Commons Sitting of 29 March 1892

Preamble
The House met at a quarter after Ten of the clock.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill; Army Annual Bill; Millbank Prison Bill, without any Amendment.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:—
The House went;—and being returned;—
MR. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to,—Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1892; Army (Annual) Act, 1892; Betting and Loans (Infants) Act, 1892; Millbank Prison Act, 1892.

QUESTIONS.

  RUSSIAN JEWISH EMIGRANTS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any information has been received to the effect that an extraordinary exodus of Jews is likely to take place from Russia in the course of the spring; and in such case, if Her Majesty's Consuls will be instructed to warn the emigrants by public advertisement in the Russian and Polish Press, and all possible means, that as there are large numbers of our own countrymen unable to find full industrial employment, there is no room for more foreign workers in the United Kingdom? In asking this question of my hon. Friend, I beg also to inquire if he is aware that the latest Return of Alien Immigration shows an increase of 1,074 or 25 per cent. in the number of European Aliens arriving in England during January and February, 1892, over the same period last year, bringing the number not en route to America up to nearly 5,000 in the two months?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): My attention has not been called to the Return mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend, but, as he is aware, the matter would not come under the consideration of the Foreign Office, but of the Board of Trade. With regard to the question as given notice of, I have to say that Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg has reported that Mr. Arnold White sees reason to apprehend such an exodus as is referred to. Instructions have been despatched through the British Embassy to Her Majesty's Consuls and Vice Consuls to warn emigrants against coming to this country.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN (Battersea): Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the stringent measures adopted by the German Government to prevent any of these 300,000 pauper emigrants going to Germany?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I have only seen the telegrams which have appeared in the Press in the last day or two with regard to the action of the German Government, but I do not think any official information has been received.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Arising out of this question, I beg to give notice that on Friday I will ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether under the circumstances and the extent of the evil represented, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ask for any legislative powers to deal with the matter?
  MR. BARTLEY: In reference to his answer, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Consuls have any power in these matters, and is the giving warning likely to be of any use?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: No; I do not think they have any power, but we thought it well—and at least it can do no harm to have it publicly announced—to take steps to have the information brought to the notice of those who intend to come to this country.

  THE "CROFTERS' ACT" IN THE OUTER HEBRIDES.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the Secretary for Scotland has received repeated complaints from crofters in the Islands of Boreray, Benbecula, and other places in the Outer Hebrides, to the effect that extension of holdings, granted them under the Crofters' Act, has been suspended for two years by appeals on the part of the landlords; and whether he will be so good as to use his influence to insure an immediate sitting of a full Court of the Commissioners to dispose of the appeals, and prevent the crofters losing for another season the full benefits of the extension granted?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): I am informed that the Secretary for Scotland has received an application from some crofters in Benbecula desiring him to make arrangements for an early hearing of certain appeals, which have only recently been lodged, against orders made at the end of last December, and I have to inform the hon. Member that these appeals will be heard as soon as the Commissioners have disposed of other more urgent business. No applications have been received from the other districts mentioned in the question.

  THE SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTION—REIGATE DIVISION.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that at the recent election for a member of the Surrey County Council, Reigate, Western Division, the Returning Officer refused to give a casting vote, and sent the writ back, "No Election;" "F. E. Barnes, 500; J. Seex, 500;" and whether he will order a fresh election, or state what steps will be taken to remove the deadlock?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I find that the Returning Officer for the Borough of Reigate certified that no person had been elected as a County Councillor for the Western Division of
  148
  the Borough because the votes given for the two candidates were equal in number and the Returning Officer had declined to give a casting vote. It appears to be a matter of regret that the Returning Officer did not exercise the power conferred upon him by the Statute of giving a casting vote in a case of equality of votes; but under the circumstances I apprehend that, if it is desired that a further election should be held, the only course is to apply to the High Court for the issue of a mandamus for the purpose.

  SALE OF ENCLOSED LANDS—1 AND 2 WILLIAM IV.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is acquainted with any instances in which land enclosed for cultivation as allotments under 1 and 2 William IV., Clause 42, has been sold; whether the proceeds of such sales, if any, are devoted to Poor Law purposes, and whether all such sales are reported to the Local Government Board?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am only aware of two instances in which portions of land which has been enclosed for allotments under 1 and 2 William IV., Clause 42, have been sold. In one case the land was acquired under compulsory powers for School Board purposes, and in the other case the portion of the land sold was purchased by the Guardians of the Union as a site for a relief station. The dividends on the proceeds of these sales are applied in aid of the Poor Rate of the parish, with the exception that a portion of the sale produce was applied to the repayment of a debt in respect of a public Free Library. Lands enclosed under the Act referred to, unless they are purchased under powers of compulsory purchase conferred by Parliament, can only be sold with the consent of the Local Government Board.
  SIR W. FOSTER: Does the Local Government Board receive notices of all such sales?
  MR. RITCHIE: Unless acquired under powers of compulsory purchase they cannot be sold without the sanction of the Board. If they were acquired compulsorily under a Provisional Order of the Board, the Board would, of course, be aware of all the circumstances of the case.

  IMPORTATION OF LIVE CATTLE.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state the reasons which have led to the issue of the recent Order prohibiting the importation of live animals from Spain and Portugal; and whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to importers and others at Penryn and Falmouth, in Cornwall, and other ports in England, he can hold out any hope of the Order being repealed at an early date?
  MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Before my right hon. Friend answers that question may I be allowed to supplement it with another question, of which I have given my right hon. Friend private notice; whether in view of the spread of foot-and-mouth disease owing to the importation of live animals from abroad, and seeing that such importation of live animals amounts to one per cent. of our entire consumption, he will take steps to stop the importation altogether?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I think I can answer my hon. Friend behind me at the same time I answer the question on the Paper. I have been induced to issue the recent Order because of the spread of foot-and-mouth disease on the Continent. The last intelligence which we have received mentions the appearance of the disease in Holland in spite of the rigid precautions against it which are taken by the Dutch Government. The importation of animals from Holland was fortunately prohibited by the Board some weeks ago, and I have now thought it right, as a measure of precaution, to prohibit the landing of animals from the remaining countries of Europe from which the importation is comparatively trifling. I cannot hold out any hope of the Order being withdrawn so long as foot-and-mouth disease prevails on the Continent.

  INSANITY OF CONVICT CLARKE.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the date upon which a prisoner
  150
  named Clarke showed signs of insanity, the date upon which the medical officer of Portland Prison first reported him insane, and the date of Clarke's removal to Broadmoor Convict Asylum?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): This prisoner was first visited by the medical officer in December last, was certified insane on 17th February, and removed to Broadmoor on 26th February.

  THE CASE OF DR. GALLAGHER.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will allow an independent medical expert to examine Dr. Gallagher, a prisoner in Portland Prison, as to his sanity, if the expense of such examination is borne by Dr. Gallagher's friends?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I can only repeat the answer I gave yesterday. There are no reasons why I should allow an independent medical examination.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: The right hon. Gentleman does not propose to have any additional examination to that of the prison doctor?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Not at present.

  IRISH DRAINAGE BILL.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he can now state when he intends introducing his Irish Drainage Bill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary hopes to be able, in a few days, to introduce a Bill dealing with the subject.

  TRUANT SCHOOLS FOR SCOTLAND.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware of the views entertained by School Boards in several large cities and burghs in Scotland relative to the expediency of extending to Scotland the powers of English School Boards to establish truant schools; and whether he will introduce a short Bill to confer on School Boards in Scotland these powers during the present Session?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I am aware of the feeling which exists in several of the larger burghs in favour of extending to Scottish School Boards the power of establishing truant schools. I think myself that the extension would be beneficial, but I cannot hold out much hope of legislation on the subject this Session.

  PENSIONS TO CRIMEAN AND INDIAN MUTINY VETERANS.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the Chelsea Hospital Commissioners are issuing to Crimean and Indian Mutiny soldiers who are applicants for special pensions a schedule containing 22 elaborate questions requiring much time to answer, while the signature must be attested by a Magistrate, and that again certified as being known to a clergyman or military or naval officer, who must further declare his belief that the soldier's statement is true and complete; and that appended to all these formalities is a certificate, to be signed by a clergyman, inspector or superintendent of police, that the applicant is "without means of support and in destitute circumstances;" and whether it has been foreseen that the effect of such a condition will be to relieve the poor rates by securing pensions for men now depending on parish support, and to exclude applicants who have endeavoured to maintain their independence and self-respect and are not wholly without means of support or absolutely destitute?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK,): The paper of questions issued to applicants for these special pensions contains only such inquiries as are necessary to preclude imposture and to enable the Commissioners to select the cases in which pensions are most required. These pensions are compassionate, and men in necessitous circumstances must necessarily be preferred; but of the 100 cases dealt with this year very few were in receipt of parish relief.

  POSTAL AND MONEY ORDERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General will he explain why postal orders may be purchased at any time during business hours at a post office, whereas money orders can only be obtained between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.; and whether he will give directions that money orders shall be issued at any time during business hours; or, at least, that the hours of issue shall be greatly extended?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The issue of money orders is a business requiring care, and it can be entrusted only to an officer experienced in this particular branch of duty. To require the attendance of such officers during the whole time in which post offices are open would involve considerable additional cost, which would seem to be unnecessary, as there is little demand from the public for money orders after the usual hours. The sale of postal orders on the other hand requires no special skill or knowledge, nor the keeping of any special account, but is like the sale of stamps, and can be undertaken by any officer and at any hour.

  RESTRICTIONS ON IRISH CATTLE TRADE.
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware of any cattle disease within the cordon drawn by the Londonderry Board of Guardians, which district includes the Counties of Derry, Donegal, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Leitrim, Sligo, Mayo, Galway, Roscommon, the Poor Law Union of Cavan, and the Union of Longford; whether his attention has been directed to a resolution passed by the Deny Board, protesting against the stoppage of cattle drawn from that district at English and Scotch ports, and thereby prevented reaching the markets in the interior; and if he finds, on inquiry, there is no disease of any kind within this district, he will take steps to remove all restrictions upon the exportation of cattle drawn from that protected area?
  MR. CHAPLIN: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Donegal on Thursday last, I felt it necessary to prohibit the removal inland of animals landed in Greenock and Glasgow, not because I had any reason to believe that foot-and-mouth disease existed within the Derry cordon or in any part of Ireland, but because a somewhat serious outbreak had occurred not long ago in Glasgow, and if movement inland from Glasgow and that neighbourhood had been allowed at that time, the risk of spreading the disease would have been very great. I am happy to say that I have now felt myself justified in removing the prohibition against the movement of animals out of Renfrewshire, and there is now no reason why Irish cattle should not be landed at Greenock and sent inland to those counties which do not object to receive them.

  THE WEARING OF THE SHAMROCK
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if it is a fact, as stated, that Staff officers were observed, on the 17th March, wearing the green in uniform on duty in camp at Aldershot; that one regiment was played to Divine Service with a bunch of shamrock stuck in every helmet; and whether, in view of the fact that there seems to be no objection, in principle, to the wearing of national emblems on national festivals by soldiers, their doing so in future should be generally allowed?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Commander-in-Chief has no knowledge of the circumstances stated in the question, and His Royal Highness considers it desirable to leave all such questions to the discretion of the commanding officer.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE IN KENT.
  MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can now see his way to rescind or to relax the orders with respect to the moving and selling of sheep and oxen in the County of Kent?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I regret to say that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth-disease occurred on Saturday last, the
  154
  26th inst., at Pheasant's Farm, Milton, near Sittingbourne, with which locality the hon. Member is well acquainted. Another occurred at Neats Court, Minster, yesterday which was reported to us this morning. Under these circumstances, I do not see my way to make any further relaxation of the existing orders at present.

  ROYAL SMALL ARMS FACTORY.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, considering that Section 4 of "The Superannuation Act, 1887," provides a gratuity on discharge to workmen employed in the Royal Small Arms Factory for not less than seven years, the Director General of Ordnance Factories has published a notice in the factory that he will not recommend for gratuity any employé with less than twelve years' service; and, if so, by whose authority the Act has been overridden?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Act is purely permissive, and the seven years was the minimum service for which a gratuity could be awarded. Having regard to the fact that in the Ordnance Factories and the Naval Dockyards the full market rate of wages is paid, and that such gratuities are not given in the private trade, after full consideration it was not thought that a less period than twelve years could be applied to such establishments.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is a fact that the Superintendent of the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, has written to the War Office, pointing out the seriousness of the proposed discharges of workmen from the factory; and, if so, will he lay the letter upon the Table?
  MR. BRODRICK: No special representation has been made on the subject, but the Secretary of State has been in constant communication with the Superintendent at Enfield to avoid all unnecessary discharges.

  THE BEHRING SEA DIFFICULTY.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government, before refusing the request of the United States Government for a renewal of the modus vivendi of last year regarding seal fishing in Alaskan waters, had under their consideration the telegraphic Despatch of the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool, Her Majesty's Special Commissioner, in which he stated that "the renewal of last year's prohibition and the 7,500 limit would be beneficial"; if so, will he state why the policy thus indicated is not being followed?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: It is not correct to say that Her Majesty's Government have ever refused the request for a renewal of the modus vivendi. The conditions under which Her Majesty's Government are prepared to agree to a renewal are fully set out in the papers published yesterday. The hon. Member has not accurately quoted the Despatch of the 9th March from the Special Commissioner, who stated therein that he was of opinion that the taking of one season's limited crop could not injure the seal herd, but that the renewal of last year's prohibition and the 7,500 limit would be beneficial although not necessary. That policy is being followed, subject to the conditions considered necessary by Her Majesty's Government, in the interest of British subjects engaged in the industry.

  IMPRISONMENT WITH FLOGGING.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at the Newcastle Quarter Sessions in October last a man was sentenced by the Recorder (Mr. Digby Seymour) to a year's imprisonment and three whippings of twelve lashes each, one whipping to be inflicted at the beginning of the imprisonment, the second at the end of six months, and the third a week before the man's liberation; if so, what was the nature of the offence; what was the form of
  156
  the indictment; and under what statutory authority was the sentence imposed?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The prisoner in this case was convicted of indecent offences towards three different women. The proceedings taken were under 5 George IV., c. 83, ss. 4 and 10. The Recorder subsequently recommended that the second and third whippings should not be inflicted, and this part of the sentence has been remitted.

  PREVENTION OF CRIMES ACT— THAMES POLICE COURT.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Jeremiah Cronin, who was charged at the Thames Police Court on Tuesday last under the Prevention of Crimes Act, with failing to report himself, when the learned Magistrate (Mr. Mead) remanded the prisoner for summonses stating the specific charge to be served on him, and is reported to have said—
  "At present there is no evidence of any direct charge. I have already pointed out the loose way in which these cases are prepared by the Authorities;"
  who is responsible for the proceeding against Cronin; whether the preferring of such charges under the Prevention of Crimes Act has to be specially authorised by any official; and whether he will take steps to secure that the said Act shall be enforced only in a careful manner?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I hear from the learned Magistrate that this case will be before him to-day, and, under the circumstances, it is not expedient that I should reply to the hon. Member's question.

  COLONIAL COMMERCIAL LEAGUES.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the self-governed Colonies are free to form a Commercial League among themselves, and to admit foreign nations thereto, but that Great Britain is precluded from entering into similar mutually advantageous trading arrangements within the Empire she has founded, by provisions in Treaties made with two alien States; and, in

  157
  such case, if Her Majesty's Government are taking any steps to remedy this condition of affairs?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say self-governing Colonies are free to form Commercial Leagues among themselves, subject, in the case of the Australian Colonies, to the restrictions of Section 3 of the Australian Colonies Customs Duties Act of 1873. The products of foreign nations could under the scheme be admitted by the League on the same terms as the produce of the colonies comprising the League; but Great Britain could only be a party to such League on condition that Belgium and the Zollverein received similar treatment to Great Britain. We have no information leading to the belief that at present the Colonies desire to adopt a policy of such a Customs Union; but should such a desire arise, and the Treaty between Great Britain and Belgium and the Zollverein interpose obstacles in the way of the realisation of such a desire, it would be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to consider how to remove those Treaty restrictions and to shape their course accordingly.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: In this connection, may I ask if any answer has been sent to the unanimous address of the Canadian Assembly in December last?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information, but, of course, if my hon. Friend puts a question on the Paper I will make the necessary inquiry.

  SALARIES OF IRISH LAND COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he will give effect to his pledge of last year, that measures would be adopted in the present Session to make the salaries of the Irish Land Commissioners appointed in 1885 equivalent to those of their junior colleagues appointed in 1887 and 1890?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill dealing with this subject, though I do not pledge myself that it will carry out exactly the view which,
  158
  judging from his question, the hon. Gentleman seems to hold. The Bill will, I hope, be introduced very shortly by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, but I will consult with him on the subject.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to convey that there has been a modification of the view expressed by the Government last year?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is not to understand that, but it would be premature to offer any explanation of the Bill now.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to cut down the higher salaries?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman should wait until the Bill is introduced.

  COAST COMMUNICATIONS.
  SIR E. BIRKBECK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the great importance of rendering every facility for the better preservation of life and property round the coast of the United Kingdom, he will be good enough to grant an early opportunity for a Debate on the question of "Coast Communication," in order that the House may be enabled to pronounce an opinion as to the desirability of establishing a complete system of telephonic and telegraphic communication round the coast as well as with certain rock lighthouses and light vessels? I ask this question, notwithstanding the fact that I have been fortunate enough to secure this day four weeks for the discussion of my Motion on the subject.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope my hon. Friend will be fortunate enough without any special arrangement to obtain the day he seeks for the discussion of the important question to which he refers, but I am afraid that in the event of my hon. Friend not finding the time by the ordinary methods to bring the subject before the House, it will be impossible for the Government to make any exception in favour of a particular Resolution without involving themselves in difficulties which would make the carrying on of Government Business well nigh impossible. I should be glad, however, if the hon. Baronet would specify more

  159
  particularly what measures he has in view which he desires to recommend to our notice.
  SIR E. BIRKBECK: With the permission of the House I may be allowed to say that what I ask for is: (1) That a complete system of day and night (including Sundays) telephonic and telegraphic communication be provided by Her Majesty's Government round the coast of the United Kingdom in order that every coastguard and signal station be so connected, and that where such stations do not exist the post offices nearest to the lifeboat stations be connected; (2) that certain lighthouses which could probably furnish early and valuable information to lifeboat and rocket apparatus stations be also placed in telephonic and telegraphic communication; (3) that a Royal Commission be appointed to inquire into the desirability of connecting certain light-vessels and rock lighthouses by cable with the mainland in order to give information of vessels in distress.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have hearty sympathy with the object he has in view, and I hope that during the present year the Government may be able to do something material towards carrying it out.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Does the hon. Baronet mean to include Ireland in his proposal; he said, I think, Great Britain?
  SIR E. BIRKBECK: I said distinctly the United Kingdom.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Does that include Ireland?
  SIR E. BIRKBECK: England, Scotland, and Ireland.

  EMPLOYMENT OF WILLIAM DIGBY, OF CALEDON, COUNTY TYRONE.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if it is a fact that William Digby, of Caledon, County Tyrone, was employed for eight years in carrying the night mail to Tynan on Sundays at 1s. a week, the job having been offered to several Protestants and refused; whether an arrangement having been come to lately by which the post became worth 6s. a week, Digby has been discharged and a Protestant appointed in
  160
  his place, and whether there was any fault to be found with Digby on the score of character?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Digby was employed by the sub-postmistress of Caledon as station messenger on Sunday evenings, a duty for which an allowance was made of 1s. a trip. Whether the job had been offered to others, and, if so, of what religion these others were, is not known. Since the 23rd February last the duty has been merged in a night mail station service, for which an allowance is made of 6s. a week, and Digby's services are no longer required. He is reported to have been insubordinate and to have given much trouble at Christmas time.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the nature of the insubordination? Was it in the fact that the man acted as agent for a Nationalist subscription?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The official Report says: Owing to his insubordinate conduct, and he having given much trouble to the sub-postmistress during the late pressure, he cannot be recommended for further employment.

  THE DUNDALK BURIAL BOARD.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN (on behalf of Mr. NOLAN,): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have declined to sanction a loan of £6,500 applied for by the Dundalk Joint Burial Board, under Section 247 of "The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878," for the purpose of providing a cemetery for the united district of Dundalk, under the Dundalk Joint Burial Board Provisional Order, 1891, upon the ground that a certain proportion of the sum asked for would be chargeable on the urban district of Dundalk, which sum with the balances of other loans would exceed twice the annual assessable value of that district; whether he is aware that the net annual value of the premises assessable within the district of the Joint Board amounts to upwards of £31,000, and whether, inasmuch as the Joint Board has not at present incurred any liability by borrowing, it is entitled to borrow up to double that amount without reference to the separate liabilities of its constituent authorities; and if he

  161
  would state what is the practice as regards borrowing by Joint Boards adopted by the English Local Government Board?
  MR. MADDEN: The case is substantially as stated in the first paragraph of the question. The net annual value of the urban sanitary district is £21,890; and twice that amount, or £43,780, is the limit under Statute of the borrowing power. There is at present a sum of £35,995 due in respect of loans borrowed under the Sanitary Acts, which thus leaves £7,785 as the present maximum amount which can be borrowed as a charge upon the urban sanitary district. The proportion of the proposed burial loan for which this district would be liable amounts to about £4,500, while at the same time there is a proposed sewerage loan of £7,000, making a total of £11,500 against the present maximum limit of £7,785; so that the Local Government Board were unable to sanction the amounts sought. The Board were legally advised that they were bound to take into account the indebtedness of the urban sanitary district when considering the loan to the Joint Burial Board. An Inspector of the Local Government Board has recently held an inquiry, and as a result the Board has suggested that the Sanitary Authorities and the Burial Board should confer with a view to proposing some modification of their schemes.

  CERTIFICATE OF DEATH.
  MR. MADEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an inquest held on 22nd March, 1892, at the Islington Coroner's Court, by Dr. G. Danford Thomas, on the body of Susannah Elizabeth Waller, aged seven months, the daughter of Herbert Waller, greengrocer, of 100, Palmerston Road, Finsbury Park; and whether he is aware that a certificate of death was given signed by D. H. Dyte, L.R.C.P. Lond., M.R.C.S. England, and L.S.A. Lond., of 43, Poole's Park, who it was proved had not seen the deceased before her death; if so, what course of action does the Home Secretary propose to take?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have received a Report on this case from the Coroner. The facts are correctly stated in the question. The Coroner informs me that he has communicated with the Registrar General in order that such legal action may be taken as he deems desirable. I may add that I have received a letter from Dr. Dyte, who admits he had not personally seen the deceased and expresses his deep regret, but he explains that the child was regularly attended by his assistants, who reported to him from time to time, and that he was only prevented from personal attendance on account of severe illness.

  THE POLICE REGULATIONS AS TO CARTS.
  SIR J. KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in the case of Dr. Callaghan, of Colyton, whose leg was broken owing to his horse shying at a Post Office hand-cart left unattended in the public road, the leaving of the hand-cart was a breach of Police Regulations, for which the Department is responsible, and therefore liable to make compensation to Dr. Callaghan?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am informed that there was no breach of Police Regulations in this matter. The Regulations require that any truck shall not "stand longer than is necessary for loading or unloading goods," and in this instance the accident happened whilst the Post Office men were carrying into the office the parcel basket which had been brought in the truck. It is quite clear that the Department is absolutely free from all responsibility in the matter.

  ROYAL ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in connection with the Royal Army Clothing Factory, any value-scale for trimmings has as yet been adopted; and, if so, since when and how; and whether the apportionment of amounts chargeable to the Army Clothing Factory service on garments in connection with cutting and trimming is fixed by the manager of the factory and accepted on his authority?
  MR. BRODRICK: There are difficulties in fixing a value-scale for trimmings. The matter is, however, under consideration, and a decision will soon be arrived at. The apportionment of amounts chargeable on garments in connection with cutting and trimming is according to a scale drawn up by the manager of the Clothing Factory; and as he alone has the practical experience necessary, this scale is accepted on his authority.
  DR. TANNER: Is it a fact that these matters have been animadverted upon on many ocasions, and have been condemned by the Attorney General?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware that that was so, but the whole matter will be carefully inquired into.

  OFFICERS OF DEPOT CENTRES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Colonel NOLAN,): I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the total cost of the pay and allowances of the officers commanding depôt centres?
  MR. BRODRICK: The total cost is £40,146; £29,196 is the amount saved from the Pension List; and, therefore, that leaves £10,950 as the net cost of this employment.

  MILITARY LANDS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  SIR E. BIRKBECK: I desire to put a question to my hon. Friend, of which I have not been able to give him private notice. I would ask him whether he is aware that Clause 15 of the Military Lands Consolidation Bill, read a second time last night, seriously affects the rights of fishermen, coasting traders, and others; whether he will defer the appointment of a Select Committee until the Target Practice Seawards Committee have reported; and whether he is aware that the Bill will affect the interests referred to at Plymouth, the Needles passage of the Solent, a portion of the sea near Portsmouth, a portion of the Thames near Sheerness, and Cork Harbour?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware of the points to which the hon. Baronet refers, but I think if he will consult the Bills which are here consolidated, he will find that we are only dealing with
  164
  the present state of the law. I would suggest to the hon. Baronet that when the Select Committee is appointed, that will be the proper opportunity for bringing on such points and for calling attention to them, and I will under take, as far as I have the power, to see that the interests which he suggests are properly represented on the Select Committee.
  SIR E. BIRKBECK: Might I point out to the hon. Member——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR E. BIRKBECK: I would ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that the Committee on Target Practice Seawards has only just commenced its proceedings, and that the Committee has to go down to Plymouth and other places and make inquiries, and whether he will defer the appointment of a Select Committee till evidence has been brought before the Target Practice Committee and they have been able to report?
  MR. FLYNN: Might I ask if the War Office have not received several complaints from the Cork Harbour Commissioners as to this target sea practice?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware that such complaints have been received. As regards the question of the hon. Baronet, the best course would be not to move the Select Committee this week, and if he will kindly renew his question on a subsequent occasion I will undertake to give him an answer on the points he has raised.

  SCOTCH EQUIVALENT GRANT BILL.
  MR. WALLACE: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Scotch Equivalent Grant Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On Thursday.
  MR. WALLACE: Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that the Second Reading of that Bill will be taken on that day?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As certain as anything can be in this House.
  MR. WALLACE: I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he knows in what order he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Scotch Equivalent Grant Bill on Thursday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already stated four times that we intend to put it down as the First Order of the Day.

  THE INSPECTION OF MINES.
  MR. BURT: I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the refusal of a colliery manager to allow the Inspectors appointed by the workmen under General Rule 38 of the Mines Regulation Act to examine the place where a fatal accident may have happened; and whether the workmen's Inspectors are not empowered by the Act to examine such places?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have received no official information of such an instance as the hon. Member refers to. By the 38th rule of the Coal Mines Regulation Act it is provided that an examination by or on behalf of the workmen of every and any part of the mine shall be permitted, and it is compulsory upon the owner to afford every facility for this being done at least once a month. Whether such an examination has, or has not been made, I hope that in the event of anything serious the owner would place no obstacle in the way of such inspection by the workmen.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  DR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, may I call attention to the second Order of the Day, "Military Lands Consolidation Bill. Adjourned Debate on Motion for committing the Bill to a Select Committee." That was proposed, I believe, after twelve o'clock. Am I to understand that this is an adjourned Debate, it being contentious Business after twelve o'clock?
  MR. SPEAKER: After the Second Reading of the Bill, the Member in charge stated what further action was proposed to be taken in regard to it. There might not have been any objection, but, he having proposed that the Bill be referred to a Committee, and objection being taken, I at once said that in the circumstances the Bill must stand over, and so it becomes from the necessity of the case an adjourned Debate.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    POSTAL TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT.
    DR. CAMERON: On the last occasion on which I called attention to a matter connected with the subject, an hon. Member came to me afterwards and asked what interest I had in the telegraph system. I may, therefore, at the outset explain that I have no earthly interest as a private individual in the Telephone Company whatever. My interest in the whole question of telegraphy and telephony arises from the fact that many years ago I was instrumental in getting this House to accept the Resolution which led to the adoption of sixpenny telegrams. The Post Office of this country acquired the telegraph system when the telephone had not been invented. In 1876, when a Committee sat to consider the question of postal telegraphs, the invention had attracted some attention, but no mention was made of the telephone as a possible adjunct of the telegraph. In 1878 telephonic communication was being developed, and the system was so far perfected that the Post Office saw it was likely to grow into a serious competitor with the postal telegraphs, and accordingly in a Bill which was introduced in 1878—a Telegraph Bill—the Government endeavoured to extend the monopoly of the telegraphs, which they had purchased, to the monopoly of telephonic communication, which they certainly had not purchased. And in the Telegraph Bill of 1878, as it came down from the House of Lords to this House, Clause 3 read as follows:—
    "The term telegraph in addition to the meaning assigned to it by that Act shall include any apparatus for transmitting messages or other communications with the aid of electricity, magnetism, or any other like agency."
    That was evidently intended to confer on the Post Office a monopoly of telephonic communication without

    167
    any proposal to compensate the inventor for his invention in this country. That appeared to me and some of my friends a dishonest proposal, and we opposed the Bill on that ground until the Government consented to drop that clause. The Bill went through with that clause knocked out, but the Post Office saw the danger to their monopoly of the telegraphs which would arise from the development of the telephone, and they set to work and tried to obtain a monopoly in another fashion. Under another clause of the Telegraphs Acts they brought an action, and on the 21st December, 1880, Mr. Justice Stephen delivered judgment in their favour, declaring that the telephone was, for the purposes of the Telegraphs Acts, a telegraph. I do not blame the Post Office for their anxiety to secure a monopoly of telephonic communication. They had expended at this time a sum of £10,000,000 of public money in acquiring the telegraph system, the postal telegraphs were barely paying their working expenses, and it was certain if the competition of the telephone was brought to bear against the telegraph system the result would be a heavy loss to the Post Office. I do not find fault with them, therefore, for endeavouring to extend the monopoly as a protection against that loss. And I say if they had followed up the advantage they had gained in a more business-like manner, they would have been enabled to acquire, on very reasonable terms indeed, all the equitable rights of the inventor of the telephone; they would have been in a position to arrest any attempt to plunder them, as was done in the case of the telegraphs, and in the telephone in this country they would have acquired a most valuable addition to our telegraphic service, which they could have worked in a way such as no private company could have done. The Post Office had the telegraphs in its own hands, it had the highest technical skill in its own department, a monopoly of buildings and offices all over the country, and a network of telephonic communication could have been established with which no private company could ever hope to have competed in point of efficiency and cheapness. And the telephone in that way would have been
    168
    an admirable feeder of the telegraph service. The Government when they acquired the telegraph service did not, as I think they should have done, afford some equitable compensation to the inventors of the telephone. Instead of doing that, they proposed to attempt to set up some telephonic service for themselves. They did it, however, in a very feeble way, and they defended themselves rather by levying a very heavy tax, a crushing tax, upon such Telephone Companies as were in existence. They levied upon those Companies a tax of some ten per cent. upon their gross earnings. If their intention was to crush out this competition the invention was too valuable to be crushed out, and it improved and extended notwithstanding the heavy taxation. By-and-bye the public conscience began to feel touched. Mr. Fawcett, a gentleman with a very high sense of what was just and who was in intimate touch with public opinion in all matters connected with his Department, saw that the position of the Post Office was untenable, and proposed a new arrangement with the Telephone Companies. In some respects his arrangement did not go far enough; it might with advantage have further reduced the royalties proposed to be levied; but it also went too far, as it placed the trunk lines of the country at the disposal of the Telephone Companies, or promised to give them licences over the trunk lines for communication between the great towns. When the Post Office acquired the telegraphs, an argument put forward in favour of monopoly was perfectly sound. It was that if competing companies were allowed they would tap the large towns which were profitable and leave the smaller and unprofitable towns to the Post Office. The Postmaster General said that in those places where the trunk system has been most largely developed the postal revenue was suffering, and that to such an extent as to make it imperative to consider the question of taking back these trunk lines. By these lines London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Brighton, and other large towns are in communication, and all the large Scotch towns are similarly connected, while it is promised that, at an early date, all the

    169
    large towns throughout England and Scotland shall be in communication. Long distance telephony can be made perfectly satisfactory, as is proved by the line between Paris and London, and by the long-distance Continental lines; but in this country it has not yet been developed to such an extent as to be a dangerous rival to the Post Office. When, however, we have the double wire system, with the best instruments, it will prove a formidable rival to the Government telegraphic department. A crisis has now arisen in consequence of the companies asking for powers which it would be right for them to seek if they were proprietors instead of being merely licensees, and the Government oppose these powers. The right hon. Gentleman is too fair-minded not to know that it is impossible to check the growth of the telephone system in this country, and he comes forward to propose as a new modus vivendi that the Government should take back their right to the trunk lines, and in return should lay inter-exchange cables, and allow the use of the post offices as public call offices to the Telephone Exchanges. Mr. Fawcett hoped through competition to secure a cheap and efficient public service. There were, at the time of his arrangement, 13 Telephone Companies licensed to set up wires throughout the Kingdom, but there was nothing like free trade among them. I know of a number of instances where licences were refused when they ought to have been granted. There is the case of a Mr. Symmington, in my own constituency, who, before the introduction of the telephone, created an ABC Telegraph Exchange, and secured a number of subscribers, who had ABC telegraph instruments. He, therefore, first introduced the system of telegraphic exchanges to this country, but he was refused a telephone licence. In another case a gentleman, at the approach of the period for the expiration of the Bell patent, brought over some loud-speaking telephones and sought a licence, which was refused him. In December, 1890, I asked a question on the subject, and was told that it was under consideration. In June, 1891, I received the same reply, and a few weeks ago the Postmaster General told me that it was still under con-
    170
    sideration. Meanwhile, the competing companies have come to a nice comfortable arrangement between themselves; they have practically united in one single company, and so constituted a great monopoly. The consequence is, that the present price of the telephone service is greater than anywhere else in the world. The rent in London is £20, and the service is not such as to give satisfaction. A deputation from the Chamber of Commerce waited on the right hon. Gentleman the other day, and one member spoke of the London service as being the dearest and most inefficient in the world, and another represented some thousands of telephone users, united in a Telephone Subscribers' Protection Society, whose object was to get a better service from the National Company. Mr. Raikes opposed the amalgamation of the National and the United Telephone Companies, and threatened official pains and penalties, but nothing has been done in the matter. Now, the right hon. Gentleman proposes another policy which, so far as I can see, will consolidate and perpetuate the telephone monopoly which at present exists. He proposes a system of greater restriction, and tells us that new licences shall only be given under conditions of increased stringency. He also proposes to give the post offices as public call offices, and that will practically give the company using them a monopoly, or, at any rate, an advantage over the other companies. If the Government charge for the inter-exchange cables it will be an addition to the royalty, and the companies will then probably add to their charge, and certainly not lower them. As I do not wish to be unfair to the Post Office, I may mention another reason for the unsatisfactory, condition of the telephone service. The paper Electricity says—
    "It is not the Post Office which has stood in the way of telephonic progress. Like electric lighting, telephony has been artificially kept up by iniquitous financial speculation, and, as for instance in London, by the ignorance and bungling of an inexperienced staff of employés."
    I cannot speak about the speculation and inexperienced employés, but that something beyond the Post Office is to blame for the high charges is evident

    171
    from the fact that in those districts where dissatisfaction has given rise to competition—as in Manchester—the rent has been reduced to £6 a year, instead of £10 or £12 a year as in other provincial towns. That proves that high charges and unsatisfactory service deter the public from using the telephone. The Manchester Company, which is a new one, put down the double wire system, and within three months of starting had 800 subscribers, the total number of subscribers in London being only five times as many. This incontestably proves that there is something beyond the royalty which is responsible for the strangulation of the telephone business in this country. The policy of the Post Office has utterly failed to bring about competition; it has led to monopoly and high charges; and has kept out improved instruments and an improved system of wires. If we had free competition new companies would come in and spend their capital to greater advantage, and the public would be better served. But between the practical monopoly which the Government has allowed the National Telephone Company to obtain and the inflated capitalisation of the Company, the old system, which was good enough at the commencement of telephonic enterprise in this country, is still considered good enough in London, and practically good enough for all the country except where competition has induced the Company to lower its rates. The result has been to cripple the system. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the other, day that the City of Berlin, although it has not one fourth of the population of London, and although it has much greater postal facilities than London—for it has a tube post by which you can every five minutes send a card or a letter to any part of the town—and although Germany is a very much poorer country, yet in spite of these disadvantages Berlin has four times the number of telephone subscribers that London has.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: What I said was that the proportion of telephones was four times greater than in London. I mean that while the number of telephone subscribers in London may be one per 1,000, in Berlin it is four per 1,000.
    DR. CAMERON: However that may be, the telephone subscribers in Berlin number 17,000, and the fact remains that the Government work the telephones. In France the Government recently took over the telephones, and in 18 months from the time of taking over the number of subscribers in Paris was nearly doubled. Between September, 1889, and January, 1892, the number of subscribers had been increased by 3,475, and the annual income had been augmented by £40,000. This shows how powerful is the natural growth of telephonic communication when once restrictions have been removed and an efficient service provided. It has often been said that telephones are the luxury of the rich. They have been the luxury of the rich in this country in consequence of the high charges and the heavy imposts placed upon them by the Post Office. In Switzerland the Government charge 80 francs (64s.) a year as a fundamental tax for 800 messages, and over that number a charge is made of five centimes (½d.) A similar tariff has been adopted in Norway and Sweden, and I maintain that when once the service is in the hands of the Post Office, and when there is a call box in every post office, there will be no reason why the telephone should not be as generally used as the telegraph, and it will be most useful to the poorer classes of the community who cannot compress their words to meet the necessities and charges of the telegraph. Of this I am certain—that if the Post Office will give the facilities which they propose to do in connection with the Post Office to Telephone Companies, and if the Telephone Companies, driven by public opinion and the force of competition, double their wires and improve their system, the Post Office will find that in urban districts also the telephone system will rise up as a formidable competitor to the Post Office telegraphs. The Post Office will, sooner or later, in self-protection, have to acquire the telephone system, and every year the sum they will have to pay for it increases. If they had acquired it in 1880 they might have secured it for a few hundred thousands: now the sum has grown to millions. But for the impression which the heavy cost of the

    173
    acquisition of the telegraphs has made upon the country I am certain that the Post Office would not hesitate to purchase the telephone system; but it must be remembered that the Post Office is in a totally different position with respect to the acquisition of the telephones from that it was in at the time of the purchase of the telegraphs. When it proposed to purchase the telegraph system, it proposed to purchase an undertaking over which it had no control, and for the management of which it had no special facilities. After completing the purchase on the best terms it could make it had to buy its experience, and that at a very costly rate. The telephone stands in quite a different position. It possesses already the monopoly of telephone communication, and it can refuse licences or can grant licenses to competing companies. I have no desire to see anything like a confiscation of existing rights, but the Post Office must see that it is in a position to insure that it should not be called upon to pay more than a fair and equitable sum for the acquisition of the system. Already it has a large margin of profit in its royalties, so that if it were to forego altogether the dividends which the Telephone Companies pay, and to forego any prospective increase which the companies will have to pay on their inflations of capital, the development of the system would rapidly increase the revenue which the Government derives from that source. There is a most intimate connection between the telephone and the telegraph. Already it has been shown that simultaneously you can have telephonic and telegraphic messages transmitted along the same wire. Already in Germany the telephone has been made use of as a means of communicating to outlying districts with most satisfactory results. The Government has undertaken the business of telephonic communication with Paris, and, doubtless, that experiment will be followed by the extension of the telephone cables to other European countries. The Post Office is now proposing to take over the trunk lines, and to take over the construction and charge of inter-exchange cables. To safeguard their telegraphic business they will find that they are bound to
    174
    go a step further and to take over the whole of the business into their hands, Up to the present the Post Office has only appeared in connection with the telephone as the proprietor of rights for which it has never paid; as a levier of blackmail on the users of the telephone, and as a taxer of that speedy communication between the citizens of the country, and especially between business people, which has done so much to accelerate and to stimulate business in this country. Under the Post Office system of dual control, and in spite of the avowed policy of the Office, a monopoly has grown up under which the public groan and the telephone languishes; and in asking the House to support the Resolution which I have put on the Paper, I ask the House to affirm the principle that the Post Office should do something to justify its monopoly, and that it should relieve us of this system of dual control, which has been fraught with so much mischief.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I think it is a matter for regret that more notice was not given of a question of the importance of this one. It is of the greatest importance that this House should strengthen the hands of the Postmaster General by insisting that the whole system of telephonic communication should be taken over by the country. At the same time, I cannot agree with the hon. Member (Dr. Cameron) that it would have been better if the telephones had been taken over ten years ago, because a great number of the concessions are falling in, and there is now a better opportunity for the Postmaster General to acquire the whole system on advantageous terms than at any previous period. It has been clearly pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet gone far enough, but I hope that the discussion to-day will enable him to go further, and take over the whole telephonic connection. I was not a very great advocate for telephonic communication until I had seen the marvellous progress, the splendid instruments, and the system of work in foreign countries. I had no notion of the great future of telephonic communication until I had witnessed the system in Australia, and had read an

    175
    article, which has no doubt been brought under the notice of the Postmaster General, by the Duke of Marlborough on "The Future of Telephonic Communication." No one who has read that article could fail to come to the conclusion that it is absolutely necessary for the State to take over the telephonic system, and to introduce some system such as is in force in Melbourne, a city with only a third of a million of inhabitants. I trust that this will not be made a Party question, but will receive the support of the entire House, and I have pleasure in supporting the Resolution.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Post Office system of granting licences to private telephone companies having resulted in the restriction of telephonic communication in this country and a costly and inefficient service, this House is of opinion that, alike in the interest of the postal telegraph and the telephone service, the telephonic monopoly possessed by the Post Office should be worked directly and in connection with the Postal Telegraph Department,"—(Dr. Cameron,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR A. ROLLIT: I agree most cordially with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Heaton) in expressing regret that more general notice was not given of this Debate, for I am certain that there is no question in which the commercial community just now takes more interest than in that of telephonic communication. I have had the opportunity, as Chairman of the Council of the London Chambe of Commerce, of ascertaining the wishes of the business part of the community with regard to this matter, and I do not hesitate to say that the general feeling is that in the matter of telephonic communication we are much behind other countries. Experience has conclusively proved that the telephone is a great commercial advantage, and, in fact, that in these days commerce cannot be successfully carried on unless the system of communications is as perfect as it can possibly be made. Despatch is now one of the chief elements of profit, and unless commerce has
    176
    at its service the latest and best appliances of science it cannot be conducted advantageously or properly. I believe, with the first speaker (Dr. Cameron), that the telephones could have been very profitably bought some years ago, and that every year adds to the sum we shall have to pay for them. For my own part, I value at its full rate the advantages which this country has derived from private enterprise, but I think there is now some danger of estimating too highly the service of private enterprise and of underrating the power and organisation of the State. The principle of action which I venture to suggest on this point is that the State ought, as a general rule, to do for the community those things which it can do cheaper and better than the individuals themselves; and this principle is, in my opinion, applicable both in the State and in the Municipalities, not only to subjects of primary necessity, in which it has been largely adopted, but also to our system of communication and the like. And, as regards communications, it is a matter of some urgency that the State should bring to the aid of the individuals greater power than the can themselves apply. Then I think there can be no doubt of this,—that other countries are taking every means to avail themselves of that power and organisation on the part of the community. Let us contrast for a moment the want of development of the telephone compared, in the hands of private companies, with what has been done by the State in regard to the telegraphs, and even the telephone itself. I had an opportunity of experiencing the other day the great facility with which communication could take place from the London General Post Office with so distant a place as Marseilles. That is no longer an experiment; it is a most admirable success as between London and the south of France. I have also some experience of such matters in America, where numbers of towns practically become one, and where an admirable system of intercommunication exists. And judging of the application of the telephone in this country I have no hesitation in saying that when conducted by the Post

    177
    Office it is decidedly better than in the case of the application by the chief private company. So far as I have had an opportunity of comparing their relative merits, I believe the system introduced by the State under the admirable direction of Mr. Preece has been attended with great practical advantages in this country. It may not be cheaper, but, whether due to a complete metallic circuit and so to the limitation of induction (as I think essential), or to other causes, it is certainly much better because more audible. That being so, I think we ought to persevere in the same direction. The great obstacle, possibly, to the development of the telephonic system may be the fact that it may be made to contribute too much to revenue, I think, in the case of the Post Office that has been carried too far, and that the commercial community has been practically and unduly taxed for the benefit of others, thereas the community ought not to be taxed for classe or classes for the community. In the event of acquiring the telephonic system, therefore the House should protest against the Treasury regarding the system mainly or chiefly for revenue purposes. What the country wants, if it is to keep pace with competing nations, is the best and the cheapest forms of inter-communication.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and it seems to me to be essentially a question whether in this particular monopoly the State ought to impose conditions on private companies, or do the work itself. The hon. Gentleman opposite has elaborated a very interesting and valuable Socialistic view of the duties of the State. I very much agree with him, speaking generally; but on this particular subject I would point out that this is essentially a luxury for the rich. ("No, no.") Well, you say "No"; my hon. Friend says "No" behind me. It depends upon who my hon. Friend considers a rich man. There is no doubt that if telephonic communication is introduced into houses generally, it will be at a charge of at least £6 per house. (Dr. CAMERON: No, £4.) Well, £4. I will split the difference, and say £5. Anyhow, as a matter of fact, it
    178
    will cost about £40 to connect any particular house with the telephone. You have got to pay interest on that; besides that, you have to pay for the expenditure of the central office—the people employed on the thing—and I think if anybody calculates it, he will see that I am not very far wrong in saying that the minimum cost in cities, like London would certainly be over £5 for the privilege of being connected with the telephone. Therefore, I should not say that this is essentially a poor man's question, and I should rather say that it is a question for not a very rich man like my hon. Friend behind me, but for that man who has certainly a larger amount of wealth than the mass of the community. I remember talking to the late Mr. Fawcett when he was Postmaster General upon this very question, and at that time I urged him to take the patents up at the expense of the State, because I thought the telephone would compete in private hands with the telegraphs and injuriously affect the Revenue. The difficulty then was this: the patents were not in the hands of the original patentee, the patents had got into the hands of the promoters of companies and such like persons. It would, consequently, involve a charge of an immense sum of money for these patents more than they were worth, considering that the patents would be out after the lapse of about 14 years. That was the reason why Mr. Fawcett did not take up the cables. I remember putting the matter to the late Mr. Raikes when he was Postmaster General, and he pointed out to me that he himself personally was in favour of taking over the whole thing, but he said the Treasury were not in favour of it, looking at the very great expenditure. The expenditure would be very great indeed. It would amount to about £8,000,000, and certainly it is a matter seriously to be considered, not whether this would add to the Revenue but whether this would pay its expenditure, before we undertake it. Now, my hon. Friend behind me has complained of the essential monopolies involved in the present system of licences; but as I understand the Government plan, that is not intended. As a matter of fact, I believe that almost all the persons who have

    179
    acquired licences have acquired them simply with the object of re-selling them to some particular company. In fact, their object has been a blackmailing one. Therefore, I think the Government ought to be very careful in giving these licences. I think that when the right hon. Gentleman (the Postmaster General) arranges the system in a new Bill he ought to do something like what has been done in regard to the Gas Companies, but with more care for the public interest. He ought to estimate himself, about what the fair price ought to be, and he ought not to allow a company to charge above a certain tariff; and he ought not to allow a company to pay above a certain dividend, providing for a reduction in price under certain circumstances. If this were done, I very much doubt whether there would be any considerable objection to this matter being carried out by public companies. Now we have a National Telephone Company in London. My hon. Friend has most properly complained of that company. That company is a financing company. It had got a capital—speaking in round numbers—of about £3,000,000 sterling. A very large portion of this amount has been expended on what is called buying from the patentees; in point of fact buying patents from middlemen, and Heaven knows who has participated in the spoil. Practically speaking all the important patents have lapsed already, or will lapse in the present year; and therefore we may conceive that the amount of capital which was paid for them is absolutely dead. But these gentlemen have also been perpetually amalgamating with other companies. I think it would have been infinitely better if the Post Office had interfered with these amalgamations. As regards this telephonic system, not only is the service expensive, but the service is exceedingly bad. This may be the consequence of not having this entire metallic circuit. I confess, from the outline of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, I certainly do think, with certain further provisions which I have suggested, it would be better for the public and better for themselves if they carried out this
    180
    system which is to absorb all the trunk lines, and to make these trunk lines intercommunicate between town and town. I think there is at the present moment a trunk line between Paris and London, and I think I am right in saying that it does not pay.
    DR. CAMERON: That is not one of the trunk lines that is going to be taken up. The Government has that, and with the exception of that trunk line it would start discharged of the trunk lines that do not pay.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Certainly; and we will only take over those that do pay. I am very anxious to see the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am bound to say that from the general statement that he made the other day I thought the Bill met this very difficult question very fairly. Like my hon. Friend behind me, I have not, and never had, any financial interest in this matter; but I have always taken an interest in this matter. I thought we were thoroughly behindhand in proportion to the advance other countries have made in telephonic communication; and I do hope that not only in London, but in all the other great towns, we shall have, not only a good telephonic system, but a good, cheap, telegraph system of communication.
    MR. QUILTER: I did not intend to say one single word in this Debate, but as I happen to be so largely interested in the institution which has been so much alluded to by hon. Members who have spoken, I have thought it my duty to draw some slight attention to the matter before the Postmaster General makes his statement. I think I may fairly pass by the statements of my hon. Friend the senior Member for Northampton, who has just sat down. Members of this House must be pretty well familiar with them by this time. I myself have read them, or something very much like them, in the journal with which the hon. Member is connected; and each time they have appeared, I must say I have regarded them with less and less apprehension. I had hoped to have heard from the hon. Member something fresh to-day. It is wonderful that any Company could have developed to such

    181
    an extent as that with which I am connected, with the hindrances and the disadvantages with which it has had to contend, and the utter absence of any power of communication from place to place, and having to do all its business on sufferance. The hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow has talked about "costly and inefficient service." I should like to state that over 160,000,000 messages have been transmitted at the cost of under ¾d. a message over the wires of the National Telephone Company, which, with the answers incidental, and which, Sir, you know as "arising out of," represent nearer 200,000,000. On the question that the trunk wires are inefficient I may state that on one day we sent 40,000 messages between Liverpool and Manchester districts. One more instance to show that we are not so inefficient: in Leicester, Her Majesty's Post Office Telephone had 130 subscribers in July, 1890, when the Company's Office was opened. The Government Office has now only 100, while the National Company have 275, and yet our subscribers have not the same privileges of those of Her Majesty's Post Office. I cannot understand how it is that in a free country like this the licences of the Government are not entitled to the same privileges as the Government subscribers themselves. In spite, however, of this dead weight, the Company has made marvellous way in all parts of the country. I will also say that if it had the requisite and proper powers it has the means, it has the intelligence, and it has the staff, to meet the requirements of its subscribers in London also; and it would be perfectly able to do the work if the Postmaster General would delegate to it those powers for which it contends. I trust it will not be considered that I am holding a brief for the National Company; and that the House will excuse me for desiring to show that it has made very considerable progress, and done much towards the cheapening of communication in this country.
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Both the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down have failed to show us any reason
    182
    why the telephonic system should not be taken over by the State. I do not regard the acquisition of it by the State as a mere commercial act. I believe it would be more to the benefit of the community if it were worked by the State than by private companies. Let me take the case of the Small Arms Factory at Enfield. I hold that it would have been impossible, had that factory been in the hands of a private company, to have attracted so much attention to what has occurred there, and to have obtained such favourable answers from Ministers with regard to it. I deplore the loss of the profits which might have been made had the State taken over the railway system of the country. Telephone communication will undoubtedly progress in the same ratio as the railways have progressed, and it will be another source of regret if the profits which will arise from it are enjoyed by private companies instead of by the community at large. There was one statement which fell from the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow, from which I must entirely dissociate myself. If there is one profession in the world which requires the services of a skilled operator it is that which is connected with the telephone. Personally, I have never been able to understand what anyone says to me through it, and I doubt whether those who have been the recipients of my confidences by its means have made out what I have said myself. Therefore, I take it that the telephonic trade is a highly skilled trade. I hope that the House will adopt the Resolution of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: It has been stated that the telephonic communication in London would have been more satisfactory had the Company had sufficient powers to work upon. I quite believe that that is true; but I say that no Government can wisely give to a private company the powers that are necessary to conduct an undertaking of this kind. Private rights are so large that no company could be permitted to make profit out of a concession made to the public. The whole benefit of the concession ought to be in the hands of

    183
    the public, and it ought to be worked for their benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Northumberland has stated that this is not an undertaking that would benefit the poor. I agree with him entirely. The postal and telegraphic systems do not only benefit the poor; they have been of most advantage to capitalists and people of large means. The same thing is exactly true as regards telephonic communication. It is taken advantage of more by the capitalists than the poorer classes of the community. Therefore, I agree that, in order to make it of some benefit to the general public, it should be taken over by the Post Office and the Government. Every day it is delayed it will be a source of inconvenience to the public. It is the Government alone who can obtain for the poorer classes the benefits which they ought to derive from it. I shall have much pleasure in supporting the Motion.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The Motion of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow should not, I think, be regretted, for it relates to a question which ought to be fully understood, and in the statement I had the honour to make a week ago I said that I desired to take the House fully into our confidence by explaining thoroughly the scheme which we have in view. I do not think anybody will imagine that the interest taken in the country in this matter is to be measured by the attendance at a Morning Sitting. The discussions in the Press during the last week show that it has far reaching interests, and the more the matter is discussed the more it will be seen that it will, if properly handled, contribute to the wealth and the convenience of the country. The discussion has already taken a considerably wider scope than is given in the terms of the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow. Therefore, Sir, I do not think the House will consider I am wrong in following the lines of those who preceded me. Sir, the course previously taken by the Post Office in successive Administrations in regard to this matter may or may not have been the best. It may fairly be considered that this great enterprise of the telephones might have been con-
    184
    veniently conducted along with the telegraph, of which it really forms part, or at any rate to which it is closely akin. But, Sir, that course was not taken, and we have to deal with the matter under existing circumstances, admittedly involving considerable inconvenience from the fact that on the one hand a considerable property has grown up in the hands of licencees of the Post Office, and on the other hand that the system has failed to produce so extensive a use of this most useful invention as was anticipated by the Government who gave licences, or as now obtains in other countries. It would be altogether incorrect and unjust to allege that the object of the Post Office is to stifle this invention. That never was the object of the Post Office—it certainly was not the object of my enlightened and lamented predecessor Mr. Fawcett. I am quite sure there was no man more disposed than he was to encourage invention and to embrace any reform that seemed likely to benefit the country. Now, Sir, the object that we have at heart is the development of the Telephone system, and it is very likely that in my desire not to prolong discussion last Tuesday, my explanations were insufficient. Undoubtedly in the comments that have been made upon the discussion of last Tuesday, several misapprehensions have been disclosed which I am very glad to have the opportunity of removing. It is not correct to say as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the College Division of Glasgow has said that the Post Office set up the telephones in a feeble way whilst they plundered at once the companies and the inventors. In fact, the inventors had in the first instance sold their interests to the companies, and the companies employed them for their own advantage. They did so by the institution of exchanges, which were found by a judicial decision to be against the law because they carried on a business which was part of the Crown monopoly.
    DR. CAMERON: I did refer to that.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes, the hon. Gentleman did refer to the clause proposed in the Bill of 1878. There was considerable difference of opinion as to

    185
    that clause. The authors of it deemed it necessary in order to protect the interests of the public. Other lawyers held that those interests were sufficiently protected by the existing law, and a decision of the High Court showed that they were right. But those who introduced the clause, and those who thought it unnecessary, held that the telephones were within the functions of the State. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow says the Post Office capriciously refused certain applicants grants of licences whereas they were granted in other directions. Well, Sir, no doubt there have been different policies prevailing at different times, and applications were dealt with according to the policy prevailing at the time of their receipt. I am informed that in the case to which the hon. Member referred the application was refused; but if the applicant had applied later, when a more liberal system of licences had developed, he would undoubtedly have been granted a licence. It cannot be said that licences were too sparingly granted, because to 13 companies licences were granted authorising them to establish telephones all over the country; in fact the system was taken up with greater boldness than the railway system in the earlier days of that enterprise, when a great Minister thought it would be the best policy to make the great trunk railways under the control of the State. It is because these companies have amalgamated and because they make no competition worthy of the name, that the establishment of a different system has become necessary; and the Government have intervened to secure the development of the system of exchanges, and their connection with the trunk lines. An hon. Member has referred to an expression I used last week that it is not proposed to continue to grant licences in a wholesale way. Licences will not be granted to companies that are not in a position to carry out what they propose to undertake. We should not encourage competition if we granted licences to persons who could not carry out their undertakings, and who might sell their right and prevent competition being established. Nothing could be more
    186
    contrary to the fact or more irrational to say that the decision of the Government to obtain control of the trunk lines will discourage competition. It is the very way to encourage competition. The hon. Member has referred to the Company promoted in Manchester by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Black friars Division of Glasgow. That Company established an exchange in Manchester on liberal terms to subscribers. Well, Sir, I think that the decision of the Government to acquire the trunk lines will enable the Government to connect all such exchanges with local exchanges all over the country, so that subscribers in one part of the country may be put into communication with subscribers in every other part. That will be the means of healthy development. Whilst the Government propose that companies should be assisted by becoming connected with the Post Office to acquire a new development of their industry, we only propose to grant the concessions to companies that are ready to join in that system of free and unrestricted communication which it is the intention and the desire of the Government to bring about. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the College Division said the companies ascribed the high rates they charged to the excessive royalties they had to pay, and he argued from that that the possession by the Government of the trunk lines would either oblige still higher rates to be charged or involve the giving away of public money for the benefit of the companies. I cannot admit that the ten per cent. royalty has prevented the large development of the telephonic system. I understand the amount paid as royalties has never exceeded £46,000, whereas I am told the National Telephone Company is paying a dividend of six per cent. both on its debentures and its ordinary shares, on a capital of about £1,800,000.
    MR. QUILTER: The dividend paid by the National Telephone Company was 4½ per cent. on the debentures and 6 per cent. on the share capital.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: My figures must have been wrong, but my point remains unaffected that it is not the royalties which have been a hindrance to telephonic development. Now, Sir,

    187
    the hon. Member has referred to the great development of telephonic communication in Paris. That is, of course, a Government system, and it is exactly that system that we desire to follow in the scheme we have stated to the House—a system which imposes no restriction upon free communication with the Post Office. Having acquired the trunk lines and the mains the Post Office would be able to promote free communication and the commercial development of telephones. The hon. Gentleman opposite says that this appears to be only levying of blackmail.
    DR. CAMERON: I never made use of that expression in relation to the acquisition of the trunk lines and mains.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Gentleman used the term in connection with the Post Office. The main reason why the Government desire to get the trunk lines into their hands is to see that whatever revenue arises from the telephones a portion shall go to the public. In the second place they desire to promote that development which has been frustrated in the way that has been mentioned. But there is a third way in which the possession of these trunk lines will be of value—it was the way which was alluded to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton. We are, at this moment, in possession of a telephone between London and Paris, which has attracted so much custom that we have been obliged to make a second circuit. The last report I had was that the number of conversations over that wire was about 120 per day—the charge is eight shillings for three minutes—so that I have no doubt when the Government are in possession of the main trunk lines, and have completed their system, there will similarly be constant conversation between all the large towns in the Kingdom. Persons will be enabled to converse between London and the large towns in the same way as they can do with Paris at the present moment. That will be perfectly independent of the local exchanges. Now, Sir, there is another thing. The Post Office at present possesses the right of laying down underground wires; and having the means, the Post Office will be quite ready to lay down wires and to let them
    188
    out to the Telephone Companies within these areas for the connection of the exchanges and for the convenience of the public. It is only because we have greater facilities that we propose to undertake this work. Again, we have no desire to restrict unduly the operations of the companies, which we hope will conduce to the public service, and, therefore, we are willing to place a liberal interpretation upon the definition of exchange as far as the areas within which the companies may lay their main wires are concerned. The hon. Member for Canterbury has expressed a desire that the Government themselves should take over the telephones, and, following the example that had been set with respect to the telegraphs, make them national undertakings. I am afraid, however, that such a proposal will be very far-reaching. I do not suppose that in order to carry out the telephone system anything like the large capital that has been invested in the telegraph system would be required, but, at the same time, the House will hesitate before it authorises the Government to increase so largely the duties of the Post Office, or the number of people in its employment. I think it undesirable that there should be a direct employment by the State of a great number of employés, because it is not unknown that complaints have been made in the House with regard to public servants which would never have been heard of had those persons been servants of private companies, who are able to go into the labour market and obtain their servants at the rate of wages which is regulated by the law of supply and demand. Under such a system the employés obtain the best price for their labour, and the companies get the work done as cheaply as they possibly can. But a different element altogether is introduced when the State becomes the employer, and the amount of salaries to be paid for a given quantity of work is no longer fixed by the market price. In these circumstances, I submit that the Government have acted prudently in endeavouring to restrict the number of persons in their employment as long as the Public Service is efficiently pro-

    189
    vided for. It is admitted that as the telephone is developed a great many more persons must be employed in its Service, and the result would be that in a few years as many persons will be employed in the telephone service as are now employed in the telegraph service. In these circumstances, the Government have resolved not to acquire the business of the companies, but to permit them to continue to carry on the service under their licences. Another point presents itself. It is quite evident that there would be calls for an extension of the telephone in districts where it would not pay. It is much more difficult for the Government to resist such calls for extension than it would be for private companies to do so. Of course, if it were desired that the telegraph and telephone systems should be carried on by the Post Office, irrespective of the amount of profit revenue to be derived from them, that would be a different matter, and the public want could be easily provided for. The hon. Member for Canterbury says in certain of the Australian Colonies the Government have taken over the telephones and telegraphs and are working them with great liberality. So they have taken over the railways, which are almost entirely the property of the Government; and in these countries, as in India, the undeveloped state of the country rendered it necessary that the Government should undertake many matters which can be better managed in this country by private companies. But it is very difficult for the Government to work such undertakings at so cheap a rate as can be done by companies. I know that the Government in India has undertaken necessarily many enterprises which here are left to private agency; but my own recollection of the Australian Government is not favourable to the financial success of such undertakings. Only the other day we heard that the Government of Victoria were increasing the rate of postage and reducing the number of trains, because they were not remunerative. It is for these reasons that Her Majesty's Government have not thought it prudent to undertake this great additional service, and have decided to leave the working of it to
    190
    private companies. Her Majesty's Government, in these circumstances, feel bound to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member. With regard to the profit of the revenue that is likely to be derived from supplying the public demand for a telephonic service, it is a remarkable thing that an extension of the service beyond a certain point involves a reduced profit. A Director of two American Telephone Companies has informed me that it sometimes takes two or three years of the amount of subscription to pay for a fresh installation, and it is not until the lapse of that period that any profit begins to be derived from the particular subscriber. Those things ought to operate as some excuse for the companies not having brought the cost of their service within what some would call reasonable bounds. We will, however, try to improve the system; and I make bold to say that, in a short time, telephone communication will proceed at a rate hitherto unknown. There are one or two points upon which there is some misapprehension which it is desirable should be removed, and if I oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman I think it right to show that the offer of the Government is not illusory, and that we have the same object as the hon. Gentleman has at heart. We propose that trunk communication shall be established as widely as possible between one part of the country and another. There is no reason why new companies should not be formed to create new exchanges. I have not the least doubt that in a very short time we shall hear of the establishment of new companies and new exchanges, although the existing companies could establish new exchanges with special advantages; and behind the companies, if they fail, is the power of the Government to erect exchanges of their own. We desire that telephone communication should be established as widely as possible between one part of the country and another. I have pointed out that there is no reason why new companies should not be formed to create new exchanges; I know of two or three which are only waiting for the settlement of this policy to start. New companies would commence with

    191
    special advantages, for they would avoid the mistakes and imperfections of the earlier experiments. Undoubtedly, if people desire to have an exchange in their town, and cannot conveniently establish a company of their own or are not efficiently supplied by an existing company, the Post Office will come in, as in the case of Newcastle and Hull, and supply telephone exchanges, and perfect the system. The safeguard of the taxpayer will be our possession of the trunk wires and the fact that a proportion of any profits arising from the increased transactions of the companies will accrue to the Post Office and go to the direct benefit of the Revenue.
    MR. SUMMERS: Is there to be a metallic return?
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes, in all cases under our control. I now desire to point out that no part of this policy requires the sanction of an Act of Parliament, it is all within our existing powers. The Bill is only to extend the facilities for the construction of telephones and telegraphs, I hope with due regard to the rights of Local Authorities and private individuals. I have been describing a new development of the policy to be pursued by the Post Office under the authority of Her Majesty's Government. Undoubtedly the House of Commons will have to be consulted as to the Vote for carrying out this policy as regards trunk and main lines, which will require a considerable expenditure of capital, and will increase the Post Office vote ad hoc, so that Parliament will then be asked to endorse the action which is proposed. We propose to relieve the companies of the burden which has hitherto rested on them in the heavy charge for way leaves, 20s. a a mile, where the Post Office has a monopoly, and practically to give them permission to use the post offices as public call offices. I hope that the result of the competition will not be to diminish the profits of the companies, but that they will share in the extension of this scheme which is so much desired, and is calculated, as I believe, to place this country in as full possession of telephonic convenience as any country in the world.
    MR. PROVAND: We have heard a great deal in the way of complaint against the telephone service, mostly by those outside the House who are users, but some of the statistics given by the right hon. Gentleman will give a better idea of how inadequately London is supplied as compared with the third rate towns in America. He said that in one town there was a telephone to every 80 inhabitants; and in another one to every 120; in London the supply is one to every 750 inhabitants. That is to say, that London, the largest and richest city in the world, the greatest business city in the world, has only one telephone to 7, 8, 9 or 10 in the second and third rate cities of America. Some hon. Members have spoken as if this Motion meant that the Government were to buy up the Telephone Companies, but there is nothing to that effect in the Motion; it merely says that the telephone monopoly should be worked in direct connection with the Telegraphic Department of the Post Office. It was at one time the monopoly of the Post Office, but the Post Office granted licences to 13 companies, though only three or four of them are in use at the present time. These licences have yet 20 years to run, and meanwhile the Government have the option every seven years of buying the companies up, the next opportunity being in six years time. It has been said that at present telephones are a luxury of the rich; in London they are not a luxury of any kind, but a painful necessity at all times to those who have to use them. It seems to be suggested that the Government should take over the telephones because they would do the work better than the private companies but they have not done so in the places where it has been tried. In Leicester the number of Government telephone subscribers has remained stationary while those of the National Company have considerably increased. In Manchester the Mutual Telephone Company got a large number of subscribers in a very short time. I understand that the inter-town service which the Government intends to take over and work is profitable, and that in some districts it pays enormously. The hon. Member who is connected with the National Company said

    193
    that the number of messages in one day between Liverpool and Manchester was 47,000, a number which appears extraordinary. I have been told that the lines between Glasgow, Edinburgh, Leith, and other large towns in Scotland pay good profits as do also the lines round Birmingham and in the manufacturing districts of Yorkshire. If the Post Office will take over and properly works these lines, they may do it with a very good return on capital expenditure. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not told us more as to what is to be in the Bill, which is not yet laid on the Table of the House, though the matter has been under consideration for 18 months, and I hope there will not be such delay in its production as will cause any risk of its not passing this Session. I fear I cannot vote for this Motion, because if it means that the Post Office is to start exchanges in opposition to the licensed companies that would be inequitable, the more so that they pay to the Post Office ten per cent. of their earnings. Of course, the Post Office can establish them where licensed companies do not exist. If it means that the Post Office is to buy up the companies and the price is to be settled by arbitration on the basis of the returns, I shall vote against the Post Office doing any such thing. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to bring in a Bill asking the House for the money to buy the telephone businesses of this country, and were severely examined as to what property he would get for the money, the House would refuse to give it. If the Motion proposes to purchase without saying on what terms, I am afraid I am unable to vote for the Motion of my hon. Friend.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): This matter so deeply concerns the finances of the country that, perhaps, the House will not object if I should say a few words on the subject, not with standing the speech of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General. I think the Executive Government, if I may say so in no Party spirit, and the Civil Service, may congratulate themselves on the fact of the readiness with which the House seems disposed to entrust a vast new business to a Public Department. One would
    194
    have thought during some of the Sessions that have elapsed that so many complaints have been made as regards the Post Office administration, that any proposal asking for power to extend the business of that Department would have been very severely criticised by the House. But I take it from the general expression of opinion, so far as one could gather it, that not with standing the complaints that may have been brought against that Department, the House still has considerable confidence in it, and is not afraid to in trust it with new and increasing duties. While accepting that confidence, I think it is a principle which should not be pushed too far, and I am not prepared to accept to an indefinite degree the growing disposition of the public to place new duties on the State. The Postmaster General is, I think, at present at the head of an army of 100,000 persons, and the relations which he has to establish and maintain between the heads of Departments and this mass of employés is of growing importance, and we must not look forward with any light heart to the number of Government servants increasing in such vast numbers as they do now from year to year. I know the hon. Member for Lanarkshire takes an entirely different view on that matter, and I, perhaps, differ from him just for the reasons which make him assent to the proposals. I do not think it wise in the interests of the country generally that the Government should be continually extending its functions. I wish the House to be extremely careful, and especially in such a case as this, before they ask the Government to put its hand to new work of these dimensions. I think I may fairly say that my late right hon. Friend, Mr. W. H. Smith, who had as much experience as any man of Public Departments and of private business, took the strongest view on this matter, and was entirely a party to the view which the Cabinet took on this matter, namely, that they would not undertake to buy up the whole of the telephone business of the country. We wish the House to know how far we are prepared to go in order to meet the case, and we are not prepared if it can be avoided—and I think it can be avoided—to take up the whole

    195
    of the business of the Telephone Companies. The hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Provand) put two very pertinent questions to the hon. Member for Glasgow, who introduced this matter. He asked whether it was the intention of the hon. Member that we should buy up the whole of the Telephone Companies, or that the Government should compete freely without any compensation against the companies. On the point of buying up the companies, if the House were determined that that is the best way of proceeding, it would be found that an enormous expense would be incurred. With respect to the other matter, of course it would be impossible for the companies to compete, and it would be necessary to take some steps in the nature of money payments to the companies. I remember perfectly well what happened when the Telegraph Companies were bought up, and I shudder at the recollection of the enormous price which the Government had to pay under those circumstances when the private companies stood on their various rights. The public at that time were determined that the telegraphs should be taken over, and the cost was immensely greater than it would have been if the matter had been approached with greater caution. I do not wish the Government to be placed in a similar position with regard to these telephones, and we have, on the other hand, to submit to the House a plan which I think combines the simplicity of Government control with the expansion which we may expect from private enterprise. My right hon. Friend has explained how the trunk lines would be taken in hand by the Government, leaving to the localities the working of the local exchanges. If this is done I believe the public will be better served than if the Government took over the whole business, because there would be competition in the localities to serve the public as well as it could be served; and the attitude we should take up towards the Local Authorities will ensure that when we are assured that a town is badly served, competition should be introduced by another company, but where a town is sufficiently served there should
    196
    not be all the inconvenience of multiplying wires, taking up the streets, and useless machinery which is inevitably attendant on the establishment of competing companies. It has been suggested during the course of this discussion that the Local Authorities might be willing to undertake the telephone business themselves. I see nothing contrary to the Government policy in such a proposal. If in any particular town the telephone system is not established, there is no reason why they should not undertake it, and communication be established with the rest of the country through the trunk lines which would be in the hands of the State. But though I have spoken strongly against the Government taking more into its hands than is necessary, I think the time has come when it is absolutely indispensable for the Government to have the trunk lines in its hands, because, unless the Government have these trunk lines, we cannot have the competition which is desired by the country. If the companies retain these trunk lines it would be impossible that there should be fair competition. Why has the National Company got a practical monopoly over the other companies? Because they have the trunk lines in their hands, and any telephonic circle which is established is only half useful unless it can be put into telephonic communication with the whole of the rest of the country. The consequence is that if any particular locality is not connected with the trunk lines it is only half-served, and does not get the full benefit of the telephone. And so, in one sense, the Government by taking the trunk lines into their own hands can secure free trade in the localities. On the other hand, we wish the Local Authorities to exercise supervision. I do not know whether the House is aware of the powers which the Government possess in this matter, but there are powers under which they can act, and which render it unnecessary that any fresh Bill should be introduced. In the licence granted by the Government are these words—
    "Nothing in these presents contained shall prejudice or affect the right of the Postmaster General from time to time to establish, extend, maintain, and work any system or systems of telegraphic communication."
    Several hon. MEMBERS: Yes; telegraphic communication.
    MR. GOSCHEN: That covers telephonic communication. I am not sorry for the interruption, because it gives me an opportunity of explaining here that telephones are practically telegraphs, and it has been held that the same powers which the Government possess with respect to telegraphs they can apply to telephones. But I will read again this extract from the license:—
    "Nothing in these presents contained shall prejudice or affect the right of the Postmaster General from time to time to establish extend maintain and work any system or systems of telegraphic communication (whether of a like nature to the aforesaid business of the Company or otherwise) in such manner as he shall in his discretion think fit neither shall anything herein contained prejudice or affect the right of the Postmaster General from time to time to enter into agreements for or to grant licences relative to the working and user of Telegraphs (whether of a like nature to those worked and used by the Company or otherwise) or the transmission of telegrams in any part of the United Kingdom with or to any Company person or persons whomsoever upon such terms as he shall in his discretion think fit."
    Therefore all the licensees have been warned that the Government has retained the power in their hands, and it will not be against either the spirit or the letter of the licence if we establish trunk lines; but I do think that it would be against the spirit of the licence if we were to take the local arrangements entirely into our hands during the continuance of that licence, to the detriment of those who on the faith of that licence have been extending their system up to the present moment. I hope the House will consider these fair terms, and I venture to hope that they will not pronounce against the Government, in the sense of asking that the Government should take over the whole of this undertaking. We have gone a long way in this direction, and we have confidence that we shall be able to work tins system with great elasticity, though I am fearful as to the effect of the telephone on the telegraphic revenue. But we have come to the conclusion that financial considerations ought not to prevail against the extension of the telephonic system, in what is considered by the
    198
    public to be a convenient and sufficient form. We do not wish the arrangements of the Treasury to interfere with the development of the telephonic system. This discussion has been a very useful one, and has shown the various points on which the public convenience ought to be considered, and I think the House will admit that the policy which the Government asks it to follow is sound and just.
    MR. ROBY: I think this is a time when the telephone system may be extended with great advantage, and I trust that this Resolution will be pressed to a Division. I cannot help thinking that the Government, even if their present plan is adopted, will find in the long run that they are compelled to go a step further, and the only effect of putting off that step is that they will have to pay very much more for the telephones, when they do purchase, than they would have to pay at present. I am not disposed to advocate any inequitable dealing with the Telephone Companies, but it is one thing to deal equitably, and another to deal on the basis of extreme rights. The Government will find at some time that they will be compelled to take the whole system, and I think the wiser course would be to face the matter at once. I cannot agree with the argument of the Postmaster General that an increase in business means a corresponding increase in expenditure, because the cost of extending machinery or plant is not so great as laying it down in the first instance. And we find in all works that while certain extensions lead to an increase for the moment of the cost of the product, increased business after a while largely reduces the cost.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Member does not properly estimate what is meant by the extension. New subscribers mean new wires and new instruments, and these cost as much as the wires and instruments in the first instance.
    MR. ROBY: I cannot deal with the matter from my own personal knowledge, but I think the view I suggested is not without reason. But I want to suggest, further, that increased facilities

    199
    for extension must be placed in the hands of those who are working the Post Office. At present the Government secure all they can out of the Post Office telegraphs, whereas the Exchequer ought to be content with a fixed sum in the way of profit, and to allow the excess to be used by the Postmaster General for the prosecution of experiments or extensions in order that all possible advantages and facilities should be given to the public. The Department should be worked to some extent for the benefit of the public as well as for profit. There should be more elasticity in the arrangements which exist between the Postmaster General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the business is carried on by private companies, the profits go to the shareholders, and the public get little of the benefit, whereas if the Government had stepped in and bought the telephones, any profit that is made would be devoted to the reduction of taxes in someway, direct or indirect, and the public would be eased in that matter. Whether it would not be possible to work some part of the system by arrangement with the Local Authorities is a suggestion well worth considering; but as the telephones are competing with the telegraphs, I think it would be right to make a good mouthful of the business, and for the Government to take the whole matter into its own hands.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 205; Noes 147.—(Div. List, No. 57.)
    Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    PAYMENT OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
    DR. CLARK: I rise to call attention to the payment of officials in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Last year I called attention to the Estimates for Scotland. This year I shall confine myself to pointing out, in the Estimate dealing with Local Government and one or two other Estimates, where Scotland does not get a fair share of the Imperial grant. I may say, so far as Scotland is concerned, even in the Scotch Office here in London, the officials are paid according to the scale and rate existing in
    200
    Scotland. Next door to the Scotch Office is the Home Secretary's Office; and the senior clerks in the Home Office are paid at the rate of from £700 to £800 a year. The senior clerks in the Scotch Office are paid at the rate of from £450 to £600 a year. There might be something in the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Treasury, that people in Scotland did not pay as much as they do here for either clothing or food; but here is an officer living in exactly the same town and same street, who, in the English Office is paid £800 a year, while in the Scotch Office he is paid £450 a year. I only want to point out that the argument used last year does not apply. I want to call the attention of the House to the Local Government Vote for the three Kingdoms. The total amount of the Vote for England is £162,049; for Ireland, £133,792; and for Scotland, £9,117. What I object to is that this is contrary to the decision arrived at when we agreed that one-half of the Probate and Licence Duties should be paid for the purpose of cutting off these local elements—in fact, taking them away altogether from Supply; and still we find, not with standing the fact that England is getting half the Probate and Licence Duties, we are here still paying in England £3,626 for the inspection of Poor Law schools, and we are still paying £48,964 for district auditors. All these sums ought not to be defrayed from the Imperial taxation at all. In England you have got a medical officer who gets £1,200 a year, with two assistants at £1,000 a year each, and nine Inspectors receiving from £500 to £800 a year. In Ireland there is a medical officer receiving £1,200 a year, and four Inspectors receiving from £50O to £700 a year. In Scotland you have only got one medical officer, for whom you pay £200 a year, and there are no assistants and no Inspectors. The result is, that there is no proper inspection, and the Public Health Act is not properly carried out and enforced in Scotland. In consequence of the parsimony of Parliament in this respect as regards Scotland there are hundreds of preventible deaths occurring in Scotland, and what ought to be done in Scotland is what has been done in the

    201
    case of England and Ireland—namely, to provide a sufficient number of medical officers and Inspectors. There are cases in which costs defrayed by local rates in Scotland are here defrayed partly by local rates and partly by a subsidy from Parliament. The cost of registration in Scotland is entirely defrayed by the local rates, and it ought to be so defrayed in England. "We bear the entire expense in Scotland. I think that in England and Ireland the entire expense should be defrayed by the local rates. We ought not to vote from the Imperial taxes a single penny towards it. I shall at the proper time move that this Vote be disallowed on the ground that it is not required. The subsidies in respect of England and Ireland ought to be discontinued. But there is a much more important question, and that is the subject of technical education. In England there is a Royal College of Science, and in Ireland there is a Royal College of Science, and these are subsidised, but not a single penny is given to Scotland for that purpose. Therefore, our Scotch lads who have to compete for situations in the open market are unfairly handicapped by the State paying this money for technical education in England and Ireland. I shall at the proper time move the reduction of the amount given to England and Ireland for that porpose. There is another matter to which I wish to refer. £15,000 was voted for England and Scotland three or four years ago; but the whole of that amount has been spent on England only, and any for Scotland curtly refused. As I pointed out on the last occasion, there is also a great disparity between the pay of the prison officials of the three countries. The chaplains particularly are very badly used. The salaries of the second-class officials in England begin at £400, and go up to £500. The salaries of the chaplains of that class in England begin at £350 and go up to £450; in Ireland they begin at £325 and go up to £400; whilst in Scotland the chaplains and surgeons begin at £200 and go up to £300. When I raised the question last year I was told by the then Secretary to the Treasury that the reason was that there were more prisoners in the
    202
    English prisons than in the Scotch prisons; but when I looked at the Returns, I found that the very opposite was the case. Take a large one in Scotland—Barlini—there is an average attendance daily there of 740, while in Stafford there is an average of 588, and in Wakefield 591. Now, in Wakefield the chaplains and surgeons get £350 to £400; at Barlini, where there is a larger attendance, they get from £200 to £300. Therefore, they are underpaid in Barlini. I shall have again to call attention to these special Votes, and to move their reduction to the Scotch level. I think that in this, as in many other things, we are rather badly treated by the Imperial Parliament. I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Gorst) to it, in order that he may be able to rectify our grievance, and see that a sum of money is voted to Scotland equal to that voted to England and Ireland.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. GORST,): I do not know whether hon. Members expect to have a detailed answer to the observations they have made. They have criticised the Estimates with the view of showing what is spent on England and what is spent on Scotland; but the question is, I think, whether, in the different parts of the Kingdom, a sufficient amount is spent to make the Service efficient; and if Scotland can do it efficiently for a less sum than England, so much more is it to the credit of Scotland. I do not think that the pay of the chaplains in Scotland alone should be considered, but whether the Services as a whole are adequately conducted and whether the necessities of Government are met. The hon. Member has selected several Scotch services on which the expenditure is less than on the same services in England and Ireland. It would be easy enough to pick out instances in Scotland where the expenditure is very much greater in proportion. For example, the administration of the Education Act in England costs £58,000, while in Scotland it costs £10,000. But Scotland is a country where the population is more diffused than in England, and therefore education is proportionately more expensive. It

    203
    would be foolish, however, to complain of such expenditure as an injustice to England. Again, the inspection of factories, workshops, and mines in England costs £144,000, while in Scotland it costs £26,750, which is in the proportion of one to eleven, instead of, according to the population, two to fifteen. The question to be considered in each case is, whether the service is adequately performed, and not what is the relative cost. The total cost of the administration of prisons in Scotland is higher than it is in England, the proportion being two to seven, or twice as much as it should be if it were in proportion to the population of the two countries. With all respect to the hon. Member, I think that to compare the salaries in Scotland with those in England or in Ireland is not a very useful course to pursue, and that neither the House nor the Committee of Supply will derive any advantage from carrying on the discussion.
    MR. CALDWELL: I wish to point out that the Post Office officials, as well as other officials in Scotland, are not paid so well as those who discharge similar duties in England. We wish to see equal salaries paid to them in both countries. In Scotland we are taxed equally with the people of England, and no allowance is made for the fact that Scotland is a poorer country than England—we are taxed up to our full population. Therefore, there is no reason why our officials should be paid less than those in England. The result was this: when you take out of the Imperial Estimates the Scotch grants and take off the English grants you have left on the Imperial Estimates a great many grants to England for which there is no corresponding grant to Scotland at all. There is on the Imperial Estimates for England £162,049, whilst opposite to that we have only £9,117 for Scotland. On the Imperial Estimates there are large sums for England for which Scotland gets no allowance whatever. For example, an item such as this: Inspection of Poor Law schools, several thousand pounds. In Scotland Poor Law schools are paid out of Scotland's share of the Probate Duty—the money allocated to Scotland as a separate
    204
    nationality—and charges corresponding to that ought in England to be charged to the Local Government Account. Then, I notice some other charges, and amongst them engineering establishments of the Local Government Board Medical Department, Local Government Board Inspection of Alkali Works, &c. All these are properly chargeable against the English Local Government Account, and are not properly chargeable on the Imperial Estimates. There is another point—namely, technical schools. There are in Scotland no technical schools corresponding to those you have in England, and, consequently, there are no corresponding grants to the Scotch people. This endless confusion and endless discussion has arisen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer having divided an Imperial Account into what are now National Accounts. That is one of the defects that will confront the Government at every stage, and their difficulties will not be lessened by the result which these separate accounts show—namely, that England is dipping more deeply into the Imperial pocket than Scotland.
    MR. WALLACE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has improved the feeling between the different sections of the Empire by the speech which he made a few minutes ago. I do not like to use the expression, but I really think he was adding insult to injury. During the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman walked down the length of the floor to the Bar. I knew his object; he was in quest of facts, but found no person able to give him the information he desired. That being so, on taking up the Paper, he commenced to live, in a sense, on his wits. But we know in Scotland that people are proverbially insensible in a matter of this kind to the effects of the highest line of jocularity. We want something that is practical, and the right hon. Gentleman, to my mind, did not afford us very much satisfaction of that description. He affected to say that the reason why the number of public servants in Scotland was so low, as compared with England, was that the work could be done there more

    205
    economically. But, Sir, there is a certain justice to be observed. I admit that the public servants in Scotland are more economical to the Exchequer. What we complain of is that that is an oppression and an injustice, and we say that the persons who do the work in Scotland do it on starvation lines. Why should that be—why should starvation lines be the Scotch standard, and liberal lines the English standard? These are the grievances we complain of. The right hon. Gentleman thinks he satisfied us by placing the grievances in a way that was more favourable, but we are not so insensible to the way of putting things as the right hon. Gentleman is pleased to consider. We know the reason why there is this disparity of remuneration in one country as compared with the other is simply this: that England is a supremely powerful nationality in comparison with ourselves, and that they have unjustly used the power they possess. It is simply the weakness of our Scotch representation that prevents us from having a fair recognition in the distribution of public servants, and the remuneration necessary for the maintenance of those servants. The right hon. Gentleman will not put off the Scotch people with this explanation: that it is an honour to us that we can do the public work that is wanted in a more cheap, and I presume in a proportionately more perfunctory form. We know that is not true. Sir, sufferance is the badge of all our race. I say that with a non-Hebrew application. We do not want to maintain that badge, and the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness is that, as far as possible, that badge of not only of sufferance, but of dishonour and disgrace, should be done away with. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, in casting his eagle eye over the Papers, fell upon one or two facts. What is the explanation of the fortuitous advantages he descried in looking over that Paper for the first time? It is simply this: that we have not been totally unsuccessful in pursuing our claims even against the English public. Sir, the voice of remonstrance and the claims of justice, although not perfectly responded to, are
    206
    sometimes listened to in a diminished degree, and I think it was clinching the disadvantage he brought against us when he used the imperfect facts that came to his knowledge in attempting to corroborate his sophistical and fallacious—and I would use another word if I had it at my command—arguments in connection with a portion of the Empire that deserves very much more respect, not only in general but in financial aspects, than it is getting at the present time. The Scotch public understand perfectly well how the matter stands, and, taking it all over, it was well put by my hon. Friend and new ally the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Caldwell). They perfectly well understand that the financial disparity is, on the whole, a true index of the political disparity and of the absence of the respect properly due to the Northern part of the Island. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary gave up the case as regards the frightful cost of administration in Ireland; but as regards the weaker part of the Empire (weaker, I mean, in point of representation), with regard to the Scotch portion of the Empire, it is simply sat upon and neglected, because it has not the amount of representative power that the other portions of the Empire enjoy. It does not occur to me to press the matter any further. I desire, with my colleagues, simply to emphasise the feeling that we are not fairly treated; that we are treated with a contempt that ought not to be extended by the more powerful to the less powerful part of the Empire; and I trust that the small success that we have achieved in connection with certain parts of our administration in regard to their financial value will, by the persevering pressure of the Representatives of Scotland, extend so that bye-and-bye the right hon. Gentleman will not have it in his power to attempt to evade an honest and proper and statesmanlike explanation of the clear facts which he contradicted by resiling from practical truths and falling back, I will not say on flippancies, but on cleverness and on an adroit manipulation of arguments which he knows how to use, but which will not deceive those to whom they are addressed.
    MR. HUNTER: I think we have a right to complain that when a notice of this kind comes forward for discussion no Representative of the Treasury Bench acquainted with the facts is here to deal with it. That is all the more to be regretted, because the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, although he possesses great natural acuteness, exhibited to this House this afternoon a total and complete ignorance of the facts of the situation. It was only a gentleman completely ignorant of the state of the facts in Scotland as well as in England, who would, for one moment, have compared the office of Secretary for Scotland with the Home Office. Sir, the Office of the Secretary for Scotland is not only the Home Office, but a Local Government Office, and an Education Office and a Home Office all rolled into one. If the right hon. Gentleman had known that elementary fact he would not have made the comparison in which he indulged. Nor do I think the right hon. Gentleman was fortunate in his defence of the low salaries of the present officials in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Do not look to the money, but look to the efficiency." If he is aware of the fact that you could go into the market and obtain as efficient a doctor for £200 as the gentleman to whom you are now paying £400 there would be some force in his observations; but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is not the case, and that the result of the extremely low salaries paid in Scotland is this: that you get a less efficient class of public servants, and must do so. You cannot get any properly educated or qualified medical man to serve in a prison in Scotland at £200 a year. No Scotch doctor, unless at the very bottom of his class, would take such a position at such remuneration. Sir, what we complain of is the inevitable inefficiency that results from the employment of inferior workmen. You have only to look to Irish salaries. I am quite prepared to admit that in Scotland you will get men of equal efficiency at somewhat smaller salaries to do the same work that is performed in England. England is a richer country than Scotland, but Scotland is
    208
    twice richer than Ireland; therefore, the salaries in Ireland, if the contention of the right hon. Gentleman is to have force, should be lower than they are in Scotland. But in point of fact they are on a much higher scale, and that is a complete answer to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. If Scotland is to get the benefit of these economies one might appreciate them, but the monies go into the Imperial Exchequer. I do not desire to say anything in favour of exorbitant salaries, and for this reason—that I look forward to the time when Scotland will manage her own affairs and get the advantage of her own economies. Instead of paying per head of the population in Customs and Excise an equal amount to that paid in England, Scotland paid last year more than a million in excess of her proper share. Therefore, Sir, Scotland's contribution to the Imperial Exchequer is far in excess of the fair proportion which she ought to pay, having regard to her population and her wealth; and yet, on the other hand, we have all the Departments of State in Scotland treated in a mean and scurvy and unhandsome fashion, the salaries being insufficient to attract a proper class of men.

    GRANTS TO FISHERY HARBOURS.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have a notice of Motion on the Paper relating to the distribution of grants in aid of fishery harbours in the United Kingdom. I do not wish to detain the House at length, but I should like to point out the result of these grants so far as Wales is concerned. I find in Class II. a considerable grant in aid of the development of fisheries in Scotland, and another grant not so large in aid of the fisheries in Ireland, but I see no grant in aid of fishery piers and harbours in England and Wales. Last year the Government spent £15,000 on the building of piers and harbours in the North of Scotland, and £11,000 on a pier at Thurso for the development of fisheries there.
    DR. CLARK: I beg to say that was money lent for which the Thurso people pay interest; it was not a grant at all.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It was money lent by the Government, not by private individuals, and that is the point of my case. We should be glad of a grant for Wales on the same principle, not getting it absolutely without return; we are prepared to accept it on the same terms as it was made to Caithness. There are Fishery Boards exercising authority in Cardigan Bay and elsewhere on the Welsh coast; but the great complaint is that although these Boards are able to prevent illegal fishing and dredging within a certain distance of the shore they are unable to do anything for the permanent improvement of the fishing industry. There is not a single harbour in Cardigan Bay for the protection of fishing boats, and the same may be said of other parts of both the North and South coasts of Wales. I am not competent to speak of England, but last year I did hear an English Member call attention to a similar deficiency in regard to some parts of the English coast; but into that part of the question I am not competent to enter. Resolutions have been passed by fishing communities in favour of petitioning the Government to consider this question, and last year I called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to the subject. I do not recollect the words of his answer, but so far as my memory helps me, I think he did promise to look into the matter, and I would again earnestly press it upon his attention. We do not desire that the harbours should be made absolutely and entirely out of Imperial funds but that a certain amount should be granted in aid of local subscriptions, or that the Treasury should grant loans on such terms as may enable Local Authorities to undertake the work. Along the coast with which I am most acquainted there are no harbours, so that boats coming from the Isle of Man have, at the least sign of bad weather to return though they may be within a couple of miles of the Welsh coast. The Welsh fishing industry is thus severely handicapped, while, at the same time, large sums are devoted to the development of the fishing in Scotland and Ireland. May
    210
    I press the right hon. Gentleman to give us some promise in this respect?
    MR. T. E. ELLIS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give this subject his favourable consideration. I have on two previous occasions asked him whether he could see his way to help the Fishing Authorities on the West coast of Wales to secure experts" opinion as to where and how it would be best to construct harbours. As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware there are only small towns on the seaboard of the Western District each anxious to advocate its own claim to a harbour, but so long as we have not expert opinion to decide where a harbour would be best placed, and how it would best be constructed, the work of securing a harbour at all is at a standstill. Without harbour accommodation the fishing industry cannot develop, and I hope we may have some promise of substantial assistance beyond the statement of the fact that the Loans Commissioners can make advances for the purpose. The small towns I mention cannot act together. I know the interest the right hon. Gentleman takes in the development, of the fishing industry, and I hope he will promise that an expert's opinion shall be provided as to how and where it is best to provide the most needed protection for the fishing vessels on the Welsh coast.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I can hardly understand how this question arises on the Civil Service Estimates, in which no sum is included for any work of the kind.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes; in Class 2 Vote 28 Grant in Aid for Scotch Fisheries.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Well, I do not wish to dwell upon that. I gather that the request is that certain sums should be granted or loans made by the Commissioners towards the construction of fishing harbours,, but neither of the hon. Members has expressed any opinion as to the place where such grants should be expended. I may observe that on the West coast of Wales there are two good harbours at Milford Haven and at

    211
    Holyhead, and for fishing vessels excellent shelter is afforded by Bardsey Island. I do not say that some additional harbour accommodation may not be necessary, but it is absolutely impossible for me in the absence of any definite request to make any definite promise. If there is any general opinion in Wales that something should be done towards assisting the construction of a harbour at any particular place, surely it is for those concerned to formulate that opinion and lay it before the proper authority, and if such should come before me it will certainly be carefully considered; but I am bound by the terms of the Treasury Minute of May 4th, 1887, which practically precludes grants, and confines my duty to the consideration of applications for approval to loans upon proper security. If hon. Members desire to obtain grants they should endeavour to induce the Secretary to the Treasury to adopt the view that Wales should be put upon the same footing with Scotland and Ireland, and that it would be beneficial to the fishing industry of Wales that grants should be made. But it is not in my power, all I can do is to consider any definite proposal for a loan coming before me. The hon. Member has referred to the Sea Fisheries Committees, and surely they might take expert opinions and if they think necessary formulate some scheme.

    BRITISH MUSEUM CLOSING TIME.
    COLONEL BRIDGEMAN: I take the opportunity to direct attention to the hours at which the public are excluded from the British Museum. Yesterday I addressed a question to the Secretary to the Treasury whether the hours for closing the British Museum could not be made the same as those for the Natural History Museum, and the reply was that it could not be done without additional expense, and that this additional expense prevented the change being made. Four or five years ago I asked a similar question, and obtained a similar reply in regard to the Natural History Museum at South Kensington; but after one or two letters had passed between the Treasury and the authorities at South
    212
    Kensington, the additional time was granted and there was no additional expense for the extra time in February and March. All I ask is that the same time should be extended to the Museum in Bloomsbury. No doubt I shall have the same reply in regard to expense, but that ought, I think, to be infinitesimal for the extra half-hour. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence with the Trustees to get this extension for the public. I have been at the Museum in February and seen the people turned out into the streets by the police at four o'clock while an hour and a half of daylight remained, and I could not but think it hard that the people should not be permitted to enjoy their own Museum for a short time longer.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): My right hon. Friend cannot speak again, but he desires me to say that the Trustees of the British Museum have been consulted, and they see considerable difficulty in making the extension which would involve considerable extra expense. As a matter of fact the Museum is open longer than the other institution with which the hon. Member has compared it unfavourably. The matter, however, shall receive attention, and the Trustees shall again be referred to.

    POST LETTER-CARDS.
    MR. MORTONThere are one or two questions I desire to raise in reference to Post Office administration, and one of these has reference to Ocean Penny Postage, but I do not know that it is of any use arguing it in the absence of the Postmaster General. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consent to adjourn the Debate until we can have the advantage of the presence of the Postmaster General? Of course, if he does not agree to that I must proceed now. The first matter I have to mention has reference to what are called post letter-cards. I have no desire to prevent getting into Committee, or to stand in the way of Business, but I know from experience that we cannot rely upon finding an opportunity later in the Session when the Post Office Vote is taken somewhere about the middle of

    213
    July. On a former occasion I objected to the price charged to the public for these letter-cards, namely ten for a shilling. I think they might be sold for a penny; and I find that in foreign countries they are sold at a much cheaper rate. Here is a sample of the cards sold in Austria at the rate of 20 for a shilling. Why cannot we sell the cards in this country at as cheap a rate? I am bound to say the policy of the Government in this country is to regard the Post Office business as a means for obtaining revenue rather than as an institution for the service of the public.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Main Question be now put."
    MR. SPEAKER: I must leave the responsibility with the hon. Member. I understood him to say he had no desire to prevent a decision being taken on the Motion?
    MR. MORTON: I desire to finish my remarks.
    Question put, "That the Main Question be now put."
    (6.52) The House divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 107.—(Div. List, No. 58.)
    Main Question put accordingly, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    (7.3) The House divided:—Ayes, 188; Noes, 97.—(Div. List, No. 59.)

    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    It being after Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House at Nine of the clock.

  EVENING SITTING.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  MOTION.

    COMPULSORY SALE OF LAND (IRELAND).
    MR. KILBRIDE: The Motion which stands in my name is one of very considerable importance
    214
    to a large section of the Irish people. It closely concerns all the tenant farmers of Ireland who have not succeeded in acquiring the ownership of their holdings under the Ashbourne Act or the Land Purchase Act of last year. It is because of the importance of the Motion—because it is I believe, bound up with the future prosperity of Ireland—that I desire to elicit from Members representing different parts of Ireland opinions in regard to the compulsory purchase of land. I do not intend, and I hope I shall avoid, the introduction of Party differences. I know this is a question which is more and more agitating the public mind; it is thrusting itself to the front; and I trust it will receive favourable consideration in the House, having in view the fact that again and again Parliament has affirmed the principle of land purchase. So far back as 1870 we had what are called the "Bright Clauses." Those clauses in the Act of 1870 failed owing to the fact that the whole of the purchase money was not advanced. Only three-quarters of the purchase money, I believe, was allowed to be borrowed from the State; and the tenant farmers of Ireland at that time, and unfortunately since, have been unable to find the 25 per cent. of the whole purchase money. The "Bright Clauses" of the Act of 1870 failed from this cause, and the Ashbourne Act is more liberal in its character. That Act allows to the tenant purchaser the advance of the whole of the purchase money by the State, with no security—or practically no security—to the State for the advance. No doubt 20 per cent. is retained by the State for five years; but, after the expiration of that period, the only security the tax-payers of England will have for their ten millions of money will be the security of the land itself. I believe that under any scheme of land purchase, no matter how you may hedge it round by artificial safeguards securities, and guarantees, the only real security is the land itself. The British taxpayer has already advanced, or has consented to advance, 43 millions of money for the purchase of Irish land. Ten millions of that have been expended under the Ashbourne Act, and we are told that the 33 millions sanctioned by the

    215
    House in the Bill of last year will be expended. I very much doubt that, because of the nonsensical guarantees and the vexatious arrangements by which the advances are hedged round. I admit that great good has accrued to the tenant farmers of Ireland under the Ashbourne Act, or to that limited section who have been able to avail themselves of it. The number of tenant purchasers are limited by the amount of ten millions under that Act, but I would have the benefits of land purchase extended to the tenants of Ireland as a whole. I do not wish to see those benefits restricted to a minority, who are in no way more entitled to the benefits of the Act than the majority who are excluded. While I admit the good that land purchase has done, I must allow that, on the other hand, it has created many gross anomalies in every county in Ireland. This may seem a sweeping statement to make to hon. Members who do not know the social condition in Ireland as we do, but let me point out that some of the largest land proprietors in the country—such as the Duke of Abercorn, the Marquess of Londonderry, and the Duke of Leinster, and others—have, under the Ashbourne Act, sold land to the amount of £200,000 or £250,000; and these noblemen, in selling their land, sold just as much as would relieve them from their mortgages and other encumbrances—and sold the least valuable parts of their estates no doubt—and were governed in, the sales by the geographical position of the land. They would naturally sell the outlying portions of the land rather than that contiguous to the residence. But how in fairness can such a distinction be made from the tenant's point of view? Why should the man because he lives on the outlying portion of an estate receive a benefit of from 25 to 30 per cent. reduction in his annual payments, and his neighbour living on the better land receive no such benefit? Such a distinction cannot stand the test of time or the next serious wave of agricultural depression. Think what a gross anomaly is created by one man living on one side of a road paying his full judicial rent without the slightest probability of his ever acquiring any
    216
    other property in the soil, while on the other side of the road is a man, who has purchased under the Ashbourne Act, who gets his 25 or 30 per cent. reduction in his annual payments, and at the end of 49 years becomes absolute owner of his holding. No sensible man can maintain that such a state of things can continue. It may continue so long as the tenant farmer is able to pay his rent; but when he finds himself unable to meet his judicial rent, then the anomaly comes home to him, and you will have further agitation, which I think will be generally admitted is not desirable in Ireland. I want to see the Irish land question settled, but I see no finality except in compulsory purchase. I do not believe it is possible to continue a system of dual ownership. When Parliament was passing the ameliorative measures for Irish tenants it was not intended that the benefit should fall only on the few; it was never intended that land purchase should be for some of the tenants of the Duke of Abercorn or Lord Londonderry, or the Duke of Leinster, more than for the tenants of the small proprietor who lives on his estate. It may be hard to compel a proprietor who lives at home and looks after his estate to sell his land; but what I want to do is to put all tenant-farmers in Ireland upon a level, that, so far as their rent-paying capacity may go, they may have an incentive, an encouragement, in the knowledge that, at the end of a certain term of years, they will become owners of their holdings. Again and again since 1870 we have been told that there is no way more effectual to create in the Irish farming class loyalty to the English connection than to make them owners of their farms. But how can you ever accomplish this except by powers of compulsory purchase? The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) has said, with regard to Lord Clanricarde and landlords of that class, that they ought to be compulsorily expropriated. I think the hon. Member said that a landlord like Lord Clanricarde was a standing menace to the peace of Galway. But how can you expropriate such a landlord without some form of compulsory purchase? I certainly do not see how you can, and it is because I desire to see the expropriation of

    217
    landlords of this class that I desire to see some form of compulsory purchase adopted. I believe this advantage of 20 or 30 per cent. is a mere lottery as to who shall get it; and while the few successful men are well pleased, the many disappointed feel a deeper grievance as times of agricultural depression come round, and so the effect of your Land Purchase Act will be to encourage disaffection, not loyalty, and to make men more anxious for separation if there are those who desire separation. It certainly is not a condition of things calculated to promote the maintenance of the Union. I am not wedded to any particular form of compulsory purchase; all I desire is an expression of opinion from Irish Members—more especially and particularly from those representing Ulster constituencies. I think Ulster Members will admit this is a burning question among their constituents. In other parts of Ireland we have succeeded in getting considerable reductions of our judicial rents; but our brother farmers in the North, perhaps because of their loyalty, have not been equally successful. The benefit is, perhaps, measured by the amount of agitation. But we want no distinction between farmers in the North and South, and I am quite ready to advocate the interests of the Ulster farmers apart from all political opinions. My Resolution goes in the direction of Amendments supported last year in the discussions upon the Land Purchase Bill by Members from Ulster. I think an Amendment of this kind was proposed at the instance of considerable bodies of farmers in the North of Ireland. I remember seeing in the Lobby of the House a deputation of associations in Counties Down and Antrim, by whom this Amendment was supported. If I remember rightly, one proposal was that where two-thirds of the tenants on an estate paying three-fourths of the rental desired to purchase then the Land Commission should be entitled to buy the whole estate at a fair price, and sell to the tenant purchasers, thus relieving the landlord from the trouble and expense of having a portion of his estate separated from the rest, and left on his hands. I do not desire to commit any hon. Member to this or any other
    218
    Amendment. I simply ask the House to affirm the principle of compulsory purchase in the direction of these Amendments. My Motion declares that compulsory sale is just and expedient; the justice is found in the fact that the present condition of affairs creates glaring anomalies and gross injustice. It is a gross injustice that upon one side of a roadway a farmer should have to pay 30 per cent. more annually than his neighbour opposite. Compulsory purchase is expedient on many grounds. It is expedient to remove an inequality among tenants which is sure to breed discontent, more especially in large portions of Ulster, but in all the provinces of Ireland. It is expedient also to create the largest possible number of landowners in Ireland; and this ought to have especial weight with hon. Gentlemen on the other side, for ownership is supposed to check all radical and revolutionary ideas, and so I trust that hon. Members opposite will pledge themselves to support a comprehensive scheme of land purchase which will turn all Irish tenant farmers into strong Conservatives.
    MR. KNOX: In rising to second the Motion of my hon. Friend, I feel bound to comment on the strange fact that for six years past—perhaps excepting Home Rule—compulsory sale of land has been the question most actively discussed in Ulster. It is a question upon which, strange to say—though there are differences upon other matters—there is practical unanimity among all tenants North and South. It is a question upon which differences of sect have not been able to create any differences of opinion. Nevertheless, this is the first occasion upon which the House of Commons has been called upon to discuss this question of so much importance to the people of Ireland. The reason for this fact is, I believe, that until the Land Purchase Act was passed last year, we felt that in bringing this question before the House of Commons we should be fighting "as one that beateth the air"—we should have no practical grounds to go upon, for it is obvious it is not within the powers of private Members, even on a private

    219
    Members' night, to propose the grant of an enormous sum of public money. But by the Act of last year Parliament has made that enormous grant, and we have now a clear case to put before the House of Commons asking the House to decide, in principle, of course—not in detail—on a Resolution that the power of compulsory purchase is necessary in order to apply this large sum of money to the full benefit of Ireland. I notice, with some surprise, that the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) has put down an Amendment to the effect that—
    "Whilst anxious for the fullest development of Land Purchase in Ireland, this House cannot profitably consider or assent to any proposal for the application of a general system of compulsory sale which is not accompanied by adequate financial plans for the carrying out of the principle involved."

    If I understand this Amendment rightly, the opinion of the hon. Member is that the House should not discuss a measure of compulsory sale unless it is proposed by a Minister of the Crown, who has the power of proposing that a large charge shall be made on the Revenues of the United Kingdom. In fact, it seems to be the object of the hon. Member for South Tyrone to put off the discussion until Doomsday. I can quite understand this. A discussion on this question is very awkward for the hon. Member. There are many of his constituents who, though they are in other questions keen supporters of the hon. Members, yet in this agree with us. I cannot, however, understand how the House can accept this Amendment, seeing how the House was occupied for the greater part of last Session. To read the Amendment, it might be supposed that the hon. Member for South Tyrone had forgotten the long-drawn discussions on the Purchase of Land and Congested Districts Ireland Bill. Several months the House spent in discussing the Bill, and I think with some adequacy. The majority of Members of this House were heartily tired of the Bill, and sick of the sound of "cash" and "contingent guarantees." Nevertheless, at this distance of time the hon. Member for South Tyrone seems to have forgotten it all, though he was most diligent in attendance—the watch-dog of landlordism—while his landlord friends lounged in the smoking
    220
    room or caroused at the Carlton. An enormous sum has been ticketed off for land purchase, and we contend that this should be properly applied. I agree with my hon. Friend beside me in thinking that though the sums already voted by Parliament are not enough to pay for holdings in Ireland, they are sufficient to go a long way towards the settlement of the Irish Land Question if properly applied. The amount which was voted by the Act last Session was not fixed. We cannot exactly say how much was the actual Vote for the purpose of land purchase. Certain Estimates multiplied by 25 will give us the amount. These Estimates are Estimates which increase year by year; they had increased largely since the first calculation was made by the Government; and they will be increased still further by the Education Bill of the present Chief Secretary, which is now before the House of Commons, which will devote a further sum of over £200,000 a year to National Schools in Ireland. The effect indirectly of that measure will be to increase the fund for land purchase by £5,000,000 sterling. Therefore, we find the sum voted is a good deal more than £30,000,000, the popularly supposed amount. We find, according to the last Estimates, with the addition of the £200,000, that the amount which has been voted for land purchase is no less than £38,750,000. We have in addition to that £10,000,000 which has already been spent for the purpose of land purchase. Therefore, we have a sum of nearly £50,000,000 which has been devoted by Tory Governments for the purpose of land purchase in Ireland. That sum is almost exactly the same as that which the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, in 1886, supposed would be sufficient to settle the more pressing difficulties of the Irish Land Question. And if at that time, six years ago, the Government representing the British nation considered that £50,000,000 would be sufficient for the compulsory sale of land in Ireland by enabling the landlord to compel the tenant to buy, I venture to think that £50,000,000 is enough, at any rate, to enable us to apply the beginnings of

    221
    compulsory sale the other way round. That sum of £50,000,000 is not, I venture to think, an inadequate financial Vote. We take no credit for the sum, except so far as it is due to the agitation which compelled the Government to give the money. The money is voted, and when we come before the House of Commons and ask that, under the Land Purchase Act, the money already voted should be applied in this way, we think we are not going into the region of castles in the air, but that we are bringing before the House of Commons proposals for the utilisation of sums they have already set aside for this purpose by Acts of the Imperial Parliament. Of course it would be easy to make a calculation which would show that a still larger sum might be necessary. I have great doubts of these calculations, which are based merely on Agricultural Returns, so-called, presented to the House of Commons. We have one case of real experience to guide us—i.e., the number of holdings which have been taken into Court under the Fair Rent Clauses of the Act of 1881. Yet very little more than half the reputed number of holdings in Ireland have had a fair rent fixed under the Act, and that after a period of ten years. We find further, when we go into details, that we have to make many exceptions from the total number of holdings before we arrive at the number to be purchased. In the first place, large holdings are already excluded from the Land Purchase Act. Speaking for myself, under a measure of compulsory purchase I would be prepared to see something further done in the way of excluding the large holdings. And even if this money already voted may be taken to be the last sums that are likely to be voted on Imperial security for the purpose of land purchase, yet I say the resources of Ireland and the resources of any administrators or legislators for Ireland will not be exhausted. It is the fashion to laugh and scoff at the notion of Irish security. I say it would be possible on Irish security to give stock bearing not very much higher interest than the 2¾ per cent. borne by the stock issued under the Land Purchase Act of last
    222
    year, and which would, nevertheless, rank higher in the financial market. We have an instance in the case of the Corporation of Dublin. A little while after the Chancellor of the Exchequer converted Consols, the Member for West Belfast, then Lord Mayor of Dublin, converted the loans of the Corporation of Dublin with a loan at 3¼ per cent.; and while the loan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer stands to-day at a discount of five, the loan of the Corporation of Dublin stands to-day at a premium of five over and above the price at which it was actually put on the market. I hope the House will not be put aside from the discussion of the just claims of the tenants of Ireland by any well-woven web of financial speculation drawn out by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. We do not ask the House in this Motion to pledge itself to any single farthing of further grant for land purchase beyond what has already been made; we merely ask them to assert the principle that those monies, having been voted for the purpose of land purchase, should really be applied to land purchase in Ireland. What has been the effect of this Act? You have put before the eyes of the Irish tenant farmers the great prize of nearly £40,000,000, but you have so hedged it round with safeguards and securities that the Irish tenant farmer, for the life of him, cannot get near it. A man who may have found it hard enough to get on at his present rent finds this great grant of money removes him no further from starvation and debt, so that the effect of the great act of justice and mercy of the British Parliament is to add the tortures of Tantalus to the pains of starvation. You have simply put this great boon out of the reach of the Irish tenant farmer. The Amendment of my hon. Friend would bring it into reach. I ask the House on every ground to decide that it is expedient that this great sum should be used for this purpose. We have many arguments which we could use in favour of a measure of compulsion. In asking the House to apply compulsion in this way we move on the lines of well-considered English and Irish precedents, and we ask for an extension of a

    223
    principle already recognised. There is compulsion in the English Allotment Acts and in the Irish Labourers' Acts. There was compulsion in the Redemption of Rent Act of last Session. The tenants who got the benefit of that Bill were those who had taken land at a full agricultural rent for ever, who had feued their land. Those tenants usually had large holdings; they had their land for ever at a fixed rent, a rack-rent, no doubt, but that was a thing they could not foresee at the time they took the land: in fact they merely made a bad bargain. I ask whether, if compulsory sale is permitted in that case, without providing means for every tenant in Ireland to buy his holding, it is not within the province of this House to assent to the principle of compulsory sale in the case of other tenants numerous enough to take the whole of the money already voted? As to the Small Holdings Bill, we find among Liberal Unionists and some Tories, as well as Liberals, a general expression of opinion that the great fault of the measure introduced by the Minister for Agriculture is that it contains no provisions for compulsory sale. I find from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, of the hon. Member for Bordesley, and of some Conservatives, there was unanimity on the point that for England compulsion was necessary. And under what condition? Under the condition that the English County Councils might be allowed to break up the boundaries of existing holdings, and take the land in patches of fifty acres wherever they liked over the whole of the area of a county, and to take these holdings feline purpose of selling them out to tenants whom they were afterwards to find, and who had never been tenants before. If the County Council in England, having a number of landlords to choose from, would be unable to get land conveniently at a fair price, how much more impossible will it be for a poor Irish tenant, who can buy one plot of land, and one only, to make terms with the one landlord, and the one landlord only, who is in a position to sell to him? I cannot understand why this Vote should not be
    224
    supported by the almost unanimous voice of Liberals and even some Conservatives. There is a precedent in Ireland which comes even nearer the point. We have a system of dual ownership by landlord and tenant. But you have already given the landlord the power of compulsorily expropriating the other dual owner, the tenant, at a price fixed by the Court. The Land Act of 1881 contains provisions for the compulsory sale of the tenant's interest in the land to the landlord on certain conditions. I ask why, if ten years ago you gave one dual owner the right to expropriate the other, you should now refuse to the tenants of Ireland the right to expropriate the landlords at a fair price? There is another point of strong reality. It is impossible in many cases under the present system to arrange, by any voluntary arrangement, to sell holdings at a fair price in Ireland. If it was thought necessary to have compulsory sale before, it is much more necessary now. This argument has occurred to many people, but no one has put it so well as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, who, speaking on the Land Purchase Bill in 1890, dwelt at considerable length upon the fallacy of supposing that a fair settlement could be arrived at by what was called voluntary arrangement. He said—
    "As long as you allow these contracts under the name of voluntary engagements, the landlord can screw out of the tenant whatever terms he likes. I do not mean that every landlord will do this, but there are many who would. I am showing what we ought not to permit. We are placing in the hands of the landlord an instrument enabling him to enrich himself, and to obtain an excessive and exorbitant price for his land, in direct contravention of the intentions of Parliament. That is what Ulster is well aware of. Ulster is not deceived. Ulster sees into it. The tenants there are somewhat stronger than they are upon the average in Ireland; their position is a stronger position; but what is the language they hold? The language they hold is that if you want to have a useful Bill it must be not voluntary, but compulsory. The tenants must have the right to require that the purchase should take place. That is a very different demand, and it involves a very serious question. I am not going to give an opinion upon that subject now. I am pointing out by an argument, which I think irrefragable, that the tenants, for the sake of whom we are going to pledge British credit, will be at the mercy of

    225
    the landlord. After having made this enormous and unprecedented effort and placed ourselves in a position of the greatest disadvantage, it is the landlord who will be master of the position."
    May we not use the same argument now that practically the same Land Purchase Bill has passed into law, and ask that the tenant should be taken out of the unfair position in which he is placed and be given the right to compel the landlord to sell at a fair price. The tenants on an estate in my own constituency were going to be evicted, but, though their holdings have not, and never had, any economic value, out of love for their holdings they signed agreements to purchase them and the landlord's interest at a price which is unfair both to themselves and to the British taxpayer, who is the guarantor. That is what is happening day by day. My hon. Friend has also very clearly shown the disadvantage to the tenants where some have been able to buy their holdings while others have not. There were some in that position on the estate of Sir R. Wallace, the Court having refused to sanction the terms in some cases. This is a real grievance to those tenants who have to compete for their living by the sale of their produce, when the difference in their annual payments means everything. There are also tenants on encumbered estates who cannot possibly arrange terms for the purchase of their holdings. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) supports the principle of compulsory sale in such cases. That would affect probably half the tenants in Ireland. A Return, issued about two years ago, shows that there were 2,250 estates under the control of the Landed Estates Court; of these more than half had been in the Court five years looking for purchasers who never came, and several had been in the Court since 1877. At one time the Court was considered the most expeditious way of realising property; now it is the last refuge of spendthrift landlords who want to avoid being sold up. Tenants on these estates cannot buy their holdings, and surely there is no reason in justice or political economy for keeping these landlords in possession of estates they cannot improve, instead of letting them realise the capital value, if any, of the property, and earn
    226
    an honest living in other countries. If the hon. Member for South Tyrone wants to deal practically with this question, instead of his Amendment he would have put down a rider to the Motion to the effect that the principle should first be applied to the encumbered estates, and that would have been accepted by my hon. Friend, and would have got rid of most of the plague spots which still disfigure the face of Ireland. Again, the present system gives a premium to disorder, and the peaceful tenant who regularly pays his rent cannot get as good terms as the man who does not pay his rent or pays at irregular intervals. I should have thought that the principle of sanctity of contract, which is written deep down in the Anglo-Saxon mind somewhere, would have made the Anglo-Saxon mind revolt against a system which rewarded lawlessness and punished the law-abiding citizen. The tenants of Ulster have seen this point very plainly, and, indeed, the position of the tenant in Ulster is a difficult one, for he sees the tenant who pays his rent irregularly able to get good terms from his landlord while he cannot do so. Is that the last reward that is being given to the tenantry of Ulster for their allegiance to the British law and constitution? If hon. Members do not take care, there will be none left to fight when the time comes in Ulster. Many tenants are being expropriated, and in Monaghan the diminution in population in the last few years has been greater than in any county in Ireland. If the House does not give the Ulster tenants power to purchase in the Court at a fair rent the tenants will find it better to emigrate. I took the best means I could for enabling my tenants to become peasant proprietors, and I ask that other landlords in Ireland should be compelled to do what I have done voluntarily. I ask that justice shall be done to the Ulster men in spite of their law-abiding spirit. They will have their opportunity at the next General Election of asking their Representatives why they opposed this Motion for compulsory sale which would give to them as great benefits as have been given to the tenants in other parts of Ireland. If they find their Representatives, in spite of the

    227
    repeated demands of the Presbyterian and Protestant tenants in the most law-abiding counties of Ulster, vote against their views, they will consider whether it would not be better to change their political ways rather than send Members to Parliament who oppose the other Irish Members in everything. I ask the House to accept this Motion because it is just, because it is expedient, and specially to accept it in the interest of the tenant farmers of Ulster as well as in the interest of the tenant farmers of the rest of Ireland. On this question Irish opinion is practically united. If there is to be a settlement of Irish grievances in accordance with Irish opinion the principle in this Motion must be carried into law. It is impossible, unless some such principle be carried into effect, to satisfy the unanimous demand of the toiling tenant farmers in the North and South of Ireland that they should be turned into the owners of the land they till.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, on grounds both of justice and expediency, it is desirable that tenants in Ireland should be enabled to compel their landlords to sell to them their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts at a fair price."—(Mr. Kilbride.)
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: There is one sentiment in which I cordially agree with the Mover of the Resolution; this question undoubtedly excites great interest in Ireland, and especially in the Province of Ulster. That would, not be gathered from the appearance of the House. I do not see the leaders of the Irish people below the Gangway, and if I look at the other side of the House I see a remarkable absence of Ulster Members. The attendance of Irish Members would not lead to the conclusion that this is a question of all-absorbing interest in which the country is profoundly concerned. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Knox) took pains, however, to let it be known what was the real object of this Motion. Hon. Members below the Gangway have their eye on the General Election and upon the Province of Ulster. They know perfectly well that the flag of Home Rule carried through the Province of Ulster is not likely to win much for them, and still less likely
    228
    is the tattered flag of Irish Clericalism to do them service. They have, therefore, made up their minds, with a good deal of wisdom, to appeal to the Ulster tenants upon a question that touches their vital interests. The Ulster tenant farmers are, at all events, an exceedingly practical, cool-headed race of men, and the first thing they will be inclined to ask is, what is the record of the gentlemen who propose this Resolution, and urge its acceptance on the House of Commons? The hon. Member for South Kerry (Mr. Kilbride) admitted with candour that the Ashbourne Act had done great good in Ireland, and the hon. and learned Member for Cavan absolutely expressed gratitude to the Tory Government for the Land Purchase Acts. That being so, and hon Members having clearly admitted the benefits the Irish tenants have derived from these Acts, I want to ask what has been the record of hon. Members below the Gangway in reference to these beneficial Acts? In 1885 the question was first brought to a practical issue, and the House of Commons unanimously voted £5,000,000 sterling for the Irish tenants to purchase their freeholds. In 1888, when that money was exhausted, the present Government proposed to give another £5,000,000 to renew and extend the Act. Hon. Members have admitted that that Act has done good work, and the Member for Cavan (Mr. Knox) blessed the Government for what it had done. On the 22nd November, 1888, when the House was asked to pass the second five millions 67 Members of the Irish Party voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, and if they had had their way half the freeholders created under those Acts would now be yearly or judicial tenants. The second Asbourne Act was passed in spite of hon. Members below the Gangway. On the 1st May, 1890, the first Land Purchase Bill came to issue in this House. It was a better Bill in every respect than the Bill of last year, but though it proposed to place at the disposal of the Irish tenant farmers a sum of thirty millions of British credit for the purchase of their holdings, 78 Irish Members—practically a unanimous Party—walked

    229
    into the Lobby against the Second Reading, and sought to deprive the tenants of this great boon. Six months later, on the 3rd December, the Bill which is now the Land Purchase Act was brought before the House, and it proposed to place thirty-three millions of British credit at the disposal of the Irish tenants. Where were hon. Members then? All of them were in London, but they were occupied in Committee Room No. 15, and only 25 of them, headed by the late Mr. Parnell, came down to vote for the Second Reading. The rest abstained from voting. The first thing an Ulster farmer would do, if a politician went to him with a proposal like this, would be to ask for the record of the politician, and the Party which has deliberately, for its own purposes, opposed land purchase throughout the present Parliament, and at the last moment demands compulsory purchase, will find that Ulster farmers will immediately see through that design. But what have these Land Purchase Acts done in spite of hon. Members below the Gangway? Up to the 1st March last, under these Acts, 23,781 loans had been sanctioned by the Land Commission: that means that 23,781 freeholders had been created. A good deal has been said about Ulster, but that Province had had no fewer than 12,554 of these loans, Leinster had had 3,839, Munster 4,496, and Connaught 2,892. Ulster had, therefore, had its fair share in the general division. With respect to the working of the present Act, the Member for Cavan declared it to be inoperative, and the object of the Resolution he said was to make it operative. We were told that the Act was a failure, and the figures referring to the number of applications for loans, have been paraded before the House as if they were complete evidence of that failure. But it must be remembered that when that Act was passing through the House there was a surplus of three-quarters of a million under the old Ashbourne Act not disposed of, and the Government at first proposed to amalgamate that surplus with the Land Purchase Bill. But the Member for Longford objected, and it was finally
    230
    decided to leave the money where it was and allow it to work itself out. What has happened since the Bill became law in August last? In August there were 456 applications for loans, amounting to £189,151; in September there were 982 applications for £343,544; in October 216 applications for £80,981; in November 69 applications for £32,282; and in December 64 applications for £9,101. The total under the Ashbourne Act for the last five months in 1891 was 1,787 applications for a total sum of £653,059. In the last three months under the new Act the applications were: In October 4 for a sum of £943; in November 66 for £35,924; and in December 105 for £42,717. Thus the total for the three months under the new Act was 175 applications for a sum of £79,584, and the grand total under the various Acts from August to December was 1,962 applications for a sum of £732,643. Therefore, I contend that up to the 31st December it is absolutely impossible for anyone to say with truth that the operation of land purchase was not going forward as rapidly as it had done previously. Up to that time the average number of applications per month was 408, and that would give 2,040 for five months, and I have shown that in the last five months of last year the number of applications was 1,962. But I have as well another set of figures. I asked the Chief Secretary yesterday if he could tell me the number of applications which had been made under the new Land Purchase Act up to the most recent date, and he has given me figures brought down to yesterday, and that practically covers three months. These figures show that in that period there have been 1,253 applications for loans for a sum of £444,612; and thus it is seen that this Act, which hon. Members below the Gangway—and I am sorry to say also above the Gangway—wished precipitately to pronounce a failure, has had under it more applications in the time than were made under the Ashbourne Act, and that hon. Members have been too premature in their denunciation.
    MR. SEXTON: Do those figures include the large settlement on the Ponsonby Estate?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I cannot say whether they do or not. The settlement on the Ponsonby Estate only included 109 applications, and I do not care whether for the purpose of my argument they are included or not. These are the official figures, and I say that in the face of them it is impossible for any hon. Member to say that the Act has been inoperative. But this question is largely one of finance.
    MR. SEXTON: May I ask a question?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: This is how the hon. Member served me the other night. He told me that he was engaged in a complicated argument, and as I should have an opportunity of following him he preferred that I should allow him to proceed and speak myself afterwards. Now, I am only treating the hon. Member as he treated me. I take it that if you are going to adopt the principle of compulsory sale in Ireland you can have no half-way house. I introduced the question of the compulsory sale of encumbered estates to my constituents, and they promptly told me that if I wish to remain their Member I must stop advocating a system which would confer a benefit on the tenants of badly-managed estates, and would press hardly upon those who lived on well-managed estates. The lowest estimate before the Land Purchase Act was passed as to the amount that would be required for the purchase of Irish land was something like 100 or 120 millions. The right hon. Member for Midlothian estimated it much higher, but I will take 120 millions. You can deduct 40 millions as the amount passed by the Land Purchase Act, but that still leaves a sum of 80 millions which would be required before you could carry out the Act all round. Take, for instance, the County of Antrim, where the principle of compulsion is most strongly advocated. Antrim's share in the guarantee fund is about one million pounds; that would be exhausted in a fortnight, and then I ask hon. Members where should we be? If you propose to limit the operation to the sum stated in the Act you would no doubt increase the number of tenant purchasers, but you would have a clamorous host for whom there
    232
    was no money. Then hon. Members would have to come to this House and ask for the surplus which I hold to be logically involved in this Resolution. Then it has been said that this is the old leaseholder question over again. Under the Act of 1881 the yearly tenant was allowed the right of fair rent, but it was denied to the leaseholder because he was a leaseholder. The consequence was that a great difficulty arose in Ireland with which at last Parliament had to deal. The leaseholder had a right to his fair rent. But purchase is not a right, and I say that the Irish tenant farmer cannot come to this House and demand money as a right for the purchase of his holding. The fact that one proposal carries money with it and the other does not will, I suppose, have considerable weight with Members on this side of the House who are ready to give Ireland anything and everything but cash, but the moment cash is mentioned they strike. Then, again, I say that the argument for compulsion makes havoc with another argument—the argument against the Insurance Clause. This clause is said to be operating against the purchase of their holdings by the tenants, and you cannot logically hold both opinions; and the proposal to-night is to legalize compulsion, Insurance Clause and all. You cannot hold both these opinions, and, for my own part, I do not believe that ths Insurance Clause is the difficulty. But, as I have said, the question is mainly one of finance; and if the First Lord of the Treasury or the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) will reconsider their position of last year, and are prepared to ask the British taxpayer to make good this large sum of money, which I hold will be required, three-fourths of my difficulty will be removed. But I should then have still to consider what the Resolution calls the justice and expediency of the proposal, but what I prefer to call the rival injustices and inexpediencies of the proposal. The injustice of the present system to the Irish tenants cannot be denied; but so long as the remedy remains in the region of financial impossibility I do not see that we can get very much further by discussing it. When the

    233
    financial impossibility is obviated I shall be willing to discuss the rival injustices and inexpediencies that are involved in this Resolution. I think there are injustices on both sides. The injustice to the non-purchasing tenant is clear. But it is now proposed for the first time to sell up a landlord against his will and without any increased price because of the compulsory sale. Hon. Members dare not propose anything of this kind for England, or, indeed, for any other class. Again, it is proposed to sell up the Irish landowner and expropriate him, and yet to compel him to leave behind him one-fifth of the purchase money as a guarantee deposit. You propose to keep as security one-fifth of the purchase money. I do not believe that hon. Members themselves would stick to that; and yet it is involved in the proposal they make to-night. Then there are other difficulties that anyone facing this question seriously would have to consider. You talk of expropriating the landlords, but that would raise a labourers' question in Ireland. The labourers of Ireland are employed to a considerable extent by the landlords in Ireland, and you cannot expropriate the landlords without raising a labourers' question. More than that, when the Irish Church was disestablished, one of the great arguments used was that the Church would be perfectly safe because of her members, because of the landed class, because of the monied class. I say that the moment you propose to expropriate the Irish landlords in this fashion you raise the question of the maintenance of that Church. (Laughter.) I give no opinion about it. I say you will raise the question, and you will have to discuss that question in Ireland. I can understand the hon. Member for Cavan laughing. He first of all got his education in England; he then chose an English profession; and then he sold his Irish estate and bolted with the swag, voting at the same time against the Bill under which he did this. I can quite understand the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has cut his connection with the country, not caring what becomes of either
    234
    Church or State; but that is not the position of the great bulk of the people who will have to live in the country. And I say all these rival injustices on both sides will have to be fairly considered when this question is faced; and I am bound to add that to face it by an abstract Resolution and a debate limited to three hours is only justifiable on the ground I have stated to the House—namely, that business is not meant in this House, but in the Province of Ulster, where I venture to tell him the proposal will not get a much better reception than it has got here. My position is perfectly clear upon this matter. Alone—and the hon. and learned Member for Cavan has admitted it before now—alone amongst Unionist Members in Ulster I have opposed this proposal. He has quoted my speeches over and over again; therefore I am not doing to-night what I have not done in Ulster. I am pledged to my constituency against this proposal. Even if I was willing to vote for it, I dare not, and I could not. I ask the House to pause and consider what is involved in it. The proposal is an absolutely new proposal. We have heard of compulsion before, I admit, in this matter, but of a very different kind. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian in 1886 proposed compulsion, but compulsion of a very different kind. He did not propose to compel a landlord to sell. He proposed that where landlords, flying from the wrath to come, were anxious to sell, that then the tenants should be compelled to buy at a fixed price. That was a totally different proposal. Then we have had proposals made about compulsion to re-instate the evicted tenants. Nobody will contend that these proposals are on the same lines as the proposal of this Resolution. Then we have had set before us to-night the proposal of the Rent Redemption Act. The hon. and learned Member for Cavan stated that I was one of those who supported that measure, which involved this principle of compulsion. But what the Rent Redemption Act did was this: the perpetuity leaseholders were enabled to give their landlords an option or choice, and if the landlord refused to fix a fair rent or allow a fair rent to be fixed, then he

    235
    could be compelled to sell at a fail price. This proposal to expropriate a whole class is actually made when these hon. Gentlemen are announcing that they are on the eve of a new birth in Ireland; that they are going to create a new heaven and a new earth there by Act of Parliament; and they are going to commence that beautiful and saving operation by banishing, as far as they can do it, a whole class of Irishmen. Well, that is a most unstates-manlike proceeding. It is well seen that their late Leader is in his grave. He, at all events, said they could not spare a single Irishman. I know what landlordism is responsible for in Ireland; and I know the bitter memories that cluster round the word; but I think it is not wise, when this House has passed Act after Act to deprive landlords of their power for evil, to say to these men without any distinction, "You must sell and go." The Marquess of Clanricarde has been trotted out here to-night. I am as ready as ever I was to support a Bill to expropriate the Marquess of Clanricarde. That is one thing. It is another thing to say that I am anxious and willing to expropriate and drive out of the country men like the Duke of Abercorn, Lord Belmore, Mr. Hugh Montgomery, and other landlords I could mention. I have no desire to see these men driven out of the country. I have no desire to see men like the O'Conor Don driven out of Roscommon. I believe this is largely a financial question, and until the financial possibilities of the case are proved there is no use in discussing the question. There is no use in sending an Irish farmer to a fair to buy a horse without giving him money to pay for it; and the Irish farmers will see that. I say, until the financial possibilities are made plain, I am not ready to befool or deceive the Ulster tenants. When these financial impossibilities are removed, if they ever are removed, then I say there will be a fair case to consider the hardship of the non-purchasing tenant as regards his purchasing brother. It is because I believe it is useless to discuss the proposal until we have found either the money or the credit to carry it out that
    236
    I venture to move the Amendment that stands in my name.
    MR. SINCLAIR (: I shall not detain the House in seconding the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend. In his speech the hon. Member for Cavan stated that there was practical unanimity on the question of the compulsory purchase of estates amongst the tenantry of Ireland. If that be the case, how does it happen that we have no practical scheme now proposed? The hon. Mover and hon. Seconder of the Resolution both made no attempt whatever to deal with the two questions that are contained in the original Resolution—the question of justice and the question of the expediency of compulsory purchase. Instead of taking up and grappling with the difficulties that undoubtedly underlie the question of compulsory purchase, they left these difficulties severely alone. Indeed, I might say that much of the speech of the hon. Seconder, and almost the whole speech of the hon. Mover, of the Resolution was a speech in defence of the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The difficulties that underlie compulsory purchase are very great, and any of the proposals that have been made in this House, or I believe outside of it, to give compulsory powers under the Allotments Acts or otherwise, were made under very different conditions from those contained in the Resolution before the House. Take, for instance, the Small Holdings Acts which were recently before the House. It was suggested that compulsory powers should be given to the County Councils, who would pay cash for that which they bought; the buyer would have to pay cash, and the seller would have to be paid in cash, for that which were sold. But the proposal here is to compel the landlord to sell his holding and take stock in lieu of it; but it does not compel the tenant to buy, and, indeed, under the proposal it is impossible to compel him to fulfil his engagement even if he entered into one. There is no power to compel him to pay his instalments. I have never heard in any case of compulsory powers being applied except under three conditions: the first is that there should be a special inquiry into the case; the second is

    237
    that a public necessity should be proved for such compulsory purchase; and the third is that the purchase money that may be awarded shall be paid in cash. The great safety of the Irish Land Purchase Acts and of all the transactions that have taken place under these Acts has been that before anything can be done, before any sale can be effected, before any advance can be made by the Land Purchase Commission, the buyer and the seller, the landlord and the tenant, shall join together in an agreement as to the fair price at which the holding is to be sold; and that great safeguard would be entirely taken away under any such proposal as is embodied in the Resolution now before the House. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion in saying, with my hon. Friend, that until a fair and reasonable financial proposition has been laid before the House whereby such a great scheme can be carried into effect it would be unsound and unsafe, alike for the landlord and the tenant, to suggest that the principle of compulsory purchase should be applied either in Ireland or elsewhere.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "whilst anxious for the fullest development of Land Purchase in Ireland, this House cannot profitably consider or assent to any proposal for the application of a general system of compulsory sale which is not accompanied by adequate financial plans for the carrying out of the principle involved,"—(Mr. T. W. Russell,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. DICKSON: I confess it was with considerable surprise I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, especially that part of it where he referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan having cut his connection with Ireland and sold his property. I think the hon. Member for South Tyrone should remember that he himself cut his connection with his own native land, and that he left Scotland some years ago and chose to take up his residence in Ireland. And I do not see why it should be a cause of reproach against my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan that he acted on the
    238
    principle contained in the Resolution now before the House and sold his lands to his tenants, making his tenants the owners at a reduction of their rent of more than 30 per cent. The hon. Member for South Tyrone referred to the hour at which this question was brought forward—nine o'clock at night; but he did not explain to the House that when this place was balloted for four weeks ago this Motion would have come on, in the ordinary course even, at four o'clock in the afternoon. But there is one thing, however, in his speech that the hon. Member for South Tyrone made perfectly plain, and that was that upon this question, as an Ulster Member, he only represents here to-night his own views; and I deny that he represents the views of his colleagues or of a single tenant farmer in the entire Province of Ulster. I happen to know something of the Province of Ulster, and I say this without fear of contradiction: that all through the Province of Ulster there is a unanimous desire on the part of the tenant farmers to become the owners as well as the occupiers of their lands. The difficulties in the mind of the hon. Member for South Tyrone are purely financial. In fact, he assumes the rôle of a Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would not vote for this proposal for compulsory purchase until he sees the way financially open; in fact, he says he will not vote for it until both Front Benches have made up their minds.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I said either.
    MR. DICKSON: Until either have made up their minds and see their way. All I can say is this: from my experience of this House for 19 years, if he is guided by the Front Benches, he will make a very serious mistake. I know what Front Benches have done in the past, and I know that what Front Benches oppose this year they will support next year, if it be consistent with expediency. I have not the slightest confidence in Front Benches. The hon. Member for South Tyrone, in saying that this question does not affect the tenants of Ulster, utterly misrepresents the tenants of the Province of Ulster.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I stated that I was pledged against this question.
    MR. DICKSON: I say so, but I say that your constituency disagrees with you in your views of this compulsory purchase principle; and you would not get five per cent. of them to vote with you on this question. Then, as to the county of Antrim, which used to be the home of the Liberal Unionist Party; why, I thought if there was a county in Ireland whose opinions were to be fairly considered by this House, it was the great county of Antrim. I think the hon. Member heard of the Ulster Land Committee there. Every Member of this House has received from that Ulster Land Committee resolution after resolution passed upon this very question of compulsory purchase. Who are the Ulster Land Committee? Are they Nationalists, or are they that disparaged class that the hon. Member refers to as his Catholic fellow-countrymen, and the uncivilised, and the bigoted? No. The Ulster Land Committee are almost to a man composed of Presbyterians, and every one of them, with one exception, Unionists. The hon. Member for South Tyrone has said that if the House passed this Resolution, Antrim would apply for these £30,000,000 within 14 days.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: No; what I did say was that the share of Antrim would probably amount to £1,000,000, which would be taken up in a fortnight.
    MR. DICKSON: Well, we will say £1,000,000. Does not that prove my case? Yet the law-abiding rent-paying Antrim is to have no more share in the benefits of the Land Purchase Act than the man in the moon. The hon. Member has stated that more than £400,000 has been applied for during the first three months of this year. But what is the rate of purchase under the Ashbourne Act? It is at the rate of £200,000 per month. The hon. Member said in the course of his speech that it would never do to carry the tattered flag of clericalism in Ulster, but I would ask—"who is it that has been carrying the tattered flag of landlordism in Ulster?" The hon. Member poses before his constituents as a great land reformer, but in this House and throughout the country he is known as an out and out supporter of landlordism in Ireland. I want to do the landlords of Ireland no injustice—I want to see them get full value for
    240
    their estates. But I also want to see those who till the soil become the owners of the soil. Every purchase under the Ashbourne Act makes the position of the landlords more untenable, and this question must be dealt with on a comprehensive scale. It has been said that I voted against the Land Purchase Act of 1891. That is not so. I voted for the First Reading; I voted against the Second Reading because I believed it would not work; but after it had passed through Committee I voted for the Third Reading. If in Ulster the tenant's interest was put up for sale I believe it would exceed the interest of the landlords. I remember giving evidence before Lord Cowper's Commission seven years ago, when I said that compulsory purchase must come if the peace of Ireland was to be preserved. I was asked by Lord Cowper—
    "Do not you think there will be in Ulster a sort of indirect compulsion which will gradually work itself out, and that landlords will soon be compelled to sell."
    I answered that question in this way—
    "Yes, I believe that will happen, but I look upon that as a most dangerous suggestion, and as a suggestion which, if pressed, will give rise in Ulster to very acute agitation."
    There was an instance a short time ago of this indirect compulsion in Londonderry, in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, where the Drapers' Company and their tenants were at war. The tenants wanted to buy at a fair price but the Drapers' Company would not sell, so the tenants ceased to pay rent for three or four years, and more than 208 police were sent down among them. After three or four years the Drapers' Company consented to leave the case to arbitration, and every tenant was made owner, but only after a peaceable district had been disturbed by agitation. A more dangerous element could not be introduced than indirect compulsion. It is the unanimous wish of Ulster that this Resolution should be accepted.
    COLONEL WARING: No.
    MR. DICKSON: I say it is, and I ask the House to accept it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I must say that

    241
    when I saw the Resolution upon the Business Paper I welcomed it with feelings of satisfaction and surprise. I welcomed it with feelings of satisfaction because I regarded it as a Vote of Confidence in the policy of Her Majesty's Government. I welcomed it with feelings of surprise, because it was a Vote of Confidence coming from a most unexpected quarter, and upon a subject which I should have thought would be the last to commend itself to hon. Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies and sitting below the Gangway opposite. I have a lively recollection of the introduction of the Ashbourne Extension Act of 1888. How did hon. Members who are now seeking to extend the system of compulsory purchase receive that measure? Why, they divided against the First Reading and the Second Reading, and although it was a one-clause Bill, it took eight nights to pass it through the House of Commons. An hon. Member said in this Debate—
    "Fifty millions have been devoted—I say it with gratitude—by a Tory Government for land purchase in Ireland."
    I must say that hon. Members concealed with remarkable ability their feelings of gratitude in 1888. I might say on behalf of that Bill—
    "It was all very well to dissemble your love, But—why did you kick me downstairs?"
    You did your best and you failed. And how did hon. Members opposite treat the Bill of 1890? I have examined the Division List, and I find there the names of every hon. Member who backed the Bill for compulsory purchase which has been withdrawn in order to make way for the present Resolution, as having voted against the Bill. Hon. Members opposite have certainly a most remarkable record upon this question. At the same time, as I have already remarked, the change in their attitude is gratifying to Her Majesty's Government. Hon. Members opposite can hardly ask me to assume that they were in their hearts in favour of land purchase, while they voted against successive attempts to extend that system. I must, therefore, assume that they have been converted to the policy of the present Government. Now, to what can I attribute their
    242
    conversion? It must be to the success of the Act of 1891—a success so great that they are prepared to apply the measure compulsorily to the whole of Ireland. In addition to the exhaustion of the Ashbourne money there have been 1,253 applications for £444,612, and we therefore find land purchase is progressing more rapidly now than it did under the Ashbourne Act. What greater proof of the success of legislation can you have? Now, there was one kind of contribution to the Debate for which I have listened in vain, a contribution for which the ordinary Ulster farmer will look as he eagerly scans the reports of the Debate of to-night, and that is some practical suggestion as to the means by which this Resolution can be carried into effect. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen, when they find that the policy of the Government is popular in their constituencies, and that there is a demand for the extension of the policy of land purchase throughout Ireland, to come to the House and demand the extension of the policy which they formerly opposed. The Government would, however, like to hear some practical suggestion made as to how it is to be carried into effect. No suggestion whatever has been made on the subject. Take the County Antrim: the sum available is plainly inadequate for compulsory purchase. The case has been put as if there were £33,000,000 for Ireland generally, or even for Ulster, to have recourse to for the purpose of land purchase. Nothing of the kind. There is a definite sum allocated to each county. The hon. Member has represented this as a demand proceeding from Ulster. It is new to find hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway suggesting that in legislation the views of Ulster should dominate over the whole of Ireland. That is one of the novelties to which this House has been treated in the Debate. And where is the money to come from even for Ulster or for the County of Antrim? If a scheme of land purchase was proposed containing some practical suggestions on that point, it would be the duty of the Government to carefully consider it. If the discussion were a practical one, many important considerations would arise. I am of the opinion that the success of the Ashbourne

    243
    Act and of the previous attempts to create peasant proprietors is largely dependent on the fact that the sales have been carried out by free and open contracts. Certain hon. Members below the Gangway have warned us frankly that they could procure repudiation in Ireland in regard to land purchase, and the House will readily understand how much greater would be the danger if contracts were not made freely but were forced on one party or the other by means of compulsion. Sir, some topics are suggested by this proposal. In the Bill which has been withdrawn to put this motion in order it was provided that the price, which was to be left to the Land Commission to decide, was not to include any increased value arising out of the improvement that was not proved to have been made by the landlord, unless the landlord could come forward and prove affirmatively that he or his predecessor in title made that improvement. That means land purchase at prairie value. There are other considerations that would arise if this were a practical scheme—the consideration, for instance, whether it is wise to expropriate the landlord class from Ireland. I do not discuss these points, for the reason that I regard this Bill as a palpable sham; it is an attempt to dangle before the eyes of the constituencies some scheme which is suggested to be to their advantage, but a scheme which has no substantial foundation, and which is merely suggested for electioneering purposes. I believe that those to whom these speeches have been made directly—the tenantry of Ulster—are far too sagacious to be taken in and will ask themselves whether this is an honest attempt to legislate for Ireland, or whether it is a mere delusion and a snare.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (: I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the lively banter of hon. Members below the Gangway in which he indulged in the first part of his speech; but while his banter was lively and amusing, I am not so sure that it is difficult to reconcile the conduct of hon. Members below the Gangway last year and this year. It is easy to conceive that a Member might approve the main object of a measure, though not at all sure of the methods by which
    244
    nat object was sought to be attained and, therefore, might oscillate and vary according as the hope of improvement or the despair of improvement prevailed in his mind. But, above all, when hon. Members find that a measure passed for their country has produced great grievance throughout that country—even though they think the object of the measure a good one—by the inequality of its application, there is surely nothing inconsistent in their coming forward and asking that the measure should be made universal in its application, so that the grievance maybe removed. I cannot pretend to approach this question from the point of view of a supporter of the Act of last year. I voted consistently against it for many reasons, and the strongest of all was because I had no hope that it would conduce to a peaceful settlement of the land question, and to the quiet and contentment of Ireland. What was the position in which the Act left the tenants? Whilst one tenant might be receiving the full benefit of the Act, his immediate neighbour might be denied all its advantages—a reduction of rent and the prospect of becoming the owner of his holding within a few years—and this not on account of any lapse or failure of his own, not on account of his being unfortunate in the lottery of applications under the Act, but more likely on account of his landlord's unwillingness to sell. That is the fact which creates an inequality which no reasonable man can expect to cause contentment among the agricultural population in Ireland. If we had regarded the Bill as a final settlement, we might have looked upon it in a more kindly way. But we have always been haunted, in regard to this question, by the dilemma, that either you must make any system of purchase of land universal and compulsory, and that involves a sum of money exceeding anything that the British people are prepared to risk; or else, if you make it partial, you take a step which would be fatal to contentment, and which does not create a permanent settlement. That was the main reason why I opposed the Bill of last year. I do not think I have had long to wait for a justification of my position, because to-night is made this most natural and reasonable proposal for the application of compulsion. The Resolution

    245
    is a reasonable and natural proposal from the point of view of the Irish Members. The hon. Member for South Tyrone, it is true, says it is an electioneering movement, but the speech of the hon. Member himself deserved far more the description of electioneering. The hon. Member is always intemperate on one side or the other—sometimes on the side of the tenant, sometimes on that of the landlord. To-night he was on the side of the landlord; but he had failed to make out a case against the proposal of the hon. Members below the Gangway on its merits, and, in fact, he admitted that the present condition of things under the Act of last year was not satisfactory. But the House must consider this matter not merely from the point of view of Ireland and the Irish tenant, but also from the point of view of the British taxpayer. I believe the British taxpayer and the people of this country have the fullest wish to do justice to the Irish community. An hon. Member below the Gangway said we were always very kind to them, except when called, upon to give cash. That is not a taunt that can be levelled against us after the experience of the last half-dozen years. I do not believe that the people of this country would be at all disposed to grudge, or that they have grudged, anything which they believed to be necessary for the pacification and contentment of Ireland. But the further pledging of British credit not to the entire community, but for the sake of the individual tenant in Ireland, is a thing hardly to be contemplated with equanimity on the part of the British public. We endeavoured last year, in the discussion of this Bill, to secure that a large part of the advantage of employing British credit should go not to the individual but to the community. If that had been done it would have altered the case. But we should consider it necessary to think twice and even thrice before going forward with a sudden or precipitate extension of purchase by the use of British credit—an extension that might involve an almost illimitable use of British credit. I greatly doubt if public opinion is prepared for an immediate extension of the credit that was pledged last year. I admit that the present
    246
    condition of things is entirely unsatisfactory. I admit that the inequality pointed out is glaring and obvious. But at the same time I am unable to assent to a Resolution which simply affirms the rights of tenants, until I see my way to doing so without giving a further development to doubtful principles, and without imposing on the British taxpayer an indefinite and, it map be, unnecessary burden. There are difficulties of machinery and difficulties in the application of compulsion. These may be overcome. Let us hope they may be. There are, I believe, cases bf landlords who have refused to sell their land to their tenants while willing to sell it to others; and such cases point to some power of compulsion as the cure of the grievance. But I think we are hardly in a position in the first year of the working of the Act to give to it this large development. I greatly doubt whether public opinion is prepared to sanction the extension of the large measure of last year which on its introduction was viewed with grave misgivings by a very large portion of the population. While admitting fully that the present condition of things is very unsatisfactory, and that the inequalities which have been pointed out are glaring and grievous, I am not able to support a Resolution such as that before the House.
    MR. JUSTIN MCCARTHY: I have no fault to find with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I agree with his criticisms on the Bill of last year, but this Resolution of my hon. Friend represents a principle which the Irish people must and will maintain. We hold that its necessity wall be proved more and more every day; it is being admitted every day that dual ownership of land in Ireland is a failure, and that some better principle must be maintained. We entirely agree with this Resolution, and are sure that we shall be able to convince the House of the justness of the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman said the time has not yet arrived for the adoption of such a principle. Well, that may be so, but we have convinced Parliament of the necessity of many a principle for which, when we began to enforce it, the time did not seem to be ripe. I have no doubt we shall before very long, if this land question remains

    247
    to be solved in the Imperial Parliament, which it may not be; but if it is, we shall convince that Parliament that the principle of my hon. Friend is necessary and is indispensable to the peace, comfort and prosperity of Ireland. Therefore, if we have to wait—if no great Party in this House is willing to go so far as we are willing to go—we can afford to wait a little while with the certainty that before long the principle we are struggling for to-night will be carried to a successful issue.
    MR. J. E. REDMOND: This Debate, Sir, is one full of interest for Ireland, but I am sorry to think that the interest has been of a somewhat melancholy character. At first I had difficulty in ascertaining the motives of those who moved this Resolution, because they could not have had any hope of getting the Government to accept the principles contained in the Resolution. The Government have taken up all along such a position that that expectation would have been impossible. But even if accepted, the principle of the Resolution, it is evident, could not have been carried into effect during the present Session. The object of the hon. Member in moving the Resolution was one in which, I confess, I heartily concurred. He desired to elicit from those in a position to give effect to this principle what their views on the matter really are. I confess I feel grievously disappointed with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs, because I failed to understand from him what policy he has—if, indeed, he has any policy at all—on this land question. The right hon. Gentleman says the settlement of purchase must be universal and compulsory or partial and unsatisfactory. He says the present condition of things is unsatisfactory, but he cannot approve of the Resolution before the House. But he fails to tell us whether he, or those whom he represents, have any policy on the land question at all. One thing is perfectly clear from the Debate that all sections of Nationalist Representatives are of opinion that the land question in Ireland cannot be satisfactorily settled unless the principle of compulsion is applied. We agree with that. The right hon. Gentleman is not in favour of the application of the principle of compulsion,
    248
    and therefore he is not in a position to apply to the land question those principles that are satisfactory. Therefore he cannot be in a position to settle the land question concurrently with the question of Home Rule. In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, surely we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentlemen, is he prepared to hand over to us the settlement of the land question? That is all I have risen to say. Personally I have strong views in favour of compulsion if properly applied; but I do not desire to see any class of my countrymen driven out of Ireland.
    MR. BARTONrose to continue the Debate.
    Mr. KILBRIDErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
    The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, at the request of Mr. SPEAKER, took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 1.
    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 177.—(Div. List, No. 60.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    It being after Midnight the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

    VESTRYMEN'S QUALIFICATION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. James Rowlands, Bill for the abolition of the Ratal Qualifications for members of Vestries, ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Rowlands, Sir. John Lubbock, Mr. Causton, Mr. Whitmore, Mr. Howell, and Mr. James Stuart.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 243]

    BUILDING LANDS RATING AND PURCHASE BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Cameron Corbett, Bill to provide for the Rating and Purchase by Local Authorities of lands suitable for building purposes in and near towns, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Coghill, and Mr. Hugh Elliot.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 244.]
    House adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.