the malpractices which went on. In many cases no record was kept by the Guardians of the amounts sent to various depôts; no means were devised to check distribution; in many cases the money obtained by Guardians was not distributed; some persons were charged with more than they had received; some who received were not charged at all; there were cases of gross fraud on the part of both Guardians and contractors; and in some cases loans were corruptly
  548
  used to secure the election of Poor Law Guardians. These are monstrous scandals, and I hope and believe that by the regulations we shall lay down they will be prevented on the present occasion. We have, at all events, this in our favour: that whereas in 1880 the Act was administered under the shadow of an election which was known to be approaching within a month or a few weeks, causing extravagant promises to be made by candidates, and all sorts of extravagant hopes to be entertained by the people, there is no such perturbing cause on the present occasion, and I hope that the experience which has been gained will operate as a salutary preventive against the course of extravagance, and worse than extravagance, which prevailed 10 years ago. I have had prepared by the Irish Agricultural Department, whose services to the Government on this matter have been absolutely invaluable, a Circular on the subject, embodying all the knowledge of that Department with regard to the proper seeds to be used. Without in any way fettering the discretion which Boards of Guardians must exercise for themselves, the Circular will put them in possession of all the facts that experts are acquainted with. I pass to the consideration of a more vital question—how we are to meet the impending distress. I would begin by reminding the Committee, and I hope the Irish public, that I do not propose in any way to interfere with the operation of the ordinary Poor Law. The ordinary Poor Law is still in force, and it is undoubtedly capable of meeting, I will not say all, but a great deal of the distress which is now impending. The latest Returns show that the pressure upon the Poor Law Authorities is not greater than it was this time last year. The outdoor relief, taking Ireland as a whole, or taking even Connaught, has been slightly increased, and the indoor relief has, in some cases, actually diminished. I have heard by telegram to-day that in certain of the more distressed unions the pressure upon the Poor Law is increasing, and I have not the slightest doubt that as the winter advances, and as the people come to take in their stock of potatoes, not only will there be an increased pressure upon the Local Authorities, but the Poor Law Authorities, unaided, will not be able to meet the distress with

  549
  which we have to deal. What additional means ought this Committee and the House to provide against the distress with which the ordinary Poor Law can not cope? We have a not inconsiderable body of experience on this subject—experience which, I am afraid, in many cases is fruitful rather in telling us what we ought to avoid than in telling us what we ought to do. In 1879–80, which is an example of the most considerable distress that has occurred in Ireland since the great famine, exclusive of charity, which was largely distributed at that time, the chief means of dealing with the distress was as follow:—There were loans to landlords at very low interest—namely, 1 per cent, which was not to begin until the loan had been running two years. Over £900,000 was advanced in that manner. There were loans to Sanitary Authorities upon the same easy terms, and I believe about £38,000 was advanced in that way. There were loans to the various baronies for baronial improvements on similar terms, and these loans amounted to £270,787. And there was the gift of £45,000 for the construction of piers and harbours. In 1886, again, there was a sum of £20,000 given, also to small piers and harbours. Both in 1879–80 and in 1886 there were some loans and gifts to various Boards of Guardians, and, above all, in both years the rules which normally govern relief in Ireland were relaxed and out-door relief was permitted in Unions in the cases of occupiers of land of more than a quarter of an acre. That being a brief enumeration of the means of relief previously applied, what judgment ought we to pass upon the success which has respectively attended them? The £900,000 advanced in 1879 is, I think, an example which ought not to be followed on this occasion, for two quite separate reasons. First, I do not believe that now, since the Act of 1885, the landlords have been prepared to borrow money at all. Before that Act, which so materially altered the status of the landlords, they were no doubt prepared to borrow money in many cases upon these terms, and there by to afford a great deal of what was, no doubt, valuable assistance to the population. I do not think they would—I am sure they would not—do it now, but even if they were prepared to do it, I do not think that is a convenient
  550
  method of attempting to supply relief, because the relief does not solely depend upon the degree in which it is required, but depends also upon the willingness and ability of particular landlords to borrow large sums of money, and there is no ground for supposing that the ability and willingness of the landlords to borrow money would be in any direct relation to the amount of distress existing in their districts. I therefore reject that method as not only impossible, but inexpedient. It is, no doubt, possible that loans to baronies might not be open to objections of a similar kind, but they have objections peculiar to themselves. In looking back upon the manner in which the money lent to baronies in 1880 was expended, I find that it too often happened that the persons who benefited by that money were not the poor, not the inexperienced poor who were really in need of employment, but rather small local contractors accustomed to make roads under the county surveyors and under the Grand Juries, and that these small contractors naturally enough gave the money with which they were supplied, not to the able-bodied poor who desired employment, but to their own particular friends and relations. I think that argument is conclusive against employing Baronial Authorities as organs for relieving distress. The loans to Sanitary Authorities—the money spent upon piers and the money spent upon harbours and boat slips—are open to another objection. That such piers and boat-slips can be, with advantage, constructed in various parts of Ireland I am not prepared to deny—far from it, although an immense amount has already been done in that direction. The objection, I think, is not that these piers and boat-slips are useless, but that they do not employ unskilled labour. The amount of unskilled labour proportionate to the expenditure which can be used upon works of that kind is very trifling, and these works, however useful and expedient they may be, are not fitted to be our mainstay in dealing with impending distress. The only other expedient which I have enumerated, and which has been employed, is a relaxation of the rules governing outdoor relief in Ireland, combined with loans and gifts to various Unions; and I say, if experience has proved

  551
  anything, it has proved absolutely and conclusively that you cannot trust Boards of Guardians in Ireland, under the stress of a calamity of this kind, to administer out-door relief and gifts and loans from this House without gross extravagance, amounting in many cases to scandalous fraud. The experience of 1880 and of 1886 taught one lesson. I do not wish to introduce any controversial element into this speech, and I am very far from desiring to attack the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Morley); but he, of course, is as well aware as I am that the manner in which the five or six Unions distributed the £20,000 free gift of this House in 1886 was perfectly iniquitous, and that in one case there were more persons upon the list for relief than the total number of inhabitants of the Union. I say that that instance alone should warn this House, and warn this Committee, against endeavouring for the third time to repeat this most disastrous experiment, and should induce them to adopt any expedient, however costly to the community, rather than increase the demoralisation which has been produced by this unfortunate measure on previous occasions. I have explained to the Committee what it is I do not mean to do, and why I do not wish to do it. Let me now tell the Committee what it is I hope to do, with their sanction, and how I think it will meet the present crisis. After the Poor Law I rely principally upon the railway works which are about to be constructed. In County Cork there is a line to be constructed from Skibbereen to Baltimore, seven and a half miles, and the Bantry extension, a mile and a half, a short though costly work; in the County of Kerry there are the Headfort to Kenmare, and the Killorglin to Valentia Island lines, respectively 19 miles and 25 miles; in County Galway the Galway to Clifden line, 49 miles; in County Mayo the Westport to Mulrany line, 18 miles, with an extension to Achill of 8 miles; the Ballina to Killala line, eight miles; and works are to be begun on the Coolgreany and Claremorris line, which, if completed, would amount to 48 miles; in Donegal the Donegal and Killybegs line, 18 miles, and the Stranorlar to Glenties line, 24 miles. In addition to the above, which are either constructed under the Act of 1889, or
  552
  have been begun by the authority of the Government independently of any Act, there are three lines to be constructed, respectively in Clare, Mayo, and Galway and Cork, under the Act of 1883, passed by the right hon. Member for Bridgeton (Sir G. Trevelyan). There is the South Clare line, 26 miles; the Tuam and Claremorris line, 16 miles; and the Donoughmore line, County Cork, eight miles. The total mileage of the lines I have enumerated is no less than 284 miles authorised and about to be begun. But the Committee will ask me, how soon will these lines be available to meet the distress? Unfortunately, I cannot give a perfectly complete answer to that question, but I may say that the Skibbereen and Baltimore line was begun on November 24, and that 300 men are now employed upon it; the Bantry extension will be begun on December 15; the Galway and Clifden line was begun on December 2; the Westport and Mulrany line on December 3; the Achill extension I hope to have in full operation by December 15; the Ballina and Killala on the 8th, and the Claremorris on the 15th of December. With regard to the Donegal and Killybegs line tenders for the earthworks have actually been opened and begun, and the Glenties line contractor informs me that he is ready to commence work at a week's notice. Therefore, there only remains uncertain in the first class of railways I have enumerated the two Kerry lines. With regard to the two Kerry lines, I had the honour of an interview with the Chairman of the Great Southern and Western Railway before I left Ireland. They labour under a technical difficulty which will be removed when the House passes the Bill now before it; but I distinctly understood that, in spite of these technical difficulties, they were prepared to begin the work instantly if the Government were prepared to indemnify them for any loss they might sustain in consequence of not being in a legal position to draw up formal contracts. I thought that the House would sanction any such action on my part, and I certainly understood that with that promise of indemnity they would begin at once. Why they have not done so I cannot say; but the assurances given me by the chairman were such that I have not the slightest doubt that in a very few

  553
  days work will be begun on these two lines also. It will be seen, therefore, that these 284 miles of railway will be in fall operation in a very short period. This, I think, reflects credit on all concerned. I will not dwell upon the exertions of the Government; but it is only fair that I should say that the authorities of these great Railway Companies of Ireland have shown themselves fully alive to the exigencies of the situation. They have felt that they owed something to the community from which they draw their profits; they have done their best to second the efforts of the Government; and though I do not think that any of their officials or shareholders will for a moment suggest that the terms offered by the Government are not such as to secure them from all loss, still no one will be prepared to deny that that depreciates very little, if at all, the credit which they deserve for the energy and public spirit they have shown on this occasion. The criticism which has been passed on these great works as means of relief usually resolves itself into this. Everybody I have talked to in. Ireland admits that if people can get work on the railways, it is by far the best way of relief. Everybody, of whatever shade of politics, of whatever profession or religious belief, priest or occupier, agrees that the distribution of charity in 1879 and 1880, and the reckless administration of outdoor relief in 1886, produced a demoralisation, not only in those years themselves, but more or less lasting in its character, and with one consent they all implored me, while asking me to find some method for the relief of the distress, to adopt means which would not demoralise the population concerned. And though all agreed that no method can be chosen less open to such objection than work on the railways, it was said that work on the railways would only be of use to the relatively small portion of the population who live close to the railways. They put it in this way: The man who goes far from home to work on railways would have to pay for lodging and food; and if he gets in wages 12s. or 14s. a week—which, I take it, is the rate that will prevail—he will probably not be able to send back to his family more than 4s. or 5s. a week, if so much. I think that is a valid argument, and I think that
  554
  these railway works will not produce the benefit which I anticipate, unless provision can be made for lodging the people in the neighbourhood of the works in a manner which will enable them to send home at least 7s. a week. In order to carry out that object, I have corresponded with and seen personally those who will be concerned in the carrying out of the works. I had a long conversation with Mr. Worthington, the well-known Irish contractor, and with an hon. Member of this House, the Member for one of the Divisions of Dublin, who is also a large contractor. I laid before them the views of the Government with regard to feeding and lodging the men, and these and all the other contractors have equally expressed their readiness to come forward and make all the provision that may be required to render these works as useful as possible to the maintenance of the poor population. Therefore, I look forward with some confidence not only to the employment of people in the immediate neighbourhood of the railways, but to the employment of people living at considerable distances. Labourers may be expected to travel at least 10 or 20 miles if at the end of the journey they can be adequately lodged and can send home to their families sufficient to keep them. So much for the main part of my scheme, which depends upon the construction of railways.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the contractors have been put under any condition as to the employment of the people in the districts
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am glad my hon. Friend has asked me that. I have made very particular inquiries in this connection, and I find that not only will the contractors employ the people in the district, but that it is their interest to do so. The arrangements made with the Railway Companies insure that the work which is to be first begun is work on which unskilled labour can be profitably employed, such as embankments and earthworks of different kinds. It has further been arranged that the work shall be begun at a large number of points along the various railways at once, so as to afford the greatest amount of employment to unskilled labour living in the neigh bourhood of the lines. But

  555
  though I look forward with great confidence to these railway works meeting the great bulk of the demand for employment which the failure of potatoes will produce in Ireland, I am perfectly conscious that there are districts and localities where, for various reasons, but chiefly on account of distance, some other mode of dealing with the difficulties is required. I have told the House that the only method by which the railway works can be supplemented is by other relief works; and I have already said that I do not mean to employ Boards of Guardians or baronies, or any County or Local Authorities whatever, in these relief works. If we are to be in any way responsible for meeting this distress, I do not think that it is fair to us or to anyone else that the responsibility should be shared by bodies over which we have no control. I am convinced that money spent through the medium of Local Authorities would not be money spent to the best advantage of the particular population concerned. I have obtained the services of two eminent engineer officers, and I have sent them over those parts of Ireland where I think it possible that relief works may be required. They have made a careful survey under my instructions of what works may, if they be required, be beneficially undertaken. When works are required and are undertaken, I propose that the persons responsible for them shall be those engineers, and under them, possibly, the County Surveyors, not acting as servants of the Grand Jury, but acting as servants of the Government, and I propose that the works shall be attended by members of the corps of Royal Engineers. Under these circumstances, I think we shall be able to absolutely stop anything in the nature of local jobbery and to insure that any expenditure on public works goes to the employment of the unskilled labour that we wish to relieve. I believe that all the evils which have been incident to previous forms of public relief will be by this means avoided. Of course the amount given in wages, either in money or in kind, will be entirely under the control of Government, and, of course, I shall take care that under no circumstances does any relief work interfere with railway work. I shall not allow works to be undertaken where
  556
  I think that railways will serve the purpose, and I shall stop any relief works which are begun before the railway. I shall also take care that the wages are such that it will be to the labourers' interest to work under the railway contractor rather than on the relief works which may have been started. The Committee will naturally ask what kind of relief works I propose. Any one who has travelled, as I have, and seen, or who has read about the condition of the West of Ireland, is well aware that roads have been constantly undertaken for this and similar purposes. They have not, however, been undertaken, I regret to say with much judgment. You will constantly see a road leading from nowhere to nowhere, or to some in hospitab'e bog. These are the memorials and relics of some previous famine, and the memorials, also, I am afraid, of the incompetence of some authority which was responsible for the construction of the road. At the same time, though very useless roads have been constructed, road-making does present certain advantages over other forms of relief works, and I have instructed the officers of whom I have spoken to put roads in the very first rank, subject to this condition: that no road should, under any circumstances, be made which a prudent County Authority would not readily vote money to keep up. There is another kind of work which I think in some places might with advantage be adopted even before roads. There are certain districts in Ireland where you see holdings along the lower slopes of mountains or along some line of bog, all of which could be greatly improved by improving the general system of drainage. A common system of drainage is required I believe, and that, I take it, will not only afford labour for which the people are particularly qualified, but, as it will permanently improve the holdings, it will diminish the possibility of a recurrence of famine. There was a form of relief, very like this, which was much pressed upon me when I was in Ireland. I was recommended to pay the occupiers wages for improving their holdings; but I cannot recommend this course to the Committee. One of the most melancholy facts which strike anyone who looks at these holdings in the West of Ireland is that the occupiers have ample

  557
  leisure in the winter to carry out improvements of the most obvious kind; but year after year elapses, and the improvements are not made. To come forward in years of distress, and say, "I will pay you to do that which you ought to have done years ago," is the worst lesson which you can possibly teach. So much for the roads and main drains, which will form the staple of such relief works as may be required. There are two other forms of relief work which I think may be attempted in a tentative fashion—I mean the reclamation of land and afforesting. I need hardly say that I do not believe there are huge tracts in Ireland which only require large sums to be spent upon them in order to become extremely profitable investments. I am sceptical about that, but I think that where there are in the immediate neighbourhood of existing holdings tracts of bog precisely of the character of the soil out of which these holdings were originally carved it might be advantageous as an experiment to carry out the drainage, sub-soiling, and other operations which are necessary as a preliminary to cultivating the soil. What should be done with the land so obtained is a difficult question, but my own impression is that it should be handed over to the Congested Districts Board, which I hope is to be constituted by the Bill now before the House; and it is worth considering how far it might not be worth while for that Board to let out the land so reclaimed on short leases to the occupiers of existing holdings under the most stringent conditions of cultivation. I admit that the experiment is a rash one. I think it is possible, if those occupiers were allowed to use this land under conditions of cultivation which would oblige them to see by experiment how very badly they now cultivate their holdings, something might be done in a practical manner to improve the condition of these people. I admit that the matter is one of great difficulty, and I am not at all competent to decide it; but it is a matter which I think the Congested Districts Board would be eminently qualified to deal with. With regard to forests, it is a matter of universal complaint that the result of recent events in Ireland has been to denude it of timber. There are two distinct sets of causes tending in the same direction. One is
  558
  that the landlords, to whom residence is not always made agreeable in Ireland, are anxious to turn into money that timber which they are perfectly prepared in more fortunate circumstances to leave on the land. The other is that the new purchasers under the Ashbourne Act, and, I fear, under the Bill now before the House, always set to work to cut down timber on the holdings as soon as the control of the landlord is removed. I believe there are tracts of Ireland well suited, but almost useless now, for afforesting. At all events, all the preliminary operations of afforesting—such as draining, and turf fencing, and so forth—are operations with which the Irish peasant is very familiar, and which apply just as much to the class of operation most suited for relief works. I hope I have explained adequately to the House the general line I propose to take. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle asks me who will direct the reclamations. I ought to repeat and supplement the observations which I have already made on the method which I propose for the control of the works. Practically, what I have done is to create a small department for dealing with those reclamation works. The person responsible to the House and otherwise will be myself, but the engineer officers will be under me. They will have the expert assistance of members of the Land Commission wherever required, and they will have such clerical assistance as the occasion warrants. They will carry out all the relief works which I think are required. I am conscious that this statement of mine will bring down upon my head from every part of Ireland loud and persistent demands for works to be started. But all I can say is, that I shall do my best not to start any relief work where it is not required. I shall do my best to sift all those stories of misery and distress which are too easily fabricated on the spot and too easily believed outside. I must ask the House to support me as well as they can both in carrying out the works which I have undertaken and in not carrying out the works for which I do not believe adequate necessity exists. I shall possibly be asked by some gentlemen below the Gangway, and perhaps above it, why it is that the Government propose to do for the West of Ireland what they

  559
  never have done as yet, and what certainly they would decline to do, as far as I know, for any other part, broadly speaking, of the United Kingdom. The first answer I have to make is that, though the congested districts have never been treated precisely in this way, they have already been treated on many occasions in an exceptional way, and I maintain that the exceptional method of treatment which I now recommend is less open to criticism here and to abuse in Ireland than any of the various exceptional experiments which have preceded it. But I think there is something more to be said. If I am asked why I am prepared to recommend relief works in Ireland when I am not prepared to recommend relief works in London, I say that not merely has Ireland been always treated exceptionally, but, as a matter of fact, its condition is exceptional. The Poor Law in London always has been, and I trust always may be, adequate to the necessities of London; but nobody who knows anything about these western districts can say or pretend that the resources of the Poor Law in Ireland are adequate to meet a crisis like the present. There is no rich population in these electoral divisions. The population of these electoral divisions which bear the main weight of the Poor Law taxation consist wholly and solely of the small occupiers whom we have to relieve, and to ask them to come forward and pay out of their own pockets the means for relieving their own exceptional distress is obviously impossible. But there is another and even a deeper reason. My own firm conviction is that to meet any temporary need which unskilled labour in London might have for employment by starting Government relief works would be found to permanently aggravate the evil which it is intended to meet. Such temporary want of employment results from the discrepancy between the supply and the demand of labour; and I believe the relations between the demand and supply of labour would be still further dislocated if on such an occasion the Government were to step in and provide relief works for London, and London would be not more but far less capable of meeting the stress that was laid upon it if the Government were to adopt any policy of that kind. That is not the
  560
  case, I believe, in the congested districts. I believe the large amounts, either in the form of railway or other works, which this House will be asked to give for the aid of the congested districts will render those districts not more but less liable to a recurrence of the same class of distress. I believe that the making of those railways and roads, especially railways, will do much to act as a permanent remedy against the evil which we have to deal with to-day. If you were to make large contributions for relief works in London you would demoralise the district; in Ireland if you do not have relief works what do you do? You throw a burden on the locality which it cannot bear You lend it money which it cannot pay back; and it will sink deeper and deeper in the demoralising slough of insolvency which already has almost destroyed the powers of self-help in the poorer and congested parts of the country. I cannot conclude without, as far as in me lies, imploring every man who hears me and who has anything to do with Ireland to face the real difficulties of this problem. It is too much the habit of those living in the West of Ireland to say, "Get us over this year's distress, and perhaps all will be well." All will not be well if that habit of mind continues to prevail. This House has been asked to make an immense effort for those congested districts; they must make an effort for themselves. The priests and the leaders of the people must put their shoulder to the wheel. They must recognise that if when the next time of distress comes—as most infallibly it will come—they come to this House and say, "Four or five years ago yon helped us, and we have done nothing in the mean while to help ourselves; the population has not diminished; it has, perhaps, somewhat increased; the fishing is very much where it was; the mode of cultivation of the holdings is such as has prevailed for the last 100 years," Parliament will begin to feel that the condition of those districts is not merely deplorable, but almost hopeless. I think that the people of Ireland are capable of learning a lesson. The years 1880 and 1886 have already taught priests and people alike the demoralising effect of lavish expenditure, either in the way of charity or outdoor relief. Let

  561
  them learn the further lesson that the population which remains in these districts can only be prosperous if they cultivate the land better, if they fish better, if they use to the best of their ability such resources as are placed at their disposal, and that there are districts for which no mere improvements in the methods of agriculture, no better system of fishing can be sufficient, and which can only be dealt with adequately by emigration and migration. If they set themselves to deal with each district as the circumstances of the district require, by attempting to collect the fishing population around the good harbours and the best fishing grounds, to help them to improved methods of agriculture, and lead them to see that it is impossible they should prosper if crowded on the soil; if they will do that, I am convinced this House will never regret the money which I am asking it to spend as a beginning. A substantial and important beginning may at last be made to take these people out of this hopeless slough of insolvency; and, if that be so, we may feel that this period of distress, this year 1890, may be the beginning of a period in which the people may march steadily forward to that condition of prosperity, and, above all, of independence, which every true well-wisher of Ireland desires to see them attain.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman in wishing to eliminate from the very few observations with which I shall trouble the Committee anything of a controversial character. The right hon. Gentleman has avoided that tone, and I am sure that everyone who considers the deplorable state of these districts will feel we are bound to lay aside every trace of Party spirit. So far as regards the remark of the right hon. Gentleman that experience has taught us the hopelessness of the methods hitherto resorted to, everybody who has studied the history of these districts and of the Relief Act of 1886 must agree as to the incapacity shown by the Boards of Guardians in administering the relief funds. But I may say, as the Minister responsible for that Act, that there did not appear at the time any particular reason for setting aside the machinery of local administration, and I was advised that it would
  562
  be too serious a step to take if I were to supersede it. We have had that painful lesson, the advantage of which the right hon. Gentleman now possesses. Therefore I am bound to say, reluctant as I am on any occasion, or under any circumstances, to set aside the functions of an Elective Local Body, that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted the right course on the present occasion in taking the administration of these works into his own hands. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the works are not to be carried out under the supervision of the Board of Works, but under his own control. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.] The right hon. Gentleman has not told us what is to be the total expenditure, and I think it is only fair before giving him the £5,000 he asks for to-night that we should know what is to the total expenditure on all these various and, I should think, very costly operations which he has outlined.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I deliberately asked for the nominal sum of £5,000, because it is really impossible at this stage of the matter to make any forecast, It is difficult—I am afraid in the case of the railways it is impossible—at this moment to make a forecast; but I shall in January, when I shall ask for the necessary funds, be in a far better position to tell how the matter stands. I would venture to point out to the Committee that if I were to name a sum now I should be more than ever a prey to that kind of begging which Public Bodies resort to. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will not press me to give any amount.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Of course, after what he has said I will not press the right hon. Gentleman, but I am bound to point out in passing that his policy is committing Parliament to what may prove a very serious expenditure. I will say frankly that I agree with much that fell from the right hon. Gentleman in the latter part of his observations as to the duty we owe those districts and as to the exceptional and deplorable state in which they are sunk, and as to the obligation which lies on this House to make what I may call a dead lift to get them out of their degraded position. But Parliament ought to be prepared for facing a very large expenditure, and, though I would

  563
  not grudge it, I should not be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman hears, when the country sees how much will be wanted, a good deal of' murmuring from a good many quarters, and not merely on this side of the House. As to his railway policy, the right hon. Gentleman seems to pay some rather undeserved compliments to the public spirit of the Railway Companies. This is not the occasion on which to go into the terms of the transactions made by the Government with the companies; but when that occasion comes, I think it will be found that the Great Southern and Western and the Midland Great Western Companies have made no bad bargains for themselves, but very good bargains. I gather from the remarks addressed by the Chairman of the Midland Great Western Railway, a couple of months ago, to his shareholders, that he congratulated the shareholders on the terms he had succeeded, in their interest, in extracting from the Government I, therefore, demur to the compliments which the right hon. Gentleman paid to the Railway Companies. I regard the transaction between the Government and the companies as a purely business one, and I am not sure that the Government have not paid a very heavy price for the advantages they have gained. That, however, we shall have an opportunity of examining later on. As to the immediate relief of the distress, the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to an objection that the railway works would not go through the most distressed districts, though they would go through districts where there was a great deal of distress, said that it would be the interest of the contractors to employ the labour of the districts. I was in the districts before the right hon. Gentleman himself, and I heard experts doubt that proposition. They said that it would be the interest of the contractors to get very powerful navvies from other places, and even from England and Scotland, because the population on the spot would not be efficient enough to carry out the heavy work of railway construction. The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that this is a danger which might thwart his object.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Actual experience is on my side. There have been railways constructed in such districts,
  564
  and I am informed that the contractors have employed local labour.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I hope sincerely that, that will be so. There is another point as to the construction of railways as a method of relieving distress. Of course, there is, as the right hon. Gentleman says, a great difference of opinion as to the route to be taken by some of the railways. For example, in the case of the railway from Clifden to Galway it is a matter of great controversy whether it would not be much batter, from the point of view of distress at all events, to take the line by the coast. The other plans which the right hon. Gentleman resorts to are road making, drainage, reclamation, and afforesting. With regard to road-making, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Everybody with the most superficial acquaintance with Ireland must be aware that there were numbers of roads started in the famine times and in 1880 which began nowhere in particular and led nowhere. In 1886 there were some very good roads made, and I believe we got value for our money. But there is no form of relief which leads to so much make-belief work. A man may pretend to be making a road, and, in fact, be only pleasantly idle. Experience proves that to be the case, and, therefore, I am not at all sure there may not be in this road-making, if not carefully and vigilantly supervised, as much fraud and corruption as there was under some of the provisions of the Act of 1886. As to reclamation and afforesting, I thoroughly applaud the right hon. Gentleman for being willing to try the experiment. I am not going into controversy, but we should have more hope from this experiment if undertaken and carried on by a Local Body. I do not mean Boards of Guardians or such Boards, but a Local Government Body, an Irish body. The right hon. Gentlemen referred to the importance of enlisting on his side in the administration of his Act the priests and the leaders of the people. I would rather that the priests and leaders of the people, politicans, everybody of authority and with a large and perfect knowledge of the district, should indicate the line of the experiment, than that it should come, as I presume it will, partly from the right hon. Gentleman's own ingenuity, and partly also from the Boards

  565
  in Dublin Castle. There is less chance of flexibility and originality in the way of making experiments when conducted by the right hon. Gentleman than if you had a Congested District Board which would be really representative and had on its side the whole local interest, and the whole of the local sympathy. I only want to make one proviso with reference to these experiments. From my own study of this question I doubt very much whether reclamation taken in hand by the Government on a large scale can be a remunerative experiment. I think you will sink a great deal of money, and in the end get a very small return for it. The great instance of reclamation, of course, is Kylemore, but even in that case it has been doubted whether the reclamations have not involved a heavy money loss. It is said also that some of that reclaimed land is going back, that rushes are appearing, and so forth. The lesson to be learnt, I take it, is that reclamation to be carried out remuneratively and safely should be undertaken by the small men themselves. I understand that the Government are to hand over these reclaimed lands on short leases to the people already occupying them. My own notion of reclamation would rather be to give to a small man a piece of bog land to reclaim. He would be more likely to do the work cheaply and effectively. I fear that the experience we have of reclamation on a large scale shows it to be a very losing enterprise. I wish to make one bargain with the right hon. Gentleman, that if he begins these experiments they shall be finished. The curse of Irish experiments is too often this; an experiment is begun to tide over some temporary distress, and as soon as the distress has passed, or the Minister initiating the experiment goes out of office, it is dropped and the money spent upon it is absolutely lost and wasted. I hope to get from the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking that so far as in him lies these experiments of reclamation and afforesting shall not be taken up simply to enable us to get out of the difficulties of today, but that they shall be serious works undertaken with a serious view of doing permanent good to the unfortunate people in these poor districts. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] With respect to the railway
  566
  policy of the right hon. Gentleman I reserve the right of criticising its details. As for the seed provisions, I think the right hon. Gentleman is again on the right line. The provision for 20 per cent. discount on ready money transactions is a most sensible provision. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman most cordially in thinking that the great thing is to teach the people of these districts that they must depend upon themselves. But when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking in that sense I asked myself—Has not every Minister who has brought in a Relief Bill for Ireland said exactly the same thing? I am sure I need not make an exception. I am sure that I did myself, and I doubt whether any one Chief Secretary has ever made a proposal to give money to Ireland for the congested districts or elsewhere without speaking in the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. I fail to see what element there is in the project of the right hon. Gentleman that is likely to make these people more self-reliant. Everything is done for them. The only lesson they can learn—and I admit it was also so in regard to my Bill of 1881—is that when they get into trouble, whether in consequence of their own improvidence or not—although one does not like to speak of improvidence in the case of men who live under such conditions as those in the West of Ireland—this Parliament is sure to come to their relief. I would give much to get that notion extirpated from the minds of the Irish peasantry. But to accomplish this you would have to adopt far wider measures; you would have to put the responsibility of dealing with this intricate, this inveterate problem upon Irishmen themselves, and without official supervision. Whatever we may think as to the sources of the difficulties in the congested districts, we must all recognise that a state of things that has grown up in 200 years cannot certainly be cured at once. You will want 30, 40, or 50 years before you can make even an impression upon this difficult problem, and although we must accept the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman as a means of tiding over a pressing emergency, I hope he will not allow himself to be led into the belief that anything can make a real impression upon these districts except a long, persistent,

  567
  continuous course of action on the part of a Congested District Board, or similar organisation, having enlisted on its side the whole local feeling of a district, and commanding, in the performance of its work, the co-operation of the best brains in the district.
  COLONEL NOLAN: The advice given by the right hon. Gentleman is extremely good. I hope we 'shall have self-reliance in the West of Ireland, and that the people of the districts will be assisted by the men of brains, but just at present it is not so much a theoretic virtue that is wanted as a little practical help. Whenever I hear this talk of self-reliance I cannot help thinking that if you would give us the produce of the Licence Duties and let us cultivate our own tobacco, we should be able to help ourselves. I am very sorry to say that I was engaged in much more disagreeable work upstairs when the Chief Secretary was speaking, and therefore I was unable to hear all the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I believe he has said the provisions of the Bill will include all the West of Ireland, and I believe the measure will be a great success. It is, in my opinion, perfectly fair to pay interest on the money out of the Church Fund. On the last occasion when a scheme of this kind was carried out, we were able to say that we paid all the money back, and in the present case we shall be able to say the same thing. I think we may congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having done a great deal to tide over the time of distress.
  SIR J. COLOMB: All must acknowledge the admirable tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle in his speech, and I myself noticed with regret that the Nationalist Party were not present to hear the exposition of the Chief Secretary of the scheme, and that they are not here now to take part in the discussion. I do not share the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) with regard to the absolute certainty, as he regarded it, that the local populations will not be employed in the construction of these works. That may be the case in some districts, but I do not think it will be universally so. I believe the very fact that so many lines of railway will
  568
  be constructed simultaneously by contractors will prove that there is not a sufficient number of ordinary navvies available to do all the work. It will be more economical to employ the local population in the preliminary labour on the lines. It is satisfactory to find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle accepting the plan of my right hon. Friend with regard to taking these exceptional matters of relief out of the hands of the Board of Guardians. In the absence of the Nationalist Party I should like to say that, according to the evidence placed in our hands by the Colonisation Committee, I think we may claim that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) himself will approve of the action of the Chief Secretary in not trusting Boards of Guardians in this matter. Speaking in regard to the relief of the congested districts by emigration and migration, I find the following passage in the evidence of the hon. Member for Cork (Question No. 5656 in the Report of the Colonisation Committee):—
  "Q. Then I understand you would not take the opinion of Boards of Guardians as indicating local opinion in Ireland?—A. Certainly not."
  Therefore, I think we are all united in approving of contributions from the Exchequer towards relief by means of work other than railways directly through a Government Department. Just one more matter I should like to mention. One of the dangers in the congested districts and throughout Ireland is the habit that tenants are universally getting into of cutting down the timber and shelter on their farms. I can go further than the Chief Secretary. He says that tenants who have purchased do this, but I can answer from my own observation that one of the effects of the Act of 1881 in districts bordering on the Atlantic is that the tenants imagine that other changes beside alteration of rents have flowed from that Act, and the destruction of timber and even of hedges is remarkable, and has already produced evil consequences, and will have disastrous consequences on agricultural prospects in the future. I would say, therefore, in regard to experiments in reforesting, that they should be gradually undertaken, and not pushed too far. The Chief Secretary has paid a great compliment to the Grand Trunk Line

  569
  Railway Companies in Ireland, but knowing something of the work done by others, I think it my duty on Be half of the inhabitants of a remote district of Kerry, as the representative of that district is not present, to say that we in that district appreciate the unsparing exertions of the Chief Secretary himself and of the Secretary to the Treasury. I had the opportunity of knowing that while we were taking our holidays the Chief Secretary and the Secretary to the Treasury sacrificed their holidays to this object. I can say that the Secretary to the Treasury from first to last spared no personal exertions to get this work thoroughly and quickly done. I think it only right to say this, and I think I may say it for the poor people of the district not now represented here. We cordially thank both these right hon. Gentlemen for their personal exertions to carry through these railway schemes.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I listened with close attention to the speech of the Chief Secretary, and I am sure the Committee agree with me that the right hon. Gentleman, having a most difficult task to undertake, has devoted himself to it with an enormous amount of application; and if I venture, as I shall venture, to offer one or two words before I sit down that may not seem to be quite words of gratitude, he must not think that I at all undervalue the difficulties of the work he has undertaken and the troubles he has had to contend with. He has not only had the difficulties of what he has told us, but he has the difficulty of the long habits of the people, which he has to some extent to endeavour to change, if he can, if any permanent good is to be produced. I wish it had been possible, though I agree it would be difficult, for the Chief Secretary to have told the Committee some amount beyond which Parliament was not being committed by the Vote the Committee is asked to give on this Estimate, because, although the Estimate is only for a very trifling sum, the Chief Secretary does not disguise that he is asking the sanction of Parliament, through this Committee, to the whole of the scheme he is putting forward; therefore the decision, whatever it may be, is a decision of the very gravest character. I am not sure whether for the moment it was
  570
  wise, although I am quite sure that for the future it was frank, for the Chief Secretary to say that he might subject himself to the criticisms of those who have in view distress in other parts of the United Kingdom, who might ask the Government, "Why do you not deal with all instances as you are proposing to deal with this?" To that, I admit, it is difficult to give an answer, but the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave hardly, I think, did credit to the rest of his speech. All the answer he made was that the circumstances were exceptional. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR expressed dissent.] I am sure on this question I have no wish to strain one word used by the right hon. Gentleman beyond the meaning that may fairly be attached to it. I listened attentively and with intense pleasure to the speech as an effort to do some good to the unfortunate country without reference to political divisions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite sure the hon. Member does not mean to misrepresent what I said. It is true I stated that the circumstances in Ireland being exceptional are treated in an exceptional manner, but I also dwelt at some length on the face that, whilst the treatment we are giving to Ireland would, as applied to London, aggravate the evils in London, in Ireland it would have the effect of preventing a recurrence of those evils.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I was coming to that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I would put it to him whether he himself did not rather cut the ground from under his own feet? He showed that effort after effort had been repeated in Ireland, each provocative of demoralisation there rather than tending to encourage self-reliance. ["No."] The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) disagrees, but I am only repeating what the Chief Secretary said, not expressing my own opinion, as now I am going to do, nor do I expect him to agree in what I am going to urge. What are the grounds for supposing that this scheme will be more effectual in developing self-reliance than any other to which Parliament has consented? I frankly concede that my opposition to the right hon. Gentleman is weighted with the same difficulty which attended his speech. It is clear there is distress

  571
  which ought not to be ignored, and, therefore, in dealing with the subject now, one cannot argue from, any theory; but we must deal with the existing state of things as best we can. In some of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals I feel great interest, and particularly I followed that part of his speech in which he spoke of dealing with waste lands, because on more than one occasion I have ineffectually submitted propositions to the House on the subject. I gathered, though the explanation was incomplete, that the Government propose to acquire the lands and reclaim them. Does not this at the very onset make a difficulty which I will try to put to the right hon. Gentleman? It is not the encouragement of individual effort assisted by the State, even perhaps, with great risk of loss, or even certainty of loss, but still with an incentive to the individual to do his best with gain to his interests if he succeeds and responsibility if he fails, if the experiment is to be confined to giving employment for some 12s. or 14s. a week, with nothing to tempt him to put in more than make-believe exertions sufficient to secure subsistence for the moment. It does seem to me, however, that reclamation efforts might tend, as I believe they would tend, to find some employment which should develop the individual effort, but if the Government is to acquire the land, the thing is upside down, so far as that is concerned, and it is simply a relief measure from which all incentive to special action is entirely eliminated. I would urge on the right hon. Gentleman that, as this is only put forward as an experiment, the experiment should be made as far as possible for the encouragement of individual effort. The Chief Secretary says the Irish are capable people, and I think they are. I think that, taken out of the conditions of life which hamper them, and habits which hinder them, they have in different parts of the world given evidence of capability. I admit it would not be possible to press the individual to make such great exertions, surrounded as he would be by conditions which incapacitate him at home; still if the effort is to be made at all, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make it in some such fashion if he can as will give reward to the individual who strives best. I am without information on the subject. I disagree
  572
  with the right hon. Gentleman, and think that the evidence given before the Duke of Richmond's Commission shows large quantities of land, large tracts here and there, and small tracts here and there—I do not wish to take the most exaggerated statements of witnesses—large quantities of land capable of reclamation, on which efforts at successful reclamation have been made, and have only broken down because the persons trying to reclaim the land found that the landlord exacted higher rent for the improved quality given to the land. Now, is it possible, instead' of the Government buying the land, or of the Government acquiring it, is it possible to let the individual on to it in connection with the work of reclamation on such terms as will hold out expectation of his becoming the proprietor of the land reclaimed? I do not know whether it is possible. I admit the great responsibility upon a Member who meets with objection what was throughout a careful presentment without some better means of information, but it is scarcely my fault. This Supplementary Estimate—I do not blame the Government for it—comes upon us by surprise, and I must plead that as an excuse for the non-efficiency of fact to support the case I am submitting. I fear that a great deal of the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman to-night will come against the Government of which he is a Member during the coming Session in different forms; and unless he can separate his measure from being one of pure relief and charity, unless he imports into it something of the development of self-reliance of which he has spoken, he will lay himself and his Government open to attacks difficult to answer. If the circumstances of the Irish people are exceptional, so are those of the people of this vast Metropolis, so are the aggravations of the evils in connection with congestion of population such as exist in other parts of the country, exceptional. It is a matter upon which I look with considerable apprehension, not wishing in any way to hamper the Government in the experiment they are making. If an error is committed, at least it is pacific in character; I do not in any way desire to hinder the experiment, and am willing to assist in making it successful, but I listened

  573
  throughout to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I see no reason why in 1895 or 1896 a Minister should not come to the House of Commons, and present a case again, showing quite the same features, making quite the same claim upon the country.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am not going to enter into the question whether these unfortunate people in the West of Ireland are to be made more self-reliant. Homilies are all very well in their way, but they are not very useful to hungry people. The Committee are face to face with the fact that a large area of Western Ireland is in danger of destitution and want. After journeying from Skibbereen to Gweedore last month I am convinced that in many districts through which I passed the inhabitants will not have a potato left on New Year's Day. It is of very little use talking about the people being more self-reliant. It is of no use saying they should develop their fisheries when they are without the means of providing nets and boats, and have no railway to send their fish to market when caught. In the present condition of things homilies on self-reliance is not the treatment we expect from the Government and the Committee. I greatly regret that the statement of the Chief Secretary has been made in the absence of so many of the Representatives of Ireland. It is a more important statement than any that have been made in recent Sessions of Parliament. Upon that statement I wish to ask one or two questions. I entirely approve of the proposal as to seed potatoes. I think this is the most valuable help that can be given to the people. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman over what area the relief is to be spread, and whether he proposes to schedule special districts. I think the area ought to be well considered, and resolutely adhered to. He will probably be pressed for a larger area of population than he has in his mind. With regard to the districts affected by the railways my mind is quite easy. I have travelled through those districts, and only wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland had been with me. That hon. Gentleman did his best last Session to prevent the passing of the Light Railways Bill; but I found the people in
  574
  the districts blessing the House of Commons for having frustrated the designs of the hon. Member. I am quite easy n my mind, so far as the districts are concerned in which railway operations will be carried on, but I am not quite at ease in regard to other districts. So far as the districts of Westport and Ballina are concerned I apprehend no danger, for railway work will be carried on there. But does the Chief Secretary know the districts of Swinford and Foxford—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to say that I stated, though it was in the middle of a catalogue of railways, and thus, perhaps, escaped his notice, that we have, without the powers conferred under the Act, promoted a railway to the North, and work will be started at once through the district he is alluding to.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am glad to hear that; it escaped my notice. Above all others the Swinford district needs relief. The contractors for the railway should be called upon to erect huts for labourers. If that were done I do not see why men who migrate in large numbers every year to Great Britain for the harvest should not go 20 miles for railway work. A man who will not do that will not require much sympathy from the House of Commons. There are several other points I should like to mention. Unfortunately there are a very large number of old people in these western districts. The young people have left the country, leaving the old people behind, people who are not fit for work on a railway, many of them not fit for work at all. The Chief Secretary has said to-night that he has made up his mind not to allow the Poor Law Rules to be relaxed. I know the danger that follows such relaxation, how it is open to abuse, but from what I have seen of the old people in the Island of Achill and elsewhere I do not believe that two months hence the right hon. Gentleman will be able to maintain his determination. There are parts of the country near which no line of railway is to go. Judging from the strip of the country through which I passed in the County of Leitrim the potatoes are worse there than in any other part, except, perhaps, in West Cork, but no railway is to go near Leitrim. What does the Chief Secretary

  575
  propose with regard to such districts? I doubt if any railway is to go through the part of Sligo which will feel the pinch of the potato failure. What does the Chief Secretary propose? His first idea is the making of roads. Now, if there is one form of relief I distrust, and that I think has lamentably failed every time it has been put into operation, it is the making of roads. What is the use of making roads if, when they are made, the county is not to maintain them? I passed over miles of such roads, and continually had to take to the bog because the roads were impassable. They had been made during previous periods of distress, they led nowhere, they started from nowhere, and nobody took the slightest care of them when made—nobody supplied a barrowful of stones to repair them; the money spent on the construction was wasted. Now these roads were all made under supervision.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Whose?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I suppose under the supervision of previous Chief Secretaries.
  An hon. MEMBER: The Board of Works.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Well, I do not know. But no money should be expended on making roads without careful supervision being exercised. One part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I heard with regret. I had some hope, when he came to the question of drainage, he would touch upon a point I heard a great deal about in the West of Ireland, and upon which I think money might be judiciously spent. Instead of road-making, and even main drainage, I should have preferred an extension of the Loans Clauses of the Act of 1881, under which tenants can borrow money for the improvement of their holdings. I should have preferred that small holders under £10 or £12 valuation should have been allowed loans at a low rate of interest for draining operations. These are a necessity. In many places you may take a handful of earth and almost wring the water out of it. This would be a good substitute for road-making. By this means the people would be kept from want, the land would be improved, and the Government would get the money back. I offer these criticisms in no hostile spirit to the proposals
  576
  of the Chief Secretary. In the main, I think them of the greatest value, and they will be received in Ireland with the greatest pleasure. Everything depends on supervision, and if the plans are worked out with spirit and care they will meet the present crisis and be permanently useful in the future.
  MR. COX: I am very glad to say that for once in my life I find myself thoroughly in accord with the hon. Member for South Tyrone. I regret that with other Irish Members I was not here to listen to what I am informed was a very liberal and able statement of the Chief Secretary upon the distress in Ireland. I regret it the more for my own part because the right hon. Gentleman touched upon subjects in which I am particularly interested. I rise now rather to ask a question or two for the sake of information than to criticise the details of the scheme laid before the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman, but with which I am but imperfectly acquainted. I join with the hon. Member for South Tyrone in asking the Chief Secretary to give us some definition of the proposed scheduled areas; this is information in which my own constituents have an interest. I deprecate the road-making proposal. I have had practical experience of the working of Relief Acts in Ireland. In 1879 I was Secretary to a Baronial Committee for the purpose of carrying out works under the Relief Act of that year, but the Committee were greatly hampered in their operations. We had practically nothing to do but to make roads and embankments to the roads. I agree with the hon. Member for South Tyrone that many of the roads lead to no place, and are of no use to the people now they are completed. Within a couple of months of their construction grass was growing over the roads. To give the people employment and keep them from starvation we had to construct roads, because, by Act of Parliament, we were prevented from engaging in more useful works. I appeal to the Chief Secretary to abandon the idea of making roads, at least to some extent, and do something in the way of drainage.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member would have been at greater advantage if he had heard my speech. He is making recommendations which I

  577
  think he would not hare made if he had heard what I said.
  MR. COX: I put a question to-day to the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) with reference to the Scarriff River, County Clare. In 1879 it was proposed to drain the river, and the sum of £32,000 was voted for the purpose. All the preliminary surveys were approved by the Board of Works, but it was necessary to form a Drainage Board. For one reason or another the people refused to form the Board. Thousands of acres of land are flooded every year and rendered good for nothing. I am happy to say that in the Recess I was able to gather in Scarriff all the representative men in the district—priests, landlords, land agents, occupiers, and nationalists. We had a most harmonious meeting, and adopted resolutions copies of which were sent to the Chief Secretary. I have now to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give careful consideration to the unanimous request made by the people, of all shades of opinion, in that particular part of the country; that request is, that a Drainage Board will be constituted and an enormous drainage scheme at once commenced. I understand that Colonel Turner, Resident Magistrate, is now making inquiries in Clare as to the advisability of reproductive works. I ask that he be instructed to inquire into the need of the drainage of the Scarriff River. The people do not ask for charity, but that they may be permitted to borrow money from the Board of Works or the Treasury—of course at a small rate of interest—so that they can proceed with this work, which will be useful, permanent, and reproductive.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I recognise that this is not a very convenient time to criticise at any length the extremely able statement made by the Chief Secretary, but there are one or two points in regard to which I desire to say a word or two. In respect of the method of distributing seed, I understand it only differs from previous methods in that it offers as an inducement to a part of the population to purchase seed for cash payments at a reduction of 20 per cent. It is upon that method I find my opinion somewhat at variance with the view of the Government. I admit that my experience of the congested portion of Ireland is confined to Donegal, but in
  578
  that county I find the opinion of all classes of the people is absolutely opposed to the distribution of seed potatoes upon the methods that have previously been adopted. One farmer, who has had a great deal to do with the distribution of seed in his Poor Law Division, has told me it would be far better not to distribute a single seed potato than to employ the method adopted in previous years. Great difficulty surrounds the question, and by no means wish to say my opinion or the opinion of the people in Donegal is absolutely right and ought to be adopted universally, but the Donegal people express their view so strongly that I am perfectly convinced that if the distribution of seed potatoes takes place upon any other system than that of cash payments, on the spot, the idea of educating the people of the congested districts out of their dependence on public charity will not be realised. It may be said there are portions of the population in congested districts who are utterly unable to make a cash payment. I quite admit that that is so, but I meet it by saying that such cases represent—certainly in County Donegal—an infinitesimal proportion of those who require seed for next year, and that it will be perfectly easy to pick out the cases in which it would be preferable to give an absolutely free distribution of seed potatoes from those in which payment ought to be demanded. Then I desire to know whether any conditions have been placed on the contractors with regard to the employment of the local labour in the congested districts? The Chief Secretary said that no absolute condition has been imposed, but that in some recent experiment the contractor has employed local labour. I do not think it would be right for the House, and I certainly do not think it would be safe for the Irish Government, to leave this matter absolutely free to the good intentions of a railway contractor. It is possible that in one district the advantages of employing almost entirely local labour may be so great that a contractor will be forced to do so; but I doubt very much, especially in County Donegal, whether contractors will employ a certain proportion of local labour unless they are placed under stringent conditions to do so. They may find it better for them to employ labour which has always

  579
  been employed on light railways in Ireland—that is, skilled labour, as against labour that has never been employed on railway works. I feel so strongly on this point that when the proper time comes I shall invite the House to insert some provision in the Bill which will preclude a contractor from making such excuses as will enable him to avoid the employment of a due proportion of local labour. I understand certain people imagine that local labour ought only to be employed upon the preliminary work. I know of no reason why local labour, if it is employed on the preliminary work, should not be employed throughout the whole undertaking. It is necessary, no doubt, that some of the men employed should be skilled labourers, but contractors ought not to be allowed to suppose that they can employ the people in the locality for the first few weeks, and then cast them adrift. On the question of road-making, I find myself entirely in accord with the views expressed on the opposite side of the House. I have the greatest possible objection to the making of a single new road in Ireland. Under the Relief Act of 1886 money was expended in Donegal in making new roads, but no one used the roads. Their construction was a very interesting means of employing the engineering talent, but they are white elephants for the county. No money was taken from the cesspayers in respect to the making of the roads, but now the cesspayers have to keep them in r repair. I shall certainly invite the House on this point also to insert a provision in the Bill preventing a single farthing being expended on making new roads. But, while I am of this opinion, I think a great deal of the money might be expended on improving the existing roads, especially those in the West of Ireland, which will connect the light railways with each other, and which are now in a deplorable condition. I do not deny that the reclamation of land is a very difficult question, but I believe that if the Government will really complete the experiment they will do considerable service. Many of the small holders are bad agriculturists, and it will be of the utmost value to them if a model farm can be established and they can see with their own eyes the best means for cropping the land in their neighbourhood.
  580
  There is a most extraordinary prejudice in one portion of Donegal against the Champion potato. I have been informed by men who have had to do with the distribution of seed potatoes that the people in the Glenties Union are prejudiced against the Champion potato, because they have never seen it grow in the ground. The experiment made by the Chief Secretary last year has not proved successful, because all sorts of rumours were set afloat in respect to the Champion potato. Many people were told that the seeds were diseased and imported by the right hon. Gentleman for the purpose of devastating the country. As to the advantages of afforesting, I do not believe there are two opinions in Ireland. Any one who knows anything of the country knows that one of its greatest misfortunes is that it is absolutely deficient in the quantity of the necessary timber to counteract the atmospherical causes. Timber has been gradually disappearing from the holdings, but I am not sure that the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley)—namely, that afforesting should be entirely given over to Local Authorities—would be successful. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that in the two European countries in which tree culture has been brought to high perfection—France and Germany—the absolute control is not vested in the Local Authorities, certainly it is not in most parts of Germany, and I do not think it is in France. I believe that if afforesting is to be carried out successfully, it must be conducted by a Government Department possessing the very best scientific advice, and free from all local influences.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I did not mean my remarks to apply to afforesting.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I am of opinion that if the Local Authority, whether the Board of Guardians or County Council, or whatever Local Authority may be hereafter created, are given considerable pecuniary interest in the result of afforesting, the experiment will prove a complete success. I do not wish to detain the Committee longer; but on the points I have raised I feel very strongly, and when the proper time arrives I shall endeavour to give effect to them.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am inclined to think that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would have convinced anyone who has not had the long and serious experience I have had of the difficulty of dealing with these questions of famine. But I must say also I could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman was a great deal too sanguine, and I could not but dwell on the long catalogue of failures and frauds he recited. His speech led me to wish that it was not necessary for us to do with this matter. I was one of those who went in for Home Rule for Ireland with a great deal of hesitation and some misgiving; but a speech like that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, showing the enormous difficulties Englishmen must overcome in dealing with such a question in regard to Ireland, makes me very much wish that we could wash our hands of such subjects, and let somebody else be responsible for them. As to the amount of distress likely to occur, I admit I have not visited the districts in which the distress is anticipated; but I can give this negative evidence, that I have this season visited parts of Ireland where there is no distress, and where, on the contrary, the crops are excellent. I am inclined to think that perhaps too much has been made of the partial failure of potatoes in a limited portion of Ireland, and I am inclined to hope that it is not such a big thing as the Chief Secretary imagines. We are likely to experience, on the present occasion, very much what I have experienced on other occasions, namely, that people want to get all kinds of things done under the cry of famine that they would not get done under other circumstances. Though I give the Chief Secretary full credit for the utmost desire to do what he can for Ireland, I cannot help thinking that he is assuming that which has been called the "stick and pudding" policy. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has been somewhat too ready to persuade himself that this large sum of money will be spent with advantage in Ireland, and that he has taken too sanguine a view of the situation. The late Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley), who admitted that he himself had made a failure, said the Chief Secretary is trying the same
  582
  experiments as have been tried by many Chief Secretaries before him, and that he is likely to meet with the same difficulties and perhaps the same results. We must be very careful in this matter not to listen too readily to the demands that come from Ireland. Although our hearts may be very willing to accede to the demands of people who are said to be suffering from poverty, we must take care that that feeling does not carry us too far. Care must be taken with regard to the relief works, so that we do not have roads constructed, as they have been in the past, that are of no use. You must also take care that you really do employ the poor people of the district. I know very well how very incompetent and unpaying pauper labour is, and I know that if you leave it to the Railway Directors they will employ the labour that pays them best. There is no labour so unprofitable as that rendered by people who think you are giving them work out of charity. I view with great distrust these drainage and reclamation schemes. Last year and the year before I think we succeeded in defeating some great drainage schemes of this kind.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken; the drainage schemes he refers to are of a very different character from that now before the House. The only point of resemblance is that the word "drainage" is used.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I quite admit that, but the principle is the same. The principle is that of spending British money in improving the character of the land in Ireland. I should like to ask this one question: When these drainage works are carried out, who is to receive the profit? Are the landlords at the next revision of rents to get the profit due to the expenditure of British money? Some means of preventing that were embodied in a scheme brought before the House by a former Chief Secretary, and I hope that a similar course will be adopted in the present instance. Of course, if we vote the £5,000 needed for making the inquiry, we do not pledge ourselves to the schemes themselves, and when the estimates for the schemes come before us we shall not be to bound to sanction them. I wish to say one word on a subject which has already been

  583
  referred to, namely, the position of the large body of persons who are not able-bodied and are not able to go to work. When the pinch of poverty comes, it is at first most severely felt by those who are not able-bodied, and who are not able to do profitable work, and it is my impression that this class should be provided for out of the relief afforded under the Poor Law system in Ireland with some relaxations. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen laugh. I do not see why, if a large sum is to be provided out of the British Exchequer for the purpose of furnishing relief works for the able-bodied portion of the population, at least that portion which is required for the maintenance of those who are not able-bodied should come from the ordinary fund for the poor relief of the country.
  MR. STOREY:I am glad to have the opportunity of making a few remarks on the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, of whom I may say that his manner has been so conciliatory and his intension so kindly that although I feel it necessary to oppose the measure he has brought forward, I trust I shall in doing so exhibit a similar spirit. There are two things which the House ought to bear in mind in considering this question. The first is, how utterly incompetent this Committee is to deal with this purely Irish matter. Had this question been remitted to Irishmen in their own country, how much more competent would they have been to deal with it The second point is, that the Chief Secretary is compelled to assure us that every effort in this direction that has been made before his time has been a failure. In that he was supported by the Irish Members who have addressed the House. [Colonel NOLAN: No.] Well, he has been supported by most of the Irish Members. I do not expect my hon. and gallant Friend below me (Colonel Nolan) to admit that anything is wrong in Ireland. But what does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do? He proposes to make roads and main drains, to reclaim land and to afforest a portion of the country. Now, as to roads, what do all the Irish Members tell us on that subject? They all tell us, "Whatever else you do, don't make reads, because the making of roads
  584
  in days gone by has always been a failure." Well, what as to drains? Others who have spoken on the subject say, "Do not deal with main drains; do something else." When the right hon. Gentleman comes to the reclamation of land he is told by the late Chief Secretary, who is an authority on the subject, having had experience, to beware, and, with regard to afforesting, I have not heard anybody propose a tangible plan. We certainly have been told that it will be advantageous to have trees in Ireland, because the Irish have cut them down; but as you are going to hand over the land to the tenantry, I, for one, cannot see the utility of planting trees in order that the tenants may cut them down. All these things have been tried by equally kind-hearted Ministers, and equally philanthropic Governments in days gone by, and they have always failed. "But," says the Chief Secretary, "I shall succeed because I am going to try a new plan. I am not going to trust to the Local Authorities. I intend to have a special Board to carry on these works." But I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the great majority of the works of reclamation and other works for relief have been carried out in the past, not by the Local Authorities, but by a separate Board. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) introduced the Local Authority, but before that public relief works were carried on under the control of a public Board in Ireland. ["No, no!"] I say "Yes." They were so carried on in the main, whether drainage works, roads, or harbours, and they were all lamentable failures. Notwithstanding this, the right hon. Gentleman is going to attempt the impossible. I wish him success; but I tell him that, although my heart is with him, my judgment does not approve his plan, and I do not think he will succeed. The strangest thing about this business is that, while he asserts his desire to make the people to whom he proposes to administer relief self-reliant, he, nevertheless, intends to take the whole of the operations out of their hands, and to treat them as if they were not men, but mere human machines. I agree with him in saying that we ought to make these people independent, prosperous, and self-reliant if we can do so; but I cannot think you will secure

  585
  that result by administering the proposed relief in the manner suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. I say that his proposal is an impossible proposal. He is going to make certain gifts to this particular district in Ireland, and the money is to come from the Public Exchequer and the Irish Church Fund. He is under the impression that in this way the Irish people may be enabled to tide over the present period of distress, and that hereafter great blessings will be secured to the population. I sincerely hope he will be enabled to tide them over the period of distress. I cannot help giving him my hearty sympathy in this effort. I only regret that circumstances have been allowed to arrive at such a head once again that Parliament is asked to deal with this part of Ireland as it has had to do so often in the past. But I say that if the right hon. Gentleman is going, in defiance of all past experience, to bestow public money on the West of Ireland, while he declines to bestow it on this country, which almost equally needs it, ought he not, first, to take most stringent care to be as economical as possible in carrying out the works proposed; and, secondly, ought he not to see that the persons who are about to be benefited by those works, and who at the same time are not badly off, shall contribute a reasonable share of the outlay? I ask the House, is he economical? He is going to make railways. I ask him how have the landowners dealt with this matter? I allude to the landlords through whose district the railway will pass. I am told that personally I have done all I could against the construction of light railways. That is true, and I would do the same again. Let me recall what has happened with regard to these light railways. A Bill was passed in 1889. It was forced through the Committee upstairs, and afterwards forced through this House at what was expected to have been an All-night Sitting.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The fact is that a small minority attempted to coerce a great majority on the occasion referred to by the hon. Member.
  MR. STOREY: Then we were only imitating the hon. Member and his friends in Ireland. But, however, the Bill was passed. It was forced into law in August, 1889. Will my hon. Friend
  586
  tell me why that measure was not made use of? Why was nothing done under it? Why was not even a single line laid down even up to August, 1890?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: There was not time.
  MR. STOREY: No, it was for this reason: it was because the Bill which passed the House was a useless Bill. It was a Bill which introduced the question of promoters, and we cautioned them that if they insisted upon introducing promoters the Bill would not work. The result was that last August an amending Bill was brought in to put an end to the promoters, and to place the lines in the hands of the Railway Companies. That is all I have to say about the Light Railways Bill. But the point I wish to put before the House is this: what have the landlords who are to be benefited done? Have they contributed their full share of the expense in relief of the Public Exchequer? I will tell the House what is to be done. These railways, which are to be made at the public expense, are to go through stretches of territory which are not in themselves valuable, but the value of which will be largely increased by the fact that the railways pass through them. If the public have to bear the expense of making those railways, is it not reasonable to demand that the landlords should, at least, give the paltry bits of land through which the railways are about to run? The landlords promised to be generous, but they have not, as far as I am aware, given a penny.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Yes, they have.
  MR. STOREY: What proportion of them?
  MR. JACKSON: Oh, a considerable number of them.
  MR. STOREY: Well, when we get the Returns, which will shortly be laid before us, we shall be able to see what proportion they have given. But even if some of them have contributed, that fact does not get rid of my argument, which is, that the House should see that when they are about to grant so large a sum of money as will be needed for these lines out of the Public Exchequer, the landlords should at least give the necessary land. Another point is this: Has due economy been observed in

  587
  connection with this scheme? If we are going to make railways at public expense, why are they not to belong to the public? Why are they to be given to the existing Railway Companies for nothing? Public money is to be given to make railways, and then, when the lines have been completed, they are to be handed over to the existing Railway Companies! I think we shall be able to show the right hon. Gentleman that in the case of some other agreements we have made with the existing Railway Companies we have been exceedingly wasteful of the public money. We have given tens of thousands to Railway Companies to make lines, though we had in our possession agreements for the same lines at less sums. I do not call that attending duly to economy. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me if he is going to spend public money on afforesting land belonging to the landlords, or is he going to acquire public land and put forests upon it? If he does the former I shall accuse him of being neglectful of the public interests, but if he does the latter then I shall have less objection to the proposal. I should like to press upon his attention the criticism as to whether or not the poor people of the districts are likely to get the benefit of the employment afforded in the construction of the railways. I have had some experience of contractors, who will endeavour to make as much as they can out of the work. The Chief Secretary said that much of the work could be as well done by unskilled as by skilled men. He can know nothing about the making of railways. I warn the Chief Secretary that unless he makes a bargain with the contractors now this will happen. They will employ skilled men, and the poor people of the locality will not receive benefit from the works. But, again, if you make a bargain with the contractors that they are only to employ the people of the localities, then you must be prepared to pay twice as much for the works as you would otherwise do. The contractor would certainly, if such a condition were imposed upon him, take care to put more money on his contract. If you do not make that bargain then the contractors will look to their own interest and will employ outside labour. I do not make these criticisms as at all opposing the evident
  588
  desire of the Committee to do something at the moment for Ireland, but I can only say to the Minister that once again we are going the weary round that we have gone before. We will for the moment tide over the distress by a lavish and wasteful expenditure of public money, with more or less good or bad results; but the evil will remain, and the very medicine we administer will tend to make the patient not fitter to stand the future, but as first my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton remarked that six years hence, very likely, the Chief Secretary would be again standing at that Table proposing another Relief Bill for the West of Ireland. I sincerely hope my hon. Friend is wrong. If the right hon. Gentleman will still persist in trying to govern a country about which he knows nothing, and against the wishes of that country, of course, you will have successive appeals for charity. I hope, on the contrary, before six years are over, the present Chief Secretary will be relieved from the necessity of dealing with Irish matters, and that Irish affairs will be relegated to an Irish Assembly sitting in Dublin, where the work will be done much better than we can do it.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I only want the right hon. Gentleman to give us such information as he has in his possession in regard to the very important statement which he gave us at the beginning of his speech, namely, as to the number of meals per day partaken of by the people. I understand that it would be only possible for them to have two meals of potatoes during four months, whereas the other eight months are to be provided for. I suppose he simply intends to apply his proposal to those districts where there is a prospect of famine. It is necessary, before we proceed to the discussion of such an important proposal, that we should have all the information possible as to the area to be dealt with. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must have been in possession of information before making such an important and painful statement in regard to certain of the districts of Ireland, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to furnish it to us. We would like him to tell us what is the average crop of potatoes at the present time, in the congested

  589
  districts, and if Returns have been made which confirm the serious state of things in these districts.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: Sir, I wish to call attention for one moment to the subject of afforestation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some assurance that if this work is undertaken it will be carried out in a proper, scientific, and permanent manner, and not merely with the view to afford relief. It would be a discredit to forestry could any reflections be cast upon a national system.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Committee whether in the drainage scheme—not the great arterial scheme of drainage—the benefit will go to the landlords, or otherwise?
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what proportion of land, in the construction of 284 miles of railway, has been given by the landlords through whose estates the lines will run?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will endeavour to answer the various questions put to me, and perhaps I had better first answer those asked last, and of which I have not taken a note. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds asked me a question with reference to the illustrations I gave at the beginning of my speech as to the congested districts. I am not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman clearly understood what I said. I stated that under ordinary circumstances tenants have three meals a day. Two of these consist of potatoes, and not the third as a rule. I took the worst districts during an ordinary year, and I found the tenant would get two meals consisting of potatoes from the 15th August to the 15th December, and then probably only one meal of potatoes from the 15th December to the 15th April. After that date he has to depend directly on the credit of the local shopkeeper for what is necessary for himself and family. Here I took this year as an illustration, and I said that the tenant would only have one of the three meals with potatoes up to the 15th December, and that after the 15th December he would have to depend on credit, if he could get it, and it is probable he will not be able to get it. It is
  590
  therefore that I have laid before the House some methods of affording relief. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds asked as to the area of the congested districts. It is not easy to state the area over which distress exists. I shall, however, be able to give the right hon. Gentleman minute information as to the degree of failure in different districts in the West of Ireland. Of course, too, the resources of the population in different districts must be considered. In some districts the population may be successful in obtaining work in England, or in fishing. One cannot tell exactly how the distress will weigh in different districts, but in the illustration I gave about the beginning of my speech I had specially in view the southwest of Donegal. With regard to the question asked me by the hon. Member for Leith, as to afforesting, if the idea is carried out at all it will be a very tentative experiment. The land will be acquired by the Government, and it will be necessarily cheap land, worth very little to the owner, and practically not used by the occupier except for grazing. The earlier stages in the work of afforestation are those which require little practical skill, consisting largely of draining and making turf fences, surmounted subsequently by a couple of wires which are generally considered an effective fence. The planting so carried out under skilled supervision would belong to the public; whether it would be proper afterwards to hand over the land so planted to the Local Authority, the District Board, the County Council, or whatever the Local Body may be, will be a matter for subsequent examination. The hon. Member for Sunderland appeared to think that if Home Rule were granted there would be no more failure of the potato crop, that the wisdom of Ireland uncontaminated by the folly of Englishmen would be able to deal adequately with any difficulties that might arise, and that those congested districts would be put in a specially favourable position by being deprived of the advantages of English credit and English money. I really do not understand the view of the hon. Member. I believe I have considered the opinions of Ireland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway, who knows those districts, is distinctly in favour of

  591
  the proposals of the Government, and for myself I am vain enough, to believe that, whatever form of government is adopted, they cannot do much better than the plan the Government has ventured to submit. The hon. Gentleman has said this scheme has been tried before. I maintain that the scheme which I now recommend to the House has never been tried before, and, whether it fails or not, it is not open, to the criticisms which have been passed upon it by hon. Gentlemen opposite. An hon. Member asked why the Railway Bill passed in a recent Session remained unfruitful, and he puts that down to the action of the promoters. But a great many preliminary investigations had to be made, and it was true that five promoters came before the Railway Company. But the Bill of last year was not intended to exclude the private promoter; it merely enabled public companies to carry out schemes of the private promoters. Does the hon. Gentleman suppose that either in Ireland or in England the Local Authorities or the Public Exchequer could profit by a scheme which would retain in their possession the working of these railways, and prevent the great Railway Companies which they form working them? Why, a wilder idea than that I cannot conceive. To pass over the trunk lines to private companies and to give to the Exchequer the small feeders is quite impossible. It is the most preposterous idea that ever entered the mind of any politician. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone put certain questions, and I think the same questions were raised by the Member for Clare. I am asked what districts are to be scheduled. I do not think we should gain much from scheduling districts. The only result is that in this House each man whose district is not scheduled will bring pressure of an intelligible character to bear upon the Government. I do not think it leads to economy either of time or money. There was no Schedule put into the Light Railway Bill. In this case I do not think the Schedules would be necessary. I gave the House a pledge, which I think they will admit I carried out, that I would not allow myself to be induced by local pressure to use money for the purposes of constructing railways where assistance was not required, and I say now, that I will not allow local
  592
  pressure to force me to start works in districts that do not require them. Therefore, I do not think a Schedule necessary either in the Seed Potato Bill or the Bill for these works.
  COLONEL NOLAN: About how many Unions will reap the benefit of the Seed Potatoes Bill, 60 or 70?
  MR. STOREY: Or 100?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should hope not so many. It, however, depends on the extent of the failure of the crop. I hold that no power should be given to the Boards of Guardians unless it is absolutely necessary owing to the poverty of the district. It will not depend on the district in which the failure occurred. I have been taken to task by hon. Members who referred to failures of efforts in the past. I am conscious of the failures in the past. I stated in language, afterwards borrowed by each gentleman in turn, that parts of Ireland were dotted over with roads which began nowhere and ended nowhere—a fact which spoke to the incompetence of those who had to deal with them. But surely no hon. Member will maintain that in Ireland no more roads are required. All I can say is that a more extraordinary statement never was made. There are districts where people have to go many miles round to attend church, fair, or market. It is only in such districts that roads will be made.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the roads when made be placed under the control of the County Authority?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly, and I hope that no new roads will be made which the county will not be prepared and willing to take over. The next point which has been urged is that none but local labour should be used, and the hon. Member for South Tyrone urged the adoption of such a drastic measure as inserting such a condition in the contract. That is impracticable. It would not only increase the cost of the contract, but it would be utterly demoralising in the neighbourhood, because the contractor would be compelled to employ, only local labour to carry out his work, and the labourers themselves would have it in their power to ruin him by refusing to work for him. It Would also prevent these works being carried out on commercial principles. But I may tell my hon. Friend who raised this point that

  593
  I am assured very little beyond local labour has been employed on these works in the past. Of course, contractors cannot make embankments without having culverts, which require skilled labour not to be found in the place, but I am confident there will be an adequate demand for unskilled and local labour. Then an hon. Member has urged that the Government ought not to give seed potatoes except for cash payments. Well, if that is acted upon, we may rely upon it that we shall not get at the people we wish to reach, and will have to come forward again next year to relieve these people from suffering all the evils of distress and want, or even of starvation. I think the argument of the hon. Member for Northampton, and of other hon. Members, involves some misunderstanding of the line of argument I laid before the Committee earlier in the evening. They have all said in turn, "You stated there ought to be more self-reliance among the Irish people, but how will this proposal of yours tend to increase it?" But I do not propose this measure in order to increase their self-reliance. I propose it as tiding over the present difficulties. It is giving them a lift out of the mire, as it were. I firmly believe that, not in consequence of these relief works, but in consequence of the general measure, especially when the lesson is brought home to the clergy and the tenants themselves that they must do something to help themselves, great improvements will be introduced. I may be wrong, but that is my opinion. At all events, it is perfectly clear that if you do not do something of the kind all hope will be gone, and if you drag the Local Authorities into debt, you will only plunge them deeper and deeper into the mire of insolvency. If you are going to do nothing to improve the communications, to improve the agriculture and industry of the people, then the thing is hopeless. But it is because of the far-reaching effects of my scheme that I attach importance to it. Whatever other proposals may be urged upon the Government, their immediate duty is a plain one, namely, to do what they can to relieve these poor people. I have given the best thought I could during many months to the preparation of this scheme, which I believe to be the most practicable, the most economical, and the
  594
  most generous one that could be devised.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I wish, to ask a question as to the area in which seed potatoes will be distributed. I think that the distribution should not be confined to the distressed districts, but should be spread over a considerable part of the country in which the seed has not been, renewed since 1880, and is consequently almost worn out, and, therefore, likely to render the potatoes peculiarly liable to disease. I would suggest that in every district west of the Shannon, and several east of it, it is desirable to give facilities for obtaining new seed. The fact is, in most districts of Ireland there are no proper seed merchants. There are those who sell the early and the fancy varieties of potatoes, but there is no machinery for the exchange of seed. I may point out that, even in the richer districts, there are many anxious to get new seed, and if the Government arranged for the supply they might rely on prompt payment, so that there would be no loss. All I wish for is an assurance that the Irish tenants will have the opportunity afforded them of obtaining new seed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will rest with the Irish Local Government Board, looking at the necessities, of the district, to determine whether, seed will be available or not.
  COLONEL NOLAN: The matter should not be left to the Irish Local Government Board, but should be decided by the House of Commons. The Irish, Local Government Board would be a very proper authority for determining which are the 20 poorest Unions, but it is not their business to say whether 20 or 60 of the Irish Unions shall be classed as poor.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is anticipating a discussion the Bill.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: There are large areas of Crown Lands in Ireland known to contain an immense wealth of minerals. For instance, there are Crown Lands of high value in County Wicklow.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are no Crown Lands in Wicklow.
  MR. P. MORGAN: There are lands over which the Crown claim certain right. Perhaps I should call them

  595
  Crown Mines, which cannot be developed by private enterprise because of the royalties exacted by the Crown. Yet, the money of the British taxpayer is to be expended upon experimental works and new schemes which have not been tried before, when these mines might be advantageously opened up.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose the hon. Member is alluding to the right the Crown have over certain minerals in Wicklow.
  MR. P. MORGAN: Yes; and the Government prefer to thwart and starve Irish industries, which might easily be developed, rather than encourage them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot conceive how the remarks of the hon. Member have any bearing on the matter.
  MR. P. MORGAN: I have no desire to frustrate the objects of the right hon. Gentleman. I prefer to assist them, and therefore I would suggest that either the Crown should withdraw its claim to the royalties, which prevent the mines in the distressed districts in Ireland from being worked by private enterprise, or else that such mines should be worked at the expanse of the Crown itself.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I hope proper precautions will be taken to prevent landlords increasing the rent by reason of improvements carried out at the public expense.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government object in the reclamation of land is, as I understood it, to undertake such works as will enable the tenant when settled on adjoining land to so extend his holding as to get a living. I do not think the fund could be applied to a more useful purpose than undertaking drainage Works beyond the power of individual effort, and enabling people to live on land not otherwise suitable for the purpose. I hope, however, that care will be taken to prevent the buying or leasing of lands so developed by the Government. With regard to the subject of finance, the right hon. Gentleman did not state how much money was involved in his scheme. I would, however, venture to suggest that, in order to prevent the Irish people from disappointment, the
  596
  right hon. Gentleman ought to fix some definite sum that should be applicable for the purpose of relief. Indeed, I hold that this is a matter which should be controlled by the Imperial Parliament. A certain sum should be voted, and then if that proved insufficient to meet the necessities of the case a further grant should be asked for from the House. Otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman will have laid before him a great many applications in the simple hope that the Treasury may be drawn.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe the purpose we all have in view will be better attained by not fixing the amount; but I hope it will not be a great one. It is desired to keep down the relief works to the minimum of actual necessity; and fixing a sum will not keep down the number of applications. If reclamation is carried out, it will be an experiment, and it is desirable that the land reclaimed should be in the neighbourhood of holdings. There are cases where you will find holdings carved out of bog, and where there is a limitless amount of bog capable of similar treatment, and those are the cases in which experiments should be tried. If I can find such places, and obtain them on reasonable terms, it will be there that the experiment will be tried.
  COLONEL NOLAN: When will the Unions know whether or not they will come under the Seeds Act?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No time will be lost in issuing to Boards of Guardians the Circular of which I have spoken.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Will it be issued by the 1st of January?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall issue it on Monday if necessary.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow. (8.3.)

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.(No. 110.)
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I rise to move the Instruction to the Committee of which I have given notice, and which in substance is similar to that I moved on the Motion for Committee on the Bill last Session.

  597
  I had hoped that the Government would have made such modifications in this Bill as to have rendered this Instruction unnecessary. Unfortunately, though the Government have made certain modifications, for example, the redemption scheme does not find a place in the present Bill, and the provisions in Clause 3 are modifications, yet our expectations are disappointed, and the changes do not embrace every aspect of the question as we desire they should. On that account I have to give a few reasons why this Instruction should be supported, though after the discussion of last Session it is not necessary for me to enter at any length into the details of the question. Last Session the Attorney General in the course of debate on this Instruction gave one or two reasons why it could not be accepted. Speaking of corn averages, the main question we desired to deal with under cover of the Instruction, the Attorney General said—
  "Her Majesty's Government are ready to give effect to any such scheme by practical legislation as soon as it can be devised, but,"
  he went on to say, and this was the reason he opposed the Instruction,
  "If the Instruction is passed, it will enable hon. Members to load the Bill with an unlimited number of Amendments."
  No doubt from his point of view there was a reason for opposing the Instruction, but it does not hold good now, because the Government have undertaken to refer the question of redemption to a Commission, and this question of revision might also be referred to the same Commission. If such an undertaking is given, I shall be glad to withdraw the Instruction, but I see no sign yet that the Government intend to take that course. On Monday I asked the President of the Board of Trade, with regard to the Commission to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, whether the question of corn averages was to be referred to it, and the right hon. Gentleman said he spoke simply of referring to the Commission the question of redemption. Then this afternoon my hon. Friend (Mr. Gardner) put another question, and obtained a similar answer—that the Commission would only refer to the subject of redemption, and the right hon. Gentleman added that naturally the Commission
  598
  would have before it the existing state of things as affecting different parts of the country, but the Commission would have these facts before it just as the Executive Government had when preparing the present Bill. Well, there is no satisfaction in that. If the Commission is confined to dealing with the question of redemption only, why not exclude the whole question of revision? I do not wish to dwell on the causes which render revision necessary. I pass to one or two points bearing on the Instruction, and ask the Government to consider the position in which we are now placed. After an experience of 50 years the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 has been found to operate most hardly in the corn-growing districts, especially in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and Kent, which four counties pay £1,000,000 a year of tithe, or about one-fourth of the whole tithe of the country. I shall not touch upon the Welsh part of the question, for that is entirely different. In Wales apparently there is no great desire for revision. As affecting Wales, the question is one of principle, and when this part of the subject was debated on Monday, we supported Welsh Members in their contention that tithe is national property. Reciprocally, I hope we may claim the support of Welsh Members in this English part of the subject when we show that the English agricultural classes labour under very serious grievances, which the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 professed to remove, but as a matter of fact has done nothing to minimise. Whether the tithe is Church property or national property, devoted now to Church purposes, it will be made much more secure if the grievances of the tithe payer are removed in time. If, on the other hand, you allow these grievances to remain unredressed and to grow in magnitude, then in the long run it will not be a mere question of temporary revision such as is contemplated in the Instruction, but there will be danger to the existence of the tithe as a property at all. It is no doubt the intention of Her Majesty's Government that this Bill should not impose any personal liability, but it would be satisfactory if the Attorney General would assure the House that by no effort of legal construction could this be interpreted out of the Bill.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not see how this arises on the Motion.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: If it can be pointed out that this is not touched by the Bill, then there is one reason in support of my Instruction and a revision. If the Bill is merely for the benefit of the tithe owner then it may be asserted that the benefit to the tithe owner ought to be counter-balanced by a recognition of the claims of the tithe payer. There is another question—whether under Clause 3 it would be possible for the tithe payer to obtain an abatement in the case of tithe exceeding two-thirds of the annual value of the land without proceedings having previously been taken against him by the tithe owner in the County Court. If that is the only way in which the tithe payer can obtain a remission, I venture to think that in few instances will an abatement be obtained. The quiet easy-going tithe payer, reluctant to put himself in a humiliating position, will obtain no abatement. The tithe payer who makes a great outcry about his position, who refuses to pay, and who acts in what may be called a lawless manner, or at any rate in a manner not conducive to good relations with his neighbours, will obtain a remission. The construction which may be put on the provision in Clause 3 is that the remission cannot be obtained except in cases in which proceedings have previously been taken by the tithe owner through the Court; and if that is the case, then there is a clear case for this Instruction. What the tithe payer wants is not the opportunity of making an appeal ad misericordiam but a system by which his grievance will be redressed when it can be shown, and this is not provided by such a process as I have indicated arising out of Clause 3. There is a case for establishing some automatic system by which the remission may be obtained. We want to know whether in particular cases scattered over a wide area or parts of the country there is such an unjust system at present prevailing, in consequence of the operation of the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836, as to call for the operation of some such system of remission, either by the House or by a Commission to be appointed. As to Corn averages, I think that there is apparently no indisposition on the part of the Government to grapple with that
  600
  subject. If that is the case, then why not refer the question to the Commission which is to deal with the question of redemption? Surely it is a sufficiently cognate subject to refer to the same Commission? I fail to see any adequate reason why corn averages, which deeply concern the payment of tithe, should not be referred to the Commission which is proposed to deal with redemption—the two subjects are so interwoven that you cannot separate them. In regard to corn averages, two points came out clearly before the Committee on the subject which sat upstairs, and I fail to see why some practical act on cannot be devised by the Redemption Commission, why the Redemption Commission should not endeavour to deal with the sale and resale of corn; and with the other and perhaps wider difference which exists between the system which was employed by farmers more than 50 years ago, when they sent all their corn, good, bad, and indifferent, to market, and that of the present time, when they send only their very best corn; why the price on which the average is taken should not be the price the farmer gets, but the price recorded after the best corn has passed through several hands by process of sale and resale. I venture to think that the Government ought to refer the whole of the question of revision to the Commission which they propose to appoint. If they cannot hold out any hope or make any concession, I am afraid that it may be necessary to press this Instruction to a Division. If, however, the Government make a concession on this point, or if they enlarge the scope of the reference to the Commission, then our work will have been performed, because it will be made clear that the question of revision is not alien from the task, to which a Commission on Redemption would devote itself. I appeal to the Government to make this concession in time. It is a concession urgently needed in the Eastern and Southern agricultural districts, and not only there. The Government proposals are inadequate and incomplete if they simply deal with redemption. I trust the Government will accept the suggestions I offer, and include this question within the scope of their Commission or accept this Instruction to enable Amendments to be moved in committee
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide for an equitable revision of tithes in accordance with the altered conditions of agriculture."—(Mr. F. S. Stevenson.)
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I would like to call the attention of the House, and more particularly that of the President of the Board of Trade, to the fact that not only is this tithe question rampant in the Eastern counties to which my hon. Friend has more particularly referred, but in the five Northern counties, all of which at the time of the great European War were growing corn. After Waterloo the greater portion of the land was allowed to go away to weeds. Then, 54 years ago, at the time of the Tithe Commutation Act, tithe was exacted on the lands which still remained under grain cultivation. Since the repeal of the Corn Laws, in 1846, nearly the whole of this remnant has passed out of cultivation. Tithe owners have done nothing to reclaim the land, which was thoroughly exhausted by constant corn growing, but the right hon. Gentleman argues that if we begin to revise the tithe we may be raising the value of tithe on grass lands. I traverse that statement, because tithe owners have had no more to do with making the land productive than Irish landlords have done for their tenants' farms, nothing at all. The land would be almost valueless at this moment, and I speak from 25 years' experience of growing grass, for anything the tithe owners have done. You may look over one side of a hedge anywhere and see land worth. 5s. or 7s. 6d. an acre under grass, and on the other side you will find land worth £3 or £4 made so simply by the capital and industry of the owner or occupier, or both. Tithe owners have no right to any increase in the tithe, because they have incurred no risk, and have invested no money in draining, in lining, or manuring. That was settled 54 years ago, and now all compacts then entered into are to be torn up, arrangements, between tenants and landlord to be upset, and the latter is to be placed in the invidious position of collector for the clergy of the district. Well, what do you give in return? The right hon. Gentleman has made much of the remission provided by the third clause,
  602
  that if the tithe exceeds two-thirds of the value there shall be a remission of the excess. But this is a mere fragment of the whole question. Then we are told by the President of the Board of Trade that this is only the beginning of the tithe question, and that the Government intend to have the tithes commuted. But how are you to get at the value of the capital sum which is to be borrowed by the tithe owner except by this Bill, which increases the value of the tithe 25 per cent.? I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman has tried to sell his tithes? If sold now, tithes may bring 17 or 18 years' purchase, but after this Bill is passed they will bring from 25 to 27 years' purchase to the owner. If we then object to the commutation proposals, we shall be told we are too late and should have settled this point when this Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill was before the House. I maintain that the Government are establishing a false basis for the redemption of tithe. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a large portion of the tithe in Durham and Northumberland goes to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I do not think it will make it more easy for them to collect if this matter is placed on a false basis; a hardly-driven bargain, all one side, has never been found to work smoothly. Her Majesty's Government are tearing up contracts and increasing the security of tithe, making it a first-class security equal to the rates, and yet they give nothing in return, but the promise, of a remission of the excess over two-thirds of the annual value of the land. I do not think a more one-sided bargain has ever been brought before Parliament, and I think it will not be found easy to work in future years.
  MR. H. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I wish to say a few words in explanation of the vote I am about to give. If I thought this Bill had been introduced or was intended as a final settlement of the question, my vote would be given for the Instruction, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eye in most of his remarks, and also in what he has said of the altered condition of agriculture. In 1836, when the Tithe Commutation Act was passed, this country had not embarked upon that unhappy fiscal policy which has

  603
  crippled, if it has not absolutely ruined, that industry which gentlemen on both sides profess to consider the most important of British industries—I mean agriculture. Had it been anticipated that such a terrible fall in prices, and such terrible damage to the agriculture of the country, would have followed, I cannot think that we should have had the tithe imposed upon the owner as it is now. I am well aware that the question of re-valuation is one of enormous difficulty; in the opinion of some, and I believe of the President of the Board of Trade, it is one of insuperable difficulty. I, myself, believe that in the re-valuation of the tithe will be found the only solution of the question. I am sorry to hear from the President of the Board of Trade that nothing is to be referred to the Commission but the question of redemption. I had hoped, and still hope, the right hon. Gentleman will enlarge the scope of the Commission, and adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Eye as to the inclusion of the question of re-valuation. I do not, however, think that these considerations need occupy our attention at the present moment, nor do I say that my voting against the Motion to-day will prevent me from supporting a proposal for the consideration of re-valuation and re-adjustment, if it is made on a fitting occasion, from whatever quarter it may come. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, stated that this was not a measure for the appreciation or depreciation of tithe, but for facilitating its collection and making the owner, not the occupier, responsible for its payment. As these are two good objects, and as the effect of the Instruction would be to kill the measure, I shall give my hearty support to the Bill. I must, however, say—and in this I speak for a great many agricultural Members in the House—that our support will be a great deal more hearty if the Government feel themselves able to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, which is regarded as of great importance.
  MR. COBB: I cannot understand why the Government do not feel themselves able to accept this Instruction, and I am sure many hon. Members will be disappointed that the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade cannot see his way
  604
  to include within the scope of the inquiry by the Royal Commission the question of the re-valuation of tithe. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision, and I am sure that if he does so, and will refer the question of revision to the Commission, my hon. Friend will withdraw his Instruction. I have never been able to understand why, on both sides of the House, there is such a fear of revision of tithe. I will go further, and say I do not understand why there is so much fear of a reduction in the total amount of tithe in the present depressed state of agriculture. I disagree altogether with the hon. Member for Leicester. I do not understand why, if the burden of tithes is unjust, it should not be alleviated. Whether the tithe is Church property—as the Party opposite hold that it is—or national property, neither the Church nor the nation ought to desire to derive from it a revenue which is unjust. It is perfectly clear that when the settlement was made in 1836 the present state of things was never contemplated. It is not quite correct to say that tithe is an absolutely fixed amount like a rent-charge, because the Act of 1836 provides that it shall vary according to the septennial average. No doubt, when it was provided that there should be a septennial average, based on the prices of wheat, barley, and oats, that very basis was established for the purpose of making the charge absolutely fair. But we must all know that the septennial average on wheat, barley, and oats is not now a fair one. The relative prices of these descriptions of grain have changed, and there is a just demand for revision of tithe, even if it is only to alter the products on which the septennial average is based. In many ordinary cases the tithe bears so heavily that it is called a second rent, and it falls practically upon the tenant farmer. The cause of its bearing so heavily is to be found in the depression which has occurred in the agricultural industry. In one of the parishes I have the honour to represent—Bilton, near Rugby—the tithe was apportioned in 1841. A valuer was sent down from London, and he went to work in a very haphazard way. He, as I am informed, went on the land, inquired of the labourers what it was likely to produce, and what was likely to be the value of the produce, and he apportioned the tithe accordingly.

  605
  What has been the result? Why, that fields adjoining one another, having exactly the game quality of land and the same tillage, have to pay tithe of 4s. an acre, 6s., 8s., and even 10s. an acre. It comes to this, that in that parish, land—in respect of which the owner pays the tithe—produces to him 23s. rent, and he has to pay 10s. worth of tithe. In 1841, when the apportionment was made, corn, I believe I am right in saying, was 64s. 4d. per quarter. A gentleman who happens to be an owner of land in that parish—a good Conservative, I believe, and supporter of Her Majesty's Government—writes—
  "I think it is framed,"
  speaking of the Tithe Act,
  "in the interests of the clergy and with no regard to those of the tithe payer. If the tithe had been re-apportioned there might have been no necessity to sue the landlord in the County Court. But this Bill enables the parson to get his pound of flesh, whether it is just or otherwise.…. To exact from the land the proportion of tithe now which used to be paid when corn was double the price, is, to my mind, dishonest and arbitrary. This Bill will not settle the matter. It will only embitter the laity against the clergy, and, perhaps, cause the latter to be less esteemed generally."
  The Bill itself contains provisions for the revision of tithe, as it says that where the tithe amounts to two-thirds the annual value of the land it shall not exceed that amount. This, however, will only touch very exceptional cases. Some hon. Member said the other night that he did not suppose there were 100 cases in the whole country where the tithe exceeded two-thirds of the annual value. I do not know about that, but we can see that these cases dealt with in the Bill must be very rare as compared with, the great majority of cases in which no relief whatever is given. The very essence and origin of tithe is that it ought to bear some proportion to the actual value of the produce of the land, and ought not to be regulated by the prices of other produce which the land does not yield. Well, if that is to be done there should be some revision of tithe, and, accordingly, I shall give my vote to-night for the hon. Member for Eye. I hope that before the President of the Board of Trade moves the appointment of the Royal Commission on the Redemption of Tithe he will see his way to enlarge the scope of the Commission, and include the revision of tithe.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: I do not believe that there can be any lasting settlement of this question unless the matter of re-valuation is-dealt with. It seems to me, however, that to attempt to include that subject in this Bill would be to kill the measure, as so many measures have been killed before. This Bill is desired in England as well as in Wales, not only by the clergy but by many other people. I hope that the scope of the Commissioners' inquiries will be so enlarged as to enable them to deal with the point to which I have referred. Surely it is ridiculously inconsistent that in one place the tithe should be in excess of the rent, and that it should be far below it in places adjacent. The machinery for re-valuation is ready to hand, and if the Government hold out no hope that the demand for it will be met, great dissatisfaction will be caused. However, as I have said, the question of revision goes beyond the scope of this Bill.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: When the hon. Member for Eye moved this Motion last Session the circumstances were entirely different. The Government had brought forward a Bill which did not give satisfactory relief in the direction in which this Bill gives relief. There was no provision in it for dealing with exceptionally hard cases where the tithe is so heavy that it prevents the satisfactory letting of the land. The present measure does deal with such cases, providing for remissions of tithe where the charge exceeds two-thirds of the rental value of the land. There is a good deal of confusion introduced into this Debate by referring to tithe in general terms. There is no such thing as tithe in districts in the sense of a charge or rate of so much in the £1, or so much per acre. Prior to the Tithe Commutation Act in 1836 the tithe was levied in kind. The tithe owner took a certain share of the produce of the land, but the Commutation Act altered all that. According to Sir Robert Peel—
  "The object of the Act was to get a fixed money payment in lieu of tithe, and thus to put an end to the discouragement of agricultural improvements and the demand for increased tithe in proportion to improvements."
  The tithe rent-charge was put on particular land. It was to vary according to certain corn averages which have

  607
  had, perhaps, not so large an effect as hon. Gentlemen representing agricultural constituencies desire. Still, they have had an appreciable and important effect on the actual money payments in lieu of tithe. Hon. Members have only to refer to the very useful table issued under the sanction of the Commissioners to show the operation of the corn averages. The operation of the corn averages has largely reduced tithe in accordance with the altered conditions of agriculture. In 1883 tithe was about par price—that is to say, £100 of tithe produced £100 4s. 10d., but under the operation of the corn averages £100 of tithe has been reduced to £78 1s. 9d.—some think there will be a further reduction, to £73 or £72. Therefore, there is a gradual and appreciable diminution of tithe in accordance with the altered condition of agriculture. Lay tithes are sold, not as a right to take tithe in particular districts, but as sums of money payable annually out of particular lands. The people who own these lands bought them subject to the tithe, and the people who buy tithe rent-charge buy fixed sums charged upon and payable out of particular land.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Out of produce. That makes a deal of difference.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: There is a deed in every parish which is called the Tithe Award and Appropriation, and that deed, Which is the common property of the landowner and the tithe receiver, their common title deed, in fact, states that on particular parcels of land or on particular farms there is charged not so much per acre but certain sums annually payable. The landowner has bought his land subject to the payment of this annual sum, he has given so much less for it because of its being burdened with this annual charge. What is now proposed in this Instruction is a revision of tithe and a readjustment. What is readjustment? To take tithe rent-charge from land which pays it at present, and put it on land which does not pay it? The question of revision is a different thing. That must mean reduction—making a present at the expense of the tithe owner to the landowner. I sympathise with my hon. Friend when he says that in certain cases the tithe may be so heavy that
  608
  it may prevent cultivation of the land, and prevent either the tithe owner or the landowner deriving benefit from the land, and that the State should come in as a matter of public policy, and revise the tithe; and as the Bill of the Government deals not only with the collection of tithe, but will give relief in exceptionally hard cases, I shall cordially support it. The tithe owner practically has, under the existing law, the first charge upon the land—[Sir J. SWINBURNE: Produce.] That is a distinction without a difference. That sort of argument would have been very well 50 years ago, but, under the Act of 1836, tithe is now rent-charge, and property has been bought and sold subject to this rent-charge upon the land. It is absurd to argue that the charge is payable out of the produce as having practical application to the consideration of the question. The truth is that, for all practical purposes, this is a rent-charge upon the land. It is a rent-charge, wanting certain conditions and advantages usually associated with rent-charges, but it is none the less a rent-charge. It is true yon cannot sell the land to pay the charge, but you can distrain, and if there is not sufficient distress you can take possession of the land and hold it, and that is a very practical remedy. The Bill of the Government relieves the tenant, and puts the tithe on the landlord's shoulders. To that extent it is a most satisfactory measure. It also provides that, whenever the tithe is so heavy that it threatens to wipe the landowner out of existence, which was never intended by the Act of 1836, the landowner shall have the right to claim a reasonable abatement and so have a share of the land. As a matter of right, I am very much inclined to think that the landowner would have very little case; but it is a concession made, as a matter of public policy, in a generous view of the relations between landowner and tithe receiver. I am very much surprised that my hon. Friends have not received the Bill with cordiality and gratitude. I know that there is a feeling of dissatisfaction in certain districts as to tithe. But this dissatisfaction to a large extent rests upon a want of knowledge of the circumstances connected with tithe, and what are the relative interests in it, and what are the liabilities connected with it. I agree to

  609
  a very considerable extent with the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, that tithe is public property, and I hope ultimately to see tithe applied to public uses. I look forward to a scheme for the redemption of tithe, which will capitalise the value of the tithe, and fix the capital value upon the land, and so practically get rid of difficult questions and unpleasant associations, while preserving tithe as a national property for public uses. I do not want to see tithe frittered away or destroyed; at the same time I wish to see the charge levied with due consideration. I cannot vote for the Instruction of the hon. Member for Eye, and I intend to vote in favour of the Bill.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the rather long speech of the hon. Member for St. Pancras seemed to me more in the nature of a speech on the Second Reading than one confining itself to the Instruction of the hon. Member for Eye. I will not now attempt to traverse his arguments, with which I entirely disagree. I do not think the hon. Member was quite consistent in the speech. He took very high ground as to the first claim of the tithe owner, and as to the tithe rent-charge being on all-fours with a mortgage. But afterwards he did admit that the tithe rent-charge should not leave the landowner without some little share in the value of his property. I think the two ways of putting it are rather inconsistent. The hon. Member for Eye made an offer to the Government in reference to the promised Commission. The Instruction itself is a very clever one; I am sure the speech of the hon. Member in moving it, considering that he sits on that side of the House, was also clever. There was a great deal in it with which I thoroughly agree, but there is a little difficulty in understanding what he means by the word "revision," which may mean a little or a great deal. If it means a re-valuation of the tithe all over England I should not be able to agree with it. I could not stand up in my place and ask, for specific reasons, that the tithe in a particular locality should be lowered, and at the same time not allow, for the very same reason, that it should be increased. The offer of the hon. Member for Eye not to push his Instruction,
  610
  if the Government would allow the question of tithe averages, in these altered conditions of agriculture, to be included in the reference to this promised Commission seems to me to have put some of us who sit on this side of the House in a somewhat difficult and close place. I certainly think that this question should have some fair opportunity of being inquired into. I think that we who are too well acquainted with those districts where things have become so altered ought to have some liberal and fair opportunity of bringing our grievances before this House, and having our cases put in the Journals of the House. I do not think that the Government can positively exclude some evidence upon these various questions from being put before the Commission. Last year I presented a Petition signed by Members on all sides of the House asking the Government to give us a Commission upon tithe redemption. I do not quite remember the actual wording of that Petition, but I think it asked for a Committee or Commission, in the first place, to inquire whether there was any necessity for redemption, and I take it that that would, at any rate, be part of the duty of the Commission. I do not suppose it would be taken for granted that redemption is really necessary. Having made the preliminary inquiry, I think the door would certainly be open to us to bring up questions such as we have heard raised by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. F. S. Stevenson.) The knotty point for the Commission would be the terms to be set up, and certainly we of the Eastern Counties, where agriculture is so changed, would never listen to any proposal of redemption for the same number of years' purchase to be relieved of the tithe on our lands in Essex as would be given for land that is actually worth more than it was in 1836. I do not see that the Government could prevent a certain amount of evidence being taken on questions of that sort. The hon. Member was good enough to say he would not press the Instruction to a Division if it were understood that the other questions I have referred to should be brought before the Commission. If that should be the case, I trust that some evidence at least will be put before that body as to the position of the

  611
  farmers of the Eastern Counties in regard to this important subject.
  MR. J. ELLIS: I have only a very few words to say upon the subject now under discussion, but I desire, on behalf of my constituents and the agriculturists of Leicestershire generally, to say that it would afford them very general satisfaction if Her Majesty's Government would accept the suggestion contained in the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. F. S. Stevenson). As a born agriculturist the question is one in which I myself have taken considerable interest, and I may say that there is a very strong feeling on the part of my agricultural friends on this subject. They are of opinion that the measure by which the tithe is collected is an unfair measure. If the hon. Member for St. Pancras were right in stating that at the Tithe Commutation of 1836 a certain sum had been fixed and that that was an unalterable sum, I and my friends would have been satisfied, because we do not wish unfairly to lessen the amount of tithe. I agree with the hon. Member that the tithe is public property, and that any unfair lessening of the amount would simply mean the handing over of the sum thus deducted for the benefit of the landlords; but I must repeat that I think the measure under which the tithe is at present collected is an unfair one. At any rate, the subject is one which demands inquiry. I have been familiar with the way in which barley is prepared and dressed for the market for the last 40 or 50 years, and I can state that the alteration which has taken place in the mode of threshing has made a difference in the weight of the barley of two stones in the quarter. The old measure under the system of threshing by hand was 15 stones to the sack, whereas under the present system it is 16 stones to the sack. This, I assert, is one of those things which have affected the amount of the tithe. To many hon. Members this may seem to be only a small matter. But when we have regard to the fact that most of the barley which is grown in Leicestershire and in the Eastern Counties is sent to two or three different markets and that the account is taken first to Huntingdon, then to Leicester, and then to Burton, we have before us a state of things which I think demands some
  612
  inquiry. I have stated that the measure is not the same as it was in 1836, and that is the view taken by my agricultural friends in Leicestershire. The tithe is not oppressive in that county, because the conditions of farming there are different from those which appertain to Essex. In Leicester we have what is called mixed farming, and under that system the farmer may escape, whereas in the Eastern Counties he cannot escape without paying the full amount of tithe. I do emphatically urge, on behalf of the agricultural tenants of England generally, that the measure by which the tithe is collected should be inquired into. I cannot see why Her Majesty's Government should refuse this request. I say that whatever was agreed to in 1836 was a fair settlement as between the landlord and the tithe owner; but if the measure has been altered in the meantime, as we aver to be the case, we ought to readjust it. I think the Government are quite right in placing payment of the tithe on the landlord instead of on the tenant. That seems to me to be a very simple proposition, and I, for one, am of opinion that half the rates ought to be put upon the landlord in the same way. I am sure the Government will give great satisfaction to their followers and to the agriculturists at large if they will allow the inquiry which is asked for into this matter.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Before this discussion closes, I should like to say a few words upon the question that has been raised. Those who take the same view as myself will either vote against this Instruction or refrain from voting altogether. I have listened to several of the speeches that have been made in support of the proposal, and I have as yet failed to find any argument in favour of the course the hon. Member for Eye proposes to take. In point of fact, we have hardly heard a single word of solid argument in support of the Motion. The view which I entertained upon this subject was well expressed in the course of last Session by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, namely, that the tithe is national property, and I think that we must watch with jealous care any attempt to fritter that property away. Those who support the hon. Member for Eye have been very frank in the expression

  613
  of their views. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Gray) said that for his part he could not conscientiously support any proposal to re-appraise the tithe, and that the term equitable possession is merely a sounding phrase which, in reality, means reduction. We are not prepared to reduce the tithe. If it be necessary to make any alteration in the charges on the land to meet the altered conditions of agriculture, it should come out of the landowner, and not out of the tithe, which is, really, national property, and when this Bill comes into operation that argument will be still more applicable, because the tithe will be a first charge on the land and not on the produce of the land. Any abatement of the tithe must consequently be an increase on the value of the land to the landlord. This is the reason why, if the hon. Gentleman who moved the Instruction insists on going to a Division, I shall feel compelled to vote against it. We who take this view are the more disposed to adopt this course because we believe that we are within a measurable distance of getting this national property devoted to national purposes.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I think, Sir, that we on this side of the House who are identified with agricultural constituencies are at the present moment between cross fires, whether from the orthodox cannon of Her Majesty's Government or the bombardment of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras. But I would venture to point out to those who take an interest in this particular subject that, for my part, and that of my hon. Friends who have moved and supported the Instruction, we are quite as jealous of the public property as those who oppose it profess themselves to be. We consider the tithe-rent charge to be national property allocated by the State to a specific purpose, and which may be allocated by the State to a different purpose if Parliament should so decide. Bat we who have some knowledge of the agricultural districts, and have taken some trouble to inquire into this special question, have formed very strong opinions upon it, which are opposed to those of the hon. Members for St. Pancras and Bosworth. If the Liberation Party join with the Church Party in order to wring the last farthing out of the land, it is probable that in the rural
  614
  districts there will arise an agitation for the abolition of tithes altogether. This is what has already taken place upon the Continent, and our predecessors in bringing on and passing the Commutation Act of 1836 were fully alive to what was then taking place in the South of Europe. Lord J. Russell referred to the case of Austria, where an anti-tithe agitation was then going on. He pointed out that an agitation was then proceeding against the payment of tithe in that country, an agitation which, even at that time was likely to come to a successful conclusion. We know now that that agitation has succeeded all over the Continent, and that successful agitation furnished a sufficient warning to those who are engaged in passing the Act of 1836, which was supposed to include some reduction of the corpus of the tithe. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed to that reduction in 1836 because they saw, as some of my hon. Friends on this side do not see at the present moment, that if they did not agree to pay a tithe they were likely to lose that portion of the national property altogether. It is absurd to call this a landlords' question. [Cries of "Question!"] I feel sure the House will admit that I am applying myself distinctly to the Instruction, which is the question now before us. Hon. Members say this is purely a landlords' question, but let those hon. Members go down to the rural districts and hear what the farmers have to say on the subject. You may tell them that it is theoretically and logically a landlords' question, but you will never convince the farmers of the Eastern and Southern Counties or any of the corn-growing districts, that the money comes directly out of the pockets of the landlords, and not out of the produce of the land. In other words, they believe that an excessive tithe is a hindrance and injury to agriculture, and not a mere matter of debit and credit on the landlords' bankers' books. I support the Instruction of my hon. Friend for this reason, that I am certain that any revision of tithe must include a preliminary inquiry as to whether a revision is necessary or not. One special argument that has been put before the House on the present occasion has never been answered by any Member who has spoken on this subject, and I am assured that the agricultural constituents

  615
  would very much like to hear some definite and distinct statement of the Government upon it. In my opinion, the great argument for any inquiry into the Act of 1836 is this, and it goes to the vital principle of that Act, namely, if we can show that our predecessors were wrong in calculating what should be taken as the measure on which the tithe rent-charge should be valued, we must admit that we have gone into the central principle of the measure of 1836 in order to make out some of the grounds on which we say that the inquiry asked for should be granted by the Government. The argument is this, that by the choice of the three cereals—wheat, barley, and oats—in the Act of 1836 it was intended that the tithe rent-charge should in the future be a fluctuating amount, in the same way as tithe in kind had fluctuated in the past. And that contention is borne out by the speech of Lord Lansdowne—to which I have referred—on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Tithe Rent-Charge Bill in the House of Lords. And if it be true that the three cereals were taken because it was the intention of the framers of the Act that the tithe rent-charge should in the future fluctuate, it must be obvious to the House at the present moment that the mode of taking the corn averages as proved by the evidence brought before the Committee, and as recognised by everyone who understands agricultural matters—is utterly and entirely wrong. If the tithe rent-charge is to fluctuate according to the produce of the soil, you must take the whole of that produce. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade shakes his head at that argument, but let us take the converse way and see how it works out. If the three cereals were not chosen in order that the tithe should fluctuate as it had done in the past, why, then, were they selected? We are told it was because they Considered at that time that the three cereals would be less fluctuating in the ratio of exchange of other articles than money. In other words, our predecessors in 1836 imagined that money—that gold—would depreciate in the future as it had done in the past, and they imagined so with some reason and justice: for as we have been reminded by the hon. Member for Faversham, the iniquitous Free Trade Bill had not been
  616
  passed, and at that time, too, they had no idea that giant steamers would travel across the ocean with cargoes of corn, and accomplish the journey in a few days. Therefore, they thought that though the population of the country might increase, the value of corn would not decrease, though that of gold might do so. What has happened? At the present moment is there any sound financier who would take corn as a stable standard of value? Absolutely the reverse of what was anticipated by our predecessors who carried the Act of 1836 has come about. If you say it is wrong that the corn averages were intended to fluctuate as the tithe had fluctuated in the past, or, if you take the converse of the proposition, that the three cereals were chosen as the stable standard of value, you will see that the conclusion is utterly wrong. These are arguments which should receive some answer from the Government. If either of them be true, then it is obvious that the Act of 1836 has failed in a very vital principle. The fact of the matter is, that Her Majesty's Government have stood on very firm ground as long as they called the Act of 1836 a solemn covenant, but as they have chosen to open it without being asked they have lost that sound basis. Having done so, they cannot deny that the question of having some inquiry is, at all events, deserving of attention.
  SIR J. GOLDSMID: It has been suggested that this Instruction has been brought forward in the interests of the tenant farmer, but I think I can show from experience it is nothing of the sort. I believe it is absolutely in the interests of the landlord. We were told just now that land is not affected by the payment of tithe. The fact is, that as a result of the passing of the Extraordinary Tithe Redemption Bill, which made the landlord liable for the extraordinary tithe, the tenant simply asks the landlord what the rent is, without going into the question of what that tithe is which the landlord pays. That has been the case with regard to extraordinary tithe, and it will happen in this case also. Therefore, I think it is in the interest of the tenant that this Instruction should not be carried. The Government have determined to examine into the question of redemption; and, for my own part, I do not

  617
  see why the landlord should not be allowed to redeem this tithe, with which he alone is concerned, as he has been allowed to redeem the extraordinary tithe. The working of the Bill for the redemption of extraordinary tithe has been of immense advantage to the tenants, and if the Government follow the course they have promised, equal advantage will, I believe, accrue from the redemption of the ordinary tithe. I do think, then, that the adoption of this Instruction can only do harm to the tenant.
  MR. A. J. WILLIAMS: As I had the honour last Session of seconding the Instruction which the hon. Member for Eye has again moved, I venture again to address the House upon this very complicated subject. But I will not occupy the time of hon. Members more than a few minutes in explaining my attitude in regard to this Instruction. If I thought for one moment that the revision of tithe was going to reduce the aggregate value of what in Wales, at all events, we look upon as national property, I should not support the Instruction, but I am convinced that it will not have that effect. If I understood the Instruction to mean simply that you are to go into the question of the amount of tithe now payable in such counties as Essex, Suffolk, Hampshire, and Wiltshire, which are suffering, as I think unfairly, through the methods of taking the proportion of the produce of the land to be paid, I would not vote for it; but I understand it to be a question of a re-consideration of the way in which averages are at present taken, with a view, if necessary, to the entire re-valuation of the country as regards this taxation. Surely it is not unreasonable to say that if you begin to tamper with the Act of 1836 the Government ought to include in the inquiry which I understand they are prepared to grant, the whole question of the present tithe averages. Such an inquiry would satisfy the country. Last Session the President of the Board of Agriculture made a significant statement when he warned the House that if an Instruction were accepted with reference to the over-burdened corn-growing districts in the East of England the consequences might be rather awkward for the whole of the tithe paying owners throughout the kingdom. I cannot help thinking
  618
  that that may be the reason why the Government are not prepared to extend this inquiry. I should like to point out that if the averages were based on wheat alone, the value of £100 tithe rent-charge of 1836 would now be £59 13s.; if based on meat alone it would be £133; if on meat and wheat together it would be £96; while if on wheat, meat, barley, and oats, instead of £59, it would be £93 6s. I cannot help thinking that if we went thoroughly into the whole question before a Royal Commission, it would mean this, that the tax upon corn-growing areas throughout the country would be largely reduced by spreading it over the whole produce of the land.
  MR. PICTON: My hon. Friend who spoke last is apparently in favour of the creation of a new tithe altogether. I think that that is a totally unacceptable idea. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden concluded his speech by saying that the Government were tampering with the settlement of 1836. I cannot acknowledge that for a moment. They are simply enforcing what was understood in 1836, namely, that the landlord should pay the tithe. But my hon. Friend, in order to press on the Government the necessity for making this revision, dealt with the very great changes which have taken place in agriculture in modern times. It was just because the statesmen of 1836 felt that changes were coming on that they sought to make a settlement once for all which need not ever be disturbed. It is well-known, that the tithe owners at that time thought they were making a great surrender, for they naturally expected that agriculture would improve, and that that improvement would lead to an increase in the value of the produce. But Lord John Russell and other statesmen held at that time that any increase in the value of the produce of the soil should be equally divided between the farmer and the landlord. That, indeed, was the effect of the settlement of 1836, and it, therefore, seems to me that the arguments as to changes in the system of agriculture are irrelevant. My hon. Friend asks for an inquiry which is to result in what he calls an equitable revision of tithes. Does he mean lowering the tithe in one place and raising it in another? We all know that the raising of it is impossible,

  619
  and therefore what my hon. Friend means is simply a reduction of the tithe. I maintain that the nation owns the tithe, and that to reduce it would be simply to rob the nation of it, and against that I must most emphatically protest. We have heard a good deal about this being a burden on agriculture. But is it a burden on agriculture to put a charge on the landlord? Of course, if you put a specially unfair charge on the farmer I can understand its being a burden on agriculture. But that is not the case with the landlord. If the landlord's interest in the land does not yield him a legitimate return for his capital then he can make the land over to the public. It is not necessary for him to hold it as a losing concern. Regarding the Amendment of my hon. Friend as a movement towards the reduction of tithe, which I contend would be a robbery of the nation, I shall certainly vote against it.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: I do not think I ever listened to a Debate in which the proposition before the House was so conclusively negatived on its own merits by those who supported it. The Motion is that it should be an Instruction to the Committee that they should have power to insert clauses in this Bill providing for an equitable revision of the tithe in accordance with the altered conditions of agriculture. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that before this Motion was placed on the Paper its supporters had some definite idea as to the way in which they would carry out their views, and were prepared with clauses for that object. But now the hon. Member who placed the Motion on the Paper, and the hon. Member for Saffron Walden who supported it, indicate that what they really want is an inquiry into the matter. I confess I cannot understand why the Member for Saffron Walden, if he desires an inquiry and is not prepared with clauses, did not move the other day the Motion of which he has given notice. The hon. Member's speech to-day was an echo of what he said on Monday. The whole pith of it was a desire for an ideal revision of tithes. The hon. Member for Suffolk has repeated the speech he made last Session and on Monday, and I do not think, therefore,
  620
  it is necessary that I should deal with the arguments of these two hon. Members at any length. It seems to me that the Instruction is a deliberate attempt to kill the Bill. They want to be able to overload the Notice Paper with Amendments upon every conceivable subject relating to tithe, and so to make it impossible to carry the Bill through Committee in any reasonable time. The Bill is smaller than that of last year, and deals solely with an alteration in the liability for tithes and the mode of recovery, and to raise upon it all those questions that have been previously debated would, I think, be an abuse of the forms of the House. Among those questions is, first, that of the mode of taking cornaverages. If any hon. Member desires to alter the present mode, and will submit any practical proposals on the point to the House, they will receive fair consideration. But I am bound to say I cannot see how anyone can ascertain the market value of corn that is never taken to the market at all, or how it would be possible, considering the great difficulty that is now felt in obtaining Returns from dealers in corn, to alter that system for one under which it would be necessary to obtain Returns from a different and a far larger class of men, namely, the farmers, who sell corn in the first instance. Then there is the question of the proportions of the different kinds of grain which form the subject of the corn averages, and of these cases of special apportionment, owing to which it may happen that one field may have a tithe rent-charge of 10s. per acre, and another next to it only 5s., or 2s. 6d. Next comes the question of revision, which in the view of the hon. Members for Suffolk and Saffron Walden means solely a lowering of the tithes. But, as has been pointed out, if equitable revision means anything it must mean not only the lowering the tithe where it is too high, but raising it where it is too low. That would involve the re-opening of the settlement of the Act of 1836, a course which no Commission would recommend, and which no House of Commons would sanction. If hon. Members want the tithe lowered in cases where there has been great depreciation in the value of land, that is precisely what we propose to do in the third clause of the Bill. If hon. Members are dissatisfied with Clause 3 as it stands,

  621
  which provides for revision in certain cases, let them move Amendments to carry out their wishes, and their proposals will be considered. The Government look on that matter as one to be settled by the House on its merits, though when the time comes I shall be able to defend the proposals of the Government. We are asked if it would be possible to carry out the provisions of the third clause in relief of the tithe payer without application to the County Court. Of course it would be. The tithe payer can show his assessment to the Income Tax, and if that shows that the tithe is more than two-thirds of the value of the land, no tithe owner would be such a fool as to appeal to the County Court. I do not suppose that in nine cases out of ten there would be any necessity to appeal to the County Court at all. The pith of the Debate has been in the demand for an inquiry. What hon. members seem to desire is that there should be a sort of general and roving inquiry into all the questions I have referred to, including, of course, the subject of the equitable revision of tithes, but I must say at once that the Government are not prepared to assent to such an inquiry. They do not believe that an inquiry into the equitable revision of tithes would lead to any practical result. They believe that the depreciation of agriculture which they deplore ought to be met by temporary relief in the way proposed by the provisions of this Bill. But although the Government propose strictly to confine the inquiry by a Royal Commission to the subject of redemption, yet I entirely agree with what was stated by the hon. Member for Maldon, that an inquiry into the question of redemption must also have regard to the special circumstances of the tithe rent-charge in each particular case. Last Session we proposed to abolish the existing law with regard to redemption, and to enact that the Board of Agriculture should, in certain cases, with the consent of both parties, fix the price at which the tithe rent-charge should be redeemed, and that in fixing that price they should have regard to certain considerations of much the same kind as those taken into account by the Commissioners who carried out the Act for the redemption of extraordinary tithe rent-charge. One of those considerations was
  622
  any such increase or decrease in the proportion between the annual value of the tithe rent-charge and the annual value of the lands out of which it issues as might affect the security of the rent-charge: and this is a point which, in my opinion, must necessarily come before any Commission dealing with the subject of Redemption. I will not detain the House any longer, and will only further express the hope that the House will reject, by a decisive majority, the Instruction, which is meaningless, because its promoters could not carry it out, and which can only be intended to defeat the Bill.
  (10.42.) The House divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 203.—(Div. List, No. 9.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1,
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I would ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he cannot tell the House precisely when the consideration of the Bill in Committee will be resumed, or give an assurance, at any rate, that the Government will proceed with the Bill and pass it into law with all dispatch.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Message from Lord Salisbury!
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: We will proceed with the Bill on Thursday, January 22.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday, 22nd January.

  TRANSFER OF RAILWAYS (IRELAND BILL.—(No. 113.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17.
  MR. STOREY: I listened with a great deal of patience to the different clauses being read from the Chair, and made no objection to them, because I know they are formal, but Clause 17 stands in an entirely different position, and I am surprised that it should be passed over in silence by the Minister in charge of the Bill. The object of the Bill is to transfer the undertaking of certain Tramway Companies to existing Railway Companies. Clause 17 is, however, of a different character. I will read the clause:—

  623
  "Where the Treasury in pursuance of the Light Railways (Ireland) Act, 1889, have agreed with the promoters of any light railway that the undertaking of the promoters shall be aided by a capital sum out of public money, the sections of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, with respect to the entry upon lands by the promoters of the undertaking shall apply to the land which the promoters are authorised to take, and the Treasury, on the request of the promoters, shall cause to be paid into the Bank, out of such capital sum, any sum required to be deposited in the Bank for the purpose of those sections, and where the sum claimed, or if no sum is claimed, the total value of every estate and interest in the land does not exceed one hundred pounds, the amount to be deposited may be determined by two justices."
  This clause relates to an entirely different set of light railways to that with which the rest of the Bill deals. The rest of the Bill deals with existing undertakings, the construction of none of which has been wholly provided by public money—given not lent. ["No, no!"] We shall see that as the discussion proceeds. There is not a single undertaking that I know of where the whole of the money is provided for out of public money, with the single exception of a railway to be made under the "Light Railways Act" of 1889, and although it may be desirable to transfer the powers of existing promoters under the old arrangements, yet it cannot be desirable that the House should without full explanation consent to a clause such as this. The clause deals with lines the cost of which is borne by the Public Exchequer—a free gift. We know that in a large number of cases the barony provides nothing, the county provides nothing, the ratepayers nothing, and the promoters nothing, the Railway Company nothing—the whole of the money is to be given. ["No, no!"] I know as a matter of fact it is so. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Tyrone can give us an explanation. It was said that it was impossible to make the railway as a paying speculation, and, therefore, the public were asked to give the whole of the cost. ["No, no!"] I take the most glaring instance—this Galway and Clifden Railway. This is a railway that includes 76 miles of line, and I am not incorrect in saying that the total cost is something like £440,000, and every penny of that is coming out of the Public Exchequer as a free gift. There was an idea of a small sum being guaranteed, but even that has been abandoned; and the fact
  624
  stands that the railway is to be made by public money alone. I say it is improper to interpolate in a Bill dealing with a different class of cases a clause having this effect, that it enlarges the power already given by the Act of 1889 and Act passed last August, and makes further arrangements under which the money to be paid for the land on which the railway shall be constructed shall be provided by the Public Exchequer. I am going to contest the clause by way of an Amendment, that if the public provide the cost of construction the landlords through whose land the railway runs should give the land for nothing, or, at the outside, at something like 16 years' purchase of the net agricultural value of the land. In order that I may have time and opportunity, as we ought to have in such a matter, to put Amendments in form, I beg to move that you, Sir, do now report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed' "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Storey.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I am very sorry that the hon. Member before making the statement he has made should not have taken some pains to inform himself, as he might easily have done, of the facts of the case by reading the clause to which he takes exception. The hon. Member states that the clause relates to an entirely different class of railways to those in other parts of the Bill. Now, if he will read the clause he will find that all it does is really to give power to get earlier possession of the land necessary to be acquired for the railway. It is merely a machinery clause. The hon. Member shakes his head, but if he will only read the clause he will find I am correct. I think, as a rule, we may anticipate that there will not be much difficulty in getting possession of the land for the railway. The hon. Member has spoken as if the difficulty was in dealing with the landlords interest, but the difficulty is not with the landlord, but the occupier. All the clause does is to give us power, on payment into the bank of the sum of money assessed by a valuer to be appointed, to take possession of the land at once. It deprives the

  625
  occupier of none of his rights, it leaves him full power to traverse the valuation, but what it is intended to do, and what I hope it will do, is to facilitate matters in the case of an occupier who might stick out for exobitant terms, and provide that the construction of the line shall not he delayed until all processes are gone through. That is all the clause does, and really the question the hon. Member has raised, drawing a distinction between promoters and others, has nothing to do with the clause. The clause applies to existing Railway Companies as to promoters of a line under the Act. Of course, there are promoters on existing Railway Companies and other bodies. When the time comes to discuss this freely, I shall be prepared to defend the arrangements made as regards all the railways, feeling satisfied that the judgment of the House will approve them.
  (11.13.) Question put, and negatived. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 17 stand part of the Bill."
  DR. CLARK: I take it that the explanation is that when the Treasury has agreed with the promoters to find all the money, this clause permits them to find the money to pay for land. My hon. Friend wants to provide a limitation that they shall not provide 30 years' purchase. There ought to be some limitation in the price to be paid for the land, the tenant's right, and the landlord's right. It is an important point, and demands discussion on amendment now or on Report.
  MR. JACKSON: So far as the Treasury is concerned, there cannot be an exorbitant price paid for the land. There is no limitation, because the amount agreed upon between the Treasury and the promoters is in itself a limited sum, and, therefore, whether the promoters pay a high rate or a low rate for the land is immaterial to the Treasury.
  MR. STOREY: That is a fair statement in regard to all the arrangements already made. Take the railway to which I have referred. The Treasury have agreed upon a sum, and it is clear that is the whole sum that the Railway Company will get, and if they pay too large a sum for the land it is clear there will be a loss to the promoters. But
  626
  the clause not only relates to agreements already made, it may relate to agreements yet to be made, and a limitation will enable the Treasury to make better bargains in the future. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that he has made a shocking bargain with this Galway line, and has spent far more public money than he had need. This was partly due to the absurd provisions in the Light Railways Bill, the Bill we tried to kill. But for those provisions independent promoters might have made the line. But by the provisions of their Bill the Government were thrown back on the Railway Company, and the company, taking advantage of the position, exacted a large sum. A limitation would strengthen the Government in making a better bargain next time, and, therefore, I move this limitation to the clause—
  "Such sum shall not exceed 16 years' purchase of the net agricultural value of the land."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The question has been put that the clause stand part of the Bill, and it is too late to move an Amendment to the clause. Moreover, such an Amendment as is proposed would not be relevant to the clause.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I think the hon. Member has created some confusion in reference to the line in question by lumping the property together. It is true the Berridge property is worth very little—
  THE CHAIRMAN: This discussion is entirely wide of the clause.
  (11.20.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 224; Noes 22.—(Div. List, No. 10.)
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I wish to make an appeal to the House to read this Bill a third time. It is exceedingly important that the provisions of this measure should become law without any possible delay. The House is aware that the present Sittings may be limited. The Bill hag to go to another place, and it will therefore be very desirable indeed that we should read it a third time to-night.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  MR. STOREY: I thought it necessary to make the protest I did make

  627
  against one clause of the Bill, but, personally, I have no objection to the Third Reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time and passed.

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No.114)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Objection has been taken on the other side of the House to proceeding with this Bill in the course of the present Sittings. I had hoped there would not have been this objection, but, of course, I am bound by the engagement I entered into with the House that only certain measures should be proceeded with at the present time, and, therefore, if the objection made by certain Members from Scotland is persevered in I must postpone the further consideration of the measure until after Christmas. I regret very much that I am obliged to do so. I had hoped this was a measure that would have been received with favour in all parts of the House, or, at least, that it would have been accepted by the House, and that any objections that might be made to its provisions would have been dealt with by the House. But, if as I understand, hon. Gentlemen persevere with their objections, I have no alternative but to postpone the further consideration of the measure.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I cannot admit the justice of all the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. These Sittings were held under a pledge that only certain measures should be proceeded with, and I think we are justified in holding the Government to that pledge. We do not enter into the question of the desirability or non-desirability of the present measure. We only desire to hold the Government to the pledge they gave.
  DR. CLARK: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this is one of the most revolutionary Bills ever introduced into this House? It takes away from the House powers which it has always had until now. This is the second time such a thing has been done. On the first occasion the hearing of Parliamentary Election Petitions was handed over to the Judges. I certainly object to the powers of the
  628
  House with regard to Railway Bills being transferred to Commissioners or Boards. We do not want any more Commissioners or Boards in Scotland, as we are overdone with them already.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 22nd January.

SOLICITORS' MAGISTRACY BILL. (No. 80.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  (11.35.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Mr. Maclure.)
  MR. CONYBEARE: I understood when I was last in the House that the Government were not going to allow any private Members Bills to be taken before Christmas.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I would, with the permission of the House, appeal to my hon. Friend to postpone the consideration of this Bill on the ground which has just been stated to the House. It is undoubtedly a fact that I appealed to the House to consider only the Government measures, and that I stated what those measures were; I would appeal to my hon. Friend not to press the consideration of his measure.
  MR. MACLURE: I cannot refuse to obey the orders of my chief, and I shall be happy to postpone the measure till the 22nd January, when I believe it will be unanimously adopted.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday, 22nd January.

DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 66.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  (11.37.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I would appeal to the hon. Member on the ground I have already stated not to press this Bill.
  MR. M. HEALY: This is a Bill which has been agreed to by the Government. It consists, in fact, of a clause taken from one of the Drainage Bills of the Government last year. Seeing that distress in Ireland is imminent, I trust the Government will allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is accurate in saying the Bill was accepted by the Government last Session, and will be in proper time accepted by the Government this Session. This is not, however, the time for pressing it.
  MR. M. HEALY: Of course it is useless to attempt to fight the many legions of the Government.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday, 22nd January.

POLLEN FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.(No. 91.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. MACARTNEY: My Bill stands in a different position. I deferred to the Government the other night when I was asked to refrain from passing it through Committee. There is no objection to it in the House.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I must appeal to my hon. Friend on the grounds I have already stated not to press the Bill. The Government support the measure, but they cannot consent to its being taken to-night.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I would appeal to the Government to give this Bill their consideration. Unless it is passed, the fish in Lough Neagh will suffer great injury.
  Committee deferred till Thursday, 22nd January.

MOTIONS.

  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Milvain, Bill to amend and consolidate the Law relating to Corporal Punishment, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Milvain, Sir Matthew White Ridley, Sir George Russell, and Mr. Wharton.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 149.]

  SLANDER OF WOMEN BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Milvain, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Slander of Women, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Milvain, Mr. Shiress Will, Mr. Gully, Mr. Robert Reid, and Mr. Pickersgill.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 150.]

  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (IRELAND) RAINEY SCHOOL, MAGHERAFELT.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am exceedingly sorry
  630
  to detain the House for a very few minutes on a question affecting one of the schemes of the Endowed Schools Commissioners in Ireland. I hope the Debate will be a very short one, and as I understand that there will be a practical consensus of opinion in my favour, so far as the Irish Members are concerned, and even as far as the Ulster Members on the Government side of the House are concerned, I hope the Government will see their way to make the small concession asked for by my resolution. I do not make a claim on behalf of any locality in Ireland. I make it on behalf of the entire Presbyterian community, represented by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, numbering at least half a million of people. They ask not for any favour, but for simple justice, and for the restitution of what is their own. The facts are exceedingly simple. One Hugh Rainey died, I think, in the year 1708. By his will he left a freehold estate of the value of £400 per annum. Some of that went to his representatives, and the residue he devised for a school for boys in the town of Magherafelt, County Londonderry. The school was established, and is in existence now, but it has a very peculiar history. That Hugh Rainey was a Presbyterian is beyond all manner of doubt. The Endowed Schools Commissioners admit that, at least they do not deny it, but the simple matter of fact is that Mr. Hugh Rainey was a ruling elder in the Presbyterian, congregation at Castledawson. The question arises, what kind of a school did he intend to set up under his will, and under what kind of auspices did he intend it to be conducted? I think I shall prove that beyond all possibility of dispute out of the scheme sanctioned by the Commissioners. In his will, Hugh Rainey, after providing for the setting up of a school, directed that two old and good men, known Christians, such as feared God, and were qualified to read the Scriptures, sing Psalms, and instruct boys, should be appointed and maintained, and that if any such old men should be found defective or unable to perform such duties, he should be replaced by a person selected by the Presbytery of Ulster. I have not only proved that Hugh Rainey was a Presbyterian, but that he intended this school to be conducted

  631
  under Presbyterian auspices. The startling part of the matter comes in now. In the year 1713, five or six years after the old men's death, an Act of Parliament was passed, the second of George II., Chapter 2, which vested this Presbyterian endowment of £177 a year not in the Synod of Ulster, but in His Grace the Archbishop of Armagh. and Primate of all Ireland. From that day the Episcopalian Church of Ireland has been in possession of this purely Presbyterian endowment, and at the present moment the Rector of Magherafelt, and not the Presbyterian minister, is in charge of the school. In that position it came before the Endowed Schools Commissioners who inquired into and reported upon it. The Commissioners were brought face to face with the facts I hare stated. They could not agree, and the scheme as it is framed is not the work of the entire Commission, it is the work of the two Judicial Commissioners, Lord Justice Fitzgibbon and the late Lord Justice Naish. Those two distinguished lawyers said that if Rainey's endowment was alone to be dealt with and the intentions of the founder were to be regarded they would have considered it their duty to place the institution under Presbyterian management. That gave away the whole case, for it was a distinct admission that this was a Presbyterian endowment. They added, however, that £177 per annum was found not to be sufficient for the maintenance of the school, and that the Salters Company, on whose land the school was built, intervened and gave an additional sum of £66 per annum in aid of the original endowment. Granting that this complicates the matter a little, I say the Presbyterians are in an enormous majority in County Derry, and they are fairly entitled to their share of the Salters' endowment. Will the House believe that in framing the scheme the two Committees actually so arranged the Board of Governors that the Episcopalians were given the majority of the Board, and therefore the whole control of the school? The Primate of all Ireland was made Chairman of the Board, and practically the entire control of the school was given to the Episcopalians. That is substantially what I have to bring before the House. The Presbyterian Church do not object to this being a mixed school. They do not object
  632
  to the Episcopalians being represented on the Board of Governors— far from it. Their claim is simply this, that as the endowment was originally a Presbyterian one, and as the small addition to the endowment by the Salters Company cannot affect the real issue, the Presbyterians have an undoubted right, not to the second place on the Board of Governors, bat to the first place. The Chief Secretary has disappeared, but I think I know what the Attorney General for Ireland is going to say. I don't know whether he is going to speak as the representative of the Government or of Trinity College, but I know what his case will be. The doctrine of user commends itself to all legal minds, and I suppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman's case will be that, inasmuch as his Grace the Archbishop of Armagh, and Primate of all Ireland, grabbed this endowment in 1713– [Cries of "Grabbed?"] I have no other word for it, and I refuse to withdraw it unless Mr. Deputy Speaker calls on me to do so. I say it with no ill-will to the Episcopalian Church in Ireland. My constituents are largely Episcopalian; but I say this annual endowment passed unjustly and unfairly into the hands of the then Established Church of Ireland. I do not hink that in this House the legal doctrine of user should be allowed to ride over the moral claim of the Presbyterians to this endowment. I entreat Conservative Members not to sanction a proceeding of this kind. I may be told that the matter was argued before the Privy Council, and that the Privy Council decided against us. What is the Privy Council? The Presbyterian Church has only one representative on the Privy Council of Ireland. There is room found on that Council for every class of Episcopalians and Roman Catholics, but to get a Presbyterian merchant on it is almost impossible. I beg this House to undo the work that has been done, and to establish justice in this small matter in the province of Ulster. I move the Motion standing in my name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from that part of the Scheme of the Educational Endowment (Ireland) Commissioners for the administration of the endowment in the town of Magherafelt, known as the Rainey School, in so far as the proposed com

  633
  position of the Board of Governors is concerned."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: In the short statement I have to make to the House, I think I can show that the arrangement come to by the Charitable Endowment Commissioners, and confirmed by the Privy Council, ought to satisfy the House, and that the decision which was come to was a fair and reasonable one. No doubt the original foundation of the school was Presbyterian. In the time of George II. an Act of Parliament was passed dealing with the question, and from that time to the present day the school has ceased to be a Presbyterian school, and has become, rightly or wrongly, an Episcopalian one. It is not necessary to consider whether it had rightly become so. The Education Commissioners and the Privy Council have recognised the right of the Presbyterians in this matter, and they have made that full restitution which ought to be made in the circumstances of the case. After the passing of that Act the school-house was permitted by the managers to fall into decay, the rent-charge had become insufficient, and it became unsuitable for the reception of pupils. In 1862 the Salters' Company entered into an arrangement for the building of the existing school-house on the terms that the scheme should be settled by the Court of Chancery. In accordance with that arrangement, in 1863, the then Lord Chancellor of Ireland settled a scheme under which the entire management of the charity devolved upon the Archbishop of Armagh, and the local management of the school was committed to the Rector of Magherafelt. The arrangement was arrived at under judicial sanction in 1863, and it was with this state of facts that the Charity Commissioners had to deal. They said, in effect, "We will not consider that this is an exclusively Episcopalian endowment, as doubtless it has been for more than a century; but we will have a fair regard for the original foundation and the population of the district, and will equally divide the Governing Board between the Presbyterians and the Church of Ireland." Now, the Governing Body to which my hon. Friend objects, as settled by the Commissioners, consists of four ex-officio Governors, who are the Archbishop of
  634
  Armagh (Dr. Knox), the Moderator of the General Assembly, the Episcopal Minister who is the Incumbent of the Parish of Magherafelt, and the officiating Minister of the Presbyterian congregation of Magherafelt. Can anything possibly be fairer than that?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: What about the Chairmanship of the Board?
  MR. MADDEN: I am coming to that matter in due course. As to the other half of the Board, the representative Governors are also equally divided.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I quite admit that the Board is fairly divided; but after having been so divided it is provided by the scheme that the Primate of Ireland shall be the Chairman for life, and that position gives him the casting vote, whereby the Episcopalians are practically invested with the entire government of the school.
  MR. MADDEN: It is provided that so long as the Most Reverend Dr. Knox shall hold the office of Archbishop of Armagh he shall continue to be Chairman. The sole point that appears to be raised by my hon. Friend appears to be that the status of the Archbishop is to be preserved during his life. That seems to be the hon. Gentleman's only objection. I submit that in fairness no better course could have been taken. The Archbishop of Armagh has been the Chairman of the Governing Body for more than a century, and it does not seem unreasonable that the present Archbishop should continue in that position during the remainder of his life. The endowment is one which no doubt was originally a Presbyterian endowment, but since its foundation it has been very largely added to, and, in fact, almost doubled from other sources. The Commissioners, finding themselves in this position, divide the management between the two bodies equally, retaining the present chairman for life. It would, in my opinion, have been an act of injustice to have taken away from the Archbishop the position he and his predecessors nave so long held. After the present Archbishop the person holding that position instead of being the head will merely become one of the Governing Body. I appeal to the House not to assent to the Motion of my hon. Friend. The case is one that has been thoroughly threshed out, and in the fullest detail, by the able Counsel who represented

  635
  the Presbyterian Body before the Commissioners, while previous to that the whole matter had received the careful attention of the Commissioners of Charitable Endowments. The Report was signed by two eminent Judges, the late Lord Justice Naish, one of the fairest-minded men who ever sat on the Irish Bench, and Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, who is one of the ablest and most distinguished Judges in Ireland. They fully examined the case, and the result is that we have before us what I trust the House will regard as a fair decision, equally apportioning the government of the school between the representatives of the Church of Ireland and Presbyterian Church. Under all the circumstances, I appeal to the House not to take upon itself the responsibility of reversing a decision which has been come to after so much argument and consideration. I may add that this is the only case in which the decisions of the Irish Commissioners have been questioned in this House. The conclusions arrived at by the Commissioners are such as have hitherto commanded the general confidence of the country. The matter now under consideration is one that has been well threshed out and considered, and, submitting that the decision arrived at is one that is fair and just to the interests concerned, I venture to hope that the House will refuse its assent to the Motion of my hon. Friend.
  MR. DICKSON: I wish to remind the House that this endowment was originally a Presbyterian endowment, and that we Presbyterians, in asking that it should be restored to our control, are merely asking for our own. The Attorney General for Ireland has referred to the Privy Council. I am afraid I have not so high an opinion of the decisions of the Privy Council as the right hon. Gentleman seems to entertain. A case in point occurred in connection with the Royal School of Dungannon. The Privy Council, under the dictation of the Archbishop of Armagh, altered the scheme in connection with the Dungannon School, and deprived us of our position as the controlling authority on the Board of Governors. I gave notice that I would dispute their action when the scheme came before the House for confirmation. What
  636
  was the result? Why, when the Privy Council knew that I should have 85 Irish Members to support me in the action I had intended to take, they quietly altered their decision and reverted to the original scheme. Therefore, unlike the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, I do not regard the decisions, of the Privy Council as resembling the laws of the Medes and Persians. I say that in this case also we are entitled to the control of the school. We wish the school to be a mixed school. We are anxious to see both Presbyterians and Episcopalians fairly represented on the Board of Government, and, therefore, we do not want the Archbishop of Armagh to have the controlling power over the decisions of the Board. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) has lightly described what is going on as simply grabbing at the Presbyterian endowments; at least three-fourths of the endowments originally left to Presbyterians have been grabbed in the same way by the Episcopalians, and had we Presbyterians received fair play our position in connection with the schools in the Province of Ulster would have been very different from what it is. I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will fairly consider this matter, and join the hon. Member for South Tyrone and myself in endeavouring to do an act of justice to the Presbyterians of Ulster by giving them the control of their own property.
  COLONEL WARING: I rise for the purpose of supporting the Motion of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and in doing so I cannot but express a certain amount of regret at the vehemence with which this Motion has been not only supported, but has been met by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. I think that in a matter of this kind it is very undesirable to import vehemence of tone or language, or in any way to give to the question at issue a personal character. There are two grounds upon which I desire to support this Motion. I have two grounds for supporting the Motion—sentimental and practical. As an Irishman, I have a right to take the sentimental one first. I am a lineal descendant of Hugh Rainey, and were he here—and he would probably

  637
  ably be more effective in the flesh than in the spirit—he would support the proposition now before the House. On the practical ground of the unity of Protestantism, I support the proposition. In the year 1708 unfortunate differences—now, happily, dead and gone—divided us; and I hope, now that unity has been restored, these small causes of friction will not be allowed to nterfere with it. The hon. Member who moves this Resolution does not belong to the section of the Church interested in the matter any more than I do. I support the Motion simply because I hope that the Presbyterians would support me if I made a claim to an endowment that was clearly Episcopalian. I hope the House will allow the matter to be referred back to the Commission for re-consideration.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: Sir, how is it the Archbishop of Armagh is imported into the consideration of this endowment at all? The fact of the matter is, it is due to the Penal Laws of the 18th century, under which Presbyterians could not hold property; therefore, they were obliged to put their property in trust, and who better than the head of the Episcopalian Church? No doubt that was the feeling at the time of which I speak, and I am sorry that feeling has not continued. I think if we revert to the position which existed at the time when the Archbishop was asked to take the property in trust we shall be doing the right thing. Knowing as I do the feeling of not only Presbyterians, but members of other denominations and Episcopalians, I trust the House will decide in favour of the Motion of my hon. Friend, and reverse the decision of the Irish Court.
  MR. RENTOUL: The argument of the Attorney General for Ireland rests chiefly on the decision of the Privy Council. I wish to give two or three reasons why Parliament should interfere. This may be considered a trivial and trumpery matter, so far as concerns the money involved, but it is a question in which half a million of the Presbyterians of Ireland take the deepest interest. The decision of this House will not be a trumpery matter. The Rector of the parish, the very man who is at the bottom of this whole matter, appeared
  638
  before the Commissioners, and he was asked this question—
  "Do you think that a substitution of the reference of the Synod to Ulster by placing the management in the hands of the Archbishop was right?"
  The Rector did not dare to answer that it was right. He said—
  "That was done by Parliament 100 yeara ago, and I think it would be very indecorous of me to express an opinion in the face of that."
  What did Parliament do 100 years ago? It appointed by a Private Act the Archbishop of Armagh as receiver of the money, and decreed, further, that he should carry out the trusts of the will. In spirit the Archbishop has absolutely ignored the trusts of the will from that day to this, the trust being that the teachers should be sought from the Presbyterians of Ulster. Again, I think the House should interfere, because the school has been a complete failure. The Attorney General said that the Salters' Company found the school in ruins. It is absolutely at the present moment, not physically, but mentally in ruins. Out of 320 pupils that have been in the school since intermediate education began in Ireland, only 29 have passed. Again, the House should interfere in behalf of the Presbyterians, because the Episcopalians, who claim to have a majority in the management of this school, are the minority of the inhabitants of the parish. The Rector, in reply to the Commissioners, said the Episcopalians were a third of the population of the parish, but these are the figures: Presbyterians, 2,098; Roman Catholics, 1,730; Episcopalians, 1,462. The Presbyterians are as seven to five, and with that proportion of representation will we be content? A strong argument against us is that of user. But that argument cannot apply, because it is founded on a breach of the trusts of the will. If the user can apply under these circumstances, it will be a new doctrine to me. Besides, the Privy Council have completely destroyed the argument of user in favour of complete control by the Episcopalians by giving representation to the Presbyterians. The Attorney General said that great weight should be given to the views of the Salters' Company, because they had come to the aid of the school. But here is an extract from the letter of their

  639
  Secretary, Mr. Cartwright, of the 14th December,1886—
  "The Presbyterian body under the influence of a local Presbyterian minister made a claim to the endowment under Rainey's will, against which I considered that the Church had certainly a perferential claim. The wise liberality of your Grace's predecessor enabled me many years ago to throw open the advantages of the education afforded by the school to children of all religious denominations."
  I do not wish to make this a matter personal to the Presbyterians, nor do I wish to say anything against the Episcopalians. I simply state the facts, leaving the House to decide on which side justice lies.
  MR. MADDEN: I understand that the result of the Motion being agreed to would be simply to refer the matter back to the Commissioners. I have submitted to the House the grounds on which the Privy Council came to a decision and the reasons why I consider that decision to be a fair one; but as it appears there is a general wish that the decision should be reviewed, I do not think I can any longer oppose the Motion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Sir, I only wish to take note of this fact,

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) ACTS (DEFAULT OF INSTALMENTS).

  Return "of Particulars respecting Holdings in Ireland put up for sale by the Land Commission in consequence of failure in payment of instalments of purchase money, in the following form:—

  Name of defaulting purchaser.

  County and parish in which holding is situate.

  Date of purchase.

  Area of holding.

  Valuation.

  Purchase money.

  Amount of Instalments paid.

  Amount of instalments in default.

  Date of sale for default.

  —(Mr. John Ellis.)

  LOCAL BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. M'Cartan, Bill to amend the Law relating to local Courts of Bankruptcy in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'Cartan, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Macartney, Mr. Maurice Healy, and Mr. Knox.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 151.]
  that on a Motion brought forward by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and supported by the Unionists generally, the Member for South Derry, who ought to have so much influence with the Government, has thought it convenient to skedaddle, and to leave the question of the rights of Presbyterians on this matter in Derry entirely derelict. [Laughter.] I am very glad the Government have seen their way to accept the suggestion, and that the Presbyterians, having fought this matter for a century, have now a prospect of getting justice.
  MR. MADDEN: I wish to correct a mistake into which the hon. and learned Gentleman has fallen. He appears to think I spoke on the part of the Government in this Debate. I did not.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, that a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from that part of the Scheme of the Educational Endowment (Ireland) Commissioners for the administration of the endowment in the town of Magherafelt, known as the Rainey School, in so far as the proposed composition of the Board of Governors is concerned.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors.

  LAND LAW (WALES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Byrn Roberts, Bill to amend the Law relating to the tenure of Land in Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bryn Roberts, Mr. Bowen Rowlands, Mr. John Roberts, Mr. Warmington, Mr. Arthur Williams, and Mr. Lloyd-George.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 152.]
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.