Commons Sitting of 12 April 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Twelve of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CLAY CROSS WATER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
ILFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (RATES) BILL.
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
WOODHOUSE AND CONISBROUGH RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
(Not amended.) Considered; to be read the third time.
PETITIONS.
  WEST MIDDLESEX WATER BILL.
  Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  BOROUGH FUNDS ACT, 1872.
  Petition from Stourport, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table,
  CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
  Petitions for Disestablishment and Disendowment;—From Edinburgh;—and, Disestablishment Council of Scotland; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Petition from Droylsden, against State regulation; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCES) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Govan, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petitions in favour,—From Todmorden;—Leeds;—and Leicester; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Rosslyn;—Dollar;—Inverkeithing;—Lochee;—Dunfermline;—Troon;—Broughty Ferry;—Burntisland;—and, Kirkcaldy;—to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Petitions against;—From St. Martin's in the Fields;—and, The Strand; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petitions for extension to women;—From Birkenhead (three);—Tranmere Park;?—Liscard;?—Oxton;—Brock Ferrv;—and, Neston; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATURE PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Edinburgh; and, Tayport; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Tamworth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Newcastle upon Tyne, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Birkenhead;—East Ardsley;—Leicester:—Knutsford;—Cleator Moor;—Failsworth;—Eccles;—York (two);—Bol-to—Liverpool;?—Wroot;—Moss Side Swalwell (two);—Little Hulton;—Bardney;—and, Earlestown; to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPERANCE REFORM (THREEFOLD OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION WORKS.)
  Return (presented 10th April) to be printed. (No. 149.)
  SALISBURY PLAIN (RENTALS).
  Return presented,—relative thereto (Address 21st February. Mr. Thomas Bayley); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 150.)
  MEDICAL COUNCILS.
  Accounts presented,—for 1898 of the General Medical Council and Branch Councils, and of the Dental Registration Fund (by Act); to lie upon the Table.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 151.)
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill"—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 152.)
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 153.)

NEW BILLS.
  MERCHANT SEAMEN (RATING CERTIFICATES).
  Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Act, 189-1, in respect of Rating Certificates of Competency and Service, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Have-lock Wilson.
  TRUCK ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  "To amend the Truck Acts," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday 25th April, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FIRE BRIGADES BILL.
  Order for the Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. PYM: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of responsibility that I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Knowing what large interest is taken in it by the great mass of members of the various-fire brigades throughout the country dis-

  877
  tricts, and the public also, I could have wished that the task had been entrusted to abler hands than mine, to one with longer experience and greater authority in the House; but I have been long enough in this House to realise the kind indulgence which the House extends to Members under like circumstances, and that gives me confidence to carry out the somewhat difficult task that has been imposed upon me. Now, Sir, the object and general purpose of this Bill is to ensure that all fire brigades throughout the country districts included in it shall be efficient, that we may rely with the same confidence upon the fire brigades in the country as we do on that magnificent service, the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, which looks after London. That is the object we aim at, and that is the intention of this Bill. To achieve this result we do not ask for any new powers to be conferred upon local authorities, for all the necessary powers exist at the present moment in Acts of Parliament which cover the whole ground. What we aim at is the efficiency of the fire brigades by their being supplied with proper appurtenances, and also by there being a full brigade. Neither do we seek for special funds from the Imperial Exchequer. But we do ask that the small expense entailed for the payment of the inspectors under the Bill should be defrayed out of the fund which is called the ex-contribution, and which is paid into the different county funds at the disposal of the respective counties. And, again, where pressure has to be brought to bear on local authorities to enforce the application of the Acts above referred to, we ask that the central authority, the Local Government Board, should exercise that pressure instead of leaving it to the county council, thus avoiding as much as possible raising any feeling of irritation on the part of the various local authorities. Now, we require that every fire brigade throughout the country shall be registered at the Local Government Board, so that that Department will have at its disposal complete information with regard to the fire brigades throughout the kingdom which at present it does not possess, and which must become very valuable. The whole question of fire brigades in this country is quite a novel one in this House. I do not think
  878
  the present subject has ever been raised before in its present form in the House of Commons, and that being the case I have found it very difficult to get the information that I require to be able to present to the House. Supposing this register had been in existence we should have had very little difficulty in explaining to this House the actual condition of the fire brigades in this country. The President of the Local Government Board has been kind enough to grant in a return of the paid and unpaid brigades, and no doubt I shall have it in course of time. I beg to make my acknowledgements to the right honourable Gentleman for helping me so far. It is very valuable information for bringing this matter forward, but I have other sources of information not quite so good, nor carrying so much authority, which I will give the House so as to give more or less the general idea of this Bill. There is no intention under this Bill of enforcing brigades upon localities where they do not at present exist and are not required. I know that there is an idea in some quarters that it is our intention to force local authorities throughout the country to have fire brigades, but it is not so. Our intention is to bring about efficiency in those brigades which already exist at the present time, and not to add to them unless they are prepared to do so of their own accord. Then, Sir, by proposing that inspectors should be appointed by the Government, we ensure that they will be men whose authority will be respected, and whose knowledge of the work they undertake will be undoubted; and it would be impossible for the county councils to elect a similar class of men who would give equal satisfaction to the public. The keystone of the Bill is the annual inspection of fire brigades, by a competent authority responsible directly to the Local Government Board, which is calculated to exercise a wholesome effect upon the administration of many brigades, and it will also tend to allay any misgivings in the public mind as to the efficiency of the corps that undertakes the protection of life and property from fire in any area. By granting certificates to efficient brigades a healthy stimulus will be promoted between brigades, and a sort of healthy competition will be brought into play. There is another reason for a

  879
  stimulus, and that is, although it is not generally known, perhaps, to honourable Members of this House, although it is very well known by the fire authorities, that there have been for a number of years a number of what are called bogus brigades which have no machinery or plant, but a uniform with which they go about the country and collect subscriptions. Now, if every brigade had its certificate, and the person called upon for a collection asked to see it, he would be secured, and a blow would be dealt at bogus brigades, and something done for the proposed protection of the fire brigade. I shall be prepared to show, later, to what extent that fraud has been committed. Before I go further I think I ought to face the real question with regard to bringing this Bill forward, and that is, whether there is a demand for the Bill. Is the protection from fire afforded by the existing system so efficient that there is no necessity for such action as is proposed by the Bill? I may mention that we had a great deal of difficulty in getting these matters together with regard to the necessity of the Bill, but I would like to use an argument which should appeal to honourable Members of the House and bring it home to them. I would appeal first to the experience of honourable Members of this House, and judging from that experience I would ask if they would get up and say with absolute sincerity that they are satisfied in their constituencies that they are properly and efficiently protected. I found the necessity for my Bill upon the responses given to that question by honourable Members. Secondly, I would draw attention to the accounts which have appeared in the daily papers of the past three years of disastrous fires which have taken place in all parts of the country, and the examples which they have shown of the want of adequate provision made for protection from fire. The House may remember the great fires at Sunderland and Newcastle-on-Tyne and Norwich, and many other places which I might call attention to, which have taken place during the last three years, and if honourable' Members read the accounts of those fires they will see, where the matter has been gone into by the public interested in those places, that these fires would not in all probability have been so disastrous but for the deficiency in appurtenances and
  880
  equipment of the brigades which had to deal with them. That alone, I think, is sufficient to authorise us who are interested in this Bill in bringing this matter forward—not for the, benefit of the fire brigade men, but, in the interests of public safety. It may be desirable, before proceeding further, that I should state as shortly as possible, to the House the present condition of the fire brigades in England and Wales and their status. Until a period well on in the present century the business of protecting life and property in the towns and villages of this country was loft entirely to voluntary effort, and to a great extent was performed by the insurance companies, who equipped and maintained, at their own expense, fire brigades in many of the large towns. The fire service in England and Wales may, broadly speaking, be said to fall under one or other of the following heads: Brigades constituted and regulated by special or local Acts of Parliament, included in Bills relating to the government of the municipalities, like our own Metropolitan, Fire Brigade of London and those of Manchester, Liverpool, and a few other places. Those brigades we have nothing to do with in this Bill. They are governed by their own laws and Acts, and I think you may take it for granted that where a large town like Manchester has to pay a large sum for the maintenance of its fire brigade the people of the town will take care that it is kept up to the mark. There is no need for us to interfere there. I need hardly call attention to the magnificent brigade of the City of London. Why is it that the City of London can maintain and equip such a magnificent force as the Metropolitan Fire Brigade? Because they have that which we do not possess in the country districts, what we all desire to see, and what we shall have through the operation of this Bill, plenty of money to thoroughly equip themselves. The Metropolitan Fire Brigade have a gift from the Government of £10,000, and they have £30 for every £1,000,000 worth which is insured which is saved, and if that is not enough they fall back upon the rates. In Manchester they have the rates to fall back upon again, with the result that they can get adequate service. The next

  881
  class is properly organised and equipped brigades, wholly maintained by local authorities, which take full advantage of powers contained in general Acts of Parliament, which apparently give them also full power over the rates, with the result again that they can go to the rates and make full use of them to make their brigades effective. The next class is brigades partly equipped or subsidised by local authorities in the exercise of powers contained in general Acts of Parliament, but partly dependent for their equipment or maintenance on voluntary subscriptions. The poorest class of all is composed of those brigades dependent entirely, both for equipment and maintenance, on voluntary subscriptions. Besides those we have a few private brigades organised by and at the expense of wealthy men, business firms, railway and other companies, or other public bodies, for the protection of their own property. A few brigades in various parts of the country are still in the employ of insurance companies—a survival from the time when such employment was more common. The Bill does not touch either the Metropolitan Fire Brigade or brigades under special local Acts, such as those of Manchester, Salford, and Liverpool, or brigades in county boroughs, or Scotland or Ireland. The brigades which come under the Bill arc, generally speaking, those in provincial towns, and in the more important villages throughout the country districts which cannot combine under the Parish Fire Engines Act of last Session for self-protection, which constitute the great majority of the brigades. Of these some are maintained and equipped partly or wholly by the local authorities; the rest are voluntary brigades. Private brigades can come into it, if they think proper, under clause 8. It is for the purpose of ensuring the efficiency of these two latter classes of brigades that the Bill is introduced, and I may say here that the Bill has the unanimous support of the National Fire Brigades' Union. I dare say many honourable Members have never heard of the Fire Brigades' Union. I never heard of it myself until within the last six months, and if the House will permit I will give a few particulars of it. The object of forming
  882
  the union was to promote efficiency of the fire service, and to provide a central organisation for fire brigades, to ensure uniformity of drill and to encourage the establishment of brigades in districts not at present protected. It is fortunate, in the interests of this Bill, such an organisation exists, for, of the 420 brigades which belong to the union, records are kept of everything relating to their equipment and condition, and their supporting such a Bill as this gives us very strong ground for advocating such a Measure. Now, Sir, that is the general position of the fire service throughout England and Wales. Generally speaking, it might be described as efficient for the purpose of protection against fire. Because you have three systems: first, that which is based upon expenditure being charged upon the public rates; secondly, that which depends half upon public expenditure and half upon private effort; thirdly, that which is purely voluntary. In some places like London, Liverpool, Manchester, and other largo provincial towns you have, again, brigades under proper supervision and control and paid for out of the public rates. In other places you have a mixed system, depending partly upon the local rates and partly upon private subscriptions. And in other places still you have a purely voluntary organisation in some of our towns only, partly efficient in others, and some of our country districts, but as regards the rest of the country leaving much to be desired, not through any fault of officers or men, but simply for want of being supplied with proper equipment, and they can only be made efficient by money being provided out of the rates for that purpose. The reason why these brigades are in such an ineffective condition is because there is not one system throughout the country. Fire protection is a public duty, and not a duty to be put upon the shoulders of private individuals and left to voluntary agents and private munificence, and there should be one system adopted throughout the country, and it is because of that that we have come here and asked for the change. I am perfectly certain of this, that where we have experience of large towns where they have taken the matter in hand they look upon it as a public duty which they have to

  883
  perform, and consider that they have a right to demand public money to carry it out satisfactorily. Now, Sir, there is no excuse for this state of things, because Acts of Parliament have been in existence for a great number of years, extending as far back as 1833, to enable local authorities to fully equip and maintain fire brigades by a charge upon the rates. Now, what are these Acts? By section 44 of the Lighting and Watching Act, 1833, and section 29 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1867, power was given to provide and maintain a fire engine and other appliances and accoutrements and a fire-engine house, and to maintain a fire brigade, and to pay the expense out of the rates. In addition to the powers contained in the above Acts the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, section 32, gives power to the local authority to purchase, keep, or hire horses for drawing engines. I will not take up the time of the House by reading the clauses of each of these Acts, but, generally speaking, by the sections referred to, which differ somewhat in detail, powers are given to provide and maintain fire brigade engines and appliances, engine houses, and to charge the expenses upon the rates. By section 33 of the Town Police Clauses Act power was given to send the engines and firemen outside the limits of the districts to extinguish fires and to charge the owner with the expense thereof. Then, under the Public Health Act, 1875, clause 66, which is a compulsory clause, the local authorities must make proper provision for an adequate supply of water in case of fire and for the setting up of fire plugs, and the Parish Fire Engines Act, 1898, introduced by the honourable Member for Norwich last Session, which will be an exceedingly valuable Act in connection with the present Bill, provides in effect that a parish council which has a fire engine and appliances may combine with other local authorities for the purpose of jointly protecting themselves, each paying its proportionate share of the expense out of the rates. It will be observed that all these enactments but the one as to providing and maintaining fire plugs are permissive only, not compulsory; they give a power, but do not impose a duty. Now, Sir, here are the powers ready to hand, full and complete, to provide every appurtenance required to make an efficient fire service.
  884
  All that is necessary, and what we come to this House to ask for, is that these powers shall be made compulsory through the action of the Local Government Board. These Acts at the present time are only partially operative; they are not exercised to the full extent of the powers they confer, and until they are made compulsory where required we shall not have reliable fire protection. Considering the magnitude of the interests involved, it is surprising that so important a matter should have been left in such an unsatisfactory position as exists at the present time: There is no inspection as to efficiency, no proper control, although in many cases public money is expended, though inadequately, with the result that this haphazard condition of things—for it cannot be called a system—is highly detrimental both to the interests of the localities and to the brigades themselves. In some large towns, it is true, the local authorities in whom the above powers of establishing and maintaining fire brigades have by subsequent legislation become vested have adopted and are now exercising such powers in their entirety, with excellent results; and it is found that the addition to the rates consequent upon such exercise is moderate in amount, and really trifling in comparison with the security against loss of life and property by fire which is thereby obtained. In many places the local authorities, exercising in part only the powers conferred upon them, have provided more or less adequate appliances, but too often with a grudging hand, and have left to the energy and public spirit of some individual the task of organising a brigade, and to the generosity of a few well-disposed people the expense of maintaining it. Cases are not uncommon where local authorities maintain brigades but neglect to provide them with engines or other appliances, or where manual engines are supplied instead of steamers. A fire occurred quite recently at a country house within a moderate distance of a town containing about 20,000 inhabitants and several large factories. On the brigade being summoned it arrived without an engine and with fire hose only, and had it not been that there was a stand-pipe in front of the residence the fire brigade would have been useless. The most numerous class of cases is where the local authorities have neglected or refused altogether

  885
  to make use of the powers conferred upon them, and where whole districts are entirely dependent upon the voluntary efforts of private individuals and upon voluntary subscriptions. Such subscriptions are precarious, often grudgingly given, and as a rule quite inadequate. The voluntary brigades consist for the most part of artisans and labourers, who willingly and gratuitously devote much of their spare time to rendering themselves competent in the details of fire brigade work, but whose circumstances do not permit them to provide themselves with uniforms at their own expense, and it is unfair to ask then to sacrifice their wages if summoned during working hours to attend a fire. The men naturally become disheartened by the lack of proper appliances, and the lukewarm support of the public in response to their appeals for subscriptions, and also the uncertainty as to receiving any remuneration whatever for their services. For, Sir, it is a matter of common occurrence for an owner of property, in case of fire, after having summoned the brigade, afterwards to refuse payment of any remuneration whatever for their services or even their expense out of pocket for the hire of horses, etc., on the ground that the brigade holding itself out as a "volunteer" brigade has no right to charge. That is a thing which is constantly occurring all over the country, and cases have been brought to the court and so decided by the magistrates in spite of the facts that the man whose house is on fire sent for the brigade and then refused to pay upon that ground. The want of an efficient system of inspection is felt, perhaps, even more as regards appliances than as regards the drill of the men. Local authorities too often rely upon water pipes and hydrants and upon the pressure as being at all times and for all purposes sufficient, and neglect to provide a fire engine as a second or auxiliary line of defence. I was staying a few weeks ago down in the country, and I happened to see a letter written to the gentleman with whom I was staying by the captain of the fire brigade of the district, asking him if he would still continue his subscriptions to the fire brigade, because the local authorities, having put up hydrants in the village in conspicuous positions, considered there was no
  886
  use for a fire brigade. I might tell you, at the same time, that this fire brigade was particularly efficient, and fully equipped in every way. The fire brigade, engine, hose, and everything connected with it was offered to the local authority as a free gift, and the local authority declined to have it. That is a condition of things in several villages where they are putting up these hydrants. That is all the protection they have. They do' not care anything about the country houses around. But what we maintain is, that hydrants are not sufficient. That the Ilfracombe fire was so disastrous was in consequence of their relying upon a system of hydrants and not possessing a steam fire engine. I can give you many other cases where this system has totally failed in consequence of the failure of the water supply upon which they relied for protection. There are all sorts of ways in which the hydrant system may get out of order. However excellent the system of water supply, circumstances may arise when, through necessary repairs, frost, or lack of pressure, the water in the pipes may not be available, and for want of an engine great loss of property ensues, as has been proved over and over again. It would be easy to give a number of instances of great loss by fire, not only of property, but of precious lives, which are constantly appearing in the papers; but I do not wish, by mentioning names, to be invidious, as such events are matters of common knowledge, and I am happy to say that in some of the most disastrous cases the evil has worked its own cure. Now, one difficulty that I have had in this matter was in getting sound information so as to get at the actual condition of these things. I have mentioned the National Fire Brigades' Union, which, as I have said is composed of 420 fire brigades throughout the country, and I have been able to get some information with regard to some of them. The honorary secretary of the National Fire Brigades' Union has been kind enough to send out a, circular to every fire brigade asking them to give certain information, to which 387 brigades have replied. At the present moment I propose to give a few particulars of those 387 brigades, representing 7,000 firemen in various parts of the country. Of these 13 were paid, 241 part paid, 94 volunteer, and

  887
  39 doubtful. Out of the 387 brigades 151 have no fire escapes, and are in urgent need of the same; many others have escapes, but they are not fit for use; 325 brigades require more hose, and the hose of many other brigades is very defective; 234 do not possess steam fire engines, and use the old-fashioned manual, which is quite out of place. In one place the engine is 100 years old, and the urban district council makes a grant of £5 a year to maintain the brigade and to pay the rent of the engine-house. In another place the date of the engine is 1768, the brigade is also without a fire escape, and the urban district council allow a grant of £10 to maintain the brigade. Of the 241 part-paid brigades the engines and appliances belong to the urban district council, to whom they have been handed over in a large number of cases by the brigades free of cost, and in return the councils make a small grant per man to retain their services and to keep the appliances clean and ready for fires. In other cases they make a small grant to the brigade, which is not sufficient to pay for oil, waste, and repairs. Most of the part-paid brigades have to appeal to the public for subscriptions. In other cases, which are very numerous, the deficiency is made up by the chief officer of the brigade, which amounts, as a rule, to £50 and upwards a year, and it is a very common thing for captains of fire brigades to have to pay as much as £100 a year. Others, again, apply to the insurance offices, who supplement their needs by a grant or by expenses for attending fires. The grant supplied by the urban district council to these part-paid brigades is very often so absurdly small that it is not sufficient to pay for keeping the engines and appliances clean and in repair. So egregious has been the neglect of the local authorities in many districts that the ratepayers have held indignation meetings for the purpose of compelling the urban district council to perform their duty in this matter. Now that is, so far as I have gone, the whole of the information that I have been able to obtain to put before the House with regard to the conditions of these fire brigades. It is not my fault or the fault of those friends who have been helping me in this matter that we are not able to give more, but I trust that what we have
  888
  given to the House will convince honourable Members that it is necessary to do something to raise the efficiency of the fire brigades throughout the country. Now, I should like to say a few words upon the subject of the fire insurance offices in relation to the position they hold with regard to fires, about which there is a great deal of misconception on the part of the public. There are some people who think that it is the duty of the fire offices to subsidise the whole of these fire brigades for the protection of fire, but the object of an insurance company is not to protect the property of individuals from damage by fire, but to indemnify individuals against loss by fire. The protection of life and property is a matter which lies entirely outside their province, and the duty of maintaining the fire brigade is a duty which does not appertain to them. The reasoning which is applied by certain people to this subject to show that the fire insurance companies should maintain the fire brigades might just as well be applied to the life assurance companies in order to show that they should see that there was a supply of pure water and better sanitary arrangements, because by so doing you make the conditions better for the long life of the people of the nation, and thus benefit the companies; or you might apply the same reasoning to marine insurance companies for the construction of harbours of refuge, or lighthouses, or anything else which might represent protection against loss. I believe at the present day there are many insurance companies which insure against burglary, and you might just as well appeal to those insurance companies to help towards paying the cost of the police. It is not the business of the fire insurance companies at all to subscribe towards the cost of protection from fire. In point of fact the better the protection is the worse it is for the fire insurance companies, because, if the protection is good and fires are few, the rate goes down; but if the protection is bad the rate of insurance goes up; and you might suppose a case where, in process of time, if your protection is thoroughly perfect against fire, the rates would be so low as to be almost nothing. Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have wearied the House, but I felt it was my duty to give as much information as possible in the

  889
  interests of those: who wished to see this Measure passed. It is not in the interest of individuals, but in the interest of the public generally, and I have done my best to state our reasons. Now I shall take up very little time in dealing with the details of the Bill. The preamble is so very clear and the Bill is of such a character that anybody reading it will be able to understand it. As regards clause 2, that requires every brigade to be registered; but there is another reason also, and I think it is a good one, which is, that where your inspectors are appointed for a district it would be necessary to know how many brigades there are in the different districts, and to know the number of inspectors that you would require, so as to inquire into the amount of the cost. Clause 3 deals with the inspectors. Our idea is that these inspectors shall be retired officers either of the Navy or the Army. We want them to have all the authority they can possibly have; we. want them to be men of undoubted integrity, and the amount we propose as the salary of an inspector is something like £250 or £300 a year. I know there is an idea that these inspectors should be appointed by the county council; but I would point this out to the House: that if this matter is taken over by the county council, and that body has to appoint the inspectors, they can hardly be appointed at larger salaries than £20 or £60 a year. The result of that would be an enormous increase in the amount both of inspectors and salary, and I think that alone is a complete reply to the idea of these inspectors being appointed by the county council. Another thing is, we look on these inspectors as the substance and centre of our Bill, and I am perfectly certain, from what I have heard from one of the supporters of this Bill, that if inspectors of an inferior grade are to be appointed the Bill would be withdrawn altogether. The manner in which the inspectors are proposed to be paid is through the Treasury, and the merit of that suggestion is that the amount which is to be paid will have to come out of the rates of the various localities. It may be that the county councils might object to pay a sufficient and proper proportion, but I believe that the county councils themselves will fully realise the necessity of having a thoroughly efficient fire brigade, and I hope they will see
  890
  the force of all the points in this Bill. The next clause, sub-sections 2, 4, and 5, deals with the manner in which this money is to be paid. What we thought was that the simple way to deal with that under this Bill would be that there should be deducted out of the county fund the amount that was due, and by that means the whole of the money could be paid into the hands of the Treasury and could be drawn upon by the inspectors. That would be a most simple way, and one that would give very little trouble to the Treasury. Clause 5 provides for the certificate of the Local Government Board as to the efficiency of any fire brigade, and upon the report of the inspector such certificate would not be renewed if the next report showed that the brigade had fallen back into a state of inefficiency. Clause 6 deals with the powers of the county council in case of default of the local authority to put this Act into effective operation in the district. With regard to this clause, the machinery of it is this: The inspector makes his report to the Local Government Board, who then grant a certificate to the brigade which is declared sufficient. Then they send out a report to the different county councils, who take notice of any brigades that are inefficient, and they call upon them to make themselves efficient. If they refuse to do so, then they make a. report to the Local Government Board to take action under this clause. I am inclined to think that if we had left the power in the hands of the county councils we should have stirred up an amount of feeling amongst other local authorities, such as municipal boroughs, urban district and rural district councils, which would have rendered it extremely difficult to carry this Bill into operation. Therefore, we have thrown these duties upon the Local Government Board as the only possible way by which this reform can be carried out. In sub-section 2 of clause 6 we point out how the Local Government Board can do this. Subsection 2 provides—
  "Upon any such complaint as aforesaid the Local Government Board may make such an Order on the local authority in default with reference to the powers aforesaid, or any of them, as is mentioned in Section 299 of the Public Health Act, 1875, with reference to the matter therein referred to, and may appoint a person to exercise the powers men-

  891
  tioned in the Order, and upon such appointment Sections 299 to 302 of the Public Health Act, 1875, shall apply as if the same had been expressly made applicable to the powers hereinbefore mentioned."
  Now I come to the next clause, which, deals with bogus brigades and private brigades. Upon this subject I have nothing to say beyond what I have already stated. Such frauds as I have alluded to have existed, and are well known to the public. On one occasion in connection with a charity organisation a certain gentleman carried on this business in a very large way, for he had six collectors, and one of them in twelve months collected as much as £360, and if you multiply that by six you will see that it comes to over £2,000 a year. Now I come to the last clause, which is clause 8, and this mentions how far the Act extends, what it is to do, and how far it is to go. One point which I wish to emphasise is that private brigades may adopt this Act, and by doing so make use of the inspection provided by it. I am quite sure, from what I have heard from several gentlemen connected with fire brigades, that they would be very happy indeed to make use of our inspection. I think this could be done if we make a condition that if they are to have this inspection they must not look after their own particular property, but take a fair share in the general work. Now, I have only got one more word to say, and it is with reference to the objection which may be made by the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, that the Government, may say that this matter is one purely for the local authorities, and that Parliament has done all it could be expected to do when it passed these enabling Acts, and the local authorities must be held responsible for carrying them out. The Government, then, having no further interest in the matter at all, and no further responsibility, and Parliament having passed those Acts, the local authorities must look after themselves whether they are to be effective or not. I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman this question: Assuming that the local authorities under the Public Health Act decline to carry out some improvements, or something that is necessary to protect the water from impurities or to improve the sewage of the town in any par-
  892
  ticular place, does the Local Government Board sit with folded arms and refuse to take any action there in such matters? No, Sir, instead of that they bring their powers to bear to insist that such work should be done and properly carried out. Now, all we ask is that if this is acknowledged in the case of sewage and water and other sanitary matters, then we claim that the service of protection against fire is a public duty of equal importance, and the State, by the very fact of having passed these Acts of Parliament, recognise their responsibility to the community to protect them so far by allowing local authorities to pay for the expense of fire protection from the rates. Surely fire protection is as important for the neighbourhood and its inhabitants as water and sewage, and if the local authority can enforce the carrying out of the Acts of Parliament with regard to sanitary matters, we maintain that it is their duty also to do so with regard to protection against fire. I thank the House for the kind attention which it has given to my remarks. I have had a duty to perform, and I have striven to perform it to the best of my ability, although I confess I have been unable to place it before this House in such a strong way as I think this subject deserves. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  MR. BIRRELL (Fife, W.): My learned Friend opposite, in the admirable speech he has made, has explained the object of the Measure, and gone into the details with so much loving care and minuteness that really there is nothing left for anybody else who supports his view to say, except to commend this Bill most affectionately to the consideration of the House. It is a rather curious thing that so essential a duty as fighting the flames should so long have been left in the very higgledy-piggledy state in which I am sorry to say it is in the rural districts in this country. Every year we witness with feelings hardly to be described the destruction of old buildings and of mellow pictures which no architect and no artist now living can restore. We see them destroyed, and thus the country to that extent is made less fit to live in, largely in consequence of our apathy in regard to what is as much a public duty as the police themselves. We main-

  893
  tain, both by local rating and also partly at the Imperial expense, a great body of police who are most competent and efficient men, whose duty it is to suppress, as far as they can, acts of violence, crime, and robbery, as. well as to perform those kindly acts which are so closely associated with the name of the police. This matter of fire is a matter which civilisation has, so far, proved incompetent to deal with; and whilst education has done much to reduce the criminal propensities of our population, we are still left this great enemy of our civilisation, which we encounter with the same simple and incomplete weapons as were employed during the last century. The condition of many of our brigades in the rural districts in this country is, as the honourable Member has pointed out, most unsatisfactory. There are a noble body of men associated with the Fire Brigades' Union, who number upwards of 8,000 strong, who discharge the important duties which they have undertaken as well as their very limited means and the incomplete apparatus placed at their disposal will allow them to do. There are also up and down the country associations calling themselves fire brigades which have not got the necessary equipments, and which really live by mendicancy, and who go about in an attractive uniform soliciting alms just as the religious fraternities used to do in mediaeval times, and they offer us a very small defence against fire. Even the manner in which these voluntary brigades perform their duties is not always satisfactory. They are voluntary associations, but, notwithstanding that, they turn out to put out fires. They are obliged to make demands upon persons whose property they have protected which is perhaps not of the most satisfactory character. A man agitated by fire is hardly in a position to adjust their claims, nor is there any impartial officer to tax their bill or put any check upon them, except, indeed, the check which the law puts upon them by making their debt non-recoverable. We have seen cases in the county courts where these claims have been made, and where they have been defeated on the ground that the association being purely voluntary has no right to ask for payment for the services rendered. I say that that is a most unsatisfactory and lamentable state of things. It is not as if there was any
  894
  difficulty in finding the men. We have already got the organisation which, if properly protected and watched, and if its accounts are properly audited, will be able in a most satisfactory manner when properly inspected to deal effectively with the great task which they have undertaken. This Bill is really nothing more than an inspection Bill. It will enable fire brigades to be inspected in the same way as voluntary schools are inspected, by proper and competent persons, who will be able to say whether those brigades are discharging or are in a position to discharge, or are sufficiently well equipped to enable them to discharge the duties which they have undertaken. If that is found to be the case, then, in my opinion, they ought to be supported by the district in which they discharge those important duties. It is difficult, therefore, to see what objection can be urged against the Bill, because it seeks throughout the country to secure in every rural district a properly equipped and self-respecting body of men ready to fight a common foe whom all desire to see suppressed. Therefore I do not suppose that there will be really very much opposition to that part of the Bill. There is no doubt in many minds an aversion to increase the powers of the Local Government Board. We find that this country is getting more and more into the grasp of the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade. These are not the most showy Departments of the State, but they are becoming rapidly the most powerful, and they certainly require a very large staff in order to discharge the important duties which they perform. Go where you will you find this country in the hold of one of these two Departments. If you wander by the seashore you hear the wild waves cursing the Board of Trade; and if you plunge into the Midlands you find yourself encroaching upon the territory of the Local Government Board. Wherever you go you find the name of one of these Boards on the lips of the common people far more than you find those of the War Office, the Foreign Office, or the other formidable Departments of the State. It is all very well quarrelling with the Local Government Board, but we are within its grasp, and we shall remain so. The marching orders of the democracy are Home Rule plus central control, which we all desire

  895
  to maintain and increase, and we have got to deal with it. The only doubt I have is whether there are sufficient men in this great Department to enable them to get through the enormous work which they have to discharge; but I feel that the aversion which we have to increasing the powers of the Local Government. Board should not make us blind to the fact, although they are a little bit slow in their proceedings, that they discharge their important duties in a very admirable way. Therefore we need not quarrel with the question of central authority as it exists in the Local Government Board. People go into public offices, and are annoyed by the exhibitions of pedantry and trickery which they meet with, and are irritated and angry, and are consequently disposed to quarrel with the existence of this central authority. But, after all, there it is, and without its aid and assistance I do not suppose any measure of Local Government could properly be carried out. As a matter of fact, this Bill confers very little additional power upon the Local Government Board over and above that which they already possess. As I have said before, it is little more than an inspection Bill which enables the Local Government Board to call for returns from the various fire brigades in the country; it considers those reports and circulates them amongst the proper local authorities so that they may know what is the condition of the fire brigades within their domain. On the other hand, the Local Government Board will also have the power to appoint inspectors. I do not know that my honourable Friend opposite need have gone into the question as to who those inspectors should be, or from what portion of Her Majesty's subjects they should be selected. The Local Government Board would have their nomination, and would exercise that patronage in accordance with the same principle and in obedience to the state of public feeling under which it makes other appointments of the same kind. Upon these inspectors being appointed they will make their reports, and the whole machinery of the Bill, which is very simple, will be set in motion after these reports have been received and circulated and considered. Therefore we need not be frightened in this matter by the belief that this Bill is increasing
  896
  very greatly the powers of the Local Government Board, great as those powers already are. Indeed, as a matter of fact, if you carefully consider the provisions of the Public Health Act of 1875, you will find that the Local Government Board really has, in the important matter of procuring a supply of water and other things necessary for the putting out of fire, the powers referred to by this Bill, so that there is really not any increase in power, but rather such a resetting of the existing machinery as it is hoped will secure that the fire brigades throughout the country will be put in the same state as far as that can be done as they are in our great cities, where they have given so much satisfaction to the inhabitants. I really think that this Bill is one which, if read a second time, and if properly considered in its details, will be found to work admirably in practice and will confer a great boon upon the country at large.
  MR. MALCOLM (Suffolk, Stow-market): I rise for the first time to trouble the House with a few remarks, feeling, as I do that the Bill before us is a very necessary Measure of great value in itself and practical in its form. I do not think that I could do better than read a letter upon this subject which has been put into my hands by the honourable Member the Mover of this Bill. It is the opinion of one who, I am sure, is connected with all that is noble in the fire service, for it is a letter from Sir Eyre Massey Shaw, who writes to the Mover of this Bill in the following terms: —
  "48, Rutland Gate, S.W.
  "11th April, 1899.
  "Dear Mr. Pym,
  "Seeing that yours is the first name on the back of the Fire Brigades Bill, which comes up for Second Reading to-morrow, I venture to address you on the subject. The consolidation of nearly all the fire brigades in the country under the National Fire Brigades Union has been of great public benefit, as the uniformity of drill and assimilation of appliances enable them to help each other in the event of need, which was not the case formerly, but we know that something further is required. As you are aware, I have retired from the position of President of the Union, which is now in the excellent hands of his Grace the Duke of Marlborough, who uses all his energy and powerful influence on its behalf; but I continue to take the deepest interest in it, and I am convinced

  897
  that the statutory powers proposed in this Bill, especially the appointment of inspectors wholly independent of local influence, will enormously strengthen his Grace's hands, and result in an appreciable diminution of the waste by fire which every year causes so serious a loss to the national wealth. Holding these views very strongly, I earnestly hope that the House of Commons will pass the Second Reading of the Bill unanimously, and on behalf of the whole fire service of the country I cordially thank you and the other Member s who are using their influence in the good cause.—I am, yours very sincerely,
  "JOHN E. M. SHAW."
  Now I think that that is a very strong expression of opinion in favour of the Bill. For my own part, I have to say that my own experience is—and I have had a good deal of experience lately with regard to country fire brigades—that which has already been referred to by two previous speakers—namely, that these country fire brigades are supported in a most haphazard and happy-go-lucky fashion. That, is the conclusion which I have formed after having inspected some score of brigades throughout the country. I have found constantly that the drills were very irregular, the appliances often dangerously defective, and capable or expert instruction totally deficient:—the firemen never had it, and it seemed to me absolutely non-existent; and yet it is to bodies such as these that the fate of villages, of factories, small towns, and historical buildings and pictures is complacently left throughout the year by too sanguine local authorities. Why, I think it must give pause to any honourable Member of this House who thinks there may be no case for this Bill and no grievance, did he find his house protected by one rate-supported engine, which I saw standing rusty, as it had stood for months, on the village green, with weeds growing in rare profusion upon its wheels; or by another engine which was lashed down by ropes and rings to the floor of its shed, making a swift departure impossible at an emergency, for the men could not get this engine out in anything less than 20 minutes; or again, to find the brigade horses employed during the day carting dust or stones or watering roads far away from the fire station. I do not think this state of things is very creditable to the councils or local authorities which are
  898
  supposed to be in authority over these brigades. Therefore, it is to protect the public from serious waste of money of this kind that this Bill has been introduced. We also hope to secure for the fire brigades in the country districts some recognition of their public services, which I think urgently demand public recognition, and which I am extremely sorry has been so very long delayed. At present in this, of all countries, the fireman has no recognised status or position: no pride reposes in him as the acknowledged though voluntary guardian of life and property, and in consequence one cannot help noticing a lamentable absence of the esprit de corps which should be the essence of a public body. We ask then for some public recognition of the fire service through the Local Government Board, such as the Metropolitan Brigade has received with such advantage from the London County Council. But we admit that the public will not recognise that which is not efficient, and to increase efficiency is the Alpha and Omega of this Bill. We claim that by private agency much has already been done which certainly seems to be the function of public authorities. You cannot reasonably expect efficiency from men who have no opportunity of seeing the latest drills, of handling new appliances, or of learning their short-comings from the mouths of experts. To remedy this the National Fire Brigades' Union has done a great deal by holding annual camps and conferences, and has reformed a large part of the grievances of the country fire service, and it is this to which Sir Eyre Massey Shaw referred. The usefulness of the work is shown by the large number of brigades which annually join the Union; they send representatives, at considerable trouble and expense to themselves, to learn what they can for the benefit of the neighbourhood or the community. So much for private enterprise and individual energy. But surely that is not all that is wanted. Men are not made efficient by attending conferences and camps; depend upon it, they need constant inspection to keep them up to the mark as proper recipients of public money. That is the reason why inspection is insisted upon in this Bill. In the course of my perigrinations through the provinces, I have come to this conclusion,

  899
  that it is obvious to me that the local authorities are not the proper people to exercise this inspection; they pretend to no expert knowledge at all, and therefore their opinion upon the subject must be absolutely useless, if not misleading. Therefore, it is at this point that we confidently appeal to the Government to accept the responsibility of nominating inspectors, whose visits to the vast number of brigades that fall within the purview of this Bill will prove their efficiency. We ask them to appoint experts whose hints and advice will be of enormous advantage to the firemen themselves; whose examination of the engines, hose, and tackle may be the cause of saving an untold amount of life and property; and, finally, whose reports to the Local Government Board and the county council will guide the local bodies, and guarantee an efficient expenditure of public money. I think there is one more thing which these experts might do. They might also undertake the expert opinion, for which coroners always petition the Home Office at a fire inquest, and which is never refused. It is well known that whenever there is a fatal fire the coroner often asks the Home Office for an expert to be sent down. The expert evidence is only to show how these things might have been prevented, and what was the exact cause of the fire. Now, I think the experts and inspectors whom we ask the Local Government Board to appoint under this Bill would be able to go down to the coroner's inquest and give evidence when these fatal fires occur. Now, why should not the Local Government Board undertake this duty? As has been pointed out, inspectors are appointed for many other branches of the public service. To protect the public from the dangers of disease there are medical officers of health; and there are inspectors under the Factories Acts. There are dangers from assault and disorder, and you have inspectors of constabulary—three in number. Against the dangers arising from ignorance I understand that the Committee of the Privy Council on Education have inspectors of schools; but there is no Government supervision whatever to protect the public from the appalling dangers of fire. Therefore we feel that we can ask this much from the Government to-day to help us to increase the efficiency of
  900
  the fire brigades, and to give public recognition to the fire service by granting certificates to those brigades which the reports of the inspectors show to be efficient. I believe this Bill will be of great advantage if it only brings home to the country householders and the cottage-holders the true value of the fire brigades, composed as they are of men who carry their lives in their hands every moment they are on public duty; and the appreciation in which they are held by a great majority of the people of this country. On the Continent of Europe and in the United States, where I have had the opportunity of inspecting scores of fire brigades, the case is very widely different from here. I find that there the fire service is absolutely on a par in rank with the army and navy. All the privileges of reduced public tariffs in trains, tramcars, etc., which are given to the army and navy are also extended to those who fight fire. In return they organise with perfect discipline and efficiency their fire departments. But in England, there is absolutely nothing of this kind. I deplore it, but I recognise that this Bill will go a long way in the right direction to remedy our defects. If the House will accept, as I think they ought, the principle of the Measure, and appoint three inspectors, you will be doing a good thing—doing much to protect the public purse, to better the lot of and to lessen the risks to firemen, and to raise in the estimation of the public a service composed of men whose lives are devoted to the sacred cause of humanity, and of whose deeds this country ought justly to be proud.
  COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holdemess): I hope I may be allowed to congratulate my honourable Friend on the very excellent speech he has made, on the fulness of his information, the skill of his argument and his very graceful delivery. I hope that he will very often take part in the Debates of this House. I would, however, ask the honourable Gentleman who has introduced this Bill whether, after all, there is a demand for a Bill of this nature, at any rate in the country districts. I don't know about the towns, whether it is necessary to bring in the interference of the Local Government Board with the management of local affairs. But I

  901
  think that, upon the whole, the local authorities in the country, in matters like fire brigades, provide them when they are really found to be wanted. I rather question the desirability of calling in the Local Government Board to give further assistance to the local authorities in this matter. One object of the Bill is that the county councils are invited to interfere with the local authorities, but I think that, so far as we can, we ought to keep the spheres of the county councils and the parish councils and authorities as much independent of one another as possible. I daresay that the system of inspection proposed by the Bill might be useful, and that the Local Government Board would undertake that, if required, but, personally, I should prefer that the inspection should be at the request of the local authorities, rather than by the order of the Local Government Board.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I hope I may be permitted to add my tribute of congratulation to those which have fallen from the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down, to my honourable Friend who introduced this Bill, and to my honourable Friend the Member for Suffolk, for the excellent speeches they have delivered on the first occasion of their addressing the House. Although I am obliged to take a somewhat different view from that of the honourable Members, no one will dispute that the fire brigades of this country ought to be efficient. But this question which arises and which we have to consider is, in the first place, whether those brigades are so inefficient at the present time as is alleged, and whether a grievance has been made out which is sufficient to call for legislation on the subject; and, in in the second place, if that be so, whether the particular legislation which is proposed by the Bill of my honourable Friend is calculated and most likely to promote the objects in view. As to the first point, as to whether the fire brigades are so inefficient, and if there is really such a demand throughout the country as to justify Parliament in proposing legislation, I can only say, as the representative of the Local Government Board, that we have no information whatever to that effect. No complaints
  902
  have reached us which would lead us to believe that this urgent demand exists, and as far as I am concerned, I am in complete want of information on that branch of the subject. One thing which appeared to me striking in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Bill was the insufficient grounds and want of proof which they submitted to the House to show that a Bill of this nature was urgently demanded. My honourable Friend says truly that they are warmly supported by the National Fire Brigades' Union, but then he went on to say in almost the next sentence that he supposed that few honourable Members had heard if the National Fire Brigades' Union. Well, so far as I am concerned, it was only the other day that its operations came under my notice at all. I have heard that it has done very admirable work in reference to this question, but beyond that I do not think that either of my honourable Friends have adduced to the House any information sufficient to warrant us in taking strong measures on this question. What is it that the Bill proposes? First of all returns of all existing fire brigades are to be sent to the Local Government Board These returns having been made, my Friend says that ho will be able to judge what inspectors will be necessary, and how many should be appointed for fulfilling the duties proposed to be cast upon them. My friend has already done that. He says that inspectors are at present appointed, not in the usual way by the Local Government Board, but directly by the local authorities; but that under the new system, so far as he was able to form an opinion at all, three inspectors would be enough. But if the inspections were to be thoroughly carried out under the terms of the Bill, and if the county councils were to proceed to put into force the powers conferred upon them by clause 6, I think that probably the number of inspectors that would be required would be much nearer 30 than three. I say this because the number of local authorities who are empowered to incur expenses in connection with fire brigades in England and Wales, under various existing Acts of Parliament, at the present moment, and to which the Bill would apply, is something like 13,000, and those who have actually incurred expenditure already in connection with this subject are no

  903
  fewer than 1,122. I think it has been stated in support of this Measure that the police are now inspected by the Home Office by three different inspectors, and that therefore three inspectors ought to be sufficient for the inspection of fire brigades. But I am advised that there are only 184 separate police forces in the country at the present time, and therefore they do not at all stand on the same ground in that respect as the fire brigades. Now, these inspections, when they are made under the Bill must be thorough and complete, and for this reason, that it is the duty of the Local Government Board to grant certificates of their efficiency. Well, how many of these inspectors will there be under the Bill? That will depend upon the action of the county councils. Under the existing law, under one statute or another, county councils, borough councils, urban district councils, rural district councils, parish councils, and parishes where there are no councils—all of them have power now to establish and to maintain fire brigades with all the necessary appliances for extinguishing fire. Now, whenever a county council is of opinion that the powers vested in these local authorities at the present time are not adequately exercised, then they have the power of calling on these local authorities to exercise their functions, and in default they fall back on the Local Government Board, to whom they have the power of making complaint. My honourable Friend seems to complain of the obligation he labours under of being obliged to fall back on the Local Government Board. A good deal was said in regard to the position of the Local Government Board by the honourable and learned Member for West Fife. He was very amiable in his observations, but he came to a conclusion to which I was not able altogether to agree, that on the whole it was quite right that the new duties should be cast on the Local Government Board. I am not clear at all myself that this institution of the fire brigade should be handed over to the Local Government Board. What is the object of these fire brigades? They are to give protection to life and property against fire, and a. fire brigade should certainly be an institution under some local authority. So are the local police; they are under the local authority, but they do not fall
  904
  naturally or necessarily under the control of the Local Government Board; they are under the control of the Home Department. Therefore, the argument of the honourable and learned Member opposite does not apply.
  MR. BIKRELL: I put fire and smallpox in the same category.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I do not know that fire comes under the same category as small-pox. There appears to me to be a very growing tendency on the part of Parliament, and especially of Committees of Parliament, to conceive that the Local Government Board is an engine by which Members can give effect to all the proposals which they can introduce into their pet Bills, and which they are not able to give effect to by any other means. This occurs almost every Session. But take this present Session. There are three important Government Bills—for one of which I am myself responsible, and which is rapidly approaching its last stage in this House—the Metropolitan Water Companies Bill; another is the Bill for the Acquisition of small houses; and, finally, the London Government Bill. Now I am sure the House has not the slightest idea of the enormous additional labour which will be imposed on the Local Government Board by these Bills. This is what happens Session after Session. When I first came to the charge of the Department I found it in many respects, so far, at least as arrears of work was concerned, in a state of chaos and confusion. With enormous difficulty and by large additions to the staff, I have, I hope, made great changes in that respect, and it is consequently in a very different position from what it was at that time. Still, by the constant additions to the work of the Department, it becomes more and more difficult for it to adequately perform its duties. It requires additions to the staff, which, it seems to me, is large enough already for almost any purpose that ought to be thrown on a single Department. I make these observations parenthetically, because I think something should be said in defence of the Local Government Board. But to return to the Bill. I am bound to say that I do not think that its provisions are calculated to work well. I have examined them with great care and atten-

  905
  tion, both yesterday and this morning, and I have come to the conclusion that the Bill would be undoubtedly altogether unworkable. At the same time, I have the greatest sympathy with the objects my honourable Friend has in view in introducing the Bill. I think that this is a question on which we require more information than we have at the present time. The honourable Member's own words made that quite clear; for he began by saying that the whole of the fire brigade service is an absolutely novel question for discussion both in this House and in the country, and that it had never before been before Parliament. I believe he is perfectly right in that. He said, moreover, that he had had the greatest difficulty in collecting reliable information on the subject. That is very much the position in which all of us are placed at the present time. What I would suggest to the honourable Member is that instead of pressing his Bill on the present occasion—I do not wish to commit myself even to the principle of the Bill, which, I understand, is that the whole work of enforcing the efficiency of the fire brigades throughout the country is to be thrown upon the Local Government Board—instead of pressing the Bill he should move for a Committee of Inquiry into the subject. If he will undertake to do that, I shall carefully consider the proposal. The whole subject must be examined, and a great deal of information, which we are wanting at the present time might be gained, and on that information a Bill of a different character and more likely to carry out the object in view may be framed and introduced next year.
  SIR T. FARDELL (Paddington, S.): I think my honourable Friend who moved the Second Beading of the Bill should be satisfied with the discussion and the assurance of a Select Committee given by the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. Although I have not much personal experience of the working of tire brigades in country districts, I am aware that there is scarcely a report of the destruction of a large house in the country from fire which has not a reference to the breaking down of the fire brigade or the fire-extinguishing appliances. There is one defect in the Bill: and that is that it excepts the county of
  906
  London altogether from its operations. In saying that, I do not suggest that any Bill would be acceptable which would interfere with the work of that excellent body, the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. I had the honour of serving on the Fire Committee of the old Board of Works, and some years ago on the London County Council, and having been a member of these am intimately acquainted with the working of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. But it suffers from a number of voluntary fire brigades, which are nothing more than bogus associations. The men of these bogus associations dress themselves up in a uniform similar to that of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, and they go about collecting subscriptions to a large amount all over London. That has been going on for something like 20 years. At last I was able to enlist the services of the Charity Organisation Society, but all efforts made to suppress these impostors failed, so far as I know, until last year, when a conviction was obtained at the Newington Sessions against one of the men who had obtained no less than £90 by going about London asking for subscriptions. He represented that he was connected with the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. Some years ago an attempt was made to induce the Metropolitan Board of Works to introduce a Bill for the purpose of licensing all volunteer tire brigades, but, unfortunately; the Board of Works declined to take it up, and the result is that the old state of things goes on much as before. The worst of these bogus associations is that whenever there is a big fire they set to work and frighten people out of their lives, and subscriptions are given to them in the belief that they are bonâ fide fire brigades. I have here a circular of one of these societies to which I think it is worth while drawing the attention of the House. It is called "The North London and Suburban Fire Brigade." The circular sets forth that the brigade has No. 1 Station at such and such a place, but No. 2 Station where, it is said, a fire escape is kept, is in identically the same place. The circular states that—
  "The plant of the brigade consists of a manual fire engine, a pair of horses, a one-horse fire escape, and a hose cart, with necessary gear for extinguishing fire, and ladders for saving life; a hose cart for running

  907
  by hand short distances in the vicinity, and one modern fire escape of the Perseverance pattern, with practical firemen, and a jumping sheet and ladders for use in gardens in front of houses where the escape would not be available."
  The circular goes on to say that—
  "The brigade consists of an experienced superintendent, and a staff of practical firemen, who are at all hours (day and night) in readiness to attend any fire that may occur in the district"
  The superintendent of this particular society called on me in 1897 for a subscription. I had a very long and unpleasant interview with him, and after he left I followed him up and went to his so-called fire station, where I found a small building in a back mews with what might certainly be called a fire engine and one man. However, I took steps to make inquiry in a proper direction, and this is the report which I got about the station from a reliable source—
  "The station consists of an ordinary small house, with one or two small and obsolete items of apparatus that serve the purpose of the law, and consequently I cannot run them in as impostors."
  What is meant by that is that they have some apparatus, so that they can say they are a bonâ fide brigade, and not swindlers. The report goes on—
  "Suffice it to say that they are not allowed inside the police cordon even if they appeared at a fire. They are deceiving the public, and, as far as I can gather, practically living off their ill-gained subscriptions from a charitable public who think they are aiding our Metropolitan Fire Brigade Widows' and Orphans' Fund."
  I thought it was well to call the attention of the House to this matter, and if this Bill is sent to a Committee I do hope that the President of the Local Government Board will agree to allow the question of registering and certificating all volunteer fire brigades in London as well as in the country, except those organised for private purposes, being included in the scope of the Bill. I think that is a reform which is most urgently needed, not only in the interests of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, but in the interests of the public at large.
  MR. PYM: After consultation with my honourable Friends I am quite pre-
  908
  pared to withdraw the Bill. I thoroughly admit the argument of the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that we have very little information on the subject, and that it is very difficult to obtain that information. I gratefully accept the right honourable Gentleman's proposal to send the subject to a Select Committee, when we will be in a position to deal with the matter thoroughly and effectively, and be able to produce a Bill which will give satisfaction to the whole fire brigade service.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval—

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) REINSTATEMENT BILL.
  Order for the Second Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question put—"That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. O'MALLEY: Mr. Speaker, in moving the Second Beading of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill, I shall be as brief as possible, as I am anxious that some of my honourable Friends who have backed it, and who are more familiar with the history of the evicted tenants than I am, should have an opportunity of addressing the House on the subject. Several Bills have been introduced to this House with the object of restoring under equitable terms those tenants in Ireland who, since 1879, have been the victims of what might be truly called the Irish land war. The first Bill was that of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose, who in 1894 succeeded in passing his Bill through this House, but it was defeated by the irresponsible legislators in another place. The principal objection to the Bill was that it was compulsory, and during its discussion both in this House and elsewhere there were declarations from the most influential Unionists that if the Bill were

  909
  voluntary instead of compulsory it would command their sympathy and support. In 1876 the honourable and learned Member for North Dublin framed his Bill in accordance with the declarations of those Unionists and made it voluntary, but the Measure was opposed and defeated by the votes and speeches of those who, a few years before, had given the honourable and learned Member for North Dublin every reason to believe that they would support a Bill for the reinstatement of the evicted tenants, provided that it did not contain the compulsory clauses of the Bill of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose. The Bill, Sir, which the fortunes of the ballot have entrusted to me, is a compulsory Bill, because we believe that unless there are compulsory powers given to the Land Commission, whom the Bill nominates as arbitrators, very few, if any, settlements would be arrived at. The Bill proposes to deal with the tenants evicted since 1879, and the funds required either for their reinstatement as tenants or purchasers would come out of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund. This is a purely Irish Fund, and, therefore, the British taxpayer would not be affected. The Bill also provides that where an evicted tenant is reinstated as tenant, and where the buildings are in a dilapidated condition, and the tenant impecunious, a sum of money not exceeding £100 should be advanced to him to enable him to carry on his farming operations. The Bill also provides that no injustice shall be done to those present tenants who are well described as "planters" by the reinstatement of the evicted tenant. There are two classes of tenants that this, Bill is intended to benefit: (1) the Plan of Campaign Tenants; and tenants otherwise evicted who may be called (2) isolated tenants. There are about 400 Plan of Campaign tenants, and some 200 isolated tenants, so that this Bill is intended to apply to about 600 tenants. There are some 600 families, or about 3,000 persons, whom this Bill is calculated to rescue from utter misery and ruin. In order that the House might realise the sad condition of those poor victims of an agrarian movement which has done so much for the Irish tenants I would read some
  910
  letters that appeared the other day in the Report of the Evicted Tenants' Fund Committee—
  "I am now quite destitute, but still hold a firm grip of my farm…I only owed two years' rent when evicted. I have braved the storm, and kept the land-grabber from daring to approach my place.—C. L., K—, Co. Cavan."
  "I am in the most desperate straits at present—charity and benevolence being exhausted on me. I have to leave the site of the home I was the sixth in descent to have inhabited, and spend the few remaining days of my life in the gloomy sphere of an Irish workhouse."— M. K., B—, Co. Carlow."
  "I feel very reluctant to ask you for another donation, being so troublesome to you in the past, but a, catastrophe has overtaken me. My children got unwell, and one of them died, and all through the kind of a hut we are living in. —P. S., K—,Co. Kerry."
  "I am an evicted tenant, and my eldest daughter is on the point of death from pneumonia, and I have not the wherewithal to bury her if the worst comes. I have eight other children with my wife, and I have not sixpence in the world, and my land is taken these few years by a grabber—J. B., B—, Co. Mayo."
  "This evicted tenant is now dead for the past two months—died of a broken heart—and has left behind him a widow and a large family, who are now utterly destitute. I now ask you for a grant for his widow.—J. W. (on behalf of W. G), T—,Co. Tipperary."
  "E. D…is at present in a very deplorable state. He has nine motherless children,…only for the charity of his neighbours they should all have entered the workhouse before now. The poor fellow was victimised by his landlord solely on account of his prominence in connection with every political movement since the inception of the Land League.—D. J. F., L—, Co. Kerry"
  "The poverty of the people is simply appalling. A magnificent tight 'was made. In several instances in which it was seen that eviction was inevitable the persons about to be evicted burned down their houses rather than let them be made a shelter for energency men.…I don't think there is a more deserving case in all Ireland.—P. A. M., Sligo."
  "I'm nearly 10 years out now; one year and a, half of rent was due at the time of eviction. When put out there was nine of us in family. My husband took ill and died, and the night he was dead I had six of my family in the fever hospital. The eldest girl I had died, all that was fit to do anything for me.—M. W., C—,Co. Monaghan."
  "The hardships of the family at the time and since are so well known, that I feel it unnecessary to detail them here. Suffice it to tell you that three of them were driven mad, and the broken-hearted mother sent to a premature grave, leaving the applicant, now the only one of a numerous family, keeping watch on the cherished old homestead.—J. S., C—,Limerick."

  911
  "I have often at the time of receiving these grants stated the desperate want I have been, and am, in. My sister and myself live in this hut—she is an invalid—in all the cold weather, without a bit of fire and very little to eat, expecting every day to get something from the Fund.—M. T. M., B—,King's Co."
  I trust the First Lord of the Treasury and the right honourable. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will approach this Bill in a better spirit than they did the Bill of the honourable and learned Member for North Dublin in 1896. The Chief Secretary on that occasion said—
  "The Plan of Campaign was in reality a campaign against law and order—carried on against the State—and when honourable Members come here and ask us to vote public money"
  —we are asking in this Bill Irish money—
  "to reinstate these tenants, it is neither more nor less than the defeated party coming to the victorious party to be asked to be reimbursed the cost of the war."
  He further on stated—
  "The House has to ask itself whether, by an expenditure of public money for the relief of these tenants, we shall not so much assist the tenants, as rehabilitate the political credit of the honourable Member for Last Mayo."
  I venture to hope, Sir, that the right honourable Gentleman is in a different frame of mind now with regard to the rehabilitation of my honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo. I think the elections in Ireland last Thursday sufficiently indicated that there is no necessity to rehabilitate him in the esteem and confidence of the Irish people. I would appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury, to the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and those who follow them in this House, to look at this question from a more humane and statesmanlike point of view than they have hitherto done—to remember that these evicted tenants lost their holdings because they refused or were unable to pay an excessive or an impossible rent. It is well known, Sir, that since these evictions took place rents have been reduced some 20, 30, 40, and in many cases even 50 per cent. My honourable Friend the Member for Mayo, in the Debate on the Evicted Tenants' Bill in 1896 referred to a man named Daniel Byrne, of Morrough, in
  912
  Tipperary, who was evicted on 28th June 1884. The old rent was £140, and the judicial rent £111, and at the time of eviction the man owed £496. The farm was taken by a grabber and held by him for some time, but he could make nothing of it and left it. Byrne settled with his landlord, and the new rent was fixed at £75 a year, against the old rent of £140 and a judicial rent of £111. There was also a similar case of a tenant evicted some eight years ago for the nonpayment of a rent of £40, and who has since been reinstated. The landlords themselves recognised that the rents were excessive, and in many cases they have reinstated the tenants upon more equitable terms. This Bill would deal with the remaining tenants, whom landlord vindictiveness prevents being reinstated. I believe, Sir, these men have a moral claim on those holdings. They, or their fathers, built the houses on them and reclaimed or improved the soil. This House has stepped in on several occasions within the last 20 years to protect the interests of the Irish tenantry from the rapacity of Irish landlordism, and I hope that it will now, by allowing this Bill to be read a second time, step in once more and save the lives of these 3,000 souls whose misery has been revealed in those letters I have read, and restore them to their holdings, which an unjust law deprived them of. Sir, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  MR. DAVITT (Mayo, S.): Mr. Speaker, there are several features of this Measure which I think ought to recommend it to the favourable consideration of this House. In the first place, Sir, it is a small Bill, and Measures of a narrow compass, other things being equal, have frequently received sympathetic consideration at the hands of honourable Members. Then, Sir, inside the compass of this Bill of four clauses it is proposed by enactment to do work in Ireland which ought, I think, to be promoted by all parties irrespective of political differences, who wish to see peace and progress prevail in Ireland. My honourable Friend who moved the Second Reading of this Bill is slightly in error, I fear, in limiting the number of people to be benefited by the Measure to 600 families. I am of opinion that the

  913
  number would be nearer 1,000 families, and consequently 5,000 or 6,000 human beings may be restored to their former means of working for a livelihood if this Bill is favourably considered by the House. Now, Sir, each one of these evicted families constitutes a centre of discontent throughout Ireland. There can be no doubt whatever but that popular sympathy is overwhelmingly on their side, and if these evicted tenants were restored to their holdings general satisfaction would be given to practically the whole community in Ireland. Now, in the second clause of this short Bill the general scheme of the Measure is outlined. My honourable Friend did not read the clause, and I will trouble the House with it—
  "Where the tenancy of a holding has been determined at any time after the 1st of May 1879, the landlord or the former tenant of the holding, or both jointly, may, within 12 months of the commencement of this Act, apply in the prescribed manner to the Land Commission to act as arbitrators, with a view to the reinstatement of the former tenant in the holding, or with a view to the purchase of the holding by the former tenant."
  This clause, Sir, leaves the matter at the doors of the Land Commission. This State tribunal of Ireland is to perform the duties of arbitrator as between the evicted tenant and the landed proprietor, and I venture to say that a fairer proposal could scarcely be submitted to the consideration of this House. Well, Sir, section 2 of clause 2 empowers the Land Commission, on the application either of the tenant or the landlord, to effect a settlement, for it is left optional with the Land Commission either to promote a settlement between the tenant and the landlord by way of reinstating the tenant, or providing another holding, or by effecting under the Land Purchase Act a settlement by way of purchasing out the landlord's interest in the holding. Clause 3 deals with arrears of rent on evicted farms, and empowers the Land Commission to award compensation to the landlords. Well, Sir, I do not like that recommendation. I do not believe that the landlords are equitably entitled to compensation. These evictions generally, if not altogether, are carried out in consequence of excessive rents, and this House has, as my honourable Friend pointed out, legislated during the last 15 or 20 years
  914
  so as to improve this system of exacting excessive rents from those who work the soil in Ireland. Then, Sir, another clause—clause 4—deals with the financial part of the Measure, which is to carry out this work. Of course, this is only put in the Bill by way of suggestion, but as my honourable Friend has pointed out—and I think it is well to again state the fact—it is proposed in the Bill not to carry this work out in Ireland by trespassing upon the sacred precincts of the pockets of the British taxpayer. What we propose is to obtain out of a purely Irish fund sufficient money to have this humane work carried out in Ireland by the machinery proposed by this Bill. Well, now, Sir, these are the leading proposals of the Measure. It is not in any way a startling or revolutionary Measure. I think it will be admitted by the Irish Secretary that our proposals would, if adopted by this House, end this troublesome chapter in the history of what is called the agrarian war in Ireland, and I sincerely hope that the Chief Secretary, in his reply, will either accept our Measure or indicate the intention on his part to have this work done by machinery which he will propose instead of that which we suggest to the consideration of the House of Commons. Arguments have been used on previous occasions by opponents to Measures of this kind, attempting to hold that we who put forward these proposals are chargeable with having neglected the interests of these evicted tenants. It has been said that these evictions occurred on account of a land movement with which my hononrable Friend and myself have been prominently identified, and that we, being in a secondary sense the cause of their misfortunes, have not paid the attention we ought to have done to these people. Well, even if that argument was founded on fact, which it is not, it would be no reason why this House should refuse to give a favourable consideration to our proposals in this Bill. I trust we shall hear no more of this argument after I have read out a few figures to show what we have done during the last 10 or 15 years in the way of providing means for these unfortunate people so as to keep them out of the workhouse. I will quote from memory, but I think I shall be under-estimating what has been done in the way of raising contributions in

  915
  Ireland and elsewhere for the support of evicted families. In 1890, at least £25,000 were raised as a result of our appeals to our fellow countrymen at home and abroad. In 1890–91 the sum of £20,000 was distributed amongst these and other families who have since been reinstated in their holdings. In 1891–92 £18,000 were obtained and applied to a similar purpose. In 1892–3 £17,000 were distributed, and in the following year £12,000. Subsequently the sum of £24,000 was allocated out of the moneys known as the Parish Fund for distribution amongst these unfortunate people. During the last year a sum of £4,000 or £5,000 was raised for the same purpose in Ireland, and altogether at least £120,000 have been contributed by the Irish people at home, in Great Britain, and in America towards the relief of the evicted tenants. I think, therefore, that we are not chargeable with having neglected our duty towards these unfortunate people. But even if we had neglected our duty, that, as I have already said, would be no reason why this House should refuse to pass this Bill. I can say, in the name of the Irish Nationalist representation of Ireland, that whatever differences we may have on minor matters there is no difference on this matter, and I appeal to the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary to take that fact into consideration in his reply. I hope when the right honourable Gentleman does reply that we shall hear from him that he is prepared to accept our pro-posal, or will promise, on behalf of the Government, some remedy or machinery by which the same work can be earned out.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): I had intended to speak later in the Debate, but as the Chief Secretary does not seem to consider the subject worthy of his notice so far, I shall now say a few words in support of the Bill introduced by my honourable Friend the Member for Connemara. This is a subject which has been frequently before the House of Commons, and I venture to prophesy that if the Chief Secretary cannot see his way to propose to-day some satisfactory method for dealing with this great and crying injustice it will be frequently before the House of Commons in the future. We have recently had
  916
  in Ireland a very interesting election, and we have had an opportunity of referring great issues to the unbiased judgment of the people. Those who were present in this House during the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Act can recall the earnest appeal which was made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the people of Ireland in regard to the working of that Act. We recollect the appeal which he made to the landlords and the Grand Jurors of Ireland to come forward in a spirit of patriotism, as he put it, and place their services at the disposal of the people. I ventured on that occasion to express my doubt as to whether the Chief Secretary and others who had been responsible for the government of Ireland had created in Ireland an atmosphere which would make it possible for his hope to be realised, and when the time came for demanding from the people of Ireland a verdict such as they gave last week under the Local Government Act, these unsettled questions, including the one with which this Bill is concerned to-day, stood in the path of that conciliation which the Chief Secretary had so earnestly looked forward to in his speech of last year. When the candidates for the county councils of Ireland came before the people, and found themselves, for the first time in their history—I refer to the grand jurors and the landlords of Ireland—obliged to submit their claims to the people and to the people's judgment, one of the first questions which faced them was: Will you or will you not stand by the evicted tenants, and use the machinery of the county council to force the Government to do them justice? I had some part in drawing up the pledges which were submitted to these candidates, and one of the chief points in these pledges was the question whether the evicted tenants of Ireland were to be left starving on the hillside or not. We see from the result of those elections how the sins of the landlords came home to roost. The Chief Secretary would no doubt be a much happier man to-day if his hopes had been realised, and if the doctrine of toleration, for denouncing which I and my friends have been the subject of a great deal of obloquy and abuse, had prevailed. The claims of the doctrine of toleration have been enormously ham-

  917
  pered by this very question of the evicted tenants and the position the evicted tenants occupy in Ireland today. I do not suppose any proof is wanted of the truth of that; but if proof were wanted, I point to one or two instances which are most striking and most singular, and which ought to be instructive, if anything can possibly instruct this House. It is not a fact that in the south of Ireland there was no toleration shown, while in Ulster there was a Unionist majority; there never was a word about toleration or any idea of allowing the Nationalists any chance; whereas, in the three other provinces, which were overwhelmingly National, Mr. Anthony Parker was returned in North Tipperary, and General Dunham Massey was returned by a large majority because he sat as President of the Conciliation Board, which sat to try to restore the evicted tenants, and because he is a friend of the people. The people embraced this opportunity of expressing their satisfaction at his action, and although the general counsel which was given by those who hold the same views as myself and the honourable Gentleman the Member for South Mayo was acted upon with almost absolute unanimity throughout the country, exceptions were made in favour of men who, departing from the evil spirit of their class, showed themselves to be in sympathy with the evicted tenants of Ireland who had been subjected to cruel oppression. I allude to that verdict because I desire to show that this spirit of cruel persecution—the spirit of revenge, the spirit of political irreconcilability and vindictiveness—which has animated the Government throughout in their treatment of this question, has been brought home to them, not only in connection with this particular question of evicted tenants, but also in connection with those wider issues which affect all the principles which the right honourable Gentleman and his Party hold dear in the government of Ireland. The Government were conciliatory—in language, at least— in the early years of their Irish administrations; they desired, they said, to kill Home Rule with kindness, and I took the opportunity at the time of pointing out that, if they wished to succeed in that policy, there was no act of kindness which would have gone
  918
  more direct to the hearts of the people of Ireland than the restoring of the evicted tenants to their homes. But they refused to do so. The right honourable Gentleman and his friends in the Press in Ireland appealed most earnestly to the people of Ireland to practise the doctrine of toleration in the recent county council elections, but if they had desired to see the principle of toleration practised in regard to those elections they should have given an example, when they had the power, by showing some toleration to the evicted tenants, and by turning their backs upon the mean and vindictive policy of hunting these poor people to death. What was the attitude taken up by the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself? It was an attitude which I will venture to say was mean and vindictive beyond any attitude which I ever remember to have been adopted by a Minister responsible for the government of a great community. On 26th February 1896 a Bill was introduced by the honourable Member for North Dublin for the reinstatement of the evicted tenants. The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland spoke in opposition to that Bill, and the Bill was, of course, lost. But in his reply the right honourable Gentleman said—
  "The House had to ask itself whether, by an expenditure of public funds for the relief of these tenants, we shall not so much resist the tenants as rehabilitate the political credit of the honourable Member for East Mayo."
  I thought at the time, and I think still, that it would be very difficult to find a parallel instance of so mean a motive given by a responsible and powerful Minister for not doing an act connected with the public policy of the country for which he was responsible. The question was not whether the action of the Government would rehabilitate my political character or not. The question was whether it would be for the peace of Ireland that these tenants should be reinstated, and surely it was a mean and contemptible motive to weigh with the right honourable Gentleman, whether by this Act he would rehabilitate my political reputation or not. To rehabilitate or to injure my reputation is entirely beyond the power of the right honourable Gentleman. His actions have nothing to do with my political

  919
  reputation, but such words are unworthy of a Minister, and when he gave that as one of his strong reasons for refusing to deal with the Bill he proved himself to be incapable of really grappling with the task which he had undertaken in Ireland. On another occasion he declared that if he were an Irish landlord whose tenants had set him at defiance he would rather break stones by the roadside than surrender to those tenants. Coming from a responsible Minister these words were extremely unjust, and were calculated to disturb rather than to promote harmony between landlord and tenant in Ireland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): They were not my words.
  MR. DILLON: Then they were the words of the First Lord of the Treasury, but they were equally absurd. A good many landlords have surrendered to the Plan of Campaign, which has been declared to be just by the courts; and there is not a landlord in Ireland who did surrender to the Plan of Campaign, and they are many, who does not rejoice every year of his life that he did make that surrender. Although, no doubt, it was a painful thing to do at the time, still, when the subsequent decisions of the court proved that the demands made by the Plan of Campaign were justified, every sensible man rejoiced that he had selected the better course and surrendered rather than carry on a war which has resulted in suffering and much exasperation to both sides. Why, I ask with confidence, should a Minister use such inflammatory language concerning disputes between Irish tenants and their landlords? Would he use the same language concerning an English employer and his labourers? It is a mortifying thing to anybody to surrender and give in after a fight. It is mortifying to an English employer to surrender and give better terms to his labourers when they strike for a better wage, yet English employers are not ashamed to do so; and what would be said if the Home Secretary, for instance, or any responsible Minister, should incite those employers to refuse an increase, and declare in impassioned language that if he were an employer he would rather break stones for his living
  920
  on the roadside than surrender a single point to the people who had struck? If these Irish disputes were approached in the same spirit by Ministers as similar disputes would be approached in England the whole action and the whole policy of the Irish Government would be entirely reversed. But unhappily that is not the spirit in which these matters are approached in Ireland. We had a full example of that the other day in the language used by the Chief Secretary, which I confess astonished me. The fact is that when in Ireland disputes are mixed up with agrarian affairs, then there is infused into the mind of the Executive Government in dealing with them an element of vindictiveness which is utterly absent in dealing with similar disputes in this country. There is no longer any idea of fair play or of holding the balance evenly. The Executive Government should see that the law is observed impartially, and should not become partisans. I deliberately charge the Executive Government, and it is impossible for any fair-minded man who is acquainted with the circumstances of Irish life to deny it, that whenever a dispute is an agrarian dispute the Government are not content with seeing the law observed, but they become the partisans of one side and display a vindictiveness in persecuting the other side which has no analogue in this country. The other day I drew the attention of the Chief Secretary to the circumstances of one of the most infamous persecutions to which an individual has ever been subjected in Ireland, a persecution which was illegal in all its details, as I am informed by all who are competent to judge. An unfortunate clergyman in Belfast——
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member is now travelling away from the Bill. Moreover, it appears to me that he is alluding to a speech made by the right honourable Gentleman on another matter during the present Session.
  MR. DILLON: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, and will now confine myself more strictly to the question before the House. The honourable Member who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, and the honourable Member for South Mayo, gave the number of families to

  921
  whom they thought the Bill might apply. I do not think it is possible to state accurately the number of families to whom this Bill might apply. I have watched the statistics of this question very closely, and I do not think they enable us to give an accurate statement of the number of those families. All I know is that on the books of the present Evicted Tenants' Belief Committee we have, I think, about 600 families actually known to be in receipt of relief. I know there are a great number who, for want of funds, have not been placed on the books of that Committee. I should think the number would be nearer 2,000 than 1,000. But that is a matter not of very great importance, because the numbers at most are entirely limited. I do not think this Bill would be found to apply to more than 3,000 families at most. Of course, it is quite true, as the honourable Member for South Mayo said, that the scope of the Bill is comparatively limited, but it would be an enormous error to suppose for a single moment that you can justly estimate the importance of this question by the number of human beings to whom this relief would apply. That would be the greatest error this House could commit. This is a question which affects the Irish people most intensely, and every family concerned in this dispute will be a cause of disturbance so long as they are kept wrongfully out of their holdings. The feeling which their treatment inspires not only affects the particular neighbourhood, but will permeate the whole of public opinion in Ireland. It is certain that refusal of the Government to reinstate the evicted tenants is one of the many causes which make the Irish people profoundly distrust the sense of justice in this House and the power of this Parliament to properly govern their country. We have seen, as I have already said, the effect of that policy already in the county council elections. This question will be agitated in the county councils of Ireland. The people of Ireland, it is true, have for a moment lost all hope of getting justice on this question from the House of Commons owing to the repeated rebuffs their proposals have received. But do not imagine, because of that, that they are going to abandon this question. This question will be carried into the county
  922
  councils of Ireland, and every resource within the law, every means within the narrow limits—limits allowed to them by the Local Government Board—will be used to, in some way or other, force on this question and see that justice is done to the evicted tenants. This question will embarrass the positions of the county councils and the few Unionists on those county councils, and will promote and increase the friction which is sure to arise between the county councils and the Local Government Board of Ireland. The county councils will be anxious to do everything in their power, so that this question will meet the right honourable Gentleman at every turn in his administration of Ireland, and he will find, and this House will find, that they make a very great mistake if they judge of the importance of this Bill simply by the number of families which it will affect. Let me draw the attention of the House to this remarkable fact. The right honourable Gentleman on many occasions in 1896, and on other occasions, refused to grant effective relief to these tenants, and he justified his refusal mainly on political grounds. He said that if he did it, it would rehabilitate the political reputation of the Member for East Mayo, which would, of course, be a great misfortune to every man in the country and encourage violence and combination against the law, etc., etc. If that were his real attitude he ought to have been consistent in the Land Act of 1896. The right honourable Gentlemen introduced two clauses into that Act having for their sole object the reinstatement of these very evicted tenants. Either it was a good thing or a bad thing, an unjust thing or a just thing, an inexpedient or an expedient thing to do. If it was inexpedient and unjust, then it was a monstrous absurdity to ask this House to pass clauses for this purpose. I remember saying at the time that if the Irish landlords in this House would get up and say they would endeavour to make those clauses, which were voluntary, work, I would support the voluntary clauses myself; but the landlords were silent, and would give no pledge. They have been paid off. I am glad to say, in the county council elections. Owing to their silence all the Irish Nationalist Members stated their conviction that these proposals would totally

  923
  fail. What has been the result? With very few exceptions they have been dismal and absolute failures, and the tenants are still out of their homes. I cannot conclude without referring to a speech which has remained fixed in the memory of those of us who heard it. I refer to the speech of the honourable Member for Bodmin on the Evicted Tenants' Bill, introduced by the Liberal Government in 1894. I venture to say that the wisdom of that speech and of many speeches on the subject which are scattered up and down "Hansard" have since been amply vindicated, and their wise counsel will be remembered by the Government with regret that it was not acted upon. Speaking at the time when the question of compulsion was being debated, the Member for Bodmin said—
  "I confess that it is difficult to take up the position of affirming that it is desirable, expedient, and reasonable that the credit of the State should be used and the procedure of the court extended and made more elaborate in order to bring back tenants to their holdings, and that, at the same time, it is reasonable to allow an unreasonable landlord to object. The thing in itself is a thing we desire as a matter of Imperial policy. You may get half a dozen individuals—certainly not expressing the views of the majority of the Irish landlords—unreasonably preventing what you say is a reasonable solution, and you will not allow the interference of the State to prevent these plague spots being removed."
  These were wise and conciliatory words, but the Government turned a deaf ear to them, and killed the Bill in the House of Lords. The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will get up and read out, I have no doubt, a Return showing that the evicted tenants' case is settling itself, but he forgets the bitter memories which are left behind by that settlement. Some are dying or have died of broken hearts or semi-starvation; some have fled the country in despair; and others have been tempted by landlords, on monstrous and oppressive terms, to return, with the result that they are bound to be eventually again evicted, and this is what the right honourable Gentleman calls settling the question. The number has been reduced, of course. In process of time the question will be settled completely by the death of all the evicted tenants, but that is not the way to conciliate Ireland or to kill Home Rule with kindness. There are other words of
  924
  wisdom in the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin. He said—
  "This is a difficult Bill to recommend to the limited English intelligence. They are not wholly acquainted with the condition of Ireland. They do not see the facts and circumstances which make the thing not only expedient and desirable, but moral and just, which to them appears to be immoral or wrong."
  These are the words of a man who really applies a sympathetic intelligence to the solution of the Irish problem, and this is what, I regret to say, those who govern Ireland seldom do. They seem to think it sufficient to get up in this House and say, "How can we give any consideration to tenants ho refuse to pay their rents?" But the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin has hit the nail on the head in the sentence which I have just quoted. What appears to be immoral and unjust to the limited English intelligence is in Ireland both moral, just, and expedient, owing to the different circumstances, and the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will find that out before he comes to the end of his career. I suppose we shall be treated to-day to a similar tirade, and the same sentiments which we have heard on this question before, but I warn him that he has not done with the question. His Government have called into existence in Ireland new bodies which can speak with the weight of the people's authority, and, by leaving this question unsettled, the right honourable Gentleman is supplying to the new bodies an element of irritation which will perpetually increase the difficulty of the task he has before him. These new local bodies will take up this question, as they will take up other Irish grievances, and, in spite of all the bonds which have been placed upon them, will use their powers to redeem the evicted tenants from the condition into which they have been plunged. If the right honourable Gentleman desires the new system of local government in Ireland to work smoothly, as I am sure he does, my advice to him is to apply himself without delay, and with out any consideration as to the damaged reputation, if he desires to put it so, of the honourable Member for East Mayo, to the removal of this cause of

  925
  irritation. The reason why the recent county council elections in Ireland were fought as they were on a square political issue was that the Irish people still have grievances, and those of us who gave them advice felt that we were bound, in justice to our people, to urge them to take up this weapon for procuring the redress and settlement of these grievances.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member for East Mayo began his speech by attacking me for not rising earlier to address the House, but I should have thought that he would have been aware that it is usual on Wednesday afternoons for the Minister who has to reply on behalf of the Government to wait until the Debate has made some progress before rising. The honourable Member has delivered a carefully-prepared attack on myself. I do not think I need fear any attack from the honourable Member, and I shall pass by this attack, and the charges he has made against me, without comment, with the exception of one point. The honourable Member has described my language on the Bill of 1896 as "mean and vindictive" because I stated then that for Parliament to advance money to reinstate tenants evicted by due process of law would be to rehabilitate the political character of the honourable Member for East Mayo. I should have thought the honourable Member himself would have seen that in using these words I was speaking of the honourable Member, not as an individual, but as a public man, and as the author of the Plan of Campaign then in question. It was not mean and vindictive, it was eminently reasonable, to say that if Parliament, after the honourable Member had led astray so many tenants and induced them to combine not to pay their rents, proceeded to make good to those tenants the loss they had incurred; it would be advertising to Irish tenants at large that they were free to disown their obligations. The honourable Member said that if comparatively few Unionists had been returned at the county council elections in the south and west of Ireland it was lanrely due to the fact that the evicted tenants stood in the way. I should have thought myself that if fewer Unionists had been returned, not than I expected, but than the interests of local govern-
  926
  ment render desirable, it was particularly due to the fact that the honourable Member himself stood in the way, for certain of his colleagues, wiser than himself, counselled the toleration to which the honourable Member was opposed. Was there ever such an instance of political irreconcilability or political vindictiveness than was afforded by the honourable Member himself?
  MR. DILLON: Why did you show us the example?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have never suggested that anything in the shape of an absence of toleration should be shown in connection with the elections.
  MR. DILLON: No, it is the poor evicted tenants.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon ourable Member has not been content with justifying the intolerant attitude which he has taken up in connection with these elections; he has also given advice to the county councils which I cannot think is likely to conduce to the wise conduct of business by those bodies. The honourable Member has indicated that in his judgment it would be a proper and desirable business that the county councils should take up and deal with such questions as that of Home Rule and the evicted tenants.
  MR. DILLON: So it would.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think they may try to, and if the honourable Member had his way they would. But if they do try, the county councils will probably find that their powers are somewhat more limited and circumscribed than they imagine. We all know that the boards of guardians have been in the habit of passing political resolutions, and no doubt the county councils will pass similar resolutions, but I am not aware that such resolutions have had any influence upon the Government of Ireland. In political matters the Irish people are fully and ably represented by the Nationalist Members in this House, and it is not necessary for us, in order to ascertain the political views of the majority of Irishmen, to go to the resolutions of the county councils

  927
  and district councils for that information. Those whom we have to deal with are the honourable Members who represent Ireland in this House, and not those who represent similar political views on the county councils and the district councils, and, if I may express an opinion upon this, I would say that the county councils and the district councils will commit a great mistake if they enter upon a province which is clearly not their own. Now, Sir, I come to this Bill which we are asked to read a second time to-day. I cannot help thinking, and it is difficult to resist the conclusion, that in bringing forward this Bill the honourable Member who moved it and his friends mean rather to make a show of activity on the part of the evicted tenants rather than to bring about any actual benefit for these tenants themselves. I base that conclusion upon the following grounds. As has been remarked, the question of the evicted tenants has been before this House a number of times since the Commission reported. In 1894 the right honourable Gentleman who preceded me in the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland brought in a Bill dealing with the subject. That Bill provided the public funds to assist in the reinstatement of evicted tenants in their holdings, and it also contained provisions for the compulsory reinstatement of the tenants in certain conditions. But, in the right honourable Gentleman's Bill, the compulsory conditions did not apply to the case of holdings which were in the occupation of new tenants. These were excluded from the Bill, and the other provision only applied to them with the consent and goodwill of the new tenants themselves. Then came the Bill of the honourable Member for North Dublin in 1896, in connection with which I made a speech which has been quoted by the Mover of this Bill, and also by the honourable Gentleman the Member for East Mayo. Between this Bill of the 9th December and the Bill of the honourable Member for North Dublin the General Election intervened, and the Unionists were returned to power by a very large majority. Now, the honourable Member for North Dublin, seeing that it would be perfectly futile to attempt to pass a Bill the provisions of which had been strenuously opposed by the Unionist Party, abstained from in-
  928
  troducing the compulsory provisions of this Bill. Then came the Bill introduced last year by the honourable Member for North Kerry. That Bill not only went far beyond the Bill of the honourable Member for North Dublin in 1896, but it also went far beyond the Bill of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs. It applied the principle of compulsion in every case, whether the holdings were occupied by new tenants or not. And further than that, whereas the Bill of the right honourable Gentleman, my predecessor, had proposed that £50 should be applied from public money to assist the evicted tenants in order to enable them to repair their houses, the Bill of the honourable Member for North Kerry doubled that amount, and proposed that £100 should be given from the public funds; and, whereas the late Chief Secretary has proposed in his Bill that £100,000 should be the gross sum which should be provided to assist in the operation, in the Bill of the honourable Member for North Kerry that sum was increased to £250,000. The present Bill is a reprint, word for word, of the Bill of the honourable Member for North Kerry. Am I not therefore justified in saying that this is a Bill purely for show, and not for use? Under these circumstances it is hopeless to expect the House to adopt this Measure. A similar Measure was rejected by a majority of 100 not long ago, but notwithstanding that we have another similar Bill brought forward last year, and again this year. What else can honourable Members expect than to hear that the Government should again resist this Bill?
  MR. DILLON: We expect them to gain wisdom by experience.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: And we expect the honourable Member for East Mayo to gain wisdom by the experience he has had of the repeated rejection of this Measure, but the honourable Member seems to think that he will make it more palatable by increasing its stringency. We have resisted these proposals from the outset on two broad grounds. In the first place, we deny that the evil is of such magnitude as to call for the interference of Parliament by adopting

  929
  special measures to deal with it in order to solve it, and we also believe that it is a diminishing evil. I went into this question at very considerable length in the year 1896, and I hardly like to go over again the ground which I then traversed. If I wanted anything to strengthen my argument I should find it in the speech of the honourable Member who introduced this Bill. Let the House remember that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs, in introducing this Bill five years ago, stated that he calculated that it would apply to about 4,000 holdings. We are now told by the honourable Member who introduced this Bill that the number of cases to which this Measure will apply—and this particular Measure is of a more extensive character —is about 600. Therefore, we have a reduction of something like 3,400 in a very short time.
  MR. DILLON: I distinctly stated that it might be 2,000, and not over 3,000.
  MR GERALD BALFOUR: I shall come to that directly. The House was told by the honourable Member for South Mayo that he estimated the number would be increased to 1,000, and then the honourable Member for East Mayo raised the 600 to 2,000 or 3,000.
  MR. DILLON: Does the right honourable Gentleman wish to imply that I deliberately attempted to mislead the House?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, not at all. I wish to point out the effect which this great reduction of the former figures is likely to have.
  MR. DILLON: But I do not agree with the former figures.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That was what was asserted, but I am inclined to think that, while the estimate of the honourable Member who introduced the Bill was probably too low, the estimate of the honourable Member for South Mayo may probably be regarded as being a reasonable approximation of the facts as I think it most likely would be. I think that there are probably about 1,000 tenants, and if the number has been reduced from something like 4,000 in 1894 to about 1,000 in 1899, I take it that the House will agree with me that these are hardly figures upon which to base such a very exceptional proposal
  930
  as is made in this Bill to meet an evil which is one that is steadily diminishing. I would only add to those figures one or two words in connection with evictions at the present time. The total number of evicted farms in Ireland which were unlet on the 1st of January 1899—that is to say, the total number of farms either in the hands of the landlords or derelict—was 2,609.
  MR. DILLON: Is the number 2,609?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes; that is the total number of farms which are unlet out of a total of between 500,000 and 600,000 farms in Ireland.
  MR. DILLON: Do I understand the right honourable Gentleman to say that there are now 2,609 unlet farms in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:: There are now 2,609 unlet farms from which the tenants have been evicted.
  MR. DILLON: Does not that exactly bear out my estimate? I stated distinctly that I was not in possession of the actual figures as to the number of cases, but the right honourable Gentleman now says that there are 2,609 farms which are not let to the old tenants, and that shows that my estimate of the number was extremely accurate.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No; the honourable Member makes a mistake. These farms are unlet now, and in the hands of the landlords.
  MR. DAVITT: What has become of them?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The former occupants of these farms have either gone away, or died, or disapappeared in some way or another; and it is impossible to follow all these evicted tenants, who might have taken other farms for aught I know. Many of these farms have been unlet for years and years, but most of these evictions date from the year 1879 onwards. I quoted 2,609 as the number of farms unlet from which tenants had been evicted. I cited those figures in order to show that the total amount of farms unlet in proportion to the total number of holdings in Ireland is certainly not a very large one. A total of 2,609 out of 500,000 or 600,000 holdings is not a very alarming proportion. I must further remind the House that the evictions during the last 20 years, taken for each year, have been

  931
  particularly instructive, and they correspond roughly speaking, in numbers, to the years of greatest agitation. When there has been a great agitation in any particular year, it also means a greater number of evictions.
  MR. DAVITT: The evictions have diminished in proportion as the rents have been fixed by the operation of the Land Act.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I admit that the Land Act has had some influence upon these figures.
  MR. DAVITT: It was the agitation which brought about the passing of that Act.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: With reference to these statistics, the largest total was in 1882, when the evictions rose to 5,201; from 1882 to 1887 the total stood at about 3,000, although in one year it was 4,000; in 1888 it fell to 1,609; in 1889 and 1890 it was 1,805 and 1,842 respectively. Since 1890, however, there has been a large and almost unequalled reduction——
  MR. DILLON: Are you including the evictions?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not include eviction notices.
  MR. DILLON: Then what is the use of giving such statistics?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Since 1890 there has been a steady reduction in the number of evictions until, in the year 1895, when this Government took office, the number was reduced to 671. In 1896 the total was 695, in 1897 it was 654, in 1898 it stood at 561, and the figure of 561 for last year is the lowest figure we have had for the last 20 years. The honourable Member has referred to the change in the system which has been introduced by what is known as the "eviction-made-easy" clause. That is a matter which he has raised before, and he believes that it entirely vitiates these statistics. It does not, however, vitiate them in the smallest degree, because these are the statistics of actual evictions, whereas, under the old system, when the tenant was turned out and put back again, they were included in the total, but such tenants are not included in these statistics. No cases are included in these lists in which evictions took place and in which the tenant was immediately reinstated as caretaker.
  932
  Therefore, the honourable Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that this change in the law since 1887 has in any way vitiated the returns to which I have referred.
  MR. DAVITT: Will the right honourable Gentleman give approximately the number of evictions under the "eviction-made-easy" clause.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe the number of notices during the last four or five years has been some 3,000 or 4,000 a year, but I have not got the actual figures.
  MR. DAVITT: Will the total number since 1887 approximate to 50,000?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I should not think it as much as 50,000.
  MR. DAVITT: Will it be over 40,000?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I should not like to say.
  MR. DAVITT: This is beautiful evidence of the effect of your legislation.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In spite of the large number of eviction notices of which the honourable Member speaks, there are only 2,609 farms unlet, which shows that a large proportion of those notices did not end in actual evictions. I think these figures show conclusively that this is not such a great evil as it is sometimes represented. I now come to the second ground upon which the Government have consistently refused to accept this and similar Bills which have been from time to time brought before the House. We maintain that it is contrary to sound principle in the case of tenants who have been evicted for nonpayment of rent compulsorily to restore them to their holdings or to use public money to assist that operation. If the House favoured such a course I think it would be at once clear to the House that any action of that kind must have a demoralising effect. This Bill proposes to begin with the year 1879 and to end with the present year; but if it were laid down as a general principle under those circumstances that the tenants evicted in Ireland for the non-payment of rent have something like a moral claim to be compulsorily restored with the assistance of public money, why stop at this year? In 10 or 20 years' time we may have another Bill similar to this, and they may point to the precedent of this Bill as an unanswerable

  933
  ground for yielding to their demand. It is perfectly obvious that if we had merely to regard the case of tenants who were unable to pay their rent, nobody would dream of bringing in a Bill of this kind. I am quite willing to admit, as stated by the honourable Member who introduced the Bill, that the real reason why this Measure has been introduced is not on account of an argument of that character. The real reason why this Bill has been introduced is that these evictions have been to a large extent the direct result of the action of the honourable Member for East Mayo and his friends, and that is the plain truth. The House would never have heard of the Bill if it had not been for the "Plan of Campaign." I have already referred to the attack made upon me by the honourable Member in reference to the words I used with regard to that campaign in 1897. I do not withdraw from the position which I then took up, but, on the contrary, I practically reassert it. I say that for Parliament to pass a Bill of this kind would be to whitewash the authors of the Plan of Campaign and the Plan it self. The honourable Member may say that in making such a statement I have taken up a mean and indefensible position, but it is nothing of the kind. I make that statement, and I adhere to that view because it is the plain truth, and I reassert it so that the House may understand it. This Measure would not merely whitewash the authors of the Plan of Campaign and the Plan itself, but it would put them in a favourable position to adopt tactics of a similar kind again. The honourable Member for South Mayo did say that if we passed this Bill we should be closing a chapter of ancient history. Well, if it is ancient history, all I can say is that ancient history is not without modern instances. At the present moment the honourable Member and Mr. O'Brien, and others in Ireland closely associated with the League have been advising that graziers and grazing farms should be boycotted by the refusal of the small farmers to send their cattle to those farms to graze, and that they should be boycotted by the herds now upon them. Well, Sir, what is that but a repetition, not of the precise tactics of the Plan of Campaign, but of the spirit and policy of that Plan. The honourable Member and his friends
  934
  are again using these unfortunate people, the small farmers, and the herds, as pawns in their political game; and while they are actually engaged in manœuvres of that description they come and ask us to provide funds for the compulsory reinstatement of those whom they describe as "the wounded soldiers of a former war." I deeply regret the position that these unfortunate men find themselves in, and I should be only too glad if it were possible to see them reinstated. The honourable Member for East Mayo appeared to think that the Government were inconsistent in having themselves brought in the Land Bill of 1896, which contained a condition for voluntary reinstatement, which it was hoped would be of assistance in reinstating the evicted tenants in their holdings. That, however, is not the question before us, for the question is as to the method to be employed. The honourable Member for South Mayo made a charge to-day that the Government and those who acted with them were not in earnest in assisting the evicted tenants. Of course, I quite accept the figures which the honourable Member has placed before me; and I admit they show that those who were responsible for the eviction of tenants under the Plan of Campaign have made efforts to, at all events, meet to some extent the evils which resulted from it. But I am not saying that the methods they have adopted have been wise methods. If it be really true that no less a sum than £130,000 has been spent on behalf of these evicted tenants, I can only say that that suggests two reflections to my mind —first, the extreme political unwisdom, from his own point of view, of the action taken by the honourable Member, and, secondly, the shortsightedness honourable Members have shown in the use they have made of their resources to palliate the evils which they brought about. If that £130,000 had been spent, not to support the tenants and their families, but to bring about some settlement of the question, say, for instance, by purchasing some other land, I think that possibly they themselves might have succeeded in solving this difficulty. But they have not done so. They have contented themselves with supporting the tenants and their families, and with making appeals to Parliament year after year, which they must have

  935
  known were in vain, to induce the House to do that which I cannot help thinking they ought to have done themselves. In any case, we cannot assent to Parliament doing work which I think it is incumbent on honourable Members opposite to do, and we certainly cannot ask Parliament to pass a Bill which we regard as bad in principle, and which we think would be mischievous in effect.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I only heard the latter portion of the right honourable Gentleman's speech, but I must say I think he maintains a very unwise attitude upon this question, although it is one which he has consistently maintained ever since it arose. I cannot understand how the right honourable Gentleman, responsible as he is for the Government of Ireland, and above all for tranquillity and order, does not see the necessity for closing this open sore. He has made reference to the sum of upwards of £100,000 which my honourable Friends succeeded in raising for the relief of the evicted tenants, and he has suggested that that money might have been better expended in obtaining settlements for those tenants. In reply to that I have to say that the money was not all received at once. It was received in the shape of subscriptions coming in at intervals extending over a period of some years, and, therefore, my honourable Friends had not at any one time a large sum of money at their disposal for the purpose of purchasing land on which the tenants could be settled. Secondly, I have to say that wherever an opportunity was given of effecting settlements on anything like reasonable terms, the tenants were assisted in bringing them about, and, in fact, many such settlements have been made with the assistance of money raised by my honourable Friends. I must contrast the right honourable Gentleman's observations today with those which he made when this Bill was last before the House. He then said that, after all, if there were a strong desire among the people of Ireland for the relief of these tenants, it would have been easy to bring it about, and he pointed to the large subscriptions which the Irish people are able to raise whenever their sympathies are strongly appealed to. I remember he gave, as an instance of the ready generosity of the Irish people, the large sum raised for the relief of the families of some men
  936
  who were drowned at Kingstown. He went on to say that if the people did not raise money for the evicted tenants, it was clear that their sympathies were not. with them. Now the right honourable Gentleman is in, a position of dissatisfaction, because he says that the money which has been raised has been improperly spent. In other words, he is seeking wherever he can for an excuse for not grappling with this great difficulty. If he had not been quite so young in Parliamentary experience, he would have known that the Plan of Campaign was a political movement, the fruits and results of which were more justified by the legislative action of this House than almost any movement of our time. It is not our fault, but it is the fault of the manner in which the affairs of Ireland have always been carried on, that in order to get anything like a large measure of reform from Parliament, it is always necessary that a state of violent and almost revolutionary agitation should exist in Ireland. At the time when the Plan of Campaign was started, we were face to face with a Government, which offered an obstinate refusal to all land reform, and especially to land reform in the shape of a reduction of rents Every agitation in Ireland is denounced until the Government see their way—I do not use the word offensively—to steal our programme, and to embody it in their own. This particular agitation was denounced strongly and violently. Some of the leaders were prosecuted and put into gaol, and yet, as a matter of fact, every single one of the reforms for which the Plan of Campaign was started was granted by a Conservative Government, and by the brother of the right honourable Gentleman himself, within a few months of the agitation being set on foot. I remember very well the striking speech and figures by which Mr. William O'Brien, who was one of the persons engaged in the Plan of Campaign, justified his proceedings. He said—
  "I do not deny I was legally wrong in the action I was taking, just as a man would be legally wrong in seizing the arm of his executioner in the knowledge that a reprieve was on the road for him."
  The Plan of Campaign had the result, in many instances, of saving tenants from eviction, and it also had the effect of giving the people of Ireland the enormous benefits of the land legislation

  937
  passed by the right honourable Gentleman's brother, and, perhaps I should add, by the right honourable Gentleman himself. The leaseholding tenants were, as the result of the Plan of Campaign, admitted to the benefits of that legislation in face of the persistent and even violent refusals of the Government of the day to admit them. This may be ancient history, but it is relevant to this Debate to show that the present First Lord of the Admiralty went down to the Crystal Palace and proclaimed that the admission of the leaseholders to the benefits of the land legislation would be a violation of solemn and sacred contracts which no Conservative, or, indeed, any self-respecting Government, could ever assent to. Yet, within a very few months, his colleague, the then Chief Secretary, introduced a Pill in which these solemn contracts were torn to pieces and the leaseholders were admitted to the benefits of this land legislation. In the same way, in face of the facts we brought before this House towards the close of the broken Session of 188G, a Bill was brought in by the late Mr. Parnell to deal with the condition of affairs which had been introduced by a. succession of disastrous harvests, and by a fall in prices which had made impossible the payment of the rents which had been fixed by the Land Commission. That Bill was opposed by the then Chief Secretary, and rejected by the Conservative majority in this House, and the tenants were left face to face with their terrible difficulties. But in the very next Session of Parliament, the same Government and the same right honourable Gentleman who was prominent in securing the rejection of Mr. Parnell's Bill, brought in another Bill, which automatically reduced the rents and saved the people of the country from great and grave disasters. Seeing these were the circumstances which produced the Plan of Campaign, and bearing in mind the results of that movement, I ask any rational man if those responsible for the Government of the country ought not to help in putting these evicted tenants back into their holdings. Here we had a great civil discord, a great class war, a great popular movement arising, whether legally or illegally, it matters not now, but very naturally and justly out of the economic conditions of the time. The severity of those
  938
  economic conditions has been acknowledged by the Government itself, and has been sanctioned and attested by Acts of Parliament which have since been added to the Statute Book. But in the course of this particular movement a certain number of tenants, acting on advice which the right honourable Gentleman suggests was bad—and whether good or bad, it is now not necessary to consider—acted in such a way that they were unable to get for themselves the relief which their self-sacrifice produced for others, and they now remain the victims and mementoes of this struggle. Surely, for the sake of peace and order, the case of these men should be taken in hand, and the Government should endeavour to close that sore which has for 3-ears been running in Ireland. An epitaph ought to be written over this chapter of Irish history by the relief of these unfortunate tenants. If this were an English and not an Irish question these pitiful victims of the struggle would long since have been relieved, and common-sense statesmanship would have solved the difficulty. The struggle with all its bitterness is, to a large extent, closed. We are now at the beginning of a new chapter of Irish history, and I do think there should be a removal of these old and miserable remnants of the past dead controversy, and for the sake of his own reputation I should have thought the right honourable Gentleman, instead of rejedting, would have welcomed this Measure. I regard the course he has taken as unwise, foolish, and unworthy of his great position.
  MR. J. H. CAMPBELL (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green): I do not propose to emulate the spirit or the tone of bitterness which has been introduced into this Debate by the honourable Member for East Mayo, a tone which, I am sure, is calculated to render it impossible for Members on this side of the House either to sympathise with or vote for the Bill now under discussion. I prefer to imitate the moderation of the language used by the honourable Member for Connemara in introducing the Bill. But I would point out that the moderation of his language was in striking contrast to the extravagance of his proposals. The Bill differs from that introduced in 1894 by the right honourable gentleman the Member for Mont-

  939
  rose, which was wrecked by reason of the introduction of a system of compulsion, but which avoided interfering with, or dealing with, the rights or privileges of the new tenants. The Bill produced to-day differs also from that introduced by the honourable and learned Member for the Northern Division of the county of Dublin in 1896, when he struck out the compulsion clauses and excluded from its operation the holdings in the hands of the new tenants. The Bill which we have had laid before us to-day goes far beyond both of those Measures, and I think the honourable Member himself is entirely unaware of the extent to which his proposition goes. He told us that the Bill would affect only about 400 what he called Plan of Campaign tenants, and 200 what he termed isolated tenants. That is 600 in all. Now, there is a remarkable discrepancy among honourable Members opposite as to the scope of this Bill. The honourable Member for South Mayo put the number of tenants affected by it at 1,000, while the honourable Member for East Mayo raises the total to nearly 3,000. I think the honourable Member for Connemara, in fixing the limit at 600, must have completely ignored or forgotten the fact that his Bill, differing in this respect from the two other Bills to which I have referred, proposes to deal, not merely with derelict farms in the hands of the landlords, but also with all farms from which the former tenants have been evicted, whether now in the possession of the landlords or in the hands of the new tenants. It must be obvious to anyone who considers the clauses of the Bill, and especially sub-section 3 of clause 3, that it is idle to suggest that its operation will be confined to 600 tenants. The fact that he thought it necessary to say this rather suggests to my mind that he is thoroughly conscious that the real object of the Bill is to benefit the Plan of Campaign tenants. In its scope, however, it would apply to the case of every farm which has come into the landlord's hands, by eviction, between the years 1879 and 1897. That is a very large order. The figures which have been given show a state of considerable confusion, and I myself think that those quoted by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, 2,600, are nearer the mark. If
  940
  this Bill means what it says on the face of it, it will apply to all holdings, whether in the hands of new tenants or whether in the possession of the landlords through eviction, and in that case it will unquestionably affect at least the number suggested by the honourable Member for South Mayo, and I think it would extend to the number suggested by the Member for East Mayo, because there is no doubt that over 1,500 of the holdings on which there have been evictions since 1879 have got into the hands of new tenants, or planters as they are called, and if these are brought within the scope of the Bill, and added to those which are derelict and in the hands of the landlords, it would unquestionably affect considerably over 1,000 holdings. But if we take it that the Bill will apply, as the honourable Member for South Mayo suggests, to only about 1,000 holdings, I think I am entitled to say that those holdings have been in the hands of tenants who have been evicted for one of two reasons—either because they were unable to pay their rents, or because they were unwilling to pay them I also think I am within the facts when I say that but a small percentage of these 1,000 tenants were evicted because they were unable to pay. My reason for saying that is shortly this: this Bill deals only with evictions which have taken place since the year 1879. Since 1881 every tenant in Ireland has been entitled, if he thought his rent too high, to have a fair rent fixed, and not only has he been entitled to do that, but Parliament, in the year 1889, passed an Arrears Bill, by Which, in consideration of the immediate payment of one year's rent and the advance by the State of another year's rent, the arrears upon these holdings were wiped out. Further, in the year 1887, Parliament considering that perhaps in the rents fixed between 1881 and 1886 due regard had not been paid to the anticipated depression, provided that any tenant who had had his rent fixed between those years should have it reduced in the years 1887, 1888, and 1889 by a sum that was proportionate to the fall in prices between those years and the year in which the fair rent was fixed. Therefore, I say I think I am right in suggesting that of all the tenants who have been evicted from their holdings since 1881 the number who were unable to pay their rents

  941
  must be small in proportion to those who were evicted because they were unwilling to pay them. With regard to the latter class, I do not wish to say anything to revive or recall memories of the bitter contentions and struggles between landlords and tenants in the years 1881 and 1887. Some of these tenants were, no doubt, willing victims of this illegal conspiracy, but others were undoubtedly unwilling victims. I have myself been actively engaged in the administration of the Land Acts since 1881, and I can, therefore, speak with some authority on this point. I know at least of two Plan of Campaign estates, the unfortunate tenants on which lost all by joining that illegal conspiracy, and they were compelled to join it by the system of terrorism which was adopted in regard to it. I speak more especially with regard to one estate in the county of Louth, an estate as to which even the authors of this illegal and immoral conspiracy admit that a fatal mistake was made by applying the Plan of Campaign to it. Now this was an estate occupied by solvent tenants holding large farms and having substantial interests in their holdings, but these miserable, wretched men were compelled to join the Plan of Campaign when the authors of it decided that it should be applied to the estate. What has been the effect in their case? They have been reduced to a state of beggary and pauperism, and surely it would be a novel departure in statesmanship if men who had lost their interests in their holdings, by becoming willing or unwilling victims of a conspiracy which has been declared by the High Court of Justice to be illegal, and which has been denounced by the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church as sinful and immoral, were to be restored to their holding at the expense of the State. Certainly it would be a very poor encouragement to those honest tenants who stood by their contracts to their landlords, and abstained from taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It has been suggested that these tenants, whom unquestionably this Bill is intended to benefit, and who at the dictation of this cruel league sacrificed their interests and their homes, have obtained for the tenants of the rest of Ireland the benefits which they now enjoy. If that is true —and it is frequently asserted by hon-
  942
  ourable Members opposite to be so, we must give them credit at least for believing it—then I think those tenants who have reaped these gains at the sacrifice of their brethren are the persons out of whose pockets the compensation should come. And if it be true that the substantial reductions of rent, which the tenants of Ireland at present enjoy, have found their origin in the sacrifice of these victims of the Plan of Campaign, I confess it seems to me natural that the State should not be called upon to indemnify those who were wounded soldiers in the fight; but those who have reaped the advantage should provide the indemnity. I believe that a very small fraction in the £,say, 1d. in the £ upon the reduction of rent obtained by tenants all over the rest of Ireland, would raise a fund which would prove sufficient to restore the evicted tenants to their holdings, or make provision for them elsewhere. But it is a departure from all sound and wise policy that the State should interfere in the interests of those who ranged themselves in opposition to law and order, or that it should take upon itself to bind up the wounds of such soldiers at the public expense. It certainly would be a very poor encouragement in the future to tenants in any part of the United Kingdom to honestly fulfil their obligations. It would be a poor example to law abiding tenants, not only in Ireland but in England and Scotland, if those who had taken part in what has been decided to be illegal, and has been denounced as an immoral conspiracy, were to have their rents paid for them, and have their holdings restored to them at the public expense. That shows the length to which this Measure proposes to go. Sub-section 2 of section 3 proposes that where buildings have been allowed to get into a state of destruction or dilapidation, that actually this money from the Irish Church surplus should be devoted to restoring these buildings. First of all, these tenants who demolished their holdings and have allowed them to get dilapidated, they are to be put back at the expense of the landlord, who is to get a maximum of two years' rent; secondly, the buildings are to be restored at the expense of the same fund, and all because those responsible for the position and who have deserted them have been

  943
  unable to fulfil their promises when they induced the tenants to adopt this illegal course.
  MR. DAVITT: That is untrue.
  MR. J. H. CAMPBELL: I heard with amazement the fact stated by the honourable Member for South Mayo that £113,000 had been subscribed, not for the purpose of endeavouring to restore these men to their holdings, but for the purpose of enabling them to keep up this war and this campaign against their landlords. Now, if that money had been devoted to an attempt to come to terms with the landlords and to bring these tenants back on the condition of paying some of their arrears of rent, then I think the result—though it might not have answered the expectations of honourable Members opposite— would have been that some benefit would have accrued to the tenants themselves. There is one cause which no Irishman, no matter which side of the House he sits upon, can overlook, and that is the unhappy condition of these evicted tenants themselves—these victims of the Plan of Campaign—without every feeling of sympathy for them. Might I suggest that the leaders of the Nationalists who sit on the other side of the House should endeavour, with the assistance of those Unionist Members who come from Ireland, and who sit on this side of the House, to approach the landlords on the subject in a way which they have never yet done. I do not say that they should approach them in a spirit of repentance, nor in a spirit of submission, but in a, spirit of conciliation. The landlords who own these derelict farms are by no means anxious that a state of things which is distasteful to them and disastrous to their old tenants should continue, and I believe that if an honest attempt is made by honourable' Members opposite, in which I will assist them in my humble capacity—if an honest effort is made to approach the landlords in a spirit of conciliation, I believe much can be done in the way of restoring those 600 or 700 tenants who have forfeited their holdings by reason of their connection with this illegal Plan of Campaign. As regards the balance of these tenants—namely, those who were unable to pay their rents, being a very small proportion of the total—
  944
  I myself can only come to the conclusion having regard to the Measures that the State has passed since 1881, which enabled everyone of them to remain in his holding so long as he paid a fair rent, that they were either hopelessly insolvent or hopelessly incompetent. I confess that I should not like another system adopted at the expense of the State for the benefit of those men who have become failures either from insolvency or incompetency, or by which such men should remain in that profession in which they have failed. I think it would be disastrous for this small minority of evicted tenants who have failed because of their own indolence or want of business capacity that they should be restored to their holdings. For these reasons I hope the House will see its way to reject this Measure which has been brought forward. I do not think the honourable Gentleman has himself fully considered the full effect and extent to which it would lead. I think he had no conception that what he was actually proposing was an eviction Bill, for it is a Bill for eviction so far as it proposes to evict the 1,500 new tenants who, since 1881, have gone into the possession of these holdings. Unquestionably the Bill in its present form extends to them, and I doubt very much whether the honourable Member will like to know that he is the author of a Bill for the eviction of so large a number of tenants.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN (Cork, E.): The honourable Member who has just sat down, as is usual from those Benches on occasions like the present, has devoted his speech, not to discussing the merits or demerits of this Bill, but to a denunciation of the Plan of Campaign. I think the honourable Gentleman ought to know, as an Irishman, that the real authors of the Plan of Campaign were the Irish landlords themselves, because undoubtedly the Plan of Campaign was only resorted to by the Irish tenants as a means of self-preservation, and as the very last resort they had. If remedial Measures had been introduced in time, the Plan of Campaign probably would never have had any existence at all. With regard to the proposal that the honourable Gentleman has made—and I was glad

  945
  to hear him make it, and glad that such a proposal should come from his side— I would remind him that such a proposal has been more than once made from these Benches, and what we have tried to do has always failed, owing to the irreconcilable position which has been invariably taken up by the Irish landlords themselves. I have listened with very sincere regret to the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, for that speech, in my opinion, afforded a very striking illustration of the manner in which the views of the Irish people were disregarded upon this question, as well as upon all others. I regret to say that it was an absolutely non-possumus speech, and it shows the hopelessness of the present system of English government in Ireland. But I cannot help thinking that the right honourable Gentleman, notwithstanding that speech, must himself realise that the policy of vindictiveness which has been so ruthlessly pursued by Irish landlords and by their organisations and their supporters in this House has disastrously failed, and has not only proved disastrous to
  the Government, but more especially disastrous to the landlords themselves. Undoubtedly that policy is to a large extent responsible for the social revolution which has just taken place in Ireland, and which has practically swept the Irish landlords out of public life in their own country, with the few deserving exceptions to which my honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo referred. No class ever courted their self-destruction with more persistency than the Irish landlords, and they have now very nearly succeeded in accomplishing the object for which they have striven so hard. I would, therefore, urge the Chief Secretary to save this class from themselves, even for no higher or more worthy purpose than that of dealing with this question in a spirit of justice and of toleration.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 167.—(Division List No. 74.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Jones", W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Ambrose, Robert

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Leng, Sir John

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Logan, John William

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Shaw, C. E. (Stafford)

  Burt, Thomas

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Caldwell, James

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Steadman, William Charles

  Channing, Francis Allston

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Colville, John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dillon, John

  Mappin, Sir F. Thorpe

  Ure, Alexander

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Duckworth, James

  Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, J. F. X. (Cork)

  Woods, Samuel

  Gold, Charles

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Young, S. (Cavan, East)

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Harwood, George

  Oldroyd, Mark

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Davitt and Mr. O'Malley.

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. C. Seale-

  Palmer, G. W. (Reading)

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Perks, Robert William

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Price, Robert John

  NOES.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bathurst, Hn. A. Benjamin

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brstol)

  Butcher, John George

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manc'r)

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Bethell, Commander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pender, Sir James

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Howell, William Tudor

  Percy, Earl

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pilkington, Richard

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Coddington, Sir William

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Priestley, Sir W Overend (Edin)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)

  Purvis, Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cox, Irwin E. B. (Harrow)

  Keswick, William

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Kimber, Henry

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Robinson, Brooke

  Curzon, Viscount

  Knowles, Lees

  Round, James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Laurie, Lieutenant-General

  Russell, Gen. F. S.(Chel'ham)

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. W. E. H.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Leighton, Stanley

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Doxford, Wm. Theodore

  Loder, G. W. Erskine

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Stanley, Hn. A. (Ormskirk)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Finch, George H.

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Fitzgerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Garfit, William

  M'Iver, Sir L. (Edin.,W.)

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Gedge, Sydney

  M'Killop, James

  Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Malcolm, Ian

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Gibbs, Hn. V. (St. Albans)

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Mellor, Col. (Lancashire)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Whitmore, C. Algernon

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir J. Eldon

  Monk, Charles James

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Moore, Wm. (Antrim, N.)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Graham, Henry Robert

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Morrison, Walter

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Gunter, Colonel

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. R. Wm.

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Heath, James

  Myers, William Henry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Newdigate, F. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOESߞ Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Helder, Augustus

  Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead;

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Resolutions agreed to.

  MIDWIVES BILL.
  Order for the Second Heading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: In asking the House to refer this Bill to a Committee, I would remind the House that this Bill is the result of a Select Committee, which sat in 1894, and reported favourably on the subject. The subject is one of immense interest throughout the whole country, because it deals with that which will affect the youth and also the mothers of the country. The disclosures that
  948
  took place before the Select Committee of the serious results of having inefficient midwives at the present time were such that a very influential Committee was formed, and it has been working incessantly from then up till now in preparing the Bill now before the House. The Bill, I believe, has received the acceptation of the medical profession through its heads—both of the Royal College of Surgeons, and the Royal College of Physicians. It has also been favourably considered by the United County Councils Corporation. It is for that reason, and also for reasons of a philanthropic kind, that I ask the House to grant the Second Reading of the Bill, and to refer it at once to a Committee.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland Division): I am sure the honourable Gentleman who introduced this Bill cannot have seriously expected that a Measure of so very great importance should be adequately discussed in the small space of 20 minutes left at the tag end of a Wednesday sitting. I quite agree with the honourable Gentleman as to the importance of the subject with which this Bill deals; and it is because of its importance that I ask the House to agree with me that it is a Measure which requires full and adequate discussion, and which, therefore, ought to be postponed until a more convenient time on another day of the Session. I am bound to say that, so far as I can learn, the opinion of the medical profession in regard to the Bill does not accord with that of the honourable Gentleman who introduced it. I have strong reason for believing that it is a Bill which meets with vehement opposition from a large portion of the medical profession. I know that in the General Medical Council the doctor who is the direct representative of the profession has strongly and openly declared himself against the provisions of the Bill. Now, as the right honourable Gentleman who introduced the Bill did not deal with its provisions, I find it necessary to say something on that point. The Bill would create a number of registered midwives, on whom it would confer very large privileges and titles. Now, Mr. Speaker, the medical profession, and especially the practitioners in the small country districts, are strongly of opinion that this would have the effect of substituting inexperienced, unpractical, and untrained attendants on women in their hour of need, instead of trained and practised attendants. Undoubtedly the first result would be to deprive the country practitioners of a large part of their practice, and to induce a large number of women not to employ regular medical men at all, but the midwives registered under the Bill. What would be the effect of that? There is no doubt that in many cases a registered midwife would be equal to the emergency, but in a large proportion of cases the attendance of a thoroughly practical and well trained physician is required. What guarantee is there in this Bill for the proper training of these registered mid-
  950
  wives? In order to be thoroughly acquainted with the subject of midwifery a training of at least three years is required by a medical man, and it is only after such training that a medical man is in a position to attend on easy cases free from complication. What would happen if the Bill became law? These registered midwives would be called in in almost every case, and with only three to six months of perfunctory training would undertake all the duties, face all the difficulties, and run all the risks that require the attention and training of a medical man who has undergone a regular medical course of teaching. The result would be that in place of the evils which I recognise at present result from the inexperienced attendance at confinements, there would be a very considerable increase of these dangers and difficulties. Besides, by this Bill you are creating a privileged class—a class which, at the same time, has not experience or education. I must say that I am unable to understand how the honourable Gentleman has been able to arrive at the opinion that the medical profession is in favour of this Bill. I had the pleasure and the honour of being a member of the Committee which received the deputation from the country practitioners, and if my memory serves me right the honourable Gentleman was present on that occasion. and I know that some medical men of intelligence and good faith and honour showed by their speeches and representations that they were strongly opposed to the Bill, and, to my mind, they presented an unanswerable case against the Bill. They pointed out the danger to which I have alluded, namely, that a large number of the wives of working men would naturally be induced by the smallness of the fees that would be asked by the registered mid-wives to send for one of them, not as an assistant to the trained and qualified medical man, but as a substitute. The registered midwife is a very good assistant, but to make her the substitute of a medical man is to expose a large number of the mothers of this country to very serious danger at the most critical moment of their lives. Well, Sir, the other objection is that in some small country districts women are attended by their neighbours. That kind of assistance, given, I am glad to say,

  951
  gratuitously, and with that generous consideration which is one of the best characteristics of our poor, would be rendered entirely impossible by this Bill.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBERdissented.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Yes, it would. My honourable Friend will have an opportunity presently of explaining his view of the Bill. I give my interpretation of the Bill. I hold that this Bill would have the effect of rendering it practically impossible for women to get this gratuitous and simple assistance from their sisters that they get in small villages at the present moment. Now, Sir, I think I have said enough to show that this is a serious and very important matter. I may be right or wrong in my view of the Bill, but nobody can deny that I am right in that particular respect. I submit that the Bill involves a very serious question, and requires further consideration, and, as time does not admit of proper discussion, I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! I cannot accept the Motion, seeing that in a few minutes the Debate will be adjourned by rule.
  MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S.W.): My honourable Friend has dealt with one or two, but by no means all, of the objections which can be raised against this Bill. In the first place, my honourable Friend in charge of the Bill asked that it should be given a Second Reading, in order that it might go to a Committee. He did not, however, tell us which Committee he wanted to send it to.
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: A Grand Committee.
  MR. GALLOWAY: Surely, Sir, if the subject of this Bill has been inquired into by a Select Committee, and that Committee reported in favour of that Bill, there can be no possible reason why this Bill should be referred once more to -another Committee, if the Report of the Committee was favourable. If it is to be referred to a Committee it should be referred to a Committee of the whole House. In looking over the Bill, one of the most extraordinary clauses to my mind is the last clause. My honourable Friend bases his claim in support of the Bill on the ground that it will assist in the better preservation of the lives of
  952
  mothers, particularly among the poorer classes. If this be so, I do not understand why my honourable Friend should apply this Bill alone to England, and not to Scotland and Ireland; for it seems to me that if the Bill be good in substance it ought to be equally good for Scotland or Ireland as for England. My honourable Friend opposite who moved the rejection of the Bill said, and said very justly, that one of the effects of it would be that inexperienced mid-wives would become substitutes for medical men, and not merely assistants. I understand that there is a provision in the Bill which does not render it illegal for unregistered women to render assistance to a lying-in woman in cases of emergency. Surely, if you are going to allow unregistered women to render assistance in cases of emergency there can be no possible ground for this Bill, for the whole object of the Measure is, as I understand it, that people should be assisted by properly registered men and women only. Therefore it seems to me that this clause would entirely do away with the benefits which the Bill seeks to establish. But my main objection to the Bill is that it would largely do away with the services of properly qualified medical men, and that, surely, particularly in poor districts, is a very serious matter, because it cannot be denied that the poorer classes, if they see a midwife with a certificate of efficiency, in nine cases out of ten would take her services, and not those of a medical man. That surely cannot be desirable. I say that, not because I have any desire to patch up the practice of the country practitioners. I have no such desire, but I do desire that proper assistance shall be rendered by duly qualified and experienced persons. Then another clause provides that on the passing of this Act—
  "The President of the General Medical Council shall take steps to secure the election of a Central Midwives Board, which shall consist of (1) four registered medical practitioners, one to be elected by the Royal College of Physicians of London, one by the Royal College of Surgeons, one by the Society of Apothecaries, and one by the Incorporated Midwives Institute; and (2) two persons to be appointed for terms of three years by the Lord President of the Council."
  Now, Sir, are the midwives of the whole country to be brought up to London in order to obtain these certificates? Is that the proposal? All I can say is, that one of two things must obviously hap-

  953
  pen; either the mid-wives must come to this Board, or this Board must go to the midwives.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: The examination takes place in various places.
  MR. GALLOWAY: There are, I believe, a few places provided for under the Board, but that does not make the objection any the less. I ask, Sir, what kind of practical examination are the four gentlemen constituted under this Bill going to give, unless they are going to devote a considerable amount of time to the question? Probably, if this Bill became law, it would result in a good many midwives obtaining certificates who are not by experience thoroughly qualified for the post. It does seem to me that to pass a Bill of so serious a nature, after 20 minutes or half an hour's discussion, is altogether beyond the right of the House of Commons. It is prostituting the powers of the House, and if the Bill is allowed to pass the House will very seriously regret it.
  SIR W. PRIESTLEY (Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities): It is quite true, as my honourable Friend opposite has said, that there is a certain amount of opposition to this Bill on the part of a section of the medical profession, but I think the danger that is likely to arise to the interests of the medical practitioners has been very much exaggerated. The object of this Bill is really to do something in the interests of poor women who are attended in their confinements, both in town and country, and to see that they are provided with skilled midwives. I have said that I think the danger likely to arise to the interests of the medical profession has been greatly exaggerated. In the first place, there are. I believe, in every Christian country in Europe, midwives, and that has not in the least interfered, I understand, with the medical practice. That is, I think, a very important point, and I may further say in reference to this question that the Select Committee of 1893——
  And, it being half-past Five of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next.

  TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I beg to move that the House do now adjourn, and in making that Motion I beg to give notice that to-morrow I shall move the suspension to the Twelve o'clock Rule. It is essential that the assent of the House should be given to-some of the Resolutions to be proposed in Committee of Ways and Means. I do not anticipate a long sitting, and this Motion will only be brought forward in order to prevent the possibility of an accident.
  MR. BROADHURST: Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman will say what will be the nature of the Resolution?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid I cannot anticipate the Budget statement.

  REPORT OF SUPPLY.
    SUPPLY [10TH APRIL].
    Resolutions reported:—
    SUPPLY [10TH APRIL].
      CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.

        CLASS I.
        "1. That a sum, not exceeding £33,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces and Marlborough House."
        "2. That a sum, not exceeding £79,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
        "3. That a sum, not exceeding £24,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900, for the Houses of Parliament Buildings."
        "4. That a sum, not exceeding £36,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings."
        "5. That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."
        "6. That a sum, not exceeding £22,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad."
        "7. That a sum, not exceeding £228,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900, for the Customs, Inland Revenue, Post Office, and Post Office Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices abroad, including Furniture, Fuel, and sundry Miscellaneous Services."
        "8. That a sum, not exceeding £166,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900, in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."

  BUSINESS DEFERRED.
    ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday 27th April.
  OCCUPYING TENANTS ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 7th June.
  DISTRESS ABOLITION AND SUBSTITUTION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 7th June.
  CHEAP TRAINS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till to-morrow.
  ADULTERATION (FOOD PRODUCTS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 28th April.
  CROWN CASES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday.
  COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 7th June.
  WORKMEN'S HOUSES TENURE BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 28th April.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
  BUILDING FEUS AND LEASES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 10th May.
  HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  SUPPLY.
  Committee deferred till Friday.
  PARISH COUNCILS ASSOCIATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (NEW BY-LAWS) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [28th February] further adjourned till Wednesday 10th May.
  SHOPS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [21st February] further adjourned till Tuesday next.
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  OLD-AGE PROVIDENT PENSIONS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
  OUT-DOOR PROVIDENT RELIEF BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT (1879) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 25th April.
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 20th April.
  CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 21st April.
  EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 28th April.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (GOVERNMENT) BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  COLONIAL LOANS FUND BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  INEBRIATES ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  METROPOLITAN STREETS ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL,
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  SMALL HOUSES (ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION, ETC.) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [9th March] further adjourned till Tomorrow.
  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 24th April.
  CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  IMPROVEMENT OF LAND BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  FARNLEY TYAS MARRIAGES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL [H.L.]
  Second Beading deferred till Tomorrow.
  SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  TELEGRAPH (CHANNEL ISLANDS) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Beading deferred till Tomorrow.
  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Beading [23rd February] further adjourned till Monday next.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (CLAUSES) BILL.
  Second Beading deferred till Monday next.
  ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  OYSTERS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 24th April.
  LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 25th April.
  SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Bead a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  COLONIAL SOLICITORS BILL.
  Second Beading deferred till Wednesday next.
  UNIVERSITY DEGREES BILL.
  Second Beading deferred till Monday next.
  TANCRED'S CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Second Beading deferred till Friday.
  PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  METROPOLIS WATER BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 27th April.
  PLACES OF WORSHIP (LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 1st May.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

  COUNTY OF LONDON AND BRUSH PROVINCIAL ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
  Reported [Preamble not proved];. Report to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at forty-five minutes; after Five of the clock.