Commons Sitting of 27 November 1890

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

QUESTIONS.

  HOURS OF LABOUR IN INDIAN FACTORIES.
  Mr. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if Her Majesty's Government contemplates introducing any legislation restricting the hours of labour in the cotton mills of Bombay and India generally; and if any regulations are to be issued connected with the inspection of mines in India, or are any Inspectors to be appointed? I wish further to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been directed to the statement contained in page 124 of a recent Return supplied by the East India Company, in which it is said that it would be a great boon to those employed to have their hours of labour restricted, and Sunday labour got rid of altogether?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST,: Yes, Sir; the attention of my noble Friend the Secretary of State has been directed to the Return referred to. In reply to the Question upon the Paper, I have to say that the existing Factory Act and the proposed Amendments restrict the hours of labour for women and children in Indian factories. They do not regulate the hours of labour for adult males. The Secretary of State in July last asked the Government of India to consider the regulation of labour in mines, and the inspection thereof. It will be considered whether officers of the Geological Survey cannot
  118
  for the present undertake the duty of inspection, so as to obviate the appointment of special Inspectors.

  LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY—ACCIDENT NEAR EASTLEIGH.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to Major Marindin's Report to the Board of Trade on the causes of the fatal accident near Eastleigh on the London and South-Western Railway on the 12th July last, which he found was due to the non-observance of signals by the driver and fireman of a locomotive, and especially to the paragraph—
  "It is not difficult to account for the conduct of these men who, I feel convinced, must, have been asleep, or nearly so, upon the engine, for they had at the time been on duty for nearly sixteen and a-half hours, and the driver had, he states, been suffering from neuralgia for some days; and that a driver cannot be considered to be in a fit and proper state to perform his very responsible duties after working for such a length of time, even when in the best of health."
  And his recommendation that—
  "The employment of drivers for more than a reasonable number of consecutive hours should he absolutely prohibited."
  And whether he will bring in a Bill to carry out this recommendation, and prohibit the employment of locomotive drivers and firemen beyond a fixed number of hours, or, if not, will he oppose any Bill brought in by a private Member to effect this purpose?
  The PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to this important question, and I am in communication upon it with the Railway Association. I hope that the Railway Companies may themselves take action in the matter. In the meantime, I could not express an opinion with regard to the advisability of legislation.
  MR. PROVAND: Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Baronet, may I ask what length of time the Railway Association has taken to return a reply?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The communication to the Railway Association has only recently been made. It is based upon certain accidents which have only occurred in the course of the present year.

  CHELSEA SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the official liquidator of the Chelsea Savings Bank will make a further dividend to the depositors; and whether he can now lay upon the Table of the House a statement showing the cost and charges incurred in the liquidation and the assets available for distribution?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,: The declaration of a further dividend is delayed pending the result of communications with the trustees and managers as to their providing the sum of £420, amounting to a dividend of 1d. in the £1, without litigation, which would enable the liquidator, subject to the direction of the Court, to pay the depositors in full. Apart from claims on the trustees and managers, practically the whole estate available for distribution has been got in. The cost and charges will be finally settled by the Court at the conclusion of the winding-up, and when the liquidation is complete the Treasury will communicate with the official liquidator as to laying on the Table of the House a statement such as the hon. Member desires.

  GREAT WESTERN MAILS.
  MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General how many times this year the mails from the North have missed the Great Western train timed to leave Bristol for the South at or about 10 a.m., and what means he has of preventing or diminishing the inconvenience caused to the public by the irregularity of this mail?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: I do not quite follow the hon. Member's question, but I think he must refer to the connection at Bristol between the mail train from the North due at 5.45 a.m. and the train leaving at 6.10 a.m., which takes forward the North Mail letters for Hampshire when they reach Bristol punctually. If the hon. Member will let me know at what towns the inconvenience complained of arises I will inquire fully into the matter.

  THE TEA ROOM TABLE.
  MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can inform the House as to the age of the old Table of the House, said to have been saved from the fire of 1834, now lately placed in the Tea Room?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question until another day.

  ROADS AND FOOTPATHS.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whethe his attention has been directed to the case of "Warminster v. the County of Wilts," reported in the October number of Queen's Bench Reports for 1890, wherein it was held by Justices Charles and Grantham that the word "road" in every case includes footpaths; and whether, as this decision will throw upon County Councils a large additional burden not contemplated at the passing of the Act, he will introduce a short Bill to amend the Local Government Act in this particular?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: My attention has been directed to the decision in question. I must point out that the Local Government Act, 1888, made no change in the law as to what constitutes a main road, that question being governed by the provisions of the Highways and Locomotives Amendment Act, 1878. The decision in the case referred to was in effect as to the interpretation of the term "main road" in that Act, and if an amendment of the law were to be made it would rather be by an amendment of the Highways and Locomotives Amendment Act than of the Local Government Act. I do not gather that my hon. Friend wishes that the law should be amended so as to provide that no footpaths should be maintained by the county. I presume his Question is directed to the footpaths in urban sanitary districts. I am afraid I could not attempt to amend the law to provide that these districts, which are liable for contributing to the cost of the maintenance of footpaths in the country

  121
  districts, should have no claim for the maintenance of their own footpaths. So far as regards the amount of the expenditure for which the county is to be liable, I may point out that the decision in question would seem to amount to this—that when an Urban Authority have claimed to retain the powers and duties of maintaining and repairing a main road within their district, the county is liable to make an annual payment towards the cost of the maintenance and repair and reasonable improvement connected with the maintenance and repair of the road. If any difference arises between the County Council and the Urban Authority as to the amount of the contribution which should be paid, the question is one which, on the request of either party, may be referred to the arbitration of the Local Government Board.

  H.M.S. SERPENT.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will inform the House the number, description, and position of compasses on board the Serpent when she left Plymouth, and where last adjusted; whether any or all of Her Majesty's ships are fitted with Sir William Thomson's compass; and to inquire, if it is the intention of the Admiralty to supplement (and to what extent) the private subscriptions now being made on behalf of the widows and orphans of the crew of the Serpent?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,: There were four compasses on board the Serpent, including two of Sir William Thomson's, and they were adjusted and inspected on July 6 and November 8 this year. The compasses were inspected after the manœuvres by the Superintendent of Compasses, and found in excellent order. On the occasion of a subsequent visit to the ship by the Assistant Superintendent of Compasses, the commander expressed his own and the navigating officer's great satisfaction with the behaviour of the compasses during heavy weather in the manœuvres of 1890. Sir W. Thomson's compasses were introduced into the Navy in 1884, and there are now very few of Her Majesty's sea-going ships that have not at least one. Pensions from the
  122
  funds of Greenwich Hospital will be given to all the widows, and allowances to the children, according to the rating of the husband. In cases in which the men have not left widows or children, but parents or other relatives dependent on them, gratuities will be given not exceeding a year's full wages, exclusive of any extra or additional pay. The payment of these gratuities will either be extended over a period until the whole amount has been paid, or a lump sum will be given at the discretion of the Admiralty if recommended. If the ages of the children are given, some of them could be placed in homes at the expense of Greenwich Hospital, and, if sons, could be subsequently educated at Greenwich Hospital School.

  DESTITUTE IMMIGRANTS.
  MR. HOWORTH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a paragraph in Monday's papers, to the effect that on Sunday last there landed at Tilbury Docks, from Hamburg, nearly 300 Polish Jews, most of them apparently destitute, who had been sent to this country by an emigration agency, with branches throughout Russian Poland, which represented to them that work is abundant here; and whether he will take steps to prevent the further recruiting of our already congested labour market by this class of immigrants?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: With the permission of my right hon. Friend I will answer this question. I have been informed by the Chief Commissioner of Police that on Sunday last there were landed at Tilbury Docks from Hamburg 65 passengers, apparently foreign Jews, most of whom had luggage and all of whom proceeded to London; and that on Monday there were landed 40 passengers, also apparently foreign Jews, who proceeded to London. From further inquiry it appears that amongst those who arrived on the Monday were nine sailors, who shipped at once, and 17 out of the whole number have been admitted into the Home for Destitute Jews. The remainder have apparently dispersed in various directions, some having been met at the dock by friends. Inquiries are being made as to the nature and extent of any emigration

  123
  agencies by which such passengers are sent to this country. Instructions have been sent to the Consul at Hamburg to issue a warning to intending passengers against their relying on the assurances of finding employment when they reach this country.

  REGISTRATION OF DEATHS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the decennial Reports of the late Dr. Farr showed the number of deaths in each registration district, cause of death, and sex, but that the Report 1871–80 of Dr. Ogle, in lieu of distinguishing male from female, only shows persons; and whether, for the decennial Report 1881–90, the Report of Vital Statistics can be compiled so as to distinguish sex?
  MR. RITCHIE: I find that the change of practice with regard to the decennial Reports referred to was made, and I am giving the matter my consideration.

  THE BRITISH NAVAL HOSPITAL AT LISBON.
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to a paragraph in the Times of 25th November, as follows:—
  "By order of the Admiralty, the British Naval Hospital will be sold by auction on the 27th instant. The property has a frontage of 70 métres, and occupies one of the finest sites in Lisbon;"
  and whether the statement is true; and, if so, by what authority the Admiralty sells a property, the cost of which has been voted by Parliament, without the sanction of Parliament?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The state-statement is correct. For years past the maintenance of this hospital and its establishment have been of little or no benefit to the Navy, and therefore it was decided to close the hospital, sell the building, and transfer the establishment to Gibraltar, where it is much wanted. No special authority of Parliament is necessary for the disposal of surplus Government property of this character.

  THE LABOUR BUREAU.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether
  124
  any addition has been made during the present financial year to the staff of the Labour Bureau; whether any, and what, further increase in the staff is now proposed; whether he will state its present exact strength and cost; and whether the Government will take any steps to give greater efficiency to the Labour Statistical Department?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: No actual addition to the staff engaged on labour statistics has been made during the present year, but proposals for a few additions to the clerical staff and for special arrangements to obtain statistical tables, and a report on the proportion of wages to profits and costs of productions, and for similar reports on kindred subjects, from time to time, are now before the Treasury. The numbers at present exclusively employed on the work are eleven, whose aggregate salaries, including the duty pay of a gentleman who is largely engaged on other work, amount to £1,723. I hope by means of the present staff and the additions now proposed to add materially to both the periodical and occasional publications of the Department. In particular, I look forward to presenting at an early date a Report on profit sharing as well as the Report on wages and cost of production to which I have just referred. This will be additional to the subjects already being dealt with periodically or otherwise.

  POSTAL OFFICIALS IN THE PROVINCES.
  EARL COMPTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General when the scheme of revision for the superior postal officials at Newcastle, Bristol, Leeds, and other provincial offices will be announced; and whether it is intended that the date of the application of the scheme to these offices shall take effect from the date of the last published scheme?
  MR. RAIKES: The decision of the Treasury in respect of the three offices named has reached me, and will shortly be carried into effect. The detailed examination of all the large offices in the provinces has occupied much time and labour, and cases are being submitted to the Treasury as fast as circumstances permit. The dates of the application of the various changes will be fixed in consultation with the Treasury.

  THE BANK ACT—£1 NOTES.
  MR. ERNEST SPENCER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the recent serious crisis in the City, and the continual annual strain put upon business by the decrease in the Bank reserve, and constant scarcity of gold, the Government will now consider the advisability of introducing a short Bill to amend the Bank Act of 1844 by the issue of £1 notes against silver, or Consols, or otherwise, in order that it may be in keeping with the present time, and the expansion of business which has taken place since the Act was passed?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am not prepared at the present moment to make any declaration of policy as regards the Bank Charter Act, nor am I prepared to admit the second part of my hon. Friend's question as a necessary corollary to the first.
  MR. LEA: I have also to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government intend to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question of the working of the Bank Act of 1844; if so, when such Royal Commission will be appointed?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir; we have no such intention. If at any time it should appear to Her Majesty's Government that the arrangements made in 1844 should be altered in any particulars, they would prefer to deal with the matter on their own initiative and responsibility rather than to relegate the matter to a Royal Commission.

  THE NEW ARMY WARRANT.
  GENERAL FRASER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the new Warrant coming into force on 1st January, 1891, definitely decrees that after the Establishment of General Officers is reduced to its future number, promotion to that grade shall only be by selection; if, pending the reduction of General Officers to the future number, it is intended that there shall only be one Senior Colonel promoted to the rank of Major General for every third vacancy that occurs in the Major Generals' List; if so, whether any Colonels who were Field Officers when purchase was abolished, and are still on
  126
  the Active List, will be precluded from attaining the rank of Major General, owing to the excessive tardiness of this promotion causing them to be retired as Colonels through the Age Clauses; and if, in view of the terms of the Royal Warrant of 1st November, 1871, abolishing purchase and decreeing that all senior qualified officers of every grade shall be eligible for promotion, he will re-consider the terms of the new Warrant?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: From January 1 next the number of General Officers will be gradually reduced till it reaches a fixed limit, after that promotion to Major General will only be by selection to fill an appointment or as a reward for service in the field. Until the General Officers on the Active List are reduced to 100, every second vacancy for promotion to Major General will be absorbed. How far the vacancies not absorbed may fall to Senior Colonels must depend upon circumstances. The number of Colonels who, when purchase was abolished, had purchased rights as Majors will not in January exceed 20. The absorption of vacancies undoubtedly increases the chance that some of these will be compulsorily retired. I presume that the reference in the last question is intended to be to the Royal Warrant of October 30, 1871 (though that is not the Warrant abolishing purchase). In that Warrant it appears to me that the mode of promotion laid down to the rank of Major General was selection. I may add that a Colonel of the class referred to, if injured by compulsory retirement, has a claim to compensation. I do not, therefore, as at present advised, see the special hardship of this class of cases, but I will consider the matter further.

  PLEASURE BOATS ON THE SEVERN.
  MR. GEORGE ALLSOPP: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Government will introduce a measure during this Session enabling the making, by County and City Councils, of bye-laws controlling the construction and use of pleasure boats and vessels navigating rivers within their jurisdiction, and which would give the Council of the City of Worcester effective control

  127
  over the construction and use of pleasure boats and vessels navigating the River Severn within or from the City of Worcester, the Local Government Board being of opinion that existing legislation does not authorise the making of such bye-laws?
  MR. RITCHIE: Section 172 of the Public Health Act, 1875, authorises any Urban Authority to licence the proprietors of pleasure boats and vessels, and the boatmen or other persons in charge, and to make bye-laws for regulating the numbering and naming of the boats and vessels, and the number of persons to be carried and the mooring-places, and for fixing rates of hire and the qualification of the boatmen or other persons in charge, and for securing their good and orderly conduct while in charge. When dealing with a Bill for the amendment of the Public Health Act, 1875, it may properly be a matter for consideration whether the powers conferred on Urban Sanitary Authorities by the section referred to should not be enlarged.

  BRUSSELS CONFERENCE.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government is able to inform the House as to the present position of affairs relating to the enforcement of the General Act of the Brussels Conference, and whether he will lay the Protocols of the Conference upon the Table of the House; and whether it is true that, unless the Government of the Netherlands affixes its signature to the General Act of the Brussels Conference by the 1st of January next, the deliberations of the Conference for the suppression of the Slave Trade, agreed to by the other sixteen Powers represented at the Conference, will be nullified?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: The Protocols will be laid immediately. The present position is that Holland still refuses to sign the Act with the Declarations annexed to it relating to import duties in the Conventional Basin of the Congo. The period during which her signature can be affixed expires at the end of the year.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Have Her Majesty's Government made or will they make, any special representations to Holland to induce them to waive their objections, and to give their assent to the Act?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government will do all in their power.

  VITU.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what ground the British Fleet was employed to punish the Sultan of Vitu and the natives for the murder of German traders some months ago; and, whether Vitu at the time of the murder was under German protection?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Germany withdrew her protectorate over Vitu in favour of Great Britain on the 1st of July. Since that date it has ceased to be under German protection. The notification placing it under British protectorate was published on the 25th of the present month. At the time of the murder, therefore, the position was transitional, but as Great Britain had accepted in July the transfer of the protectorate it was unquestionably her duty, and not that of Germany, to inflict punishment for murders of white men committed since that date. Papers on the subject are being prepared and will be laid shortly.

  CHRISTIANS IN ASIATIC TURKEY.
  MR.BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when Papers relating to the condition of the Christians of Asiatic Turkey will be presented to the House; and whether these Papers will contain any recent Reports by Mr. Clifford Lloyd upon the state of the vilayet of Erzeroum?
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONhad on the Notice Paper the following Question: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Further Correspondence relating to the Affairs of Armenia will be published?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I will, with the permission of the House, answer at the same time the question of the hon. Member for the Eye Division (Mr. F. Stevenson). These Papers are being prepared, but I cannot make a definite

  129
  undertaking as to the time at which they will be presented. They will, of course, contain Reports from Mr. Clifford Lloyd.
  MR. BRYCE: Are the Papers likely to be ready before Christmas?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am not in a position to say yet when they will be presented.
  MR. BRYCE: I will repeat the question on an early day.

  COLONIAL LETTER POSTAGE.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can tell the House what has been the general result of his communication with the Colonies respecting the proposed establishment of an uniform 2½d. letter postage, and when the reduced charge is likely to commence in this country?
  MR. RAIKES: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend and the House that the most important groups of our Colonies have at length decided in favour of reducing the letter postage in accordance with the scheme announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his last Budget speech. Notwithstanding the inevitable sacrifice of revenue, the several Governments of the Australasian Colonies, the Cape, Natal, the West African, West Indian, and some other Colonies are prepared for the change; and in regard to these I am making arrangements to carry it into effect on the 1st of January next. I have not yet been made aware of the ultimate decision of India and the Asiatic Colonies; but I am hopeful that the difficulties in those quarters may before long be overcome.

  THE IRISH MAILS.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that while delays of mails to the North of Ireland have been frequent during the past six months, yet steam communication between Stranraer and Larne has been conducted with reasonable punctuality; and if he has made arrangements for the despatch of mails by this route?
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state the number of days since 1st July last on which the English mails for Belfast and North of Ireland were late for despatch from Dublin by the
  130
  mail train leaving there for Belfast at 7.25 a.m.?
  MR. RAIKES: I find that since the 1st of July last the English night mails for Belfast and the North of Ireland have missed the 7.25 a.m. mail train from Dublin on 11 occasions. I have made arrangements for the mails to be forwarded by a special train in future whenever the arrival at Amiens Street Station, Dublin, is after 7.40 a.m. The Post Office has no record of the sailings of the packet between Stranraer and Larne, and the question of adopting this route for the mails for the North of Ireland is now receiving careful consideration.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering the notorious fact that the mails are frequently late, he will make an inquiry whether there would not be a material saving of time by the Larne route, and whether proposals have been made to the carrying companies for a service by that route?
  MR. RAIKES: I have already intimated my willingness to consider any proposals which might be made by the Railway Companies controlling this route. Such proposals only reached me about a fortnight ago, and are now the subject of careful consideration and Comparison with those made by other companies.
  MR. DE COBAIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, having regard to the increasing frequency of the late arrival and delivery of mails in Belfast and the North of Ireland generally, lately, he has given any further consideration to the question of an accelerated mail service by the Stranraer and Larne route, as placed before him by a large and most influential deputation from the North of Ireland during the last Session of parliament; and whether, having regard to the serious injury and inconvenience to trade resulting from the present service, he can give some assurance of the matter receiving his early and favourable attention?
  MR. RAIKES: I can assure the hon. Member that the question to which he refers has been constantly kept in view since it was last mentioned in this House. It involves very important issues, and is scarcely yet ripe for

  131
  decision; but I hope soon to be in a position to make an announcement on the subject.

  DRAINAGE BOARDS IN IRELAND.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Irish Government to introduce this Session a Bill to amend the laws relating to the constitution of Drainage Boards in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I am afraid that I cannot enter into any undertaking at the present moment to introduce legislation in the direction of amending the laws relating to the constitution of Drainage Boards in Ireland.

  THE LAND PURCHASE ACTS.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table or assent to a Return giving particulars of the cases in which the Land Commission has received applications from purchasers of their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts, 1885 and 1888, for an extension of the time of purchase or an abatement in the amount of instalments due?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Irish Land Commissioners report that some memorials of the nature in question and of a stereotyped character have been received. I do not see that any public advantage would be gained by laying them upon the Table.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from several counties in Ireland memorials upon this subject have been presented, and that they are not "stereotyped?"
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. There have been memorials presented, but I do not know where they came from.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Then, are we to have no information in regard to them?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have given the hon. Gentleman all the information in my possession.
  MR. J. MORLEY: We attach great importance to these memorials and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not in perfect conformity with official usage, and would it not conduce to convenience
  132
  to have the documents laid upon the Table?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already given my opinion as to the value of the documents. As to the other question, I will make inquiry, and if I find that it is in accordance with the practice I will grant the Return.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether he will lay upon the Table, or assent to a Return, giving particulars of the cases in which the Land Commissioner has obtained decrees of ejectment of purchasers under the Land Purchase Acts, 1885–8, for arrears in payment of their instalments of principal and interest?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I am made aware of the particulars that are required I will do my best to give them. Ejectment proceedings are not taken against defaulting purchasers by the Irish Land Commissioners; but the holdings are put up for sale. Very few, however, of such cases have occurred. In the cases of upwards of 11,000 tenant purchasers during the five years in which the Act has been in operation, it has been necessary to put up for sale the holdings of 27 only. If the hon. Member will be good enough to place a notice on the Paper detailing the particulars he desires in regard to these holdings, the practicability of granting a Return will be considered.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Is it the fact that in many cases the rent has been paid out of the purchase money, and that in many cases the landlords have agreed that two years of the purchase money should be set aside for that purpose?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I have heard nothing of the kind.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Then you will be made aware of it.

  DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called by the Board of Guardians of Claremorris Union, in the county of Mayo, to the imminence of distress in their district, and if he has made inquiries respecting it; whether the Claremorris Board of Guardians have pointed out to him certain most desirable works capable of conferring vast benefits

  133
  on the surrounding country, lowering the beds of rivers which now periodically flood the district widely, the River Robe and the River Clare, the lowering of whose beds would afford the employment necessary to avert distress in the most congested portion of that part of the country; and what he proposes to do in the matter? I beg further to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn by the Board of Guardians of Ballinrobe Union, in the county of Mayo, to the urgent necessity of employment in a portion of the Union, from Partry to Tourmakeady, where the potato crop has been destroyed, and other crops also are very inferior; whether the Board of Guardians have suggested to him a work of great importance, and calculated to confer much benefit on the district, viz., the connection of Lough Mask and the river Robe, a work begun 40 years ago, and nearly completed when it was abandoned; and what he proposes to do in the matter? Also whether his attention has been called to the threatened famine in the Ballyglass portion of the Ballinrobe Union, county of Mayo, the potato crop having almost entirely failed there, while the place is too remote from any of the proposed Light Railway schemes to benefit by such works; whether his attention has been called to a very necessary work for that locality, viz., the draining of three small lakes which lie near together, and which in summer time are reduced to unhealthy swamps; whether it has been pointed out to him that the drainage of those lakes is easy of accomplishment, and is a work calculated to afford the employment necessary to relieve the locality from the impending distress; and, what he proposes to do in the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government do not apprehend anything of a nature which could be described as famine in the district referred to. I may, however, note there is a railway in process of construction from Ballinrobe to Claremorris. Attention has not been called to the drainage works alluded to.

  BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when it is
  134
  proposed to fill the vacancy at the Board of National Education in Ireland caused by the death of the Rev. Dr. Whigham?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope that the vacancy will be filled up in the course of the next four weeks.

  CASE OF HAFFERNAN.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I desire to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question of which I have given him private notice. I wish to ask whether he has seen a report of the verdict in the case tried yesterday before Mr. Justice Holmes, that of "Haffernan v. Carter and .Tuohy," in which the jury found that the firing of the shot was not necessary for the defence of District Inspector Carter and the police? I would also ask whether the Law Officers of the Crown will now institute proceedings against the officer who ordered the shot to be fired, and against the policeman who fired it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not seen the report to which the hon. Member refers. Perhaps the hon. Member will be kind enough to give notice of a question to the Attorney General for Ireland to whose Department it more properly applies.

  SUPPLY.
  Resolved, That this House will, tomorrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.—(Mr. Jackson.)
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Resolved, That this House will, tomorrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.—(Mr. Jackson.)

  EVICTIONS (LONDON AND SUBURBS).
  Address for—
  "Return of the number of Warrants issued by Justices under the Act 1 and 2 Vic. c. 74, for recovery of possession of tenements within the Metropolitan Police District during the two years ended the 30th day of September, 1890, showing the number of Cases in which force was required to give effect to the Warrant; the number of Cases in which such force was resisted; and the number of Cases in which such tenant was re-admitted (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 450, of Session 1888)."—(Mr. Knowles.)

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  SEED POTATOES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 53.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I would appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) to allow this Bill to stand over for a few days in order that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant may be in a position to make a statement of the views of the Government on the matter. This course, I believe, will advance the interests the hon. and gallant Member has at heart, and, clearly, the Government will prefer to deal with the matter on their own initiative.
    COLONEL NOLAN: If the right hon. Gentleman will assure me that in the event of the Government proposals not being satisfactory facilities will be granted me for bringing on my Bill at a later, stage, I will willingly accede to the appeal made to me. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is a Motion on the Paper to take away all the time of private Members, and that it is only by a fortunate accident that I have secured an opportunity for bringing on the Bill.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I will undertake that an opportunity shall be afforded to the hon. and gallant Member if the proposals of the Government are not satisfactory. I think, however, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the measure which will be introduced by my right hon. Friend will be satisfactory to the hon. and gallant Member.
    COLONEL NOLAN: The right hon. Gentleman is in the hands of the majority opposite; however, I do not wish to stand in the way of the Government. I think I ought to have a promise that an exception will be made in my favour.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I give the hon. and gallant Member the assurance he desires.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday next

  MOTIONS.

    TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.
    On Motion of Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Bill to make better provision for the recovery of Tithe Rent-Charge in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Chaplin, and Mr. Raikes.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 110.]
    MR. SEXTON: I would point out that the notice referring to this Bill was given subsequently to the notice of the Bills of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, as to Irish Land Purchase, and I wish to ask whether the change in the order of priority is to be continuous, whether it is the result of and consultation since Tuesday last, any whether the change is to be taken as having any political significance?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: The hon. Gentleman attaches entirely undue importance to this matter. The Tithe Rent-Charge Bill stood between several Bills of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, and the Government thought it better to get this subject, on which they do not anticipate discussion, out of the way before the Irish Bills are introduced.
    MR. H. GARDNER: As this subject is of interest to my constituents, I desire to put on record my regret that the President of the Board of Trade has not thought fit to make some statement in asking leave to bring in this measure on the present occasion. We have had various measures dealing with tithe rent-charge from the present Government—many of them of so diverse a character that the average intellect has found it difficult to make out what the Government really mean to do. I would warn the Government that if this Bill is not considered satisfactory on this side of the House it will meet with no less opposition than previous Bills on the same subject. I think we should have an assurance that the Bill will be at once printed and circulated amongst Members.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It will be printed and circulated tomorrow morning.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman

    137
    will allow some time to elapse before the Second Reading.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I will fix the date for the Second Reading when the Bill has been introduced.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: My hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) asked if the precedence given to this Bill is to be continuous. We understood that precedence was to be given to the Irish Land Bills.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I understand that the precedence is to be continuous.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Then it is altogether contrary to the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury the other evening.

    PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.
    THE CHIEF SECBETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am glad to think that it will not be necessary for me on this occasion to occupy at any length the time of the House or to make anything in the nature of a lengthy statement in regard to the Bill I now ask leave to introduce. Broadly speaking, there is no change in the policy which the Government adopted last Session, and in its main outlines the speech which I delivered on the introduction of the Land Purchase Bill in February last would serve for the introduction of the present Bill. But, of course, we have had forced upon our notice the great difficulties—mechanical difficulties, if I may so describe them—which attend the getting of long and complicated measures through this House. We have seen that in the House of Commons, at all events, it is not always the best Bills that survive. It is the shortest Bills that survive; and in view of that fact we have cut the measure brought in last Session into two halves. I will describe very briefly to the House the contents of each of the two Bills which stand in substitution of the Bill brought in last Session. Before doing so let me say that we have introduced a simplification of the procedure of last Session, which, although I do not think it is an improvement in itself, at all events makes the Bill a good deal less cumbrous and complicated. In the Bill of last
    138
    Session a good many improvements were attempted on the ordinary machinery of the Ashbourne Acts now in force. In the present Bill we have grafted the new loan upon the old machinery of the Ashbourne Acts, and have thereby considerably shortened and simplified the Bills we now have to ask the House to consider. The first Bill—Bill No. 1—contains two parts. The first part grafts upon the machinery of the Ashbourne Acts loans of stock to the same amount as were proposed to be authorised last Session and under the same safeguards as were contained in the Bill of last Session. We propose to give to the tenants in each county in Ireland power to borrow money for the purchase of their holdings up to 25 years' purchase of the guarantee fund of that county, the guarantee fund in this Bill being precisely the same as the guarantee fund in the Bill we introduced last Session. The new money, therefore, to be lent under Bill No. 1 to the tenants of Ireland—money to be lent against the guarantee stock—is precisely the same as the amount lent against guarantee stock in the Bill of last Session, and is lent under precisely the same limitations, conditions, and safeguards. The Treasury will have precisely the same protection, and the land lords and the tenants will have exactly the same privileges, and precisely the same amount will be paid to the localities. So much for the first part of Bill No. 1. The second part of Bill No. 1 deals with the congested districts, and is practically a redraft of the congested districts portion of last Session's Bill. The two portions of Bill No. 1 contain together only about 20 substantive clauses, and those gentlemen who were not unnaturally alarmed by the bulk and complexity of the measure we brought in last Session I hope will be considerably relieved by seeing it reduced this Session. I ought to say that Bill No. 1, in addition to providing the same loans as were provided for last Session, and in addition to dealing with the congested districts in the manner we dealt with them last Session, provides also by a single clause the giving of fixity of tenure to the Land Commission. It will be seen, therefore, that if Bill No. 1 passes it will contain within itself a very large measure—as large a measure, in fact, of laud purchase as the Bill of last

    139
    Session. It will contain as liberal a method of dealing with the congested districts, and it will give that fixity of tenure to the Land Commissioners of 1881 and 1885 which everybody, I think, to whatever Party in the House he may belong, has always regarded as desirable. Bill No. 2 practically contains those parts of the Bill of last Session which are not contained in the Bill No. 1, which I have just described to the House. Of course, Bill No. 2 is considerably simplified by the fact that we have adopted, without material alteration, the machinery of the Ashbourne Acts; but it contains certain improvements on that machinery. It contains such provisions as the turbary clause of last Session; it contains provisions for dealing with head rent; and it contains, of course, provisions for dealing with perpetual leaseholders. It contains also the scheme we laid before the House last Session for constituting a Land Department. Now, I have broadly explained, with as much detail as I think is required, the procedure that we intend to adopt. I may just add that there are one or two points of, I think, small importance in which we have made alterations in the new Bill. Objection was taken from various quarters last Session to the 20 years' limitation in the Bill we then introduced. That limitation, as the House is aware, was not intended to be any indication on the part of the Government as to the price at which land should be sold in Ireland. It was, however, taken both by the purchasers and the sellers of land as indicating on the part of the Government some opinion as to the value of Irish land. It did not seem essential to our general scheme, and the limitation of 20 years' purchase does not appear in the new draft. [Cheers and cries of "oh, oh!" from the Irish Members.] I think I hear unmistakable expressions of dissent from hon. Gentlemen opposite. It will be in the recollection of the House when I say that the first and only Amendment proposed to the limit of 20 years' purchase appeared not in the name of any representative of the landlord interest in this House, but in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. John Morley). The second point which I call the attention of the House to is almost consequential upon the fact that we have adopted the Ashbourne
    140
    Act machinery. In the machinery we proposed last Session there was a plan by which, in case of difference of opinion between the seller and the purchaser, it was possible, with the consent of both, to appeal to the Land Department to have the price of the holding fixed. That added considerably to the complexity of the Bill. It did not appear to meet with very much favour either in the House or in the country, and that again is not in the Bill now laid before the House. The third alteration in the Bill to which I think it may be advisable to call the attention of the House relates to the 80 per cent, of the fair rent which the tenant has to pay. The House will recollect that by the Bill of last year every purchaser in Ireland was obliged to pay for the first five years after he had purchased a sum of at all events not less than 80 per cent, on his fair rent. At the end of the five years the annuity that he had to pay was reduced, not merely to the normal annuity, but below the normal annuity, so as to make the total amount paid at the end of 49 years equivalent to an annuity of 4 per cent, throughout that period. The general system of land purchase which we adopted last year was criticised last Session from two opposite quarters—both by the Opposition and by critics in the country. Some persons said, "Oh, unless you give the tenant a great deal more he will never buy at all." Others said, "If you give him immediately all that you propose to give him, there will be such pressure put upon the landlords, and such discontent upon those estates where purchase has not taken place, that you will find yourselves involved in even greater agrarian difficulties than those against which you have at present to contend." Well, I am still of opinion that probably the best general arrangement for Ireland is that which I proposed last Session, and that is the arrangement which will be adopted in the first instance under this Bill. But power is given to the Lord Lieutenant, with the consent of the Treasury, under certain circumstances, if he should think fit, to prolong the period during which that 80 per cent, may be paid. ["Oh!"] Let the House make no mistake upon that point. This action of the Lord Lieutenant is always to be prospective, and never retrospective; that is to say, his action cannot

    141
    interfere with any bargain already entered into. The tenant who has bought on the understanding that he is to pay 80 percent. on his fair rent for five years, and five years only, will pay 80 per cent, for five years and five years only. But if it should appear to the Lord Lieutenant, from the great run of purchasers, or any other reason, that the five years may be prolonged in future cases of purchase, it will be in his power, subject to the consent of the Treasury, to make that prolongation, the result of which, of course, will be that the tenant will pay 80 per cent, for a longer period than he otherwise would have done, and he will pay his debt back to the Exchequer at a quicker rate. Moreover, when we recollect that all advances under 25 years' purchase of the Guarantee Fund are to be made out of repayments, we thereby enable the purchase to take place more quickly. The result of course will be that in those counties where there is a great desire to buy, and a great rush of tenants to the Land Commission, repayment will be quicker, and more tenants will be able more quickly to take advantage of the boon which the State now offers. Well, Sir, there remain only two points with which I think I need trouble the House. It will be in the recollection of the House that last Session the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) pressed very strongly on the attention of the House his view that we had included in our scheme too many holdings —that the money being necessarily limited in the first instance, we had admitted too many competitors for this public boon, and that we ought to have limited the privilege of purchase to tenants (I think that was his view) under £50 valuation, and in no case to extend it to grazing tenants. Well, I have thought over the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, which I think was advanced in a perfectly practical spirit, and I do not feel myself in a position to go the whole length suggested by him. I think the limit he suggested is too rigid, and would leave outside our Bill, and render discontented with the arrangements proposed under the Bill, very important members of the agricultural community in Ireland. I therefore cannot accept the limitation of £50 valuation which the hon. Gentleman proposed, but I have argely limited the scope of the Bill. I
    142
    have excluded from it all purely grazing farms, and I have excluded from it all farms on which the tenant does not reside. Our object in this Bill, as the House will readily understand, is to create a class of occupying owners. To sell a holding to a man who does not live upon it is obviously not to cary out the object and intention of the Bill. and I have, therefore, introduced a clause which I hope will meet, to a great degree, the wishes of the hon. Member for Cork, excluding all purely grazing farms and all holdings upon which the tenant does not reside. The only other point, which is, perhaps, the most critical and difficult connected with this Bill, relates to the proposal pressed upon us, not from one quarter of the House alone, but from several quarters, with regard to the powers to be exercised over the operation of the Bill by the localities interested. It will be recollected that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) speaking for his Party, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) speaking for his Party, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) speaking for his Party, have all independently and powerfully advocated the view that it was not fair, that it was not just, and not in accordance with usage, to prevent localities from having any voice in determining whether or not their own funds should be mortgaged for purposes affecting these localities. I have given my best consideration to the propositions advanced from these quarters, and I have done my very best to balance the arguments pro and con. I must frankly admit to the House that the result of my consideration has not been to convince me that the original framework of the Bill was not the best that could be devised. But let the House remember how the matter stands. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, who I think argued his point with greater power and at greater length than any other Member of the House, said, "You are taking funds which belong to the county as much as if they were raised in the county, but without the county's consent, and mortgaging them, and you are giving the benefit of that mortgage to persons not selected by the county and absolutely independent of the

    143
    county." It is impossible not to feel the enormous force of that objection as it stands. I quite feel that the proposal is not in accordance with the ordinary practice of this House. I quite feel that if a Land Purchase Bill were promoted for England exactly on these lines it is probable, even almost certain, that the House would decide that the Local Authority should have something to say to the mortgaging of its resources. But what are the arguments on the other side? What are the arguments that induced me last Session to bring in a Bill with this provision, and that have again induced me to submit it to the consideration of the House? They are these: I do not think that you ought to consider this question of land purchase in Ireland as a local question at all. We are using British credit, as everybody knows, for the purpose of carrying out what we believe to be a vital reform in the land system of Ireland. We are not doing it primarily for the benefit of this or that county, but for the benefit of the Empire as a whole. And not only are we using British credit without the slightest risk, but we are actually asking Parliament to spend a considerable sum of money in carrying out the scheme, for the House will recollect that the whole cost of the machinery falls upon the Imperial and not upon the local exchequer. The justification of that, which I think is full and ample, is that this is largely an Imperial concern. Very well; you must therefore draw a profound distinction between a scheme of land purchase for the benefit of the several counties in Ireland and a scheme for the benefit of roads, asylums, waterworks, harbours, and other local purposes in that country. These latter are really and truly local purposes, and for these, if Parliament were to propose to mortgage local resources, local consent should first be asked. That is one wide distinction which I draw between the objects of this Bill and the ordinary local purposes subserved by the Local Authorities of the country. There is another consideration which must not be left out. It is a matter of notoriety that the land question has been largely used for political objects— that is to say, agrarian discontent, in many of its aspects of long standing in Ireland, has in recent years
    144
    been used by politicians for political objects. I do not put it offensively. Nobody will, I think, deny that; and if it be admitted, and if we are bound to look at the realities of Irish life full in the face, is it not absurd to leave it entirely to local committees to determine whether they shall or shall not adopt a remedy intended to go to the root of the agrarian question? [Laughter from the Irish Benches] The argument may be a good or a bad one, but I venture to think that it is not a common one; and I am at a loss to understand what has so moved the hilarity of hon. Members opposite. I have briefly endeavoured to recapitulate the reasons on both sides, and, although I freely admit that the reasons against the Bill as it now stands are of a very strong character, I am still of opinion that on the whole the balance of argument lies against giving the control to the localities. That, however, is a question upon which the general opinion of the House must be consulted, and, of course, if there is a strong general feeling in the House against the proposal it will be impossible for us to keep the Bill exactly in its present shape. I have thought over the various methods by which, if a change is to be made, that change might be effected with the least detriment to the Bill as I should like to see it carried through the House. One proposal has been to make the scheme dependent on Local Authorities which are to be hereafter constituted. I think that scheme is impracticable. You cannot load this Bill with a Local Government Bill. You cannot introduce into the Bill a provision for constituting County Councils in Ireland. That is absurd. Very well; if you are going to wait until a Bill constituting County Councils in Ireland is passed, at the rate at which the House of Commons does its business, you will have to wait at least for some months. Now during these months, if this other Bill is passed, you cannot forbid purchase going on. If you put a clause into this Bill saying that County Councils, when they come into existence, are to possess a veto upon its operations, you would find yourselves in the absurd position of allowing a certain number of sales to be effected, after which the County Councils, when constituted, might step in and stop the whole operation. I

    145
    do not think that that is practicable. If you are to give any local control at all you must give it by way of plébiscite. You must put the matter Ay or No to the ratepayers, and ask them to give, under the safeguard of the Ballot, their verdict, Ay or No. There are obvious advantages in that plan. It would be very undesirable for the County Councils when they come into existence to do more political work or to come more into contact with political controversies than is absolutely necessary. The ratepayers are perfectly competent to give a decision, and there ought to be no difficulty in their adopting the ordinary machinery of Parliamentary elections by means of the Ballot for determining this simple issue. Now, what is the issue that should be submitted? I would ask the House to recollect that the guarantee portion of the fund, which is the fund to be mortgaged for land purchase in Ireland, is divided into two portions—a cash portion and a contingent portion. The cash portion consists of certain subventions from Imperial sources for local purposes, which did not exist three years ago, and which are for the most part allocated to roads and other local purposes. I see no reason why there should, under any circumstances, be any interference by localities allowed with this cash portion of the guarantee. I think we may very well advance the money upon the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund without asking their consent. The contingent portion of the Guarantee Fund is applied to different purposes—such purposes as education, supporting pauper lunatics, and other similar purposes which are scheduled in the Bill of last Session. These purposes are such as the Government have been committed to, they come very near to the local life of the population, and they are purposes which it would be disastrous to stop under any circumstances; and if the kind of compromise which I am now with great diffidence suggesting be adopted, I would recommend the House, if they insist on doing anything, to have this plébiscite applied to the mortgage of the contingent portion, and the contingent portion only, of the Guarantee Fund of each county. I may perhaps have travelled beyond the ordinary province of a First Reading speech in making these
    146
    suggestions, but I thought I ought to be frank with the House, and to explain why you will find nothing in the Bill of the nature of local control. I thought I was bound to tell the House why, after the best consideration I have been able to give to the subject, I still desire the Bill to remain in the shape in which it is, but I thought it might serve a useful purpose if I threw out in this tentative manner a suggestion which would, in my point of view, be the least pernicious that could be made with respect to giving to the localities any control over the operations of this Bill and the administration of this fund. I do not think that I need add anything more. I did not intend to make, and I hope I have not made, a long speech. I have only given the barest and most naked outline of the small and immaterial changes we have made in our programme. Those changes have been principally in machinery. They have been designed almost entirely to facilitate the passing through this House of a great measure of Land Purchase with due safeguards, and I hope that the House will without undue delay proceed to its consideration.
    Motion made, and Question proposed
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide further funds for the Purchase of Land in Ireland and to make permanent the Land Commission, and to provide for the improvement of the condition of the Congested Districts in Ireland."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I am aware that I am taking a somewhat unusual course in proposing that an important Bill of the Government should not be read a first time and submitted to the House, and I feel that it is necessary I should give my reasons for taking that step. I am entirely opposed to this Bill upon its merits, but that is not the main reason which has induced me to bring forward my Amendment, because I am aware that there would be other opportunities for entering a protest upon the Second Reading and on Committee. But I find that the measure is practically the same as that of last Session. The only difference between the two Bills that I can see is that the present one gives a further advantage to the landlords, and reduces to a certain extent the security which the English taxpayers

    147
    who are to provide the money for carrying out the scheme will have. The right hon. Gentleman, in order to avert opposition, has said that the Bill practically represents merely his own personal opinions, and that he is ready to alter it in any way if there is a consensus of opinion in the House—that is to say, amongst the Liberal Unionists—against its present form. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the main fact remains that the Bill, just like the Bill of last Session, pledges English credit. The right hon. Gentleman has not blinked the fact. He has told us that the Bill will pledge British credit for the benefit of the Empire, but its real object is to buy out the English landlords in Ireland. I think it was stated last Session that the amount to be expended at once is £8,000,000, but that is only a very small portion of the liability we undertake. If the plan of the Government is accepted, it will have to be carried out on a much larger scale than was suggested last Session, and the State will become the possessor of all the land of Ireland that is purchased with British credit. Moreover, there will be two classes of tenants in Ireland, one paying a certain rent, and another paying a lesser rent, and from the very fact of paying a lesser rent, becoming the owner of the property at the end of 30 years. There is no such thing as a nominal risk when you advance money, and, with all respect for Irish Members, there is no such thing as nominal risk when you advance money to Irishmen. The right hon. Gentleman says the State has cover in funds which it has in its hands for the maintenance of lunatics, paupers, and so forth, but the right hon. Gentleman admitted that it would be a monstrous thing to withdraw those funds from the objects for which they were intended.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I did not.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I can only say that I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman did not say so, for it would be a monstrous thing, and I cannot imagine that for a moment he would dream of turning loose all the paupers and lunatics in Ireland because the Irish people did not pay something they were called upon to pay without having been asked their opinion on the matter. During the recess a letter was published by Mr. Gregory, who was formerly one
    148
    of the most eminent lawyers on the Conservative side of the House, and who has had as much as any one to do with mortgages and the transference of land, and Mr. Gregory says that the security offered is one which no private person or public company would accept. There is no doubt that no private person or public company would accept it, because if they did it would not be necessary for Parliament to put its name on the back of the Bill; and, as Parliament does so, the money will be borrowed on our security, and nothing but our security. It is possible that land in Ireland may yet go down in value, as it has done during the last 15 years, and the purchasers may, therefore, be placed in the position of being unable to pay the money, even if they wished to do so. They are not consulted as to the amount, which is to be on the basis of the present rent, and that is regarded in many cases as being most unfair and unjust, so that the purchasers would have a legitimate right to refuse to pay. If they did refuse, what security could the State have? As the Duke of Wellington said, you cannot evict a whole nation. It is admitted on all hands that the Bill does pledge British credit, and before such an enormous liability is undertaken the constituencies ought to be consulted. I have always been under the impression that typical Conservatives hold, even more strongly than we do, that there is a limit to the power of any particular House of Commons or Parliament. When we have protested against the action of the House of Lords they have said that it is one of the advantages we possess in guarding against the House of Commons passing any important measure without consulting the constituencies. In such a case it is considered right for the House of Lords to provoke a dissolution by throwing the Bill out. From a Conservative standpoint this theory acts very well when the Liberals are in office, but when the Conservatives are in power the House of Lords for such a purpose is practically non-existent, and that renders it all the more necessary in this case to take action against the First Reading of the Bill. The case against this Bill is stronger still, because the Ministerialists and the Unionists opposed the Land Purchase Bill of the right hon. Member

    149
    for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) on the ground that it involved Imperial credit. [Cries of "Oh!"] Oh, yes, I daresay that hon. Gentlemen opposite want to forget the fact, but it is abundantly proved by their election addresses, of which an interesting collection can be seen at the British Museum. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his Party, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) and his Party—whatever that Party may be, for I cannot find it—will turn to the addresses of hon. Members at the last General Election, they will find that the Ministerial majority were returned on the distinct understanding that they were opposed to an Imperial guarantee. They may have changed their opinions; but, having got into power on one opinion, they have no right to act upon another without consulting the constituencies. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will therefore see that I am logical in protesting against this Bill, which I regard as contrary to the wishes of the constituencies as expressed at the last General Election. Indeed, in my belief, it is an absolute fraud upon the constituencies; and for these reasons I beg to move the Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is undesirable for this House to entertain any proposal to pledge the credit of the country for the purpose of land purchase in Ireland until the question has been brought before the constituencies, and their assent obtained, at a general election,"—(Mr. Labouchere,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I rise with great pleasure to second the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend. I think the House is fully aware of the nature of this proposal for land purchase. We have had three great Land Purchase Bills before Parliament in a very short space of time. First there was the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and I suppose the reason why it met with any sort of acceptance on the Liberal side of the House was that it was connected with a great
    150
    measure for Home Rule. That was the only ground taken up by the Liberal Party for supporting it, but I do not think that even that ground would induce them to support so extensive a measure of land purchase as that which is now submitted. What was the course taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite? Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has told the House that this Bill is virtually the same in spirit and scope and object as that which was brought forward last year, although, as he has stated, its details have been somewhat altered, and, as far as I have been able to make out, they are somewhat worse than they were last year. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord R. Churchill), speaking of the Bill of last Session, said—
    "This Bill makes the State creditor to the Irish Treasury to the extent of some £40,000,000, an amount which it is contemplated may be doubled, trebled, or quadrupled as years go by."
    Then, again, my hon. Friend the Member for Elgin (Mr. Seymour Keay) wrote a pamphlet on that Bill of 1889 in which he said—
    "The amount for which the British taxpayer is asked to become liable under this Act and the Ashbourne Acts, supposing that the means could be all raised at 2¾ per cent., is more than £162,000,000."
    Well, Sir, I ask can there be anything more serious than a measure the effect of which will be to pledge the credit of this country at some future time for so enormous a sum as this? I must say that I know of nothing which has been brought before this House for a long time that is of so much importance as the measure which the right hon. Gentleman has just asked leave to introduce. Last year the Government brought in a measure which proposed to devote the money of the taxpayer to the benefit of the brewers, whereas this year a measure is brought forward by Her Majesty's Government for the benefit of the Irish landlords. It is my belief that if we can only get the country to understand this question the English people will not consent to the Government extorting money from them for the purpose of advantaging the Irish landlords, any more than when the former proposal was made they would permit money to be taken out of their pockets for the benefit of the brewers. The right hon. Gentleman has said the Bill

    151
    does pledge British credit, and added speaking quickly as if he were ashamed of the statement, "without any risk to the Exchequer." If there is no risk to the Exchequer why should the guarantee be put into the Bill at all? It is altogether absurd to say there is no risk to the public, and at the same time to put a provision into the Bill for the purpose of giving a guarantee. Why, I ask, is this Bill introduced? I should like to call the attention of the House to this point for a moment. It is surely not because the tenants are badly off in Ireland; because, when I read the speeches made by Unionists and Tories— and I will take for example the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell)—I find them stating over and over again that there are no tenants in the world who are in possession of such privileges as the Irish tenants. It certainly does not appear to me, on the statements of the supporters of the Bill, that any such measure is wanted by the people of Ireland. Not a bit of it; and, on the other hand, I find from the Unionist and Tory speeches that the tenants of Ireland are the most prosperous and contented of any tenantry in the world. I believe that the great majority of the Irish Representatives do not want the Bill. I do not know, however, what course they will take just now. It may not be quite so satisfactory as I might have been led to expect; but, certainly, from what took place last Session, I am inclined to think that the great majority of the Irish Representatives do not want this Land Bill. But I suppose that is the reason why it has been brought in. [Laughter.] Yes; I will tell you why. Last Session we had this Bill—or one like it—before us, and what did Lord Derby say on that occasion? Speaking on the 9th of April in the present year, Lord Derby said—
    "I have no hesitation in expressing approval of the principle on which the Irish Land Purchase Bill is founded. The opposition offered to it by the Irish Nationalist Party is, to my mind, an argument in its favour."
    There can be no doubt that this measure, if passed, will enormously increase the indebtedness of this country, and for no good purpose that I can see; yet it is for this object that we have been summoned here in the depth of winter from our happy homes. I am afraid there is still on the part of some of my right hon.
    152
    Friends on the Front Opposition Bench a sneaking kindness for Land Bills. We shall hear some of them, I hope, before the night is over, and I trust that we shall have from them some clear deliverances on the subject. But I cannot help being a little afraid. Why should they go on with these Land Bills? Why, Sir, they are sitting on that Bench mainly because they brought in a bad Irish Land Bill, and I can assure them that they will never sit on the Bench opposite through the support they may give to a very bad Bill now. My hon. Friend below me has pointed out that you are going to make the taxpayers of this country virtually the landlords of Ireland. Can anything be worse than that? I will give you the words of a very great statesman. They are words which were quoted in a Liberal Unionist publication, and spread widecast through the country. When I have read them, I will tell you the name of the great statesman who used them. He said—
    "Working men of England and Scotland, you will have to evict the tenants, you will have to collect your rents at the point of the bayonet, and prepare to be a party to such contingencies. British credit, built up as it has been by past generations, is a precious reserve to be held for times of need and necessity, and I will not anticipate it for the benefit of Irish landlords."
    I hope to hear the same noble and patriotic words from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham again. Why should he or anyone be anxious to devote the money, the hard-earned money of the people of this country for any such purpose as this? Why are we to buy the Irish landlords out? Let me quote one sentence from the Manchester Guardian. It is a journal which does not agree with my view. It is in favour of some sort of land purchase, and here is one sentence which I read in an article arguing the case—
    "The West cannot support landlords, and the landlords must be bought out on fair but not unreasonable terms."
    The land cannot support them there. They are carrying on a bankrupt business, and you are to buy them out on fair terms. Fair terms for a bankrupt business mean nothing at all. These landlords are very unfortunate men I admit. They have lived a long time by letting land. That is their business. The letting of land has

    153
    become a bad business, an entirely bankrupt business in some parts of the country. They can make nothing out of it. And then they come to Parliament and say, "Because our business is bankrupt you must buy it up for us with the taxpayers' money." You might just as well buy up all post - horses because the posting business has gone wrong. Why should these landlords be treated on a different footing to any other traders? I would like to know that, and I would like to have an answer to-night. What is the use of a landlord? I am a landlord myself. I never found out what use I was. I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle what is the use of landlords? If he cannot tell me, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham can. He will tell me that he is a man "who toils not, neither does he spin." I have no animosity to Irish landlords. But I do say that the only people who are of any use in the country are those who produce wealth, not the people who put the money into their pocket. These Irish landlords, of all people, what have they done for us? Why, we are at this moment in all sorts of trouble and perplexities because we have been governing Ireland in the interests of the landlords. Instead of government of the people by the people for the people, it has been government of the landlords by the landlords for the landlords. Let me quote a paper highly valued on the other side—the Times. What did it say of the Irish landlords in the year 1852?—
    "The name of an Irish landlord stinks in the nostrils of Christendom."
    What have the Irish landlords done since 1852? If they were so bad then, what great service have they done since 1852 that we should be called upon to give them such large sums of money? I know of nothing they have done except support Her Majesty's Government. Of course the Government say: "We will support those who support us. Whether they are sugar refiners, brewers, clergymen, or landlords, if they vote straight they shall have money given them." It is all right. It is the Tory system, of course, which puts the money of the many into the pockets of the few. Here, in an Autumn Session of an old Parliament, we are called upon by the very men who up hill and down dale opposed
    154
    it at the General Election to pass this Bill. I say it is one of the most monstrous proceedings ever indulged in in the British House of Commons. You talk about the mandate of the country. I know I have no mandate except to oppose such nefarious schemes tooth and nail, and I will do so. I say, if there be a Liberal Party left in this House, it is its duty to oppose clause by clause, line by line, and letter by letter, a measure which is designed to squander national property in a reckless, rash, and, I should say, in a nefarious manner.
    (5.15.) The House divided:—Ayes 268; Noes 117.—(Div. List, No. 1.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill to provide for the purchase of Land in Ireland and to make permanent the Land Commission, and to provide for the improvement of the condition of the Congested Districts in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 111.]

    LAND DEPARTMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Arthur Balfour, Bill to constitute a Land Department, and to amend the Laws relating to the Purchase of Land in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 112.]

    TRANSFER OF RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have to move for leave to bring in a Bill to authorise the transfer of the powers of promoters of Railway and Tramway Undertakings, under the Tramways (Ireland) Acts, to certain existing Railway Companies; and for other purposes. Perhaps I may be allowed one word of explanation in regard to it. The Bill is a very small one, but it is required to effect certain technical alterations in the Railway Act of 1889. Under that Act both persons and Railway Companies had a right to promote railways and to obtain presentments, and a certain number of individuals surveyed lines and obtained the necessary presentments. But the policy of the Government of the House has been to induce Railway Companies to become responsible for the working of the lines, and the whole object of this Bill is to enable the powers under presentments

    155
    obtained by individuals to be transferred to the Railway Companies. The measure is of great importance in view of the existing, or approaching, distress in parts of Ireland, because, if carried, it will enable the Kerry line to be proceeded with at once, and will be useful also in other parts of the country.
    Bill to authorise the transfer of the powers of promoters of Railway and Tramways Undertakings, under the Tramways (Ireland) Acts, to certain existing Railway Companies; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Balfour and Mr. Jackson.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 113.]

    PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of the Lord Advocate, Bill to amend the Procedure in regard to Private Bills relating to Scotland, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 114.]

    PLACES OF WORSHIP (SITES) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. John Ellis, Bill to give further facilities for the acquisition of Sites for Places of Worship, ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Burt, Mr. M'Arthur, and Mr. Henry J. Wilson.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 115.]

    RAILWAY SHAREHOLDERS (LICENSING SESSIONS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Maclure, Bill to remove the disabilities of Railway and other Shareholders in Public Companies to act at Licensing Sessions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Maclure, Mr. Fielden, Mr. Hermon-Hodge, Colonel Laurie, Sir Edward Watkin, and Mr. Byron Reed.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 116.]

    METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Sir John Lubbock, Bill to amend the Metropolis Management Act in regard to the election and qualification of vestrymen, the alteration of wards of parishes, and to certain sanitary matters, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Lubbock, Earl Compton, Mr. Lawson, and Mr. James Stuart.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 117.]

    BRINE PUMPING (COMPENSATION FOR SUBSIDENCE) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Brunner, Bill to provide Compensation for owners of property suffering through the subsidence of the ground caused by the Pumping of Brine, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brunner, Colonel Cotton-Jodrell, Mr. Tollemache, Mr. Jennings, and Mr. M'Laren.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 118.]

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Warmington, Bill to render the accounts of Friendly Societies and Benefit Building Societies subject to a Government audit; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Warmington and Mr. Randell.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 119.]

    BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Peter M'Donald, Bill to amend the Law of Bankruptcy in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter M'Donald, Mr. Sexton, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. M'Cartan, Mr. Thomas Dickson, Mr. Lane, Dr. Commins, Mr. John O'Connor, and Mr. John Barry.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 120.]

    POOR LAW BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Alfred Thomas, Bill to amend the Poor Law, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alfred Thomas, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Abraham, and Mr. Conybeare.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 121.]

    BEER ADULTERATION (NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Quilter, Bill for better securing the purity of beer, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Quilter, Mr. Heneage, Viscount Wolmer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Herbert Gardner, Mr. Francis Stevenson, Mr. Gurdon, Colonel Lloyd Anstruther, and Mr. Llewellyn.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 122.]

    TRUST COMPANIES' BILL.
    On Motion of Sir Horace Davey, Bill to enable incorporated Companies to act as executors, administrators, and trustees, and in other fiduciary capacities, ordered to be brought in by Sir Horace Davey, Mr. Osborne Morgan, Colonel Makins, and Mr. F. W. Maclean.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 123.]

    BUILDING LANDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Munro Ferguson, Bill to deal with the Purchase of Land by Local Authorities in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Munro Ferguson and Mr. Haldane.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 124.]

    ACCUMULATIONS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Birrell, Bill to amend the Law relating to Accumulations, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Birrell, Mr. Cozens-Hardy, Mr. Elton, and Mr. Neville.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 125.]

    ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Bryce, Bill to secure to the Public the right of Access to Mountains and Moorlands in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bryce, Mr. Joseph Bolton, Sir Horace Davey, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Haldane, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Leng, and Sir Henry Roscoe.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 126.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.