Commons Sitting of 9 June 1893

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

WEAVER NAVIGATION BILL [Lords.]
MR. BRUNNERhad the following Notice of Motion on the Paper in reference to the above Bill:—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire into and report on all matters connected with the constitution, powers, finance, and management of the Trustees of the Weaver Navigation and on the provisions and administration of the Acts relating thereto, and that the Committee have power to insert in the Bill such provisions in connection with all or any of
636
such matters as in their judgment are expedient. That the Traders using the Navigation petitioning to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and in reference to the matters referred to in this Instruction."
The hon. Member said he was glad to be able to inform the House that his Motion would be merely formal. He was honoured, yesterday, with the hon. Member for Crewe, by a conference with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman announced to them, as the result of that conference, his intention to move the Amendment which was on the Paper in his name. He was very much gratified to hear of that intention of his right hon. Friend, because it would entirely carry out his wishes in the matter. He never had any intention of either delaying or endangering the Bill; and when his right hon. Friend pointed out to him that the Motion standing in his name would occupy time, and involve the preparation of evidence by the Trustees of the Weaver Navigation Trust, and said he would move an Amendment to the Motion, he accepted the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman with the utmost cordiality. The constitution of the Trust had been dealt with three times over by the Board of Trade—in 1857, 1872, and 1893. Under these circumstances, seeing that the matter had been before the House for 36 years, he was sure the House would hold him justified in the action he had taken this Session. He expected to hear from the hon. Member for Crewe that the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade had been accepted fully, and that this controversy would come to an end; and when he heard from his hon. Friend that the Amendment had been accepted he would ask the permission of the House to withdraw his Motion. For the present he moved the Motion. He had been informed by the legal gentlemen advising the promoters of the Bill that, unless the Motion, of the President of the Board of Trade came as an Amendment to his Motion the matter would have to be postponed until Monday; but whether he had been rightly advised or not he would leave it to the Speaker to decide.
MR. SPEAKER: The second Instruction can stand as a substantive Motion.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I beg to move the Instruction on the Paper—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert in the Bill a clause requiring the Trustees to come to Parliament within two years with such a Bill as may enable Parliament to deal with the whole question of the constitution and management of the Trust."
I wish to make it clear that, in moving this Motion, I do not wish to express any sort of lack of confidence in the gentlemen who are at present engaged in the management of the Trust. This matter has been before the Board of Trade several times during the last 40 years, and on each occasion very exhaustive Reports have been made, requiring that the Trust shall be reconstituted. The Trust is a very old one. I need not go into the history of it, but it goes back for nearly two centuries. It is entirely a self-elected Trust. The gentlemen who compose it are the landowners, gentry, and clergy of Cheshire, who do not represent the interests of the trades which the navigation affects. I felt that the Instruction put down by my hon. Friend would occupy too much of the time of the Committee, and would probably result in the Bill having to stand over for another Session. The Bill now before the House is a very important one. Recollect that it is highly desirable for all parties that the Bill should pass this Session. It is urgently needed in the interest of the navigation; and, therefore, I move this Instruction, giving the Trustees two years in order to promote a Bill themselves for reconstituting the Trust, for bringing it more into conformity with modern ideas and interests, and I think I do so with the general goodwill of all parties interested in the matter. I bog to move, Sir.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it be an instruction to the Committee to insert in the Bill a clause requiring the Trustees to come to Parliament within two years with such a Bill as may enable Parliament to deal with the whole question of the constitution and management of the Trust."—(Mr. Mundella.)
MR. FORWOOD: From what has been said in connection with this Bill, it might have been supposed it had only a local interest; but I assure the House it is a question of far-reaching importance, and has far
638
larger consequences attending it than a mere question as between the ratepayers of Cheshire and the Trustees of the Weaver Navigation. Nearly the whole of the salt has to find its way to a seaport through means of this navigation; and when I tell the House that probably the export of salt from Liverpool forms a larger bulk than any other article from that port, the House will appreciate the importance of the question as regards the great seaport of Liverpool. I have no reason to oppose the Instruction of the President of the Board of Trade. That Instruction places upon the Trustees of the Weaver Navigation the obligation to come to Parliament with a Bill that shall raise the whole question of the constitution and management of the Trust within the next two years. That leaves very largely the initiation of any future legislation in the hands of the present Board of Trustees; and, therefore, we may assume that any action they may take under that Instruction will have considered very tenderly their own present interests and the interests of the ratepayers of Cheshire. I want to utter one word of warning in regard to this matter. This Trust, the revenue of which is derived from a large article of commerce, yields in most years a large profit, and that profit is applied in the casement of the rates in different parts of Cheshire. I think the House will agree with me that it is wrong in principle that profits derived from a great national highway should go towards the easement of any particular county of the country. As a matter of fact, 25 per cent. of the dues levied by that Canal are profit—that is, the dues on the whole are 25 per cent. more than is necessary for the maintenance of this navigation, and this profit of 25 per cent. from the dues goes in easement of the rates of Cheshire. My feeling is that that is an improper application of these profits; and in any future constitution of this Board—in any proposals that will come before the House under this Instruction—I hope we shall do away with the payment of these profit; dues to Cheshire, and give the benefit of any excess of the present dues over the cost of maintenance direct to trade. I quite admit there may be created on the part of the County of Chester a vested interest in respect of these profits which

639
it has derived from years gone by. I may speak of an analogous case in the great City of Liverpool. The City of Liverpool had the right of levying dues on the whole of the goods passing through their port. Manchester and other manufacturing districts objected, the matter was brought to Parliament, and a perfectly reasonable sum was given to the Corporation of Liverpool in redemption of that right to levy dues; and I think a similar proposal in regard to the Weaver Navigation, if they have a vested right to this surplus, giving them a sum of money in redemption of that vested right, would be a matter to be fairly entertained by the House. So much as regards the financial part of the matter. Then, Sir, we have this great navigation. It is an important navigation, and I will at once admit that the present Trustees have faithfully and well discharged their duty, and kept up to the times in regard to the improvement of the navigation. But, Sir, it is composed of no less than 90 gentlemen connected with land, as against 15 connected with trade. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the trades—those who used the navigatiou—would have a good deal to say in regard to the maintenance of the navigation. But, unfortunately, in consequence of the creation of a largo Trust, the Salt Union, by which the salt trade of the country almost became vested in the hands of one company, and by reason of some great improvements in chemical manufacture by the hon. Member who spoke first this afternoon, practically there are only two traders who use that navigation—or rather two traders pay 80 or 90 per cent, of the dues obtained in that navigation; therefore, it might be difficult to obtain the management of the Trust simply from the traders' point of view, and I think the management should embrace those connected directly with the salt trade over a much larger area than simply those who produce, the salt and manufacture the chemicals. To show the House the anomalous state of things—
MR. MUNDELLA: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but think it is most desirable we should not enter into a discussion like this as to a question which we are only asking shall be brought up before this House within two years. This is simply a Bill for
640
building two bridges, with an Instruction that within two years the Trustees themselves shall promote a scheme. I think we ought not to anticipate at this stage what that scheme shall be, or criticise it in advance.
MR. FORWOOD: I think, Mr. Speaker, you would have called me to Order if I had been out of Order. This Instruction is not the small matter which the House is asked to believe. This Instruction is to empower the present Trustees to bring to this House a proposal for a new constitution and management, without laying down any line on which that shall be based. Therefore, in speaking on behalf of a large community more interested in this matter than any people in Cheshire, I have a right to urge many matters which ought to be considered by these Trustees when they take into consideration the clause which will be passed under this Instruction. I have one word more to say on this point to show the character, as regards management, of the Trust. At present they charge on this great article of commerce, salt (which is really only worth 5s. a ton to produce) 1s. a ton as dues; whereas in chemicals produced by the hon. Member for the Northwich Division, which are worth £10 per ton. they only charge 8d. per ton. This great article of commerce, salt, and the whole subject requires dealing with in a very drastic manner; and unless the Trustees acting under this Instruction introduce into the Bill a clause dealing with it in a large and liberal manner, I hope the House, when the proper time comes, will not assent to it.
MR. M'LARENsaid, it would be convenient if, on behalf of the Trustees, and also on behalf of the County Council of Cheshire, he stated what their view was as to the Motion of the President of the Board of Trade. The hon. Members for Cheshire would have offered an uncompromising resistance to the Motion of the hon. Member for Northwich, but were perfectly prepared to acquiesce in the Motion moved by the President of the Board of Trade. The House would notice that the Instruction now before it limited the duties of the Trustees to bring in a Bill within two years, so that Parliament might deal with the whole question of the

641
constitution and management of the Trust; but his hon. Friend the Member for the Northwich Division would have desired also to include the words "powers and finance." These two words were excluded, and, therefore, the Trustees in accepting this Amendment would be bound to bring in a Bill, within two years, revising their constitution—that was to say, the method of election and composition of the Trust; and if that Bill did not meet the views of the right hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division of Lancashire, it would, of course, be open to him to take such steps as might be necessary to enlarge its scope. In regard to the present Instruction, they did not admit it involved upon the Trustees a further duty than be had indicated. The Trustees were undoubtedly the best body to bring in a Bill of that kind. It would not be a desirable thing that any outside party should bring in a Bill to reform their constitution until they had had a fail opportunity of doing it for themselves; and if their methods were not satisfactory, it would go before a Committee of that House, which could put it into such shape as should seem right. He trusted, therefore, that that Debate would not be continued. He was authorised to say for all the other Cheshire Members that they accepted this Instruction; they all agreed to vote for it; and, therefore, when every Cheshire Member was now agreed upon it, he thought the House might venture to pass the Instruction, and not take up further time on the matter.
MR. WHITELEYwished to endorse what had been said by the last speaker, and to protest against the unfair aspect which the Member for Ormskirk had placed upon the question. To every one of his allegations the Trustees had a complete answer, and they considered their position unassailable, ratified as it was by nine Acts of Parliament extending over a long series of years.
MR. SNAPEsaid, that in reference to the observations of the right hon. Member for Ormskirk, he was of opinion that the constitution of this Trust would have to be enlarged to a greater extent than the right hon. Gentleman had supposed.
642
The traffic of the Weaver was largely contributed to by Lancashire, and the districts of Widnes and St. Helens would have to be taken into account when that re-constitution was brought into effect.
MR. TOLLEMACHEas one of the Trustees of the Weaver, wished to say that he did not think there would be any objection on their part to consider the question of the re-constitution of the Trust. They recognized that, having regard to the date at which it was instituted, it could not be quite in touch with modern requirements, and he believed there was a motion down on the books of the Weaver Trust, saying the time had come, at any rate, when the County Council should be represented on that Trust. They did, however, take exception to the Motion of the Member for is Northwich so far as it regarded the finances of the Weaver navigation. That they should have fought to the end, and should when it should come before the House, because they had always held that the Weaver Trustees wore Trustees of the ratepayers of the county; not one farthing of the surplus went into the pocket of any private individual, but all went, under sanction of Parliament, for the relief of the ratepayers. When this question comes on one or two years hence, if such a Motion as that of the hon. Member for Northwich were made, they should be quite prepared to vote against it. At present he might say, on behalf of the Trustees, and certainly on his own part, that he quite accepted the Instruction of the right hon. Gentleman
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert in the Bill a Clause requiring the Trustees to come to Parliament within two years with such a Bill as may enable Parliament to deal with the whole question of the constitution and management of the Trust. —(Mr. Mundella.)

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
The House went;—and, being returned;—
Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to,—

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1893.

2. Municipal Corporations Act, 1893.

643

3. Cholera Hospitals (Ireland) Act, 1893.

4. Public Libraries Amendment Act, 1893.

5. Police Act, 1893.

6. Day Industrial Schools (Scotland) Act, 1893.

7. Reformatory Schools (Scotland) Act, 1893.

8. Statute Law Revision Act, 1893.

9. Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1893.

10. Pilotage Orders Confirmation Act, 1893.

11. Military Lands Provisional Orders Confirmation Act, 1893.

12. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1893.

13. Metropolitan Commons (Orpington) Supplemental Act, 1893.

14. Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1893.

QUESTIONS.

  ELECTORAL DISABILITIES OF IRISH POLICE.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if, considering that the English, Welsh, and Scotch police enjoy all the electoral rights, whether Parliamentary or municipal, of ordinary citizens without any detriment to the Public Service, Her Majesty's Government will support and give facilities for the early enactment of the measure now before the House to remove the Civic disabilities under which the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police labour?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The question is well worthy consideration, but I think the hon. and gallant Member will understand that in the present state of Public Business the Government cannot promote or give facilities for the Bill to which he refers.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of the Bill?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I said the question was well worth considering.

  CUSTOMS REGULATIONS OF YACHTS.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in The Field newspaper of the 20th May relating to the action of the Customs officers in respect of a French yacht; and whether there is any reason why the same courtesy and relaxation of Customs regulations cannot be directed to be applied in the case of foreign yachts entering English ports as is commonly extended to English yachts entering foreign ports?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): Under the Customs Regulations foreign yachts entering British ports are treated in exactly the same manner as British yachts entering British ports from abroad. An account is taken of any dutiable stores on board, and so much of the said stores as are not required for immediate consumption are sealed up. A Special Report has been called for in the ease of the Fauvette, and it does not appear that the ordinary practice was applied with any undue strictness.

  SEAMEN'S HOSPITALS AT SMYRNA AND CONSTANTINOPLE.
  SIR E. HILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the present rate of contribution levied on British ships in support of the seamen's hospitals in the Ports of Smyrna and Constantinople; the total receipts in the years of 1890, 1891, and 1892 in each port; the actual expenditure in each of the said years; the amount of the surpluses, and how they have been disposed of; and the number of the in-patients and of the out-patients treated in each hospital?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): A Return will be prepared, but reference to Constantinople and Smyrna will be necessary.

  VIVISECTION.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the great and continuous increase in the practice of experiments upon living animals, as indicated by the facts that whereas in 1878 27 persons held licences of which they made use and performed 481 experiments, in 1892 125 persons held licences of which they made use and performed 3,960 experiments; whether he has satisfied himself that the licences and certificates are all issued only to such places and persons, and with such objects as were contemplated by "The Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876:" whether every "licensed place" was visited during the year 1892: how many places received more than two visits; and whether he is satisfied that the system of inspection is such as to secure the observance of the conditions on which the licences and certificates are issued?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): The figures given by my hon. Friend in the first paragraph are correct. The chief reason for the rise in number is to be found in the increased facilities afforded for such researches by improved methods of anæsthetisation and the antiseptic treatment of wounds. By far the largest proportion of the additional experiments in 1892 as compared with 1891 were cases of simple inoculation and were chiefly performed on behalf of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis. The answer to the second paragraph is—Yes. The qualifications of every licensee are strictly inquired into, and, with two exceptions, there is no licensed place on the I register which is not in a recognised college or public institution. (3) Every licensed place where experiments were performed was visited during the year 1892. (4) There were 21 places visited more than twice. (5) I am satisfied that the system of inspection is such as to secure the object described in the last paragraph of the question.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Are the visits of the Inspectors known beforehand, or are they surprise visits?
  MR. ASQUITH: In some cases they are known beforehand; in others not.

  ARMY HOSPITAL STOPPAGES.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, if it is the case that when men are injured on ordinary duty, the General Officer commanding has the power of remitting half the daily hospital stoppage of 7d., and when men are injured at drill or manœuvres, the whole of it; on what principle this distinction is drawn between men who are both injured in the performance of duty; and if he can state generally in what percentage of cases of injury the General Officer commanding has exercised the power of remitting the half or the whole respectively of these hospital stoppages during the last year, for which such information is available?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): The fact is as stated in the first paragraph of the question. The distinction between ordinary duty and drill or manœuvres is made because drill and manœuvres assimilate closely to the conditions of active service, for injuries in which it is held that the public should give hospital treatment free. On ordinary duty, the injury a man receives is in most cases attributable to some circumstance over which he has more or less control. The conditions are so various that, for administrative convenience, a half-stoppage was made common to all cases. This is regarded as liberal treatment and a considerable concession to the soldier. The data as to remissions of stoppage are not in a form to enable the question to be exactly answered; but, roughly, the stoppages appear to be wholly remitted in one-half the cases of injury on duty.

  GAMBLING IN JAMAICA.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there has been received at the Colonial Office a Memorial from the Baptist Union of Jamaica, stating that the Constabulary of Kingston, acting under the instructions of the Governor, refrain, during the Christmas holidays, from enforcing the laws against lotteries, and representing that encouragement is thereby afforded to the gambling which

  647
  is on the increase in the island, and that the administration of the law is likely to be brought into contempt; and whether the Governor will be instructed to adopt in future a different course?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The Memorial in question has been received, accompanied by a Report from the Governor of Jamaica. The Governor has been instructed to inform the memorialists, in reply, that a certain amount of discretion is necessarily given to the police as to instituting prosecutions for minor offences, and that, as the Secretary of State does not understand that the instructions of which they complain go beyond this, he sees no reason to interfere. The memorialists have been reminded that it is open to any member of the community to institute a prosecution against any person whom he may consider to have contravened the law against gambling. The statement that gambling is on the increase in Jamaica is not borne out by the Reports of the Police or the Statistics of Crime.

  KILLYBEGS HARBOUR AND RAILWAY.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings at a public meeting of the inhabitants of the town and district of Killybegs, in the County of Donegal, fully reported in The Derry Journal of 22nd May, convened to consider the encroachments of the Donegal (Killybegs Extension) Railway works on the public wharfage hitherto in existence for the accommodation of vessels in Killybegs Harbour; whether he is aware that last spring, when there was great distress in the district and coal was sold at £1 10s. per ton, a vessel was lying in Killybegs Harbour laden with coals which could not discharge her cargo for a week, in consequence of the encroachments referred to, for which there has been no compensation whatever; by what authority were the railway works which prejudicially affect the wharfage carried out without compensation; what steps will be taken to render the railway and the harbour mutually beneficial to the district instead of antagonistic to each other; and what are the intentions of
  648
  the Government in the way of providing a suitable pier and wharf in lieu of those taken away by the railway works, having regard to the fact that Mr. Manning, late Engineer-in-Chief of the Board of Works, recommended that a new pier should be built to accommodate vessels drawing 15 ft. of water?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): My right hon. Friend asks me to answer this question. I have seen a report of the meeting referred to, and I have myself lately visited the place. I am informed that no public rights existed in the Killybegs pier, which was the property of a private individual, and was a small work not extending more than half way to low water of spring tides. The private rights were acquired and paid founder the award of an arbitrator duly appointed. I am not aware of the circumstances described in the second paragraph, but no small pier such as that previously existing could have accommodated coaling steamers of the ordinary class, for which lighters or boats would in any case have been necessary. I should explain that, though the east quay wall of the pier was absorbed in the new station ground, the western quay was set free for the use of the public, and in addition a new boat-slip, much superior to any similar existing work at Killybegs, as extending down to low water of spring tides, was constructed at the cost of public funds in connection with the railway works entirely for public use. A new pier could not have been included in the railway scheme, as there was no provision in the Acts of 1883 and 1889 for such a work, nor are there any funds available for the purpose over which the Treasury or the Board of Works have any control. The question, however, whether any additional accommodation can be provided is now engaging the attention of the Congested Districts Board.

  INCOME TAX REBATES.
  MR. DIGBY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the surveyors and collectors of taxes have the sanction of the Government in insisting on the payment in full of Income Tax without allowing for the rebate in respects of allowances and losses incident to the agricultural depres-

  649
  sion, thus necessitating the inconvenience and trouble of claiming a return of the proportion to which the Government were really not entitled?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Surveyors and collectors of taxes have no power to grant the rebate referred to. No accurate statement can be obtained either of the allowances made by landlords to tenants, or of losses in agriculture in any particular year until that year has ended. The relief must, therefore, be granted by way of repayment.

  COVENTRY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL.
  MR. BALLANTINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a case recently heard at the Coventry Police Court, in which it was proved that the matron of the Industrial School, Leicester Street, a school under Government inspection, had flogged a girl named Lee, aged 15, illegally and under disgraceful conditions, before the whole school; whether he will direct a prosecution to be instituted against the matron by the Public Prosecutor; and whether, pending prosecution or inquiry, the matron will be removed from the conduct of the school?
  MR. NEWDIGATE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of the girl, Emma Lee, who on Saturday, 27th May, was brought before the Coventry City Magistrates for running away from the Coventry Leicester Street, Industrial School; whether he is aware that, according to the regulations of that school, girls are liable to be flogged before the whole school in a partially nude condition; whether this punishment was inflicted on Emma Lee; and whether he will make strong representations to those responsible for the management of the school that any regulations which may at present permit of such a punishment being inflicted should be forthwith cancelled?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have directed the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools to make a full inquiry into all the circumstances of this case, and to furnish me without delay with a special Report. As soon as I am in possession of the Report, I shall take such action as appears to be required.

  INSOLVENT IRISH POOR LAW UNIONS.
  MR. MACARTNEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Londonderry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many of the Irish Poor Law Unions were unable to meet their liabilities on the occasion of the last settling of accounts; what are the names of these Unions; in how many of the Irish Poor Law Unions have the bankers who act as treasurers refused to cash their cheques; and what are the names of these Unions?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board state that to obtain the information asked for in the first paragraph of this question would involve an examination of the last audited accounts (i.e., to September 29, 1892) of 159 Unions, a work which would necessarily require some time to carry out. With regard to the third paragraph, the Local Government Board have no information which would enable them to furnish a reply, and it would be necessary to call upon Clerks of Unions or their Inspectors to supply the information. I do not know what the hon. Member's object is in putting these questions; but if he will communicate with me privately, I have no doubt I can give him what information he wants.

  NENAGH TRAIN SERVICE.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a communication from the Nenagh Town Commissioners, calling attention to the alteration in the train service between Nenagh and Limerick, causing great injury to the traffic and trade of the former town, as also great inconvenience and loss to the travelling public at large; and whether steps will be taken to have the former facilities for traffic restored between the places named?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I received a letter and copy of resolution from the Nenagh Town Commissioners yesterday. The complaint is general in its terms, but if the Commissioners will favour the Board of Trade with detailed information as to the further railway facilities they require I will communicate with the companies thereon.

  ELECTIONEERING TACTICS IN WEST BELFAST.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of "Burns v. The Belfast Evening Telegraph," tried before Mr. Justice Gibson and a special jury, in Dublin, on the 2nd and 4th instants, and reported in The Belfast News Letter of the 3rd and 5th; whether he is aware that at this trial it was proved that on the occasion of the West Belfast election, in July last, a person named Kearney, who was then acting as Secretary of the Belfast Branch of the National Federation, marked on the list of voters the names of dead, absent, and sick men, and handed the list to three men named M'Ginley, Carberry, and O'Neill, with instructions to have them personated; whether a large number of personators were arrested on the polling day; and if he can say how many pleaded guilty when brought to trial; whether it has been brought to his notice that Mr. Justice Gibson, in his Charge to the jury, declared that there had, if the jury believed the evidence, been arrangements for wholesale personation under the direction of the National Federation through their secretary; whether it is true that Kearney has, since the election, been appointed to any public office; and if hecan say by whom he was recommended to the Government for the appointment; and if the Government intend to take any action in regard to the parties involved in the evidence given at the trial in question?
  MR. SEXTON: This question appears on the Notice Paper for the first time to-day. I desire to ask whether, as the question conveys a charge of criminality against a person who is described as a public officer, if the hon. Member has given notice of his intention to put it to Mr. Kearney?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I know nothing of Mr. Kearney further than what I have read of him in The Belfast News Letter.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the Chief Secretary aware that the gentleman in question went to Dublin while the trial was in progress for the purpose of proving his innocence, and hoped to be examined as a witness, but was not called. Will the
  652
  hon. Gentleman postpone the question to enable Mr. Kearney to give his statement?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The question did only appear on the Paper this morning, and it must have been obvious, even to the hon. Member for South Tyrone, that it was impossible for me to answer it without notice. I have called for a Report in reference to this question; but, not having yet received it, I would ask the hon. Member to be good enough to postpone the question for a few days.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I will ask the question on Thursday next.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you did not, a few days ago, express the opinion that questions should not be based on newspaper reports without further investigation being made?
  MR. SPEAKER: The question is put down upon the responsibility of the hon. Member in whose name it stands.

  RETURN OF COUNTY AND BOROUGH MAGISTRATES.
  MR. STOREY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to state when we may expect the Return (ordered by this House in February) of County and Borough Magistrates, their names, addresses, occupations, and the date of their appointment?
  MR. ASQUITH: As regards that portion of the Return which refers to the Borough Magistrates, it has already been sent to the printers. The county portion involves greater labour, and I regret that it is not possible for the Crown Office to say when it will be ready, but no time will be lost. If desired the borough portion could be presented separately as soon as it is received from the printers.
  MR. WHARTON: May I ask from what sources the information is being obtained?
  MR. ASQUITH: In the case of boroughs from the town clerks, and in the case of counties from the Clerks of the Peace.
  MR. STOREY: Is it not a fact that the Clerks of the Peace have the information in their possession on the rolls of

  653
  Justices, and does not a period of four months seem an excessive time for supplying it?
  MR. ASQUITH: That is certainly a matter of opinion.

  LIEUTENANT KENNEDY.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to a recent case before the Calcutta High Court, in which Lieutenant Kennedy, the Deputy Commissioner of Nowgong, in Assam, is stated to have destroyed documents filed as evidence in a criminal proceeding; whether he is aware that Lieutenant Kennedy, while a charge of criminal breach of trust initiated by him against the Treasurer of Nowgong was under inquiry, abstracted from the Court's record seven documents relied on by the accused person, and tore them in pieces, remarking that these documents were put in to get him into trouble; that the Chief Commissioner of Assam stigmatised this action of Lieutenant Kennedy as "most reprehensible;" and that, when the case came up before the High Court, Mr. Justice Trevelyan remarked that if any other person had done what Lieutenant Kennedy did he would have been prosecuted; whether Lieutenant Kennedy has been since promoted; and whether the Secretary of State will cause inquiry to be made, and proper proceedings to be taken in the case?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): The Secretary of State has no information as to this matter, but he will cause inquiry to be made respecting it.

  INDIAN CURRENCY.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the Report of the Indian Currency Committee has already been communicated to the Government of India, that Report can be presented to the House in anticipation of any statement which the Government may eventually make on the subject; and whether the Government have decided to take any action they may deem to be advisable without the previous concurrence of Parliament?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I answered this question yesterday. The Government are unable to come to any decision until they have ascertained the views of the Government of India upon the question.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: Will the Government in the meantime present the Report to the House.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No; I think it would be most unfair to the Government of India that the Report should be made public before they had an opportunity of considering it.

  ABSENCE OF CRIME IN EAST CORK.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Recorder of Cork was presented with a pair of white gloves on Tuesday last, owing to the criminal calendar for the East Riding of that county being a blank, and that the Recorder congratulated the Grand Jury upon the extremely satisfactory state of the district, and expressed a hope that they might often meet under similar happy conditions; and whether, under these circumstances, steps will be taken to remove the extra police force, for which the people of the Past Riding of the County Cork are at present taxed?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I understand the first paragraph correctly states the facts. With regard to paragraph 2, I fear I cannot add anything to my reply to a somewhat similar question addressed to me on the 1st inst. by the hon. Member for Cork. I may point out, however, that the county at large, irrespective of the Ridings, is responsible for the cost of the extra police.

  SECOND DIVISION CLERKS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any, and, if any, what, barrier exists to the promotion of clerks of the class known as assistant clerks, posting clerks, and abstractors, to vacancies in clerkships of the Second Division, if in the opinion of the permanent Heads of their several Departments such promotion would be for the benefit of the public?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Second Division of the Civil Service is recruited by open competition, and it is not pro-

  655
  posed to admit to that Division men who have only passed the rudimentary examination required of temporary copyists.

  THE ROYAL WEDDING.
  MR. KNOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proclaim the wedding-day of H.R.H. the Duke of York, 6th July, a public holiday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): The hon. Gentleman will doubtless be aware that the Government has the power under the Act of Parliament of proclaiming holidays either generally or locally. There is no case of a general holiday being proclaimed under the Act except on the day of the Queen's Jubilee. There has been a case in which a local holiday for London has been proclaimed, and local holidays have also been proclaimed in other places. Speaking generally, I should say this is evidently a matter on which the Government ought to watch for manifestations of public sentiment. That is what the Government will do; they will be guided by these manifestations as to any eourse they may or may not adopt.

  THE AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION.
  MR. JASPER MORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have any serious intention of proceeding with the Motion which appears daily on the Notice Paper, to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the subject of Agricultural Depression?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Government still continue desirous to appoint this Committee. Of course, they are aware that with the lapse of time the position of matters simply becomes worse; but after the manifestations that appeared in different portions of the House of a desire that the Committee should sit, the Government will, so far as depends upon them, do all they can to meet that desire.
  MR. J. MORE: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin) been drawn to the Amendment to this Motion lately put on the Paper by the hon. Member for
  656
  East Suffolk; and is he prepared to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the Amendment of that hon. Member? Will the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet also take that course?
  MR. CHAPLIN: Yes, Sir; my attention has been directed to all the Amendments upon the Paper to the Motion of the President of the Board of Agriculture, and among them the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division of Suffolk. With regard to the Amendment in my own name, I have frequently stated my reasons for placing it on the Paper, and I need not repeat them now. The Amendment of the hon. Member has only been placed on the Paper quite recently, I believe; but it appears to me to be directed to a specific issue—namely, the question of the fall in the prices of agricultural produce, which in my judgment lies at the root of agricultural depression, and I can only say, if the Government will accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Suffolk, I should be prepared, as far as I am concerned, if it will facilitate the action of the Government, to withdraw the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper at present.
  MR. J. MORE: May I put a similar question to other hon. Members who have Amendments on the Paper.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The inquiry should be made privately.

  A CONTINUOUS SESSION.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is absolutely necessary to complete a Parliamentary Session and to prorogue within a year; whether he is aware of precedents for a continuous Session of more than one year; and whether Her Majesty's Ministers will under present circumstances refrain from advising a Prorogation, but, when necessary, substitute short adjournments instead, until the Home Rule Bill, and such other measures as they deem next in importance, shall have been passed through this House?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am sensible that the House is placed, with

  657
  regard to the prosecution of Business, in a position of great and increasing difficulty, and in due time it may be the duty of the Government to consider in a comprehensive manner in what way these difficulties ought to be met; but I do not think it would be desirable to enter into any particulars at the present moment. At the proper time I should be prepared, in case it should be desirable, to make specific proposals.

  THE MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL
  MR. D. THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the reports that he has promised a Saturday Sitting for the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, provided an assurance were given that a House would be made on that day, were correct; whether there is any precedent for giving such facilities to a Private Member's Bill of a highly controversial character; and whether the Government intend to give precedence to the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill over all other Private Members' Bills, such as the Places of Worship Enfranchisement and Liquor Traffic Local Veto (Wales) Bills, and over Government measures such as the Established Church (Wales) Bill?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: In reply to the question, what I have to say is, in the first place, that there was no promise or engagement of any kind entered into by Her Majesty's Government. I had the honour of receiving a deputation a few days ago of two hon. Friends acting for the promoters of the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill; and as I understood from them that they desired to ascertain and to be guided by the prevailing sentiment of the House I respectfully advised them to spend a little time in endeavouring to ascertain what was the prevailing sentiment. What I said also was this—that my opinion distinctly is that it is not for the Government to take a leading part in, or to endeavour to exercise a strong influence upon, the questions they have raised. But it is my opinion also that in case it should be found to be the prevailing sentiment of the House—and by that I mean more than a mere numerical majority—that this additional burden should be undertaken—and I am afraid it might be a burden for more than a single Saturday
  658
  —it would not be the duty of the Government to set themselves in opposition to that sentiment.

  SWAZILAND.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inform the House as to the conditions of the Convention regarding Swaziland, which was signed at Pretoria on June 7?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The terms of a Draft Convention have been settled; but the full text has not yet been received, and the Convention will not be signed by Sir H. Loch until he is so authorised by Her Majesty's Government.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY [PAYMENTS].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will tell us exactly what we are doing. We have not before heard of any financial proposals in connection with this Bill.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Resolution is brought forward in consequence of a pledge given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge. When the question arose as to the Bill going to the Grand Committee, the right hon. Member asked whether the Government were prepared to admit the Government workmen into the scope of the Bill, and the Government consented to do so. The Government have accordingly prepared a clause to carry out the agreement; and as it may involve a charge on the Public Funds, it is necessary to have the authority of the Committee of the whole House for the proposal.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Has any estimate been formed of the cost?
  MR. ASQUITH: None is possible.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Will soldiers and sailors be included in the scope of the clause, or only workpeople?
  MR. ASQUITH: Soldiers and sailors will not be included.

  659
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of compensation for injuries to workmen in the employment of the Crown which may become payable under the provisions of any Act of the present Session relating to the Liability of Employers for injuries to their workmen.—(Mr. Secretary Asquith.)
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 209.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 8th June.]
    [SEVENTEENTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Legislative Authority.
    Clause 3 (Exceptions from powers of Irish Legislature).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 12, after the word "or," to insert as a new sub-section the words— "factories, workshops, and mines, or the regulation of the hours of labour of men, women, and children in factories; workshops, and mines."—(Mr. Whiteley.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. FIELDsaid, the hon. Member who, on the previous night, had proposed that Amendment, had expressed himself very anxious about the protection of Irish labour under an Irish Parliament. Well, as one connected with Irish labour institutions he could assure him that there was no danger of labour being unprotected, because the progress of democratic thought was resulting in more and more Representatives of labour being sent to Parliament. That would be the case in the Irish Legislature, as it was in the House of Commons. He would ask the Government to reject the Amendment. If Ireland were not to manage her labour questions, what was she going to manage? At the present moment there was no equality in the administration of the Labour Laws, because the Resolution passed by the House of Commons as to contracts and sub-letting was not enforced in Ireland, although it was in other parts of Great Britain. He held that this ques-
    660
    tion would be much safer in Irish hands than if left to the Imperial Parliament. He hoped the Government would reject the Amendment, and not allow the Irish Government Bill to be so pruned as to prevent it being capable of producing any fruit. They wanted it to be something more than a mere pole on which to display the Union Jack.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I am not at all surprised at the appeal which has been made by the hon. Member. The apprehension, I believe, is entertained by some —probably by but a few—that by legislation the Irish Legislature might bring into existence a new and very formidable competition with British manufactures; and, therefore, it is desired to withdraw from the cognisance of the Irish Legislature these topics. But nothing could be more chimerical than the idea that Irish legislation could have such an effect. No doubt an Irish Government would be desirous to plant, stimulate, and foster industries; but if it sought to do so by abnormal methods of Governmental interference—by grants from the Exchequer—that in itself would show a belief that it would be no easy matter. The causes which have planted the great British manufactures in the seats which they occupy are too powerful and deep-rooted to be capable of being so affected. This is one of those grave questions raising and involving a multitude of considerations. Let us select one branch which, I think, would come home to the views of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Field) on this subject—the question of passing Sanitary Laws. It cannot be contended seriously that the subject of sanitary legislation as applied to workshops in Ireland ought to be withdrawn from the Irish Legislature; yet that is one of the things which this Amendment would do. There would be no power on the part of the Local Authority, which certainly would be better able to deal with sanitation than any other, to supervise these workshops. It appears to me that the Amendment, if passed, would not only exhibit an undue jealousy of the Irish Legislature, but would impose an unwelcome burden on the Imperial Parliament, which this Parliament would hardly care to assume. The question of sanitary legislation is one of those

    661
    matters peculiarly fitted for the cognisance of an Irish Parliament, and the intolerable supposition cannot be raised that that Legislature would pass Sanitary Laws beneficial to Ireland in general, but prejudicial to Ulster. My own belief is that this subject would not be a matter of Party division in the Irish Chamber, but would be prosecuted for the benefit of the country at large with one heart and one purpose. I am convinced that the new Government and new Assembly will be the proper stewards to deal in Ireland with all legislation respecting labour in factories and mines, and such questions as the employment of women and young persons. It is bettor that we should leave a reasonable discretion in dealing with local questions; and, in our opinion, we are bound to recognise the Irish Legislature as the proper Body for dealing with these questions. We, therefore, offer a most decided opposition to the proposal of the hon. Member opposite.
    SIR J. GORST: The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to one ground upon which I venture to recommend the Amendment to the Committee. It is complained that this Amendment is too wide; and, as I have placed one on the Paper which is loss extensive in its scope, I would like to say a few words upon the matter. I am not, in the slightest degree, influenced to sympathise with the Amendment by any distrust of the Irish Legislature in connection with this matter. I do not believe that the Representatives of Ireland, either in a Legislature of their own or in the Imperial Parliament, would endeavour to diminish the protection afforded to men, women, and children by an industrial legislation. Their speeches in this House, I have always been glad to notice, have been on the side of industrial progress. But my reason for desiring that the subject-matter of the Amendment should continue to be treated as an Imperial, and not as a local, matter is because industrial legislation may soon be expected to assume an International character. The legislative protection of working people engaged in industrial pursuits is likely to become a matter of International arrangement, and will soon probably be the subject of Treaties between the civilised Powers of Europe,
    662
    and great inconvenience will be caused if we should persist in having two separate Legislatures in one Kingdom, each dealing in its own fashion with a question of that kind. I do not think that the Conference of 1891, in Berlin, will be the last of the attempts to bring about uniformity of legislation throughout Europe for the protection of those engaged in industrial occupations. It is true that the decisions of that Conference had no diplomatic force, and were mere pious opinions; but I believe that in a very few years there will be other Conferences, which will result in definite engagements binding the European Powers to treat the industrial populations of their various countries in a uniform manner. In what an inconvenient position will this country be situated at such a Conference as the Berlin Conference! At Berlin those countries were represented which have been brought before the House as countries in which the dual system of Government, prevails—namely, Sweden and Norway and Austria-Hungary. But each country was represented by a separate Delegate; and often the Norwegian Representative was found acting against the Swedish and the Hungarian against the Austrian. By a sub-section already adopted in the Bill the Government of Ireland would be debarred from being represented at such a Conference; but it would not, if this Amendment were rejected, be debarred from legislating on the lines of the decisions such a Conference might deliver. Thus an Imperial Delegate might speak in the name of the Imperial and the Irish Parliaments; but one of those Parliaments would have power to act in a contrary spirit. That would not be a very convenient position for this country to appear in. Either industrial legislation ought to be within the province of the Imperial Parliament alone, or, in the ease of an International arrangement, the Irish Legislature should be represented as well as the British Legislature. But there is another difficulty, and that is that, the Irish Parliament not being represented at European Conferences, they would very likely refuse to undertake any legislation at all to give effect to any stipulation the Imperial Representative might make. We had a case in point in connection with the Berlin Conference, when the Govern-

    663
    ment of India, not being represented, refused to be bound even on such a question as the employment of women underground. In the same way, what reason is there to suppose that the Irish Government would act differently? I do not attribute less zeal to the Irish Parliament than to this one; but it is only human nature to expect that, following the example of the Indian Government, Ireland should refuse to be bound by arrangements in the making of which its Representatives would have no voice. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Field) is a Labour Representative. It seems to me that if he wants an eight hours' day he should vote against the provisions of this Bill as it stands, and in favour of some such proposal as we are now discussing. I strongly urge upon the Government, in the interest of progress, to preserve to the Imperial Government the power to appear with unity at the Congresses of European countries and the power to give effect to any arrangement come to for industrial legislation. I grant that to exclude from the purview of the Irish Parliament all matters connected with industrial legislation would be impossible and absurd; but I think we ought to preserve to ourselves the right to speak with proper effect in any further Congresses that may take place.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman admit that to deprive the Irish Legislature of any power to deal with this subject would be absurd. I entirely share that opinion, and, that admission having been made, there is little more to be said on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Imperial Parliament ought to be in a position to enforce the recommendations of Conferences. It is proposed that Parliament should acquiesce in the limit of age (12 years) proposed by the Berlin Conference; but the late Home Secretary maintained the limit of 10 years, and when the view of the Conference was quoted to him he said that view had no binding force whatever. No doubt Conferences are of great advantage; but I do not believe there is any probability of their bringing about a uniform practice in Europe. No class of Members in this House has so loyally
    664
    supported factory legislation as the Irish Members. The right hon. Gentleman said the Irish Members would not be influenced by a Conference at which they were not represented. But should they not be represented?
    SIR J. GORST: I spoke of a Representative of the Irish Government.
    MR. MUNDELLA: Yes; but many of the Delegates who attend the Conferences are not Representatives of their Governments. There is no reason to fear any reactionary legislation with regard to labour from the Irish Members. I would say that I believe Ireland will be more likely to adopt the provisions of the Berlin Conference than England herself, and that she will set an example which would be useful to this country.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that gentlemen on the Treasury Bench seemed to think that this was an entirely useless discussion. To his mind it was quite a natural one. He could understand the position of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin. The hon. Member asked, as an Irish Home Ruler, "What was the Irish Legislature to do if it was not to regulate a thing of this kind?" That was a perfectly natural position to take up; and if he (Mr. Russell) were an Irish Home Ruler he should follow that course—or he should probably go a great deal farther, and object to many of the restrictions the Government had inserted in the Bill.
    MR. FIELD: I have done so.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that, no doubt, if the hon. Member wished to go further, he would have an opportunity later on of showing his desire. If the position of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin was natural, that of the hon. Member for Stockport was doubly so. The question was one of opposition between sentiment and interest. The hon. Member for Stockport knew what they all knew— that there were two main reasons why this Irish legislation was desired in Ireland by the bulk of the people. One set of people had an idea that land would be cheapened under it, and another set had an idea that Irish industries would be fostered and encouraged by it. He defied Irish Members to deny that these were the two main reasons why the majority of the Irish people were in

    665
    favour of Home Rule. Let them see how it would work out. By the Bill, as he understood it, the Irish Government would be enabled to give premiums and bounties to, say, woollen manufacturers in Ireland.
    MR. BARRAN: They do not want them. The woollen industry of Ireland at the present time is as prosperous, or more prosperous, than that of any industry in that country.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that was not the point. The Bill as it was drawn allowed the Irish Legislature, if they could find the money, to give premiums or bounties—[Cries of "Question!"]— to assist the woollen manufacturers in Ireland. That was the first thing. What would be the result? Why, that the Irish manufacturers would be able to compote better than they were able to do now with the Yorkshire manufacturers in Ireland, and would be able to come over to England and compete with them here. The hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin did not object to that—why should he? But supposing the Irish Members were left in their present strength in this House—and there were proposals to that effect—and supposing a measure for giving an eight hours' day in factories were brought in, the 103 Irish Members might vote for that principle so far as England was concerned, but might decline to apply it to Ireland, on the ground that it would not help them in fostering Irish industries and manufactures. Here, in addition to bounties, would be a greater boon to Irish manufacturers at the expense of English manufacturers. He (Mr. Russell) was an Irish Member, and he was not going to say that such a thing was wrong. If he were in an Irish Parliament he should go for that. The Government would be making a great mistake if they thought that an Irish Parliament would not go for it. It did not matter what the Irish Members might say. They would be made to go for it. He did not believe in an Irish Legislature if it did not represent the feeling's and aspirations of the Irish people; and he contended that this feeling in favour of bounties was deep-rooted in Ireland, and that one of the aspirations that every man South of the Boyne cherished was that Irish industries might be fostered, and that could only be done at the ex-
    666
    pense of English trade. The hon. Member for Stockport was not full of sentiment, though the people of Ireland might be. They were all full of looking after their own interests, and this was simply a collision between interest and sentiment, and he thought interest would win in the long run.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, his belief was that in Lancashire and Yorkshire and other manufacturing parts of the country this question would be looked at as a practical matter; and he based his support of the Amendment, in the first place, on the last lines of the speech of the Prime Minister on Wednesday last. The right hon. Gentleman stated—
    "It was vital to the commerce of the Three Kingdoms that there should be uniformity of the commercial law from one extremity of the land to the other."
    The right hon. Gentleman now drew a distinction between commercial law and trade law. That was a mere verbal distinction, and what they had to look to was not words but things. They had to consider what would be the effect of the Bill, not as commercial law, but on the trades carried on in this country; and the conclusion he drew was that not only the commercial law, but the whole of the trade law, ought to be uniform in the whole of the United Kingdom. Unless that was done they would be exposed to the dangers that (he hon. Member for South Tyrone had alluded to. He (Mr. Tomlinson) had no doubt that if the existence of any such state of things ever came about it would tend to give rise to such apprehensions as would drive away enterprise and capital from this country and send them to other countries. If it was said that it was absurd to say that the Irish Legislature ought not to have power to deal with trade questions, his reply was that this was only another illustration of the absurdity of the whole Bill. [Cries of "Divide"!"]
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, the Prime Minister had supplied the Committee with the most excellent reasons why they should entertain some of the apprehensions that the President of the Board of Trade said were so far distant from his mind. It was no easy matter to plant industries on Irish soil, and that was the very reason

    667
    why there was a suspicion that an Irish Legislature might be prone to relax the regulations with regard to workshops and factories. In the year 1891 Parliament delegated many of the matters relating to the regulation of workshops to Local Authorities, subject to the exception that where a Local Authority failed in its duty an appeal might be made to the Home Secretary, who might then step in and take the place of the Local Authority. In thus providing for an ultimate resort to the Central Government, with a view to the maintenance of a general standard, Parliament had adopted a policy similar to that which the supporters of the Amendment now advocated. The standard ought not to be allowed to be lowered in any portion of the United Kingdom, because if it were the result would be to add one to the list of foreign countries, whose competition Great Britain had to fear. It was said that there would be no division of opinion on these matters in an Irish Parliament. He was confident that this would be the case, and that the Irish Members would be only too united in regard to them. It might be that Irish Members had, in the past, loyally supported factory legislation, but it had been legislation which had been uniformly applied throughout the United Kingdom. Lastly, he hoped that favourable consideration would be given by the Committee to this Amendment, when they bore in mind that although in respect of a great, many other matters they had, under the Act of Union, separate legislation, separate administration, and separate Executive action in Ireland, yet in respect of factory and mining matters, not only legislation, but also administration, had always been identical and always withdrawn from the control of the Irish Executive; and when, a few years ago, administrative Home Rule was set up in Scotland, he did not believe a single Scotch Member ventured to make a proposition that, as regarded factories and mines, there should be separate administration, which might lead to a conflict of standards, and, therefore, undue competition.
    COLONEL BRIDGEMANsaid, what the supporters of the Amendment were afraid of was that there might possibly be some legislation in Ireland
    668
    which would increase the number of working hours to the advantage of the Irish manufacturer and for the purpose of getting manufactures started in Ireland to the detriment of this country. The Prime Minister in his speech dealt entirely with the question of workshops. Would the right hon. Gentleman assent to the Amendment if "workshops" were omitted from it? With the object of ascertaining whether the right hon. Gentleman would do so, he moved the omission of that word.
    Amendment proposed, to the proposed Amendment, after the first word "Factories," to leave out the word "workshops."—(Colonel Bridgeman.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'workshops' stand part of the Amendment."
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, the question involved in the Amendment was an English as well as an Irish question. After the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella), the Amendment ceased to have that small importance which the Prime Minister had sought to give it. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) had asked why Irish Representatives should not go to such Conferences as that lately held at Berlin. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that they should go as accredited Representatives? If so, the provisions which had already been passed would make it absolutely impossible. If the right hon. Gentleman meant that they should be amongst the Representatives of Great Britain, the votes of the British Representatives might be rendered of no avail by those of the Irish Representatives, although the Irish Parliament would have no power whatever to carry out the views expressed by its Representatives. Therefore, from one point of view the suggestion was impossible, whilst from the other it was ridiculous. The right hon. Gentleman said that the reason why the linen trade had gone from England to such a large extent was that wages were lower in Ireland. There was, however, quite as much danger of having a 10 hours day in Ireland and an eight hours day in England as there was of having lower wages in one country than in the

    669
    other. He would ask those who called themselves Labour Representatives what, would happen?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but the only question is whether "workshops" should stand part, of the Question. It is inconvenient to discuss the Main Question until that has been disposed of.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he was dealing with the hours worked in workshops. He wished to call the attention of the Representatives of Labour to the fact that, although they might have the whole of the British electors in favour of securing an eight hours day in workshops, those efforts might be frustrated by the votes of Irish Members, whose own workshops would not be affected by the decision of the Imperial Parliament. Labour Representatives continually complained that the hours of labour in foreign countries interfered vary much with the settlement of the question of hours in this country; and Ireland might, unless the original Amendment were adopted, cause furl her interference. The question of the health of the people employed in these workshops had to be considered, and surely this was an Imperial question. Surely the general workshop legislation, which the House of Commons agreed to after discussions, from which the Irish Members would not be excluded, ought to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. The question was one that pre-eminently affected the working classes of this country, and which ought to be taken in connection with the question of bounties or protection which was dealt with by the House on the previous evening.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that, if the Government did not, accept the Amendment to the Amendment, it would, perhaps, facilitate business if his hon. and gallant Friend withdrew it.
    MR. J. MORLEY: We cannot, accept the Amendment to the Amendment.
    Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR F. S. POWELLremarked that the provisions which had already been adopted restraining the
    670
    Irish Parliament from dealing with Treaties or with foreign relations had an important bearing on the Amendment. He thought that, action taken by the Irish Parliament with reference to workshop, factory, or mining regulations might be very injurious to the industrial population of Lancashire. The character of the laws that might be passed by the Irish Parliament could not, be predicted, but might be such as to favour Irish industry to the prejudice of the Lancashire industries. He was afraid, therefore, that great injury might be caused to his constituents if the clause were adopted without, the insertion of the Amendment.
    MR. MATHERsaid, he wished to reply to some of the arguments by Conservative Members from Lancashire. Two suggestions were put forward. One was that possibly the Irish Legislature might not enforce the legislation now applying to those engaged in various industries, and the other was that they might legislate in industrial matters, and for their own selfish interests increase the hours of labour far beyond those now worked in England. From both points of view he thought the Amendment was absolutely unnecessary. In the first place, it was not likely that the electors of Ireland, composed as they were almost overwhelmingly of the working classes of Ireland, would send to the Irish Legislature men who would at once begin to reverse the legislation with regard to hours of labour and other matters which affected the interests of the working classes, and to deprive the working men of Ireland of the advantages they had secured under the Imperial Parliament. Any other position than that was so absolutely ridiculous and absurd that be did not think it worth while to waste time in discussing it.
    MR. WHITELEY: That was my chief argument.
    MR. MATHERsaid, in that case the hon. Member must regard the Irish people as altogether differing in their views from the people of other parts of the United Kingdom, and must assume that they would willingly pass from a condition of comparative ease and enjoyment and enter once more into a state of semi-bondage. The argument to which the hon. Member bad given most force

    671
    was that the industries of Lancashire, to which he particularly referred, would be affected if the Irish Legislature had the power to pass Acts on these matters differing from the English Acts. Another hon. Member opposite had endorsed that view. All legislation for the amelioration of the condition of the working classes had been brought forward under the influence of the working people of the country. The Trades Unions had been the prime movers in the bringing about of restrictions for the benefit of the workpeople. All this had increased our productive power, and put us in a better position for competing with the nations of the world; and if Ireland desired to be in a better position to compete with England than she was at present, she would follow the example of England and endeavour to secure better conditions and advantages for her working classes.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: As I represent an entirely working class constituency, I should like to offer a word on this question. I do not presume to speak as some of my Colleagues do—for the working classes in general, but I think I can speak for the working classes in Birmingham and the district. Their feeling is that all the restrictions which they believe to be greatly to the advantage of the working classes which have been secured by legislation have been secured, in the first instance against the wishes of the employers of labour by the efforts of the Trades Unions and the special Representatives of the working classes. In that I am in accordance with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Mather). My constituents consider that these efforts have been continuous and persistent, and that at last they have been tolerably successful; but they feel that if at any time competition should make it difficult for the manufacturers to maintain their own, a very strong case would be made out for altering or repealing the regulations which they have obtained at a cost of so much labour. Now, up to the present, all these regulations have applied equally to the whole of the United Kingdom. Under the Bill it is quite possible, in my opinion, that different and less restrictive regulations, and less costly regulations to the employers, may be adopted in Ireland to those which are enforced in Great Britain, and my constituents feel that if that ever were the
    672
    case the inevitable result would be that there would be an agitation to deprive them of the advantages which had been up to now secured. The principles which it seems to me must regulate the proceedings of the Committee were well and clearly stated the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. We are not to enter into an argument as to whether or not the Irish Parliament will do things injurious to those they represent. They have, as he said, an abstract right to injure themselves, with which we have no concern. But they have no right, according to the same authority, to injure us, and to injure those whom we represent—even to put us to great inconvenience. The hon. Member for the Gorton Division (Mr. Mather) would so far agree with my argument. But then he says that he is one of those Members who has this perfect confidence not that the Irish people will not do wrong or foolish things, but that they will never do anything which their Representatives think to be foolish or wrong. But why should the Irish Parliament think it to be foolish or wrong to alter our legislation with regard to the Factories and Workshops Act, and to adopt a different form of legislation? Other countries have not followed our example as to this legislation, and no one pretends that France or Germany are guilty either of insane folly or of crime because they allow their working people to work a much greater length of time than we allow ours. There may be, I think, a difference of opinion without imputing either folly or crime; and when the hon. Member for the Gorton Division says that what we fear may come about is not to be anticipated, because the majority of the Representatives in the Irish Parliament will be the Representatives of the working classes, he forgets that the majority of the Representatives in the Irish Parliament will be, by the necessity of the case, small tenant farmers. And I defy the hon. Member to find any class that knows less of the conditions and necessities of the manufacturing and industrial concerns than the Representatives of the tenant-farmer class. I think that it is quite conceivable that those who will undoubtedly and rightly endeavour to promote industries in Ireland will

    673
    proceed in every way to secure nil vantages in competition with those engaged in similar industries in this country. And one way in which they will obtain that advantage will be by persuading their workpeople and Representatives in the Irish Parliament to allow longer hours and lesser restrictions. They will endeavour to persuade them that the restrictions in the case of Great Britain have been carried to an unnecessary length, and, I suppose, have involved unnecessary cost to those engaged in industrial employments. In my opinion, they are very likely to be successful, and if they are successful a serious competition will be set up. In that case we shall have an agitation for the relief of British manufacturers from the conditions under which they are now working. The working classes will be injured. Consequently, I generally agree in the opinion that I know is largely expressed by my constituents, that it is most desirable that in this matter, and all these matters that affect competition between the two countries, there should be uniformity of legislation—that the power of legislation should be where it is at present—in the Parliament representing the whole of the United Kingdom.
    MR. J. BURNSsaid, that he had listened with great attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham; and he ventured to say that, notwithstanding the enormous power and influence that the right hon. Gentleman exercised in the district he so ably represented, the condition of industries in Birmingham was not of a character which justified the sweeping statements which had been made as to working-class opinion in relation to Ireland. What was the condition of Birmingham? It was practically this. In nearly all the small trades in Birmingham the masters were assisted by their sons or various relatives—and hard task-masters they were. Get any of the men who were not interested in the concerns of the small shop-masters and garret-masters of Birmingham, and there was one prayer they sent up, and that was that the Local Authorities in Birmingham should have greater power over these shop and garret-masters than they now had. The desire was, that the power of regulating these trades
    674
    should be decentralised, and that the Local Authorities not only of Ireland, but of England, Scotland, and Wales, should have power to put down the sweating, insanitary condition, and overwork that prevailed in Belfast just as it did in Birmingham and in Manchester. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would leave the small garret-masters in Birmingham and go to largo firms like that of Messrs. Tangye, where the men employed belonged to the Union; or if he would go to the National Trade Conference and Congress, what would he find? He would find that this Congress, as at the London Trades Council last night, asked, in one of the largest meetings ever held on the workshop question, for increased power to be given for dealing with factories and workshops. But he would find them asking not that this increased power should be given to Parliament, but that the administration should be decentralised, and that the Town and County Councils should have conferred upon them the duty of dealing with sweating—Local Authorities could discharge this duty much more vigorously than ever Parliament would be likely to discharge it. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was in favour of local self-government. No one appreciated more than he (Mr. Burns) did the magnificent services the right hon. Gentleman had rendered to municipal government —the disinterested and self-sacrificing work he had performed for the Corporation of Birmingham, when with such honour and distinction he occupied the mayoralty of that city. But if the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of self-government for his own district, why not for Ireland? He must see, as hon. Members did, that this House, jealous as it was of its privileges, was compelled to delegate them in such Acts as the Shop Hours Act and the Public Health Act, and in the Report of the Sweating Commission, which brought the last Tory Government, to its credit, up to the level of the best traditions of the Tory Party when, led by Lord Shaftesbury, they fought so gallantly against the Manchester and Birmingham capitalists of this country in 1840 and 1850. When he heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham say that

    675
    in Ireland the tenant farmers would set the pace for factory legislation, he (Mr. Burns) could not help asking himself who gave English workers the Factory Acts? It was done with the help of the tenant farmers on the Tory Benches. It was the gentlemen of England who had interposed between the brutal greed of the Birmingham and Manchester capitalists and the working classes. This Bill was within a measurable distance of becoming a glorified County Council Bill unless the Government plucked up courage and refused to make any more concessions. But if the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of real local government, and this Bill was to become a reality, the Parliament sitting in Dublin surely should have given to it such powers as were conferred on the London County Council by the last Parliament to enable it to deal with workshops and the sanitary conditions of bakehouses and workshops. He (Mr. Burns) contended that what was right for Birmingham and Manchester and London was doubly right for a country like Ireland, which was, industrially, 100 years behind England. Ireland ought to have the means of making up leeway, which, through the jealousy of this country, it had been prevented from doing. If the Bill was to be emasculated to the extent of refusing this power to Ireland, it would become such a miserable Home Rule Bill that he (Mr. Burns) should feel inclined to vote against the Government in their endeavour to secure its further progress. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had said that the Irish Parliament would have two objects. One would be to cheapen the value of land. But was that object peculiar to Ireland? They heard of squires and farmers and labourers doing it in this country at the present time. People were asking for more land at a lower price. ["No, no!"] Well, hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench, who mainly drew their re venue from rents, could not be expected to agree with him. The other object which, according to the Member for South Tyrone, the Irish Parliament would have might be to attempt to foster Irish industries at the expense of British industries by supporting an eight hours day in the Imperial Parliament for England, Scotland, and Wales, while they refused to apply the same principle to
    676
    their own country. But what economic ignorance that argument displayed! Did the hon. Member think that English workmen would permit that? They would rend to pieces any Irish Party that attempted to do anything of the kind, and that with the concurrence of Irish workers.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Then may I ask what about Ireland managing her own affairs?
    MR. BURNSsaid, he would deal with what an Irish labourer would do under such circumstances. Did the hon. Member imagine that the Irish labourers and artisans, who, above all people in the world, had the instinct of political organisation, and who had a capacity for government and political organisation unequalled by any other people on the face of the earth, would not use the powers of this Bill for reducing the hours of labour of farm labourers and of workpeople in factories, docks, railways, and workshops, and for increasing wages and improving the sanitary conditions under which work was carried on? Even if they did not voluntarily do it, Trades Unions were international, and the Unions (which were not so largely supported in Belfast as they ought to be) would be found working in Ulster, where a deal of the boasted prosperity sprung from long hours, low wages, and sweating conditions. The Unions would be found working there, and they would some day have the power of forcing the Belfast shipbuilders and shipowners and manufacturers to come up to the level of British hours and wages. Ireland would be mad if it attempted to exempt itself from a general eight hours working day. Long hours of labour generally were not profitable. Manufacturers now knew what they did not know when the Factory Acts were secured—namely, that neither long hours nor low wages where machinery was an auxiliary to production helped them to beat their rivals. What gave English manufacturers to-day a monopoly in the world's market was not long hours nor low wages, but sub-division, organisation, larger factories. He was surprised to hoar the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham say or imply that he did not want to see this little industrial country—Ireland—competing with this great manufacturing country—England —that had hail 100 years' start, in

    677
    the race for wealth. He (Mr. Burns) was in favour of giving India the right to manage its own industrial affairs, believing that it would put an end to a system under which the condition of the factories in that country was such as to bring the blush of shame to the face of every right-thinking Englishman. And not only would it put an end to that system, but the interests of our own Lancashire manufacturers would be advanced. In the same way Ireland wanted a Legislative Assembly not only to raise wages and reduce hours, but to prevent the frightful condition of things that existed in the domestic workshops.
    MR. WHITELEYasked, if Irish industries were carried on under bad conditions, what had the Home Secretary, who was responsible in the matter, been doing?
    MR. BURNSsaid, if the Home Secretary, like all his predecessors, listened to permanent officials who knew nothing of the circumstances, and was circumscribed by red tape, he deserved criticism. Ministers too frequently listened to a class of people who constituted themselves a centralised and obstructive organisation, whoso chief desire was to obtain their salaries for as little work as possible. He (Mr. Burns) wanted to remove that difficulty, and he hoped that many of the functions and duties now vested in the Home Secretary would be transferred to a Local Authority having a knowledge of all the circumstances. He was satisfied that, possessed of this power, the workmen of Ulster and Ireland generally would soon break out of their narrow sectarian and political partisanship, and would force their Representatives to shorten the hours and improve the conditions of labour.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he wished to call attention to the singular fact that the Amendment had been mainly supported by Lancashire Representatives interested in the cotton industry, while nothing was more notorious than that the cotton industry had no foothold whatever in Ireland. The woollen industry, on the other hand, was prosperous in Ireland, He was surrounded by Members representing the West Riding of Yorkshire, not one of whom had raised his voice against the Irish Parliament having absolute power over the factory system in Ireland. There never was a case
    678
    presented to the House having less foundation in fact.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid, that his constituents who laboured in workshops would be prejudicially affected by this Bill. He could not help feeling that if factories in Ireland wore run for 98 hours a week against 56 in this country we should not be able to compete, and many of our working classes would be thrown out of employment. He had no hope that the Government would accept the Amendment, because they showed such a benevolent attitude last night in respect to bounties; but if they did so, it would be in the interests of the working classes.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERrose amid cries of "Divide!" He said he should not detain the Committee but a few moments. There was very little division between them. He had had an opportunity of discussing this matter with some of the leaders of Trade Unionism in Belfast, and their desire was to support the Eight Hours Bill. They sent over a delegate to the Trade Union Congress in England, and it was to England and Scotland that they looked for assistance in the matter. He contended, in answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. J. Burns), that Trades Unions in Ireland had had their origin almost exclusively in the North. It would be a most serious thing to cut off the industrial population of the North from the Trade Union organisation of this country, which was so well represented by the hon. Member for Battersea. It was for that reason that he supported the Amendment.
    MR. FIELDsaid, he wished to make a personal explanation—[Cries of "Divide!"] The hon. Member for West Belfast had entirely ignored the Dublin Trades Council. This Council was the parent of all their Trade Unionism in Ireland.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 268; Noes 298.—(Division List, No. 130.)
    SIR J. LUBBOCKmoved to leave out the words "legal tender," in order to insert "currency." Her Majesty's Government proposed to exclude legal tender from the subjects with which the Irish Legislative Assembly was to deal, presumably be-

    679
    cause they wished to insure the continuance of a safe and satisfactory currency in Ireland, and to preclude the possibility of any different system of currency in the two Islands, with the fluctuations in exchange and the other evils which would result from any difference in this respect. The clause forbade coinage, and Story, in his work on the American Constitution, justly said—
    "The same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium instead of coin. … No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to omit paper money than to coin gold or silver."
    These objects were not secured by the clause as it stood. Supposing that the Government of Ireland suppressed the present issues of the Irish banks—and there was nothing in the Rill to prevent them — they might issue notes of their own, even inconvertible notes to any amount. These notes need not be legal tender; the existing notes, were not legal tender. The temptation to issue them would be great; the mischief they might do still greater. In fact, all our currency legislation was based on the conviction, forced upon us by bitter experience, that it was not enough to provide that bank notes should be convertible, but that additional safeguards must be provided. If this was necessary in the case of the Bank of England, presided over by the leading merchants of London and with so long an experience in the past, how much more would it be required in the case of a new Irish Government, formed in defiance of almost every one of any commercial experience in that country? The Prime Minister, indeed, predicted that the Irish Government would have a "plethora of money"; but in that case why did he throw so unjust a proportion of Imperial expenditure on Great Britain? The Irish Home Rulers, on the contrary, said that the Bill, as its Financial Clauses stood, would mean financial ruin to Ireland, and they would, at any rate, be able to verify their own prediction. The temptation, then, to secure several millions of money by the issue of notes would be irresistible. In this anticipation he was not attributing to the Irish Government "a double dose of original sin." On the contrary; the
    680
    uniform experience from China to Peru bad been the same. No State which issued notes had been able to resist the temptation. Not only China and Peru, but the Argentine Confederation, Russia, Austria, Italy, and other countries had suffered injury to their trade and commerce by the unwise issue of notes. Indeed, as Fullarton, in his well-known Treatise on the Currency, justly said—
    "There is not, I believe, a single example on record of the power of creating money out of cheap materials having been exercised by a Sovereign State for any length of time, or through any season of public difficulty, without having been abused. … The temptation to substitute issues for taxation, to relieve the wants of the Treasury by intercepting, through the depreciation of the currency, a portion of every payment in its transit from the pocket of the debtor to that of his creditor, becomes too strong to be resisted, and the iniquity is, probably, perpetrated with the general acquiescence of a community who are scarcely aware of its tendency. The career of debasement once entered upon, it has no pause till there is scarcely any value left to be destroyed."
    Whether notes were legal or not, a Government had the power of paying them away in so many channels that the metallic currency might be gradually driven out of the country. Story, in his great work on the American Constitution, laid it down that—
    "The history of paper money without any adequate funds pledged to redeem it, and resting merely on the pledge of public faith, has been in all ages and in all nations the same. It has constantly become more and more depreciated."
    In fact, in all eases of Federalism the issue of notes was reserved to the central power. It was impossible to cite a Home Rule case, because no country in the world had ever given to any considerable portion of its territory rights and privileges which were denied to other portions. But in Federal Governments—in Switzerland, for instance, and Austria-Hungary— the regulation of the currency was reserved to the Central Authority. In Canada the several Provinces were precluded from dealing with currency, which was specially mentioned, as well as coinage and legal tender, which were expressly reserved to the Dominion Parliament. Was it to be supposed that the experience of Ireland would be different from that of every other country? Irish Members wished to encourage native industry, and one of the first conditions for success in that effort was a sound and

    681
    satisfactory system of currency. Few countries had suffered more than the United States from the abuse of paper money. Sir C. Lyell used to tell a story, in illustration of the American circulation, that when he was first in the West he found the circulation consisting mainly of small notes by private issuers and bills of exchange. On one occasion he was travelling on the top of a coach and asked a Western gentleman whether this small circulation rested on any basis. "Well," he said, "that depends on what you consider a basis. This time last year I was travelling with a friend and we had a bet on some oysters and porter. I lost the bet, so in the evening, when we had had the oysters and porter, my friend drew a bill on me, which I accepted and paid away to the hotel-keeper. It is still in circulation, and it rests on the basis of the oysters and porter we had that evening." Story said—
    "The history of the paper currency, which during the Revolution was issued by Congress alone, is full of melancholy instruction."
    He was as anxious for the prosperity of the trade and manufactures of Ireland as the Irish Members themselves could be; for the commercial interests of England and Ireland were indissolubly bound up together. There were no Party considerations involved in his Amendment. The question was one that should be considered without Party feeling, and entirely in the interest of Ireland. He believed that he should be supported by every banking and almost every commercial authority when he said that it was not, sufficient merely to forbid the issue of legal tender. The insertion of the words "legal tender" only, would not have the effect desired by the Government. To secure the object which Her Majesty's Government desired it was necessary to extend the provision to all bank-notes, and therefore he moved to omit the words "legal tender," and to insert in their place the word "currency."
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 13, to leave out the words "legal tender," and insert the word "currency."—(Sir. J. Lubbock.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'legal tender' stand part of the Clause."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I entirely agree with nay right hon. Friend that this is a question that should be considered without Party feeling, and considered solely in the interest of Ireland. The Prime Minister was unable to wait for the discussion on this Amendment; but I represent him sufficiently in the matter, because he instructed me that he was against the Amendment. I do not agree with my right hon. Friend in the dangers he has anticipated in the event of the Irish Government issuing bank notes. Under the Bill the Government of Ireland are prohibited from making their notes legal tender. I admit that if the Irish Government had the power to make their notes legal tender the dangers which my right hon. Friend shadowed forth would not be exaggerated; but, as I have said, the Irish Government will not have the power of making their notes legal tender, and, therefore, I think there need be no fear of such dangers being realised. The right hon. Baronet also seemed to argue that it was necessary that the central power should enforce the same currency in all parts of the United Kingdom. But at present that state of things does not exist. The Irish banks got the right to issue £1 notes, for they said it was the currency which best suited the country. There is no danger in allowing the different parts of the country to have the currency most useful for their purpose without making it a legal tender.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I never argued that it was necessary to have the same currency in all parts of the United Kingdom, because I am aware it does not exist now. What I did argue was that the laws affecting currency should be made only by the Imperial Parliament.
    SIR W. HARCOUKT: I do not see that it signifies whether the Laws of Currency are made in Ireland or made here. In fact, the different countries are better judges of the currency most suitable to their interests than the Imperial Parliament. If the Irish Government chose to issue £1 or £2 or £5 notes which will not be a legal tender, why should they not do so if it be in accordance with the wants of the country? The notes, as I have said, will not be legal tender. You may take the notes or not as you please. I cannot see the

    683
    necessity for the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed. If we are to give Ireland a Parliament surely we should allow that Parliament to select the currency hest suited to the country.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I shall endeavour to conduct the controversy in the spirit in which it was begun by the right hon. Baronet, and in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer continued it. I wish also to speak with the greatest possible brevity in the matter, though it possesses far more importance than the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems disposed to attach to it. There are a great many points on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be correct; but he did not strike at the root of the proposal of my right hon. Friend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says with great propriety that each country ought to have the currency most appropriate to its needs. He says — "If Ireland likes £1 notes, why should they not have them; if they want £2 notes or £1 notes, why should they not have the power of issuing them?" Well, I do not much disagree with that proposition; but the real point at stake here is this — whether the Irish Government, which I think we all admit will be an inexperienced Government, should have the power of issuing bank notes, and of changing and altering all the privileges which the banks enjoy in Ireland at the present moment? I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me that it would be possible for the Irish Government to raise a very considerable sum by the issue of £1 notes. I will point out to the Committee how the notes can be forced in Ireland without being legal tender. The Government of Ireland, under the strain of a great financial difficulty, might say—"Here are the banks issuing £1 notes, why should not we issue £1 notes?" That would be a temptation felt strongly by the Irish Government, and the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is—"Well, it is their own affair whether they yield to the temptation or not." I do not entirely admit that it is their affair, because there is a minority in Ireland whose interests need safeguarding, and I am not quite prepared to accept to the full the admis-
    684
    sion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we have really got no interest in the matter whether Ireland damages herself or not.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I did not say that. I said the people need not take the notes.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I admit that that is the point that must lie as the basis of my argument. If I cannot show that the people will take the notes our case is gone, or, at least, very seriously damaged. Let the Committee understand clearly that it the Bill is left as it stands the Irish Government will have the power to issue £1 notes, and they will also have the power to change the whole banking system of Ireland. That has been admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These are very serious powers to place in the hands of an inexperienced Government, as it is admitted the Irish Government will be. Not only may the Irish Government issue £1 notes, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Irish Government from issuing the notes entirely unrepresented by gold, or represented only by one-third or one-fourth of gold; and, therefore, if the Irish Government wanted to raise half-a-million of money they could issue £1 notes to that amount without any reserve of gold. The temptation to the Irish Government to adopt that course would be great, not because the Irish have a double dose of original sin, but under the strain of financial difficulties to which Governments have yielded over and over again. Therefore, if the Government do not adopt the Amendment, I think we should restrict the power in the hands of the Irish Government of issuing notes without being represented by gold. But, says the right hon. Gentleman, how are they to get these notes into circulation if they are not legal tender? My answer is that Ireland is practically without any legal tender at all. The only legal tender in Ireland is the sovereign, and that one sees occasionally, but rarely, because the currency of Ireland practically is the £1 note. [Mr. SEXTON: Except a limited quantity of silver.] There is a quantity of silver, which scarcely affects the argument. The whole people of Ireland are, therefore, in the position of being accustomed to £1 notes, which are not legal tender. Are we not, therefore, entitled to assume that if the

    685
    Government of Ireland are going to issue £1 notes of their own the Irish people will take them? [SIR W. HARCOURT: Over issue?] No; the over issue will not become known till afterwards. The greater the confidence placed in the Parliament of Ireland the more ready will the people be to take the £1 notes. I have pursued the subject from the point of financial need. But where will the public find the currency which they will require if the Government curtail the power of issue by the banks? I will put an extreme case. Of course, it will not be done; but if the Government of Ireland were to take away half the power of issue from the banks they would create a scarcity of currency, and that scarcity they would fill up be the issue of their own £1 notes. That is a very dangerous power to place in the bauds of the Irish Government, and that is the position as it will be left by the Bill. I say it is a power which ought not to be given. I really do not see what answer there can be to that argument. Then there is the case of Ulster to be considered. If this be true with regard to the whole of Ireland, I think it will be specially the case with the trailing part. It is quite possible that in the Southern and inland parts of Ireland, and in the smaller business transactions, the difficulty will not be much felt as in those parts which deal largely with Great Britain, where they have to pay their debts in gold or English currency. It is extremely important that the currency of Ireland should remain on the soundest possible footing. I have not wished to overstate the case; but I have felt it my duty to put clearly before the Committee, not in any controversial manner, the real dangers I see to giving the Irish Government this power conferred by the Bill.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman must see that the Amendment goes a good deal too far. For instance, supposing it should be found, as in the year 1844, that the issue of notes by private banks is undesirable and should be put an end to, why should not the Irish Parliament have power to regulate the currency of their country? Why should it be left to the Imperial Parliament, which knows very little about the wants and disadvantages of banks and currency in Ireland? The Amendment is intended absolutely to prohibit the
    686
    Irish Parliament from having any authority or power over the currency in their country.
    MR. GOSCHEN: If the right hon. Gentleman would suggest any course by which the danger could be guarded against should the Irish Government have recourse to issuing these notes and interfering with the rights of all the banks, and if he would see that there shall be some security for its being done on a sound basis, then I think a compromise might be arrived at. The Irish Members say it is going to be a very poor Parliament, and I say it is more dangerous to entrust this power to a poor Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman will say that clauses shall be introduced to the effect that the Irish Parliament shall not have unlimited power over the issue of bank notes, I should then advise my right hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I am extremely anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman, and I admit his great authority upon questions of this kind. Without undertaking to remove from the Irish Parliament all control in this matter, I will undertake upon the part of the Government, if the Amendment be not pressed, that we will consider whether or not any safeguards in reference to the currency may be introduced hereafter.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, he hoped the Government would not make any concession whatever upon this point. The Amendments to the Bill might be divided into two classes. They had an example of one class in the last Amendment—an Amendment introduced in the interest of England. He had never heard such an exhibition of selfishness as was displayed by those who supported that Amendment. One would think that the conditions of Ireland and England were completely reversed, and that Ireland was a great and prosperous country, and that poor little England, with its miserable and struggling industries, ought to be protected. The other class of Amendment was, like the present Amendment, insulting. The ground upon which all these Amendments were based was that Ireland was not able to govern itself. That might be a very good hypothesis for opponents of the Bill to go upon; but it was no

    687
    hypothesis for those who supported the Bill to go upon. Those who supported the Bill ought to reject such an Amendment. The subject of the currency was a domestic mutter. The currency of Ireland had been degraded only at the instance of England, yet they were to be lectured by gentlemen from Lombard Street as to what they were to do when this Bill was carried. He confessed that he felt indignant when he thought of these Amendments, indignant at being lectured by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London, and indignant at speeches like that of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the substance of which was that I the Irish Legislature might cut their throats and might act as pirates and robbers. [Cries of "No, no!"] The supporters of the right hon. Gentleman cheered that interruption. ["No!"] They did not repudiate it.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I repudiate it.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, that the Front Benches differed from their supporters. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that they would act as madmen or rogues? [Cries of "No !"]
    MR. GOSCHEN: May I interrupt? The action which the hon. and learned Member calls the action of robbers and pirates has been the action taken by Governments over and over again in times of difficulty. I never suggested that it would be robbery or roguery, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to press that argument.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, that the tones of the right hon. Gentleman were mild, especially when he got up to explain himself, but his matter was aggravating in the extreme. He felt very strongly upon this point; he felt as if he were being treated as an inferior being as an Irishman. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to accept any Amendment upon this subject.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I want to point out to the Committee how difficult it is for us to conduct Public Business if hon. Members from Ireland, whenever the Government agree to consider our propositions, say that they see no sense whatever in them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with great fairness, has admitted that there is force in what so high an authority as the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said; and though he
    688
    could not accept the Amendment, he promised to endeavour to find words which would guard against the dangers feared, but which would not take out of the hands of the Irish Parliament the power they ought to have. What then occurred? A gentleman representing North Dublin, by way of illustrating the moderation, good sense, sanity, and general wisdom which is going to animate the Irish Legislature, declared that it was an insult to Ireland to introduce a clause which was to be found in every Federal Constitution in the world. Why is Ireland insulted by a provision which does not insult the American States, the Canadian Provinces, Austro-Hungary, Norway, and the Cantons of Switzerland? I might go on with the whole list. These sensitive gentlemen are so indignant at the very idea of the Government meeting the Opposition oven on the strongest case that they jump up and wave the green flag, and behave in a way which certainly does not impress us, at all events, with any great idea of the wisdom and moderation likely to prevail in their Councils. It must be evident to the Committee that the issue of an inflated currency in Ireland would not be disastrous to Ireland alone, and it is not one of those purely Irish affairs which ought to be left to an Irish Executive. Under these circumstances, it certainly appears to me that the Government are not only meeting the Opposition in a conciliatory spirit, but are actually carrying out principles which they have over and over again professed from that Bench.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I would appeal to the Committee, as I understand there is no opposition to the withdrawal of the Amendment, not to continue the discussion. There is another Amendment upon this subject, and that will be the time to renew it. Why go on discussing this Amendment, which I understand is not to be pressed?
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that the present Amendment, like most of those that had been moved, rested upon the assumption that they were not to give Ireland any power whatever, because any power they gave would certainly be misused.
    SIR LUBBOCKsaid, he did not say that powers would be abused; but he thought it better for both countries that such an Amendment should be inserted.
    MR SEXTONsaid, that came to the same thing. It rested upon the assumption that the power would not be so wisely used as they would wish it to be, and that the Irish people did not know their own interests as well as the people of this country did. Well, he denied that. He thought the Opposition were prejudiced and ignorant—ho meant with regard to the affairs of Ireland. The argument was that the Irish were knaves or fools. [Cries of "No!"] The late Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed especially to the case of Ulster.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: I never hinted that there would be any knavery.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the foundation of the whole argument was that the power was certain to be abused. What did the introduction of Ulster mean? It not only meant that they would be such fools as to use these powers against their own interests, but that they would be such knaves as to misuse them specially to the wrong of Ulster. The Amendment was absurd.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I think it is very unfair to my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London that he should be asked to withdraw the Amendment on the plea that it is an absurd one. The hon. Member does not assist the Government in the progress of the Bill by such a speech, which is calculated to tempt the Opposition, unless we were extremely virtuous.
    MR. SEXTON: I have to say what I think, whether it assists the Government or not.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, then they would look forward with much more interest to the remainder of these debates. Were they not told by Irish Members, when they (the Opposition) moved Amendments, that they were attacking them and accusing Irishmen of being inferior to themselves in judging this matter? He rested the case entirely on the supposition that they might be in financial straits. He should say the same of Englishmen or of Scotchmen, and he would not trust them any more than he would trust the hon. Member for North Kerry to forego the right of using paper money. The case was somewhat different since he first spoke. They had now heard the views of the Irish Members, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been informed by one of them that he would not accept
    690
    any concession, and that no concession ought to be made. He only made that, remark with a view to future occasions.
    SIR T. LEAthought, the hon. Gentleman had not done justice to his right hon. Friend who had moved that Amendment. The right hon. Baronet had pointed out that this was not a Party question, and he had appealed to the Committee not to treat it as such. There were other opinions in Ireland besides those represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite; and he thought they would admit that, in this instance at all events, he had the honour of representing the feeling of the greater part of those who were interested in banking, trade, and commerce. These gentlemen, as represented in the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin, tried to see the Prime Minister, and failed. The gentlemen interested in the Chamber of Commerce of Belfast did represent their views to the right hon. Gentleman, not, however, with complete success. Without wishing to attribute any evil designs to hon. Gentlemen opposite, he had to point out that there was an immense trade in Ireland amongst the banking and commercial communities; and it was felt that, unless some Amendment was introduced into the Bill, great damage would be done to these vital and important interests. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had agreed to some words being inserted, and he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree to accept the words which he (Sir T. Lea) had put down in a later Amendment. If so, he would not say one word to lengthen the Debate. This was a most important and vital question for those in Ireland. There was a paid-up capital reserve, in connection with the nine banks in Ireland, of more than £11,000,000, which, on the market, must be worth between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000. The gentlemen connected with this industry looked with dread upon this Bill — [Irish cheers]—without some provision such as he had on the Paper in a later Amendment; and he took it that the speeches that day and the cheers of hon. Gentlemen opposite would not do anything to soothe those fears. These nine banks had been managed with great success. Six had their headquarters in Dublin. Of those in Dublin only one paid less than 10 percent., the others paying 10 and 11 per cent. Of

    691
    those in Belfast one paid 20 per cent.; one 18; and one 11 per cent. An hon. Gentleman behind him said it was scandalous. The hon. Gentleman must remember that in paying these dividends they were not paying them upon capital, but they bad large reserve funds accumulated by care and management of previous years, which tended to increase the dividends on recent shares. He should not have thought that any man would have considered scandalous the wise and prudent management of these great institutions. One of these banks had taken counsel's opinion on this Bill, who stated that the Irish Parliament under the Bill, as it was drawn at present, would have power to control and to extinguish the note issue of the Irish banks. Was that a light matter? What was the note issue of the Irish banks? The Prime Minister, in reply to a question put a little time ago, told them that the note issue of the Irish banks amounted to £6,354,494. Were there any hon. Gentlemen opposite who thought that the future Irish Government would have plenty of money? The hon. Member for North Longford had told them it would be a bankrupt Exchequer. What was the bankrupt Exchequer to do when they saw this £6,354,494 issue of notes on which they could lay their hands? The Irish banks were legally and morally entitled to issue these notes by legislation made years ago, and was it right to hand over to a Parliament in Dublin this power, which would enable them to take away this right of issuing notes from the banks? Naturally, they would take steps for depriving the banks of this power. They might extinguish the notes of the banks and substitute an issue of State notes in exchange. The Prime Minister had said that the Irish Parliament not only had the right, but would be justified in dealing with this matter, and they would not be slow to accept that advice. Such a step, he contended, would have most disastrous results upon the commerce of Ireland. They could not compel the people to take notes unless there was gold in the vaults in place, and the only other course would be to compel the Irish banks to take £6,000,000 of Irish Government Stock in place of the power to issue notes. No bank would take Irish Stock in
    692
    place of gold. They had seen in the recent examples of the Australian banks the disaster which resulted from banks holding a large quantity of un saleable securities, which in time of panic they would not be able to sell. This would be of no benefit to the Irish banks or to the Irish Legislature; and in the interests and at the request of many of these great institutions in Ireland, he was asked to oppose this Bill still more unless some restriction of this kind was put in.
    MR. MARTINwished to remind the Committee that the question of the currency was not one of purely local interest to Ireland. Payments on account of the Customs, Post, and Telegraph Offices would have to be made in gold to the Imperial Exchequer, and any depreciated currency would be a serious matter not only for the Government of Ireland, but also for the Imperial Exchequer. Had he had longer time he would have tried to show that, in case of an issue of notes by the Irish Government not secured on gold, gold would be certainly driven out of the country, and a premium thereon would be the consequence. Just at this minute, when the wealthy United States of America were threatened with a gold premium, the danger was not imaginary, and might easily be a real one. The question was one of great practical importance, and required grave consideration It could not be settled at one sitting of an impatient Committee.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKasked, was he to understand that the Government would introduce words to carry the principle of the Amendment into effect?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I said, in deference to the argument addressed by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, while the Government could not accept these words, they would consider whether any, and what, safeguards might be necessary.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: In that case I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    DR. MACGREGOR(rising at a quarter to 7), said: In accordance with the notice I have already given, I beg to move "That the Question 'that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill' be now put."
    THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot, at the present time, accept this very important Motion of Closure. I think it would be altogether unreasonable for the Chair to accept this form of Closure from anybody except the Minister in charge of the Bill. When the proper time comes, no doubt if it is necessary to use this special form, or any other form of Closure, that will be done by those who are responsible for the management and control of the Business of this House.
    DR. MACGREGOR: I am not going to make any remarks after what you have said.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKrose to move the following Amendment:—In page 2, line 13, after "legal tender," insert "banks."
    It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (BLIND AND DEAF CHILDREN) BILL.—(No. 380.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (MR. ACLAND,moved the Second Reading of this Bill. The subject, he said, had been under the consideration of successive Governments. If the Second Reading were taken, the Bill would then be referred to a Select Committee, who would consider the whole subject.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Acland.)
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to extend the Bill to Ireland?
    MR. ACLAND: If it is found desirable to do so, I should have no objection.
    MR. BARTLEYsupported the Second Reading.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

  PRISON (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 359.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    MR. WHITELAWobjected to further progress being made with the Bill.
    ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he was thoroughly acquainted with the facts of this case. The Bill dealt with the case of a gallant officer, who would suffer a grievous injustice if the Bill were not passed, so he hoped the objection would not be persisted in.
    MR. WHITELAWsaid, there were several important cases of the same nature to be dealt with in Scotland, and the Government refused to deal with them. Until he could receive an assurance from the Government that these cases would be attended to be was bound to object, and he could not give way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because he was pledged to three or four supporters of the Government to take this course.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (SIR G. TREVELYAN,)said, these Scotch prison officers must be pensioned out of money provided by local rates; but this gallant officer, whose case was dealt with by the Bill, would be pensioned out of the Consolidated Fund—that was, out of the taxpayers' money. The questions were not in the least the same, and he must say the hon. Gentleman opposite, in the course he was taking, was rather exemplifying a certain proverb winch he hoped he would not continue to exemplify.
    MR. WHITELAW: I cannot withdraw my opposition unless I have an opportunity of conferring with hon. Gentlemen supporting the Government.
    MR. CROMBIEasked, whether the Secretary for Scotland would consider the cases of these Scotch prison officers?
    SIR G. TREVELYANthought it was impossible to call upon the Local Authorities, who were not bound by Statute, and he did not think were morally bound, to find the funds for the payment of the pensions to these officers. He earnestly trusted his hon. Friend would see the difference between that and a pension on the Consolidated Fund.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESremarked, that the remedy was in the hands of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they put down the Bill as a first Order, and allowed time for its discussion, it would be duly passed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday next, at Two of the clock.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL. (No. 378.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL (by Order)—(No, 376.)

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [8th June], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    And which Amendment was, to leave out, the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Paulton.)
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

  SALMON FISHERY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Burt, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade in pursuance of "The Salmon Fishery Act, 1873," relating to the Tees Fishery District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt and Mr. Mundella.
  Ordered, That Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first lime.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 389.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have appointed a Committee, consisting of Five Lords, to join with the Committee of the Commons (pursuant to Message of this House), on Electric Powers (Protective Clauses), and the Lords propose that the said Joint Committee do meet in Committee Boon) No. 3, on Monday next, at Two of the clock.
  Lords Message considered.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee appointed by this House to join with a Committee of the Lords on Electric Powers (Protective Clauses), do meet in Committee Room No. 3, at Two of the clock, on Monday next.—(Sir J. T. Hibbert.)
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  So much of the Lords Message [8th June] as relates to Canal Bates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order Bills considered.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee appointed by this House to join with a Committee of the Lords on Canal Bates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order Bills do meet in Committee Room A on Monday next, at Two of the clock.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum of the Committee.—(Mr. Mundella.)

  OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERY PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  REDEMPTION OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. T. W. Russell, Bill to amend "The Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1891," ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell, Sir Thomas Lea. Mr. Dane, and Mr. Arnold-Forster.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 390.]

  DUCHY OF CORNWALL BILL.—(No. 312.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 381.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to beo considered upon Monday next.
  EVENING SITTING.

    SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (AMENDMENTS OF LAW).

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. LOGANrose to call attention to the defective working of "The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883," and to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, Amendments of the Law are urgently needed to enable the tenant to obtain adequate compensation on the determination of a tenancy for all agricultural improvements executed by him on his holding, to give greater security of tenure and freedom to make improvements, to cultivate and to sell produce without detriment to the agricultural value of the holding, to abolish the landlord's right to distrain for rent, and to simplify and cheapen the settlement of compensation eases and other differences between landlord and tenant."
    He said: In moving the Resolution standing in my name, I do not intend to go at any length into the details of the defective working of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, but shall leave that to the hon. Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing), who has made the subject his special study, and who is, in fact, the real parent of this Motion. But, even if I were minded to go into the details of the many defects of the Act, I should scarcely know where to begin, for practical farmers assure me that the Act is so complicated as to puzzle lawyers to interpret it. One thing, however, is sufficiently clear to the farmer, and that is that under the Act he cannot obtain full and ample security for the labour, skill, and capital needed to make the business of fanning profitable, He knows that under the Act he cannot obtain compensation for first-class improvements if, after making them, be has to leave his farm. He is aware that there is no provision in the Act to prevent a landlord raising the rent on a sitting tenant, and no machinery whereby a fair rent, may be fixed. This is a hardship which mostly affects good tenants, who, having fanned the land well, are for that very reason at the mercy of their landlords, whilst the bad tenant, who has taken everything out of the land and put nothing in, is very well satisfied with matters as they stand. The farmer also realises that the system of arbitration provided by the Act is most costly. To put the matter in a few words, the farmer may, for all the assistance he gets from the Act, be slowly bled to death.
    698
    Under the present system of tenancy he may be bound hand and foot by a code of ancient customs and hampered by all sorts of conditions as to the manner of conducting his business, such as no other business man would tolerate for a single day. It might be asked why the farmer, being a free agent, endures such conditions. He is only nominally a free agent, for in reality he is bound by training, habits, and traditions to look to the land as the means whereby be shall get his living. If the land increased in the same ratio as the population of this country, we might with justice talk about freedom of contract; but whilst the ranks of the farmers are continually increasing, and the quantity of land suitable for cultivation remains practically the same, it is mere mockery to talk of freedom of contract between the men who hold possession of the limited commodity and the men whose daily bread must be won by cultivating it. I may be told that there are many vacant farms which may be had at almost any price and on any conditions of tenancy, and, without admitting that such a statement would convey the whole truth, I should say there are many farms which would be dear at any price, for under the wretched system which obtains in this country they have been so impoverished that the man would be mad who ventured to bury his capital in one of them, with the absolute certainty that it would be for the benefit of another man's descendants, and not for himself or his heirs. The present system not only allows of the confiscation of the tenant's capital, but adds insult to injury by making it possible for the farmer's son who succeeds to his father's farm to be compelled to pay, in the shape of an increased rent, what is to all intents and purposes interest on the capital which this father sunk in the land. Agriculture must, and always will, languish in tins country until the farmer can look upon the land as his bank, in which he may during the days of his lusty manhood store his surplus energy and capital with the certainty that he will be able to draw upon it for support in his declining years. We are all agreed upon one point, and that is that the agricultural industry is to-day in a deplorable condition, and I fear I may add that the tenant farmer has not yet decided in

    699
    which direction he shall look for the remedy. On the one hand, he is told that bi-metallism is his only hope, whilst another counsellor assures him that Protection is his sheet anchor. To my mind both are equally delusive, and if the farmer drops the bone, bare as it is, to grasp at either of those shadows, he will sooner or later realise that he has again the worst of the experiment. Proposals such as those only serve to divert the farmer's mind from a contemplation of the only real remedy, which will be found in such alterations of our laws as will give him security and fair dealing—will place him on an equality with the man to whom he pays the rent. The present system of land tenure in England is frequently referred to as though it concerned only landlords and tenants; but the great mass of the people are as much concerned in seeing that the soil yields its best results as the two parties to land contracts. The people have a right to be heard in regard to land, and when the men of our towns have fairly grasped the Land Question, they will be heard and to some purpose. An authority who is in favour with gentlemen opposite just now—I mean Professor Fronde—has said—
    "But seeing that men are born into the world without their own wills, and, being in the world, they must live upon the earth's surface, or they cannot live at all, no individual or set of individuals can hold over land that personal and irresponsible right which is allowed them in things of less universal necessity."
    I do not hesitate to declare that, from the point of view of the masses, the present system has failed, and failed miserably. Here we are to-day, with the finest dairy land in the world, importing enormous quantities of dairy produce that might very well be produced at home. Our farmers are being undersold at their very doors by the small proprietors of Continental countries, in articles which are particularly liable to damage in transit. Why does the small proprietor of other countries beat our men? Because he has security for his outlay, the necessary incentive, the magic of property which turns sand into gold. Adam Smith never uttered anything more truthful, or worthy of being remembered in this discussion, than his—
    "A small proprietor who knows every part of his little territory, who views it with all the affection which property naturally inspires, is
    700
    generally of all improvers the most industrious, the most intelligent, and the most suceessful."
    The small proprietors who beat our tenant farmers have all that is asked for by this Motion; they have full and ample compensation for all the time and money they spend on their holdings, they can cultivate as they like, and can make any improvements that may be necessary to keep them abreast of the times and enable them to compete successfully in the markets of the world. Under their system the cultivators work with confidence, get the very utmost from the soil, enrich themselves and their families, and each of them becomes a practical benefactor of his country. Compare that with the English system, under which the land is starved for want of labour and capital, because no sane man of business will embark his capital in an enterprise which he is not permitted to manage free from the meddlesome interference of others. Under our system the land has been impoverished and our rural districts depopulated. Why, 30 years ago our land nourished one man to every two acres, whereas to-day it needs three acres. It is not increase of population alone which causes us to import food so largely, it, is also the abandonment of agriculture by our people. It needed a famine to repeal the iniquitous Corn Laws; will it need a revolution to amend the laws affecting land tenure, from which spring such dire results? It was Sir Charles Napier who said—
    "All discontent springs from unjust treatment. Idiots talk of agitation; there is but one in existence, and that is injustice. The cure for discontent is to find out where the shoe pinches and to ease it."
    Farmers are in despair over their continued loss of capital; the labourer, unable to obtain remunerative employment in his native village, is reluctantly compelled to migrate to the town, and the townsman is gradually realising that impoverished rural communities are not good customers for the goods produced in towns, but they do supply an ever constant stream of hungry men who, in their eagerness to live, beat down wages, and add to the squalor of the slums. Security for the farmer's capital must be the first step towards the alteration of this condition of things. I will not use any words of my own to describe the probable effect of a thorough reform of the Land

    701
    Laws but will let the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill)—who, I am sorry to see, is riot in his place—speak for me. He says it would—
    "Mean this, that new capital, new energy, new brains, new minds would be applied to the cultivation of the land. It would mean that prosperity, activity, energy would be visible throughout the whole of your rural districts."
    It is with a view to help in bringing about this desirable change that we submit this Resolution. We recognise that to secure the best results from our land, brains, energy, and capital are needed; but the present system drives all three into more remunerative channels, and the country suffers. It cannot be surprising that such is the result when we look to the method usually adopted in selecting tenants on large estates. The first inquiry in such eases is not as to whether the applicant is a practical farmer with ample capital, but too frequently it is whether he is a good Tory—
    An hon. MEMBER: Give instances.
    MR. LOGAN: A good Tory, a careful game preserver, and a staunch Churchman. The nation is becoming very weary of the effects of the system, although it has not yet realised the cause, and it is in the hope that landlords will help us to the only remedy before the people awake that we submit this Resolution.
    MR. CHANNINGsaid, he rose to second the Motion, and he desired to say that they did not wish to make this a Party question. One of the strongest reasons on behalf of the Motion was that he believed practical men on both sides of the House had come to look at these questions from much the same point of view, and were of opinion that some such legislation was necessary as was indicated in the Motion in the interest, not only of the tenant farmers, but of the labourers, and ultimately of the landowners also. It was in no sense a demand for class legislation, but for a national object. He wished to impress upon the House and upon the country
    702
    that this was not an attack upon the landlords of England. Everyone who was acquainted with the management of estates in England must feel the warmest admiration for the generosity, the foresight, the wisdom, and the scientific enthusiasm for agriculture which had led many owners to lavish money not earned by the land upon the improvement of their estates, and to promote the welfare of their tenants. What they found fault with was not so much the men as the system, or rather with a portion of the system, under which land was held. He would illustrate what he meant by the case of a landlord well known as one of the leaders in a generous and forward policy, and wishful in all ways to promote the interests of his tenants. One of the leases on this estate provided a generous sliding scab for rent, and a most equitable scale of compensation for tenants' improvements, but also included a number of antiquated covenants and penal rents for their breach which, had the matter fallen into the hands of a less considerate successor might be used to crush and ruin the tenant. The Resolution covered proposals which were all explicitly or implicitly adopted at the important Agricultural Conference held in December last, at which all Parties were represented, and at which, he was glad to note, his right hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin), after a very forcible am eloquent speech from Mr. Clare Sewell Read, suddenly announced his conversion to this policy of amending the Act. He (Mr. Charming) would state their exact reasons for the several proposal in the Motion. What fault did they find with the Agricultural Holdings Act? He held that the Liberal Party had rendered great service in affirming in 1883 the principle that those who worked on the land should have an alienable right to be rewarded for the value added to the land by their outlay, skill, and labour. What they said was that the Act did not compensate the right men, did not give compensation for the right things, and that the complicated and imperfect procedure of the Act destroyed its objects. Sir James Caird, who most Members would agree with him in thinking

    703
    greatest authority in recent years, said at the very outset of the great agricultural depression in 1880 that the time had come for them to recognise the "truth, however unpalatable," that the relations between landlord and tenant should pass from those of blind confidence to those of strict business—when the tenant should have security of tenure and adequate compensation. He had always regarded it as unfortunate that the Government of the day did not pay heed to the suggestions of Sir James Caird. Sir James Caird prophesied that the Act which they were about to pass would not protect the men they really wanted to protect, the men who had given their money and their lives to the improvement of their holdings, and who wanted to stay upon them, and not to quit, the best farmers in the country; and "unless the interests of the sitting tenants, who are the real backbone of English agriculture, are recognised, the Bill will fail to give that security which would promote good farming and justify legislative interference with contracts." This prophecy had been fulfilled. Evidence before the Commission on the Depression of Trade proved that the old tenants remaining on their holdings had only had occasional remissions of from 10 to—certainly not more than 30 per cent., whilst new tenants were getting from 40 to 50 per cent. The whole of the facts showed that since the passing of the Act tenants had been paying rents largely out of capital, and so had been rented on their improvements. The argument used in 1883, in answer to Sir James Caird, was that there was no other means of protecting the sitting tenants except the "three F's," and that the Government were not then prepared to introduce that system into this country. He (Mr. Channing) said that if that argument was really sound, and this great wrong could not be rectified without the "three F's", then let the "three F's" be conceded. But if Sir James Caird's proposal was enough, he should prefer to try that. He hoped there would not be any desultory discussion in the course of the Debate as to agricultural depression, or as to the panaceas and Quixotic remedies for it that had been suggested. The Motion was specific enough, and he trusted that they would have from agriculturists on
    704
    the other side arguments bearing upon the several points raised, instead of red herrings drawn across the track to tempt them into a crusade against the natural results of economic laws. What they wanted, then, was that when a tenant was entering on a new contract of tenancy, the whole of what he had contributed to the value of the farm should be considered in settling what the new rent should be. If they gave to the tenant the right he claimed, there would still remain the question of whether his loss on removal would not operate to check him and prevent him from claiming consideration for his outlay on the renewal of his tenancy. He was perfectly prepared, and he found agriculturists all over the country prepared, to authorise some kind of Land Court to assess the compensation for disturbance, which would probably take the form of an allowance to the tenant of a fair proportion of what he would lose by having to leave in consequence of his not coming to terms with his landlord. That reform, it appeared to him, would do almost as much as anything else to give security to the tenant. It was said, and they were told at the National Conference, that the tenants did not want fixity of tenure. He had an idea that they did not want to tie themselves down to their holdings under the present conditions of agriculture, but they did want a sense of security as to the future. They wanted to know that if their rights were interfered with they would be protected by the law. In the Richmond Commission one of the Commissioners, Mr. John Clay, in his interesting Report, had laid down the very principle on which this Motion was based, which was that tenant farmers should be compensated, not only for outlay on fertilisers and feeding stuffs and acts of husbandry, but also for their skill and energy, and for a long course of high cultivation, and for thorough working of the land, turning their farms into instruments of high agricultural value. The farm wrecker, the man who farmed to quit, and stole a great deal of the value from the soil, could obtain compensation, but the man who through his constant application and untiring energy contributed lasting value to the soil, under the present

    705
    law had to go absolutely without compensation. He (Mr. Channing) could give many instances in England in proof of this assertion, but he would refer briefly to one well-known case in Scotland, which was the first agricultural case he knew of in which the principle which Mr. Clay and those who supported the present Motion laid stress on was applied. There was a farm in the Southern part of Midlothian, near Galashiels, let on a 19 years' lease—the common form of lease in Scotland—at a comparatively high rent, and by an enormous expenditure on fertilisers and feeding stuffs—over £1,000 a year—he raised the stock-bearing power of the farm to three or four times what it was before, turning a poor hill farm into as good a pasture as any in Leicestershire. The result was that the farm was let to a new tenant at practically the old rent, something over £700, while neighbouring farms originally better had dropped 40 to 60 per cent., and the tenant had thus put about £300 a year into his landlord's pocket. When the lease was up he claimed compensation for high cultivation, and was awarded £300. That was a mere trifle; but the assertion of the principle was the important point. That principle they wanted to drive home for the benefit of English fanners—to encourage men to devote their energies to making the soil of England a real garden of fertility. He did not suppose hon. Gentlemen would seriously challenge either of these two propositions—that a continuing tenant should have what he had done on the land estimated and allowed for when he began a new tenancy, and that he should have full compensation on the determination of a tenancy for that good he had done to the land; if he remained on his holding as well as if he quitted it. He would now turn to the procedure portion of the Resolution. Sir James Caird's complaint was that the Agricultural Holdings Act was limited in its application to a very small class of tenants—the class that were leaving their holdings. But the Act had limited itself through its imperfections to a still smaller class of tenants. One of the agricultural papers a few years ago made inquiries of the principal land agents and valuers in England its to flip working of
    706
    the Agricultural Holdings Act, and out of 1,50 replies received only 38 were in favour of the Act as regarded the rights of the tenants, and 112 were against it. They confirmed what was common knowledge, that one result of the Act had been, as was intended, to secure equitable agreements as to compensation being inserted in the leases, especially in the North of England; yet they all were unanimous in condemning the Act on the ground that it opened the door to practically unlimited counter-claims by the landlords, which scared away the tenants from their rights. In the replies received he found more than one who said that the effect of the Act had been to put a weapon into the hands of the landlords which the had never had before, and to open the door to claims which they had never made before. The injustice of some of these claims was shown by a case which was recently heard. A tenant claimed £40, and a counter-claim of £125 was made against him. The tenant fought the matter out, and was awarded £39 8s., while the landlord's counter-claim was cut down to £15. It was evident from this that the landlord's agent had claimed eight times more than he was entitled to. Some hon. Members might remember the paper read by Mr. Clare Sewell Read before the Farmers' Club, in which that gentleman narrated his own experiences. That statement illustrated both their proposal that a tenant should have full compensation for the value he added to the land, and their claim for freedom to improvement, and also the way in which the Act in working deprived a tenant of his rights, and he would, therefore, re-state it to the House. It appeared that Mr. C. S. Read had spent 16 years in turning a wilderness into a fertile garden, but the state of the law did not allow him to claim more than £98 for his outlay, and a counter-claim of £160 was made against him, and the total result of the matter was that he got £10 in respect of his improvements. Mr. Read sent the £10 note to a benevolent institution. His (Mr. Channing's) contention was that plenty of improving tenants might be secured if they obtained security enough. The Reports of the deputation sent down from Lancashire by the Lancashire Tenant Farmer

    707
    Association to inquire into the results of Lancashire farmers settling in that county proved this. One point in the Reports was a criticism of the common sense of some of the Lancashire farmers in taking these farms in Essex with no more security than a five or seven years' agreement. They went in at a reduced rent, prepared to make a good many improvements. Well, the Resolution went on to ask the House to affirm the principle of abolishing the landlords' right to distrain for rent. He would not go into the reasons for that, seeing that they were familiar to all hon. Members; but, clearly, if there was freedom of improvement, and especially if there was an increase of small holdings, and, consequently, of tenants' improvements — for landlords could not make improvements on small holdings; they had not the capital, and the tenants could execute them more cheaply—there must be an increase of the credit of the farmers. The simplest way of doing that would be to sweep away the antiquated privilege of distress, because it had no logical or economical justification for its maintenance. The procedure of the Act he would not deal with in detail, but he would say this—that when he heard of people being afraid of a Land Court, it seemed to him that what they were afraid of was a word. What they had in the Procedure Clauses of the Agricultural Holdings Act was a Land Court—and a very bad one, too. What was wanted was a tribunal of some kind to settle differences promptly, equitably, clearly, simply, and cheaply, with a procedure that was not full of pitfalls. One of the things which would most frequently come before such a tribunal would be the determination of the fact whether the suggested improvement was an improvement or not—whether a tenant was utterly wasting his money, and whether an injunction should be issued to restrain him from carrying out a useless improvement. Obviously there must be a Court to try such a question as that. Both in regard to the Law of Distress and the point with which he was now dealing he had been gratified on looking over some old papers to find that that veteran agriculturist, Sir Thomas Acland, who for so many years had dealt with agriculture in the House had both sup
    708
    ported a proposal to do away with the Law of Distress, and had in a simple Bill brought before the House in 1882— a Bill which in some respects seemed to him (Mr. Charming) better than the Government Bill of 1883—proposed that compensation cases should be decided by the County Court, and that in certain cases only there should be a settlement by a single arbitrator. The proposal he had put before the House from year to year for settlement by a single referee had been successfully applied to Scotland in an Act passed for that country some years ago by the hon. Member for Leith. The main difficulty in the way was the valuers, who did not like to see procedure which gave them a great deal of work altered. But whatever system they adopted for constituting the Court; whether they had official valuers and a single referee taken from an official list—as arbitrations were decided under the Local Government Board in compensation cases under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts—or whether they had assessors with the County Court Judge, was matter for discussion; but whatever system was adopted it should be a simple one. From his experience and knowledge of agriculturists all over the country, there was no really serious difference between them on these points. He did not suppose that the definite proposition that he had tried to lay before the House would be seriously challenged by any hon. Gentleman opposite. They had been disappointed in dealing with the question of agriculture this year, but this discussion would give them a practical opportunity of threshing out at least the broad lines of the legislation which was urgently needed in order to enable the agriculturists of this country to compete successfully with foreign countries. If Her Majesty's Ministers looked favourably on this Motion, and it was carried, he did not see why the Government could not draw up between now and the Autumn Session, which seemed to be hanging over them, some proposals which might be discussed in the country before next year, and which might, form the basis of practical legislation. It, was in order that they might arrive at a solution of a question which everybody knew to be

    709
    ripe for solution that he had much pleasure in seconding the Motion.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, amendments of the Law are urgently needed to enable the tenant to obtain adequate compensation on the determination of a tenancy for all agricultural improvements executed by him on his holding, to give greater security of tenure and freedom to make improvements, to cultivate and to sell produce without detriment to the agricultural value of the holding, to abolish the landlord's right to distrain for rent, and to simplify and cheapen the settlement of compensation cases and other differences between landlord and tenant,"—(Mr. Logan,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid, the number of Members in attendance was a convincing proof of the interest taken by those who had some practical acquaintance with agriculture in the question before the House; and the limited time they had at their disposal warned him that he must do his best to compress in as small a space as possible the straightforward observations he wished to make. In no discourteous frame of mind, and with no intention of being discourteous, he would make a remark or two on the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion. He thought there was no discourtesy in calling the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Resolution had not thought it worth his while to remain in the House to hear what was to be said from the other side. In the hon. Member's absence he (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney) would briefly sum up all the reference he would make to him by saying that he acknowledged the hon. Member's merit; indeed, he was celebrated for the manner in which he rode across country; but if he would take the advice of a brother sportsman he would confine his attention to agriculture, to riding over other men's land rather than cultivating any of his own. He had to refer to the remarks of the Seconder of the Motion in quite a different spirit. He might differ with the hon. Member on
    710
    many points, and it might be his duty to be found in opposition to him in regard to some details; but in that which he regarded as the essential part of the hon. Member's speech in recognition—and in earnest and hearty recognition—of a wish to do practical justice to the farmers of this country, he was entirely with the hon. Member. He recognised the fact that the agricultural interest had the hon. Member amongst its advocates, as he had shown with what just discrimination he could speak on the subject. He could have preferred if the hon. Member had been a practical agriculturist, either as renting a farm or occupying his own land. If that had been the case, he should have expected that the hon. Member's remarks would have taken a different tinge; still, it was well that there should be in the House advocates of agricultural interests like the hon. Gentleman. Before dealing directly with the Motion he should like to make one or two general remarks, and the first was this—that the Agricultural Holdings Act was originally brought forward at a time when it was considered necessary and wise to safeguard tenants in the prosperous time of agriculture from the possible inclination on the part of the landlords to get rid of old tenants in order to enjoy any increased rental which might follow on a change of tenancy. That was the main danger which was supposed to be confronted by the Agricultural Holdings Act when it was originally brought in. But if that was the case, then could any hon. Member, however much wedded to the opinion that the tenant was all in the right and the landlord all in the wrong, deny that circumstances had changed since that day, and that, however valuable an Agricultural Act might be, and however necessary it might be to have one, it was not necessary for the same reason that made it necessary when the Agricultural Holdings Act was brought in? There had been a change in the condition of things. There was now no power, even if there was the wish, on the part of a landlord to turn out a tenant in order to enjoy increased rent from a successor. On the contrary, the saddle was on the other horse in the present race; and it was rather in the power of the tenant, and not the landlord, to dictate the con-

    711
    ditions on which a future tenancy should be held. As a second general remark, he would say that experience taught them that they were not wise to override the customs which had arisen in different parts of the country. They were all apt to treat agriculture as if it were military drill, which could be carried on in one county in the same manner as in another county. The conditions of agriculture varied north, south, east, and west, and the law that it might be wise to apply in one place it might be unwise to apply in another. Experience would teach them to be rather cautious in turning out a stereotyped, cast-iron, central depot for managing agriculture. These country customs had grown up from experience and from a knowledge of the requirements of each district. He would make one other general remark— namely, that, however valuable the question of the administration of the Agricultural Holdings Act might be, it had nothing whatever to do with the depression of agriculture at the present time. That Act did not touch the outside fringe of the difficulty. The facts of that depression were well known. They were within the knowledge of hon. Gentlemen on the Front Ministerial Bench, and they wanted no Committee to discover those facts. If hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to deal with those facts, they could do so now, and to say that they wanted a Committee to obtain information was an idle way of playing with the question. If this Motion was to be the very sorry outcome of the professions of sympathy with agriculture by hon. Gentlemen opposite, he could only say that he condoled with their lame performance of their promises. However, such as it was, poor as it was, valueless as it was, and inefficient as it was, they were prepared to do their best to turn two and a-half hours' discussion on a Friday night to the best advantage; but if the Government thought there would be any feeling of gratitude to them on the part of the farming community, they must regard the farmers as greater fools than betook them to be. He had spoken a little disparagingly of the connection of the Seconder of the Resolution with agriculture. It might be asked what right he (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney) had to arrogate to himself a
    712
    greater right to speak about agriculture than the hon. Member had? Well, agriculture was mainly divided between the management of large estates carried on through agents and the small class of what we called the squirearchy—the small resident country gentlemen living on their property of between 2,000 and 4,000 acres, and managing those properties in every particular themselves. Of that class he professed himself to be one. For many years past he had had to do with the administration of a property of that sort. No single act concerning any single tenant during that time had been done without his personal knowledge, consideration, and authority. Therefore, so far as practical experience was worth anything—and it might not be worth much, for it might be overriden by opposition practical experience—he claimed the right to speak with some knowledge on this subject. He asserted that in all his experience he had not found any great interest taken in the Agricultural Holdings Act; neither did he find more than one or two instances where the tenants were anxious to have it applied to them. With regard to compensation for improvements, he would undertake to say that there was a universal wish in that House that there should be absolute and complete security given to the tenants for all genuine improvements which ought to be put to their credit when the balance came to be struck; and if the Agricultural Holdings Act, as it now stood, failed to give that security, then the hon. Gentleman opposite was well within his rights in suggesting improvements. He (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney), for one, would earnestly hope to see improvements follow in the direction indicated. But he would remind the House that at present agreements — private agreements—between tenants and landlords overrode the Act, and were substituted for it. Under the present condition of things, the tenants found that they secured their future and provided better for the interests they had at heart by coming to a private arrangement with their, landlords than by putting themselves completely under the Agricultural Holdings Act. The House, he thought, would not be acting in the interest of the tenants if it debarred them from taking advantage

    713
    of such circumstances as would give them the whip hand in making the arrangement. It was also sometimes forgotten that if the Agricultural Holdings Act were amended in one direction it must also be amended in another. If the right of the tenant to compensation for his improvements must be secured with greater tenacity and power, the right of the landlord to compensation for evil farming or neglect of contract ought also to be secured. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act, compensation might be claimed for corn consumed on a farm within a given time; and the proof of consumption was, generally speaking, the bills produced for the purchase of that amount of corn. He had once or twice heard the question raised whether it would not be fair to include corn produced on the farm under the same heading as corn produced elsewhere and bought for consumption on the farm. Inasmuch as the land would benefit as much from the homegrown corn as from purchased corn, and as all landlords were inclined to encourage tenants to use as much as possible the stuff they grew themselves, there was some reason for introducing an Amendment of this kind into the Act. On the question of tenure, the experiences gained in different counties might, of course, be very widely divergent. In his own personal experience, including that which he had gained as a trustee for other estates, he had found no desire on the part of tenants for any greater security of tenure than they possessed at present. He found no wish to obtain leases instead of yearly agreements. He knew of many cases in which the offer of a lease had been made, and many more in which the offer would be made to-morrow if any desire were expressed for it. Of course, if leases were granted the rents must be fixed in accordance with the length of years over which the leases extended. He could quite imagine that if he were asked to take a long lease he might prefer to remain in such a position that, by giving a year's notice, he could terminate the rent he had to pay rather than bind himself to pay it for a certain number of years. Further, a lease must carry with it a much greater expenditure on repairs. When a farmer died, and the practical work of carrying on the farm was vested
    714
    in his executors, a decided wish was often expressed to shorten the term. Probably it would be wise, in the interest of both parties, that a more rapid way of winding up the accounts should be found. As to improvements, the main suggestion of the hon. Member opposite was that the improvements the tenant could effect without the consent of his landlord should be removed from one Schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act to another. His (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney's) experience was that there was not much eagerness to undertake expensive improvements, and that there was a general wish on the part of the tenants that the landlord should do the improvements, charging, if necessary, a fair percentage to the tenants. This was a plan which would, he thought, be more acceptable to both sides than the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member. As to the question of freer cultivation and sale of produce, the hon. Member talked of antiquated restrictions he had seen in some lease. No doubt such restrictions existed, but they were only inserted in leases as a safeguard against possible bad farming, and they were not, as a rule, put in force. He himself did not know of a single ease in which such restrictions had been enforced against a tenant who was fanning to stay. No doubt they were, and ought to be, enforced against tenants who were farming to leave. He did not, therefore, think that the restrictions really constituted any grievance. On some estates it was an unwritten law that the restrictions were not to hold good except during the last year of the tenancy. He could understand the hon. Member's reasoning on the question of distraint. The argument was that, if the landlord had not the first right of distraint for rent, the bankers would be more liberal in their loans to farmers. But surely this was a double-edged argument. If the landlord was not to have a right of distraint, how could he possibly give the three months' credit which he almost invariably gave now? He thought that if practical farmers were to be asked whether they preferred a system under which the rent was to be paid regularly and definitely on the day on which it became due, and under which they might possibly obtain loans

    715
    from bankers at a lower rate of interest, to the present system, they would say that they preferred to let things remain as at present. He was sure that gentlemen who looked at the question, not from a political or a vote-catching, but from a practical point of view, would admit that, in times of pinch and difficulty, many farmers were only able to carry on their holdings through the forbearance and goodwill of the landlord. In how many cases had the capital of the landlord been at the back of the tenant, and in how many cases had the assistance of the landlord enabled the tenant to get over bad times? He asked the House, under these circumstances, to hesitate before adopting a system which would prevent the landlord placing his goodwill and his credit so often at the back of his tenants in cases of temporary difficulty. Then came the question of cheapening and simplifying the method of procedure. Those were very popular words. Theoretically, everybody was anxious to simplify everything, especially when they had to deal with lawyers; whilst, as to cheapening, there would be no such popular man in the House as he who showed the farmers how to cheapen any process which they wore obliged to carry out. If Land Courts were to be set up, it would be necessary to have them practically in every county and district. The expenses of such Courts would have to be paid either by the fees of those who resorted to them, or an income must be provided for them out of the Consolidated Fund—against which, he thought, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the guardian of the public purse, would kick—or out of those rates and local sources of taxation which were already considerably overburdened. As the hon. Member had spoken about dragging a red herring across the scent, he had thought it necessary to deal with the arguments that had been used one by one. He hoped he had been a true hound, and had kept his nose right down to the scent, and he believed he had not been far from killing his fox. Although there might be a fair opening for considerate amendment and possibly for improvement of the Agricultural Holdings Act, and although he would be the last to deny that an Act brought in early in the 70's and amended in the 80's might
    716
    possibly be re-amended in the 90's, he thought he had shown some reason why Members should hesitate a bit before coming to the conclusion that all was wrong with the present Act, and that all the alterations that could be introduced would necessarily be welcomed by the agricultural interest. It would be to agriculturists a matter of considerable interest that the general statement on behalf of the Government should be made by the Minister primarily responsible for agriculture. Agriculturists regretted very much that in the present Ministry it had not been thought possible to give agriculture a voice in the Cabinet itself, as the Conservatives had done. They were, however, anxious to give every credit to the President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. H. Gardner) for the course he had pursued since he had been in Office. The Amendment which he (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney) hoped to have the chance of moving later was not intended to burke the question, but to take it out of the region of absurd generalities and abstruse theories which agriculture was too apt to occupy in the House of Commons. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite would only withdraw from Home Rule a little of the time that was now devoted to it, and give it to agriculture, it might be possible to arrive at some conclusion which would be of more value to the country than Home Rule could possibly be.
    MR. W. SMITHsaid, that the question raised by the Motion played a very important part in the electoral contests in his own and neighbouring constituencies, and he had endeavoured to place in a practical form the view he held as to the remedies that should be adopted. In order to make room for the Motion, however, he had thought it necessary to take off the Order Paper the Bill which he introduced on the subject at the beginning of the Session. Lancashire farmers had been active in promoting the Conference respecting the depression on agriculture that was recently held in London; but nothing was further from their thoughts than that the Central Chamber of Agri-

    717
    culture, having readily adopted their idea, should abuse the power they possessed for the furtherance and promotion of the doctrines of protection and bimetallism. He thought it approached to a national calamity that the deep public sympathy that was evoked at the time on behalf of the agricultural interest should have been alienated by the selfish proposal that was made the leading feature of the Conference. Undoubtedly the questions of protection and bi-metallism were put forward at the Conference as the only practical remedies for the present depression. The tenant farmers of the North of England, who had no faith in these suggested remedies, had in consequence formed themselves into an independent Federation, of which he had had the honour of being elected the first President. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin) had at the Conference uttered what was almost a truism when he said—"What Lancashire thinks to-day England will think to-morrow." It was his (Mr. Smith's) object to tell the House what Lancashire and some neighbouring counties did think to-day in this matter. He believed that, owing to the vast development that had taken place in North and South America, and to the important change that had occurred in the methods and cost of transit, a complete revolution had been brought about in the conditions under which the English farmer worked. It was essential to the farmers of this country, if they were to be successful, that they should be no longer handicapped in this manner. No mere tinkering of the Agricultural Holdings Act would meet the case. There must be a radical change in the existing system of holding if any lasting and satisfactory improvement was to be effected. The first essential for the British farmer was that he should be freed from the fetters of old-fashioned covenants binding him to very restricted methods of cultivation, and placed on an equality of condition in this respect in his struggle with foreign competitors. It was more important still that he should be given absolute security of tenure; that he should be safe from vexatious or frivolous eviction, and should practically be placed in an equal position to the man who owned the soil he worked.
    718
    Absolute security of tenure would be of advantage in the better cultivation of the soil, not only to the fanner and the nation, but also to the landowner. Some ready means also should be found by which the rent of land in this country could be adjusted to the value of land in other competing countries; and he believed this might be done by the establishment of a system of Land Courts, which should be easily accessible, prompt in action, and cheap in process. If those conditions were insured to the tenant farmer, and the whole question was dealt with wisely, but boldly, he believed an enormous and most gratifying change would shortly be witnessed in the agricultural industry of this country; and, at the same time, although incidentally, another great question would also be I solved—namely, the provision of employment for much larger numbers in the cultivation of the soil, and something be thereby done to not only stop the lamentable depopulation of our country districts, but even to turn the current in the opposite direction, and relieve our cities of that excess of population, the over-crowding and unhealthiness of which was such a serious danger at the present moment.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Both sides of the House, I think, have reason to be grateful that the Debate has taken place. For my part, I do not think I can complain of the speeches that have been made. The Mover of the Resolution at one time, I thought, was getting beyond his depth; but I may say that the speech of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire was beard with pleasure on both sides of the House. If I may be permitted to say a few words, I shall do so without delaying the House. There is no one, Sir, who has maintained more strongly than I have the right of every tenant to full and fair compensation for the improvements which he may make upon his holding in the event of his leaving it. If there is anything either in the circumstances of the tenant farmer or in the existing law which debars him from obtaining such compensation, I am perfectly ready to amend the existing law. But, Sir, I ask the House, what are the

    719
    facts—the undoubted facts—of the situation, which are perfectly well known to everyone who has a practical knowledge of the subject? Why! There never was a time, within the present generation, when tenants, as a rule, occupied a stronger position of vantage for making fair and reasonable agreements with their landlords than they hold now. We see it every day in the taking and letting of farms, which in consequence of agricultural depression, I regret to say, are far more numerous than they were some years ago. When a farm is let, what is the first and the most important thing that has to be settled? The first thing a tenant has to decide is the rent he is able and willing to pay; and at present in nine cases out of ten—I may say, indeed, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred—it is the tenant who dictates the rent and makes his own bargain; and if he is able to make his own terms about the chief and most important item of all, à fortiori he is able to do so about the other terms of his agreement, which are matters of minor importance. There is one other matter I wish to refer to. To begin with, the question of amending the Agricultural Holdings Act has absolutely nothing to do with the question of agricultural depression, and in considering the Act we ought to put that subject entirely out of mind. This is an opinion which has been held by English Members of all shades; and I may even appeal to a Member of the present Cabinet, who, in a book which he has recently published entitled Agrarian Tenures declared that the application of the law in this matter dealing with the condition of the agricultural classes was no remedy for bad harvests and low prices. With his words I entirely agree. I think the House will admit that we have gone a good length in the improvement of the tenant farmers throughout the country; and at the present time, as I have said, they occupy an advantageous position in making a bargain of their own. There may, of course, be exceptions. I am aware that there have been complaints as to the working of the Act, and those complaints have not always been limited to districts where the farms are small; but, as far as I know, the complaints have usually been directed rather against
    720
    the administration of the Act than against any defect in the Act itself. I have watched with great interest the progress of this Debate and the speeches of hon. Members, especially that of the Mover of the Resolution. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion made a startling statement as to the policy of landlords in selecting their tenants. It is a policy of which I never heard before. He said that if a man applied for a vacant farm the landlord did not go to the applicant's banker to ascertain whether he had sufficient capital, or make inquiries as to whether he was a good farmer or not, but that he merely asked whether he was a good Tory and voted straight. That may be the way in which the hon. Member deals with his tenants, but it is certainly not the way in which landowners deal with them; and, therefore, I feel bound to give the hon. Member's assertion the most complete and emphatic contradiction. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire complained that the Act does not compensate the right man, or give compensation for the right thing, and asserted that in these days rents were habitually raised upon a tenant in respect of his own improvements; but, Sir, the fact is that, so far from rents being raised, there has been an unprecedented and unparalleled fall in rents, in some cases amounting to 60 or 70 per cent.; and, therefore, it is absurd to contend that rents have been habitually raised on improvements. The hon. Member then dealt with the ease of what he called "the sitting tenant"; and went on to say—I was not able to follow him clearly, "but he said, I think—that this was one of the cases in which complaint was made that rent was imposed on the improvements made by the tenant.
    MR. CHANNINGsaid, what he did say was that compensation was not I given to the sitting tenant.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I understood him to say that rent was imposed on improvements.
    MR. CHANNINGsaid, he meant that injustice was done where a sitting tenant had made improvements, and the rent, whether it was raised or reduced, did not allow for those improvements.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I do not yet clearly follow the hon. Member. During the past 10 years there has been a great increase in the reduction of rents. We have it from official Returns that there has been unquestionably a general fall in rents all over the country. The hon. Member deals with compensation to the sitting tenant. I never could quite follow that argument, for the landlord could have no power to raise the rent on the sitting tenant until he has given him notice to quit, in which case the sitting tenant becomes at once the outgoing tenant, and then he is free to make any terms he chooses with the landlord.
    MR. CHANNING: I suggested compensation for disturbance.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I will come to that directly. The hon. Member thinks the sitting tenant should be compensated in his improvements, but he knows this cannot be done without establishing judicial rents. But the hon. Member is not in favour of judicial rents, and so he urges that compensation should be given for disturbance. Let me examine the agreement in the matter of compensation for disturbance. I take the case of a vacant farm which is in the market. It is a grand farm, belonging to a well-known and popular landlord, and to be let at a reasonable rent, and there are various applications for it. A, B, and C are all very anxious to get it, and to enjoy the profits which they foresee. A is the fortunate tenant who is selected, and holds the farm during some years, and all the advantages which he derives from it, while B and C are left out in the cold. At the end of that time, for some reason or other, the landlord requires to resume possession of the land. A receives, as a matter of course, full compensation for all he has spent, and all his improvements, of the fruits of which he has been deprived. But, according to the hon. Member, that is not enough. Over and above his improvements he is to receive compensation for disturbance. In other words, although he was selected in preference to B and C in the first instance, he is to be paid in full, not only for his improvements, but for the loss, or, rather, the
    722
    non-continuance of an advantage which was conferred on him in the first instance, while unfortunate B and unfortunate C never got anything at all. Looked at from that point of view, that policy cannot be justified for a single moment. The hon. Member has referred to the complaint made by Mr. Clare Read; but that gentleman complained not of the unfairness of the Act, which, he said, had never received fair play, but of its administration. The hon. Member has also alluded to the question of the landlord's right of distraint. The hon. Member said there was no logical justification for it. That may or may not be. It is perfectly open to anyone to argue that that right should not exist as between the other creditors and the landlord; but I do not hesitate to say that, looked at from the point of view of the interest of the tenant, if you abolish the right of distraint, you do one of the greatest injuries you could do to the tenant himself. I may remind the hon. Member that Mr. Clare Read himself said at St. James's Hall that he thought the Law of Distress operated in favour of the tenant rather than against him. That is an opinion with which I entirely coincide, and solely in the interest of the tenants I would much regret to see this part of the Motion adopted. I now come to the question of a cheaper mode for settlement of compensation. Here I am glad to say that I agree with the Seconder of the Motion to this extent: that I think there is considerable room for improvement in the existing Act in that respect. I am not prepared to say now how that improvement can be effected, because it is a matter that requires very careful and anxious consideration. But that is a matter of detail which can be very properly dealt with by other means, though it may be that there is some necessity for re-considering some of the points of an Act which was passed 10 years ago, and which I would also remind the House was passed by a Liberal and not by a Conservative Administration. I cannot compliment the author of the Motion, whoever he may be. It is a lit tie difficult to understand it; but it is, at least, very comprehensive, for it embraces a great number of points, some of which have not been mentioned either by the Mover or

    723
    Seconder. The Motion asks for greater freedom for the tenants to make improvements. I really do not understand what that means. As far as I know, tenants have every freedom to make improvements at the present time; and I imagine the more improvements they make the better pleased will that landlord be as a general rule.
    MR. CHANNING: What about the right of compensation?
    Mr. CHAPLIN: Compensation is a matter for agreement at the time of entering upon a tenancy, and, in the absence of any such agreement, the Act comes into play. It is quite true that with regard to certain improvements, such as buildings, the consent of the landlord is required in the first instance, but I do not understand that the hon. Member wants to get rid of that consent of the landlord in the first instance.
    MR. CHANNING: I want to put them on the same footing as drainage.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Such a proposal would not be desirable. It would tend to set up in England a dual ownership, which is the very thing which was so objected to in Ireland, and which all Parties desire to get rid of. The last speaker complained bitterly that bimetallism and Protection were put in the forefront at the great meeting in St. James's Hall. But by whom were they put in the forefront? The organisation of that great meeting was carried out by a committee of gentlemen appointed at a large meeting of the Central Associated Chambers of Commerce, each name having been debated and put to the vote. The first suggestion for the Conference came, I believe, from the County of Lancashire. In that the hon. Member was right; but so far from agreeing with him that Lancashire was not represented, I say that it was most effectively and effectually represented, amongst others, by a gentleman who is Chairman of a rival Association to the Association presided over by the hon. Member.
    MR. W. SMITH: The Members of that Association publicly repudiated the proceedings at the Conference, and de-
    724
    clared that if they had known the intended nature of the proceedings they would not have attended.
    MR CHAPLIN: That is not my recollection of what occurred. The hon. Member referred to the statement of Mr. Clare Read, that there were 400 farms given up in Norfolk during the present year, and that only two of these were given up under the Agricultural Holdings Act. The difficulty in Norfolk is not with the Act, but with the valuation, for during past years farming in Norfolk had been conducted under a system of leases. On certain estates the tenants were allowed to do everything they pleased with the land until the last four years of the lease, and then it was expected that the farm should be given up in the same condition as it was when taken. In a country like that, where valuations of the same kind formerly were not required, I do see reasons why difficulties should arise under the Act. The statements of the late Lord Derby and the late Sir James Caird have been quoted, to the effect that if the farmer had proper security the produce of the country could be increased 50 per cent. No doubt, if it paid to produce it. But how is it possible, in the face of constantly falling prices, to give security to a tenant who may invest a great deal of money in the land that he will have a proper return? I was associated with Sir James Caird in the closing years of his life, as head of the Department over which I presided in the late Government. I had the inestimable advantage of consulting him on the agricultural questions of the day, and I can tell the House that Sir James Caird, in his latest days, held a totally different opinion, and in view of the fall of prices looked forward with anything but satisfaction to the future of agriculture in this country. The hon. Member says we must have no tinkering with the Agricultural Holdings Act. He wants a sweeping change in the law. He scoffs at bimetallism, and advocates Land Courts, judicial rents, and, I suppose, fixity of tenure, in the interest of the agriculturists. But have we not experience of the results of that system already? It has been the law in Ireland for 11 years

    725
    and yet what docs one of the great champions of the tenant-farmers of Ireland say of their condition to-day? He says—
    "The adoption of bimetallism, or some similar remedy, I am convinced, is a matter of imperative necessity; that is, if the agricultural tenants of Ireland—and I do not at all limit this to Ireland—are not to be driven to inevitable ruin and destruction."
    That is the condition of the tenants of Ireland, according to one of their greatest supporters, after 11 years of the system which the hon. Member desires to establish in this country. There are some things in this Motion which are hardly accurate; others that are undesirable; one that would be highly injurious to the tenants, and others with which I concur. But even if every word in the Motion was absolutely true and accurate, what earthly use will it be to agriculture to pass an Abstract Resolution of the kind, and to do nothing more? I do not know what course the Government are going to take; but I know well that in days past the Prime Minister has always been ready to condemn the acceptance of abstract Resolutions when the Government had no chance of giving them effect. The Government may adopt this Motion declaring that an amendment of the law is urgently needed; but they have not the slightest intention, or if they have the intention they have not the possibility, of carrying it out. I would advise my hon. Friends on this side of the House—if I may be permitted to do so—to allow this Amendment which is now before the House to become a substantive Motion; then my hon. Friend behind me could move the Amendment of which he has given notice, and if that Amendment be carried—as we may reasonably expect it to be—we will have succeeded in converting this wholly ineffectual Resolution into some practical good.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,: I am glad to be able to congratulate the House on the amicable manner in which the Debate has been conducted, and on its freedom from the heat and the per-
    726
    sonal recriminations to which we were accustomed in discussions of this kind. I am also glad to hear that the subject of compensation to the tenants is one on which both sides of the House are agreed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford referred to Mr. Clare Read—an authority on agricultural matters, which was accepted by both sides of the House—as having objected, as I understood it, to the Agricultural Holdings Act as regards its administration, but not as regards the Act itself. Well, Mr. Clare Read's words at the Conference were that the Act operated where it was not wanted, and that where it was most wanted it did not operate at all. That is hardly a matter of administration, and shows, I think, that Mr. Clare Road deems some amendment of the Act of 1883 necessary. In examining the Motion before the House I would say, in the first place, that no one can be surprised that this subject should be pressed on the attention of the House at the present time. Everyone will admit that we are passing through a period of agricultural depression. When I look back through the volumes of Hansard, and read the Debates of past times, it seems to me as if we have always been in a state of agricultural depression. But if it was true in 1835, and was true in 1881, I do not think that anyone will deny—least of all the Minister who has the honour of presiding over the Agricultural Department—that in 1893 the agricultural outlook is far from being satisfactory, and that the agricultural problem has still got to be dealt with. Many methods of grappling with the problem have been put forward. In my opinion, the Resolution now before the House, though not professing to be a universal and everlasting panacea for all the difficulties, indicates a natural and wholesome policy, which contrasts favourably with such artificial and restricted remedies as Protection and Bimetallism. I ask what is the agricultural problem? Everyone will, I think, agree that the problem is to make agriculture a going concern, not by artificial and unhealthy means, but by endeavouring by all just and equitable means to give free play and encouragement to the enterprise and initiative of all engaged in the working of the soil,

    727
    I wish to discuss this question without Party heat and without needless recrimination. But I am bound to say that if there be, as there is said to be, a lack of enterprise and initiative amongst the farming classes, an adherence to old and sometimes effete methods, and an overcautious shrinking from new and venturesome paths it is due in the main to the manner in which hon. Gentlemen opposite and those who follow them in the country, if not openly, at least by suggestion, have in many instances for a long time past pointed out to the British farmer that the one way out of his difficulties is the broad and easy road which leads to Protection. The Resolution aims at the removal of unnecessary hindrances to the freedom of cultivation and the development of agricultural enterprise, and in that direction I am sure it has the warm support of every Member on this side of the House. It is impossible to discuss the subject without making some reference to the proposal made by the Government at the commencement of the Session with regard to the appointment of a Committee on Agricultural Distress. The Motion for the appointment of that Committee is on the Paper to-night, and it is open to hon. Gentlemen to accept it even at the eleventh hour. The opposition to the appointment of that Committee seemed for a long time to be merely on the question of the terms of Reference; but when the Government offered to re-consider that question, they were met by a final and decisive refusal of all inquiry, given by no less distinguished a Member of the Party opposite than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet (Mr. J. Lowther).
    MR. CHAPLIN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could have been in the House this afternoon, or heard what occurred, for I offered to withdraw my Amendment if the Government accepted the Amendment standing in the name of their own follower, the Member for the Woodbridge Division.
    MR. H. GARDNER: The object of the Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is to make the Committee a Bimetallic Committee, and the Government have no desire for that. If the
    728
    Reference of my hon. Friend behind me were adopted, the Committee could not inquire into the working of the Agricultural Holdings Act, a matter which we wish to refer to it. Hon. Members opposite have hitherto objected to the appointment of a Committee, but when they are confronted with a proposal as to the reform of the Agricultural Holdings Act, they seek to get out of the difficulty by suggesting a Select Committee them selves. I have no doubt that had our Committee been appointed this question of the Agricultural Holdings Act would be among the first of the subjects investigated by the Committee, and the House might now have been in possession of a valuable Interim Report embodying the recommendations of such an authority. Our position, at any rate, is clear. We have suggested a method of investigation; we have put a Motion on the Paper, and it is for hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept it or refuse it as they wish. Still, though we have not got the Committee, it is possible to lay down certain broad and general principles on which legislation might proceed, and indicate the direction which the Amendment to the law might with advantage take. It is of importance to the public that such security be given to the cultivator of the soil as will ensure the greatest amount of fertility. These are not my words, but the words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, uttered 10 years ago, on the adoption of the Agricultural Holdings Act. To obtain that maximum fertility several things are necessary. In the first place, there must be the fullest possible facilities for the application of capital to the soil. Next, every possible means must be taken to secure to the cultivator the full value of any outlay he may incur, either in the ordinary course of cultivation or in connection with any improvements he may be authorised to make. In the third place, the tenant must be placed in as advantageous a position with regard to restrictions hampering him in the conduct of his business as, I am bound to say, is now permitted by every prudent and liberal-minded landlord. If it be good for the country—as I think it is—that the law should not impede the application of capital to the soil, or restrict in farming that initiative and energy which have brought success in

    729
    other branches of industry, then there is much scope for the Resolution before the House. How does the Resolution meet these propositions? In the first place, we are asked to secure to the tenant greater freedom in the making of improvements, and greater certainty that on the termination of the tenancy he will obtain the value of the improvements he has effected, whether he leaves the farm or enters on a new agreement. As long as one man owns the soil and another cultivates it, permanent improvements should be made by the landlords, otherwise we run the risk of establishing dual ownership with all its attendant grievances. We have to deal, however, not only with the landlord, who is willing and able to make improvements, but with the unimproving landlord and the landlord who will not allow improvements, and it seems to me that to the proper cultivation of the holding nothing should be allowed to stand in the way. As has been pointed out in the case of drainage, the tenant's title to require the landlord to do something, or to have the power of doing something himself, may fairly be a subject of discussion, but we have no reason to doubt there are other works that might with advantage be placed in a similar situation. With regard to improvements of a less permanent and simple character, I think it would be necessary that careful examination should be made before coming to a decision as to the proper category in which they should be placed; but for a large class it, appears to be clear it can be beneficial to no one that such operations should be hampered and restricted by fear of loss at the end of the tenancy. That is a conclusion, I think, that will meet with general approval in this House, and in that connection I may point out the more we secure a tenant against the loss of his improvements the better would be the safeguards against any arbitrary determination of his tenancy. To stereotype the existing relations between landlord and tenant would be neither beneficial to the one nor to the other. It seems to me, and I think even to some hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the circumstances of the moment are far from being unfavourable —that they are favourable to the objects which this Resolution has in view. The tenant, as has been pointed out, is just
    730
    now better able to make terms for himself than he was in the past, and no one will deny that many well-advised landlords at this moment shut their eyes to these restrictive covenants, and do not enforce the equitable rights that exist. I have always stated my own feeling has been in favour of giving the tenant as free a hand as possible. It has been said in days past it would be far better to do away with all restrictions in the cultivation of the land on the ground that if a tenant is fit to be trusted with a farm he is fit to be trusted to farm it. That is going as far as any of my hon. Friends would wish. Whether we agree with such a definition to the full or not, I believe I am right in saying that the Courts of Law look with suspicion upon covenants in restraint of trade; and I am bound to say that I, for my part, view with similar distrust many of the restrictive covenants which tenants in the past, have been required to enter into. The right hon. Gentleman opposite proceeded in his speech to make some reference to the Law of Distress, and went so far as to say it would be a matter that he should bitterly regret if the Law of Distress were removed. I hardly think that that could be the opinion of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill).
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: I will take part in this Debate if any time is allowed me for that purpose.
    MR. H. GARDNER: I was not aware the noble Lord was desirous to speak, and I will, therefore, be as brief as I can with my remarks. The noble Lord will remember that some time past he delivered a speech to his own constituents at Woodstock, in which, in regard to the Law of Distress, he said he had no hesitation in saving the Law of Distress was a remnant of feudalism.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: In the form of that day.
    MR. H. GARDNER: That extract was quoted in the Debates on the Agricultural Holdings Bill in 1883, and I do not find in Hansard that the noble Lord offered the correction he has just given me, I come to the question of the

    731
    abolition of distress as urged in this Resolution. I may remind the House that the kindred Law of Hypothec has long been abolished in Scotland, nor is it the first time in this House that the abolition of this law has been advocated. Mr. Blennerhassett, a former Member of this House, brought forward Resolutions on the subject, and in 1881 his Resolution was accepted by the House, and was supported by my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt), now leading Member of the Government of the day. Subsequently, the total abolition, which the House had accepted, was said to be prejudicial to the interests of the tenants, and the Government of the day appointed a Select Committee. At that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that no single argument had been adduced against the Law of Distress that was not urged against the Law of Hypothec, which was abolished just before the General Election of 1880. Well, Sir, that Committee, appointed to inquire into this matter, reported in favour of the limitation of the Law of Distress, as is well-known to the House, instead of its total abolition, and upon that and the Report of the Duke of Richmond's Commission the law was adopted as it stands to-day. Well, Sir, since then hon. Gentlemen who are well able to speak on this matter, and those who are well able to speak for the farming tenants, both large and small, have assured us that the case is altered, and that the time has arrived when the question should be carefully looked into. Now, Sir, I will be brief, but it was necessary for me to put my case before the House, and I thank the House for having listened to me so patiently. I wish only to say, with regard to the last part of the Resolution—the simplification of procedure and reduction of tenants' expenses—that is a proposition that has been abundantly demonstrated and admitted on both sides of the House. The question of the re-consideration of the Agricultural Holdings Act has gained considerable ground in late years. Be that as it may, we are prepared to vote for this Resolution, as we recognise the broad proposition it lays down, which is in favour of stimulating the enterprise and initiative of our farming classes; and
    732
    though we are not so absurd as to think that reform of the Agricultural Holdings Act is a universal specific and absolute remedy for agricultural depression, we take it as a step along the right road; at any rate, the recommendations tend to give a healthy stimulus to agriculture rather than the artificial and unwholesome stimulant that we now see advocated in some quarters.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman has occupied half an hour of the time of the House, as he has a perfect right to do, describing to us the agricultural situation, and I listened to his description of the Debate with interest. But though I wanted myself to put in a few remarks, and though I was glad to hear what the Agricultural Minister had to say, the Minister I was wanting to hear was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has had very great experience in agricultural matters; much longer cither than the right hon. Gentleman or than me, whose Parliamentary experience is longer than his. I also know that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought out the agricultural situation with great care, and that he had been ready at the beginning of the Session to appoint a Committee to examine into the situation. That Committee, for some reason or other, was not appointed, and I admit there were some difficulties as to the largeness of the Reference. Now we have got to another stage, and a Motion is brought forward which lays down certain principles on which there is not much difference of opinion, and it is urged that the matter cannot proceed further unless a Select Committee examines and takes the opinion of agriculturists and reports to the House on the subject. The Minister of Agriculture has told us a great many things about agriculture and about the situation of landlords; but though he told us some things that may be regarded as very commonplace, I recognise that he spoke truly when he said that agriculture was in a bad condition because capital was not applied to the land. But, then, the difficulty at the present moment has been—and the

    733
    Chancellor of the Exchequer has found it out, though the Minister of Agriculture has not—not that capital cannot be found for the land, but that capital has been lost in the cultivation of the land, and, at present, there is not much to invest in it. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had any experience in the last few years of investing capital in land, or of taking farms into his own hands, or, if his experience has been immense and the results remunerative to the Minister of Agriculture, whether it has been farming in Essex or other parts of the country. But what I have got to say is this. He says that I have of old supported the abolition of the Law of Distress, that I supported it in 1874, and that I did not support it in 1888, and he says that only shows the captiousness and reactionary tendency of the Tory Party. Very well, all I can say is, that so long as the law expressly gave a six, seven, or eight years' prior claim. I was right in saying that was a remnant of feudalism. Was I to set, myself against a Liberal Government when they laid down a prior claim of one year as perfectly just? Who am I? Am I not to be satisfied with that concession? It is ridiculous for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Tory Party did not concur loyally in the abolition. To some extent I know from right hon. Gentlemen and large owners of property that the retention of one year enabled the landlord to be put in a better position with regard to his tenants than if he had no Law of Distress at all. The Minister of Agriculture has made a speech of the most admirable official type of any speech I ever heard; a grand collection of pretty maxims, with just a tinge of Liberalism that a Liberal Government would give to pretty maxims, but which are vet maxims; and what I want to know is, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider this question from the point of view that the real logical conclusion is to appoint a Select Committee which would have time to examine and probably find out some information that might corroborate the Minister of Agriculture, and might oven add to his knowledge and that of the House? Though there is no Royal road to agricultural prospects, yet it is just as well to know by inquiry
    734
    what has been the reason of the great agricultural distress, and what, in the present time, will make a change more rapid. That is the proposition which the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows I have been advocating for some years, and I hop he will give us some information on the subject.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): With every desire to gratify the noble Lord, I would point out that he was not in the House when the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment especially appealed to me not to speak, but to allow the Minister for Agriculture to speak upon this subject, and the Debate closes with a reproach upon the Minister for Agriculture for speaking, and appealing to me to speak. It is very difficult to please both sides. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture has made a speech on the subject. I will make no speech on the subject at all, but reply simply to the appeal the noble Lord has made. It will, I think, be satisfactory, at all events, that the House is going unanimously to pass this Resolution; that, at all events, is something gained—["Oh!"] understand that this Resolution, including the abolition of the Law of Distraint, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin) regrets, is going to be passed unanimously, and with his vote also.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Pro formâ.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Pro formâ. All I can say is, that in 1881 we had also a Resolution for the abolition of the Law of Distraint, which was carried unanimously by this House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is not a Resolution; this is an Amendment.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: How does he distinguish between an Amendment on going into Supply and a Resolution? But the practical point, as I understand it, is this: that the hon. and gallant Member proposes that this matter should be referred to a Committee. Very well; I

    735
    am very willing that this and other matters relating to agriculture should be referred to a Committee. We have been trying to refer these matters to a Committee all the Session, and what is proposed in this Amendment is that we should take this limited Committee, which, mind you, would not include the Law of Distress at all, because that is not part of the Agricultural Holdings Act. We desire to include it in another Committee which we have proposed, and therefore what I have to say upon this subject is this. I should suggest that we negative the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member and appoint the Select Committee that stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture that these questions and others may be referred to it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What is the Reference?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: It stands on the Paper, and if the House desires it to the appointed, let us carry the Committee the Government propose instead of this Committee.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the House and those who watch our Debates outside the House will understand exactly what it is the Government are proposing to do. The Motion before us is an Amendment to the Original Motion that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair. Now, it has, by itself, no efficacy at all, and it would probably end by your leaving the Chair. It is impossible for us, while it is merely an Amendment, to move an Amendment on an Amendment; therefore, my hon. and gallant Friend could only announce his intention of moving an Amendment to this Resolution when it becomes a substantive Motion. We are, therefore, in this position. My hon. Friend is prepared to assent to the Amendment as it is, so that it may become a substantive Motion, though we do not bind ourselves in agreement to every clause of the Amendment put upon the Paper. But I want to point out to the House what the Government desire to do. They mean to accept the abstract Amendment that has been proposed; but they absolutely refuse to accept the Amendment to the Resolution
    736
    that is required to make it practical. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he has a desire, and the Government has been desirous from the beginning of the Session, to have a Committee of Inquiry into agriculture generally.
    An hon. Member: Into the causes of the depression.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Into the causes of depression.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: That is what the noble Lord just now said be desired.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I think not; he desired to have an inquiry into the causes of depression. He must know it is certain such an inquiry must be of enormous length, and almost certain that it would be barren of practical results. An opportunity now occurs on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman by which the Government might have an inquiry not endless and not impracticable, and the Government take the opportunity of rejecting it. I hope it will be understood by the whole agricultural community throughout the country that while one Party in the State is prepared, in order to throw dust in the eyes of the electorate, to have an inquiry, vague in its terms, interminable in its operation, and barren in its results, they are not prepared to adopt the inquiry which may be practical, which deals with a question nearest to the hearts and interests of the farmers, and which might be carried out within the compass of a Session, and which might lead to some practical and salutary results by which it is possible and not improbable the agricultural community might be benefited. That is the proposal before us—Are we to have the miserable abstract inquiry of the Government, or the practical inquiry proposed by my hon. Friend? It is on that question we shall divide to-night.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: I wish to make a personal explanation. I did not say that I was in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's Committee, but I said I was in favour of the Committee suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    And, it being after Midnight, Mr. Speaker proceeded to interrupt the Business.
    Whereupon Mr. Herbert Gardner rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid, he proposed to move the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper.
    MR. SPEAKER: That Question has not been put from the Chair.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: As the Motion has been agreed to, and the Amendment has been practically carried, we object to going any further.
    MR. SPEAKER: I understand the right hon. Gentleman claimed that the Amendment be now put.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: There was no Motion to that effect.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: My right hon. Friend claimed, after the first Question had been decided, that the substantive Amendment be put, and I understand yon granted that.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask, for the information of the House, and merely for the purpose of clearing up the question, how the matter stands? I understand we have agreed that you do not now leave the Chair; and, therefore, the Question before the House is that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman should become the substantive Motion. We are anxious to assent to that with a view of making Amendments to it. What is our position as regards Amendments?
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the Minister for Agriculture had moved the
    738
    Closure, which he had accepted. Any hon. Member who wished to continue the Debate could not add a fresh Question which had never been put from the Chair.
    Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
    Question, "That those words be there added," put accordingly, and agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, amendments of the Law are urgently needed to enable the tenant to obtain adequate compensation on the determination of a tenancy for all agricultural improvements executed by him on his holding, to give greater security of tenure and freedom to make improvements, to cultivate and to sell produce without detriment to the agricultural value of the holding, to abolish the landlord's right to distrain for rent, and to simplify and cheapen the settlement of compensation cases and other differences between landlord and tenant.
    SUPPLY,—Committee upon Monday next.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS LOCAL VETO (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 124.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords.]

    STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.
    MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred, on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—Pontypridd Local Board (Gas) Bill [Lords]; Waterford and Limerick Railway Bill [Lords].
    Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented,—of Rules and Programme of Examinations for 1894 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCIENCE AND ART SCHOOLS).
  Copy presented,—of Directory (Revised to June, 1893) with Regulations for establishing and conducting Science and Art Schools and Classes [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance, Nos. 1222 (Berlin) and 1223 (Rome) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EXCISE SPIRIT DUTIES (IRELAND).
  Copy ordered, "of Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to the Treasury, dated the 6th day of June, 1893, explaining an error in the computation of Ireland's contribution to the Spirit Duty, as shown in the 'Financial Relations' Returns of 1891 and 1893."—(Sir John Hibbert.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 248.]

  POST OFFICE (REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE).
  Return ordered, "of Revenue and Expenditure of the Post Office for each year from since 1869–70 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 281, of Session 1892), and showing the Estimate of the same for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1893."—(Mr. Arnold Morley.)
  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS (REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE).
  Return ordered, "of the Revenue and Expenditure of the Post Office Telegraphs for each year since the purchase of the Telegraphs (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 282, of Session 1892), and showing the Estimate of the same for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1893."—(Mr. Arnold Morley.)
  CHARITABLE TRUSTS (RENT-CHARGES).
  Return ordered, "of Rent-Charges subject to Charitable Trusts, in the County of Wilts., returned as paid in the Reports of the Commissioners for inquiry concerning Charities 1819–37, and not now paid."—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)

  POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATION BILLS.
  MR. WALTER LONGreported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills, That the parties promoting the St. Helen's Corporation Bill had stated that the evidence of Frederic Campbell Hulton, Clerk to the Lancashire County Council, was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Frederic Campbell Hulton do attend the said Committee upon Tuesday next, at Twelve of the clock.
  Ordered, That Frederic Campbell Hulton do attend the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills upon Tuesday next, at Twelve of the clock.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.