Commons Sitting of 5 July 1900

SPALDING URP.AN DISTRICT COUNCIL. (WATER) BILL. (BY ORDER.)
Lords Amendments considered.
Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 6, line 21, agreed to.
Page 6, line 21, to leave out from "1889," to the end of Clause 9, the next, Amendment, read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he desired to bring before the House what threatened to be a great personal grievance and injustice to two of the employees of the company which this Bill absorbed. The circumstances were that for the last forty years Mr. Stimson had been the engineer to the company, and had largely assisted to bring it up to its present condition. He left the Great Northern Railway Company to join this company. If he had kept to the old company he would have been in receipt of a pension of some £70 a year. In this House the promoters of the Bill themselves inserted a proviso that any employee of the old company taken over by the Bill who had been ten years in the service of the Water Company should be entitled to compensation, the amount of which should be fixed by an assessor appointed by the Board of Trade. He thought the feeling of the House would be that an employee of forty years not only came within the strict letter of the clause inserted by the promoters themselves, but that the clause was the policy and practice of Parliament, and it was a right and just clause. How was a man sixty-two years of age to make a new departure in his employment? He would have an equitable claim, the strongest possible claim, on his old employers, but he would have no such claim on the new authority established by the Bill. The principle for which he was contending had been admitted by the promoters themselves, inasmuch as they had come to an agreement with the secretary to give him £500 compensation, although he was only receiving a salary of £30 a year and. some legal fees. Having disarmed opposition in the House of Commons by inserting the clause, the promoters, when the Bill reached another place, without any of the parties being communicated with, caused the clause to be struck out. And yet in the circular they had issued to hon. Members they positively complained that the engineer and collector had allowed this to be done without petition. The promoters' answer to his opposition now was that the services of these two employees were to be taken over. That might have been all right centuries ago when people were, like goods
598
and chattels, or like live stock, to be transferred with an estate. But surely those he represented had some title to being consulted before they were thus treated after their long years of service. They naturally objected to this treatment, and they pointed out that the promoters had already conceded the principle of compensation in the case of the secretary, as well as by themselves inserting in the Bill the clause which had subsequently been struck out in the Lords. He believed that the Chairman of Committees had been appealed to in regard to the matter, and, with that regard for right and justice which he had always shown, he had gone into the facts and had suggested that the parties should agree amicably to an arrangement which he believed to be fair and proper. Now, he (Sir Albert) did not presume to express any opinion upon the figures arrived at by the right hon. Gentleman. But he did venture to suggest that the pro-motors, having conceded the principle of compensation by themselves inserting a clause providing that it should be assessed by an arbitrator, it was only fair and proper that they should be held to it. He was sure the House would not allow a single employee to be taken out from the general body and placed completely in the cold. The gentlemen whom he represented declined to enter the service of the new authority. They asked that the promoters should be bound by their own clause, and that the provision that the amount of compensation due to them should be assessed by an arbitrator should be re-inserted in the Bill.
MR. RECKITTsupported the hon. Member for South Islington in his effort to secure the re-insertion in the Bill of the clause which would secure compensation for the collector and engineer. It was a usual proceeding to insert such a clause, and he remembered that a Bill was passed a year ago in which an urban district council agreed to purchase some gasworks, and in that Bill there was a clause providing that, in the case of any officer or servant who had been in the service of the company twelve years or upwards, they should, if they declined to continue in their posts, have a right to compensation. Now, the present Bill simply provided that these two men should be taken over with the undertaking. But was it not

599
rather hard on a man sixty-two years of age that he should be expected to begin life afresh in the service of the district council? Was it not quite possible that at the end of seven or eight years he would have to give up his position, and then he would have no claim for consideration at the hands of the council? It was only right that the House should safeguard his interests, and see that he was properly treated, either by the company who were selling the undertaking or by the authority who were purchasing it. He would like to point out that there was a clause in the Bill providing that, in the event of the urban district council and the water company being unable to agree as to the price to be paid for the undertaking, the dispute should be submitted to arbitration. Surely the right of the officials of the company to compensation formed one of those considerations which should go to determine the total price to be paid by the urban authority. The question the House had to decide was whether these two servants of the water company were to receive any compensation. They were perfectly satisfied with the Bill as it was originally laid on the Table of the House. The promoters now suggested that no petition against the Bill had been presented by these gentlemen. In taking up that attitude he did not think they were acting squarely towards the House. It was well known that heavy costs were entailed upon individuals who had to appear by counsel before a Parliamentary Committee in order to protect their interests in a Bill of that character. The tax was sufficiently severe in the case of wealthy people, and how could persons like an engineer or a rate-collector be expected to bear it? They ought not to be put to unnecessary hardship and expense, and he submitted, therefore, that it was only fair that the Bill should be restored to the form in which it passed the House of Commons—a form which sufficiently protected the interests of these two people.
MR. POLLOCKsaid he wished to point out that the Bill provided that the urban authority should take over these two gentlemen with the undertaking, and they would receive the same salary as they had hitherto received from the company. He thought that that sufficiently protected their interests, and he would be very sorry indeed
600
if, in consequence of the opposition now being offered, the passing of the Bill was delayed. There was no reason whatever why either of the two officials should refuse to be transferred.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Chairman of Committees give the House the advantage of his advice? It seems to me very strange indeed that a clause passed by the House of Commons should have thus been struck out in the House of Lords.
*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): I shall be very glad indeed if I can assist the House in coming to a decision on this matter. The facts are quite clear, and I think they have been adequately brought out. The position of these two gentlemen, I admit, is one which deserves consideration; but I doubt very much, notwithstanding what has fallen from the hon. Member for South Islington, whether this engineer has any right to receive any compensation at all from the present company in whose service he has been so long. So far as I can ascertain he would have no legal right whatever to compensation if the company were to dismiss him forthwith, assuming, of course, that the dismissal was a proper one. That being so the question arises, have these gentlemen any greater right against the council which has taken over the undertaking than they have against the company itself? I came to the conclusion, after hearing the arguments on both sides, that they had no legal right to compensation at all, but that in one respect they were put in a worse position under the Bill under their new masters than they would have been under their old masters, for it is pretty certain that a company which benefited by their services for so many years would never let them leave without some solatium or some pension, even although they might not be legally entitled to it. But the district council have undertaken to continue to employ them. Their case differs from that of the secretary of the company whose office has been abolished, and who consequently was entitled to compensation. When the parties were before me I suggested that a compromise might be arrived at, and, having been informed of the wages these two men were receiving, I made a

601
certain proposal to counsel in the case. I suggested, in fact, that an amicable settlement might be arrived at by the payment of a sum of £350 to these officials. I understood that the council was prepared to agree to that, but, unfortunately, the individuals in question have taken a higher view of their rights, and they are asking the House to give them full compensation in respect of their services, compensation to be paid, not by the company to whom those services were rendered, but by the ratepayers who are taking over the business of the company. I regret extremely that my suggestion has not been accepted. I believe it would have been judicious on the part of these gentlemen to have accepted it, and under the circumstances I would suggest that the House do agree with the Lords Amendment, striking out the compensation clause. In the notice of the original Bill there was nothing whatever about such a clause, and it seems to have been inserted in the Bill through an error of the draughtsman and contrary to the instructions of the district council. It was not until the Bill had passed through the House of Commons that the council discovered that the clause had been inserted, and they at once applied to the other House to have it struck out. That is the position of matters now. I believe that under the Local Government Act of 1888, as well as the Act of 1894, general principles are laid down for dealing with these matters, and it is provided that where a servant is continued in his employment by a county council on taking over the undertaking he is not entitled to receive compensation in respect of past services, but that where his services are brought to an end through his office being abolished he is entitled to compensation. If we follow that principle in this case we must agree to the Lords Amendments, and the result will be that we shall leave these gentlemen in the employ of their new masters, and they will not be left stranded after many years service.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I am absolutely ignorant of the facts of this case, but I think it is one in which, to some extent, the character of the House of Commons for justice and fairness is involved. It is our duty, as far as possible, to protect those who cannot protect themselves. I quite agree
602
with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the general principle which has been laid down for the guidance of this House in dealing with these matters. In the Bill as it passed through this House, a clause was inserted protecting the interests of these two gentlemen, if it was wrongly inserted it was the business of the promoters to have found it out and to have applied to get it struck out by this House. But they did nothing of the kind until the Bill reached another place, and now we naturally have representations made of the injustice which it is alleged is being done to these two officials by the striking out of the clause without notice to them and without their having had any opportunity of opposing such a proceeding. We are now asked to agree to the Lords Amendment and to leave a servant of forty years standing at the mercy of new employers, who, of course, will not look upon him very amicably, having regard to the attitude he has taken up here. He will be liable to be dismissed at three months notice. I do not think the House of Commons, should part with a Bill which inflicts an injustice of that sort, and I would therefore suggest that the debate should be postponed, so that the parties may have another opportunity of going before the Chairman of Committees in order to endeavour to arrive at a settlement. Whatever these gentleman are entitled to, let them have it secured to them by Act of Parliament. Do not allow the clause which protects them to be struck out, and thereby leave them at the mercy of people whom they have been fighting in this House. I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."— (Sir Henry Fowler.)
MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I have no objection to the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that during the last fortnight I have done my best to bring these parties together. I shall be very glad indeed if a settlement can be arrived at, even if the terms I have suggested are not strictly adhered to. The adjournment at any rate will afford the parties an opportunity of reconsidering the matter, and I trust that, as a result, an amicable settlement may be arrived at, although I confess I have

603
no very great hope of it. I am afraid the House will be troubled again with it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed upon Thursday next.

LONDON COUNTY TRAMWAYS (No. 1) BILL. (BY ORDER.)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
*MR. KIMBER: I rise to move the re-committal of this Bill, and I will state, as shortly as I can, the reasons why I am asking the House to revise the decision of the Committee. The point I have to raise is one in regard to which I submit a decision should not have been come to by a Committee, but which should have been determined by the House itself on the motion for the Second Reading. It is one of essential importance and great public interest, and it affects the pockets of Her Majesty's subjects to a very considerable extent. I am sure, therefore, that, in taking this step, I shall have with me the sympathy of Members of this House. The London County Council have brought two Bills before this House. One of them has already been sent to another place and is under consideration by a Lords Committee, The other—the one with which we are now dealing—has been passed by a Committee of this House, and I am not going to impugn any conclusion at which the Committee arrived on the merits of the Bill. The parties for whom I am concerned—the local authority for the borough of Wandsworth—have a locus standi by law, and have a right under an Act of Parliament to put a veto upon the measure which the County Council have brought before the House. Without saying whether it is reasonable or not that that veto should be continued I have a right to say, and I think it will be admitted, that they have a locus standi to be heard whether or not, and on what terms, that veto should be taken away or modified. I consider that is a fair question for discussion. The London County Council are now recognised as the proper authority for working tramways in
604
London. Their trams necessarily run through the districts of many authorities. But they have not yet been made, nor are they likely to be made by statute, the road authority. The District Board of Works in Wandsworth is the road authority for that part of London, and the question is whether that Board of Works shall continue to have its veto with regard to interference with the roads for the maintenance of which it is responsible. What I have now to submit is that these authorities ought not to be put to the expense thrown directly upon them of appearing twice over, both in this House and the other, upon two Bills introduced for the same purpose. They have already had to contest one of the Bills in this House, and they are now contesting in the other House No. 2 Bill, and if the House does not listen to my appeal they will also have to enter an appearance in the House of Lords on No. 1 Bill, on precisely the same grounds as they had to in the case of No. 2 Bill. I need not trouble the House with the literatim et verbatim of the Bill, but I will just refer very shortly to the evidence given by three witnesses of the most undoubted authority as to whether these two Bills do not cover the same matter. Mr. Benn, formerly a Member of this House, and Chairman of the Tramway Committee of the London County Council, said that there was no doubt that if No. 2 Bill was carried, the powers sought for under No. 1 Bill would be unnecessary, so far as the case of construction was concerned. Mr. Kennedy was asked whether there was anything in connection with the Westminster and Tooting line—which is the line to which this Bill refers—which could not be done under the other Bill which could be done under this, and he said no. Mr. Cripps also gave similar evidence. Those admissions are sufficient for my present purpose, and I submit to the House that if the local authorities are subjected to the ordeal of appearing upon their locus standi twice in both Houses, it will be a most scandalous waste of public money. The London County Council are also using the ratepayers' money, and for the ratepayers to have to bear the expense of both sides, the promoters and the opponents, is an injustice against which, I think, this House will extend its protection. Then it is said, "Why do you not put down Amendments to this Bill which cover those powers which are contained in the

605
other Bill?" The answer is, because the matter is highly technical. One Bill is to give authority to the London County Council to apply electric traction to all the tramways that it now possesses or may hereafter acquire, and the other is for powers to construct and reconstruct and open roads, and other matters, all of which could be done under the other Bill. We have a right to be hoard, and the local authorities have been advised that upon this point they have a good case both in this House and the other, if not to throw out the Bill in accordance with their desire, at least that proper and reasonable conditions should be made, upon which they ought to have the right of veto, if necessary. That is the point which I have to put before the House. I should, perhaps, say one more word upon the subject of amending this Bill in this House. Although there are only two clauses which mention specifically, by name, this particular line, if those clauses were amended as general clauses you could not very well tamper with them without considering whether the other clauses of the Bill would not also have to be amended by Consequential Amendments; and to have to go all through this Bill and study it, and bring in a lot of mere verbal, technical Amendments, would not only weary the House, but, in my opinion, it would be a manifest and unnecessary waste of the time of the House. If the House assents to the suggestion that the money of the ratepayers should not be wasted in opposing two Bills when one is sufficient, and where the people are prepared to accept the decision of any Committee—on that question the Parliamentary agents of the local authorities and the London County Council would simply have to meet and settle the principle, and they would not be in the Committee Room twenty minutes, whereas if the details are discussed in this House it might take several hours. It may be thought that I should have approached the parties and tried to arrange this matter without troubling the House at all, but I have sought the intervention of the House, which, I believe, sympathises with us in our difficulty. It has been suggested by the local authorities that the two Bills might be submitted to one Committee of the House of Lords, and I undertake, on behalf of those whom I represent, to be satisfied with one decision, and why the London
606
County Council should want to go before two Committees I do not know, unless it be that if they happen to be beaten on the one Bill they think they may succeed on the other. But I think under the circumstances the House will stand between them and the ratepayers' money being squandered in this way, and in that belief I beg to move that the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee on the Bill, and if this motion is carried, I shall move an Instruction to the Committee to leave out such provisions of the Bill as are included in the London Tramways (No. 2) Bill, passed on 30th April.
*MR. THORNTONin seconding the motion of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, said that he had no desire in any way to thwart the London County Council in their efforts to acquire tramways, and to show his bona fides he might state that it was his earnest desire to see the tramway system in that part of Clapham and Battersea, which he represented, extended and put forward immediately. The position which he took up was identical with that of the hon. Member for Wandsworth: that two Bills dealing with the same subject, having the same object in view, were unnecessary. One Bill (No. 2) had already passed the House, and they were now confronted with another (No. 1) which proposed to deal with exactly the same subject. The Wandsworth District Board had opposed that Bill, and was now opposing it in the House of Lords. In asking that the Bill be recommitted, he desired it to be distinctly understood that their action was not due to any hostility towards the tramways. He had had, by the merest chance, placed in his hands that day the case for the London County Council, and be saw nothing to object therein until he came to the statement that "if this motion for recommittal be carried the Bill must be lost." He denied that averment, because it was competent for the Parliamentary agents of both sides to put their heads together and arrive at a decision whereby the two Bills might be sent to a Committee of the House of Lords. There was a principle involved in the matter. The House could not desire to set a precedent whereby not two Bills dealing with the same subject could be brought before them but four or five, because if two why not more. He thought that if the London County Council would meet the local

607
authorities half way in the matter they would be doing a just, if not a generous thing.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'Bill,' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'be recommitted to the former Committee on the Bill,' instead thereof."—(Mr. Kimber.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. STUART: Both the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in support of this motion have signified their general approval of the measure before the House, and the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House denied that if it were recommitted it would be lost. But anybody who is acquainted with the forms of this House knows perfectly well that if this Bill were referred back for reconsideration to-day it could not be carried into law this year. There can be no doubt about that, and I leave it to private Members acquainted with the procedure of this House to confirm the truth of what I say. It is extremely difficult to see what the complaint of the two hon. Gentlemen amounts to. They say they are complaining because certain clauses in this Bill exist in the Bill called No. 2 Bill, which has already passed this House, and which is for a totally different purpose. The two Bills are quite distinct, and there is nothing more common than for two different and distinct Bills to be introduced in this House with similar clauses. No. 2 Bill received most careful consideration from the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Norwich. The Bill referred entirely to the point as to how electric traction shall be fitted to the existing tramways which the London County Council now possesses. It does not sanction the construction of any new lines or propose to sanction them. Now we come to the question of electric traction on these tramways. As regards the first Bill, which affects a large number of local authorities, the County Council consulted no fewer than forty local authorities in London, and a large amount of interchange of opinion has taken place between them with the view of getting some workable scheme of electric traction. It is the case that under the scheme which has passed this House the County Council is to make an
608
application, and the Board of Trade is. to decide, but not until it has heard the local authorities. That has been agreed to by the County Council and the local authorities, with the exception of the local authorities now objecting to this Bill. Exactly the same clauses with regard to the methods of electric traction which have passed the House in the Bill already sent up to the Lords are placed in this Bill. If in this Bill you do not pass these same clauses you will have this peculiar state of things. You will have the existing tramways as far as-electric traction is concerned governed by a certain law, and you will have interposing pieces of new tramways excluded from that law, and therefore you will bar the whole development of the electric system in London. That is simply the position. The hon. Gentleman proposes that something should be done in the House of Lords about our sending this to the same Committee. The hon. Gentleman ought, to be as well acquainted as I am with the fact that this is not the place where the procedure of the House of Lords can be determined. We have made a statement, which is in the hon. Gentleman's hands, which practically covers the ground of the whole opposition. It has been arranged by the County Council and the local authorities that whatever Amendments, if any, in respect of electric traction are made in the House of Lords in No. 2 Bill as regards the existing lines shall also be extended and made applicable to the new works under No. 1 Bill. It is obviously our interest and our desire to have the clauses identical both for the old tramways and the new. There are not two hearings called for in this matter. Two hearings have been asked by the hon. Gentleman and those whom he is representing for the moment in this place. Both Committees have most wisely passed these clauses and sent them to this House. I trust that the House will send the clauses to the House of Lords in both Bills. The House of Lords can reject or pass them as it pleases.
MR. JOHN BURNS: As representing a district through which these two tramways run, I wish to dissociate myself from the motion of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, which was supported by the hon. Member for Clapham. I hope to give the House one or two reasons why they

609
should not deprive London for another year of the electric traction which two Committees of the House have said the London County Council ought to have. In saying this I think it is necessary to give a fact or two. The London County Council have in operation one or two tramways drawn by horses on the south side of London. That is obviously an inadequate system, and not at all up to the requirements of the housing problem, and it is not in keeping with the accommodation which the people require in the way of rapid transit. The County Council introduced two tramway Bills—one to substitute electric traction for horses, and the other to extend the existing tramways and to make new ones. In promoting those Bills the County Council has wisely and considerately approached forty London local authorities, and got their views as to road material, road maintenance, and the minor improvements necessary to carry out a good system of electric traction, and I am sorry to think that of all the forty authorities the only obdurate ones were Wandsworth and Clapham. Encouraged by that obstinacy, my own parish got off the right lines and was for a moment disposed to do the wrong thing, but after being confronted with the fact that its opposition would lead to the whole five millions of London being deprived of electric traction for another year, like the sensible district it is it recovered itself, it pulled itself together, and declined to associate itself with Wandsworth, which has alternately played the role of Dr. Jekyll to-day and Mr. Hyde to-morrow. The request put forward by Battersea was this: that where the London County Council tramways went through the parish the County Council should be called upon to put a good electric current down and also to lay the road between the rails and a verge of eighteen inches on each side. The authorities now opposing the Bill went further than that, and asked that the whole length of the road should be paved with material to be determined not by the traction authority and the Board of Trade, but by the vestry. The result of such an unreasonable demand is that only the vestry is to get the veto, and the County Council is to pay for the whole of the road material along the tramway route. If Wandsworth and Clapham succeed to-day the
610
veto of the vestries of London will be maintained, and the traction authority will be blackmailed into the cost of the road and street improvements and the paving of the tramway routes which ought properly to be borne partly by the local authorities. The local authorities ought to pay for their own roads, and not ask the metropolitan ratepayers to bear the cost of keeping up their main roads and streets. That is a condition of things the House of Commons ought not to tolerate. Two Committees have listened to the complaints of Wandsworth and Clapham, and these Committees have declared that there is not much in them. I trust that we shall give the County Council the powers they ask, and that we shall not allow the respectable vestries of Wandsworth and Clapham to stand in the way. In representing their views they had no need to employ counsel, and in paying for that they are responsible for every penny they had needlessly spent. The Council has given Wandsworth Vestry power to vote whether it should be a conduit or overhead system. The Council is going to have the conduit system. The Council has been so reasonable that thirty-eight out of forty have agreed with the Council view, and it is because the two hon. Gentlemen represent, unfortunately, the two obstinate districts that I have dissolved partnership with them, and that I appeal to the House of Commons not to listen to their appeals to-day, and to give to the County Council the power which they ought to have to introduce a system of cheap and speedy electric traction.
*MR. HOLLAND: I happened to be chairman of the Committee which considered this Bill. I did not understand that the hon. Member for Wandsworth wished to impugn the decision of that Committee.
ME. KIMBER: Not at all.
*MR. HOLLAND: That being so, I beg to assure the hon. Member that the Committee, after hearing all the arguments pro and con., decided not to exclude these particular clauses from the measure. I have a further objection to the proposal now before the House. It is proposed that the Bill should be recommitted to the same Committee. As chairman of that Committee, and in the

611
name also of my colleagues on that Committee, I may say that we should object to this particular measure being committed to us again, because we have hoard all the arguments already, and we know exactly what the decision would be. Therefore it would be a waste of time to send it back to that Committee. I wish to say, in conclusion, that this Bill, and also Bill No. 2, are the outcome of a Herculean amount of negotiation between the London County Council and the different local authorities; and it would indeed, in my view, be a grievous thing if that enormous amount of effort were to be brought to nought by the passing of this Resolution to-day, because the effect of that would be to destroy the Bill.
*MR. PURVIS: I wish to say ditto to what has been stated by the hon. Member for Rotherham. There has been nothing new brought before us this afternoon. Everything has been considered most carefully, eminent counsel having brought out every point with equal clearness, and in every possible way. I hope the House will not delay the passing of the measure by recommitting it.
MR. KIMBER: After what has been said by the Chairman of the Committee upon this point I do not think I will press this to a division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Prince of Wales' consent signified.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL (BY ORDER).
Ordered, That in the case of the Taunton Corporation Bill Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time."— (Mr. Caldwell.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—
Glasgow District Tramways Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO NOT COMPLIED WITH).
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, viz.:—
South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

NORTH WARWICKSHIRE WATER BILL.
  WIDNES AND RUNCORN BRIDGE BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  LINCOLN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  CORK ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 8).
  Sir LEWIS MCIVER reported from the Committee on Group 8 of Railway Bills, That the parties promoting the Mother-well and Bellshill Railway Bill [Lords] had stated that the evidence of Alexander Findlay, justice of the peace, Parkneuk Ironworks, Motherwell, was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Alexander Findlay do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Alexander Findlay, J.P., do attend the Committee on Group 8 of Railway Bills To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 8).
  Sir LEWIS MCIVER reported from the Committee on Group 8 of Railway Bills, That the parties opposing the Motherwell and Bellshill Railway Bill had stated that the evidence of James Dunlop, engineer, Motherwell, Robert Park, builder, Motherwell, and Archibald King, works manager, Motherwell, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that their attendance could not be pro-cured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said James Dunlop, Robert Park, and Archibald King do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That James Dunlop, Robert Park, and Archibald King do attend the Committee on Group 8 of Railway Bills To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 8).
  Sir LEWIS MCIVER reported from the Committee on Group 8 of Railway Bills, That Mr. Samuel Woods, one of
  614
  the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
  Ordered, That Mr. Samuel Woods do attend Group 8 of Railway Bills Tomorrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP D).
  MR. A. HARGREAVES BROWN reported from the Committee on Group I) of Private Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
  Colonel GUNTER reported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills, That, to meet the convenience of the parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills (Section B), with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—British Gas Light Company (Staffordshire Potteries) Bill, without amendment.
  That they have agreed to—Latimer Road and Acton Railway Bill, with an Amendment.
  That they have agreed to Amendments to—Glasgow and South Western Railway Bill [Lords], South Eastern Railway Bill [Lords], without amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to incorporate a company and authorise them to acquire the Working-ton Harbour and Lonsdale Dock undertaking, in the county of Cumberland, and to construct a dock, railways, and works at Workington; and for other purposes. Workington Railways and Docks Bill [Lords].

  WORKINGTON RAILWAYS AND DOCKS BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  PETITIONS.
    LICENSING (SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS).
    Petition from Haverfordwest, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Danesmoor, and Briercliffe; to lie upon the Table.
    SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Turvey; Danesmoor; and Bedford; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, 1899–1900.
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 15th June; Mr. T. W. Russell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 254.]
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the county of Somerset, between Highbridge, Wedmore, and Cheddar (Highbridge, Wedmore, and Cheddar Light Railway Order, 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MARINE ENGINEERS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 25th May; Sir Fortescue Flannery]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 255.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 4th July; Mr. Ritchie]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 256.]
  SEA FISHERIES ACT, 1868.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Board of Trade under Part III. of the Act. Orders for Fishery Grants, 1899–1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 257.]
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 18th May; Mr. Patrick O'Brien]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 258.]
  ARMY SPECIAL PENSIONS.
  Copy presented, of Return for the year ended 31st March, 1900, of Pensions specially granted under Articles 730,1170, and 1207 of the Army Pay Warrant [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA (UNWOUNDED SOLDIERS DEAD OR INVALIDED HOME).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 18th May; Mr. Thomas Bayley]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  PROBATION OF FIRST OFFENDERS.
  Address for "Return of the number of Cases within the Metropolitan Police District, the West Riding of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, and Durham in which persons convicted, of first offences have by reason of their youth or the trivial nature of the offence been released under recognizances on probation of good conduct in the years 1897, 1898, and 1899, under the Probation of First Offenders Act, 1887; and of the number of Cases in which such persons have been called upon to appear to receive judgment, or are known to have been subsequently convicted of a fresh offence-(in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 277, of Session 1897)."—(Sir Howard Vincent.)
QUESTIONS.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK— THE ATTACK ON THE TA-KU FORTS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that Admiral Kempff opposed the policy of attacking the Ta-ku fo rts on the ground that by this attack the Chinese Regulars would be forced

  617
  into an alliance with the Boxers; and what is the position at present of the American forces.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MR. BRODRICK,): We have no such information. Our admiral telegraphed that all the allied admirals at Ta-ku were working in perfect accord. The position of the American forces is doubtless the same as that of the other allied Powers.

  RECENT NEWS—THE POSITION AT PEKING.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs say whether he has any news from China?
  *MR. BRODRICK: We have no later news from Peking than that already communicated, and we have no confirmation of the report which has appeared to-day as to the massacre of Europeans in Peking. In the opinion of the Commanders an increase of force is required before an advance can take place. With respect to this we are hourly expecting a reply from the Japanese Government to our communications. Her Majesty's Government have intimated to the Chinese Minister that the authorities at Peking will be held to be personally guilty if the members of the European Legations and other foreigner's in Peking suffer injury. The Chinese Minister has linen requested to communicate this message in such manner as will ensure its reaching the authorities at Peking, and it will be made known to the Viceroys throughout China.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give the House any information as to the strength of the guards, the stores, food, and ammunition at the Legation in Peking?
  *MR. BRODRICK: No.

  OFFICIAL RELATIONS WITH CHINA.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether this country is now at war with the Chinese Empire, and whether any attacks were made upon the Foreign Legations at Peking before Admiral Seymour began his hostile march upon that city.
  *MR. BRODRICK: It is doubtful whether there is any organised Government in China with which this country could consider itself at war. The first attacks on the staffs of the Legations were made on June 9th and 10th. The summer quarters of the British Legation outside Peking were destroyed on June 10th. The advance on Peking on June 10th was made at the instance of the Ministers at Peking.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS— MR. BURDETT-COUTTS'S CHARGES— COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he will be able to inform the House as to the constitution and terms of reference of the proposed Committee which is to proceed to South Africa and inquire into the arrangements for treating the sick and wounded.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): We have anxiously considered how Lord Roberts's request for an impartial Commission can be best fulfilled, and we have laid down one or two principles. The first is that it shall be a very small Commission. We propose to appoint a Commission of not more than three persons. We think that the medical profession should be represented on that Commission, and we have consulted the President of the College of Physicians, and asked him to either serve himself or recommend some person who should serve. I am glad to say that Dr. Church has himself consented to serve, and I think that that appointment will meet with universal approval in all quarters. We should have been glad in a similar way to consult the Royal College of Surgeons with a view of having a gentleman appointed from the surgical branch of the profession, but we felt that it would be rather hard, and would put Sir William MacCormac in a difficult position, because he has been made the subject of criticism by, I think, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster and other persons in connection with South Africa, and under those circumstances we did not think it would be fair to him to make the same point of consulting him as of consulting the President of the Royal College of Physicians. We

  619
  have, however, found a gentleman who, we think, will command universal respect and confidence. It is Professor Daniel John Cunningham, professor of anatomy and physiology in Trinity College, Dublin. He is an authority well known to many gentlemen in this House, and I believe all who do know him—I have not that personal honour—will agree that he is fitted to carry out the difficult and delicate duties which are entrusted to him. The third member of the Commission we think should be a layman and should not belong to the medical profession. We have been fortunate enough to secure the services of a man who I think will command universal confidence in the person of Lord Justice Romer, who has consented to serve. These three gentlemen will form, I believe, as strong, able, and impartial a Commission as could deal with this difficult matter.
  SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What are the terms of the reference?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To report on the arrangements for the care and treatment of the sick and wounded during the South African campaign.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has made any preparation for the discharge of Lord Justice Romer's judicial duties?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Before Lord Justice Romer accepted the Lord Chancellor had to be consulted. The responsibility rests with him. I have no doubt that arrangements for that purpose will be made.
  *MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I desire to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give this House an opportunity of discussing the terms of reference and the scope and composition of the Commission. I may state that I have the strongest possible objection to one name on that Commission.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me what his objection is. I see no reason whatever for giving the opportunity asked for.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Does the reference include the power of inquiry into the organisation of the Army Medical Department?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That, Sir, is not a question referred to the Commission, but I have no doubt that their finding; will have a bearing on it.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will appoint an independent Commission to inquire as to the responsibility of the War Office in connection with the treatment of the sick and wounded in South Africa and into the organisation and present condition of the Army Medical Department, such Commission to sit immediately and conduct its inquiry independently of the Commission which it is proposed to send to South Africa.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Two independent and simultaneous Commissions, whose duties would overlap, seem to me to be very objectionable.

  NEW ZEALAND CONTINGENT—TREATMENT OF THE SICK AND WOUNDED.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of New Zealand have-addressed a communication to the Home Government with reference to the treatment of the sick and wounded of the New Zealand contingent, and of those who have been invalided home; and, if so, whether he will lay the correspondence upon the Table of the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The only communication I have received from the Government of New Zealand on this subject is the following telegram from Lord Ranfurly, dated 3rd July—
  "My Government have received great complaints from contingents with regard to hospital arrangements in South Africa. New Zealand is prepared to meet any costs for comforts or attendance on them."
  To this I have sent the following reply—
  "In reply to your telegram of yesterday (hospital arrangements) Her Majesty's Government regret to learn that such complaints have been made. Although owing to military exigencies there may have been unavoidable temporary deficiencies, as to which Her Majesty's Government propose to hold full inquiry, ample supplies are available, and Her Majesty's Government, while appreciating offer to meet cost of attendance, consider that any such expense should be properly borne by Imperial funds."
  MR. DILLON: Was there not a complaint that some of the New Zealand contingent had been sent home badly clothed?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have read the only communication received on the subject.

  CENSORSHIP REGULATIONS.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that minutes from the Prime Minister and Governor of Natal and Generals Murray and Buller, respecting the censorship in that colony of letters and telegrams, have been made public at the request of those who wrote them, he will now lay upon the Table any documents which have been issued by the Government, or those responsible in South Africa, prescribing or dealing in any way with the manner in which the censorship of telegrams or letters should be carried out in South Africa or elsewhere.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If this question refers, as I presume it does, to the censorship over Press communications, as far as I know there are no documents, the whole responsibility resting with the generals in South Africa.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: The question refers to the censorship of letters and telegrams, not solely to the censorship of documents.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, with regard to foreign telegrams and relations with foreign countries, no doubt there are documents, and we have no objection to publishing anything that has been published in Natal or anything that has been made public through the international bureau at Berne.

  SPION KOP DESPATCHES.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why the explantion given by Sir Redvers Buller in his despatches on the Spion Kop disaster, with reference to his failure to exercise proper control over General Warren, was not included in the published portions of
  622
  those despatches, and will he state why the remarks of Lord Roberts conveying a censure on Sir Redvers Buller for abstaining from the assertion of his authority as the officer in chief command over General Warren were published, while Sir Redvers Buller's explanation of the circumstances under which he so abstained has been withheld from the public.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Secretary of State published without omission two despatches from Sir C. Warren, and two covering despatches from Sir Redvers Buller. He also published Lord Roberta's comments on these four documents. He did not, as, I pointed out in debate, publish a number of other documents, including one from Sir Redvers Buller, which was marked by him "not necessarily for publication."
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And was that Sir Redvers Buller's explanation of his conduct with regard to Sir Charles Warren? Yes, or no?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I have no intention of re-discussing the exercise made of his discretion by the Secretary of State.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: We will discuss it on the Estimates.

  PAARDEBERG DESPATCHES.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state when the despatch giving the official account of the battle of Paardeberg will be published.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: This question will be answered with one later on standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

  PUBLICATION OF DESPATCHES.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is intended to make any further publication of despatches describing military operations in South Africa, including those relating to the action at Magersfontein, the advance to Bloemfontein, the siege of Ladysmith, and other operations in Natal.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: After the controversies which have occurred on this subject there is, of course, some difficulty

  623
  in deciding when the despatches should be published, but I hope they will be published without very long delay. I will consult with my noble friend the Secretary for War on the subject.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the siege of Ladysmith is a thing long past and gone?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, that is so.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that the Koorn Spruit disaster took place on 31st March, and will he toll us the hero of that transaction?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when further despatches and documents relating to political affairs in South Africa will be laid before the House; and whether, in any case, such Papers will be in the hands of Members before the Vote for the Colonial Office is taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend proposes to lay Papers in the course of the next fortnight.

  HOSPITAL ORDERLIES.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derbyshire, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of hospital orderlies employed in South Africa in the weeks ending 17th March, 21st April, and 19th May respectively, distinguishing, if possible, those belonging to the Royal Army Medical Corps, the Volunteers, the St. John Ambulance Brigade, and other organisations.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The numbers of hospital orderlies employed in South Africa were as follows: 17th March, 2.936, including 560 St. John Ambulance Brigade; 21st April, 3,739, including 766 St. John Ambulance Brigade, 84 Militia Medical Staff Corps and 361 Volunteer Medical Corps; 19th May, 3,943, including 986 St. John Ambulance Brigade, 91 Militia Medical Staff Corps, and 492
  624
  Volunteer Medical Corps. This does not include the staff of such hospitals as the Yeomanry Hospital, Portland Hospital, etc., the subordinate male staff of which numbers 519, but of which it is not known how many are employed as orderlies. The returns of Medical Staff raised locally in addition to the above are not furnished to the War Office; but 1,200 stretcher bearers are known to have been raised in Natal, thereby releasing orderlies of the Royal Army Medical Corps for duty in the hospitals.

  INQUIRIES INTO CAPTURES OF BRITISH TROOPS.
  SIR. E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether there is to be any formal inquiry by the military authorities into the causes of any of the captures of British troops during the campaign in South Africa.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The Queen's Regulations lay down that an inquiry must be held in such cases. We have no doubt that the Commander-in-Chief will sec that such an inquiry is held whenever the circumstances demand it.

  ST. JOHN AMBULANCE BRIGADE— MODERN GUNS FOR ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if there is any intention to recognise the services rendered in South Africa by the St. John Ambulance Brigade, nearly 1,500 of whose members have gone out to assist the Army Medical Corps; and whether there is any chance of our Artillery Volunteers being soon supplied with more modern guns.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Questions of this kind cannot be conveniently dealt with until the war in South Africa is over. Stops have been taken to supply the Artillery Volunteers with modern guns at the earliest possible date.

  USE OF THE RAILWAY TO KIMBERLEY BY THE DE BEERS COMPANY.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any information has been received at the War Office of a discussion between the military authorities at Cape Town and the representative of

  625
  the De Beers Company respecting the Tunning of trains from Cape Town to Kimberley during the period between the taking of Bloemfontein and the advance on Pretoria; and whether any such trains were run; and, if so, whether stores for the De Beers Company were sent to Kimberley by them.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: No such information has been received at the War Office.

  TREATMENT OF DISCHARGED SOLDIERS—CASE OF PRIVATE WEIR.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what explanation has the War Office to give for the removal from Netley Hospital of Private Robert Weir, of the 27th Enniskilling Fusiliers, who had served with his regiment all through the Natal campaign, and was sent home in an enfeebled state of body and mind, and of the deportation of this soldier, who is without a pension and has received no gratuity, to the workhouse at Enniskillen, where he is at present a pauper inmate.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Investigations are necessary before a question of this nature can be answered. I must request the hon. Member to postpone it.

  SECTION 423 OF THE QUEEN'S REGULATIONS.
  MR. SCOTT MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that Section 423 of the Queen's Regulations is habitually infringed by all ranks in Her Majesty's Army, from generals to privates, he will consider the advisability of enforcing the said regulation, modifying it, or abolishing it.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: There is no reason to suppose that the paragraph in question is habitually infringed, and the Commander-in-Chief sees no reason to alter it.
  MR.GIBSON BOWLES: What is this section?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member no doubt knows.

  UNDER-AGE RECRUITS—CASE OF JOHN SMITH.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for war whether it has come to the
  626
  knowledge of the War Office that a boy named John Smith, under fifteen years of ago, enlisted in the Meath Militia in April last without his parents' consent, and that his father has since appealed for his son's discharge; and whether he will see that the boy is discharged.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The officer commanding the regimental district is authorised to discharge a recruit who is under seventeen years old if his parents apply for his discharge, and prove his age by furnishing a certificate of birth.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will this boy be discharged?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I will see into that.

  RESERVE OFFICERS' RETIRING ALLOWANCES.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Henley Division of Oxford, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can explain why in the two classes of Reserve officers, namely, those who retired receiving a gratuity or lump sum, and those who retired on a pension, while both classes receive the full pay of their rank while serving, the officers entitled to pensions are deprived of their pensions, though no deductions are made in the case of officers who have received a gratuity, and can he state whether Reserve officers are being granted the usual allowances of their rank; and whether those officers who have been deprived of their pensions will become entitled to them as a matter of right on completion of their present service.
  MR. WYNDHAM: As there has been a good deal of misunderstanding on this point, perhaps I may be allowed to make a somewhat full statement. Retired pay is not granted to officers solely as a reward for work done; it is also a retaining fee, and is coupled with a liability to return to service. If an officer of military age refuses to return to service when summoned, his retired pay may be stopped as a punishment. That being so, the rule is, exactly as in the case of half pay, that the lower rate of pay drops when the full pay begins. An officer is not allowed to draw full pay and retired pay at the same time, any more than he is allowed to draw full pay and half pay

  627
  at the same time. Turning to the case of the officer who retires with a gratuity. His gratuity is regarded as capitalised retired pay; he compounds for a gratuity instead of taking an annual rate of retired pay. Therefore, the rule was that when he came back to full pay the actuarial annual value of his gratuity should be deducted from his full pay. The Secretary of State has changed that rule for two reasons. In the first place, the gratuity is always much less than the actuarial value of the retired pay given for the same service. But the more practical point is that the gratuity was actually given as a lump sum and is not, as a rule, in the officers' possession when he is called upon to return to service, so that a deduction from full pay would in that case be a real hardship to the officer. The Secretary of State took a favourable view of those cases, and discontinued the deduction. In reply to the other two points in the question I may say that every officer recalled to service gets his allowances, unless he receives consolidated pay which includes allowances; and every officer who passed from retired pay to full pay when called out, will return to retired pay when the emergency is past.

  REGIMENTAL DISTRICT COMMANDS. MR.
  LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, although command pay is retained by an officer commanding a regimental district during his absence upon leave not exceeding thirty days at a time in the year, it is intended, under Army Order 119 of this year, that such an officer shall be deprived of it when he is detailed for fourteen days or more on extra duty, as for instance when he is in command of a Volunteer brigade at a camp of instruction; whether, during the time of such absence on extra duty, he is still in effect responsible for the work in his regimental district; and whether, if is intended that such an officer shall be so deprived, command pay will be given to the major left temporarily in command of the regimental district.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer the last paragraph of his question first. I have stated in reply to a former question of his that during the colonel's absence on duty the major who takes command
  628
  draws the command pay. This is not the case when the colonel goes on leave, because leave means permission to be absent without deduction from pay. But the colonel is naturally not allowed to draw pay for the work he does not do in addition to a special rate of pay for the work he does.

  VOLUNTEER CAMPS—SURGEONS' ALLOWANCES.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will explain why allowances for attendance at camp are only made to the senior surgeon of a Volunteer battalion, and not also to the junior surgeons; and whether the War Office will consider the claim of junior, surgeons to have an allowance in respect, of attendance in camp.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: As I stated in, answer to a question on 21st June, on-medical officer is allowed in each unit, one additional for each brigade, and three for each bearer company. This is considered, sufficient.
  MR. CHANNING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is considered a great hardship by a large number of the junior surgeons?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: We could note possibly give a Volunteer battalion, at the cost of the public, a much larger medical staff than is allowed to a battalion of regular troops.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if a decision has, yet been taken to facilitate the attendance of Volunteer surgeons in camp, and to enable the pay and allowances of one surgeon to be divided according to the attendance their private practice enables them to give.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. The Secretary of State for War has decided to make this concession to the medical officers of Volunteer corps.

  ARMY PENSIONS—CASE OF HENRY BEATTY.
  MR. CLANCY:: I beg; to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been

  629
  called to the case of a man named Henry Beatty, who, after having been in the Army and Reserve for twenty-one years and six days, was discharged from the Reserve on 7th January, 1886, with a good conduct certificate; whether he is aware that the greater portion of Beatty's period of service was spent in the East Indies, where he contracted fever and ague, the effect of which has been absolutely to rain his health and render him incapable of any active employment; and will he state whether Beatty is entitled to a pension; and, if so, to what pension, and, if the man has trot received it, will he explain on what ground it has been withheld.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member-will tell me the regiment from which Henry Beatty was discharged, his case shall be inquired into.

  COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF WAR OFFICE CLERKS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Order in Council of 29th November, 1898, paragraph 18 (General), gives authority to the Secretary of State for War to compulsorily retire from the Civil Service an abstractor clerk, gazetted to the War Office, who had made timely protest against being brought under its retrospective action.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): Certainly.

  INDIAN FAMINE—RELIEF OPERATIONS.
  SIE WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any particulars, as to the different provinces, regarding the return of the cultivators from the famine camps to their villages, to cultivate their fields on account of the rain which has fallen; and whether he will state the measures which are being taken to feed them in their villages until their crops are ripe.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): In accordance with the instructions of the Famine Codes and with the advice of the Famine Commission, the largo relief works are being gradually
  630
  closed as the rainy season advances, and as inducements in the shape of home relief draw the people back to their villages. Arrangements are ready, or are being made, for relieving the destitute at their homes and for giving them employment at or near their villages. I have recently received the following information from the Government of India on this subject.
  "Our relief measures have already far exceeded Code prescriptions, which are elastic, not rigid, and have been adapted by us to differing local requirements to entire satisfaction of local governments concerned. Thus in. Central Provinces a multitude of kitchens will feed all comers during the rains. Aged and infirm relieved at home. Able-bodied labourers given local employment by village headmen at cost of State, wherever private-demand for field labour slack. Sixty lakhs land revenue suspended out of the eighty-six demand. This sum added to twenty-seven lakhs special advances and thirty lakhs charitable relief will, in Chief Commissioner's opinion, secure active agriculture during the rains. Similar relief during rains adopted elsewhere. Bombay Government are extending kitchens and gratuitous lists and granting ryots advances for subsistence, selves and labourers, till next crop. They estimate twenty-five lakhs for this besides over sixty lakhs for seed and cattle. In Punjab small farmers and labourers will receive subsistence.'"

  INDIAN FAMINE— SUGGESTED PARLIAMENTARY GRANT—LONDON INDIAN SOCIETY.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Prime Minister has received a memorial from the London Indian Society, praying for an Imperial grant in aid of the Indian famine; and if so, whether he will state what reply has been given.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that such a memorial has been received by the Prime Minister.

  INDIAN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS— ATTEMPTED BRIBERY.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet heard from the Government of India why, in the report of the finding and sentence of a court martial at Ferozepore on a conductor charged with taking bribes from a contractor, blanks appeared in the Punjab command orders; and whether he can now give the required information as to who offered the bribe, on behalf of what

  631
  firm the bribe was offered, what the stores were, and at whose instance the facts were suppressed.
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: I am informed by the Government of India that the names were omitted by the Punjab military authorities from the report to which my hon. friend refers in consequence of a mistaken notion as to the legal liabilities which might be incurred by their publication. The goods in question were shipped by the Indian Brush Factory and were up to standard. They were rejected because the travelling agent who acted on their behalf offered a bribe to secure their passing. His name is Gordon.

  ASHANTI—NATIVE RISING—INVESTMENT OF COOMASSIE.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to give the House any information as to the British garrison in Coomassie and as to the relieving column. Is there any confirmation of the report that the garrison has succeeded in escaping?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received this morning the following telegram from Colonel Willcocks:—
  "Fumsu, 4th July.—Just received letter sent by Governor Hodgson, in which he states! that he with 600 native soldiers under the command of Major Morris, departed from Coomassie, 23rd June, by way of Patiasa and Terrabuui. Two British officers severely wounded; does not send names. Captain Bishop, inspector of constabulary, Gold Coast, and Ralph, Lagos Constabulary, and 100 native soldiers, have been left behind at Coomassie, with rations up to 10th July I will personally relieve Coomassie by that date under any circumstances. Hodgson states that he intended to go over River Ofin by way of Mempong to Cape Coast, but I have applied to him by urgent special messengers to leave behind as many men as possible in order to give assistance to me to enter into Coomassie. Lieutenant-Colonel Burroughs, with 400 native soldiers, arrived at Dompoasi 1st July. Enemy's force taken completely by surprise; stockades evacuated by them. Burroughs captured forty guns, quantity of gunpowder and caps, and also killed thirty of the enemy; our loss, one native soldier killed in action, three native soldiers wounded."

  ALIEN IMMIGRATION.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that in the three years
  632
  1897, 1898, and 1899, over 130,000 alien immigrants, other than seamen, landed in Great Britain permanently to augment the native population; that of these 64,000 were Russians, Poles, and Italians, or more than 30 per cent. more than in any previous period, and that this increase is still continuing; and whether, under these circumstances, he will explain why there there is a delay in fulfilling the undertaking given by him on 9th February, 1897, that the Government adheres to every pledge given on this subject, and that he hoped at no distant period to propose legislation to Parliament on the subject.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The total number of aliens other than seamen recorded on the alien lists as having arrived in the United Kingdom from the Continent in 1897, 1898, and 1899, and not stated in those lists to hold through tickets to other countries was 130,520, of whom 64,127 were Russians, Poles, or Italians. The number of immigrants of these nationalities in 1899 was more than 30 per cent. greater than in any year since 1893.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: That is not an answer to my question. It is merely a repetition of the facts stated in it. I want to know the cause of the delay?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am afraid I rather missed that point. I suppose no stops have been taken because the House has been engaged on other business.
  MR. FLAVIN: How many of these aliens have become enfranchised?
  [No answer was given.]

  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT, 1899—LOANS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  MR. BILLSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many applications for loans under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, have been received from local authorities since the Act came into operation, and what amount of money has been advanced to local authorities in respect of such applications.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. T. W. RUSSELL,): No sum has at

  633
  present been advanced to local authorities in England and Wales under the Act referred to, but the Local Government Board have received two applications for sanction to borrow money under the Act, and in one of these cases the loan has been sanctioned. I have no information as regards Scotland and Ireland.

  INSTRUCTION IN COOKERY FOR BOYS.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if his attention has been directed to the importance of giving instruction in cookery to boys likely to enter the mercantile marine service; and if he will consider the advisability of modifying the provisions of the Day and Evening Schools Codes so as to enable such instruction to be given to boys, when required, in seaport towns.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): Yes; the matter is now receiving consideration.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT— CREWE CASE.
  COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been directed to a judgment in the Crewe County Court, delivered by Judge Yate Lee upon 19th June, in which the judge held that he had not power to enforce by a commitment order the payment of compensation to an injured workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and whether, failing the county court, there is any other inexpensive tribunal open to workmen whose employers fail or decline to pay compensation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): My attention has been called to the judgment in question. I am informed that another learned county court judge has decided the other way, and I hope that before long the point may he settled by the judgment of a superior court. With regard to the second paragraph of my hon. friend's question, I must point out that the decision as to commitment orders does not preclude the enforcement of the award by execution or otherwise.

  HINCKLEY POST' OFFICE.
  MR. M'LAREN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the attention of the Postmaster General has been called to a recent report of the medical officer of health for the town of Hinckley, in which he animadverted on the arrangements of the Hinckley post office in respect of sanitary accommodation for the clerks and for the postmaster's household, in respect of space for the staff and for the public, and in respect of ventilation; whether it has been admitted by the Surveyor to the Post Office that the present building is insufficient for the postal needs of a manufacturing town of 12,000 inhabitants, and whether he is aware that, after representations had been made to the Postmaster General on the subject several years ago, a site was actually acquired by him in a suitable position for a new post office; and whether he can give any assurance that the matter will be further inquired into, and the erection of a new and commodious post office proceeded with.
  MR. HANBURY: Attention has been called to the report in question, and it is admitted that the present post office at Hinckley is insufficient. A site was purchased last year and plans for a new building have been prepared and are under consideration. The erection of the building will be proceeded with as soon as practicable.

  POSTAL DELAYS IN THE METROPOLIS.
  MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a large number of letters posted in the E.G. district on 30th June were not delivered in the N.W, N.E., W, and S.W. districts till various times between twelve and two o'clock on the 2nd instant, although the letters, having been posted in the metropolitan area, were understood to be unaffected by the recent postal changes for letters to and from the provinces; and whether, if the delay is due to the recent alterations in the postal arrangements, he can state why the irregularities have lasted over a period so much longer than was expected, and how much longer it will be before they may be expected to cease.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not aware that a large number of letters were delayed as stated by the hon. Member; but it is known that a large number of prospectuses, notices of sales, etc., handed in at the General Post Office and at Mount Pleasant on Saturday the 30th ultimo, were kept over for delivery on Monday morning the 2nd instant. Such a course is sometimes unavoidable, especially at the turn of the half year. Letters for delivery in the metropolitan area which are posted in the Eastern Central district in a box marked "London," are not affected by the recent change.
  MR. COHEN: My information is that it was not the prospectuses which were delayed, but sealed letters containing cheques. May I suggest that the sorting work should be done by——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now making a speech.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the delays in the transmission of letters between the metropolis and some parts of the country; whether complaints have been made as to the inconvenience thus caused to business men; and whether he will take immediate steps to restore some measure of regularity.
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir; this matter has been engaging the Postmaster General's very careful attention, and he has good reason to believe that the steps taken with the view of restoring regularity in the service have proved successful.

  COOTEHILL (CAVAN) POSTMASTERSHIP.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state the qualifications of Mr. Armstrong for appointment as postmaster in Cootehill, county Cavan; whether, although following the occupation of a druggist, he was appointed over the heads of candidates of long experience in the postal service; and seeing that Mr. Armstrong's predecessor was obliged to give up all other occupations, whether Mr. Armstrong has also been required to devote his entire time to official work.
  MR. HANBURY: Mr. Armstrong was reported to be fully competent to discharge the duties of sub-postmaster. It was considered necessary to appoint a man in order that efficient control should be maintained over the twelve established and auxiliary postmen attached to the office, and none of the four post office servants who applied for the appointment were suitable, three being women and the fourth an unestablished officer who does not reside at Cootehill. It is not intended to require Mr. Armstrong to relinquish his private business.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: Was not Mr. Armstrong's predecessor a grocer who was required to devote the whole of his time to the work of the office?
  MR. HANBURY: I am told that that is not the case.
  MR. DALY: Was the last holder of the office a lady?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes.

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION IN COUNTY CAVAN.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that in autumn last a guarantee was given for extending the telegraphic communication to Shercock, county Cavan, whether he can state the reason for the delay in having the work accomplished.
  MR. HANBURY: By the time that those concerned definitely communicated their decision to give a guarantee the sum of money voted by Parliament for telegraph extensions in last financial year was exhausted, and the Postmaster General had no alternative but to explain that the work could not be put in hand until after the end of March in the current year. Unfortunately in that month the post office at Shercock became vacant, and one of the guarantors—the mother of the late sub-postmistress—had to be released from the guarantee. The case is, therefore, in abeyance pending the execution of a fresh guarantee.

  GRANTS FOR NEW SCHOOLS IN NORTH SLIGO.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  637
  Lieutenant of Ireland in view of the fact that the Government grant for the erection of a new national school in Ireland amounts to a sum equal to two-thirds of the estimated cost of the building, the remaining portion being supposed to come from local sources, and that in certain congested districts in Ireland this local levy cannot be raised owing to the poverty of the people, the consequence being that much needed schools, including those of Rockfield and Rathbarrow, in North Sligo, remain unbuilt, to the detriment of primary education in Ireland, whether the Government will consider the advisability of increasing the grants for the erection of schools in these districts.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): I have received no representations on this subject from the Commissioners of National Education, and in the absence of any such representations I am not in a position to consider the question.

  IRISH DISPENSARY MEDICAL DOCTORS.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution unanimously adopted by the board of guardians at Banbridge, county Down, on the 28th ult., which sought the amendment of the law upon the subject of the appointment of dispensary medical officers in Ireland, in order that each doctor should provide and pay for the services of a locum tenens in all cases of his own absence and whether he will give his favourable consideration to the suggestion.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The resolution referred to has been received; but I do not think the suggestion contained in it could be adopted with advantage.

  COLERAINE WORKHOUSE—RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION TO CHILDREN.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that some months ago two children of a man named Roger O'Brien were placed in the Coleraine workhouse, that they were shortly after their birth baptised as Roman Catholics, and that they have since been registered as Protestants in the books
  638
  of the workhouse; whether these children will be delivered over to their father, who has applied for them, if he undertakes to support them; and by whom, and under what authority, and when, their religion was changed from Catholic to Protestant in the books of the workhouse at Coleraine.
  MR. G, W. BALFOUR: The putative father of these children is, I understand, a Roman Catholic, whilst their mother, who died in January last, was a Protestant. The two elder children were, it appears, baptised as Protestants and the two younger as Roman Catholics. The board of guardians at their meeting held on the 10th February, having before them the opinion of counsel, resolved that the religious registration of the younger children in the workhouse books should be altered from Roman Catholic to that of Irish Church. I am unable to reply to the second paragraph; the matter is one for the guardians themselves to deal with.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Have the Government no power to interfere with these attempts at proselytism?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The matter lies entirely in the hands of the guardians.

  PROCLAIMED MEETING AT NEWMARKET.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state on what grounds a public meeting announced to be held in New market, county Cork, on 3rd June, to be addressed by the Parliamentary representative of the division and other speakers, was proclaimed; and can he state how many officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary were called in to enforce the proclamation, and from what source the expense involved is to be defrayed.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: This meeting, which was convened under the auspices of the United Irish League, was proclaimed because the Government had reason to believe that it was intended to denounce and intimidate a particular individual who is in occupation of an evicted farm in the neighbourhood. The force of police present consisted of 4 officers and 150 men. Any additional expense involved by their employment will be defrayed from the Constabulary Vote.
  MR. FLYNN: On what ground had the Government "reason to believe"?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUE: We had a sworn information to the effect I have stated.
  MR. FLYNN: Sworn by whom?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUE: The district inspector.
  MR. FLAVIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman knowledge of the fact that the meeting was held notwithstanding the proclamation?
  [No answer was returned.]

  ANESTHETICS IN BELFAST ROYAL HOSPITAL.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give any particulars to the House regarding the case of a man named George Dover, who died at the Belfast Royal Hospital, on 7th June ultimo, under an anæsthetic, and will he explain why no inquest was held in this case to ascertain if the anæsthetic which proved fatal had been properly administered, while on the same day an inquest was held on another hospital case in which the jury returned a verdict of death from natural causes; is he aware that the Town Clerk of Belfast, at the instance of the Finance Committee of the City Council, asked for an explanation of this matter from the coroner, who replied that the only person entitled to demand explanations from him was the Lord Chancellor; and will he take steps to draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor to this case.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUE: I understand that the coroner, in the exorcise of the discretion vested in him, decided that it was unnecessary to hold an inquest in the case of George Dover, whilst in the second case referred to he found it imperatively necessary to hold an inquest. It is open to any of the parties interested to bring the action of the coroner under the notice of the Lord Chancellor. He is not an officer of the Executive, and the Government see no reason for intervening as suggested in the last paragraph.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was an explanation demanded by the Lord Chancellor?
  [No answer was returned.]

  LIGHT RAILWAYS.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief, Secretary to the Lord. Lieutenant of Ireland whether he state what amount, if any, of the money voted by Parliament,, namely, £1,000,000, for building light, railways in Ireland, is now available for that purpose, and also what amount, if any, is now available out of the £250,000' voted for free grants.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The figures are not accurately stated in the question,, but I may observe that, none of the money provided by Parliament for the construction of light railways in Ireland is now available for further railway projects.

  "PADDY THE WAD."
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an employee of Lord Kenmare, locally known as Paddy the Wad, who was sentenced to twenty years penal servitude for kicking an old woman to death in the district of Killarney, has been released, from prison; and. can he state what term of actual imprisonment did this man undergo after his sentence and up to the time of his release, and on what grounds and on whose recommendation he was released.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUE: Patrick Brosnan, to whom the question refers, was convicted at the Minister Winter-Assizes, 1894, of the manslaughter of a woman, and sentenced to twenty years penal servitude. His term of actual imprisonment amounted to nearly two years. He was released in November, 1896, on the ground of health, upon a report furnished by the medical officers of the prison, which was concurred in by the medical member of the Prisons Board.
  MR. FLAVIN: What was the matter with the gentleman's health? Were there any other reasons for his release?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have said he was released on the ground of health.

  SYLVESTER DWYER.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg. to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what date was Sylvester Dwyer, now a prisoner in Maryborough Gaol, convicted, and what

  641
  was the sentence imposed on him; and can he say for how long Dwyer has now been in prison.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: This prisoner was convicted of a Whiteboy offence at the Cork Winter Assizes on the 10th January, 1888, and sentenced to eighteen years penal servitude. He was in custody awaiting trial from the 9th April in the previous year, so that he has been in prison over thirteen years.
  MR. FLAVIN: Why was not the same clemency extended to this man as to Lord Kenmare's bailiff?
  MR. COGHILL: Will Dwyer, after his imprisonment is over, be appointed to an office under the Irish Executive?
  [No answer was given.]

  R.I.C.— MARRIAGE REGULATIONS.
  MR. T. J. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what are the Constabulary regulations in connection with members of the police force who get married in the district in which they are stationed; and whether it is usual to allow constables to continue to do duty for lengthened periods in the districts in which they have family associations and connections.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Members of the force, on becoming connected by marriage in the county in which they are stationed, are liable to transfer to another county. In some cases, however, where it is manifest that the interests of the public service would not suffer by a relaxation of the rule, it is not enforced.

  DRAPERS' COMPANY'S ESTATES IN COUNTY DERRY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants of the Drapers' Company's estate, county Derry, who recently purchased their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts, had turbary rights, extending sixty years back, on the Cullion Mountain, and that these rights were recognised since the tenants purchased their holdings, and up to February last, when the Drapers' Company sold the bog
  642
  to two tenants on another estate, who are now preventing the tenants from cutting turf; and whether the Land Commission will rake any action to secure the turbary rights, which the tenants claim to have enjoyed for so long in this bog, and which rights the tenants claim they purchased with their holdings from the Drapers' Company.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners have no information as to special turbary rights on Cullion Mountain, and no reference was made to turbary rights in the agreements for sale. The Commissioners have no jurisdiction to take the action suggested; the tenant purchasers can proceed before the ordinary tribunals to enforce any rights which they may have as appurtenant to their holdings.

  DUBLIN POLICE UNIFORMS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the contract system for the uniform and clothing of the Dublin Police and of the Royal Irish Constabulary is under the control of the War Department; and whether, seeing that the organisation of the Royal Irish Constabulary is not under the control of the War Office in any other department, he will consider the advisability of instituting a clothing department in Ireland.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The contracts for clothing for the Constabulary are made through the War Department. Contracts for the Dublin Metropolitan Police are made through the Chief Commissioner. In both cases, however, the cloth is required to undergo the War Department tests, and in both cases also the tailoring is done in Ireland. In answer to the second paragraph I must refer to my reply on Tuesday last to the question of the hon. Member for North Louth on the same subject.*
  MR. FLYNN: Could not the War Office deposit a specimen of the cloth in Dublin, so that Irish manufacturers may see it?.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Samples of the cloth have been sent to Irish manufacturers.
  * See P. 413 of this volume.

  HOSPITAL (LIMERICK) PETTY SESSIONS CLERKSHIP.
  MR. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a vacancy exists in the clerkship of the petty sessions district of i Hospital in the county of Limerick; will he state under what circumstances magistrates are entitled to vote for the filling up of the vacancy; and will the Crown take the necessary steps to ensure that magistrates who have not qualified themselves by the legal attendance at petty sessions will record their votes at the election.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: There is a vacancy for a petty sessions clerk in the district mentioned. Magistrates only are entitled to vote who, being resident in the petty sessions district for which the election of clerk is held, are justices of the county in which said district is situated; or who, though not resident in the district, are in the habit of attending and acting as justices at the petty sessions court thereof. As a general rule, which, however, is subject to modification where exceptional circumstances exist, a magistrate cannot be considered as having been in the habit of attending and acting as justice at the petty sessions court, who has not attended at least four times in each of the three years next preceding the election, if he has been so long in the commission of the peace. After the election the names of the magistrates who have voted, with their qualifications to vote, are submitted to the Lord Lieutenant, who decides as to the right of each justice to record his vote.

  LORD RATHDONNEL'S TENANTS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the matter of Section 47 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, and of Lord Rathdonnel, landlord, Margaret M'Manus, former tenant, in the case of an application made in October, 1896, to the Land Commission to act as mediators under Section 47 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, and where the landlord failed to lodge his objection thereto within the prescribed time, and did not in fact do so until the 5th February, 1897, the Land Commission, by an order dated the 23rd July, 1897, ordered that the landlord's
  644
  notice of objection should be dealt with as served within the prescribed time; whether the Land Commission have power to make such order; and whether, if the landlord is prevented by disability from lodging his objection, it is competent for the Land Commission to receive it from another person.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The ruling of the Land Commission in the case in question, which has been the subject of much legal controversy, has been upheld on appeal to the House of Lords.

  RESULT FEES IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what is the amount of the deficit in the results for the year 1899 in District 58; and what effect such deficit will have on the future income of the teachers of this district.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have referred this question to the Commissioners of National Education, who state that the matter is engaging their attention.

  PROCEDURE OF COUNCILS ORDER.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the Local Government (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill, whether he will follow the precedent set in the case of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, 1898, and lay upon the Table of the House a draft of the alteration of the Procedure of Councils Order which, in addition to those recommended by county councils, the Local Government Board for Ireland intend to make if they acquire the power.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The answer to this question is in the negative. The Bill merely gives permissive powers, and the Local Government Board have no cut-and-dried scheme of alteration. I may say, however, that no alteration would be likely to be proposed without giving the county councils concerned an opportunity of considering and expressing their opinion upon it.

  COUNTY KERRY FISHERY PIERS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will bring to

  645
  the notice of the Congested Districts Board the need for the construction of fishery piers at Dunkin and Ventry, county Kerry.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKETT,): The suggestion in this question will he brought under the notice of the Congested Districts Board at its next meeting on the 13th instant.

  IRTSH CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD —REPRESENTATION OF CO. KERRY.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Congested Districts Board will consider the advisability of adding to their number a representative of the county of Kerry.
  MR. PLUNKETT: The number of members of the Congested Districts Board is fixed by statute, and there is no vacancy on the Board at present.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the case of Munster be considered when a vacancy occurs?
  MR. PLUNKETT: That is not a question for me.

  POTATO BLIGHT.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland whether he is aware that potato blight has already made its appearance in certain districts in Ireland; and whether it is proposed to take any, and is so, what steps with a view to prevent the spread of the disease should occasion arise.
  MR. PLUNKETT: The heavy rains during the past month in Ireland have unfortunately been unfavourable to the potato crop, but so far I have not received any official information as to the appearance of blight. In view of the condition of the weather, the Department communicated to the public press throughout the country on the 20th June, a circular letter drawing attention to the danger of disease in the potato crop, and impressing on farmers the great necessity for taking action at once for the prevention of blight by carefully spraying their crops. Large
  646
  numbers of leaflets containing directions on the subject of spraying have also been distributed, and placards on the same subject are about to be extensively posted up in conspicuous places throughout the country. The matter will continue to be carefully watched by the Department.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it the intention of the Department to carry out any experiments with a view to discovering the best remedy for the potato disease?
  MR. PLUNKETT: Experiments have been carried out in Ireland for the last three or four years in order to find out the best means of combating the disease.

  HOUSE OF LORDS CLERKSHIPS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury is he aware that the post of third or reading clerk at the Table of the House of Lords has been vacant for nearly one year; has he any reason to believe that the two clerks now at the Table find a difficulty in doing the work hitherto done by three; if there be no such difficulty, will Her Majesty's Government consider the propriety of abolishing the post of reading clerk; if, on the other hand, there be such a difficulty, will he explain why there has been so long a delay in filling up the post; and will the Vote for the House of Lords Offices be put down for a day when it can be discussed; if so, on what day.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no reason to believe that there is any great inconvenience caused by the delay in filling this post.

  WELSH SUNDAY CLOSING BILL.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the Standing Committee on Law was unable, after waiting an hour, to form a quorum on Tuesday to discuss the Welsh Sunday Closing Bill, although a number of Members had been expressly added to the Committee for the purpose of taking this Bill into consideration; whether he has been informed that not a single representative of the Government was present on the occasion to tell the Committee whether the Bill will be proceeded with this session or not; and whether the Government will now state if it intends to pass the Bill into law this

  647
  session so as to save the time of the members of the Standing Committee on Law.
  MR. ALFRED THOMAS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I wish to ask whether he is aware that there is a very strong feeling in Wales in favour of the passing of the Bill?
  MR. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that there is a very strong feeling in Wales against the passing of the Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information as to the position of the Standing Committee on Law, nor have I any official means of obtaining such information. As to the second part of the question, it would not be the business of any member of the Government at present on the Committee to announce the policy of the Government with regard to the allocation of time for the remainder of the session. I have already stated that it is impossible to give such privileges as are desired to contentious private Bills. The statements of these two Members prove that this is a controversial measure.

  INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state when he proposes to take the Indian Budget.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think I can add anything to what I said on Tuesday as to this matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What will the business be on Monday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We must go on with the Tithes Bill until it is finished. I hope it will be finished to-night, and in that event we shall take the Agricultural Holdings Bill on Monday.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL [Lords].
Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Military Manœuvres Bill [Lords], with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Mr. Wyndham.)
SIEGE OF LADYSMITH—DISAPPEARANCE OF STORES—SIR C. DILKE AND SIR W. STOKES—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
*SIR C. DILKE: I wish, by leave of the House, to make a very brief personal explanation with regard to a matter which was debated in the House last week. In a London daily paper yesterday there appeared a long telegram from Sir William Stokes, consulting surgeon to Her Majesty's field force in South Africa, which was copied into several London evening papers and into a large number of provincial papers with sensational headings. In that telegram Sir William Stokes says, "Sir Charles Dilke's charge of robbing stores is absolutely devoid and destitute of foundation." That was a charge made by me in the House, and it was a charge which I believe is admitted. It rests not only on private, but on official, data, and I have on two occasions asked in this House for the production of the minutes of the court-martial which was held with regard to the robbery of stores at Intombi Camp. These minutes have not yet been given to the House It is evident that it is to Intombi Camp that Sir William Stokes refers, because the next words are these: "Intombi 'Camp was no doubt unhealthy." I wish to assure the House that I did not ask the questions in reference to this matter until I had taken every possible means to-assure myself of the truth of the statements which had been made to me, and that I am prepared entirely to stand by the statements I made in the debate. At the end of his letter Sir William Stokes. again refers to me by name, and says that the charges made were "as unjustifiable as they were cruel and unpatriotic." I could, I think, ask the House to treat those words as a breach of privilege, but it is not my intention to do so under the circumstances of the case, as an inquiry is to take place. With regard to the charge of want of patriotism, it appears to me to be a patriotic duty to bring such matters before the House.

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS— MR UURDETT-COUTTS'S CHARGES —COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
[MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.]
MR. LABOUCHERErose in his place, and asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the

649
purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the composition and the scope of the reference to the Committee to be appointed to inquire into the treatment of sick and wounded British soldiers in South Africa"; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen:—
MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not want to go into what has already passed, but it will be within the recollection of the House that last week a letter from the hon. Member for Westminster appeared in The Times in regard to the treatment of British soldiers in South Africa, and especially with regard to their treatment in the hospital at Bloemfontein. The letter naturally attracted considerable attention, and the First Lord of the Treasury was asked whether he would find some opportunity for the House to discuss the matter. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly agreed to put down on Friday last a nominal Vote for the Medical Department of the War Office in order that a discussion might take place. The discussion then took place, and, so far as I understood it, the Under Secretary of State for War did not traverse in the main the statements made by the hon. Member for Westminster; he practically admitted that in the main they were correct, although in some cases there was, perhaps, a certain amount of misconception and exaggeration. With regard to the Cape, the hon. Member for Westminster, in his speech rather than in his letter, stated certain facts, which were met by the Under Secretary saying that the War Office had complied with every demand made upon them by the local authorities, and at the same time he stated that a very large number of telegrams had passed between the local authorities at the Cape, both medical and military, and the War Office. I asked whether he would submit those telegrams to the House, and he declined to do so. With regard to Bloemfontein, the defence was that of military necessity, that the troops were advancing, that the matter was within the discretion of Lord Roberts, and that Lord Roberts no doubt would be responsible if any person were responsible. In fact, we were leered at; we were
650
taunted with trying to attack the Government under the pretence of attacking Lord Roberts. That is the past history of the case. Before the debate the right hon. Gentleman agreed to appoint a Committee, and, as he stated this evening, to appoint it at the request of Lord Roberts. I would point out that it was not alone at the request of Lord Roberts that that Committee was wanted. The request was made by the hon. Member for Westminster; it was supported not only by Members on this side of the House but by a good many on the other, and certainly there was such a strong feeling throughout the country at the revelations made by the hon. Member for Westminster that there was a universal opinion that some sort of inquiry or investigation ought to be made. This evening the right hon. Gentleman has told us what the composition of the Committee is. He tells us it is to be a small Committee, that it is to consist of three persons. The first is Dr. Church, a medical gentleman; the second is Professor Cunningham, an anatomist; and the third is Lord Justice Homer. That hardly meets the requirements of Lord Roberts. Lord Roberts is afraid of there being too many doctors, and he asks that besides two or three doctors—[An HON. MEMBER: One or two.]—he says, "Besides one or two doctors, let us have some men of common sense." Far be it from me to say that Lord Justice Romer is not a man of eminent common sense; but still he is only one, and, with all respect to Lord Justice Romer, he is an eminent legal Chancery lawyer, and he is not what I should call a man of business. [" Oh, oh!"] I draw a distinction between a lawyer and a man of business. A lawyer may be a man of business, but it is not his speciality; the lawyer's speciality is to make money over quarrels about other people's business. But, anyway, Lord Justice Romer is only one, and I think the House will understand what I moan when I say that we want men on this Committee who are practical men, who are engaged in business, who are men of sound common sense, and by whom we shall have a sound, thorough, businesslike investigation, and a Report upon the results of that investigation. I cannot understand why we are to have two doctors on this Committee. Sir William Stokes has defended the doctors; Sir William Stokes has accused my right hon. friend and others of uttering un-

651
truths. Members of a profession are always inclined to stand by their profession. When it a question which seriously affects the whole medical profession, and embraces so large a field as this inquiry ought to embrace, surely we ought not to have two medical men on the Commission forming a majority of the Committee. It seems to me somewhat remarkable that the Government should take upon themselves the appointment of the members of that Committee, and decide upon the reference which is to be put to them, without any consultation with the House of Commons. According to all constitutional doctrines the Ministry is absolutely responsible for what goes on, and they are directly responsible to this House. Whoever heard of gentlemen who are, to all intents and purposes, the defendants in the case, appointing their own jury? The House ought to have some sort of control in this matter. The appeal was made to the House of Commons, and we cannot shirk or avoid our responsibility. The House of Commons ought to have a voice in the matter as to what the reference is to be, and also in the composition of the Committee. The general usage is that their names should be submitted in some sort of way to the House of Commons. We know what takes place when a Committee of this House is appointed. The names are first submitted to us, and the House decides whether it accepts them or not, and it may change a name, and urge that this or that gentleman should be added if it thinks fit. If this Committee is to secure the confidence of the country, there must not be a majority of medical men upon it, and the House having been appealed to by the hon. Member for Westminster, and a discussion having taken place upon this subject, it is perfectly illusory to have such a discussion unless the House has some voice in the composition and reference of this Committee. I do not say for a moment that the Government are guilty, or that any particular person is guilty. I am aware of the great misery and suffering which is always involved in war; but there is certainly a primâ facie case that the sufferings might have been mitigated had there been more care shown either by the Government or by their officials, and I do not fix the responsibility upon any particular person. We have the fact before us that a most horrible state of things existed at Bloem-
652
fontein, and that even at Cape Town it had been shown that there was not a sufficient number of nurses or orderlies. It appears from what was stated that even in a simple case like the provision of bandages for the wounded they would not have been able to obtain them had it not been for the fact that there happened to be a considerable number of bandages in the hands of a private firm. I have moved the adjournment of the House in order that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury may have an opportunity of doing what I think he is bound to do under the circumstances, and that is to take an early opportunity of giving the House an occasion to express its. views upon the reference to and the composition of this Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman does not do that, then I hope hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House at all events, and even some hon. Members on the other side, will register by their votes their protest against the course which has been, adopted.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: In seconding the motion of the hon. Member for Northampton I desire to say that I take this course without any previous arrangement with the hon. Member. I do not think that it is unreasonable, under the circumstances, for me to ask to be heard on this subject. I object, in the first place, to one name as being that of a gentleman who ought not to be on such a Committee when the responsibility of the Army Medical Department is directly attacked. I would remind the House that I have not myself attempted to localise the responsibility for what I saw in South Africa; but of course the Army Medical Department must necessarily be largely implicated in the question The hon. Member for Northampton has called attention to the curious divergence of the composition of this Committee from the expressed wish of Lord Roberts Lord Roberts's words were, "a small Committee, consisting of one or two medical men of recognised ability, in whom the public have full confidence, with some men of sound common sense." I ask whether a Committee which has a majority of medical men upon it is a Committee framed in accordance with the desire of Lord Roberts? I object to this Committee because it has that majority

653
of medical men. The difficulty of arriving at an accurate opinion with regard to what has taken place in South Africa from medical sources has, I believe, already been illustrated in the case which was the only precedent we have for such a Committee. That was at the time of the Crimea, when the letters of the present Sir William Howard Russell awoke the country to the true state of things, and a Committee of this House was appointed to inquire into the case. When those letter's appeared, describing, in terms singularly like those I have myself felt compelled to publish, the inefficiency of the medical arrangements in the Crimea, the chief medical authority on the spot, Sir George Brown, was going about in this country saying that everything was absolutely perfect. There are many other analogies between this case and that. Mr. Roebuck brought the matter before the House. A Parliamentary committee was appointed and Mr. Roebuck, the chief accuser of the medical arrangements in the Crimea, was appointed chairman of that committee. The House will remember that the Aberdeen Ministry went out on that proposal, but Lord Palmerston came in, and he accepted the Committee. I know what the answer to this will be. I shall be told that at the same time a Sanitary Commission of three was appointed, two being doctors and one what was called an engineering member, to go out to the Crimea. But the object of that Commission was not to inquire into what had happened, but to at once take in hand the bettering of the arrangements on the spot. Therefore, of course, it was composed of experts. There was another serious difference between that Commission and the present one. That Commission was appointed not by the Government which defended the medical arrangements in the Crimea, but by the Government which came in on the strength of accepting the fact that those arrangements were insufficient. I desire to ask the House, which I think is always generous to an individual, to consider for a moment the curious position in which I myself am placed. I can assure the House that I would not call attention to this if I did not think that some slight consideration of it on the part of the Government would really facilitate the cause we all have at heart, and that is getting at the truth of this matter. What
654
is my position upon this question? I made certain statements in the press. Those statements I repeated in the House and added to them other statements, which together constituted a grave indictment of the medical arrangements in South Africa. That placed me in the position of a plaintiff; but the thing has turned round, and now I am in the position of a defendant—defending the accuracy of my statements, and what I believe to be the great interests involved in proving their truth, if they are true. I know what the Government will say. The Government will say that they will call me as a witness and enable me to state my case. They may possibly say they will accept my suggestion of other witnesses who should be called. But is that enough in this case? Is it not the usual practice that a man placed in my position should have the right to watch the case on his own behalf? Has he not the right to put what questions he likes to witnesses, and to cross-examine all the witnesses? I daresay that some skilful dialectician on the front bench will find flaws in this analogy, but to me it seems to be close enough for my purpose. My facts have been questioned. Of that I make no complaint. But my motives have been bitterly attacked, not in the country, not in the press, but in a more influential, though more limited circle. I had no motive, no shadow nor shred of any motive or reason, for making these statements except my determination that they should be made public, because I knew that by that means, and that means alone, could we obtain a reform of that terrible condition of things. That is my position, and with my facts questioned and my motives attacked I put it to the House whether some claims do not arise out of that position—some claims to me with regard to this Committee. I do not ask that those claims should be considered. I do not wish to put them forward, and I am quite willing to lose sight of all personal considerations, if the Government will allow me to co-operate with them to a certain extent in enabling this Committee to get at the truth of the matter at issue. My suggestion briefly is that I should be permitted to suggest to the Government a name for them to add to the Committee. I promise to suggest the name of one whose impartiality, ability, and qualifications cannot possibly be questioned. I have waited day by day

655
in the hope that I might receive some communication from Her Majesty's Government on the subject. If the absence of any wish that I should co-operate with them in this matter is due to an assumption on the part of the Government that they are on one side and I am on the other—an idea which can only be based on another assumption that the medical arrangements in South Africa are perfect, or as perfect as possible—then I deplore that I, as a loyal member of the party for fifteen years, am placed in that position, but I put aside personal considerations and personal ties to my party, and I say that the logical outcome of that position, if the Government are on one side and I am on the other, is that one side is appointing the judges to try the issue. I deplore it if that position should arise. I do not believe for a moment that the Government would wish such a position to be set up. I do not believe that they would perpetrate a personal injustice, but I must say for myself that, considering the experience I have had of this particular subject, and the knowledge I have gained of all its branches, I should be in a position to facilitate the inquiries by the course I have suggested.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Labouchere.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I confess at once that I share to the full the disappointment that has been expressed by the two hon. Members who have spoken at the constitution of this Committee. But at the same time I am most anxious that we should, if possible, avoid the bringing in of anything like party recrimination or party feeling in the matter, and that we should not present to the world at large the spectacle, apparently, of the Government unwilling to give a full inquiry as alleged by their opponents, and their opponents clamoring for a fuller inquiry in the face of the Government. I do not think that that would be a seemly position for the House of Commons to take up in a matter which we all admit to be so grave, and a matter which affects so deeply the feelings and sentiments of a large part of the population of this country. The point that strikes me as most unfortunate is that which has. been referred to—namely, that there is
656
not a sufficient representation of ordinary laymen—that there is, in fact, none at all if you exclude a judge from the category of laymen. There are two eminent doctors, of whom most of us have nothing to say, for the simple reason that I am afraid the great majority of us do not know much about them; but I take it for granted from, their position—one academicals, the other in his profession—that they are capable and competent men, and also that they are high-minded, straightforward men, who would do their duty while in such a capacity. I make no doubt of that. Besides them there is only an eminent judge; but what is wanted, surely, of all things, is what my hon. friend spoke of as the man of business, or, rather, the business man—a man accustomed to bring his common-sense and experience of life and affairs to bear upon such problems and difficulties as 110 doubt have presented themselves in South Africa. There are many men of that kind who could be obtained, and whose positions and character before the country would secure the complete confidence of public opinion. Let me point out also that this is not a mere question of the technicalities of the medical profession. There is the whole question of transport and of the power of organising relief in such a case as this, upon which surely it is most desirable to get the opinion of men qualified to give that opinion. A number of names occur at once of men who, if they would undertake this patriotic duty, would, I am sure, satisfy the mind of the country and give solidity to the Commission, and secure that success for it which I am afraid it will not secure if it is constituted as proposed. I venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I have said that I have the strongest possible wish not to appear as if we were fighting with each other on a matter such as this, where the character of the country stands at stake before the world. It is also a matter which touches the hearts and feelings of many people who have relatives there, or may in the future have relatives undergoing the chances of war in South Africa or in other parts of the world. Will the right hon. Gentleman not listen to what I would put forward, even as a friendly appeal, if he will allow mo to say so—namely, that two Members should be added to the Committee, and that those two should be chosen not from

657
any party purpose or on account of any prejudice they may be supposed to have? On the contrary, they should be men who are least likely to have prejudices, but competent men with that priceless quality, common sense, to which Lord Roberts alluded. I do not know any test, I am bound to say, except the test of their past record and their character in the eyes of the country. If two men of that character were added to this Commission, I am certain there would be a great feeling of relief throughout the country. But if that is not done, and if we are to have two doctors, however eminent, and a judge, however eminent, and nobody else, then the feeling of disappointment will be great, and I am afraid the chances of a successful result will be small.
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: I would wish to say a few words on this motion, and the tone of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite enables me to do so. I feel deeply concerned in this matter. In my early youth I was a witness of terrible scenes in the army before Sebastopol, owing to disease and insufficient preparation. It was reported by the Medical Commissioners that 50 per cent. of the regiments engaged in the siege had died of disease in six; months. Thank God we have had nothing like that at the present time; but there is great reason to believe that the best use has not been made of the means placed at the disposal of the authorities in South Africa by Her Majesty's Government. I believe ample provision had been made, that nothing had been stinted, but I believe sufficient use was not always made of it. Letters by the last mail from South Africa, the truth of which I cannot doubt, showed some shortcomings. The state of several hospitals near Cape Town, and of hospitals in other parts of the country, showed that insufficient use had been made of the supplies, forming, in fact, a very heavy indictment against the Army Medical Department which required to be thoroughly investigated. There was, it is charged, a reluctance on the part of the medical officers to call for things necessary for the comfort and well-being of the sick, who, even within the last few weeks, had been lying in a miserable state and without proper shelter in places where there was no difficulty as regards
658
transport. We have all heard of it; the newspapers are full of these cases. I admit that some of them may be exaggerated, but I am convinced that there is foundation for others, and that an inquiry which would command public confidence is required as to whether the best use had been made of the means provided by the Government with, I believe, lavish hands. I should like to avoid inconveniencing Her Majesty's Government in any way, but I think the inquiry should be one in which the public would have full confidence, and that men of common sense are required on it besides doctors.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALKOUR,): The Government have been attacked by three gentlemen for three quite distinct offences in connection with the appointment of this Commission. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, who moved the adjournment of the House, invented an entirely new constitutional principle which, with all the zeal of a discoverer, he expatiated upon in his observations. The hon. Member thinks that the Commission ought not to be appointed by the Government, but ought to be practically appointed by the House of Commons. It is a new doctrine, and one to which I noticed, with pleasure, the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not subscribe. It is one which was never practised by the party opposite, or by the party to which I belong, and for which, I believe, there is no precedent whatever. Of course, this House has a voice in regard to all that pertains to its own Committees. The reference is submitted to the House, and can be amended; and the names are submitted, and can be objected to or approved. But that practice is without precedent or example in the case of Commissions of this kind.
MR. LABOUCHERE: There are many Commissions appointed by Act of Parliament.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman never suggested an Act of Parliament. An Act of Parliament must he submitted to this House and the other House, and go through all the formalities of the Legislature. A statutory Commission is on a quite different footing from ordinary Commissions, to which this belongs. Such Commissions have never

659
been submitted to the House of Commons in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I trust that, for the convenience of Parliamentary procedure and the preservation of the responsibility of the Government, this well-recognised principle will never be departed from. That point practically exhausted the hon. Gentleman's criticism. He did indeed gay that the Government are the accused parties in this matter; and that therefore they ought not to appoint the judges in their own case. But I beg to inform the hon. Gentleman that the Government are not the accused parties. When I suggested the other day that there was an attempt to drag in the Government and to make a party question of it I was met with loud cries of "No, no," and of general repudiation from gentlemen on that side of the House. I leave the hon. Member for Northampton, who moved the motion for adjournment, and turn to the speech of the hon. gentlemen who seconded it. I do not quite apprehend the object of the hon. Gentleman's speech, unless it was to suggest that he should himself be the man of sound common sense for whom Lord Roberts asks and who, according to the critics of the Commission and of the Government, is not to be found adequately represented on the Commission as it is constituted. The hon. Gentleman said that he found himself placed in a position of great difficulty. I am sorry that my hon. friend should be placed in such a position. But if he is so placed—and I do not know why he should think that he is—surely he himself is the only person who has placed him there. He tells us that he has been attacked as to his facts and his motives. I do not know who has attacked him as to his facts or as to his motives. I am perfectly certain he cannot quote a single phrase or suggestion made by anyone on this bench attacking either his facts or his motives.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I considered it an attack upon my motives to convert the statement of facts which I made into an attack upon Lord Roberts.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman indeed criticised somebody, and who that could be unless it is the responsible officers in the field we were unable to discover, and the hon. Gentleman has been unable to explain.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I did not. criticise anybody. I criticised a state of things.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no such thing as criticising a state of things You may describe a state of things, but you cannot criticise a state of things.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I am extremely sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but I must ask him, in his own words, where or when I criticised any person, and who that person was?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My complaint against the hon. Gentleman is exactly that his criticisms were all of this, vague and obscure character. If he was merely narrating a very tragic and deplorable state of things without suggesting that. blame existed anywhere, he was really wasting the time of the House of Commons. It is only because the blame must rest somewhere, and in order that that blame may be brought homo to the proper quarters—it is only on that hypothesis that it was legitimate to bring forward this heartrending description at all. I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman made any secret of the fact that he thought that in the organisation of the advance to Bloemfontein and Kroonstad there had been mistakes made as to the transport arrangements for which someone was to blame. But I return to the hon. Gentleman's speech. Nobody here has attacked his facts or his motives. But if everybody whose motives are criticised or whose fact's are attacked is to form part of the Commission or is to be consulted as to its constitution, it is evident that the task of the Government would be never ending; and we should have to consult not only the hon. Gentleman, but the many eminent persons with whom he has come into conflict in this controversy. It is evident that they cannot all be members of the Commission; and that if they were they would be much more occupied in fighting among themselves than in investigating the charges committed to them. But the hon Gentleman appears to think that we have shown an almost callous disregard of his feelings. I hope that we are not open, to that charge; but the fact is that I did not in this matter consider the hon. Gentleman one way or the other. In constituting the Committee I did not think

661
of the hon. Member at all from the beginning to the end of the business. I hope it does not show a hard and callous heart on my part, but that is the fact. The hon. Gentleman, in accordance with his sense of duty, brought forward facts—or what he believes to be facts—and laid them before the House. I confess that when the hon. Gentleman had done that, I thought he had done all that his ordinary sense of duty required him to do, and that we might put him and his proceedings out of account, and set to work to find out what foundation there was for the charges which he had made. The difficulties, the somewhat imaginary difficulties, of the hon. Gentleman under the heartless treatment which he has received in the formation of this Commission are illusory evils, and I think a little consideration will convince him that they have no real existence in fact. I leave the hon. Gentleman's personal complaints to come to the more objective criticism of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman seemed to take it as an axiom that, on the face of it, this was not the kind of Commission which would command the confidence of the country. On the face of things, it seems to me exactly the kind of Commission that would command the confidence of the country. No doubt it might be possible to find two additional persons who are thoroughly competent to join in this important inquiry. But my own view of a committee of investigation is that the smaller it is the quicker is its work and the more effective. That is the only reason why the Government preferred a Commission of three to a Commission of five. There may be something to be said for a Commission of five; but on the face of it, and on the obvious merits, there is an immense deal more to be said for a Commission of three. If you have a Commission of three, it is impossible to conceive a Commission which is more fitted than this one to carry out the work entrusted to it or which, on the face of it, is more impartial. What is one of the charges made against this Committee? The charge is that there are two medical men upon it. These medical men have no connection with the Army Medical Department. [An HON. MEMBER: Professional bias.] As the House very well knows, there has been a considerable conflict between the profession and the Army Medical Depart-
662
ment, and I should have thought that; if there was a danger it was the danger of injustice to the Army Medical Department, who are carrying on their duties under conditions not very familiar to doctors and surgeons at home accustomed to the perfect equipment of a London,, Edinburgh, or Dublin hospital, and likely to be shocked beyond reason at the inevitable shortcomings which it is admitted on all hands must occur when you are dealing with the exigencies of a rapid campaign. Therefore, I do not think that there is anything in the fact that these-gentlemen are doctors which, considering their position, will make them in any sense lenient to the failures, if there have been failures, of the Army Medical Staff. I have not the honour of Dr. Church's or of Professor Cunningham's acquaintance. But I am informed that Dr. Church is not merely the official head at the present moment of the medical profession in this country, but that he is the President of the Royal College of Physicians, who, more than anyone in living memory, thoroughly enjoys the confidence of his colleagues, and is believed by them to be a man of peculiar fairness of mind, with a, great power of organisation and business, capacity. I am informed that the same qualities of common sense as well as high scientific qualities might be predicated of Professor Cunningham. There are some Gentlemen in this House, no doubt, who know him; and I have taken some trouble to make myself acquainted with his career and attainments.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: He is a Professor at Trinity College. He is not in practice.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Exactly. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly accurate. That of itself goes to show that Professor Cunningham is a man who is independent of those waves and currents of medical opinion which are regarded as objections to doctors. Though not a practising doctor, and not actively connected with the medical profession, Professor Cunningham has, however, taken the most brilliant degrees in medicine and surgery, and is thoroughly well equipped from a professional point of view. There remains Lord Justice Romer; and can prejudice go further—I was going to say, can party feeling go further—than this calm assumption on the part of the hon.

663
Gentleman opposite that because a man is an eminent professor, or an eminent physician, or a distinguished judge, he therefore cannot have those qualities of practical common sense which are supposed to be found in other more fortunate sections and branches of the human race? When Lord Roberts spoke of common sense, he did not mean to imply that doctors had not common sense; still less did he mean to say it of so brilliant and distinguished a judge of the High Court, a man of the business qualities and the impartiality and the power of collecting and sifting evidence like Lord Justice Romer, which are the qualities you want in a man who is to preside over a Commission of this kind. This Commission, as I have indicated it to the House, has the great qualities of knowledge and impartiality stamped upon it. It has among its members two of the most highly-qualified and independent members of the medical profession. It has at its head a judge of the High Court in this country; and if confidence and impartiality are not to be secured by a Commission of that kind, then I despair of any Government or any House of Commons or any responsible Minister being able ever, now or in the future, to constitute a Commission which shall command the confidence of the country. I am sorry that this deliberate attempt has been made, before its labours have begun, to asperse the impartiality of the Commission; I deeply, profoundly regret it; but I firmly believe that when the names I have mentioned go forth to the country the people will not agree with the critics of the Government on this occasion, but that they will universally feel that the Government have striven, by names unexceptionable in themselves and by the smallness of the number, of which complaint has been made, to give the test security that their labours shall not only be rapid and effective, but rapid and conclusive.
MR. ASQUITH: I think that the House, or at least the large majority of it, without any distinction of party, must have listened with astonishment and disappointment to the right hon. Gentleman, to the somewhat cheap sarcasms which the right hon. Gentleman thought it to be in good taste to launch against his own supporter, the hon. Member for Westminster, and the
664
thin debating points he sought to make against the hon. Member for Northampton. All these must have struck the House as being singularly out of consonance with the feeling which animates the majority of the House. When the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to the appeal made by my right hon. friend—and a more temperate and more reasonable appeal was never made by a Leader of the Opposition—accuses us of making this a party question on this side of the House——
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said so.
MR. ASQUITH: Yes; and of deliberately aspersing this Commission—I say that he is attributing to us motives which are entirely unworthy of any body of English gentlemen, and totally out of keeping with the feeling which pervades all classes of the community in relation to this most painful subject.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: No.
MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Member for Central Sheffield says "No," but I believe the right hon. Gentleman fails to apprehend altogether the source and the character of that disappointment. We do not dispute in the least the eminent qualifications of these gentlemen. One of them is, we know, President of the Royal College of Physicians, and if you are to have a medical man on the Commission, as you must have, I do not suppose it would be possible to have a better representative. Another gentleman is Professor of Anatomy in the University of Dublin. I have no doubt that he is a gentleman of the highest academicals attainments, but whether a gentleman whose experience is confined to a chair of anatomy is most calculated to add strength to a Commission of this kind is a matter on which I must be allowed to express a doubt. And as to Lord Justice Romer, the third member of the Commission, no one who has had the great advantage, as I have bad, of practising before him can dispute that he possesses all the highest judicial qualities. But when all is said, when all these admissions are made—and I make them fully and freely—the right hon. Gentleman has not met in the least degree, I

665
will not say the protest, but the appeal, of my right hon. friend. What is the ground of it? It is this. Here is a matter which avowedly affects the feelings and the sentiments of a vast number of people in this country, and the health and lives of our soldiers in South Africa, as well as our operations in subsequent campaigns. Grave charges, charges of the most serious character, vouched for not only by the hon. Member for Westminster, but by almost a cloud of witnesses, have been made in respect of the provision against sickness made in the course of this campaign. The Government confess that they want to have these charges investigated to the bottom, and by a body which will command universal confidence throughout the Empire. These being the conditions under which you are acting and the objects which you are professing—I believe honestly professing—to seek to attain, in order to arrive at the best means of improving these conditions and of attaining these objects you appoint a Commission the majority of whose members will be medical men. I say to treat this primarily or fundamentally as merely a medical question is entirely to ignore some of the most important considerations. It will very likely turn out—I make the hypothesis merely because I have no knowledge—that as far as doctors, nurses, and orderlies are concerned everything was done that human skill and devotion could do, given the conditions under which they had to act. It will then become a question, and this will be the fundamental question which will govern the enquiries of the Commission, whether the conditions under which they were acting were avoidable conditions, or brought about by want of foresight or neglect on the part of those responsible, and, if so, who is responsible for that state of things and how can its recurrence be obviated. It is trifling with the intelligence of the country to say that an investigation of that kind, a Commission composed mainly of professional medical men, is the best Commission that could be constituted. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow us to treat this question in a dispassionate and impartial spirit, I want, if I can—the light hon. Gentleman makes it very difficult—like my right hon friend, to come to a modus vivendi acceptable to us all. May I once more, notwithstanding all that the right
666
hon. Gentleman has said, put it to him whether, in the interests of securing unanimity in this House and general confidence in the country, he should not accept the suggestion, the most temperate and moderate suggestion of my right hon. friend—not necessarily, of course, now—to add to this Commission two men of experience in business, men of reputed common sense, men whose names would command general confidence? If he will give a response to that appeal, I believe he may confidently count on ascertaining the truth, on fixing the responsibility on the right shoulders, and, more important than all, on preventing a possible recurrence of this horrible state of things.
COLONEL SAUNDEESON: I venture to occupy the time of the House for a moment or two upon this important occasion, because I should not like the Government and my right hon. friend to believe that all those who sit upon this side of the House are satisfied with the constitution of this Commission. My right hon. friend said the smaller the Commission the better, but upon those grounds he might have appointed one doctor to examine into the whole question. Allow me to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the object which I know he has in view, and which we all have in view, is to ascertain the whole truth about this question. With regard to the statements of the hon. Member for Westminster, though I make no statement for or against his veracity, I have no doubt, and I believe also the Government have no doubt, that what he says he saw he did see, and the Government appreciate the necessity of finding out the whole truth of this allegation, and whether it affects the medical officers or the transport. But they have appointed two medical men and a judge. I venture to say that if this was a question of investigating the mode in which the sick were treated in South Africa two doctors would be eminently satisfactory, but that is not the question. We want to know whether these horrible sufferings described so vividly by my hon. friend could or could not be obviated. What are the facts? We want to find out first of all whether the allegations of my hon. friend are true, and whether the medical appliances and equipment were satisfactory at Bloemfontein and

667
elsewhere, and we want to find out whether the transport is to blame for not bringing up to Bloemfontein those appliances which it is said might have been brought up. Who is to examine into this? Not the doctors. They, I fancy, will probably examine into the way in which the patients were treated, and I have no doubt that these two medical gentlemen—against whoso reputation nobody can say a word—will say that all that medical science and skill could do under such circumstances has been done. We believe that nobody says a word against the treatment so far as the treatment could be carried out. I do not know if other Members have had experience of these matters, but I have. I have seen a doctor called in in an intricate case, and what was the inevitable result? That that eminent person comes out from the consultation and says everything possible that could be done has been done, but that he had advised a modification of the treatment. These gentlemen will, I have no doubt, do their best, but the esprit de corps which exists pre-eminently amongst doctors will of necessity bias their minds. But who is to judge upon the other questions—as to whether the transport arrangements were satisfactory, and, if the allegations which the hon. Member for Westminster made in drawing attention to the problem are true, the blame undoubtedly does attach to the transport for not bringing up in time those medical comforts, etc., which were wanted at Bloemfontein and elsewhere. Is Lord Justice Romer to go into the question of transport? I do not wish to say anything with regard to his Lordship, but I should think the only thing he knew about transport was transporting prisoners. I say if this Commission is to be constituted, it must not be a Commission in which the majority are doctors. I say, without the slightest hesitation, that this Commission, if it examines the whole of these matters, will not and ought not to have that weight with public opinion which we all hope a Commission appointed by the Government should have. We want the mind of the country sot at rest, and in order to do that a Commission ought to be appointed whose decision will carry weight with it. I venture to suggest to the Government that the proposition made by the hon. Members on the opposite benches, that two lay members should be added to this Commission,
668
would enormously add to its weight, and at the same time would effect the right hon. Gentleman's desire, and not only throw more light on to the question, but would carry that light into the heart of the country.
*CAPTAIN NORTON: Perhaps I might be permitted to take part in this debate, because I feel very strongly upon this question. I pointed out some time ago that we should want two or three Army corps for this war in South Africa, and I also pointed out that the Army Medical Department was not sufficiently strong in point of numbers. Now that the Army medical arrangements have broken down we are to have an inquiry as to how that took place. It can only have taken place for one of two reasons: either the Medical Department was in itself defective, and they had not the personnel and the stores they required; or the blame must be cast upon the Transport Department, because, assuming that the personnel and the stores were sufficient, they did not bring them up at the proper period; yet we are to have a Commission appointed of which two members are members of the profession of the Army Medical Department, which it is suggested is to blame—that is not the class of Commission to deal with that question—and added to them we have a judge to do—what? To inquire into the question of transport! I firmly expected to see one of the most eminent of our traffic managers of the great railways of this country upon this Commission. What the country is looking at is this. They have made great sacrifices, and have made them willingly, but they have been under the impression—and it has been said that this is no party question, but I say it is most distinctly a party question—that everything that could be done had been done for the sick and wounded. If the Government declares war it is their duty to be prepared for it and the conduct of it. After the Egyptian campaign the medical arrangements were found to be very defective, and the medical men connected with the Army Medical Department were absolutely deficient in numbers to deal with the situation as it developed in South Africa. What the country wants to know is on whom does the blame rest—upon the authorities at home, who did not take steps in time, knowing as they must have

669
known that in South Africa there must be an enormous amount of enteric fever at the close of the campaign; or upon the medical men, who were unable to carry out their duty owing to defective transport? The country want to see the responsibility put upon the shoulders of the proper persons, and they want to know why they wore led to believe when they made these great sacrifices that their sons and their relatives were, so far as the medical arrangements were concerned, receiving every attention. They want to know why there was any suppression of what has taken place, and why from the press reports they were led to believe that everything was all right and in order. I will simply conclude my observations by suggesting that two lay members who have a knowledge of transport should be added to the Commission.
SIR MARK STEWARTsaid he did not propose to occupy the time of the House more than a few moments. He merely desired to express a wish that the right hon. Gentleman would add two more members to the Commission. Speaking for the prevailing feeling in the south-west of Scotland, from which he had just returned, upon this question, he could say that nine people out of ten did not believe in two doctors who would invariably agree with regard to the Commission. These medical gentlemen were the best men that could be got, and he did not impute that they were in any way unfit persons. Lord Justice Romer also was an extremely able man, but if the right hon. Gentleman would appoint two additional lay members he would have the country at his back. If he went to the country with the Commission as at present constituted, although no doubt the Commission would report unanimously, the country would have no confidence in it.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I feel very strongly indeed upon this question, one aspect of which is liable to be overlooked if the Committee is constituted as suggested. I desire to support the application which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman, because we all know that there is a chance when these operations are over of a general inquiry into the whole question of the war,
670
and if we withdraw from that inquiry as we shall by this Commission, the whole of the Medical Department, we are absolutely bound to make this part of the inquiry thorough; because it will not be held at any other time. Now, I am not able to convince myself that the Committee as constituted will be likely to thoroughly investigate the condition of the Army Medical Department, and to ascertain what has been well done and what has been ill done in the campaign. The Army Medical Department is alleged to have failed to some extent, but it is a miracle to some of us that it has succeeded to the extent it has. The hon. Member for Northampton was correct when he said that the constitution of the Army Medical Department has been condemned over and over again. I was present when the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War told us that the Department had been increased tenfold since the war began.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now discussing a matter outside the range of the motion.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: All I wish to point out is that the efficiency of the Army Medical Department, having regard to the constitution of the Commission, is not likely to be thoroughly and satisfactorily investigated. I should like to be able to carry the inquiry a great deal further than a purely medical inquiry, so that it should ascertain not only the facts as to whether there were a certain number of medical attendants, nurses, and so forth in South Africa, but whether the provision was such as to enable them to work with efficiency, and whether their inefficiency has been referable to the conditions under which they had to work. I am quite confident that the attention of someone should be directed to this. The right hon. Gentleman asked who has been charged with the responsibility for this matter. I do not believe that the responsibility will be found to rest on the medical men or the attendants. I believe that the responsibility will be found to rest for whatever has been done amiss with those who organised the Army Medical Department on the present basis, and I want someone not deterred by professional antecedents from bringing home directly that responsibility.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In reply to what has fallen from my hon. friend who has just sat down, I would venture to deprecate any extension of the already large subject of inquiry which is to be committed to this body of gentlemen. When they have completed their labours and made their report to the Army Medical Department, either they or another Commission may be entrusted with the further inquiry my hon. friend desires. But let us in the first instance try to get to the bottom of this specific and limited, though all-important, subject. I would ask my hon. friend to take that as a sufficient reply, as indicating, at all events, my personal feeling on the point he has brought before the House. May I also say, what I did not like to say by way of interruption of the right hon. Gentleman, that I certainly never intended to reflect on gentlemen who sit on the Front Opposition Bench? I am not aware of anything that has fallen either from the Leader of the Opposition or those in his immediate confidence which indicates that he or they had any desire from the beginning of these transactions to turn this into a party question; and if I used any phrase of that kind that justly bore that meaning it must have been by inadvertence. I certainly neither felt it nor thought it. It is perfectly evident to me, after listening to what has passed, that the general sense of the House is in favour of an increase in the size of the Commission. I frankly say that, in my opinion, the House is wrong. I think the proposal of the Government was unquestionably a businesslike proposal and one likely to lead to the most rapid and satisfactory results. But I notice that not only those who may be said to be professionally opposed to the Government take a different view, but also the right hon. Gentleman opposite and friends on this side of the House who, I believe, are anxious that this Commission should enjoy general confidence. It is because I fear that the kind of criticism passed on both sides of the House on the Commission in its narrower aspect may in the mind of some outside the House shake their belief in it, that I think the view held by the House is one which ought to be considered by the Government, and considered very favourably. I do not think, after what has occurred, it would be possible to restrict the number to three. I ought frankly to say to the House that
672
under the circumstances I cannot ensure that the three eminent Gentleman I have named can be regarded as having given a. final assent to serving on the Commission. I know that the chairman was greatly induced to consent to go through all the toil and responsibility which presiding over such a Commission would entail upon him by the fact that he thought the small ness of the number would greatly facilitate the operations of the body. I certainly shall have to appeal to him again regarding his services and ask whether he is disposed to give them. Though I think the two eminent doctors—or, rather, the eminent doctor and the eminent man of science—who. have already accepted places on the Commission know too much of the House of Commons to take quite seriously the criticisms which have been passed, still I confess that after they have read the statements in. debate that the fact of their being doctors prejudices them in favour of the Army Medical Service, and that their opinion is not to be trusted on that ground, they may, perhaps, think that they are not called upon to go through all the labours that the work of this Commission will entail. I earnestly hope that, will not be the case. I think myself they would be very ill-advised if they took too seriously this particular class of criticism, and I shall regard it—I say it with a full sense of responsibility—as a great public calamity if, in consequence of these somewhat reckless attacks, they should think it necessary to decline to serve. In the meanwhile, I shall do my best, though against my own judgment, to consult with my colleagues as to how we can best increase the number from three to five. I imagine that the House will entirely, at all events, agree with me in this: that the one thing to be avoided is the appointment of a politician; by profession.
DR. FARQUHARSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman has rightly interpreted the feeling of the House of Commons by agreeing to the extension of the Commission. I think it is very important indeed that in connection with this very important matter, in which the people of the country take so keen an interest, the members of the Commission should be increased by a certain business element, which I am sure will be welcomed by

673
none more than by the eminent medical men who are to be on this Commission.
MR. LABOUCHERE: After this concession—in somewhat ungracious terms—by the right hon. Gentleman, I would ask leave to withdraw my motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to the Ancient Monuments Protection Bill, with Amendments.
ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 284.]

TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 2:—
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: In proposing to leave out Sub-section 2 of this clause, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland what will be the financial effect of the section if carried out as it now stands. My reason for asking is that Sub-section 2 proposes to repeat the operation provided for by Sub-section 1. If the financial effect would be serious, that would be a reason for striking out Sub-section 2. I wish to know, a so, what will be the financial effect on the Church Fund of Subsection 1 of this clause. I think the Committee ought to be content with the first variation.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,)said the hon. Gentleman would remember that the average reduction daring the first term was 20·9 per cent.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The right hon. Gentleman has exactly appreciated the nature of the question I have put to him. I now understand that the effect of Sub-section 1, if applied as it stands, will be to reduce the amount of tithe by 20·9 per cent. That is a serious
674
reduction, and we should be content with that variation for one period of fifteen years. I think that is a sufficient reason for the Amendment I now move. I do not suppose that one Member in ten in the House has read the sub-section, and if they did road it they could not exactly say what is the meaning of it. Roughly speaking, if you find this variation for one period of fifteen years reducing the tithe by 20·9 per cent. you have to repeat that operation for the second term of fifteen years. That I understand to be the meaning of the sub-section. I think when you have reduced the tithe once by 20·9 per cent. you have done sufficiently well.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 6, to leave out Sub-section 2."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
Question proposed, "That Sub-section 2 stand part of the clause."
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The effect of the Amendment will be to replace the standard of variation by a charge which will last for ever. What the Government propose is not extravagant, from the point of view of the reductions that will be immediately effected and of the reductions that may be effected later on.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I support the proposal of my hon. friend. It appears to me that this sub-section rather aggravates the injustice produced by the first sub-section. The peculiarity of this is that it proceeds in wrong-doing in geometrical progression. It begins by doing a bad thing in the first sub-section, and it is worse again in the second sub-section. I am not sure that I have entirely grasped the meaning of these two sub-sections, but my understanding is this: We have, as everybody knows, under the Land Act of 1881, a period of fifteen years during which the reduction of rent lasts. At the end of each period of fifteen years there may be, on the application of the tenants, a further hearing and a further reduction. As a matter of fact, there have been in many cases a further hearing and a considerable further increase in the reduction. As I understand this Bill, the tithe is to be reduced, not merely in respect of the reduction of rent for the first statutory term of fifteen

675
years, but also on the second statutory term of fifteen years. Therefore, these tithes are to be subjected to periodic and successive reductions. We are not dealing here with a single and permanent reduction of tithe, but with a plan that proposes reductions of tithes with successive reductions of rent. Let me point out to the Committee the full effect of this most extraordinary proposal. The light hon. Gentleman pointed out, in reply to my hon. friend, and he quoted the figures correctly, that the average reduction of rent in the first statutory term was 20·9 per cent. It is plain to everybody, granting that there should be a reduction at all, which I do not, that this reduction of 20·9 would be adequate enough to meet even the demands which the right hon. Gentleman puts forward on behalf of the landlords. But the right hon. Gentleman does not stand at that point. In order to fully appreciate the sub-section you must go on to consider what has been done in Ireland under the second section. What is happening? We have in the first statutory term a reduction of 20·9, but, further than that, this reduction of 20·9 is not a universal reduction applicable to all parts of Ireland, or rather this 20.9 is the average of Ireland as a whole. It is not the average of Ireland according to the provinces. That is my point, and the Committee should take this into consideration. I find that in the county Antrim the average reduction is 28·7, in Armagh 29·5, and in Fermanagh it rises to 30·7. So you have this extraordinary state of things: under these two sub-sections, the greater the reductions of rent, or, in other words, the more oppressive the landlords have been, the greater the reduction of tithe. In other words, the good landlords are penalised and the bad landlords are rewarded under this Bill. If it can be proved that the landlords have charged fair rents, if it can be proved that the landlords have been good landlords, then their tithes remain high, or comparatively so; but if it can be proved that the landlords have charged high rents, and that there have been big reductions, then the bad landlords get the benefit of this by having their tithes reduced, with the extraordinary consequence which I am about to show, and I invite the attention of the House to this. I wish to point out to hon. Gentlemen representing Ulster constituencies, that rents have been more exorbitant there
676
than in the other parts of Ireland. In what they would call a disloyal county like Cork the average reduction of rent in the first statutory period was 22·3, in a terrible county like Galway 18. and in a county like Roscommon, where a Unionist would not have the smallest chance of the position of bailiff, 16.8. In so-called disloyal Roscommon the tithe is to be reduced 16·8, and in loyal, Unionist, industrious, and God-fearing Antrim, Armagh, and Fermanagh it will be reduced on an average 28·7, 29·5, and 30·7, so that under this Bill, supported by the hon. Members opposite, some of them representing tenant farmers as well as landlords, and sent into this House to advocate the claims of tenant farmers, these loyal counties will be fined doubly. They are supporting a Bill which, as I have shown, penalises these counties, because, after all, the counties are interested in this matter. A reduction of tithe to a landlord is an injury to the counties, because it means a reduction of the Irish Church Fund, which is to be used for one part of Ireland as well as another. They are supporting a Bill which has for its effect to reduce the tithes of the landlords to a larger extent in the counties they represent than in other counties. In fact, this Bill may be properly and accurately described as a bonus on rack-renting by a reduction of tithe. Furthermore, my hon. friend has pointed out this is a treble reduction of tithe—the reduction, in the case of those who have commuted the tithe, by the obliteration of seven instalments; the reduction, in the case of the first statutory term, of 20·9 per cent. on the average all over the country; and the reduction on the second statutory term where there have been larger reductions made in some cases than on the first term. Let me give the Committee a few figures on the second statutory reductions to show the effect of this Bill under this particular sub-section. I go again to the county represented by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite—the Member for North Antrim. The average reduction in the second statutory term in the county Antrim—in the year ending March 31st, 1899—was 31·2, in Armagh 30·1, and in Down, the very ark of the covenant of loyalty in Ireland, the heroic and loyal landlords had their rents reduced 31·3 per cent. I do not see the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for

677
North Armagh, but if he were here I would congratulate him on the splendid political strategy by which he has been able to convince his consitituents in the north of Ireland that they are gaining enormous benefits by a Union which makes their rents 31·3 per cent. higher than the Commissioners in the courts of the land think they should fairly pay. I think it is one of the most marvellous appeals made to prejudice when they lose sight of their own personal interest. Therefore, under this Bill, and this sub-section in particular, Armagh will be penalised more than any other county. In Antrim, Armagh, and Down rents have been more exorbitant, and the landlords more exacting and less honest than in any of the counties in the other provinces of Ireland. What is the average reduction in Ulster as a whole? It is 28 per cent. on the second statutory term, and the 26 or 28 par cent. on the first statutory term is in addition. The result is that in the province of Ulster, where rents in the two statutory terms have been reduced 50 per cent. or a little more, the landlords by this precious Bill, and by the assistance of hon. Gentlemen opposite representing those constituencies, are going to get 50 per cent. reductions of their tithes.
MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid it could not yet be ascertained what the average reduction of rents for the second statutory term would be.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: As I told the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, his extraordinary ingenuity, subtlety, and resource in advancing arguments have commanded my admiration, but the argument he has just advanced is too grotesque even to put before hon. Gentlemen who are helping their friends to get booty out of public taxation. The right hon. Gentleman says that nobody can tell what the rents for the second statutory terms will be. But we can forecast the result; we have the facts and figures before us of what is taking place now; we have the general condition of Ireland; we have the reductions set forth on almost every farm in Ireland. In the face of this enormous pile of evidence, enabling us to forecast with almost mathematical acuracy what will take place, the right hon. Gentleman tells us we have no facts to go upon.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is impossible to say until the end of the fifteen years what the average reduction will be. Any individual case may be altogether wrong.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: There may be a variation of perhaps 1 per cent. But putting the first and second statutory terms together, the average reduction in Antrim is 50·9 per cent.; in Armagh, 59·6 per cent.; in county Down, 59·5 per cent.; so that in those three loyalist counties you have an average reduction of nearly 60 per cent. In other words, the loyalist Unionist landlords have been charging 60 per cent. above fair and proper rents. The average in all Ulster of the two reductions is 51 per cent. But in Connaught, for instance, the reduction comes to only about 40 per cent. We can now see why the right hon. Gentleman puts in the second statutory term. He knows that in Ulster there have been big reductions under the second statutory term, and not satisfied with giving the landlords the benefit of the reduction on the first term of 28 per cent., he piles on another 28 per cent., and gives the convicted plunderers another bonus for rack-renting their tenants. The more you test this ridiculous and absurd Bill the more its extravagance and injustice are apparent. The landlords of Roscommon, who have treated their tenants well, have had their rents reduced only 14 per cent., and what is their reward? The reward of the landlord of Roscommon is, because he is a good landlord, that he gets his tithe reduced by 14 per cent., but the landlord of the North, because he has been an unjust, rack renting, and oppressive landlord, gets his tithe reduced by 60 per cent. The whole effect of this Bill is to reward the wicked and to punish the good; and by what possible means the right hon. Gentleman can reconcile such a measure to his political conscience I for one am perfectly unable to understand.
MR. ARCHDALE: The hon. Member for the Scotland Division has helped the Chief Secretary in his argument against the Amendment, because the counties he has named as having received large reductions are agricultural counties, and naturally they are more reduced than the grass counties of Roscommon and others. Down, Armagh,

679
and Antrim are the three most agricultural counties in Ulster, and have therefore suffered most by the fall in prices, and that is the reason this clause has been brought into the Bill and why the people who own the land there should get more reduction than in other counties, where the price of produce has not been so much reduced. It is not owing to their being worse landlords, as it is a matter of common notoriety that the landlords of Down and Antrim are rather good landlords.
MR. FLYNNsaid that whether the system of farming was grass, tillage, or mixed, it had been proved to demonstration that the rents were so high that they had been reduced enormously. The point with regard to this sub-section was that apparently there was to be no finality in this system of the reduction of the tithe. Under the first sub-section the average worked out at about 20·9, and it must be assumed that in the second statutory term there would be a further reduction. No doubt the amount of the reduction could not be estimated exactly, but from the decisions already arrived at a fairly accurate approximate conclusion could be formed, and it was evident there would be considerable reductions all over Ireland. Assuming that for the second statutory term there was a further reduction of 20 per cent., that would make at the end of the thirty years 40 per cent. If, owing to economic conditions and the continued fall in judicial rents in consequence of the fall in prices of agricultural produce, the landlord was to continue to get his tithe reduced, it came to this—that tithe was no longer a tithe on land, but a tithe on rent. That was an economic fallacy that everyone could perceive. If economic rent disappeared in Ireland the revenue of the Irish Church Fund would disappear with it, because the landlord would pay no tithe even though he had a large amount of the land in his own possession. The more the sub-section was examined the more its unfairness appeared. If the landlord was to get this booty, let it be fixed at the 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. on the first statutory term, although even then the opponents of the Bill would not acknowledge its justice; but let it not be said there was to be no finality. If, owing to the continued fall in prices, with perhaps a simultaneous rise in
680
the price of labour, there are further-reductions in rent, and consequently in tithe under the operation of this Bill, the corpus of the Church Fund will also gradually disappear. The Nationalists would not have offered such determined and strenuous opposition to this Bill if the money had been coming from Imperial funds instead of from the Irish Church Fund——
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That does not seem to me to be relevant to the Amendment before the Committee.
Mr. FLYNNcontended that the first sub-section set up an injustice in that it measured the reduction of tithe by the average reduction of rent in the various counties for the first statutory term, but that bad condition of things would be made still worse by the second sub-section. A good case had been made out for striking out the sub-section, and he hoped the Government would not be obstinate over the matter.
MR. DILLONsaid the hon. Gentleman opposite had professed to give a reason why the reductions of rent in the north of Ireland were so much greater than in the south, and that reason was one of the most singular he had ever heard. The fact that the northern counties were agricultural, and for that reason had received larger reductions of rent, did not in the slightest degree affect the injustice of those rents. Those reductions of rent were an indictment against the northern landlords, and the point taken by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division with regard to Subsections 1 and 2 was absolutely unanswerable. The Bill actually proposed to give throughout Ireland the greatest reduction of tithe in those counties where the landlords had been the greatest rack-renters. An attempt was being made to force through the House by the closure, by sneers, but really without any argument at all, a Bill which for complexity and entanglement was one of the most formidable he had ever known, the object being to get the Committee to commit itself to a raid on a public fund, but the object was wrapped up in such a mass of technicalities and disguises that he doubted whether one of the 400 Members who had voted in the divisions had the

681
faintest idea of the ABC of the whole question. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division had just pointed out that under the extraordinary and unheard of system or standard of variation set up by these sub-sections the Province of Ulster would obtain an enormous advantage, amounting to nearly 100 per cent. in some eases, as compared with the southern provinces. That immediately recalled to his mind the fact that Ulster was always tithed a great deal lower than the other provinces of Ireland, and now this ingenious system had been devised by which an enormously larger reduction of tithe would be given to the province which had always been tithed lower than any other province in Ireland. That that was the fact with regard to Ulster was shown by the Report of the Tithes Commission. The right hon. Gentleman had repeated that if the system of variation of tithes at present in force in England was extended to Ireland it would inevitably result in a larger reduction than would be the case under this Bill. That really was not true. That argument might have had some weight in regard to Sub-section 1, which dealt only with the reduction for the first statutory term, but under Sub-section 2 a much longer step was taken, and that contention entirely disappeared. The grand discovery had been made that the tithe must vary with the rent; but what would be said if that theory were applied to England?
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Committee have already decided that point, and we cannot go back on that decision.
MR. DILLONsubmitted, with all respect, that the Committee had done nothing of the kind. The Committee had not yet decided that the tithe was to be varied at all. In fact, the Chairman himself had ruled that the question of varying would have to be discussed on Clause 3.
*THE CHAIRMAN: What I intended to say was that the Committee decided yesterday that the standard of variation should be rent and not prices.
MR. DILLONsaid the Committee were now discussing a sub-section which proposed to sot up as a standard of variation an extension of that system, and if
682
they were entitled to discuss the clause at all they were entitled to discuss it from the point of view of extending the variation in direct relation to the fluctuation of rents. All that was decided by the first sub-section was that there should be a reduction of 20·9 per cent. according to that standard, but the Committee had not in any way, impliedly or directly, decided yet whether tithes should vary or even the standard. Sub-section 2 provided that they were not to stop at a reduction the amount of which was known, but they were to take a further step and plunge into the unknown. The right hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if the English system were applied to Ireland. He would reply in the Irish fashion by asking another question: What would happen in England if the Irish system were extended to England? What would be the feeling in the Church of England if a Bill were introduced providing that on large estates in this country where no rent was paid or recoverable, no tithe should be paid? There would be a very considerable row, and that row would be increased if it was further provided that tithe rent-charge should be treated, practically speaking, pari passu with rent, and that no tithe rent-charge should be payable unless the rent was paid out of the land. Under this sub-section was introduced the principle of a possible illimitable variation of tithe in direct proportion to the variation of rent, and such a principle was, in the first place, against the whole tradition of tithe rent-charge and tithe settlement in Ireland, and in the second place grotesquely unjust in its working. The landlords claimed that they would be better off if they had a variation according to prices——
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Committee have decided that question; we cannot go back on that.
MR. DILLONexplained that he was endeavouring to reply to an argument the right hon. Gentleman had used in the course of the debate. He would, however, reserve his remarks upon that point, and content himself now with expressing his strong opposition to this sub-section.
MR. POWERbelieved the Committee were discussing

683
one of the most complicated measures ever introduced into Parliament, and Members had much reason to complain that more accurate data and figures were not presented to them in order that they might be able more fully to grasp the effects of the measure. At present the Bill had to be discussed upon mere conjecture, and that was not at all a satisfactory state of things. With regard to the particular Amendment under discussion, he objected altogether to the proposed standard of variation. Tithe was not a charge on rent; it was one of the first charges on land, and it ought to be regarded as such. The right hon. Gentleman, replying to certain remarks from the Irish benches, had said that the arguments came to nothing, because this was not a question between landlord and tenant. Strictly speaking, that might be so, but at the same time it was a question with regard to a fund, essentially an Irish fund, created for Irish purposes—a fund which has already been raided more than once by the landlords, but which ought to be administered for the benefit of Ireland as a whole. The tenants were, therefore, directly concerned. Time after time it had been stated that this fund could not bear any further charge——
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is not now addressing himself to the Amendment before the Committee.
MR. POWERsaid he was really not competent to speak upon this complicated measure, and he would simply say that the Committee had reason to complain that more information had not been supplied.
MR. MURNAGHANthought it was very unfortunate that the carrying out of this measure should be left in the hands of the Land Commission. It really meant that the decision of the question would be left in the hands of an
interested authority. The Land Commission would have the power to raise or reduce rents, and rents were to be the basis for the payment of tithe. There was a fearful danger that the rents of the tenantry of Ireland would be raised simply to enable the trustees of the Irish Church Fund to keep that fund intact. The Land Commission were the trustees of the fund, and it was their business to keep the fund intact; there fore when this question came up for decision would they not be naturally inclined to be the guardians of the fund rather than to reduce the rents, by which the revenue of the fund would be also reduced? This proposal struck a blow at judicial integrity, and was fraught with the greatest danger. The Bill simply carried out under another name the recommendations of the Fry Commission. The right hon. Gentleman might pursue a policy of silence; it was all very well to draft a Bill which was a riddle and a puzzle; but the Irish Members were determined to drag the proposals into the light of day and to let it be seen what they really meant. This was a landlords' Bill from beginning to end—
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is now discussing the whole effect of the Bill.
MR. MURNAGHANsaid he was trying to discuss the sub-section. It was most unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should leave to a tribunal the decision of a case in which that tribunal was interested. The Land Commission ought not to be hampered with any such duties, and, if for no other reason than the one he had put forward, the Committee ought to reject this sub-section.
Question put
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 142; Noes, 75. (Division List No. 178.)

AYES.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Boulnois, Edmund

Charrington, Spencer

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bousfield, William Robert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r)

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

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

Bullard, Sir Henry

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. S-(Hunts)

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd).

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

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Beckett, Ernest William

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton.)

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Curzon, Viscount

Bethell, Commander

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Blakiston-Houston, John

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Davies, Sir Hon. D. (Chatham)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lafone, Alfred

Richards Henry Charles

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matt. W.

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Faber, George Denison

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Fisher, William Hayes

Lyttelton, Hon Alfred

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Forster, Henry William

Macdona, John Cumming

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

Galloway, William Johnson

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart.

Garfit, William

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh, W.)

Stock, James Henry

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

M'Killop, James

Strauss, Arthur

Godson, Sir Augustus F.

Malcolm, Ian

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Middlemore, John Thr'gmorton

Thornton, Percy M.

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Milward, Colonel Victor

Tomlinson, W. M. Murray

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo's)

Monk, Charles James

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Warde, Lieut.-Col C. E.(kent).

Green, Walford D.(Wedn'sb'ry)

Muntz, Philip A.

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

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

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)

Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Heath, James

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Helder, Augustus

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Parkes, Ebenezer

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

Houston, R. P.

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil

Percy, Earl

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Wylie, Alexander

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. K.)

Pierpoint, Robert

Wyndham, George

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Pilkington, R. (Lanes. Newton)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Horace C.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Purvis, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Keswick, William

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Sir William Walrond and

Knowles, Lees

Rentoul, James Alexander

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

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

Harwood, George

O'Malley, William

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Ambrose, Robert

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Pickard, Benjamin

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hogan, James Francis

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Horniman, Frederick John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Billson, Alfred

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Priestley, Briggs

Blake, Edward

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Brigg, John

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Sinclair, Capt. Jno (Forfarshire)

Broadhurst, Henry

Labouchere, Henry

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Burns, John

Macaleese, Daniel

Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A.(Queen's C)

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Caldwell, James

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Crae, George

Thomas, David Alfr'd (Merthyr)

Clancy, John Joseph

M'Dermott, Patrick

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Colville, John

M'Ghee, Richard

Weir, James Galloway

Crilly, Daniel

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Daly, James

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

Dillon, John

Murnaghan, George

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Donelan, Captain A.

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

Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough)

Doogan, P. C.

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

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Yoxall, James Henry

Fenwick, Charles

O'Dowd, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Kelly, James

Mr. Patrick O'Brien and

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

Oldroyd, Mark

Mr. Flynn.

MR. CLANCYdesired to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Louth. In Ireland they had had some experience in this matter in connec-
686
tion with the certificates in regard to rates issued by the Local Government Board. In many instances those certificates were absolutely incorrect, and would have inflicted great injustice in a number of cases

687
if the power of varying them had not been conferred by the Local Government Act. If the Local Government Board was liable to make such errors the Land Commission was still more liable. The record of the Land Commission proved that it was a body—whether because it had too much to do, or had not enough men to do it, or from any other cause, he did not know—which could not be relied upon in every instance to issue absolutely accurate certificates. The Amendment simply enabled them if they discovered a mistake to rectify the error, and he could not see how the Government could object to the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 24, at the end, to add the words, '(7) The Land Commission may at any time amend or vary any certificate made under this section, and the certificate when so amended or varied shall have effect accordingly.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid that this Amendment was put down by the hon. Member for North Louth in connection with an Amendment to an earlier section. That Amendment had been rejected by the Committee, and therefore the present proposal was not required. Moreover, under the proposal of the Government it was perfectly competent for the Land Commission to correct any clerical errors that might be made.
MR. CLANCYdid not think the Amendment as originally put down was intended to depend upon the adoption of a former Amendment. At any rate, it applied equally to the section as it now stood, and he should press it, if necessary, to a division. The Land Commission had committed blunders in the past, and he was not willing to trust them in the future. As regarded their power to alter certificates without statutory enactment, he would like to ask the Attorney General whether under the Local Government Act power was not expressly given to the Local Government Board to make variations.
MR. DILLON: We are told that the whole basis of this Bill is a mistake by Mr. Gladstone, which the House of Commons did not discover for nearly
688
thirty years. Is it unnatural to imagine that even such a body as the Land Commission might make mistakes when they are drafting these extraordinary documents? I was once fairly good at arithmetic, although I have forgotten it now, but if I set about carrying out the instructions in this clause I should not know how to begin, although I daresay I would be able to hold my own in arithmetic with some of the Land Commissioners. It is not only a question of arithmetic, but also of the interpretation of words. Here is what the Land Commissioners are called upon to do. They—
"shall ascertain from the appendices to their Reports, as presented to Parliament in pursuance of Section 55 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, by what amount in each county during the period commencing with and including the year covered by the Annual Report dated the 20th day of September, 1885, and ending with that presented last before the passing of this Act. the rents of holdings in respect of which judicial rents have been fixed for a first statutory term, whether by order or by agreement, have, for the entire of such period, been varied by the fixing of such judicial rents, and shall certify the average percentage which such variation represents."
I have read this over about ten times, and if I had the Reports before me I should find great difficulty in knowing how to commence, and I doubt whether many hon. Members would be absolutely clear as to how they should set about it. What is an "average percentage"? Is the percentage of variation in each individual case to be taken, and the average then struck, or is the total of the old rents to be deducted from the total of the judicial rents? The matter is of such importance that the words should be perfectly clear. I should like to hear some skilful gentleman like the hon. Member from North Antrim explain how he would set about working it out. Would he take the percentage of each reduction and then strike an average, or deduct the total of the old rents from the total of the new, and find out the percentage of reduction in that way? I cannot see why this Amendment should be objected to. It is absolutely harmless, and would be very useful. Then it is stated—
"A copy of every certificate of the Land Commission under this section shall be published in the Dublin Gazette."
Supposing you do not put in this Amendment, the original printed document will be the evidence, and if any other docu-

689
ment is put in the whole calculation will be upset. I do not believe that another document could be printed without this Amendment, and speaking under correction, I believe also that if the Commissioners make a mistake they will not be able to rectify it.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The Commissioners will take the judicial rents over an entire county, and compare them with the previous Tents, and then arrive at the average reduction. If £100 rent is reduced to £80 all over the county, then of course the reduction will be 20 per cent. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment asked if there would be any difficulty in amending an order, provided it was found that a mistake had been made. When power is given to a Court to make an order, you not only give power to the Court to pronounce the right order upon the facts before it at the time, but also power to make a different order if it turns out that the facts were different. If, for instance, the Court finds that the total is wrong, or something of that kind, it will be quite competent for the Court to change a certificate based on that total so as to bring it into conformity with the facts. Suppose the reduction all over a county turned out to be 25 per cent., and supposing by a clerical error it was put down at 20 per cent., the Court would have power to amend their original order accordingly. That is all that is required and all that is desired. It is not intended that the Court should again enter on an investigation beyond verifying the mere figures. It is merely a matter of arithmetic, and power is given by this clause to amend orders in such cases.
MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid he quite agreed with the Attorney General that if the Land Commission were directed to make an order they would also have the power of revision.
MR. CLANCYsaid that in the Local Government Act the Local Government Board were expressly given power to correct certificates if they issued them.
MR. ATKINSON: That was in cases of very elaborate calculations, where hundreds of things had to be taken into account. They were cases altogether
690
different from the cases connected with the present Bill.
MR. DILLON: Although the Attorney General has an exalted opinion of the Land Commissioners, still they are not infallible in those matters. I may be excessively stupid, but after all that has been said I still maintain and believe that there is great uncertainty in the wording of the clause. What the Attorney General has described as the average percentage of reduction is not the true average at all. The proper way to arrive at the average would be to take the percentage of reduction in each case and then strike the average between these percentages. That would work out very differently from the mode suggested by the Attorney General. Suppose, for instance, the Land Commission had to deal with one rent of £1,000 and three rents of £10 each; suppose the latter were reduced 50 per cent., and the £1,000 rent was only reduced by 5 per cent., you can easily see that the two methods—the method advocated by the Attorney General and the method I suggest—would produce utterly different results. There might be a difference of even 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. It is by no means a matter of totals, as the Attorney General has indicated, and where it was a question of 300 or 400 rents it would be a very complex matter indeed.
MR. CLANCY: The Amendment cannot possibly do any harm, and I should like to know why it is not accepted.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is not correct, as the hon. Member said, that we are adopting a wrong principle in arriving at the average percentage of reduction. The Amendment had been put down by the hon. Member for North Louth in connection with the Amendments which have been rejected by the Committee, and it is therefore not now required. In the actual circumstance of the case, having regard to the nature of the calculations to be made, it is absolutely unnecessary.
MR. FLYNN: I cannot understand what objection there can be to accepting this Amendment. The Attorney General says that the Land Commission will arrive at the average reduction by taking the sum total of the judicial rents and

691
comparing them with the sum total of the old rents, and then striking an average percentage. But these percentages have never yet been used in an Act of Parliament. They have been merely used for statistical purposes, and that, of course, makes all the difference. If a mistake is made there is practically no power of appeal, because what is everybody's business is nobody's business. A mistake may occur, and may not be discovered for two or three years, and then the responsibility is thrown on an individual of going into the Courts to show that a mistake has been committed. Moreover, it would then be too late, because the production of a copy of the Dublin Gazette containing the certificate would be regarded as proof of its accuracy, and it would be too late for revision. The Amendment says that the Land Commission may at any time amend or vary any
certificate made under this section, and that the certificate when so amended or varied shall have effect accordingly. If this Amendment is not accepted, once the copy of the certificate appears in the Dublin Gazette I contend that it is binding for the full period of fifteen years, and even the Land Commissioners themselves will have no power fro revise it. I cannot see why the Government should not accept the Amendment.
MR. DOOGANsaid that the words of the clause were very misleading, and therefore he hoped that the Government would accept the Amendment.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 67; Noes, 122. (Division List No. 179.)

AYES.

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

Harwood, George

Pickard, Benjamin

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hogan, James Francis

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Horniman, Frederick John

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Billson, Alfred

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.

Blake, Edward

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Brigg, John

Jones, William (Cavnarvonsh.)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Broadhurst, Henry

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.).

Burns, John

Macaleese, Daniel

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Buxton, Sydney Charles

MacDonnell, Dr. M. (Queen's C.)

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Caldwell, James

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Crae, George

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Colville, John

M'Dermott, Patrick

Weir, James Galloway

Crilly, Daniel

M'Ghee, Richard

Williams, John Carvell(Notts)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim.)

Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

Daly, James

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Wilson, John.(Durham, Mid)

Dillon, John

Morton, E. D. C. (Devonport)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Donelan, Captain A.

Murnaghan, George

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Doogan, P. C.

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Yoxall, James Henry

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

O'Dowd, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Fenwick, Charles

O'Kelly, James

MR. Clancy and Mr. Pat-

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Oldroyd, Mark

rick O'Brien.

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Malley, William

NOES.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatynet

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Charrington, Spencer

Fisher, William Hayes

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Forster, Henry William

Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith-(Hunt)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Garfit, William

Beckett, Ernest William

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Bethell, Commander

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

Godson, Sir A. Frederick

Blakiston-Houston, John

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Boulnois, Edmund

Curzon, Viscount

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Bousfield, William Robert

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Goschen, Rt. Hon. G. J. (St. George's)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Green, Walford D.(Wednesb'ry)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Faber, George Denison

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn. Edw.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Heath, James

Malcolm, Ian

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Helder, Augustus

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Houston, R. P.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Stock, James Henry

Hudson, George Bickersteth

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Strauss, Arthur

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Muntz, Philip A.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Johnston, William (Belfast)

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Newdigate, Francis Alex.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Knowles, Lees

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Lafone, Alfred

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Peel, Hon. W. Robt. Wellesley

Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

Percy, Earl

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pierpoint, Robert

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Pilkington, R. (Lanes. Newton)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Hon. Curzon

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Purvis, Robert

Wylie, Alexander

Macdona, John Cumming

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Richards, Henry Charles

Maclure, Sir John William

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

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

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

William Walrond and Mr.

M'Killop, James

Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

Anstruther.

Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Dr. TANNER, Cork Co., Mid). House counted, and forty Members being found present.
MR. MURNAGHAN: In moving the rejection of this clause I do so on the ground that no sufficient reason has been given, and no arguments of a character sufficiently convincing to business men have been brought before the Committee, to upset the settlement arrived at in 1872. The clause asks the Committee to break away from the arrangement of 1872, when there was fixed a tithe rent-charge, the variable method of which the tithe payers of the country freely and willingly entered into. There was no protest on their part, they freely assented to it, and there is no justification for their coming to this House now and asking us to change that arrangement, for no better reason than that the change may bring gain to themselves. In 1872 the tithe-paying class—the landlord class—entered into an arrangement with the State for the compounding of the tithes, and at that time a very good offer was made by the Government, which was freely accepted. Now because of the fall in the prices of produce these people came to this House and asks it to undo an arrangement which has lasted for twenty years. If the Government had accepted the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dublin it might have gone a little way to modify the vicious character of this clause. The hon. Member proposed that instead of basing the rentals on the years
694
since 1886 the arrangement should be to go back fifteen years previously; and it seems to be a reasonable proposal, because that would take the time back to the date when this contract was entered into with the State, but the Government did not see its way to accept that suggestion. I take a different view of this matter to some of those around me I look on this as a very dangerous proposal, and I think it will act disastrously so far as the tenant farmers of Ireland are concerned. I think if the Government had accepted the proposal to fix the tithe rent-charge on the judicial rent it would have been much more satisfactory, because it would have removed from the landlord the temptation to raise the rent, which would have been very important. The right hon. Member for North Londonderry smiles, but I think when the Land Commission comes to look into the matter he will be somewhat surprised.
MR. ATKINSON: Does the hon. Gentleman know that the Land Commission has no interest whatever in the tithe rent-charge?
MR. MURNAGHAN: They are the trustees of the Irish Church Fund, and it is to their interest not to have the fund attacked. I maintain that this Bill has been drafted in such a way as to make it a perfect enigma to the lay mind. The right hon. Gentleman has given himself up to the study of how to draft it so as to mystify us. No ordinary man can understand the meaning of these clauses, because they are drawn with a

695
special view to his mystification. I maintain that if the Government had taken the price of produce as the standard it would have been a far safer arrangement for the tenant farmer. The effect of this Bill will be to raise the rent. That is the whole motive underlying the clause, and it is only right and proper that the people of Derry should know what their representative is doing. And I shall be very much mistaken if Serjeant Donelan has not something to say about this matter in twelve months time. I say the principle underlying the Bill is to increase the rental of the Irish farmer, and viewing the matter in that light I have endeavoured here to keep back this measure as far as it has been possible for me to do, of course in a constitutional and proper manner. I think it is my bounden duty to do so. I think I see in this Bill the elements of danger to the tenant farmers in Ireland, and because I believe I see that, I shall strongly oppose the proposals of this clause. If the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dublin on behalf of the hon. Member for North Louth had been accepted, it would have modified the clause to some extent; it would not have made it perfect, because it would be impossible to make it a good clause by any change whatsoever, but to an extent it would have modified its vicious character. Another proposal which I think was deserving of more consideration from the Committee than it received was that of the Member for East Mayo. The proposal as it read looked like a puzzle, but the meaning of the Amendment in plain Saxon language was that, in coming to a calculation as to the reduction of rents, the reduction given in consequence of the improvements of the tenants should not be taken into consideration, and I will toll the Committee why——
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I do not think the hon. Member is in order in going through the Amendments which have been rejected by the Committee.
MR. MUKNAGHAN: This is part of the clause that I am dealing with, and when I introduced this subject I said I wanted to show why the clause should be rejected. I want to show where the principle is wrong, and that it is unjust to reduce the tithe rent charge upon a reduction of rental; that it should be based on the tenant's in interest in his farm. That is to say, where the rent has been reduced from £100 to
696
£60, and it has been reduced by £80 on account of improvements and £10 in consequence of the fall in prices of agricultural produce, in arriving at the calculation of the amount of tithe rent-charge the £30 reduction on account of improvements should not be considered. That is what I wish the Committee to understand. The House is at present empty, and it does not matter much what I say, but I should like the country to understand that what this clause proposes to do—instead of basing the calculation for the payment of tithes on the landlord's interest in the land—is to base the calculation upon both the landlord's and tenant's interest in it, thereby putting a premium on rack-renting, and giving to the men who rack-rented the people in the past an advantage over the men who charged a fair and reasonable rent. The proposal is one which has no justice in it. On the clause as a whole I believe that the right hon. Gentleman might alter it in such a way as to remedy what I consider is a very serious defect, and that is that the tithe-payer benefits by the exorbitant rents of days gone by. That proposal cannot be defended. It is a financial fraud, which the Committee should not sanction. I suppose it is too late now to ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position. He has made up his mind that when he brings to the Committee, or the House, a proposal, we must take that proposal as it is. We must take all or none, because the right hon. Gentleman believes that he is so excellent a legislator that he can do no wrong. He is not responsible to the people against whom that wrong is committed; at present he is Chief Secretary for Ireland, but in two years from now he may have no connection with Ireland, and the period daring which he held the office of Chief Secretary will only appear to him in the light of a nightmare or a disagreeable dream. I believe this clause will injure my constituents, and, earnestly believing that, I ask the Committee to reject it.
MR. FLYNNsaid he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Tyrone, Mid. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had declined to alter the clause by a single syllable, and, against the wishes of the representatives of the majority of the Irish people, had forced upon the Committee a Bill they did not desire. With regard to the clause itself the opinion of Ireland was well known. The

697
Bill was a bad and unjust one, and this particular clause was one of the worst features of it. Irish Members during the course of the discussion had endeavoured to persuade the right hon. Gentleman that if there was to be a change in the tithe rent-charge, that change should be based on prices and not upon rents. The right hon. Gentleman has said it would be very difficult to alter the present basis. But he recalled the attention of the Committee to the fact that the rents themselves had been altered in consequence of the fall in prices of agricultural produce. In 1887, when it became necessary to reduce rents, judicial rents were based on prices. Why then should it be impossible to adopt the same system in the variation of the tithe rent-charge? His own opinion was that the Government, either at the inspiration or the instigation of the landlords, had refused to take prices as a basis for the simple reason that judicial rents were greater, and therefore they selected that basis which would bring the greatest benefit. On comparing county with county and poor law union with poor law union it would be found that wherever rack-renting had been most prevalent the largest share of this reduction would go to the landlords, and that where the landlords had reduced their rents, in some cases to the extent of 50 per cent., voluntarily, they got the smallest share of the reduction. Irish Members had endeavoured to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that the differentiation of the reductions ought to be taken into consideration, that the reductions of rent due to the fall of prices should be charged, but not reductions which were due to improvements made by the tenants; but no change, alteration, or reform was made in the clause. All suggestions from the Irish representatives were refused. Why should 1886 be selected as the basis? Were not reductions made in earlier years? In 1883 and 1884 the reduction of judicial rents was much smaller than it was subsequently. It was not recognised at that time that the depression in agriculture was likely to be permanent, but when that conviction became impressed upon the Land Commission it was found necessary to make very much larger reductions. From 1886 onwards the reductions were larger all over Ireland. That meant that the Government, in selecting 1886 instead of an earlier year, gave the largest possible
698
measure of reduction in the tithe rent-charges. That was obvious to the plainest and meanest intelligence. Why should the Land Commissioners have this work thrown upon them? Was their work not sufficiently heavy? He did not wish to defend the Land Commissioners, or to be too careful regarding the work thrown upon them. They were pretty well paid, and they had a pretty large staff. The Committee should not overlook the consideration that the Land Commissioners were the trustees of the Church Fund. He did not suppose, of course, that in fixing judicial rents and in working up statistics they would do anything willingly of an improper character; but, on the other hand, it must be obvious to the Committee that they were placing this body in a very anomalous position. They were the trustees of the Church Fund, and necessarily their interest was that the Fund should be kept intact, or that the drain upon it should be as small as possible. If the reduction of judicial rents was fixed at a high figure then the Fund would be drawn upon to a larger extent. If the judicial rents were raised, then, of course, the tithe was raised, and there was no reduction of the Church Fund. He thought the Land Commission was the worst body that could possibly be entrusted with the duty of compiling the statistics. Bad as the Bill was, Clause 2 was one of the worst features of it. It contained almost every vicious principle a clause could contain. First of all the tenant's improvements were not recognised in the judicial rent, and on the tenant's improvements it was proposed to give the tithe-rent payers a reduction. If they did give these tithe-rent payers this reduction—he could never see where the demand came from—at any rate, the principle should be applied in the most equitable manner. Why should they include the tenant's improvements in giving the reduction? It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary thought it a portion of his duty to come to the House and throw a complicated Irish Bill on the Table, and say to the Irish Members, "There is no use talking or tolling us what the public opinion of Ireland is. There it is; you must accept it, no matter how much the Irish people may protest." It must be passed over their heads by means of his mechanical majority and by having recourse to those gagging measures which were so fre-

699
quently denounced by the Tory party ten or twelve years ago.
MR. DALYregretted that the Chief Secretary had not seen his way to accept some of the Amendments which had been moved. He believed that, instead of being an injury, they would have been a great benefit to the Bill. The landlords thought they were making an excellent bargain by accepting the arrangement introduced by Mr. Gladstone at the time of the passing of the Church Act, but it appeared that prices had fallen since then, and of course the right hon. Gentleman had brought in this Bill to give them relief. When the tenant farmers of Ireland wanted assistance, the right hon. Gentleman replied that it required legislation, but he was not very slow to bring in legislation to enable the Irish landlords to scoop in a million of Irish money. That was not to be wondered at considering that they had a landlord in the War Office, a landlord as manager of the General Post Office, while the representative of the very largest landlord in Ireland—namely, Trinity College—held the office of Solicitor General for England. He did not wonder at all that this Bill had been introduced, and that this clause, which was going to work such a great injustice against the people of Ireland, was insisted on. The Chief Secretary for Ireland seemed to think that the Land Commission could not make a mistake. A most remarkable thing had come to his knowledge. The chief of the Irish Land Commission, Mr. Justice Bewley, had stated that the rents fixed for the first term were altogether too high. Those rents affected 200,000 tenants, and the Commission, in attempting to remedy the injustice done to them, fixed the amounts too high. Was it not possible that the Commission might also make mistakes in the future? He, for one, could have no confidence whatever in the Irish Land Commission, and particularly when he looked at the Commission from this standpoint. There had been a Tory Government in office now for five years; another Tory Government would appoint no one else but supporters of, and sympathisers with, the landlords. If that was so, how could the tenants expect to get justice from a tribunal largely composed of landlords? The Land Commission would be manned by supporters of
700
the landlords, and it was only natural to expect that the Irish Church Fund would not be able to supply all the demand that would be made upon it with regard to tithes in future. This Bill was based on the assumption that if there was even a greater reduction in prices in the next fifteen years a larger slice would be given to the landlords. He could not for the life of him see that the Land Commission was a proper tribunal to be entrusted with this work in future. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised if he dropped this clause altogether. Looking to the admitted fact that the Land Commission had made mistakes, it would be a very wrong thing for the House to leave such a measure as this in the hands of that Commission in future.
MR. DOOGANsupported the hon. Member for South Monaghan in asking that the clause be dropped. If the clause were based on a standard that would allow a proportionate share of the spoil to be carried off, by each landlord, it would not be such a bad principle. There was no connection at all between tithe rent-charge and the reduction of rents in Ireland. Suppose that it was proposed to deal with tithe rents in England on the basis of the reductions of rent which had taken place from economic causes, the matter would receive very scant discussion in that House. He had just been speaking to an English landlord, who told him that he had reduced his rents 25 per cent. If all the tithe-rent payers had their charges brought down to a quarter, he did not know how such a revolutionary proposal would be received in that House. The proposal in the Bill amounted to a premium upon rack-renting. The more the landlords rack-rented their tenants, and the higher they had raised their rents in the past, the greater the amount they would get under this clause from the Irish Church Fund. That fund was applied by statute to the relief of distress, and for educational and other purposes in Ireland. It had not at any time been drawn upon in order to subsidise a class as it was now. That drain would at least amount to one million, and very possibly it would much exceed that sum. The money would do a great deal of good if applied in grants to lunatic asylums, and for other purposes that the ratepayers were crying

701
out about. He was surprised to find from the statistics quoted by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division that in Ulster the reductions in rents during the first and second statutory terms amounted to something like 60 per cent. The hon. Member showed how much the other provinces had fallen below that immense reduction. The hon. Member for North Fermanagh tried to explain those large reductions by stating that Ulster was the most agricultural province in Ireland, and that the grass lands were much less reduced tillage farms. The hon. Member for East Mayo, however, had stated that when the tithe was paid on the basis of corn—the prices of wheat and other grain, which formed the proper basis—a smaller proportion was obtained in Ulster per acre than in any of the other provinces. Therefore the explanation about its being more agricultural than the other provinces could not stand. He thought he could explain the reason, and enough importance had not been attached to it during the debate. The Land Acts legalised the Ulster custom, which gave to tenant farmers in that province the right to their own improvements. This entitled the tenants to go into court and claim reductions in respect of buildings, fences, drainage works, and everything else done upon the farm, either by themselves or their predecessors, and also in respect of the state of cultivation. The land system in Ulster was different and peculiar as compared with that in the other provinces. The landlords of Ulster were bound by their charters and titles to let the land at low prices to the tenants. The landlords increased the low rents to an enormous -figure, and when the Ulster system was recognised by law the tenants got the benefit of all their improvements. In the other provinces the Ulster custom did not prevail, and all the improvements had to be specified on the back of the claim. If the lawyer acting for a tenant overlooked any items of the case, the tenant lost his claim for such improvements as were omitted. Besides, under the Land Acts the claim for tenants other than Ulster could not extend back beyond a certain number of years. Hence a larger reduction would be made to the landlords of Ulster because of their confiscation of the improvements which the hard-working tenants had made on the land. This Bill thus sets a premium on wrong-doing. The worst rack-renting and evicting landlords
702
who did injustice to their tenants, and who actually carried off such large spoils before, were now to be allowed an additional sum as the result of the cruel wrongs which they did to their tenants in the past—wrongs which necessitated the compulsory reductions on which they now base their claim for redress. The Ulster landlords would derive more benefit than good landlords, who charged their tenants moderate live-and-thrive rents. When the Chief Secretary wanted to give his friends and supporters a dole, he should have cast around for a standard by which some fairness in the distribution of the spoil would be got. This money did not come out of the Imperial Treasury, but out of an Irish Fund. Therefore, it should be used to further develop technical education and other beneficent purposes in Ireland. He had great pleasure in supporting his colleague on that side of the House who had advocated the rejection of this clause.
MR. POWERsaid that if there were to be variations they ought to be those suggested by the Amendment rather than those which the Bill proposed to set up. He was sorry to say that none of the suggestions put forward by his hon. friend the Member for North Dublin and the hon. Member for North Louth had been accepted, and the clause now stood before them in all its nakedness and with all the objections with which it was originally printed. He objected to this clause because he thought that, even from a Conservative point of view, it contained a very dangerous principle, which violated in the most glaring manner some of the essential rights of property. It was extremely unjust to Ireland that this Church Fund should be attacked, and he could see no justification whatever for this clause. He thought the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool had proved beyond yea or nay that this proposal would work most unjustly, and that the landlords who had been considerate towards their tenants would derive little or no benefit from it, while in those districts where rack-renting had been the order of the day, the landlords would largely benefit. For that reason he did not think the clause should receive the approval of the House. He knew that there was not very much hope of them being able to beat the Government, but they had the satisfaction of knowing that

703
the vast majority of Irish opinion and Irish Members were opposed to this principle. Perhaps because the vast majority of the Irish representatives were opposed to it was the very reason why this House would approve of it. The very fact that the majority of the Irish Members were in favour of any proposition was enough to secure a majority against it in this House.
MR. DILLONsaid that this was one of the most important clauses in the Bill, for it proposed to introduce a totally new principle entirely unknown to the Statute-book of this country, and that was that the tithe rent-charge should be varied in proportion to the rent obtained from an occupier. It was preposterous for the Chief Secretary for Ireland to reply that there was a principle of variability involved. Supposing they admitted, for the sake of argument, that there was a principle of variability in tithes originally. That variability never was founded upon the variability of rent, and that was what made him so angry when the Government sought to rush this measure through the House in the dark as it were. They were introducing a proposal which was absolutely unheard of before in their history. The system of variability introduced was never heard of in the whole civilised world until the present time. He had a few facts which he wished to lay before the House in reference to the new standard which had been set up. Before the Acts of 1820 and 1830 the tithe was one-tenth of the produce of the land, or it should have been. The whole subject was enormously complicated, but in the year 1820, under the Goulborne Acts, a small modicum of the tithe was put back upon the grazing land. At that time tithe had no relation whatever to rent. When the great settlement had been carried through under the Goulborne Acts, and when the composition was being carried out throughout Ireland before 1838, they would find upon examining the question more closely that the evidence given before the Tithe Commission of 1831 showed that tithe had no relation to rent. Even in the old days tithes had no relation to rent and never had, and to make tithes variable according to the rent was a most extraordinary principle, without any precedent whatever. The Government had made up their mind to break up the settlement of 1872, which was a
704
solemn statutory settlement, for some reasons of political expediency. To break up that settlement and to vary the tithes they had to adopt a new principle, and they contended that the most convenient principle was the scale which they had set up. That scale might be convenient, but it was singularly unjust and unreasonable. He would mention a simple case as an illustration of the futility and the unreasonableness of the scale proposed in this clause. A relative of his possessed some property which was. liable to tithes. As well as he could recollect, that property used to pay in tithes £12 or £12 10s. a year. It was divided, into two equal portions—one was in the hands of his relative, and the other was let to another landlord under a head-rent of £25 a year. The whole of the property was liable to tithe. How would the clause work in this case? Half the property was let to a middleman. If the rents to the occupiers were reduced, under this plan of dealing with the tithes the rent of the middleman was raised, while the head-rent landlord would get his tithes reduced, and he would got the whole benefit from the reduction of the rent of the tenant. Simply because some other man's rent was reduced, they would get the benefit by a reduction of the tithes This was something like the custom adopted by the ancient French kings, who used to have some other unfortunate boy brought up and punished when their own sons did anything wrong. The Bill itself was very curiously drafted, and he desired to point out that when they had passed this clause they had not decided the question of the variability of any tithe rent-charge in Ireland. That would remain an open question. Furthermore, the measure attempted to deal with two subjects which were utterly foreign to each other. It also professed to set up a standard for the variation of ecclesiastical tithes, which had been invariable in Ireland since 1872. He thought that was a great blot on the Bill. He only alluded to this point for the purpose of showing; that when this clause was passed they had not decided anything as regarded the variability of the tithes, and that the whole question could be reopened on the next clause.
Question put..
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 158; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 180.)

AYES.

Allsopp, Hon. George

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredrk.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Peel, Hon. W. Robt. Wellesley

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Balcarres, Lord

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J.(St. G'rge's)

Pierpoint, Robert

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pilkington, R.(Lanes. Newton)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W(Leeds)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Banbury, Frederick George

Gull, Sir Cameron

Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace Curzon.

Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith-(H'nts)

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Pollock, Harry Frederick

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Purvis, Robert

Beckett, Ernest William

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bethell, Commander

Heath, James

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Blakiston-Houston, John

Helder, Augustus

Rentoul, James Alexander

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Henderson, Alexander

Richards, Henry Charles

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Robinson, Brooke

Butcher, John George

Houston, R. P.

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Hozier, Hon J. H. Cecil

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Sandon, Viscount

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshre)

Hutton, John Yorks. (N. R.)

Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Seely, Charles Hilton

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Sidebottom, William (Derbsh.)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Charrington, Spencer

Keswick, William

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Knowles, Lees

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lafone, Alfred

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somers't)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Stock, James Henry

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.)

Strauss, Arthur

Cox, Irwin, Edw. Bainbridge

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Curzon, Viscount

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thornton, Percy M.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lloyd, Archie Kirkman

Tollemache, Henry James

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Macdona, John Cumming

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Maclure, Sir John William

Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

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

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset).

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

M'Killop, James

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Faber, George Denison

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

More, R. J. (Shropshire)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Fisher, William Hayes

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouths.)

Wylie, Alexander

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Morrell, George Herbert

Wyndham, George

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Flower, Ernest

Muntz, Philip A.

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Forster, Henry William

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

Foster, Sir M. (Lond. Univ.)

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Garfit, William

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Sir William Walrond and

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Nicholson, William Graham

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

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

Colville, John

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Daly, James

Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Dillon, John

Macaleese, Daniel

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Doogan, P. C.

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn's Co.)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Billson, Alfred

Emmott, Alfred

M'Crae, George

Blake, Edward

Evershed, Sydney

M'Dermott, Patrick

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

M'Ghee, Richard

Brigg, John

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Broad hurst, Henry

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Burns, John

Flynn, James Christopher

Morton, Edw. J. C.(Devonport)

Caldwell, James

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Murnaghan, George

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Hogan, James Francis

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

Channing, Francis Allston

Horniman, Frederick John

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

Clancy, John Joseph

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O'Dowd, John

706

707

O'Kelly, James

Robson, William Snowdon

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Oldroyd, Mark

Runciman, Walter

Williams, John Carvell (Nobts.)

O'Malley, William

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

Philipps, John Wynford

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Pickard, Benjamin

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Yoxall, James Henry

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Tennant, Harold John

Reckitt, Harold James

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Rickett, J. Compton

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Captain Donelan and Mr.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Patrick O'Brien.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee

Weir, James Galloway

Clause 3:—
MR. CLANCYsaid the object of the Amendment he rose to move, was to continue the existing law which provided that an application must be made to a court of competent jurisdiction, and on the application of any person entitled he must prove certain things. If he is an owner of tithe rent-charge he must prove his title. If he is a payer of tithe rent charge he must prove that he is a person charged within the meaning of certain Acts of Parliament. There was the question of giving notice. Notice must have been regarded at one time as being of very great importance. The notices had to be served at a certain period of the year, and oftentimes mistakes were made by not selecting the proper time for serving those notices. They had to be posted on parish churches, and the requirements as to the posting of notices was a very detailed affair. The notice had to be posted on the parish church, on the outer door, and not only that, but on the principal outer door of the parish church. Sometimes there was not an outer door, a principal outer door, or any outer door at all, and sometimes there was not even a church. In a few cases it was thought advisable to erect a door in order to escape the consequences of insufficient posting. That might be a reason for substituting this automatic process, but those who took that view were not thinking of the tithe-payers. He wished to submit to the House the view of the tithe-owners. They consisted of two classes whose interests were diametrically opposite, and it must be borne in mind that the tithe-owners in one respect occupied a position analogous to the landlords. It must be borne in mind that this tithe rent-charge had, for a very long time, been treated as an article of commerce. Tithes had been bought and sold for valuable consideration from time to time. In some instances trustees had invested money in them, and they were considered to be a very good security.
708
Now the Government proposed to substitute for the present system of varying tithes an automatic process of variation, and that was doing a great injustice to everybody who had bought tithe rent-charges in the past. He ventured to say that those purchasers were paid no consideration whatever in this Bill, and this proposal was grossly unjust to them. It was perfectly manifest that these tithe rent-charges were valuable or were not valuable accordingly as they were supposed to be variable or not variable. People bought them on the supposition that it was very difficult to vary them, and they paid their money on that basis. And now the Government, which was supposed to be especially conservative in regard to the rights of property, passed by all these considerations. In the case of the tithes bought upon the supposition he had alluded to, the Government proposed to make the variation according to the reduction of the judicial rents. He hoped the supporters of the Government, the landed gentry of England and the upholders of the rights of private property, in this country would reflect upon the reckless injury they were inflicting upon the people who had bought these tithes, for if they did he did not think they could reconcile their consciences to believe that they were acting up to their principles of doing justice to the owners of this property. This Bill was not only a revolutionary measure, but a measure of great injustice, and the landlords who were calling for it might find themselves some time or other in the future in a great difficulty. They might be faced with a similar proposal from some other Government, and they had better be very careful as to the way they were now satisfying themselves that they were able to give a reasonable defence for a proposal of this kind. He had heard no defence whatever for this legislation. Being a lover of justice, he thought the tithes ought to be continued as they were at present, and he begged to move his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 20, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'on the application of any person who, if this Act had not been passed, would have been entitled to obtain a variation of any tithe rent-charge.' "—(Mr. Clancy.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid he could hardly think that the Amendment was seriously intended by the hon. Member, for he had actually suggested that the tithe-owner had got a vested interest in the tithes. He would remind the Committee of one of the difficulties which the hon. Member himself had raised. It was necessary, under the existing law, to post the notice at the parish church. In some parishes there was no church, and in such a parish no variation of tithes was possible. And yet the hon. Member came forward and suggested that the tithe-owner had got a vested interest in the continuance of the tithe. If that was his Opinion, all he had to say was that a great deal of the legislation passed upon this subject was unnecessary. The hon. Member called himself a lover of justice, but according to his theory the Act of 1881 and other Acts should not have been placed upon the statute book, because if purchases were made upon the supposition that certain disabilities had never been removed, upon what principles of justice
could the Act of 1881 be defended? In England tithes were variable automatically, and they proposed to do the same thing under this Bill, and by doing so he thought they were initiating a great reform.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that the tithe-owners were not members of the landlord class. For many years investments in tithes had been looked upon as one of the most valuable securities. If the serious attack now proposed was made upon this property, surely those investors ought also to be compensated. The proposal before the Committee was by no means a frivolous one, for it provided that those men should be protected in every possible way. The owners of tithes had a primary charge on the land, and anyone acquainted with the law of real property knew they had a right to be paid out of profits, and any derogation of their right was a serious inroad on the rights of property. The effect of this clause would be to militate against that security. Therefore, he asked the Committee to insist upon this Amendment, or else that the Attorney General should give some reasons or show in some sort of way how the security could be maintained.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 90; Noes, 170. (Division List No. 181.)

AYES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Kelly, James

Ambrose, Robert

Flynn, James Christopher

Oldroyd, Mark

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herb. John

O'Malley, William

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Billson, Alfred

Hogan, James Francis

Reckitt, Harold James

Blake, Edward

Horniman, Frederick John

Rickett, J. Compton

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Brigg, John

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Robson, William Snowdon

Broadhurst, Henry

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Runciman, Walter

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Burns, John

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfars.)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Macaleese, Daniel

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Caldwell, James

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn'sC.)

Steadman, William Charles

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Carew, James Laurence

M'Crae, George

Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

M'Dermott, Patrick

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Ghee, Richard

Tanner Charles Kearns

Clancy, John Joseph

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Tennant, Harold John

Colville, John

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

Daly, James

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dillon, John

Morton, Edw. J. C.(Devonport)

Weir, James Galloway

Doogan, P. C.

Murnaghan, George

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Emmott, Alfred

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

Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

Evershed, Sydney

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

O'Dowd, John

Yoxall, James Henry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

NOES.

Allsopp, Hon. George

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Nicholson, William Graham

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geor.)

O'Neill, Hon. Robt. Torrens

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Peel, Hon. W. R. Wellesley

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

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Percy, Earl

Banbury, Frederick George

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Philipotts, Captain Arthur

Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith- (Hunts)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

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

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon

Bethell, Commander

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Blakiston-Houston, John

Heath, James

Purvis, Robert

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Helder, Augustus

Remnant, James Farquharson

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Henderson, Alexander

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Rentoul, James Alexander

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

Butcher, John George

Hobhouse, Henry

Robinson, Brooke

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Houston, R. P.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hozier,Hon. James Henry Cecil

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenh'm)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

Hudson, George Bickerste'h

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Sandon, Viscount

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Seely, Charles Hilton

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Charrington, Spencer

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbyshire)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Keswick, William

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Knowles, Lees

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lafone, Alfred

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg'w)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Stephens, Henry Charles

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edw. H.

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

Stock, James Henry

Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Strauss, Arthur

Curzon, Viscount

Long, Col. Charles W (Eversh'm)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Dalkeith, Earl of

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Liverp'l)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Tollemache, Henry James

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts-)

Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

Macdona, John Cumming

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

Faber, George Denison

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

Williams, Joseph Powell- (Birm)

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

M'Killop, James

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Malcolm, Ian

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Fisher, William Hayes

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

FitzGerald, SirRobertPenrose-

Middlemore, J. (Throgmorton)

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

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Wylie, Alexander

Fletcher, Sir Henry

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Wyndham, George

Flower, Ernest

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Forster, Henry William

Morrell, George Herbert

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.)

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Garfit, William

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

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

Sir William Walrond and

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Mr. Anstruther.

MR. DILLON: I propose to move not the Amendment standing in my name, but the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Louth. We have now come to one of the important questions raised by Amendment on this Bill, and in order to make clear the bearing of this Amendment I must recall to the attention of the Committee the scope and object of the Bill. There are in Ireland two classes of tithes, ecclesiastical tithes and lay impropriate tithes.
712
The ecclesiastical tithes are paid to the Irish Land Commission, and form a large part of the revenue of the Church Fund, but the lay impropriate tithes are private property just as much as a mortgage or a head rent. The ecclesiastical tithes have been invariable in Ireland since the Act of 1872, but it is proposed in this Bill to make them variable. The lay impropriate tithes have always been invariable. Although I do not at all agree that it is desirable or defensible to violently alter

713
the variation in the case of lay tithes, still I admit that lay tithe-owners have a grievance, and that that grievance has arisen not from the deliberate action of Parliament, but from a blunder on the part of the Executive Government in Ireland. If people are deprived of a legal right, whatever the value of that right may be, they are undoubtedly entitled to come to Parliament and ask for a remedy. But that argument does not apply to the case of ecclesiastical tithes, and the effect of this Amendment would be to confine the operations of sections 2 and 3 of this Bill to lay impropriate tithes, leaving the ecclesiastical tithes invariable as they are at present and have been for twenty-eight years. It appears to me that this Amendment ought to receive the support of Her Majesty's Government. I may point out that I myself intended to approach the subject in a different way, because the Amendment standing in my name would have produced the opposite effect, but that arose altogether from the fact that I was not allowed to move an Instruction which I think was a wise Instruction, to divide the Bill into two parts, as the subjects dealt with are absolutely different. Under the circumstances, however, I now move the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Louth, which proposes to confine the operation of the Bill to lay impropriate tithes, and to leave the ecclesiastical tithes as they are now, invariable. We have heard a great deal of argument from the right hon. Gentle man—and very poor argument it appeared to me—in favour of the omission of the seven years instalments, and he based his argument in favour of that view on the assertion that there was a miscalculation, and that these annuitants were in point of fact unknowingly defrauded by Parliament owing to the ignorance of Mr. Gladstone and the Treasury of that day. But that argument cannot apply to the case of the ecclesiastical tithe-owners, and there can be no misunderstanding concerning them. It is said that there was no consent, but anyone who will take the trouble to trace through the pages of Hansard the history of the Act of 1872 cannot maintain that the tithe-payers of Ireland were not consenting parties. Neither in the House of Lords nor in the House of Commons was one solitary voice raised against the provisions of the Act of 1872 which made ecclesiastical tithes invariable, although there were
714
dozens of Irish landlords in both Houses. How can the right hon. Gentleman come forward now, after twenty-eight years, and tell us that an injustice has been done? Up to the present moment we have not heard one single argument in support of that proposition. What is the nature of the ecclesiastical tithes as fixed by the Act of 1872 with—as should never be forgotten—the consent of the tithe-payers? All that the right hon. Gentleman has said about the inherent variability of tithes is absurd and in direct conflict with the facts of the situation. By the Act of 1872 ecclesiastical tithes were fixed invariably as a first charge on land in Ireland, a charge which bore no relation to the amount of the rent, and under which in innumerable instances great interests were held. Under that charge there were very often a head rent, middle interests, and perhaps two or three other interests, not to speak of mortgages. This Amendment now brings us to the great principle which I asserted on the Second Reading of this Bill, namely, the principle of the inviolability of prior charges on land. I want to know, when there is this invariable statutory prior lien on the land of Ireland, by what right can you slip over intermediate charges, and now maintain that this prior lien must be reduced. What about mortgages or family charges or head rents? This is of the utmost importance in Ireland. In this country, so far as my knowledge goes, no class has raised an agitation in favour of the reduction of the interest or the capital of mortgages on land, or the reduction of superior rents in consequence of the reduction of rent to the immediate occupier. If by this clause you allow the principle of violability to apply to a charge on land which ranks before head rent and mortgage interest, then you are introducing one of the most revolutionary principles of legislation ever proposed in this House. You cannot plead ignorance of the result. We know what the landlords think of this Bill, and we are not left for a single moment under the delusion that they will accept it as final. They scorn it and they scoff at it, and they regard it as an infinitesimal concession, only valuable as recognising their right to compensation.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going rather beyond the limits of his own Amendment. He is now discussing the Bill at large.
MR. DILLON: This Amendment goes to the root of the principle of tithe rent-charge.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not discussing that,; he is discussing whether the landlords of Ireland will ask for more and so forth, and that is not within the scope of his own Amendment.
MR. DILLON: In discussing this Amendment I am discussing whether the principle of variation is to be applied to ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge in Ireland, and whether a first charge on the land of Ireland is to be declared variable. The reason why I allude to this question is because I believe we have come to that part of the Bill in which the main principle of the inviolability of first charges on land is concerned, and I am astonished if I am not at liberty to discuss that great principle. The clause, as a whole, violates that principle, and it is on this Amendment that we can specifically discuss the question whether we are to vary tithes which at present by statute are invariable. It appears to me that if this Amendment raises any question it raises this precise question—whether we are going by this Bill to abrogate a great fixed principle which affects the whole security of property in Ireland. Unquestionably, that would be the result. If you break down the fixed and useful principle that charges on land must be treated according to priority, and that a man with superior interests is not to be made to suffer because an interest below him is cut down, you open the flood-gates and the floods will rush in; you will be face to face with an ever-growing demand from landlords in Ireland to have mortgages and the other liens on their lands cut down, and they will quote this very clause as a precedent. I object, of course, to this proposal because of the deadly blow it will strike at the solvency and the very existence of the Church Fund, and if I dwelt on other reasons it was because our experience during the last two or three days has led us to believe that the vast majority of hon. Members are entirely indifferent to all arguments on that point, and I thought we might make some lodgment in the minds of hon. Members if we showed that if this principle is trampled on a precedent will be set which may have the most injurious effects on mort-
716
gages and other charges on land. For these reasons I urge the acceptance of the Amendment on the Committee.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 28, after the word 'payable,' to insert the words 'otherwise than to the Land Commission.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Of course it is quite impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. If we did we would strike at one of the principal provisions of the measure. The hon. Member for East Mayo, if he will allow me to say so, has entirely misunderstood the grounds on which the Government have urged that the ecclesiastical tithe rent fixed by the Act of 1872 should again be made variable. The essential point is that the ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge, like other tithe rents in Ireland, was variable before 1872. It ceased to be variable under peculiar circumstances. It was not, I maintain, the result of a bargain between the tithe payers, on one hand, and Mr. Gladstone representing the interests of the Church. Fund on the other, in which the landlords got their quid pro quo. The real fact is that this change was made by Mr. Gladstone with a view to facilitating the redemption of tithe rent-charge by the payers of ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge. He believed that they would take advantage of the opportunity he proposed to give them, and for that purpose he fixed a tithe rent-charge, never contemplating. in the first place, that a very large number of payers would not take advantage of this facility to redeem, and, in the second place, that an abnormal fall in agricultural values would take place within a generation. It is on these grounds that we have advocated the removal of an arrangement which has operated against tithe rent-payers in a way never contemplated at the time. I do not advocate that tithe rent-charge should be reduced because rents have been reduced; but I say that under the peculiar circumstances of the case it is equitable that tithe rent-charge payers should be again entitled to have their tithe rent-charge varied while the privilege of redeeming is taken away from them. On that ground, and on that ground alone, I am advocating this change. As I said on the Second Reading, the hardship of the present situation is emphasised by the fact that rents have since been com-

717
pulsorily reduced; but it is not on that ground I advocate it, but on the grounds I have explained to the Committee. We are taking the reduction in judicial rents as the measure, but not as the reason for this proposal.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I certainly shall support the Amendment, which will strike out of the Bill the variation of ecclesiastical tithes. The Bill as it now stands deals with two different classes of property—lay and ecclesiastical tithes. The Amendment only refers to ecclesiastical tithes, and the effect of it if carried out would be to restore the state of things which existed when the Church Amendment Act of 1872 was passed—namely, to make ecclesiastical tithes irrevisable. That is the principle of the Amendment, and I think it is essential on various grounds that it should be accepted. In the Act of 1899 establishing the Board of Agriculture the right hon. Gentleman, when charging £70,000 a year for the purposes of that Act upon the Church Fund, was obliged to guard against the effect of that charge, because it was even then contemplated by the Government that the Church Fund might not be adequate to meet it.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that last year the Tithe Bill was introduced at the same time as the Board of Agriculture Bill.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Yes; but the Tithe Rent-charge Bill was a still-born child, and that does not apply to my argument at all. I will quote the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899. Section 15 says that, among the moneys placed at the disposal of the Department, should be—
"(b.) Out of the annual income derivable from the surplus of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund, during a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Act, the annual sum of £70,000, and thereafter during each subsequent period of fifteen years such annual sum as in the opinion of the Treasury can be paid without impairing the security for any liabilities existing at the commencement of this Act upon that Fund."
When the argument was made last year that the Government were by that Act, when granting the sum of £70,000 a year to the Department, impairing the security of the Imperial Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman stated that it was only for a period of fifteen years, and that it was not likely that the fund would be
718
diminished in fifteen years, and that if the grant was extended beyond fifteen years, it could only be done under the saying clause, with the consent of the Treasury of the day if in their opinion it could be paid without impairing the Church Fund. The right hon. Gentleman, says that our fears are chimerical, and that, though we are depleting the Church Fund by this Bill to the extent of a. million and a half or two millions, there will be no risk and no necessity for making good the security to the Imperial Exchequer. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should bear in mind that these vast loans have been made for various purposes out of the Imperial Exchequer on the security of the Church Fund, and that if the Church Fund fails the repayment will fall on the taxpayers in every part of the country. That is the reason why we should not undo the settlement of 1872, and should leave unimpaired the fixed and constant fund provided by the Church Amendment Act. The right hon. Gentleman says that this was a question of policy, of haute politique—the facilitating of the redemption of the tithe rent charge; but last night he put it on the ground of a miscalculation, of a sort of "hocus pocus," about £3 10s. per cent. for fifty-two years instead of forty-five. Mr. Gladstone, who was a most jealous custodian of the public Treasury, made it a fixed and constant sum, and he did so to facilitate the redemption by paying cash down twenty-two and a half years purchase, or a terminable annuity for fifty-two years calculated at £4 9s. To attempt to cast a slur on the memory of the greatest statesman of this century seems to me extraordinary. There is another point. It is said that the reason for making this great change after the expiration of thirty years, and reducing the tithe rent-charge, is because the rents have been reduced by the operation of special legislation. For my part I do not want to be misunderstood, but I think that the Land Acts have operated harshly upon many of the landlords of Ireland who have had their rents considerably reduced, and it would rejoice me beyond measure if compensation were made to these landlords out of a proper fund, but not out of this fund, which was by solemn Act of Parliament reserved for cases of "unavoidable calamity and suffering in Ireland." The fallacy underlying this particular clause which we are seeking to amend is, that it assumes that

719
all the rents of all the landlords in every county in Ireland have been reduced. That is a great fallacy. I know many estates, and curiously enough in Tipperary particularly, where there are many tenants who have never come into the Land Court, and who have never had their rents reduced; and yet the landlords of these tenants are to have the benefit of this clause under the guise of compensation for loss incurred by the reduction of rents under Mr. Gladstone's Land Act. The right hon. Gentleman does not want to throw a glamour over the House. He is too fair, too loyal, too candid to do that, and accordingly he says that it is not because of the reduction of rents, but because of high policy, that this Bill has been introduced. I maintain that the reduction of the rent has no application at all to this particular standard as to ecclesiastical tithe with which alone we are dealing with this Amendment. The tithe rent-charge, which represents the tithe, was never the property of the landlord; it was something cut away from his property. The owners in fee, the grantees of the Crown, the possessors of fee simple estates in Ireland, never had more than nine-tenths of what their estates wore nominally worth, because the Church had acquired the other tenth. The tithe rent-charge is like a mortgage, a firstcharge on the estate, and what the land lord ever had was simply the surplus. The rent was never measured by prices in Ireland. There were various other elements in fixing the rents—contiguity to market, richness of the soil, the hardship of the landlord, the poverty of the tenant, the land-hunger which prevailed, and which was the source of so many of the social evils of Ireland. The tithe rent-charge was measured by the market prices of the staple cereals, wheat and oats, which were the great tithes, in the language of the law, the lesser tithes being payable in respect of the cows and pigs, and the like. The great tithes, which were the staple of the income of the incumbent, were properly regulated by the market prices of the cereals. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that this solatium was not to be given by the Bill in consequence of the reduction of rents, but because of the general hardships in the case of many landlords, who, instead of having three or four mansions, have only one or two, and enjoying a London season, were obliged to put up with one in Dublin.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: We certainly intend to go to a division on this Amendment, and I see no reason why it should not be taken before twelve o'clock; but I wish to express a slight point of difference from my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo, who said that there is a possibility of the precedent of this Bill being followed, and of some interference being made with mortgages and other charges on land and other property in Ireland. I beg my hon. friend to relieve his mind in regard to that. I do not believe that the House of Commons will ever submit to any such a proposal. And for this reason. If the Chief Secretary got up and proposed a reduction on the mortgages on property in Ireland on the ground that as the rents in Ireland had been reduced, so the mortgages should be reduced in proportion, the representatives of the English insurance companies and English capitalists would raise such a cry of anguish and revolt that the right hon. Gentleman would not have the smallest chance of carrying his Bill beyond the first night when it was mentioned in the House of Commons. I can assure my hon. friend that these charges on property in Ireland are perfectly secure. But why is it that this particular form of reduction is attempted to be carried out? It is because the Government are interfering, not with English money, but with Irish money, not with English capital, but with the rights of the Irish poor. It is because of that that the Chief Secretary has the solid vote of the gentlemen behind him. Even if I had the high privilege of being insured in some of the excellent English and Scottish insurance companies, I would gladly see Irish landlords who had borrowed money from them get 50 per cent. of their indebtedness wiped out, because it was the eagerness and promptitude of these companies in lending money to the Irish landlords which largely led to their destruction. But the vivid anxiety of my hon. friend for the capital of English people is vain; it is a mere phantom. The reason for this raid on Ireland is that it is Irish money. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh quotes the Act of 1872, and he really has the courage to say that that Act was an injustice to the landlords of Ireland. He was in the House at the time, and supported the Bill. If he did not vote for the Church Bill, at any rate he voted for the Land Bill, and the right

721
hon. and gallant Gentleman will bear me out when I say, founding myself upon what appears in the colourless pages of Hansard, that when Mr. Gladstone announced that he would give power by the Bill to the landlords to commute their tithes he was interrupted in the flow of his discourse, because this concession was such a surprise to the landlords that they could not refrain from expressing their sense of satisfaction.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: That is pure imagination.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: If my hon. and gallant friend will allow me to proceed, I will refer to Hansard to show that that was not an imaginary scene. Mr. Gladstone himself said that he was not able to proceed for a time with his speech because of the buzz of delighted surprise on the part of the landlords that he had been so kind to them. I observe the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in the House. He usually is absent when this Hill is under discussion, or, if present, is always silent. But the right hon. Gentleman would confirm me, for he at that time got up and denounced Mr. Gladstone's proposal as a sacrilegious bribe by which the landlords were tempted to give up their theological and religious principles in exchange for the amount of money the right hon. Gentleman was going to give them. I am not acquainted with the law in regard to
tithes in England, although I have made some inquiry on the subject. But, I ask, is there any power in England by which the English landlord can get rid of his tithe in the same way as the Irish landlord can get rid of his in Ireland? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the Act of 1872 was an injustice to the Irish landlords, but he knows that that Bill was passed through both Houses of Parliament practically without discussion. I will tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman something of the genesis of that Act. At that time rents were rising in Ireland, and landlords were supposed to be face to face with increased prices, and a corresponding increase of their tithes, and Mr. Gladstone, then Prime Minister, in order to save the landlords from that increase of their tithes, made the tithe rent charge stationary, which would otherwise have been augmented by the increase of prices. So that what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman represents as an injustice to Irish landlords was in fact one of the gifts—I do not say bribes, nor do I wish to indulge in the theological fantasies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—by which Mr. Gladstone thought to smooth the passage of his land legislation, and to reconcile the Irish landlords to its acceptance.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 80; Noes, 180. (Division List No. 182.)

AYES.

Abraham Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Power, Patrick Joseph

Ambrose, Robert

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Price, Robert John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Reckitt, Harold James

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Robson, William Snowdon

Billson, Alfred

Horniman, Frederick John

Runciman Walter

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Brigg, John

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Scott, Charles P. (Leith)

Broadhurst, Henry

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'lnd)

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Macaleese, Daniel

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Burns, John

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. ((Qu'nsC)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Caldwell, James

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Steadman, William Charles

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

M'Crae, George

Strachey, Edward

Carew, James Laurence

M'Dermott, Patrick

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

M'Ghee, Richard

Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Tanner, Charles Kearus

Clancy, John Joseph

M'Kenna, Reginald

Tennant, Harold John

Clark, Dr. G. B.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

Daly, James

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Murnaghan, George

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dillon, John

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Weir James Galloway

Doogan, P. C.

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

Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

Emmott, Alfred

O'Dowd, John

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (H'ddersfd)

Evershed, Sydney

O'Kelly, James

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Oldroyd, Mark

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Malley, William

Captain Donelan and Mr.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Patrick O'Brien.

NOES.

Allsopp, Hon. George

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Banbury, Frederick George

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Newdigate, Francis Alex,

Barry, Rt. Hn A H Smith- (Hunts)

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Goschen, Rt. Hn G. J. (St George's)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Beckett, Ernest William

Goulding, Edward Alfred

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Graham, Henry Robert

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bethell, Commander

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsb'ry)

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Bill, Charles

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

Blakiston-Houston, John

Gull, Sir Cameron

Penn, John

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hardy, Laurence

Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon

Butcher John George

Heath, James

Purvis, Robert

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Henderson, Alexander

Remnant, James Farquharson

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

Rentoul, James Alexander

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

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep l)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.)

Hobhouse, Henry

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

Houston, R. P.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

Charrington, Spencer

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Sandon, Viscount

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Keswick, William

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

Knowles, Lees

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lafone, Alfred

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.

Stephens, Henry Charles

Curzon, Viscount

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart

Dalkeith, Earl of

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

Stock, James Henry

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Strauss, Arthur

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Scurt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tollemache, Henry James

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lowles, John

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lucas-Shadwell, William

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

Faber, George Denison

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Macdona, John Cumming

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L)

Fisher, William Hayes

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Williams, Joseph Powell- (Birm)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

M'Killop, James

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Flower, Ernest

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Forster, Henry William

Middlemore, John T.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Milward, Colonel Victor

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

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Wylie, Alexander

Galloway, William Johnson

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Wyndham, George

Garfit, William

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Gedge, Sydney

Morrell, George Herbert

Young, Commander (Berks, E)

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Sir William Walrond and

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

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

Mr. Anstruther.

It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

POST OFFICE SITES (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
DR. TANNER:
724
I beg leave to move to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBU'RY,): I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist in his motion. Time is pressing, and the Bill has already passed through Committee upstairs.
MR. CALDWELL: I think the Secretary of the Treasury has given a very good reason for putting this Bill as the first Order on Monday.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve of the clock.