Commons Sitting of 8 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.

NEW WRIT.
For Kilkenny County (Northern Division), v. Edward Mulhallen Marum, esquire, deceased.
QUESTIONS.

  THE TIPPERARY PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. J. M'CARTHY:I beg to give notice that as soon as possible after the re-assembling of the House next year I shall call attention to the circumstances connected with the prosecution of Mr. Dillon and Mr. W. O'Brien, and move a Resolution.
  At a subsequent stage,
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the notice given by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. J. M'Carthy) that he will take the earliest opportunity to review the proceedings at New Tipperary, he will lay upon the Table the Judgment given by Baron Palles in the case of Mr. O'Brien Dalton?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:Yes, Sir; if there is, as I have reason to believe that there is, an authentic copy of that Judgment in existence, I shall be happy to lay it upon the Table of the House.

  THE NAVAL RESERVE.
  DR. R. M'DONALD:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Chief Officer in charge of the Naval Reserve men in Stornoway employs these men in rowing visitors to Stornoway Castle round the harbour there, preparing and decorating their drill shed for over a week for a friend's marriage, and using rockets the property of the Admiralty to celebrate the same, and, generally speaking, often requisitions the labours of the Reserve men for his own private purposes in his house and elsewhere; and whether the employment by an officer of Naval Reserve men for private purposes is in accordance with the regulations of the Admiralty?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,:I have called for a Report on the allegations made by the hon. Gentleman from which it appears that the Chief Officer in charge of Naval Reserve men at Stornoway is not in the habit, as suggested, of employing these men to row visitors to Stornoway Castle round the harbour. It is true that one lady who was staying at the Castle was on
  692
  several occasions rowed by Coastguard men at a time when they had no duty to perform. As regards the drill shed, it was lent for one evening for a private entertainment, and a few flags and evergreens were put up by the Coastguard during the evening. Steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence of this irregularity. The rockets used on the occasion in question were private property. There is no foundation for the suggestion that the Chief Officer employs the Naval Reserve men for private purposes.

  THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.
  MR. LENG:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, under "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854," if a seaman has been seriously injured in the execution of his duty on board his ship, the master of the vessel may land him at a distant foreign port, the owners can immediately stop the wife's half-pay, and their obligation to pay the disabled seaman's wages ceases from the date he is put on shore; whether, if a vessel is lost at sea and all hands perish, the widows and children, or other representatives of the crew, are only paid wages up to the supposed time of the loss of the ship, although the owners, who have insured their freight, recover the whole sum as if the voyage had been completed; and whether, if such cases can and do frequently occur under the present state of the law, he will propose Amendments on the Merchant Shipping Act containing more humane and equitable provisions with reference to the payment of seamen's wages?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,:The answer to the first question is "Yes;" but it should be added that, if any seaman receives any hurt or injury in the service of the ship to which he belongs, the expense of providing the necessary surgical and medical advice, with attendance and medicines, and of his subsistence until he is cured, or dies, or is brought back to some port in the United Kingdom, if shipped in the United Kingdom, or if shipped in some British Possession to some port in such Possession, and of his conveyance to such port, and the expense (if any) of his burial, shall be defrayed by the owner of such ship, without any deduction on that account

  693
  from the wages of such seaman. The answer to the second question is also "Yes;" the wages do not accrue after the termination of the service through wreck— see Section 185of "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854." The insurance of freight is not in any way regulated by this provision. The extension of the Employers' Liability to Seamen contemplated by the Bill of last Session would, of course, provide for further compensation from owners to men injured in their service.

  SCOTCH CORN MILLS.
  DR. R. M'DONALD:I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he will be good enough to say what is the state of the Common Law in Scotland in reference to the provision and up-keep of corn mills by the landlords in country districts; and whether, when such mills have been in existence from time immemorial, and have been accidentally destroyed by fire or otherwise, it is incumbent on the landlords to have them restored for the use of the occupiers of the soil?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,:I am sure the hon. Gentleman intends the first part of his question to be introductory to the second, and does not desire me to inflict on the House any general exposition of the law. In the ordinary case, and apart from special conditions or speculations, I am not aware of any Common Law obligation on the proprietors of corn mills which have been accidentally destroyed by fire or otherwise to have them restored.

  CENTRAL POST OFFICE ACCOMMODATION.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN - POWELL:I had intended to ask the Postmaster General if he can explain why it is that in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, and other large towns, adequate and extensive buildings have been erected at the public expense for Central Post Office accommodation, but that in Liverpool, the second largest commercial city in England, the Central Post Office has been Lodged, in buildings designed and erected to serve as a Custom House; and whether, with a view to providing adequate
  694
  accommodation for the large postal business necessarily transacted in Liverpool, and securing better sanitary conditions for the numerous employés, any further steps have been taken towards providing Liverpool with adequate Central Post Office buildings, but I beg to defer the question?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr RAIKES,:New head post offices have been erected within the last few years at Manchester, Birmingham, and other towns where the exigencies of the Public Service have showed conclusively that nothing less would suffice. But it is not certain that such is the case at Liverpool, where large expenditure has been incurred for the purpose of decentralising the post office business. The building in which the business of the Head Post Office has been conducted for many years was not designed solely for a Custom House, and there is room to conceive that the allegations of insalubrity may be exaggerated; but additional accommodation is admittedly required, and by my directions a special inquiry is now being made into the whole subject.

  BIBLE CLASSES.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH:I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Post Office regulations permit of outsiders holding Bible classes, prayer and temperance meetings, and such like, within those rooms appropriated for dining rooms or reading rooms in the larger post offices?
  MR. RAIKES:There are no Post Office Regulations on the subject to which the hon. Member calls attention. The practice has been to allow officers of the Department desiring such facilities the use of rooms which could conveniently be employed for any objects of a beneficial character in which the staff might happen to be interested. The participation in such meetings of persons not officially connected with the Service is invariably conditional upon the consent of the proper authorities, who also exercise due care that there is no interference with the right use and enjoyment of the rooms by other members of the staff.

  TELEPHONES.
  DR. CAMERON:I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the fact that the patent for the telephone in use by the company which possesses a practical monopoly of telephonic communication in Great Britain has now expired, and in view of the numerous complaints on the part of the public as to high rates and faulty service resulting from that monopoly, he will, with as little delay as possible, make known his decision as to applications for licences submitted to the Post Office by proposed competitors desiring to introduce loud speaking and long distance telephones, and other forms of improved instruments?
  MR. RAIKES:In reply to the hon. Member I have to say that I trust that I may be able at an early date to announce the decision of the Government with regard to licences for Telephone Exchanges. It should be borne in mind that the patents for the more important telephones have not expired and do not expire until July in next year.

  RATE OF EXCHANGE IN INDIA.
  MR. HOYLE:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if he will state what was the estimated rate of exchange made by the Finance Minister for India for the year 1890–91; what has been the lowest rate, and what the highest rate realised during the current year; and what is the total amount realised in excess of the estimate in tens of rupees and in pounds sterling, up to the present time?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,:The estimated rate of exchange for 1890–91 was 16·552 pence per rupee. The lowest rate realised daring the year has been 17 1–16d.; the highest 20 15–16d. The excess over the estimate is £995,063.

  MILITARY STORES.
  MR. BRADLAUGH:I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in reference to an answer which was given by the Under Secretary for India on Friday, and the undertaking which he gave on the 22nd of July last, whether he can now state that anything
  696
  has been done in pursuance of that undertaking?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,:The hon. Gentleman is fully entitled to ask this question. The Government have taken steps to bring about a settlement, and they have every reason to believe that a conclusion will be arrived at before the re-assembling of Parliament.

  THE DISCHARGED POSTMEN.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON:I beg to ask the Postmaster General when and by whom, the inquiries were made into the characters of the 57 discharged postmen who had been in the Service from three to 30 years; and whether their characters were found to be satisfactory in every respect; and, if so, when does he intend to reinstate them, considering they have been out of employment since last June?
  MR. RAIKES:The inquiries were made by my self in those quarters in which alone authentic information could be obtained. Many of the dismissed postmen bore good characters; but, having regard to the extreme gravity of their offence—an offence as grave as any that a public servant can commit—and the imperative necessity of discouraging any similar misconduct in future, I regret that I do not feel justified in holding out any hope that they can again be employed by the Department. If the hon. Member will refer to the answer given by me to him on July 14th last, he will see that I then intimated that considerations of the public interest must, govern my decision in these cases.
  MR. W. ISAACSON:Owing to the very unsatisfactory answer I have received from the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the subject on the Post Office Estimate.

  BLAENLLECHA POST OFFICE.
  MR. ALFRED THOMAS:I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, from the 28th of October last, no Post Office Orders or Postal Orders have been issued, and that the Savings Bank has been closed since that date at the Blaenllecha Post

  697
  Office, to the serious inconvenience of the inhabitants of that populous district?
  MR. RAIKES:The re-opening of the Blaenllecha Post Office will take place as soon as a suitable person for the appointment of sub-Postmaster can be selected and instructed in the duties of the office. I hope to be able to effect this in the course of the present week.

  THE CROZET ISLANDS.
  MR. LENG:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as more than one British vessel has been missing recently between the Cape of Good Hope and Australia, and it is probable their crews may have landed on the Crozet Islands, there is any reason why one of the nine ships in the service of Her Majesty at present in commission on the Cape of Good Hope and West African Stations, should not, for the satisfaction of the friends of the crews of the missing ships, periodically visit those islands, in the hope of rescuing seamen who may have landed upon them?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON:If the hon. Member will refer to the Correspondence presented to the House of Commons in June, 1876, and May, 1877, he will see that a visit to these islands can only be undertaken at considerable risk. There is no vessel on the Cape station able to steam the long distance (nearly 4,000 miles) involved, without coaling. There is at present no sufficient evidence to show that the crews of the missing vessels are at the Crozet Islands, and in the absence of such evidence Her Majesty's Government do not feel justified in ordering a vessel to undertake the onerous duty suggested.

  SALE OF CROWN PROPERTY IN WALES.
  MR. ALFRED THOMAS:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury with respect to the following sales that have been made of Crown property in Wales between 1849 and 1888: (a) lands, foreshores, and rights of the value of £85,535; (b) encroachments on waste lands, £30,236; (c) fee-farm and other unimprovable rents of the value of £34,346, whether it is part of the policy of the Commissioner of Woods and Forests to sell foreshores in Wales, and whether the inhabitants of the districts
  698
  where the foreshores are situate are consulted previously to each sale; whether in many of the cases where fee farm rents are sold there is some reversion belonging to the Crown under 34 and 35 Henry VIII, c. 20, or otherwise, and whether records are kept of all cases where there is such a reversion; and whether the Commissioner of Woods and Forests will henceforth abstain from all sales of land in Wales except for public purposes?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,:As regards the Crown foreshores in Wales which remain under the management of the Commissioner of Woods, the policy of the Commissioner is rather against the sale of them, excepting to public bodies or when they are required for the execution of expensive works of improvement. It is the practice to consult the ex adverso proprietors before disposing of foreshore, unless taken under Act of Parliament. It is not supposed that there are many cases where fee-farm rents are sold in which there is any reversion belonging to the Crown under 34 and 35 Henry VIII., c. 20, or otherwise. The sale of the fee-farm rent would not extinguish the reversion. A record is kept of such cases as are known. I am unable to give an undertaking that the Commissioner of Woods will henceforth abstain from all sales of land in Wales except for public purposes.

  PRISON CLERKS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to a question put to him on 30th June last, whether he can now communicate to the House the terms of the Report of the Departmental Committee, appointed so long ago as April, 1886, to inquire into the complaints of the Clerks in Her Majesty's Prisons?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,:It is not usual to lay on the Table of the House the Report of a Departmental Committee on such a subject as that of the complaints of the Clerks in Her Majesty's Prisons, such a Report being of a confidential character. But I am able to inform the hon. Member that, with the

  699
  approval of the Treasury, I have been able to sanction an increase in the scale of pay, and a large addition to the number of the highest grade of Clerks and Storekeepers in Her Majesty's Prisons, by which a considerable improvement will be made in their position. I shall have no objection to laying on the Table of the House a statement of the changes that have been made if it is wished.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Her Majesty's Government have taken, or will take, any steps to give effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Merchandise Marks to make the Customs' entry trade description under the Act?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH:I am carefully considering the best way of giving effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Merchandise Marks Act, and I hope at an early date to be able to announce to the House the result of that consideration.

  LATIMER ROAD BOARD SCHOOL.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE:I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that on 1st December a portion of the ceiling of one of the rooms of the Latimer Road Board School fell down suddenly, injuring some of the children; whether further examination has shown other portions of the building to be dangerous to the lives of the poor children compelled to attend there; whether the Education Department will, in consultation with the London School Board, take steps to fix the responsibility for such dangerous condition of school buildings on someone; and what steps, if any, are being taken to protect the lives of the Board school children from such dangers in the future?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,:The Department have no official information on the subject, though I believe the facts are as stated in the first part of the question. The duty of the Department is limited to ascertaining whether the school is in proper repair before the annual grant is
  700
  made to it, but the responsibility for its actual condition rests entirely with the London School Board.

  ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.
  DR. FARQUHARSON:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now inform the House what answer he has given, or intends to give, to the British Medical Association and the various medical corporations and medical schools who recently memorialised him by deputation, and otherwise, with reference to proposed changes in the Army Medical Department?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,:I think the hon. Member will agree that my answer ought to be addressed to the deputation which waited on me, and I will undertake to give it in January.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSIONAL PAPERS.
  MR. KNOWLES:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can arrange that the Annual Index of the Sessional Papers of the House of Commons shall be so compiled as to include year by year references to all Papers published since the preceding Decennial Index?
  MR. JACKSON:I have not been able to obtain the information that would enable me to answer the question. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will repeat it.

  POSTMASTER AT ABERAMAN.
  MR. DAVID THOMASwho had on the Paper a question to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to the great inconvenience caused to the public at Aberaman by the delay in filling the office of postmaster there; if he will state the reason for the delay; and when an appointment will be made, said that since the question had been placed on the Paper the appointment to which it had referred had been made.

  PAY OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the details of the alterations as to pay

  701
  and classes in the Metropolitan Police Force, appearing in the Times of 5th December, is accurate, and, in such case, why it is not proposed to extend to the officers of the Criminal Investigation Department the increased benefits accruing to the uniform branch, having regard especially to their skillfully performed and onerous duties, and their subjection to many expenses which are not recoverable; and if it is intended in any way to endeavour to meet the extra cost of lodgings in the inner divisions compared to the outer districts?
  MR. MATTHEWS:I have not compared the statements which have appeared without authority in the Press with the scheme which I have recently sanctioned, and which in due course I have undertaken to lay on the Table of the House. The scheme applies to all constables alike, whether in the uniform force or in the Criminal Investigation Department. The pay of the higher officers of that Department is on a different footing from the rest of the force, and has been constantly revised up to quite recent dates, and the scheme does not apply to them. Every effort has been made to arrive at some satisfactory method of dealing with the lodging question separately, but no working arrangement has been found possible.

  BIRMINGHAM POST OFFICE.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON:I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the fact that the plastering work of the new Birmingham Post Office has been sub-let to a man of the name of Welling; whether information had been submitted to the Office of Works of the very extensive system of adulteration of the materials used that has taken place; whether the Board of Works acknowledged by letter, dated 10th September, 1890, that the statements made in regard to the adulteration were substantially correct, and whether, in spite of this condemnation, Welling has been allowed to continue to work and to commence the front block; whether he is aware that the Clerk of the Works has given orders that no plasterer was to be employed on the job who had worked there previous to the
  702
  complaint made of the adulteration of the materials; and whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,:The plastering work at the new Birmingham Post Office was sub-let to Mr. Welling by the contractor, with the consent of the Board. In July last the attention of the Clerk of Works was called to the fact that the work in certain places, but by no means generally, was not being done in accordance with the specification, the cement being mixed with putty. The circumstances were fully investigated by the Board's Surveyor (the architect of the building), and he considered that it was not proved that Mr. Welling was aware of the adulteration. There is no doubt that there was a strong local feeling against Mr. Welling, and being unable to determine on what side the fault lay, the Board did not feel justified in inflicting on him the heavy loss that would have been entailed on him by the withdrawal of the work from him in the middle of his contract. The job, on the whole, has been very well done, and the defects referred to were promptly remedied by Mr. Welling. In view of the strong feeling that has been excited by the case, the Clerk of Works has objected to the continued employment of the men who were shown to have taken part in the adulteration, but not of others. The case has already been very fully investigated, and further inquiry seems unnecessary.

  CASE OF CATHERINE HARDWICK.
  MR. BRADLAUGH:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state his decision in the case of Catherine Hardwick?
  MR. MATTHEWS:I have ascertained that the Magistrates are prepared in this case to give time for the payment of the fine, which has not yet been demanded, and will not be applied for till the girl is restored to health. I will take care that the girl is not subjected to imprisonment so long as she is unfit to bear it; but I do not propose, under these circumstances, to interfere further with the decision of the Magistrates.

  THE EDUCATION CODE.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE:I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, when revising the Code for the ensuing year, he will take into kind and favourable consideration the following points, in addition to the benefits conferred by the present Code, namely, the substitution of a single fixed grant to infant schools for the alternative grants of 9s. or 7s. and the variable grants for needlework and singing; the simplification of the grants under Article 101 by substituting one fixed grant for the principal grant of 14s. or 12s. and the various grants for discipline, needlework, singing, and class subjects; the modification of the existing distinction between "trained" and "untrained" teachers by substituting the term "independently trained" for "untrained" or by some other means?
  SIR W. HART DYKE:My hon. Friend must be aware that I am always prepared to give a kindly consideration to any proposal which emanates from him, but he can hardly expect me, before the Code has been in operation three months, to undertake to introduce changes entirely eliminating the variable element from the grant at the risk of reducing all schools to one dead level of minimum efficiency. The modification asked for in the last part of the question has already been made, and the term "untrained" will no longer be found in the Code.

  IRELAND —LOANS FOR DRAINAGE.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a Resolution from the Magistrates and cesspayers of the Costello barony, assembled at Presentment Sessions at Ballyhaunis, 25th November, 1890, requesting the Government to institute and grant loans for drainage and other works, and thus give employment to the labouring classes of the district, who are suffering owing to the failure of the potato crop; whether he has considered the matter of this Resolution; and what he proposes to do to prevent the awful consequences which must ensue if action to meet the emergency be not promptly taken?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,:The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that I indicated to a Committee of this House on Thursday last that the Government intend to offer loans for relief works. The Memorial referred to by the hon. Member has been received, and as, in all other cases, will be considered.

  THE PROPOSED IRISH LIGHT RAILWAYS.
  MR. PARKER SMITH:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will have the course of the proposed new railways marked upon a large scale map of Ireland and placed in the Tea Room?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I believe that the suggestion is a good one, and I will endeavour to carry it out.

  RELIEF WORKS IN CLARE.
  MR. COX:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what works for the relief of distress he contemplates carrying out in County Clare?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I do not think that, pending the discussion which is to take place in the House, it would be desirable or convenient to make a statement. I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on Thursday last.

  CLARE SLOB LANDS.
  MR. COX:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state in what size lots it is intended to offer for sale the Clare Slob Lands?
  MR. JACKSON:I think it would be advisable to offer the Clare Slob Lands in one lot; and, if they are not sold, they can be put up in lots to suit purchasers.

  PURCHASE OF LAND BILL.
  MR. KEAY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what class or classes of money are to be paid into the Sinking Fund under the Purchase of Land and Congested Districts (Ireland) Bill; whether Her Majesty's Government have provided that this fund should perform the

  705
  function of a Guarantee Fund to secure the re-payment of advances; if so, what means have they provided for the redemption of the land stock in the event of the failure of tenant purchasers to meet their yearly instalments; and whether he has as yet verified the statement that the re-lendings under Clause 6 (3) will result in an unsecured liability to the country of about £26,000,000
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:The Sinking Fund consists of an annual sum at the rate of 1 per cent. on the nominal amount of the capital stock advanced. The Government have not provided that this fund should perform the function of a Guarantee Fund for securing the repayment of advances. There is no ground to believe that the re-lendings under Clause 6 (3) will have the result indicated in the last paragraph.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return, in amplification of Return No.134, based on the estimate that the original advance to be made under the Land Purchase Bill of £29,717,000 will be exhausted in 10 years by equal annual purchases of holdings, and showing what amount will be available in each year, under Clause 6, Sub-section (3), in respect of the Sinking Fund payments for re-lending, until the principal sum advanced in the first 10 years shall be paid off, and also showing what, in each year, will be the total amount of all the purchase annuities due to the Government, upon the assumption that fresh advances are yearly made to the full amount which has passed through the Sinking Fund?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:The right hon. Gentleman will see the difficulty of answering a question of this kind, based on a hypothetical state of things. I hardly think that any good would result from the granting of such a Return.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE:I will make some observations on the subject when the Bill comes on.

  CASE OF MR. WALSH.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he is aware that Mr. Walsh, of the Cashel Sentinel, was sentenced
  706
  to three months' imprisonment for conspiracy at Tipperary, and arrested instantly on conviction; that several days before he had been (on appeal) sentenced to two months' imprisonment for the publication of a speech in his newspaper; but that the police held over the first warrant, commanding them to arrest him on the latter charge, in order to see what would be the result of the Tipperary prosecution; under what authority was this done; do the Government still hold over the warrant; under what Statute do the police exercise this, suspensory power; and what officer is responsible?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,:I answered the question of the hon. and learned Member on Friday.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:The question I have put now has not been answered. What I want to know is this: Will the Government state why the warrant against Mr. Walsh was held over and under what Statute it was not enforced? Where is there any suspensory power?
  MR. MADDEN:If the hon. and learned Gentleman desires a further explanation I must ask him to put a question on the Paper.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:I think I am entitled to know who signed the warrant, and who is responsible for its execution.
  MADDEN:The matter went back to the Magistrate who signed the warrant.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:By what contrivance was it that the County Court Judge allowed three months to elapse? Mr. Walsh was already in gaol, and the effect was to secure that he should undergo three months' imprisonment before the first warrant was executed.
  MR. MADDEN:The matter rested entirely with the County Court Judge. I am informed that the warrant is now signed.

  ELECTORS' REGISTRATION (ACCELERATION) BILL.
  In answer to Mr. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid: It is not intended to take the Second Reading of the Electors' Registration (Acceleration) Bill to-day, although it has been necessary to put it upon the Paper.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:Will it be taken before Christmas?
  MR. W. H. SMITH; No, Sir.

  THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS.
  MR. W. H. SMITH:When the Land Department (Ireland) Bill has been read a second time and the House has gone into Committee upon it, the programme of business which the Government has asked the House to undertake in the ante-Christmas Session will be fulfilled, and it will then be my duty to move that the House do adjourn until Thursday, the 22nd of January. If the Bill is not got into Committee to-night I shall make the Motion to-morrow. It will be necessary for the House to meet tomorrow in order that the Royal Assent may be given to the Seed Potatoes Supply (Ireland) Bill and the Transfer of Railways (Ireland) Bill.

  THE REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.
  In answer to Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe),
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid: The reception given to the Reformatory and Industrial School Bill last Session was not such as to give much encouragement to its re-introduction. I will consider during the Recess whether it will be worth while to re-introduce it this Session in the same form as last Session or with some modifications, so as to make it more acceptable to the right hon. Baronet and his friends.

  CROWN PROSECUTORS IN IRELAND.
  MR. MACNEILL:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether it is the fact that Mr. Robert Olphert has been appointed by the Attorney General for Ireland to prosecute for the Crown on the North-West Circuit at the Winter Assize in Ireland, and whether that gentleman was a land agent, and was concerned on his father's estates in questions which arose between the landlord and his tenants?
  MR. MADDEN:I have appointed Mr. Olphert because he is an efficient and able member of the Bar, who will certainly do his duty. The statement that he is his father's agent is absolutely without foundation.
  MR. MAC NEILL:It is strictly true.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:How many years is it since Mr. Olphert was given a brief on behalf of the Crown or of anyone else?
  MR. MADDEN:I certainly shall not answer that question.
  MR. MAC NEILL:Is it not a fact that Mr. Olphert does not attend the Four Courts Library?
  MR. MADDEN:No, Sir.

  DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
  MR. J. M'CARTHY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a question of which I have been unable to give him notice, namely, whether, in view of the failure of the potato crop and the distress in Ireland, the provisions of the Land Act of 1887 enabling judicial rents to be reduced will be re-enacted with suitable modifications?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:As the hon. Member is aware, the cases in which temporary modifications of judicial rents were obtained under the Land Act of 1887 depended upon, and were caused by, a fall in prices. I believe that, so far from the price of potatoes having fallen this year, it has risen, and the result of re-enacting these clauses, so far from operating in the way the hon. Member desires, would have the effect of raising the rents.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:Will the right hon. Gentleman allow the Land Commission to revise the judicial rents, having regard to the yield of potatoes this year?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:No; I am afraid it would be hopeless.

  WEIGHING MACHINES.
  MR. CAUSTON:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any intention on the part of the Treasury to grant an extension of time for the stamping of weighing machines?
  MR. W. H. SMITH:The hon. Gentleman has not given mo notice of the question.
  MR. CAUSTON:May I take the opportunity of impressing on the Government, in the absence of the President of the Board of Trade, the importance of this matter?
  MR. W. H. SMITH:The hon. Member must give notice.

  PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) [ADVANCES, &c.]
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment of certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund and out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to the purchase of land in Ireland, the Land Commission, and the improvement of the Congested Districts in Ireland (Queen's recommendation signified) to-morrow.

  CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (DENBIGHSHIRE).
  Return ordered—
  "Comprising the Reports for the County of Denbigh of the 'Commissioners for inquiring concerning Charities 1818–37' arranged separately for each parish in that county, and completed up to the 31st day of December, 1890, in the result of local inquiries, held by the Charity Commissioners in every parish wholly or partly within that county, into all Endowments known to be subject to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts:"
  "A Digest, in tabular form, of those Reports, showing, in the case of each such parish, whether any, and, if any, what Endowments subject to the Charitable Trusts Acts are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners in the Parish:"
  "And, an Index, alphabetically arranged, of Names and Places mentioned in those Reports."—(Mr. James William Lowther.)

MOTIONS.

  TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRELAND) (ATHENRY AND TUAM RAILWAY) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Attorney General, Bill to confirm an Order in Council of the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council in Ireland, relating to the Athenry and Tuam (Extension to Clare-morris) Railway, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 157.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY:Is there any objection to the Bill being read a second time now?
  MR. W. H. SMITH:As far as the Government are concerned, they are extremely anxious to pass the Bill without delay.
  MR. MADDENhaving gone to the Bill Office, on returning, said: There is no copy of the Bill in the House, and I
  710
  must, therefore, postpone the further stages of the Bill until tomorrow.
  COLONEL NOLAN:Never mind the copy.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 148.)
  Bill, as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
LAND DEPARTMENT (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 112.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  (4.15.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Debate arising;
  MR. T. M. HEALY:I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned. This is a most contemptuous way of treating the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,:In what way is there contemptuous treatment? The hon. Member was not in the House when I introduced the Bill and explained the purport of it. It is substantially the very Bill that was read a second time in the course of the present year. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in the course I have taken no discourtesy was intended to the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:I certainly think that I have some reason to complain of the remarkable manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has acted. The right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine that the way in which he obtained the Second Reading of the Land Bill without criticism was owing to the fact that the action of the Irish Party was entirely paralysed. I beg to assure him that he is absolutely mistaken on that point, and I can further assure him that a more thoroughly bad Bill has never been brought in by a thoroughly bad Administration. The Bill is a reversal of the policy of 1885.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER:Order Order! The hon. Gentleman cannot enter into a discussion of the merits of the Bill on a Motion for Adjournment. The hon. Member if he goes on will deprive himself of his right to speak on the Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:In that case I shall persist in my Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate. I would advise the Government, unless they want a series of these Motions, to take another course. The Bill is a reversal of the policy of the Act of 1885, and on that account I take exception to it. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER:Order, order! The question is that the Debate be now adjourned.
  MR. M. HEALY:I think it is rather hard that we should be asked to proceed with the Debate on the Bill until we have some information as to who are the persons to be charged with the administration of it. The working of the Bill will depend very much upon the person who is to administer it. Judge Litton is dead, and the vacancy has not yet been filled up.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:As I understand an Amendment is to be moved to the Second Reading of the Bill I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. M. HEALY:I beg to renew the application. I have already made for information, and, to afford the Government an opportunity to give it, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I wish to ask Mr. Deputy Speaker whether, by replying to the small point raised by the hon. Member, I shall be precluded from addressing the House again if any serious objection is raised to the Bill?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER:I apprehend that the mere answering of a question is not joining in the Debate.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:It cannot be denied that a very short time has elapsed since the death of the Chief Commissioner, and as there is no connection, direct or indirect, between the Bill and the appointments, I do not think that the Government ought to be called upon to state their choice upon the present occasion.
  MR.T.M.HEALY:The Bill is a reversal of the policy of 1885, when the Ashbourne Act was passed. There was then a Treaty between the Tories and the Irish Members, the latter insisting upon a remarkable change in the original draft of the Bill. That draft proposed to create a Land Department, and to leave to the existing Land Commission the power and the duty of dealing with the question of purchase. At that time the Land Commission consisted of Mr. Justice O'Hagan, Mr. Litton, and Mr. Vernon, who were appointed by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) in 1881. All of those three gentlemen are since dead. The Irish Members objected then, as they do now, to any merging of the powers of the Land Commission with the powers of the Purchase Commission; and the Government communicated to them that if they moved an Amendment severing the two Departments, it would be accepted. This was done, and, so changed, the Bill passed. Therefore the present proposal of the Government is the renewal of a proposal which was formerly abandoned by themselves. The object of the Government in now seeking to merge the power of the two Commissions is to embarrass English Members, Irish Members, and the House generally. The splitting of the Bill into two is a trick intended to deceive the House. We objected in 1885 to the appointment of Mr. O'Hagan, Mr. Litton, and Mr. Vernon. In discussing the principle of land purchase, one of the main questions we have to consider is the personnel of the Commission who are to shovel coals to the Irish landlords. When the vacancies were filled up by the appointment of Mr. John George M'Carthy and Mr. Stanislaus Lynch no dissatisfaction was expressed; but some of their decisions have been complained of. The Government now intend to rig the Commission with a Tory personnel,

  713
  and in their hands the £30,000,000 would not go a very long way. A momentous change is to be made in the payment of the salaries of the Land Commissioners. Under the Act of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian the salaries were placed upon the Estimates, so that from year to year the policy of the Commissioners could be criticised, as it has been from both sides of the House; but now such criticism is to be evaded by placing the salaries on the Consolidated Fund. The policy of the Government in separating the Bill that deals with the money from that dealing with personnel is a policy of blind man's buff, and of throwing dust in the eyes of the House of Commons. The Government's land purchase scheme is as great a novelty in 1890 as was that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in 1881. Why is it, I ask, that you are afraid to face criticism—an annual criticism of your own policy? If ever a case demanded close scrutiny, it is this policy of paying money out to Irish landlords. We are told, and I have no doubt I shall be told, that I was the very first to press that the appointments of the Land Commissioners should be permanent. Yes, I did press for permanent Commissioners, and I do so now, but I never asked that they should be sheltered from criticism. I hold it necessary that anyone dealing with the money of the people should hold permanent appointments, and I wish a similar policy were followed in regard to the Resident Magistrates. But the House will not allow the rental of a single landlord to be cut down one fraction except by three Sub-Commissioners, with a right of appeal, first, to the Head Commissioner, and then to the Court of Appeal. But you entrust the liberties of the people of Ireland to two Removable Magistrates, in most cases without appeal. I say that this Bill in every detail is intended to subserve the landlord's interest, and is framed accordingly. No doubt, in a matter which involves so much litigation the Government is justified in endeavouring to secure that it shall be dealt with in a single Court; but why stop at that point—with the question of rent reduction or of land purchase? Why do you not take away from the Common Law
  714
  Judges all power over matters affecting the land, and leave every question connected with land, rent, rates, and evictions, to the Land Department; and why not, above all, give to the Land Department those powers of conciliation which the Government declared to be so useful, and which were embodied in Section 30 of the Act of 1887? That would be a natural policy. But you are not doing it; you are, instead, preparing a Court for some kind of jobs and jobbery. You are not going to deal with the agrarian situation in Ireland. This Bill is a piecemeal Bill, though it may, in the abstract, be considered as a proper measure of reform. I declare that the Bill, for the purpose of dealing with the question as a whole, is not only inefficient, but that it bears upon its face traces which entitle me to denounce it as flagrant jobbery. There are many matters in this Bill to which strong objection must be taken. Out of the six Commissioners any two may make a grant of money, while under the Bill of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian two Commissioners out of three were required to act. We all know how at elections in former days it was a practice for a man whose face was unseen to bribe voters through a hole in the wall. Well, this Bill is a sort of hole-in-the-wall bribery for the Irish landlords. From previous experience we know what the characteristics of the Commissioners are likely to be, the present body of 70 or 80 Commissioners being composed almost exclusively of landlords and land agents; indeed, with the exception of the brother-in-law of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, everyone comes within that category, I suppose I may take it that the Northern Whig represents in the North of Ireland to some extent the Government, and has given it the information at the disposal of the Crown. Well, it is stated on the authority of that paper that the other day the Chief Secretary held a kind of competitive examination among the Commissioners with a view of sifting their qualifications to act under this Bill. Is that statement right or wrong? I challenge a reply. The right hon. Gentleman answers not; he remains in beatific repose, and so we must assume that to this already landlord saturated body is to be

  715
  added a further crop of landlord appointments under this Bill. To ask the House of Commons suddenly, without a word of explanation, to read this Bill a second time is little less than trifling with the House. Two of the Irish Bankruptcy Judges, whose salaries are never taken on the Estimates, receive £2,000 a year each, but under this Bill two gentlemen are to be appointed—bribed—at the rate of £3,500 a year, while the remaining four are each to have a salary of £500 a year more than these two Bankruptcy Judges. Perhaps I ought to say, looking at this matter from the point of view that the expenditure will take place in Dublin, "the more the merrier," because the more it costs English tyranny to govern Ireland the better I am pleased. But to pretend that a Bill of this sort, issued only this morning, can be read by a wave of the magician's hand—the hand of the Chief Secretary—and, although it is of such magnitude, is entitled to no consideration, is, I maintain, a most high-handed policy even for the Irish Secretary. The proposal contained in the 9th clause is a Brobdingnagian one, giving an appeal in the Land Department from two gentlemen who get £2,500 a year to one gentleman who gets £3,500, the only basis which I can conceive for the proposal being that the man who gets a bigger salary will give a bigger price. That is a proposal which the Government wish to pass into law without a solitary word of explanation. Their action in this business has been brazen throughout; and if the House of Commons is to be brought down in the fogs of November to discuss Bills of this kind without getting one word of explanation, it seems to me that the Government regard the House as a kind of mere registration machine—put a penny in the slot, and "hey, presto!" the House of Commons will give you £30,000,000! I can only say that I have always been personally in favour of a policy which will root the tenants of Ireland in the soil at a fair price, but that policy of purchase must never be allowed to degenerate into a policy of swindle. The Irish land is worth something, and we are willing to pay the price of the land, but not the landlords' price. I believe that there is yet sufficient spirit, even in the majority of this House, to resent the
  716
  manner in which we have been treated by the Government in this matter.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,:I have listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member in hopes of ascertaining what reason he alleges why this Bill should not be read a second time. The hon. and learned Member has addressed a great many questions and a great many complaints to the Government. He has complained that this Bill was not circulated until this morning. But, as was fully pointed out by my right hon. Friend when he obtained leave to introduce the Bill, it is identical in substance with the Bill which was read a second time during last Session. There are various maters of detail, such as the 9th section, which have been introduced into this Bill, but those are obviously matters for discussion in Committee. The hon. and learned Member wants to know who are to be Land Commissioners under this Bill. If the hon. and learned Member had read the first portion of the Bill attentively he would have seen that the First Commissioners are the existing Land Commission; therefore there is no foundation for the suggestion that the Government are withholding information as to the personnel of the Commission. The fact that there is a vacancy on the Land Commission, which we all regret, is not a reason why the Bill should not be read a second time. With regard to the more permanent tenure of office conferred on the Commissioners, there will still be an opportunity on the Votes of discussing the policy embodied in the Land Commission generally, and I think that the advantage of putting the Commissioners on a more permanent footing has been admitted by the hon. and learned Member himself. A regards the principle of this Bill, it carries out a policy which I think will recommend itself to every Member of this House. It has been recognised by all persons for a long time that extreme inconvenience and a great waste of power and of public money are caused in Ireland by the existence of a variety of Departments dealing with a subject-matter which can really conveniently be dealt with by one consolidated Department, namely, sale of land, and the valuation of land, whether for the

  717
  purpose of sale or of fixing a fair rent. These important functions are now divided between the Land Commission, the Land Judges, Court, who carry out sales in cases outside the immediate operation of the Land Purchase Act, and the Valuation Department. A very great waste of judicial power arises in this way, and the object of the Bill is to bring the work, judicial and non-judicial, within one single Land Department, whereby, in the opinion of the Government, it will be better done and the charges ultimately reduced. I think the fact that the Bill effects that object forms an ample reason why it should be read a second time. Of course, the questions raised by the hon. and learned Member will come up for discussion in Committee, and, for my own part, I will reserve any remarks upon these questions until then, with the exception of one point. The hon. and learned Member has called attention to an important addition to the Bill of last year, I mean Clause 9, under which, when the Land Department has sanctioned an advance under the Land Purchase Acts to a tenant who is purchasing his holding, it shall be lawful for any person interested in the purchase money other than the landlord to apply in the prescribed manner, and within the prescribed time, to a judicial Land Commission, who is to inquire into the sufficiency of the price agreed on and to refuse his sanction to the transaction if he is of opinion that the agreement for sale is not an undervalue. As hon. Members are aware, tenants for life possess very considerable powers for sale of the fee-simple of the land, but they may not be aware that it may be in the power of a landlord whose estate is so encumbered that he has no substantial interest in the purchase money to enter into a contract of sale with the tenants for something under the fair value of the land, thereby causing great loss to the encumbrancers. The clause in question is for the protection of encumbrancers and remaindermen against sales not an undervalue. So much for the first portion of the Bill. The second portion introduces various Amendments in detail, but it is in substance the same clauses as were contained in the Bill of last year. The whole Bill is, in substance,
  718
  the Bill of last year, minus the clauses and provisions introduced in Bill No. 1, already read a first time, and I believe that the House will have no difficulty in affirming its general principles by reading it a second time.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN:I do not rise to make a long speech, but I wish to give the reasons which to my mind render it absolutely imperative that those who voted against the Second Reading of the principal Land Bill the other evening should vote against this Bill, and that many who did not vote on that occasion should vote on this occasion. The most essential part of the Bill is the consolidation of the Land Department and the salaries paid to the Land Commission. As a British taxpayer I denounce as an absolutely indefensible proposal the consolidation of the Land Department and the crystallisation and prolongation to absolutely unknown time of an extremely highly paid department. As the Bill stands there will be four Civil Administrative Commissioners, who will receive practically £3,000 a year each. They will get it in meal or malt; they will get a consolidated salary of £2,500 with a prospect of a pension which is very moderately stated at £500. There will be two Judicial Commissioners, who will receive £3,500, with the prospect of a pension which will be estimated very low at £1,000 a year. That is £12,000 a year for the Administrative Commissioners and £9,000 a year for the judicial, or £21,000 a year for the superior officers of a Department which carries out the administration of, perhaps, some £3,000,000 of public money per annum. Just imagine any public Department of any description on this side of St. George's Channel in which £21,000 a year is paid to the permanent officials who have to deal with only a sum of £3,000,000. If this Bill once passes, Parliament will have given its sanction to this

  719
  system of land purchase being one of the settled institutions of the country. It is not merely a question of £5,000,000 with which we had to deal on the last occasion that this question was brought before us. This Bill contemplates that the system shall go on while these gentlemen are getting old and getting superannuated, and while their successors are getting old and getting superannuated too. It is not for 10, or 20, or 50 years we are passing this Bill, but in all probability this system of land purchase in Ireland will continue for 70, 80, or 100 years. I object altogether to the proposed system of land purchase. I will not argue the point now, but simply direct attention to certain clauses in the Bill which render it absolutely imperative on anyone who is opposed to buying up the land of Ireland to vote against the Bill. Will hon. Members turn to Clause 21—the most important clause? We are told that this is a system of land purchase by the tenant. It is no such thing. In previous Bills the tenant was a part purchaser, but in this Bill it is a purchase of the landlord's property, not by the tenant, but by the State exclusively. It is a very common thing when an estate is purchased to leave a part of the money on mortgage; but now, for the first time, the Government ask the State to purchase landed property from certain landlords, and to leave not a part but the whole of the money on mortgage. If this proposal was made to a private English capitalist he would say, "The man who makes it must think me a fool," and yet that is the proposal the Government makes to the taxpayers of this country. In order to make some show of appearance that there is a proper guarantee for the repayment of the purchase money strong powers are put into the hands of the Commissioners, for the purpose of exacting the instalments, because the instalments are the only means by which the State is supposed to recover the money. Under Clause 21 the Commissioners are empowered, if the instalments are not paid, to sell up the tenant. If they cannot sell the farm they have power to work it themselves. The Commissioners are
  720
  enabled to sell the farms, but, like a landlord's agent who tries to sell an evicted farm, they will not be able to sell. Irishmen will be no more desirous to buy the farm of a tenant evicted by the State than the farm of a tenant evicted by the landlord. That being the case, the Land Commissioners will be forced to enter into possession of the holdings, and to work them for the benefit of the State. The Chief Secretary argues that the Irish tenant who is evicted will say, "It is true I am evicted by the State, but I am evicted in the interest of my neighbours, the ratepayers; I am evicted in order to protect them from having the payments from the Exchequer confiscated." Does anybody who knows human nature, and especially Irish human nature, and the human nature of the Irish evicted tenant, believe that the evicted tenant will make such a nice distinction as this? Will he not say, "I am being turned out by Dublin Castle"? or will he not say, "I am being evicted by the British people on the other side of the Channel"? Under Clause 21 you will have this state of things, that, with rare exceptions, all the rent of Ireland, a country almost exclusively devoted to agriculture, will pass over the Channel to this country to be paid into the pockets of the British taxpayer, who will be the great absentee landlord of all Ireland. It is under this Clause 21 that the process of evicting the tenant who does not pay the rent will be carried out. As an economist and patriot I thought it right to declare that I apprehend that in future days; he relations between the two countries will be greatly strained if all the rent of Ireland is sent over to England to be paid to the English taxpayer.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL:I always listen to the hon. and earned Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) on land questions with interest, but I think his absence from the House during the last fortnight has probably misled him in this matter. My difficulties on this occasion are not his. The Government have split the Bill into two, and I think Bill No. 2 is in great danger of not being carried, and the Government

  721
  do not much care whether it is carried or not. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: We will smash it.] Well, in smashing it, the hon. and learned Member must remember he is also smashing the long leaseholders at the same time. A great many valuable provisions for the tenants have been left out of Bill No. 1, and now form part of Bill No. 2, and, as I said the other night, it is very possible that Bill No. 2 will be caught in the toils of the Assisted Education Bill. I hope the hon. and learned Member for Longford will look a little more closely into the Bill than he has done, according to his own admission. I sympathise greatly with one part of his speech, and that was the part in which he referred to the constitution of the Land Department and the way in which the Land Commission is being handled. In 1881, after the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian was passed, there were three appointments made, and the public understood that the appointments were made on these lines: Mr. Vernon was fairly taken as the representative of the landlord interest; Mr. Litton, a lay Commissioner, although a lawyer, was chosen because he was the representative of the tenant farmers of Ulster; and there was a judicial Commissioner, Mr. Justice O'Hagan, who had no recommendation save that of high character. When Mr. Vernon died another landlords' representative was appointed, in the person of Mr. Wrench. I do not challenge the appointment. Then Mr. Justice O'Hagan died, and again I think the Government did right. Mr. Justice Litton was chosen to succeed him. But in Mr. Justice Litton's place was any representative of the tenants placed? I say no. Mr. Fitzgerald was Chairman of Quarter Sessions in County Westmeath——
  MR. T. M. HEALY:Well, it is not a bad appointment.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL:I think it is a bad appointment. At one time the dissatisfaction with this gentleman's decisions was very great.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:May I explain that the appointment was a bad appointment in 1881, but he has since learnt a deal of sense, and has been behaving very sensibly.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL:I say that in no way can it be said that Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald was a fit man to put in the place of the tenants' representative on the Commission. The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has had a good deal of experience in the Land Court, and I am glad to hear him say that Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald has learnt a great deal. Well, here comes the pinch. There is on the Commission a landlords' representative in the place of Mr. Wrench, we have Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald in the place of Mr. Justice Litton, and I want to know who is to get the fresh appointment. Is he to be a Judge, is he to be a man who has human sympathy and who has a grasp of the land question, not only in its legal aspects, but in its broader and wider effects upon the people of Ireland? I say the people of Ulster are practically shut out from all influence upon this Commission now, and I would ask the Government, and I think I am justified in asking the Government, to look for a man who is not merely an able lawyer but who has some human sympathy in his breast and knows something about the land question. Although I agree with the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) in very little, I have always valued his opinion on these questions, and I would put this point to him. I do not think he exactly conveyed his meaning to the House when dealing with the question of salaries. There are five Land Commissioners. The new Bill proposes to add another, but not to add anything to the expenses of the country, because it simply contemplates the addition of the Land Judge who has his salary of £3,500 a year now. There

  723
  is something to be said about these salaries not being put on the Estimates, but being charged to the Consolidated Fund. These are, however, matters which do not touch the principle of this Bill, as to the wisdom of creating a great Land Department to take the whole question in hand, and, inasmuch as the Government, rightly or wrongly, have introduced into the Bill a great many provisions to which the tenants of Ulster attach enormous importance, I shall vote for the Second Reading.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD:There is one aspect of this Bill on which I think a Member from this side of the St. George's Channel may venture to express an opinion—the economical aspect—and I cannot agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down in thinking that it does not affect the principle of the measure. This is a Bill creating machinery, and the economical aspect of that machinery strikes at the root of the whole matter. We have more than once in this House made attempts to call attention to the extravagant expenditure on the judiciary in Ireland, and we have always been met with the difficulty that the salaries of Judges are placed on the Consolidated Fund. This is an attempt on the part of the Government to add to the number of officials who are to be placed on the Consolidated Fund. The Government can only make such a proposal on the ground that these gentlemen are to be Judges—that they are to be an addition to the already overgrown judiciary. If they are to be Judges why not detail some of the existing Judges for the purpose of performing these duties? It is admitted that the Judges are too numerous, and it would be easy to carry out this suggestion. If it be said that these gentlemen are not to be Judges—and I apprehend that their duties are to be to a large extent administrative—why put them on the Consolidated Fund, and why pay them such excessively high salaries? It seems to me most desirable that when such a Department as
  724
  this is to be reconstituted on a new basis—and I think there is a great deal to be said for amalgamating the duties of the two Departments which now exist—it is most desirable that the salaries should be put on the Estimates, especially when we hear criticisms from various quarters of the House respecting the way in which the Commissioners are supposed to represent different particular interests, whether of the landlords or of the tenants. With regard to the salaries, I am sure if this body were to be set up in any other part of the country but Ireland, where money is so lavishly spent on objects which are often believed to be questionable, whilst it might be admitted that there should be one high judicial officer at the head, salaries of £2,500 a year, with a pension, for subordinate officers would be regarded as absurdly extravagant.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE:I entirely agree with everything that has been said by my right hon. Friend beside me, but there is a special point to which I desire to call attention of the Chief Secretary. I put a question on the Paper to-day with reference to the probable financial effect of the whole proposal, and I think the House does not understand how great is the magnitude of the operation that will take place under this Bill. I believe the House is under the impression that the amount will be limited to purchases to the amount of £30,000,000. I think that under the process of the Sinking Fund the amount that will be ultimately advanced will be much greater. I wish particularly to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to this point that he may see that I am right. As I understand, the amount of the Sinking Fund is £300,000 a year. You go on increasing the amount every year, and so far as I can make out at the end of the first 10 years the amount which can be reinvested or re-lent by the State will be £3,300,000, involving interest to the amount of £134,000 a year.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER:The right hon. Gentleman must address himself to the question of the Second Reading of

  725
  the Bill, and not to the discussion of the clauses of another Bill.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE:The money clauses involve the power of the Commissioners to evict those who do not pay; therefore, I apprehended I was fully entitled to enter on the question as to what ultimately would be the liability that the Commissioners to be appointed would be entitled to undertake. Cannot I go into that question at all? Under Clause 21 the liabilities on which the Commissioners to be appointed under the Bill will be entitled to insist, and to evict purchasers if they do not pay, will be infinitely larger than the House, I think, understands it to be—£30,000,000, and will be £40,000,000.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER:It would be irregular to discuss that.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE:I wanted to show that the Guarantee Fund would not cover it, if you would allow me. But I will take some other opportunity.
  MR. ATKINSON:I think I may congratulate the Government upon coming events which cast their shadows before. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Sir G. Trevelyan) seems to have some anxiety that the British people will be bad landlords and will excite bad feeling among the tenants. But it seems to me rather strange that the right hon. Gentleman does not give the British people credit for the desire to engender good feeling with the Irish people. If they do become landlords as the result of this legislation and advancing this money, it is not likely they will be bad landlords or treat the tenants in the cruel way the right hon. Gentleman fears they will. Probably he has an idea that he and his friends will get into power very soon. But I think we shall see the Government hold their own through the next General Election, and so the right hon. Gentleman's fears will not be realised. Then the right hon.
  726
  Gentleman made a point, as he thought, from a business-like view, when he said no man in his senses—nobody who was not a fool, I think he said—would allow anybody to borrow to the full amount of the estate he is buying. Well, I must confess, though I have had some 25 years' experience, I must be included under the category the right hon. Gentleman mentions. Last week I offered for sale a good estate, and it will be sold I anticipate in a short time, and I offered to allow the whole of the purchase money on the estate to remain at 4 per cent., and to give an undertaking that I will not call it in. This is a case in point. The right hon. Gentleman thinks it is foolish to allow the whole amount on the land. I say it is sense, for I know the value of the security, and I get 4 per cent, instead of 3¼ per cent, from the Bank of England, or 3 per cent, in Consols. I represent the British taxpayer as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and all of us do, and the British taxpayers I represent are dissatisfied at the manner in which they have been treated in relation to Irish affairs. It is true we have voted, and voted straight, but there has been so much talking from the other side, from the Parnellite Party and the Gladstonian Party—["Order,order!"]— well, from all the elements of the Liberal combination, that word had to be passed that, however anxious our constituents were, we were to sit still in order that those who were obstructing business by much talking might not prevent Bills being carried at all. So we passed a "self-denying ordinance." We said nothing, but we got our Bills, and the present pacific state of Ireland is the result of our "self-denying ordinance." The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has declaimed against governing Ireland by tyranny, but my opinion is that tyranny has been exercised in favour of Ireland for the last four or five years. Ireland has been petted like a spoiled child, and

  727
  other interests as far as possible have been thrust aside, though we could by our votes have swept away Home Rulers and so-called Liberals. Yet we remained quiet, and allowed our claims to remain in abeyance, our opinions to remain unexpressed. But the opinion of the British taxpayer is that too much of the time of Parliament has been given up to Irish affairs, and so you would all think if you were Representatives of English taxpayers. Judging by the relative importance of different parts of the kingdom, Ireland has had 10 times her fair share. It is not my intention to occupy more than five minutes, and I will only allude to an unfortunate remark from the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). It is dangerous, said he, to attempt to deceive the House Commons. Now, we could not but be reminded of a historical event of that kind on the part of the political leader of the hon. Gentleman himself, who admitted in the witness box that he did attempt to deceive the House of Commons, and succeeded in the attempt. It is remarkable that the hon. Gentleman should by his words remind us of that incident. Well, if you will continue to dilate at this length upon Irish affairs we shall pass no more self-denying ordinances. I shall express my opinions to the full extent, and if you will talk for an hour I will talk for an hour.
  MR. MAHONY:Other occupations have not left me sufficient leisure to make myself acquainted with the details of this Bill.
  An hon. MEMBER: It was not circulated until this morning.
  MR. MAHONY:Anyhow, the fact remains, I have not mastered the Bill. But I know well how very important the question of the personnel of this Commission is, what important consequences may follow the appointment of this Land Department of person whose names we do not as yet know But apart from that there is one point to which I wish to direct attention, I see that by one of the clauses power is to be given to those interested in the
  728
  purchase money the landlord is to receive to apply, not to the Land Commission as whole, but to the Judicial Land Commissioner to intervene and stop the sale on the ground that the landlord will not receive sufficient value for the land. Now, if that power is given it also ought to be given to those who are interested n behalf of the tenant, and the amount to be paid by the tenant, and those persons are the taxpayers in Ireland, whom the Government propose to force against their will to give a guarantee. I say you cannot with any show of reason, if you give this power of intervention on behalf of the landlord, on the ground that the price is too low, you cannot with any consistency refuse a similar power to those who are interested in the tenant, to prevent the landlord from receiving too high a price.
  MR. LEA:I do not intend to prolong this discussion in the general merits of the Bill, but one point I want to impress upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland. My hon. Friend he Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) has referred to the administration of the Bill, and I do wish the Chief Secretary would spend a little more time in looking after the administration of the Department. It is of no use our passing good Acts here unless they are afterwards properly administered. We have to regret the loss of Mr. Justice Litton, and from association with him I know the value of his services. His death is a great loss to the administration of the Land Act. I am sure the Land Act of 1881 would not have been worked so well without the administration of Mr. Justice Litton. We are extremely anxious to know who is to be his successor. I do not press the right hon. Gentleman on that point now, but this I will say, that if the Land Commission is to have the confidence of the people it must not have only landlord representatives upon it. My hon. Friend (Mr. T. W. Russell) has referred to this, and I wish the Chief Secretary would give us the satisfaction of his declaration that it

  729
  is not desirable that the Department should be administered by the representatives of one Party. There is another side to this. There are four Commissioners now, and from what we hear we may expect there will be a fifth. All the present Commissioners come from the South of Ireland. Ulster is not represented at all, and there is a very sore feeling in the North of Ireland on the point, because, after all, in the fixing of fair rents Ulster has considerable interests, and it is considered very hard that Ulster has not a representative on the Commission. I do not know whether circumstances permit of the successor to Mr. Justice Litton being found in the North, but I may suggest to the right hon. Gentleman another way. There has been a good deal of delay in hearing appeals, and much has been said of the salaries of the Commissioners, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he reduced by £500 the salaries proposed by the Bill, and appointed a new Commissioner, then he might remove the block in the Appeal Court and enable all appeal cases to be heard quickly. I do not know what possibility there is of appointing a Commissioner from Ulster, but I do think that Ulster has a fair claim to be represented.
  MR. J. SEYMOUR KEAY:What I desire to say has reference to a point of order, and the ruling from the Chair. The Bill was only circulated this morning. I desire to point to line 3 on page 15; and, Sir, if your ruling will allow me to proceed, I am prepared to show that the direction in the Bill there, namely, that the instalments not paid by defaulters should continue to be charged on, and paid out of the Guarantee Fund is a financial impossibility, for the Guarantee Fund will be bankrupt on the very first re-lending taking place. I would like, if I may, to ask the House to listen to a recital of the manner in which this Guarantee Fund will become bankrupt on the first occasion of re-lending, and which will make it impossible for the
  730
  direction in this third line I have mentioned to be fulfilled——
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER:The hon. Member must reserve such questions of detail until in Committee the point is reached.
  MR. J. SEYMOUR KEAY:I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I am prepared to show how financial stability is impossible under this provision.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON:The answer of the Attorney General for Ireland is not altogether satisfactory. In replying to the argument that the salaries of the Commissioners should be placed upon the Estimates, he said the functions of the Commissioners were of a judicial character, and for this reason it was not desirable that their salaries should appear on the Estimates. But surely a main portion of their work is of an administrative more than of a judicial character? If the argument of the Attorney General for Ireland holds good, how comes it that the salaries of County Court Judges are annually provided by Parliament? Upon this item in the Estimates it is possible to raise debate, although these County Court Judges fulfil functions of a purely judicial character. I strongly object to administrative duties of the character of those to be conferred by this Bill, and which have been conferred on the Commissioners, being placed outside the pale of Parliamentary criticism. It is not a sufficient answer to say that there are certain expenses we can criticise, for previous experience connected with Irish Judges shows us that the opportunity for Parliamentary criticism is in such a manner altogether impossible, and so it will be impossible to criticise in a sufficient manner the conduct of the Land Commissioners under this measure. I have not sufficient knowledge as to the point raised by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) as to Clause 9. But Clause 9 involves a principle which seems to be at the root of the whole Bill, and upon which the whole superstructure of the

  731
  measure is based, for under that clause it is possible for the Commissioners to intervene and prevent the sale of any land on representation from the mortgagee, or remainderman, or person for whose benefit the estate is encumbered, that the sale has taken place under what they are pleased to call the value of the land. Why is this allowed? It seems to point to the fact that this measure, like the previous measure, to which a Second Heading has been given, is to enable Irish landlords to dispose of unsaleable land at a price above the market value, above what purchasers would be willing to pay in the open market—to enable such sales to take place to the benefit of the landlords, and to the detriment of the interest of the tenants.
  MR. SINCLAIR:Before the Chief Secretary replies there is just one question I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the operation of Clause 9. It will be seen that the clause, which has not hitherto been referred to, deals with the guarantee deposit and its amount, which may be reduced to a tenant, or, indeed, altogether abrogated under certain circumstances. I think, perhaps, I might better explain by a concrete instance. I assume the case of a holding of £600 value. If the amount to be advanced is only £450, or three-fourths of the value, then no guarantee deposit will be required, but, assuming that a larger sum than three-fourths is advanced, it would seem the guarantee is only reduced. Assuming that a sum of £500 is required to purchase a landlord's interest in a holding, 20 per cent guarantee deposit is required; that is to say on £500 it would be £100. I should be glad to have this explained. Are we to understand that this would be reduced to £50, which would be the difference between the £500 and the £450 advance, which also is three-fourths of the whole? It seems to me some verbal amendment will be required in the clause. I may refer for a moment to some of the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Sir G. Trevelyan), who seems again to have fallen into the
  732
  mistake of considering that the repayments that are to be made by the occupying tenants by instalments are to be looked upon as rent, and therefore the British taxpayer becomes a great absentee landlord. I think that fallacy underlies a great deal of the misconception in the view taken by opponents of the measure as to the dangers that may arise. The British taxpayer will not be a landlord. He will be in the position of a mortgagee, who holds good security and receives repayment of the amount advanced in annual sums of principal and interest. I have more than once put this view before the House, but it seems almost impossible to get it impressed on the minds of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench.
  MR. M. KENNY:Naturally anxiety exists as to the Commissioner who will succeed Mr. Justice Litton, as the usual difficulty is sure to arise in the working of the Act in view of the fact that certain Commissioners have no legal qualifications at all and yet will deal with purely legal and technical affairs. The Attorney General for Ireland is a high authority, and I suppose nobody knows more about the working of the Encumbered Estates Act, and how necessary it is that questions of a legal character should be disposed of by a lawyer of experience. If hon. Members will look at Clauses 4 and 5 they will see how jurisdiction under the Common Law in Ireland is transferred to the new Commissioners. The administration of important questions under the Judicature Act of 1877 is transferred to gentlemen who, perhaps, never read the Act. Now, the Irish Bar met some time ago and arrived at a series of resolutions which, as they were published in the newspapers, and especially in the Irish Law Times, doubtless were brought under the notice of the Attorney General for Ireland. In the first place, the members of the Bar pointed out that the duties to be performed by non-legal persons were such as non-legal men could not discharge; questions affecting

  733
  settlements, incumbrances, conditions of trust, and a number of points I need not go into. They then go on to suggest a way out of the difficulty, that the services of some of the existing Judges of the Common Law Division should be utilised in dealing with purely legal affairs. I believe there will be no difficulty in obtaining Judges from the Common Law Division who have sufficient spare time on their hands to discharge such duties as they arise. Questions of a purely administrative character may be left to the non-legal Commissioners; and two Common Law Judges might be selected by rota, or in any other way suggesting itself to the approval of the Judges, to deal with legal questions. Again, under Clause 9 there is a most distinct violation of principle. It deals with the value of land. This is not a technical question at all; but, nevertheless, is withheld from the lay Commissioners, who have no power to assist in giving a final decision on these points. Under certain circumstances appeals are given to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, but under Clause 9 there is no appeal from the legal Commissioners, who, by the way, are deprived of the assistance of assessors or lay Commissioners. There is a further defect in Clause 9, either in withdrawing jurisdiction from the lay Commissioners or in not allowing an appeal to the Court of Appeal in Ireland. I put these objections before the right hon. Gentleman, I do not profess to speak as the mouthpiece of the Irish Bar, but I am speaking on subjects as to which declarations have been made by the Irish Bar; and I trust that in doing so I am not misrepresenting the views of my professional brethren.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I will endeavour to touch on all the points which have been raised in the course of the Debate, and I will begin with the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. He has very accurately represented the views of the Irish Bar and the Irish Judges. If the hon. Member will look at Clause 8, Sub-section 2, which is new in this Bill, and is also in Bill 1, he will see that the Government have endea-
  734
  voured to meet the views of the Irish Bar, and to introduce judicial strength into the Land Commission from the general number of the Irish Bench. From the observations that some hon. Members have made upon Clause 9, they seem to think that this is an attempt made on the part of the Government to construct machinery for the artificial raising of the price of land in Ireland. I need not say to anyone who has read the clause attentively that there was no such object in the mind of the framer, and that the Government had no such view. The sole object we had in view was this: It may happen— not often, but it may happen—that a landlord has no practical or substantial interest in the land of which he is the legal owner; and it may happen that under such circumstances he will find it to be his interest to part with the land to his tenant at a price far lower than the tenant will be ready to give, and far lower than the fair price of that land. In such circumstance, who will be the person to suffer by the transaction? Not the landlord but the mortgagee, and under this Bill, as stated last year, he has no voice in the sale at all. Everyone, I think, will admit that it is only fair to give the man the chance of having his case heard by appeal to some judicial tribunal; but whether the machinery provided by the Government for this purpose is the best that could be adopted will be for the Committee to decide rather than the House itself. No doubt there is something to be said for the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman who last addressed the House, that there should, under certain circumstances, be an appeal to more than one Judge. That it seems only right to give the mortgagee an appeal under the circumstances I have pointed out is a proposition no one will deny. The object of Section 17, which was also in last year's Bill, is that in case the price, or a considerable portion of the price, is found by the tenant from other sources than public loans, and in case, therefore, the amount advanced for the holding is considerably less than the value, the Land Commissioners will be empowered to dispense with the Guarantee Fund. That will throw no

  735
  additional risk on the State, and it will facilitate sales in some few cases. The greater part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Sir G. Trevelyan) was directed rather to the Bill which has already been read a second time than to this now before the House. His main objection to the Bill, however, was applicable to both Bills, and it was founded on this proposition: that as soon as purchase has gone on to a considerable extent the English Government will become the landlord of the Irish tenant, that they will have to evict and sell the holdings in case of non-payment, and that they will be as unable to sell the lands of evicted tenants as are certain landlords in such cases now in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman made some very gloomy vaticinations on this point, but I think there is abundance of evidence which may reassure him. I have glanced at the Report of the Land Commission, and find that of 13,000 cases of holdings sold, the actual number in the possession of the Commission which they have been unable to dispose of is only three. I do not think the British taxpayer need tremble if only three holdings are unsold of 13,000. The hon. Members for South Tyrone and Derry and one or two other Members below the Gangway have made some remarks about the personnel of the Land Commission. It is true that there is a vacancy, but it is not a fair question to ask me now who is to fill it. I can only say that the matter will receive careful consideration from the Government, but it is obvious at all events that, from the nature of the functions to be discharged, it is absolutely necessary that a man of high legal standing should be appointed. The hon. Member for South Tyrone asked why one of the existing Judges of the Supreme Court should not be appointed. I should be extremely glad if one of the Judges of the Supreme Court would accept the position, but the hon. Gentleman must be well aware that the position is one which is not coveted by Judges of the Supreme Court. Though the salary may be higher the duties are certainly more disagreeable, and I fear there is little chance of inducing a Judge of the High Court to exchange voluntarily. Such an exchange
  736
  could only be made voluntarily; there is no power to compel it, and I do not think there ought to be. The hon. Member also criticised the appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald as a landlord appointment. I cannot understand upon what that objection is founded, for Mr. Fitzgerald is neither a Conservative in politics nor a landlord. Mr. Justice Litton was a landlord, but is it possible for anybody to suggest for a moment that that fact ever warped or unfairly influenced his decisions, or made him more a landlord's man than a tenant's man? I am perfectly certain that every one who has had an opportunity of watching the manner in which Mr. Fitzgerald discharges his duties will not agree with the criticism of my hon. Friend as to that appointment, but will rather regard the appointment as a very successful effort by the Government to discharge one of the most disagreeable and onerous parts of their functions. It has been asked why we propose to put the salaries on the Consolidated Fund, and the hon. Member for Longford and one or two Members above the Gangway have accepted the principle that while the Judges hold permanent office their salaries should be voted by Parliament. It is perfectly true that with the Bankruptcy Judges permanent tenure is combined with salary voted by Parliament, but I cannot but believe that that was an oversight in the drafting of the Bill. I believe this course is absolutely anomalous; there is not a single case in England of a similar kind, and I believe that as a general rule it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. There is a radical inconsistency between subjecting Judges to criticism in this House, and yet putting them in a position from which the House cannot oust them, and the arrangement to give a permanent appointment and leave the salary to be voted by Parliament is one which this House has not accepted in the past, and will not, I think, accept in the future. One hon. Member has referred to the case of County Court Judges in England, but I am not familiar with the tenure of those Judges, who, I believe, are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. If that is so, the arrangement is fundamentally different from that for the payment of the salaries

  737
  of the Irish Judges. They cannot be dismissed, and the arrangements for their salaries are entirely in accordance with the arrangements of this Bill; their salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund. The point which has received most criticism and attention is the question of economy. One of the most frequent complaints made in the course of the Debate was that an additional charge is thrown on the English taxpayer by the new arrangement. I can assure the House that not only is that not the fact, but it is directly the reverse of the fact. This is a Bill calculated to produce great economy. It is true that two salaries are raised thereby—the salaries of Mr. Lynch and Mr. M'Carthy. It is true that those gentlemen now get £2,000 a year, and that they will get £2,500 after the Bill passes, and a pension. But it seems to me to be an invidious and inexpedient course to make a homogeneous Land Department of this kind, and leave an inequality of salary between the Commissioners of 1881 and the Commissioners of 1885; and for that reason I would strongly advise the House to accede to an increase of salary in the case of those two gentlemen. But in the case of the other members of the Land Commission, their salaries will in the future be what they are now. I ask the House whether it will be prepared in constituting a new Land Department, having thrown upon it duties of a very onerous kind not contemplated by previous legislation, to take this opportunity of diminishing the salaries of gentlemen who have, after all, done their duties to the satisfaction of the public. If, however, we look to the future, the economy which this Bill proposes to effect is a large and substantial economy. At present the land work of Ireland is carried out by a Judge of the Landed Estates Court with a salary of £3,500 a year, by a Judicial Commissioner with £3,500 a year, by two Lay Commissioners with £3,000 a year, by two Purchase Commissioners with £2,000 a year, and by a Valuation Commissioner with £1,200 a year. The total cost is somewhere over £19,000 a year. But as vacancies occur that cost will be reduced until it comes to about £8,500—in other words, the cost of administering land in
  738
  Ireland will be diminished by more than £10,000 a year. Now, I think that, under these circumstances, whatever other criticisms may be brought against the Bill, and they have not appeared to me to be of a very satisfactory character, at all events the criticism of extravagance cannot be brought against it. It is a Bill that, among its other merits, certainly has this, that the charge now thrown on the British taxpayer for the purpose of administering Irish land will be largely and permanently reduced. I think I have now dealt with every single point raised.
  MR. KEAY:Will the right hon. Gentleman defend the Guarantee Fund against the charge of rottenness?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:Well, the hon. Gentleman was ruled out of order when he raised that point, and as I do not wish to draw down upon myself a similar rebuke from the Chair, I think I must defer till a more convenient time the discussion of that question.
  COLONEL NOLAN:The question how you deal with these officers in Dublin, and whether you chop them about, and give one man a little more and another a little less, is of very little importance to the taxpayers, and of very little interest to my constituents. There is one point, however, on which I wish for some explanation because it may become one of some importance after the Christmas Recess. The clause which relates to turbary is one in which the keenest interest will be excited amongst the small tenants who may purchase in the West of Ireland. The clause regulates the manner in which turbary is to be purchased, and the way in which it is to be divided among the tenants. Now, that being the case with turbary, why should it not be the case with grass lands also? I want to see the poor tenant in the West of Ireland put into a position in which he can purchase grass farms near his holdings. If there were a similar section to the turbary clause relating to grass land and grass farms in reference to tenants holding not more than 10 or 15 acres of land it would probably satisfy all the wishes of the small

  739
  tenants in the West of Ireland. It is very important that we should get an answer to this question before the Recess. I am glad that these two Bills have been put in before the Christmas Recess, because we shall have ample time to consider them and to draft Amendments to them. I wish, however, to know from the Government upon which Bill a clause regulating the purchase of grass lands could properly be brought forward? The question is one of enormous importance, because another 500,000 of Irishmen must go out from the West and South of Ireland unless their holdings are increased, and I have no hesitation in saying that the landlords' position would be improved by selling their grass land to these poor tenants.
  MR. MADDEN:It is only by the indulgence of the House that I can reply to the question. I do not think that such an Amendment as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests could be properly introduced upon the Land Purchase Bill. The measure now before the House deals with a Land Department, and amends in certain particulars the existing machinery under the Ashbourne Act. The provisions with respect to turbary naturally fall within the scope of this Bill. It would be quite in order for the hon. Member to propose to introduce provisions of the kind he mentions into the measure now before the House, and any Amendments of that kind would meet with the most attentive consideration of the Government.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM:I know the opinions I shall advance are shared by so small a number of Members that to dwell on them at any length would be something like an impertinence. I know my opinions are unpopular, but that will not prevent me expressing them, because they are held by many outside this House who wish their views to be made known on this question of pledging the credit of the British taxpayer in reference to Irish land. The object of the Bill, as I understand it, is to create a peasant proprietary in Ireland. I do not pretend to have any special know-
  740
  ledge of Ireland, or to have any knowledge of Ireland at all, but I suppose there is no special set of circumstances to be observed in Ireland which is not to be found in other countries. This is an attempt to induce the Legislature to introduce a similar state of things into Ireland to that which——
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER:The hon. Member's argument belongs to a Bill which has already been read a second time.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM:In that case I will bow to your decision, I merely enter a formal protest against creating a peasant proprietary in Ireland on conditions which are to be terminated in 49 years. I would continue in perpetuity the land of Ireland to the Irish people. I regret that I have not an opportunity of dealing with the absolutely rotten character of the guarantee on which the Bill is founded. As, however, I appear to be out of order all round, I shall conclude by saying that we have had many protestations from leading Members of the Opposition, both in outside speeches and in debating speeches, that their intention is not to allow the credit of the British taxpayer to be pledged on questions like this, and that they will fight this Bill on every occasion, in order that through their agency it may be left to the Irish people to settle their own land question, instead of forcing it upon the English House of Commons.
  MR. CHANNING:Sir, the Chief Secretary, in replying to comments made on the 9th clause, admitted that in the Bill of last year Her Majesty's Government did not introduce provisions which gave the same protection to the encumbrancer and mortgagees as they have seen fit to put into this Bill. I think that is a very extraordinary admission. I really think the Chief Secretary ought to throw some light on the omission of those provisions in the Bill of last Session.
  MR. MADDEN:There were provisions introduced into the last Bill, though those in the present Bill give

  741
  another kind of protection to the encumbrancer.
  MR. CHANNING:They were not anything like the provisions introduced into this Bill. The 9th clause, in fact, places very nearly a compulsory power in the hands of the mortgagees to exact from the Land Commission that the price of the land shall not fall below the value at which the land has been mortgaged. Hon. Members are aware that there are mortgages on most of the land of Ireland, and where the mortgages are the heaviest on the holdings obstacles will be placed to purchase under this clause. Her Majesty's Government have in this clause created a new leverage for artificially raising the price of land to be sold under their land purchase proposals. They have not seen fit to introduce provisions such as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) introduced into his Bill in 1886, giving the Land Commission means of seeing, in the interests of the tenants, and in the interests of the taxpayers of England, that the purchase price was fair and reasonable. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway referred to a most important question, namely, the power to buy; grass land in neighbouring districts to facilitate migration from congested districts. That is a point which I hope will meet with the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Member for South Tyrone complained of our opposition to this Bill, because we would risk the valuable clauses relating to turbary, and the 29th clause, which gives power in the case of long leases to come within the Land Purchase Bill. I would remind him and other hon. Members that we are placing no obstacle in the way of these particular proposals, which might be introduced into the first Bill in the form of Amendments. Referring once more to this question of mortgages, Her Majesty's Government are losing a great opportunity of dealing with the question of their revision. The whole of the question of land purchase hinges upon the point of what is the real value of the land. The mortgages on the land stand in the way of a fair price for it,
  742
  and constitute an obstacle to land purchase in Ireland. I for one, as a hearty opponent of the principle of land purchase, record my vote against the Second Reading.
  MR. LABOUCHERE:Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Attorney General for Ireland started an extraordinary doctrine just now. He said the principle of this Bill was accepted last Session, that we were not to oppose it, but were to agree to it without having had the time to read it. I opposed the Bill last Session, I shall oppose it this Session, and I hope I shall have the opportunity of opposing it next Session; if I may judge of what occurred last Session, very possibly I shall. I will vote against this Bill for the very excellent reason that it is the complement of the first Bill. I object to the whole system of land purchase on an Imperial guarantee. This Bill would not have been brought in but for the other Bill, of which the Attorney General will not deny that it is an integral portion. Under these circumstances I intend to vote against every clause, if I get a chance, both of this Bill and the other.
  MR. CONYBEARE:Sir, I only wish to advance one reason why I will vote against every clause, letter, and syllable, of this Bill. Our contention is that the tenants will be compelled to pay far more than the value of the land in purchasing their holdings. They will be compelled to purchase their own interest in their own improvements at a long price. It is probable that a great portion of the land will be made utterly unmarketable in the open market, by reason of the fictitious prices created through the machinery of this measure. And this is the reason: So long as the régime of coercion exists, the tenants will be prevented from combining in protection of their own interests. So long as coercion is rampant in Ireland no attempt should be made to compel the tenants to purchase their holdings at the risk of the British taxpayer. Coercion,

  743
  directly or indirectly, is employed for the purpose of compelling the tenants to pay artificial prices for their holdings. It is perfectly well-known that the Ponsonby tenants had an opportunity of very nearly coming to an arrangement with the landlord to obtain their holdings, when Smith-Barry and his syndicate intervened with the whole machinery of coercion, in order to defeat the tenants and compel them to pay the enormously advanced prices which Smith-Barry and his syndicate chose to impose upon them. Therefore it is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I regard with the utmost aversion the whole of this scheme, and I will do whatever I possibly can to defeat it. I feel that so long as the régime of coercion is continued by this Government in Ireland, we ought to resist every attempt which is made to compel the tenants to purchase their holdings.
  (6.45.) The House divided:— Ayes 191; Noes 129.—(Div. List, No. 11.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Transfer of Railways (Ireland) Bill, with Amendments.

  TRANSFER OF RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 113.)
  Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:As a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I ask, have the Orders of the Day been gone through?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER:They have not.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:Then I submit to you, Sir, that if it is open to the Government to interpose a Bill, and consider it at any time, it is equally open to any private Member to interrupt the Orders of the Day.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER:This is a Bill that has been sent up from the other House with an Amendment. The question is that the House do agree with the said Amendment.
  MR. J. MORLEY:Perhaps some Member of the Government will state for the information of the House what is the exact scope of the Amendment which has been made to the Bill?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,:This Amendment has been made under these circumstances. A certain meeting of the shareholders of the existing Railway Companies coming under the operation of this Bill has to be called after the Bill comes into force; but it has been found that one of the companies has a special Act of its own, which requires a meeting to be called at an earlier data, and the Amendment has been inserted to remedy this.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:What is the name of that company?
  MR. JACKSON:The Great Southern and Western.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,:As the Government are not prepared to proceed with the consideration of private Members' Bills at this stage of the Session, it is my duty to move the adjournment of the House at once; but before I do so I would appeal to the hon. Members who have Bills on the Paper to postpone them until after Christmas.
  MR. J. MORLEY:What will be the business when the House re-assembles?
  ٭MR. W. H. SMITH:On Thursday, January 22nd, it is proposed to take, first, the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill, to be followed by the Tithe Bill, and to go on with the Tithe Bill on the Thursday and on the Monday following.
  House adjourned at five minutes after Seven o'clock.