Commons Sitting of 9 July 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  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.:—
  Morley Corporation 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 Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords].
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (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, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill.
  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.:—
  Workington Railways and Docks Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO 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 under an Order of the House of the 5th day of this instant July, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Military Manœuvres Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  MOUNTAIN ASH WATER BILL [Lords].
  Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  LATIMER ROAD AND ACTON RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  HARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  CORK ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  A Clause added.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill

  937
  be now road the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Bill accordingly road the third time, and passed.

  DONEGAL RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  EXMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  FALK1RK CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL [Lords].
  Not amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  A Clause added.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Queen's consent signified. Bill read the third time, and passed.

  RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; an Amendment, made; Bill to be road the third time.
HAMMOND (G. H.) COMPANY BILL [Lords].
  LONDON AND SAN FRANCISCO BANK BILL [Lords].

    LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
    MANCHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    SOUTH SHIELDS CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    WITHINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
    Read a second time, and committed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.

    LONDON (ST. LUKE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    LONDON (SOUTHWARK) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    As amended, considered; to be road third time To-morrow.

    EDINBURGH (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) IMPROVEMENT SCHEME PROVISIONAL ORDER.
    Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Secretary for Scotland under Part I. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, relating to the City and Royal Burgh of Edinburgh, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Anstruther.
    Ordered, That Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.—(The Lord Advocate.)

    EDINBURGH (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) IMPROVEMENT SCHEME PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    "To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Secretary for Scotland under Part I of The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, relating to the City and Royal Burgh of Edinburgh," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 288.]

    PAISLEY WATERWORKS PROVISIONAL ORDER.
    Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Paisley Waterworks, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Anstruther.
    Ordered, That Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.—(The Lord Advocate).

    PAISLEY WATERWORKS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    "To confirm a Provisional Order under The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Paisley Waterworks," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bilk, and to be printed. [Bill 289.]

    PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
    Colonel GUNTER reported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills, That Major Jameson, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the Sitting of the Committee this day.
    Ordered, That Major Jameson do attend the Committee on Group J of Private Bills upon Wednesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
    Report to lie upon the Table.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): I have to call the attention of the House to an irregularity which has been committed in one of the Private Bill Committee rooms this morning, and to ask the House to validate the proceedings of the Committee notwithstanding that irregularity. Under Standing Order 118 it is necessary, before an hon. Member can serve upon a Private Bill Committee, that he should sign a declaration to the effect that neither he nor his constituents are personally interested in the Bill coming before the Committee. When Group J met this morning, only three out of the four appointed Members were present, the fourth not being in attendance and not having signed his declaration. It then became a question for the Chairman of the Committee whether they should proceed with the Bill or not. The Standing Order says that no such Committee shall proceed to business until the declaration shall have been signed by each of the said Members, but, as all the parties were present, the Committee decided, in the general interests of the progress of the private business, to proceed. They therefore proceeded, and what I ask the House to do is to validate the proceedings, notwithstanding that the Standing Order has been broken. With regard to the future, I do not ask the House to come to any decision. All I ask is that the proceedings of this particular Committee to-day shall be made valid notwithstanding the fact that one Member who was appointed to be present had not signed the declaration when the Committee sat. I beg to move.
    Ordered, That the Proceedings of the Committee, this day, on Group J of Private Bills, be deemed to be, and be, valid notwithstanding that a Member of
    940
    the said Committee had failed to sign his Declaration in accordance with Standing Order 118.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    DURHAM (COUNTY OF) ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
    Reported from the Select Committee on Electric Power Bills, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION BILL.
    Reported from the Select Committee on Electric Power Bills, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
    Reported from the Select Committee on Electric Power Bills, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    ELECTRIC POWER BILLS (SELECT COMMITTEE).
    Sir ANDREW SCOBLE reported from the Select Committee on Electric Power Bills, That at the meeting of the Committee this day a letter was received from Sir James Kitson, one of the Members of the said Committee, stating that he was unable on account of urgent business to attend the Committee this day.
    Report to lie upon the Table.
    Sir ANDREW SCOBLE reported from the Select Committee on Electric Power Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday, at Three of the clock.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    HEMEL HEMPSTEAD CORPORATION (WATER) BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

    PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP D).
    Mr. ALEXANDER HARGREAVES BROWN reported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills, That Mr. Murnaghan,

    941
    one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed—to Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, without amendment.
    That they have agreed to Amendments to—Wirral Railway Bill [Lords], East Stirlingshire Water Bill [Lords], Lincoln Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords], Sheffield District Railway Bill [Lords], without amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act for authorising the Costa Rica Railway Company, Limited, to borrow further moneys and to make provision in reference thereto; and for other purposes." Costa Rica Railway Company, Limited, Bill [Lords].
    And also a Bill intituled, "An Act to amend and extend the Memorandum of Association of the Buenos Ayres and Rosario Railway Company, Limited, with reference to the acquisition of railways and for other purposes." Buenos Ayres and Rosario Railway Bill [Lords].

  COSTA RICA RAILWAY COMPANY, LIMITED, BILL [Lords].
    BUENOS AYRES AND ROSARIO RAIL WAY BILL [Lords].
    Road the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from North Berwick, against; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  Petition from Rochdale, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Alborough; Leamington; Guildford; Guisborough; Southend-on-Sea (eight); Grays: Thurrock; Newcastle-in-Emlyn; and Bermondsey; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Cornwath; Monifieth; Fraserburgh; Fearn; Longforgan; Duffus; Paisley; Mortlock; and Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Grays; Thurrock; Southend on-Sea; Leamington (two); and Alborough; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC,
  PUBLIC RECORDS.
  Copy presented, of Sixty-first Annnal Report of the Deputy Keeper [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1899. Part II. Civil Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Reports on the State of the Markets for Scottish-cured Herrings on the Continent and in the United States of America [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Accounts presented, of all Deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December, 1899, and of the Sums received and paid by the National Debt Commissioners on account of the Fund for the Post Office Savings Banks in the same year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 262.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2471 to 2473 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 531 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (INOCULATION AGAINST CHOLERA AND TYPHOID).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 29th June; Sir Charles Cameron]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Intermediate Education (Ireland). — Account of Receipts and Expenditure for 1899, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act] to be printed. [No. 263.]

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 264.]

QUESTIONS.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK— CO-OPERATION OF JAPAN IN SUPPRESSING DISTURBANCES.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state the reply of the Japanese Government to the request of Her Majesty's Government that Japan should undertake the relief of the Legations and the suppression of the disturbances in Northern China; and whether Her Majesty's Government have offered to guarantee Japan protection at sea, if necessary, during such a campaign.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): The Japanese Government have stated that reinforcements, bringing up the number of their troops in China to 20,000, will be sent as rapidly as possible. One battalion and three batteries of artillery started for Ta-ku on Friday last. No application for such a guarantee as is referred to in the second question has been made by Japan, and no question of giving one has arisen.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what day the Indian troops will arrive at Ta-ku?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is there any question of financial guarantee?
  MR. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the date at which the request was made?
  MR. MACLEAN: What has been the cause of the delay in the despatch of Japanese troops?
  MR. DILLON: He may not answer.

  BRITISH NAVAL AND MILITARY REINFORCEMENTS FOR CHINA.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the grave situation in China, Her Majesty's Government are arranging to further augment our naval and military forces there in addition to the increases already announced to the House.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Considerable reinforcements both in men and ships are on the way, and Her Majesty's Government are quite prepared to take any action rendered necessary by the situation.

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended to propose a Supplementary Estimate or a Vote on Account in connection with the expedition to China.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Yes, Sir; it will be necessary to take a Supplementary Vote.

  LATEST NEWS FROM CHINA.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether there is any news from. China.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The accounts from Peking received through native sources which have been already published, show that the resistance of the Legations to the attacks made on them have made a great impression on the assailants, and there are grounds for hoping that Prince Ching, the late head of the Tsung-li-Yamen, is exercising influence to protect

  945
  the Legations against Prince Tuan and the Boxers. The reports from Tientsin show that further fighting may be expected there at any moment, but no doubt is expressed that the allied forces will maintain their position. The Japanese reinforcements are due at Ta-ku immediately, and the Indian troops will begin to arrive in China at the end of the week. Matters are at present quiet on the Yang-tsze, but further naval force is being moved up so as to be prepared for any calls for the maintenance of order.

  WAR MATERIAL SUPPLIED TO CHINA FROM ENGLAND AND GERMANY.
  COLONEL PILKINGTON: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has any knowledge as to the number of guns and the quantity of ammunition which have been exported from this country to China since the war between China and Japan; and whether he has any information as to the purchases of munitions of war which China has recently been making in European countries.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Yes, Sir. Seventy-one guns of position with 11,740 rounds of ammunition; 123 field guns with 49,400 rounds of ammunition; and 297 machine guns with 4,228,400 rounds of ammunition have been supplied to China since 1895 from firms in this country. 460,000 Mauser rifles and 3,000,000 rounds of ammunition were supplied to China last year by a German firm. I may say that the figures as to the supplies from this country are not exhaustive, because the hon. Gentleman's question related to guns.
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what amount of the war material this country has sup plied to the South African Republics
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What was the amount of ammunition and guns supplied by Birmingham firms?
  [No answer was returned.]

  SUNDAY PUBLICATION OF DESPATCHES AT POST OFFICES.
  COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask the First Lord of
  946
  the Admiralty whether, in view of the deep interest taken in the Chinese crisis, he will, in conjunction with the Postmaster General, issue a Sunday telegram to the post offices throughout the United Kingdom when there is important news to communicate.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Such an arrangement as the hon. and gallant Member suggests shall be made.

  NAVAL OFFICERS QUALIFIED AS INTERPRETERS.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the rank of the two officers who are qualified interpreters in Russian, of the throe officers who are so qualified in French, and of the two officers qualified in German languages, now serving on Her Majesty's ships on the China Station.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The rank of the officers qualified as interpreters is as follows:—In Russian, Lieutenant, R.N.; in French, Captain, Commander, Lieutenant, R.N.; in German, Surgeon, Staff Paymaster, R.N.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—SIR W. BUTLER AND SIR A. MILNER—PUBLICATION OF DESPATCHES.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the correspondence between Sir William Butler and the War Office and the Colonial Office, and the correspondence between Sir William Butler and Sir Alfred Milner before Sir William Butler's recall from the Cape command, will be included in the documents relating to public affairs in South Africa, whose publication has been promised within a fortnight from 5th July.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will look back at some full answers I gave earlier in the session, I think he will be satisfied without pressing the question further.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect what answer he gave? That it was in the discretion of—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether in the publication of despatches and documents relating to political affairs in South Africa which will, according to his promise, be published within a fortnight from 5th July, will be included the minute or despatch or communication sent home by Sir William Butler, when commander of the forces in South Africa and acting governor of Cape Colony, in which he set forth his views of the military situation, of the forces required to be employed in the event of the outbreak of hostilities with the South African Republics, and the disposition which should be given to those forces.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This question is, of course, covered by the answer I have just given.

  ROODEVAL ENGAGEMENT—CAPTURE OF THE DERBYSHIRES.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state why the account, which for some time has been in the possession of the War Office, giving the details of the surrender of the 4th Battalion of the Derbyshire Regiment, has been withheld from publication. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that this is covered also by the answer he refers to?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not by that answer, but by another answer I have given. I have given a general reply on the subject of despatches, and that general reply covers particular cases.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a particular reply in reference to this?
  [No answer was returned.]

  MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS AT THE FRONT—SIR W. FOSTER'S SUGGESTIONS.
  SIR JAMES KITSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consent to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the correspondence which passed between the hon. Member for Ilkcston and the War Department in relation to medical and sanitary arrangements at the Cape.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no objection to laying the correspondence on the Table.

  NATAL CORRESPONDENCE ON CENSORSHIP.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will grant the Return relating to Natal Correspondence, which is on the Notice Paper to-day.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no objection to the Return if the hon. Gentleman asks for it.

  MARTIAL LAW—COLESBERG CASES.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether two persons, named Vander Valt and Boogsen, were recently tried and convicted by a court-martial at Colesberg, in Cape Colony. Could he state to the House with what offence or offences they were charged, what were the sentences imposed by the court-martial, and did the Attorney General of the colony report against the justice of the conviction in either or both of these cases. Have the sentences been since reduced, and by what authority and on what grounds; and can he say whether military tribunals are still taking cognisance of offences against the criminal law of the colony, notwithstanding that the ordinary courts of the country are and have for some time been open.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The question seems to be addressed to me under a misapprehension that there has been a difference between the civil legal authority and the military. I am not aware that there has been any such difference. The question therefore concerns the proceedings of the military authorities in a district in which, with the concurrence of the Civil Government, martial law has been proclaimed, and would more properly have been addressed to the Under Secretary of State for War. But as a matter of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, I have ascertained that the two persons named were tried for rebellion and sentenced to five and ten years penal servitude respectively. I understand that the sentences were afterwards reduced on the recommendation of the

  949
  Deputy Judge Advocate General, and, I assume, by the military authorities. As regards the fourth question, I am informed that military tribunals are not now taking cognisance of offences against the criminal law of the colony.

  BRITISH PRISONERS RELEASED AND STILL CAPTIVE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will consider the expediency of arranging for the publication of a list of the names of the officers and men recently prisoners of war at Pretoria, indicating those who have rejoined their regiments and those who are in hospital; and can he arrange to publish a list of officers and men still in the hands of the Boers, giving such information as to their probable whereabouts as may be available.
  *MR. WYDHAM: Most of the names of the officers and men released at Pretoria have been published, and the remainder will be published as soon as they reach the War Office; the further information alluded to by the hon. Member has not been supplied, and would be very difficult to obtain. Lists of some of the officers and men still in the hands of the Boers, and all available information, have been published. Endeavours are being made to secure the names of the rest.

  CAPE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SIR A. MILNER.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether since the gentleman filling for the time being the post of Attorney General at the Cape is, under the provisions of the Cape Constitution Act, a member of the Cape Cabinet, the Governor of the Cape is responsible to the Colonial Office for the rejection of advice offered to him on matters of law by a minister responsible for that advice to the Cape Legislature.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a hypothetical question, and the supposititious fact on which it is based has not, so far as I am aware, arisen.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has not Sir Alfred Milnor overruled the decision of the Cape Attorney General?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have just said that I am not aware that that has happened.

  ANNEXATION OF THE TRANSVAAL IN 1877—CLAIMS UNDER SIR THEO-PHILITS SHEPSTONE'S PROCLAMATION.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the annexation of the Transvaal in 1877 a proclamation was issued by Sir Theophilus Shepstone stating that all claims against the late Government would be acknowledged by Her Majesty's Government, and paid out; whether he is aware that among those whose claims were to be so recognised there wore a number of volunteers who formed a border force for the protection of the frontier against the raids of the Chief Sekukuni, and who were promised, in lieu of the unpaid balance of their allowances, a farm of 4,000 morgen north and north-west of the Zulu mountains; and whether he will take the matter now into his consideration with the view of giving effect to the pledges conveyed by the proclamation, as the claims in question have never been granted.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The proclamation of Sir Theophilus Shepstone of 12th April, 1877, contained a general promise of this character. I regret that I have not been able yet to trace the detailed records of those claims, and I am not therefore in a position to express any opinion. The claims were regarded as settled in 1877, according to the Report published in Parliamentary Paper C. 2144, page 378.

  TREATMENT OF DISCHARGED SOLDIERS—CASE OF PRIVATE WEIR.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has received a letter from the Enniskillen Board of Guardians complaining that Private R. Weir, of the 27th Inniskilling Fusiliers, who was engaged at the front in South Africa, has been sent home disabled for life, and is now in Enniskillen workhouse and chargeable on the rates for the rest of his life: and whether it is proposed to give Weir a pension to enable him to support himself.
  The following questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: 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 Inniskilling 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. CHANGING: To ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the War Office has been called to the transfer of Private R. Weir, 27th Inniskilling Fusiliers, wounded in South Africa, from Netley Hospital to the Enniskillen work house; whether this has been done under the order or regulations of the War Office; and whether the War Office will take steps to make a more suitable provision for wounded and disabled soldiers, either by special vote for this purpose or by arranging for the application of part of the Mansion House or other funds for the relief of such cases.
  MR. CHANNING: Before the hon. Gentleman replies may I ask his attention to the practical suggestions in my question?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Perhaps the most convenient course will be to answer the three questions together.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No. I will ask the hon. Gentleman to answer mine separately.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The man referred to is evidently Private Robert Weir, of the Royal Irish Fusiliers, who was invalided home from South Africa as a lunatic. It was certified by the medical officer who examined Weir that his madness was not the result of Army service; and therefore under the regulations no pension can be given to him. His friends were unable to receive him, and in accordance with the Army Act he was handed over to his parish authorities, who are alone responsible for his treatment.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: How long was this private in the Army? Did the doctor pass him as sane when he enlisted?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member means did the doctor pass him as sane on coming back from the Reserve, it is, I confess, a matter which requires investigation. Lunacy, I may point out, is occasionally intermittent, and a man may be subject to recurring fits at any moment.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Could not a sum of money be voted from public funds for the relief of this man?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think the hon. Member quite sees the point. When a man, whether or not he be in the Army, is a lunatic he has to be put under proper supervision in some asylum. If that man is in possession of a pension from the Chelsea Hospital Commissioners, a portion is diverted to the funds of the asylum. When he has none, of course there is no money to go to the asylum.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Cannot the ratepayers of this particular union be relieved of the liability for his support by a grant of money from one of the many War Funds?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: That depends upon whether the lunacy is attributable to service in the Army. If it is decided it is not, as in this case, then no pension can be granted, and the charge falls on the parish.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it a fact that this man was wounded in the war, and is at present a pauper inmate of a lunatic asylum?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Was he medically inspected before he embarked for South Africa?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. I may add that he was not wounded. The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension as to that.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the War Office not received a protest from the board of guardians in reference to this man being a charge on the rates?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is proceeding to argue the question, which, as it appears on the Paper, has been fully answered. If he wishes to put a further question he can give notice of it.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: The first paragraph of my question has never been answered.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware that a protest has been received; but it would not touch the facts of the question. The Chelsea Hospital Commissioners have power to give money in certain cases, but this is not one which comes within the category of cases to which they are permitted to vote money.

  BOER EXPEDITION, 1884–5—MEDALS.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that medals have recently been given to the survivors of those who took part in the expedition against raiders into Canada in 1866, also in the Red River Expedition in 1870, as well as those of more recent date, such as the late expedition in Ashanti, the Government will consider the claim of those troops who took part in the expedition in 1884–5 against the Boers who raided from the Transvaal into Bechuanaland, for which successful operations, in which many South African troops were engaged, no medal or decoration or special recognition of their services was given to the troops.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The operations, though successful, were not of a nature to justify the grant of a medal or decoration.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: May I ask the reason?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Shortly, it is that there were no really active operations.

  VOLUNTEER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADJUTANT GENERAL.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether an adjutant of a metropolitan corps has been appointed Deputy Assistant Adjutant General for Volunteers at the War Office; if so, what are his special qualifications for the appointment;
  954
  and what has been his connection, if any, with provincial Volunteer corps, which form a large proportion of the Volunteer force.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Captain Engle-heart, Royal Welsh Fusiliers, has been selected for this appointment. Past service as an adjutant of an important Volunteer corps was regarded as a necessary qualification for the position. The officer selected has filled that position for four years in one of the largest and most efficient corps in the metropolis. The Secretary of State has full confidence in the selection he has been advised to make. I may add that Volunteer officers of all corps have free access to General Turner, the Inspector General of Auxiliary Forces at the War Office.

  ARMY CONTRACTORS AND MILITIA AND VOLUNTEER CONTRACTS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that after certain contractors' names had been struck off the list, commanding officers of Militia and Volunteer regiments have written letters to these contractors stating that they would continue to employ them, the contractors, in supplying clothing; and whether immediate and suitable action will be taken by the Government in such cases.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The Secretary of State has no knowledge of any such letters as are referred to in the question. Militia clothing is supplied from the Government stores. Officers commanding Volunteer regiments have been made aware that the name of Messrs. Samuel Brothers has been struck off the list of firms with whom the War Office is willing to have dealings. The responsibility of obtaining proper and serviceable supplies, however, is with those officers, and the Secretary of State would not willingly interfere with their discretion in the matter. At the same time he does not consider it advisable that supplies for Volunteers should be obtained from firms who have been removed by the War Office from its list of contractors on account of the very bad quality of the articles delivered.
  *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Am I to understand that the Secretary of State does not intend to give effect to his own decision, and that these commanding officers are to be allowed to employ these contractors?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have stated that the discretion in the matter is with the commanding officers, and the Secretary of State will not willingly interfere with their discretion.
  *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Will he do so unwillingly?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: We trust that the commanding officers will observe the opinion which is expressed in answer to the question.
  *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Will the list be published of those commanding officers who disregard it?
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Messrs. Samuel mentioned are the firm who sold boots made out of newspapers?
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Is it not a fact that Lord Wolseley has been handed a list of letters from commanding officers declining to obey the War Office?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I put a relevant question? May I ask whether it is not the fact that these commanding officers expend public money, and has not the War Office control over them?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is arguing on the answer. The question on the Paper has been fully answered.

  NAVAL TRAINING SHIPS—THE SCOTTISH COAST.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the strong local feeling recently expressed in favour of the establishment of a naval training ship at a suitable station upon the west coast of Scotland, and to the fact that the nearest available training ship station at present is Queensferry, he will consider whether he can spare at least some inexpensive vessel which would serve as a training ship for youths of hardy physique and inured by the habits and circumstances of their lives to seafaring.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I can only repeat what I have frequently said in reply to the questions of hon. Members, that there is no intention of adding to the number of training ships for the Navy. The present number is such as the Naval Service requires. There is no such thing as an inexpensive training ship. It involves considerable establishment expenses both ashore and afloat.

  NAVAL COURTS-MARTIAL.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Criminal Evidence Act has been applied to courts-martial under the Naval Discipline Act, so as to enable sailors charged with offences to give evidence in their own defence, or whether it is intended to withhold from Her Majesty's Naval Forces this privilege which has been extended to civilians and soldiers since 1898.
  MR. GOSCHEN: There has been a great objection to change well-established custom in the proceedings of Naval courts-martial. No steps have yet been taken to apply to them the rules of the Criminal Evidence Act, but I will consult my Naval colleagues on the subject.

  LINOLEUM FOR THE NAVY
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now able to say if a higher standard of linoleum will be adopted for use on Her Majesty's fleet; and whether precautions will be taken to ensure that in each case the quality supplied is equal to the sample submitted.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): No complaints have recently been received as to the description or quality of linoleum received, and there is no reason to suppose that the quality supplied is not equal to the sample submitted. I may add that orders have been given for trials to be made of a thicker quality of linoleum, and it will depend on the results whether or no such a quality should be adopted.

  PARIS EXHIBITION—BRITISH SECTION.
  MR. WEIR: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that £125,000 has been granted by Parliament in aid of expenses

  957
  for the British section of the Paris Exhibition, is he aware that the Manor House, in the Rue des Nations of the Exhibition, is only open for a few hours during the day, and that visitors have to be provided with a special ticket; and will be use his influence with the authorities, so that the general public may be able to obtain ready access to the Manor House during the hours similar buildings are open to the public.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The matter is not one that falls within the province of the Foreign Office. Questions of organisation in connection with the British section of the Paris Exhibition are under the control of Colonel Jekyll, C.M.G., the secretary to the Royal Commission.

  GAMBLING IN FUTURES IN GRAIN.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent report from Germany showing how the law against gambling in futures in grain has operated, the Board of Trade will consider the advisability of introducing similar regulations regarding options in food supplies in this country.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): There is no intention to introduce legislation of the kind referred to in the hon. Member's question.

  THE SCARCITY OF SPRATS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, is he aware that there has been a scarcity of sprats in the seas adjacent to the United Kingdom during the last ten years, and can he state what is the cause of this scarcity; and if not, will he take steps to inquire into its cause, or will he, without inquiry, introduce legislation tending to bring the scarcity to an end.
  MR. RITCHIE: The returns of the quantities of sprats taken from year to year show great fluctuations, owing to many causes, including the state of the weather, but the returns before 1890 are not sufficiently complete to enable me to compare the last ten years with the previous ten years. The average annual quantity for the five years ending 1899 is in excess of that for the previous five years. I have no reason to think that an
  958
  inquiry would lead to any useful result or that legislation on the subject is desirable.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer this matter to the Undersized Fish Bill Committee?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman has failed to answer the part of my question as to the came of the scarcity. He must know what the cause is.
  MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Member is quite as likely to know as I am.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it due to the fact that large quantities of "sardines" are consumed in this country?

  THE TRUCK ACT—POSITION OF FEMALE WORKERS.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps can be taken in reference to a case heard in the Queen's Bench Division at Dublin, last week, in which it was held that a woman sock-maker was not a workman under the Truck Act; whether, by this judgment, the view uniformly taken by the Home Office is reversed; whether the judgment will have effect in England or Scotland; and if he will consider whether the Irish decision goes beyond the Truck Acts, and affects the definitions in the Factory and Workshop Acts.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): The Court of Queen's Bench Division in Ireland, I am informed, decided the case referred to on the ground that knitting was not manual labour within the meaning of the Truck Act of 1887. If this is so, it is contrary to the view upon which the Truck Acts have hitherto been administered, without any similar question, so far as I know, being raised in any court. It would also have a very serious effect upon the administration of the Factory Acts in which similar language is used. I regard the question as so serious that I propose to consult at once with the Law Officers of the Crown as to the effect and extent of the decision of the Irish Court, and as to the proper steps to be taken to secure the effective administration of the Truck and Factory Acts.

  PROSECUTIONS BY FACTORY INSPECTORS IN IRELAND
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, by direction of the Home Office, female factory inspectors have been sent to Donegal on several occasions, and have instituted legal proceedings against employers in poor districts, where, until local industry was started, emigration was the only resource of the population; what has been the result of those prosecutions, and what expense have they and the visits of the female inspectors entailed on the State; is he aware that, after the dismissal of a recent prosecution under the Truck Act, the Government obtained a mandamus to compel the magistrates to state a case, and the resident magistrate, Mr. Gaussen, B.L., put it in his pocket and took it away to a town thirty miles off, and wrote from thence a letter refusing to return the writ to his brother justices; is he aware that when the majority of the magistrates were thus disabled from complying with the Queen's writ, the Crown solicitor, without informing the High Court of the facts, applied for a writ of attachment against the magistrates for alleged contempt; and that the magistrates were obliged to show cause at great expense to themselves, two of them, Major Johnson and Mr. Boyle, proceeding to Dublin to instruct counsel; is he aware that the Lord Chief Baron, in delivering the unanimous judgment of the Queen's Bench refusing the attachment, declared that he was shocked at the conduct of the Crown solicitor, and expressed regret that the law did not allow costs to be awarded to the justices; and that the High Court subsequently decided that the majority of the magistrates were right in dismissing the prosecution under the Truck Act, and awarded costs to the defendant therein; and will the justices, whose personal conduct and legal decision have now been vindicated, be recouped their outlay in resisting the Conditional Order for attachment.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The hon. Member's question contains suggestions which I cannot accept as an accurate representation of the facts of the cases referred to. But it is true that, owing to the existence of grave abuses on the part of employers in some parts of Donegal, it has been found
  960
  necessary to take proceedings for the protection of the women who work for them. In some of the cases taken, convictions were obtained and fines imposed. The expenses involved are part of the ordinary cost of the Factory Department. In the case particularly referred to by the hon. Member, the Court did not decide that the magistrates were right in their reasons for dismissing the case; in fact, they said they were wrong, and the ground upon which the Court dismissed the appeal was an entirely different point of law, which I have already explained in the answer which I have just given to the right hon. Baronet. As to that part of the question which relates to the action of the resident magistrate, the Crown solicitor, and the justices, I must refer the hon. Member to the Irish Government.

  LAW COURTS—PROPOSED NEW BUILDINGS.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will state the nature of the buildings which it is proposed to erect on the open space to the west of the Law Courts; and whether, considering the aesthetic and hygienic value of this open space, which was laid out at the expense of the late Mr. William Henry Smith, any scheme to erect the proposed building; elsewhere could be favourably considered.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The buildings to be erected on the vacant site to the west of the Law Courts are four new courts and their adjuncts, which will form part of the Royal Courts of Justice, and must be in structural communication therewith. The extension will occupy about one-sixth of the area of vacant ground which was temporarily laid out as a garden by the generosity of Mr. Smith, but was acquired and always intended for an extension of the courts when needed. As the essential object in view in the erection of the Royal Courts of Justice was the concentration of the legal business of the country, the Government could not view favourably my noble friend's suggestion to erect additional courts elsewhere.

  HIGH WYCOMBE POST OFFICE
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as

  961
  representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the negotiations that have been proceeding between the Post Office and the authorities of High Wycombe regarding the erection of the new post office in a convenient position; and whether, seeing that the said authorities agreed to relieve the Post Office of the selected site called Flint House, and subsequently agreed to further conditions required by the Post Office which involved a local contribution of upwards of £1,200, the Postmaster General will reconsider the proposal now made to the High Wycombe authorities, calling on them to obtain the extension of the lease of the present premises, and will proceed with the erection of the new post office on the site chosen without delay.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The attention of the Postmaster General has been called to the representations made by those who desire that the new post office in High Wycombe should be placed not at Flint House as authorised, but in a new street which it is proposed to form; but after giving the fullest consideration to the matter, he has decided to proceed with the Flint House scheme. Apart from other considerations it now appears that while the new street cannot be formed for some time, the tenancy of the present post office, which expires at Michaelmas next, cannot be extended, as it was understood it would be.

  IRISH LANGUAGE IN IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what arrangements are to be made for the study of the Irish language in Irish National schools, and especially in the Irish-speaking districts.
  MR. FLAVIN: At the same time, may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in certain districts in Ireland owing to the discrepancies which exist in results in National schools between the years 1898 and 1899; and whether, owing to the alleged grievances of National school teachers, he will consider the advisability of consulting with them as to the fairness of taking an
  962
  average, as a means of ascertaining their future salaries, of the years 1897, 1898, and 1899?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): This question has been referred to the Board of National Education, and I am informed that a statement to enable me to reply to it cannot be sent until after their meeting on the 17th instant.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the teachers be consulted before the Board of Education come to a decision on the subject?
  [No answer was returned.]

  DUBLIN NATIONAL MUSEUM—THE MIAS TIERNAN.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will make inquiry as to the possibility of procuring for the National Museum in Dublin the Mias Tiernan, now in the custody of the Accountant General for Ireland in the matter of the Knox Estate.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I understand that the historical relic referred to in the question is claimed by the executors of the late Dr. Knox, whose estate is being administered in the Chancery Division of the High Court, to be part of the assets of the testator. The relic is in the custody of the Accountant General pursuant to an order of the judge, who has not, so far, made an order for its sale.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS—SALARIES.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what stops the Government intend to take with reference to the increases in the salaries of certain county council officials in Ireland made by the Irish Local Government Board, and which several Irish county councils have refused to pay on the grounds that the salaries as increased are too high and that the views of the county councils in relation to these increases have not been properly consulted by the Local Government Board; and will he also say what steps are to be taken with reference to the qualifications for deputy county surveyor, fixed by the Local Government Board, to which exception has been taken.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: In every case where the county council decline to pay their existing officers the amount of the allowance determined by the Local Government Board under Section 115, Sub-section 18, of the Act of 1898 for their increased work under the Act, the Board intend to make special Orders under seal in order to enable these officers to recover in a court of law the sums to which they are entitled under the provisions of the Act referred to. It is quite incorrect to say that the councils were not consulted with reference to these increases, and this assertion is chiefly put forward by certain councils who took no steps to come to an agree-merit with their officers on receipt of the Board's letters inviting their views. I may observe that the salaries for new assistant surveyors which have been fixed by the councils themselves since the passing of the Act have, in many cases, been equal to the scale fixed by the Board. The qualifications fixed for assistant surveyors have, I understand, been generally approved of. So far only one objection has been received. One examination has been held, at which nine elected assistant surveyors were examined, with the result that seven were certified to possess the prescribed qualifications and two were rejected.
  MR. FLYNN: In case of any difference of opinion with regard to salaries between a county council and the Irish Local Government Board, has the latter an absolute right to fix the salary?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is not merely a right. The duty is imposed on them.
  MR. FLAVIN: Can they fix any salary they please?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: This matter was discussed for several hours on the Vote for the Local Government Board, and I really cannot re-open it.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have addressed a letter to the South Tipperary County Council stating that they had received a letter from Mr. Higgins, solicitor for Mr. Haskett, the late surveyor of South Tipperary, stating
  964
  that his client had been obliged to take proceedings against the council for the balance of his salary, at the rate of £800 a year, and that, to enable Mr. Haskett to succeed in his action they (the Local Government Board) had issued a special sealed Order; and will he state who fixed Mr. Haskett's salary at £800 a year; was this salary approved of by the council; and what is the nature of the special sealed Order issued in support of Mr. Haskett's action.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Mr. Haskett is still the county surveyor. The county council proposed to grant Mr. Haskett an addition of £100 a year to his salary of £600, in respect of his increase of duties. The county surveyor, not agreeing to this proposal, appealed under Section 115, Sub-section 18, of the Act of 1898 to the Local Government Board to determine the increase to be allowed to him, claiming an addition of £450 a year to his salary. After careful consideration of the additional duties to be performed by him, and of the proposal of the county council, the Board decided that the county surveyor was entitled to an addition of £200 a year to his salary, making a total salary of £800 a year, and they informed the council accordingly. The council, however, declined to pay more than the sum proposed by them, namely, £700 a year, and the county surveyor applied to the Board, through his solicitor, for an Order under seal to enable him to recover the amount due to him according to the Board's decision, and the Board have complied with his request.
  MR. DILLON: What was the nature of the special sealed Order? Will the right hon. Gentleman lay a copy of it on the Table?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I do not know that there is any objection to doing it. It is a simple Order fixing the salary.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BODIES— PROSECUTION FOR VOTING WHEN DISQUALIFIED.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant a Return giving the names of persons convicted, since the Local Government (Ireland) Act came into operation, of having acted or

  965
  voted as members of county or district councils or boards of guardians when disqualified under the orders issued by virtue of the Act, showing the names of the prosecutors, the number of offences alleged against each defendant in the summons, the amount of the fine or penalty inflicted for each offence, and the date of the conviction by the court of summary jurisdiction.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: There is no official record of the prosecutions referred to, but the information could, of course, be obtained from the clerks of petty sessions. If the hon. Member so desires I will have the Return put in hand, and will forward it to him when completed.

  DOWNPATRICK DISTURBANCES.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a sworn statement from Downpatrick supporting the allegations made, in the letter of the Deputy District Master of Lecale, concerning the action of the police on the 5th June; and what action is proposed to be taken to ascertain the circumstances of the case.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have received the document referred to in the first paragraph. It has been brought under the notice of the Constabulary authorities, who adhere to the accuracy of the statement already made by me that the Orangemen have not been in the habit of returning through Irish Street. I may mention that the county inspector convened a meeting of the magistrates to discuss the propriety of allowing processionists to march through the street in question, and they are unanimously of opinion that permission should not be given. I have already stated that prosecutions are pending against a number of persons for assaults on the police arising out of the disturbances in Downpatrick on the 5th June, and that all the facts will doubtless be fully investigated by the magistrates.
  *MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: Who and what is the Deputy District Master of Lecale? Is it an official title?
  [No answer was given.]

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY REGULATIONS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state
  966
  the degree of relationship laid down by the Code within which members of the Royal Irish Constabulary may not perform duties in towns or districts where they have friends residing; and will cases brought to his notice where the provision of the Code has been ignored have his attention.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: There is no fixed rule laid down in the Code with respect to the degree of relationship. In answer to the second paragraph, if any specific case is brought under notice it will be carefully inquired into by the Inspector General.

  REPAIR OF IRISH ROADS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the desirability of inserting a clause in the Local Government (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill with a view to empower councils to undertake the maintenance and repair of roads by means of direct labour, as provided in the English Local Government Act.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The object of the hon. and gallant Member could be accomplished, if thought desirable, by means of a Provisional Order under the Local Government (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill now awaiting Second Reading.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will steps be taken in that direction?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am not prepared to answer that.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS IN KERRY.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state the amount of money which has been spent by the Congested Districts Board in the county of Kerry for each of the years 1897, 1898, and 1899, and also say in what particular districts of Kerry during the years mentioned the money was spent, giving the amount so spent for each district or place in the county.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Congested Districts Board have no record showing the total sum expended in each of the congested districts. The preparation of such a Return would entail

  967
  a considerable amount of trouble, and would not, in my opinion, serve any useful purpose. The annual reports presented to Parliament give a great deal of information as to the several localities where the Board's operations have been carried on during the period referred to.
  MR. FLAVIN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the gross amount for each of the years named?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I sec no object to be served by doing so.

  BELFAST WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Belfast Water Commissioners obtained powers from Parliament to take certain lands in the townland of Oldpark, parish of Shankhill, county Antrim, and served the requisite notices on owners and occupiers of land in 1896, and that Mr. Ryan, the arbitrator, held his first court in 1899, but has not yet made his final award; whether he is aware that Mr. Ryan in one case awarded £2,000 more than the owner of the property claimed, and that in other cases his awards were below the value of the lands as sworn to by the Water Commissioners' valuers; and whether he is aware that in consequence of the delay in the publication of the final awards the owners and occupiers have suffered loss, as they have been obliged to pay the rent of their holdings, and debarred from developing or disposing of their lands, and can he state how the appointment of Mr. Ryan as arbitrator was made, and when the final award will be delivered.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I understand the facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The Board of Public Works have no knowledge as to the matters alleged in the second paragraph. If the parties are aggrieved at the award of the arbitrator it is open to them to enter a traverse at the assizes. Nor have the Board any information as to the matters referred to in the first part of the last paragraph. The appointment of the arbitrator was made by the Board of Public Works. In the case under the Belfast Water Act of 1897, in which the arbitrator was appointed in February, 1899, it is understood that his final award
  968
  is in print, and will be lodged in the course of a week or two. In the case under the Act of last year it cannot be stated when the final award will be delivered.

  MONAGHAN PETTY SESSIONS APPEALS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that at a recent Petty Sessions Court in Monaghan two men named M'Guigan and Hughes were convicted of a police offence and sent to Armagh Gaol for nine months and five months respectively, and that several magistrates, not in the habit of attending the Monaghan Petty Sessions, appeared on the bench on this occasion and adjudicated upon the trial of these men; is he aware that, after being placed in Armagh Gaol, M'Guigan and Hughes lodged an appeal against their conviction and sentence, and gave the necessary bail for its prosecution; and that when they appeared at the Monaghan Quarter Sessions, the County Court Judge, at the instance of the Crown, refused them the right of appeal, and sent them back to gaol to complete their sentence; and will he either secure that these men be granted the right of appeal, or take steps to have their punishment reduced.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am informed that all the justices who attended the Monaghan Petty Sessions at which the convictions mentioned in the first paragraph were obtained, are in the habit of attending the sessions, except one gentleman who was present for the first time since his appointment to the Commission a few days previously. Under the Petty Sessions Act, an appellant is bound to give seven days notice of his intention to appeal, but this the defendants in the present case failed to do, giving only three days notice, and the Judge held that the appeal was not properly before him. If the defendants feel aggrieved by the decision of the Judge, it is open to them to have that decision reviewed by the Court of Queen's Bench.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now make a statement of the intentions of the Government as to the legislative business of the

  969
  remaining weeks of the session; and, if not, when he will be in a position to make such a statement.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it would be premature now to answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman. If he will kindly put it down for Monday next, I hope then to be able to make a full statement.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman meantime take into consideration the view expressed in the House of Lords on Friday as to the desirability of withdrawing the Tithe Rent-charge (Ireland) Bill, and devoting the time to some more useful purpose?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What Estimates will be taken on Friday next, and what will be the course of business till then?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose we shall finish the Committee stage of the Irish Tithes Bill to-night, and I shall then propose to proceed with the Agricultural Holdings Bill of my right hon. friend. I hope to take the Navy Estimates on Friday. The First Lord of the Admiralty, however, informs me that it is very important that a Memorandum which he has prepared on the subject of water-tube boilers should be in the hands of Members before those Estimates can well be discussed, and there appears to be a slight doubt as to whether it will be possible to circulate that Memorandum in time. But, if possible, it is most desirable to take the Navy Estimates on Friday.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: If you do not, what Vote will be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Failing the Navy Estimates, the Home Office Vote will be taken.
  MR. DILLON: Up to what hour tomorrow morning does the right hon. Gentleman propose to keep the House sitting?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That depends on hon. Gentlemen opposite.

  NATAL CORRESPONDENCE.
  Address for "a Return of Correspondence, recently published in the Natal Witness, containing minutes from the Prime Minister and Governor of Natal
  970
  and Generals Buller and Murray, respecting the Censorship in that Colony of letters and telegrams."—(Captain Sinclair.)

  NEW WRIT.
  For the County of Wilts (Southern or Wilton Division), in the room of the Hon. Jacob Pleydell-Bouverie, commonly called Viscount Folkestone, now Earl of Radnor, called up to the House of Peers. —(Sir William Walrond.)

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;
  The House went; and, being returned,
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—
  Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900.

  DIOCESAN RECORDS BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 290.]
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Burial Grounds Bill; District Councillors and Guardians (Term of Office) Bill, without Amendment.

COUNTY AND DISTRICT SURVEYORS (WEXFORD) —ACTION OF IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
[MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.]
*SIR THOMAS ESMONDErose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the recent action of the Local Government Board for Ireland in raising the salaries and qualifications of the county and district surveyors in county Wexford, and in endeavouring to enforce the payment of these increased salaries as from to-morrow, by sealed order, notwithstanding the protests of the county council.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): As a question of order, may I

971
ask whether this can be a matter of urgent public importance, seeing that the question was fully discussed on the Vote for the Irish Local Government Board more than a month ago? † I do not see how, under the circumstances, it can properly be regarded as urgent.
*SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: The sealed Order is to come in force to-morrow.
*MR. SPEAKER: Theoretically and in fact I have no knowledge of what was said in Committee of Supply.
*SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: The Government are attempting to coerce the Irish county councils by means of a sealed Order.
*MR. SPEAKER: I do not think I can take upon myself to rule that the motion cannot be moved.
MR. SPEAKER then called on those Members who supported the motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen—
*SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I have to thank hon. Members who have been good enough to give me their support in this matter, and at the same time I wish to express my regret at having to deal with this question in this particular way. But under existing Parliamentary conditions it is absolutely impossible for Irish Members to deal with important Irish questions as they arise. It is quite impossible to deal with important Irish matters in the two or three days allotted to Irish Estimates. If I must put the House to inconvenience on this occasion hon. Members must blame the system under which Irish affairs are managed in, England, and I hope, therefore, I shall not be blamed for standing between the House and the more interesting debates on the Tithes Bill. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, in answer to several questions addressed to him to-day, gave the House the views of the Irish Local Government Board on the situation which has arisen in Ireland with regard to the action of that Board towards the Irish county councils in increasing the salaries of the county officials. Listening to the answers of the right hon. Gentleman I could
† See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxiii., p. 1127.
972
not help thinking how utterly he failed to realise the very serious position which has been created in Ireland within the last few weeks. The action of the Local Government. Board in raising the salary of certain county council officials has given great dissatisfaction not only to members of county councils, but also to the constituencies they represent, and the rate-payers at large have not hesitated to express to their county councils the extreme dissatisfaction with which they view the rapid increase of rates all over the country. I am chairman of a county council, a district council, and a board of guardians, and during the last twelve months the expenditure of each of those bodies has considerably increased, the increase being mainly due to the action of the Local Government Board in ordering us to do this and to pay that. It appears there is no escape from an Order of the Local Government Board—there is no way of protecting the ratepayers. It has, therefore, become necessary that we should again direct public attention to this matter, and endeavour to obtain the assistance of this House in guarding the interests of the Irish taxpayers against the unjust interference of the Local Government Board. I do not propose, and you, Sir, would not allow me, to deal in generalities; I wish to direct attention to the specific case of the treatment of the County Council of Wexford. It is necessary under the terms of my motion that I should adopt this course; but I may point out that other Irish county councils stand in precisely the same position. In county Wexford there is a road mileage, excluding the roads in urban districts, of 1,982 miles For the management of that mileage we have a county surveyor, whose salary we are ordered by the Local Government Board to increase by 33 per cent. This gentleman heretofore has had a salary of £650 a year, and that was considered ample for the work he has to discharge.. We have also four deputy surveyors, whose salaries we are commanded to increase by 87½ per cent. The old salaries were £80 a year, and they were considered quite sufficient for the work to be performed, the best proof of which is that whenever a vacancy occurred there were dozens of applicants for the position. In addition to these increases of salaries, we are also ordered to appoint an additional

973
assistant surveyor at a salary of £150 a year. Seeing that during all the years of grand jury management the county managed to get along with a county surveyor at £650, and four assistant surveyors at £80 a year, it will be interesting to know why it is suddenly found necessary, as soon as the people have obtained control of the local administration, to increase the salaries to this large extent and to employ additional officials. This question has been in debate between the County Council of Wexford and the Local Government Board for some time; we have protested against the decision of the Local Government Board, and given the reasons upon which we based that protest, but our protest has been disregarded and our arguments apparently refused a hearing. Now, as a climax, the Local Government Board issue a sealed Order to compel us to submit to their decision in this matter. The Chief Secretary will no doubt explain the meaning of a sealed Order and what it purports to be. As perhaps the perfect accuracy of my version of the story might be suspected, I must trouble the House with some correspondence which has passed between the County Council of Wexford and the Irish Local Government Board. The first act in this performance was the receipt by the secretary of the county council of a circular from the Local Government Board. The circular is dated 29th August, 1899, and numbered 317, so I presume it was the 317th circular we received from the Board between the 1st April and the 29th August last. This circular was sent to the secretary, although some time before the general council of the Irish County Councils had made a request that when an important circular was issued a copy should be sent to every member of the county council interested, because it frequently happened that, owing to the extreme pressure of bringing the Local Government Act into operation, and the great difficulty of dealing with the enormous number of circulars issued, matters of importance escaped the notice of the county councils in consequence of the circulars being sent only to the secretaries. I will take the liberty of reading this circular to the House—
"The Local Government Board for Ireland desire to draw the attention of the county council to the terms of Section 115, Sub-section 18, of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, which provide that existing officers transferred under
974
the section shall receive such increase or diminution of remuneration in proportion to the increase or diminution of the duties as the Local Government Board may determine, and that the county council, with the approval of the Board, may make a special agreement with any of their officers in the matter. To enable them to discharge the duty thus imposed upon them, the Board will be glad to receive, within three months from the present date, a statement showing the salaries of the secretary, county surveyors, assistant surveyors, and other officers of the council who are affected by the provisions of the sub-section referred to, and who have not made a special agreement with the council on the subject, together with a statement as to the increase or diminution of work to he taken into account in each case. Any observations which the council may see fit to make respecting the claims of their officers under the enactment in question will receive full consideration on the part of the Board."
I may point out that very often these circulars and letters from the Local Government Board arrive just after the meeting of the county council has been held, and considerable time may elapse before the matters are brought to the attention of the council and considered. Last year was the opening year of the local administration in Ireland—a year which gave those entrusted with the administration of local affairs a very great amount of work to do. I am sure the House will agree that it would be perfectly impossible to expect members of county councils, who are unpaid, who are not rich men, who have their own business to manage, who have to support themselves and their families by their own industry, to attend permanently for the purpose of discharging public duties in the county councils. When this circular was issued the Local Government Act had been four or five months in operation, and the whole machinery of local government in Ireland had been put into working order all over the country: That had entailed incessant labour on the part of county councils; there had been constant meetings of the councils and their committees, and at the end of those four or five months the Wexford County Council considered they were entitled to a holiday. This circular was issued in August, but I do not know when the county council met to consider it, as I was abroad at the time. I know that when I left Ireland I had not the least idea that any increase of salaries had been demanded by any of our officials, and I do not know at all when the circular was first brought to the notice of the council. Surely a circular of this

975
importance ought to have been brought more prominently before public notice than was the case. The county council met in—I believe—November, and the circular was laid before them. They very properly decided to leave the matter open until it was seen what other county councils were doing in the matter. They instructed their finance committee to investigate and report. All this time there was absolutely no communication whatever with the Local Government Board, who knew when the county councils met, and it was their business to draw the attention of the county councils to that circular. Nobody thought this question would be decided in camera. A great many of us were prepared to leave the matter in the hands of the Local Government Board, thinking that they would communicate with us, and ask for information upon various points. We never believed that they would take upon themselves the responsibility of deciding the question in opposition to the interests of the ratepayers. The finance committee met on 22nd November, and recommended that the county surveyor's salary should be £600 a year, and that he be allowed £50 for expenses. The old grand jury considered that the salary of the county surveyor was too high, and the council agreed with that view, for they considered that the existing salaries were quite large enough, and they simply adopted the existing salaries as the basis for making a reasonable compromise. All this time no specific demand was made by the officials. We never had any demand by the officials for any specific salary, and it was absolutely impossible for us to name any specific sum under the circumstances. All this time the Local Government Board gave us no information, and the county councils were under the impression that the Local Government Board were giving the matter proper consideration, and consequently no action was taken by the county councils. What happened next was that we received a most extraordinary communication from the Local Government Board on the 7th February, 1900, as follows—
"SIR,—I am directed by the Local Government Board for Ireland to inform you that they have had under consideration the claims for increased remuneration for increased duties made to them under Sections 115 (18) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, by the
976
county surveyors who have failed to come to an agreement with the county councils on the matter.
"The Board have carefully considered all representations which have been received by them from the county councils and their officers in response to their circular of the 29th August upon this subject, and they have also had before them a memorandum prepared by the county surveyors, showing the nature of the increased duties devolving upon them under the Act.
"The Board observe that the surveyors contend that their travelling expenses are largely increased owing to their having to attend the meetings and adjourned meetings of the county and district councils, and to make quarterly inspections for contractors' payments.
"They also represent that their additional work in connection with their new duties, including the preparation of plans and specifications and quarterly reports for the district councils, will practically occupy their entire time, so that their private practice must necessarily fall off, and will no longer be the same source of income to them which it has been in the past."
*MR. SPEAKER: I cannot conceive that the hon. Member is keeping within the terms of the leave given by the House. I understand that the hon. Gentleman proposed to call attention to some recent action of the Local Government Board, and he is not entitled to discuss the whole proceedings of the Local Government Board in Ireland with the county council of Wexford, extending over many months, and many months before the date on which the matter took place in respect of which the hon. Gentleman has moved the adjournment of the House. That appears to me to be going entirely beyond the definite matter of urgent public importance to which I understand the hon. Gentleman desires to call attention. I understand that some question has recently arisen in respect of some appointment by the Local Government Board in the county of Wexford, but that does not entitle the hon. Member to discuss the whole history of the proceedings of that Board for many months past and to read a lengthy correspondence between the Board and the county council of Wexford. The hon. Member must endeavour to keep to the terms of his leave.
*SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: Of course, I will bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but my object really was to strengthen the case against myself. My object in reading this correspondence was to argue

977
the case from the Local Government Board point of view. However, I will not deal with this question of the Local Government Board circulars, although I was anxious to put before the House the replies of the county council to the last circular from the Local Government Board. The county council drew up a detailed reply to every single point raised by the Local Government Board, and to every single point raised by the county surveyors. The next thing was that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was approached, and he was asked to receive a deputation from the Irish councils generally, in order that they might lay their views before him upon this matter, as they could not get any hearing from the Local Government Board. That request was refused by the right hon. Gentleman. I am perfectly aware that at the time he was not very strong, but I think it was unfortunate that the deputation was not received.
*MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member not to repeat the arguments which were used during the discussion of this subject upon the Estimates. The hon. Member must refer only to some recent urgent matter of public importance which has occurred since that time.
*SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I have only to say that the right hon. Gentle-man could not receive that deputation because the matter had been discussed on the Estimates. It is much to be regretted that we could not come to some understanding, for the county council had not the smallest intention of refusing to pay reasonable salaries to their officials. All they wanted was that their case should be heard, and that the Local Government Board should take into consideration what was urged on the other side. If salaries were honestly due to the officials we should pay them with the greatest of pleasure, but what we contend is that definite steps ought to have been taken to consider the views of the county councils upon this matter before it was decided. Unquestionably, the views of the county councils have not been properly considered, and all we ask is that they should
978
be considered. The resolutions passed by the Wexford County Council make it perfectly clear that we are prepared to pay fitting salaries to our officers, and to pay for any increased work which devolves upon them owing to the working of the Local Government Act; but what we say is that our side of the question has not been properly considered. The Local Government Board have retaliated by issuing a sealed Order, and that Order, I understand, comes before my county council to-morrow. I will therefore take the responsibility of advising the county council to postpone its consideration for a little longer in order that the Government may be able to find a way out of the difficulty. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland realises fully the seriousness of the position. The Act of Parliament does not say that the Local Government Board should give greater salaries than ought to be given, but it says that they should award such salaries as are fit and proper. I would like to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the seriousness of the position. In what I have said I have been careful to say nothing at which he can take offence. The Chief Secretary for Ireland has been ruling Ireland now for four or five years, and probably he will agree with me that during all that time the county of Wexford has given him perhaps less trouble than any other county in Ireland. I think that even the Local Government Board for Ireland will admit that the various local boards in the county of Wexford have given them as little trouble as any other public boards in any other part of the country. The people of the county of Wexford feel very strongly upon this question. They are not an excitable people; they are a peaceful people; they are a quiet people; they are an industrious people. All they ask is to be allowed to do their own business in their own way. But they will stand dictation from nobody. The Chief Secretary may not understand the character of the Wexford people. There is nothing theatrical about them. But they have this peculiarity that they mean what they say, and, if they must fight, they will fight. What the council demand is to be allowed to do their own work in their own way; and, although they are not particularly anxious to fight this question, and would

979
prefer that it should be settled amicably, I take the liberty of telling the right hon. Gentleman and the Irish Government that, if this matter is pushed to extremes, Wexford will fight. The right hon. Gentleman does not know much about that part of Ireland; but if he insists on this Order I am afraid there will be considerable trouble not only in Wexford, but in other counties also. I would take the liberty of suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman, in a perfectly friendly spirit, that he should endeavour to find a way out of the difficulty. All that the county council desire is that their case should be given reasonable consideration. It is no use pointing to Acts of Parliament and to the solitary circular which was issued. Knowing the feeling in the county, I can say that unless ordinary courtesy is extended to the county council not a single member of it will consent to pay a farthing of these increased salaries; and there is not a Nationalist in the county, and I doubt if there are very many Unionists, who will not support the council in that attitude. For political purposes it might be just as well if we had a new casus belli against the Irish Government. Individually I am desirous of saving my own county from the anxieties and the sacrifices which a new war in Ireland would entail; and therefore, knowing the extreme gravity of the situation, I have taken the unusual course of moving the adjournment for the purpose of endeavouring to induce the Chief Secretary to find a golden bridge out of the difficulty, and make peace while he may. There is nothing in the Act of Parliament to prevent the right hon. Gentleman settling the matter in a reasonable manner, and if the right hon. Gentleman chooses to carry it to extremes his is the responsibility It might be as well for political reasons if the Local Government Board declared war on the county councils in Ireland, because it would give us a common ground of action against the Government which would cause us to forget our own differences. Whatever may be the decision of the Government is absolutely indifferent to me. In conclusion, I will only say that Wexford is prepared to fight the matter out if necessary, and is determined not to tolerate such interference from the Local Government Board. Hence I offer the suggestion to the Chief Secretary that he should take steps to preserve peace before it is too late.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: In seconding the motion of the hon. Baronet, I desire to say, at the outset, that I think that the Chief Secretary was rather ill-advised in endeavouring to shut up discussion this subject. It is really a most important question which the Local Government Board have wantonly and arbitrarily forced on the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that local taxation in Ire-land is much higher than in England. But the Local Government Board are increasing the rates at such a speed that really the county councils are very likely to break down under the burden that is being imposed on them. I am aware that in the Act of 1898 there is a clause-, —and this will be the answer of the Chief Secretary—to the effect that the Local Government Board can raise salaries if the county councils will not do it, and if the duties of the existing officers have been increased.. But who is the best judge of whether the duties have increased or not? The county councils ought to be the best judges, but the Local Government Board will not allow that right of judgment, and they insist on saying that the duties of such and such an official have been increased by the Act.
*MR. SPEAKER: It may be I was somewhat premature in allowing this matter to be raised on a motion for the adjournment; but at any rate, the hon. Member must confine himself to a definite matter of urgent public importance. I must say that, judging from the arguments addressed to the House it appears as if an endeavour is being made to argue the general question of the policy of the Local Government Board under the powers given to them by the Act of 1898. That would be out of order, because it would not be within the terms of the motion, and it would be discussing a general matter which could not be said to be in any way urgent, although it may be important. Therefore the hon. Member must endeavour to confine himself to the terms of the motion. I certainly understood that an attempt would be made to show that there are specific circumstances in the county of Wexford to which it is, desirable to call attention without delay, not an attempt to discuss the same general matter which was, as I under

981
stand, discussed on the Estimates—the policy of the Local Government Board in exercising the powers given them by the Act of 1898.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I had no desire to go outside the limits of the motion, but I understand, and I believe that the Chief Secretary is also aware, that these increases of salaries have been going on since May 24th, the date on which the Estimates referred to were discussed in this House. If these increases had been stopped after that date there would certainly have been no ground for this motion, but the practice continues.
*MR. SPEAKER: The practice, as I understand, existed before 24th May, and has been continued since. It is therefore a continuous policy which was discussed on the Estimates, and that policy cannot be discussed on the motion before the House.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: It is since then that this Sealed Order system was inaugurated, a system to which the Irish people are quite unaccustomed, and for that reason the hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to bring forward his motion. The Local Government Board had no right to exercise their judgment as regards increases of salary; that duty belongs to the county councils. My hon. friend has referred to the fact that Wexford is determined to resist this attempt to impose additional taxation on them which they cannot bear, and I trust that not only the Wexford County Council, but every county council in Ireland, will fight the Local Government Board out to the very end, and that they will not allow the Board to impose exorbitant rates on them, which they have been endeavouring to do since the Act came into operation.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I certainly think that the House will agree with me that this motion is the most extraordinary abuse of the rules of the House that we have ever heard of. It was perfectly obvious from the speeches of the mover and seconder that their desire was to bring forward a question which had taken an entire evening when the Vote for the Local Government Board was under con-
982
sideration, but by your ruling, Sir, they have been prevented from doing that. What is there left to answer? One thing, and one thing only, and that is the action of the Board in issuing sealed Orders. The hon. Member talked as if the sealed Order system was a new thing. That system has been going on for the last fifty years.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Not in this connection.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Let me explain why a sealed Order was issued in this case. The Local Government Board, acting under the powers and duties imposed upon them by the Act, made these Orders in connection with the salaries of existing officers. The county council refused to carry them out, and the matter then became one between the officer in whose interest the Order had been issued on the one side, and the county council on the other. His redress, if the county council refuse to give him the increase of salary to which the Board had declared he was entitled, is to sue them before a court, and in the absence of a sealed Order there would be no evidence that the Local Government Board had made the Order as to salaries. It was in order to enable the officer to proceed that the sealed Order was issued.
MR. DILLON: The Chief Secretary states in his high and mighty fashion that the system of sealed Orders has been in force in Ireland for fifty years, but that system—and a very tyrannical system it is—has only been enforced against inferior local bodies— namely, the boards of guardians. That system has been put in force on this occasion, for the first time, against a county council in Ireland. And when the right hon. Gentleman says that this system of sealed Orders has been in force for fifty years, I would put this question to him: Was it ever enforced against the grand juries in Ireland?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The Local Government Board can make no valid Order except under seal.
MR. DILLON: That is a question of a. technicality—that the Order made is

983
described as a sealed Order. But the object is to coerce and compel, and to furnish the machinery to coerce and compel, the county council to pay this officer a bigger salary than they are willing to do. It may be that the principle of the matter was discussed before; but now we have come to machinery, to the fresh assertion of powers by the Local Government Board against the county councils, who are the legitimate successors of the grand juries, and no such power was ever attempted to be put in force against them. There was no jurisdiction against the grand juries, and that is our point. Why are the representatives of the people, who have now come into power, to be compelled by this most oppressive and coercive jurisdiction to do what the old grand juries were never sought to be compelled to do? It is a most monstrous exercise of power. The right hon. Gentleman tried to run away from this case by making out that our mouths should be closed on this occasion because we have debated the subject on the Local Government Board Vote. He utterly misstated the case when he said that the Local Government Board had no alternative but to proceed by this method of sealed Order, and authorise officials to take action against their own employers. That is not true. The Local Government Board had an alternative. Recollect what happened in the debate on the Irish Estimates. From all sides—equally from that as from this side of the House—there came a protest from the Irish Members against the exercise of this discretion by the Local Government Board, and we were entitled to expect, as a result of that debate in May last, that the Local Government Board, instead of rushing without hesitation to this extreme course of action, which is sure to embroil them in a row, would invite from the county councils a full statement of the grounds on which they object to the increase of the salaries. At all events, they were bound to delay coercive action until ample time had been given for a friendly interchange of opinion between the Local Government Board and the county councils. But what did the Local Government Board do? They incontinently, in spite of the unanimous protest of all sections of the Irish Members, rushed to issue these sealed Orders all over Ireland.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is simply continuing the debate which took place in Committee. An Order must be made under seal; and, if the Local Government Board exercise their discretion, they must do so by means of the legal machinery. As to the general policy of the Board in exercising their discretion, that is not a definite matter of urgent public importance. I quite understood that the hon. Member for-West Kerry was going to show in the case of Wexford that some very important action had recently been taken by the Local Government Board; but the hon. Gentleman is making no distinction between this case and that already discussed. in Committee.
*SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: As a matter of personal explanation, it was only on Saturday that I learned that the County Council of Wexford had been served with a sealed Order. I had no-idea that any other county council had been served in the same way.
MR. DILLON: I really think, Mr. Speaker, that you do not quite appreciate: the line I was taking. My contention is that the Local Government Board, instead of exercising the discretion they have under the Act in a rational and wise way,, have suddenly precipitated a collision between themselves and the County Council of Wexford which may lead to disturbance and agitation, and to a very serious strain upon the whole system of local government in Ireland.
MR. FLYNN: This motion is a very important concrete illustration of the general conduct of the Government in Ireland and of the Local Government Board. I would like to know whether the Local Government Board or the county council are the most competent to judge as to the sufficiency of an increase in salary to be given to the county surveyor. If there is a difference of opinion between the Local Government Board and the county council on a question of fact in regard to the remuneration of this surveyor, why could not the Local Government Board enter into argument' and friendly negotiations with this particular county council, and settle the matter without this issue of a sealed Order? It may be necessary to issue a sealed Order, but why did the Local Govern-

985
ment Board act so promptly? Surely the County Council of Wexford had given no indication that they were not inclined to treat any man unfairly. So far as I know, the County Council of Wexford had given every indication of their desire to treat their existing officers very fairly, and even in a liberal manner. This gentleman's duties had been increased in a very small degree, and an increase of £50 a year was quite enough. In a poor country like Ireland £650 a year is a salary of no mean dimensions. Whether the Local Government Board are right or wrong, they should be very chary indeed and slow to force their view in regard to the salaries of county officials in this arbitrary manner upon county councils, who ought to be the best judges as to whether the salaries are adequate or not, and whether the increase proposed is commensurate with the increased duties. The value of this particular motion of the hon. Baronet is that it is a concrete illustration of the dangerous practice now being pursued by the Local Government Board in setting aside the decision of the local authorities and coming down upon them in an autocratic manner with sealed Orders. It is trifling to say that sealed Orders mean nothing, and that they are absolutely necessary. That is not the point. The point is whether the Local Government Board ought to set aside the decision of the local authority on a local matter in an autocratic manner and say, "We say so and so, and there is no appeal from our decision."
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: As I gather, the defence of the Government is that in issuing the sealed Order they were carrying out a mere Ministerial act. I quite appreciate that under the ruling of Mr. Speaker we cannot discuss the general policy of the Local Government Board in regard to these local officials. The narrow point to which we are confining ourselves is as to the issue of this sealed Order. I accept fully the description of a sealed Order given by the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General—that it is an Order with the proper and technical formality of the attachment of a seal. But the Attorney General says that a sealed Order in this particular case was necessary, because without it the county surveyor would not be entitled or
986
enabled to take legal action against the county council. Does not that, after all, come to this: that the Local Government Board have taken upon themselves the responsibility—I will, not say of encouraging, but of enabling the county surveyor to enter into litigation with the county council? If that is so, I put it to the Attorney General whether it was not entirely within the discretion of the Local Government Board to postpone or delay the issue of the sealed Order in question. Reason, prudence, and policy should have dictated them to adopt such a course. But they have shown—I will not say indecent, but considerable haste in issuing this sealed Order, and in that way have driven the county surveyor into litigation with the county council. I put it to the Government whether it is fair to the county councils that they should be forced into this conflict with the authorities, into which they are forced by the action of the Government. Is it in the interests of good government and order in Ireland generally that this contest should be forced and accelerated on the county surveyor? My hon. friend has put his case to the Government, who have met his suggestions with persistent refusals, and now the responsibility of safeguarding the authorities of law, self government and order must rest upon the Government.
MR. FLAVINfelt it his duty to associate himself with the protest which had been raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo. Under the old grand jury system £60 a year was considered a proper and sufficient sum for the salary of the county surveyor, but when popular self-government was given to Ireland the Government thought that the sum should be raised to £150, and, therefore, a sealed Order was sent to the county councils to pay that salary. The only conclusion he could come to was that, the landlords having been relieved of all rates, the county council was now to be compelled to increase the rates for an improper purpose. He protested against the sealed Order being sent down, and thought that the county council ought not only to protest against it, but also to refuse to comply with it. He desired to know whether under the sealed Orders the county councils had a right to discharge the county surveyors with or with-

987
out a gratuity or pension. Having regard to the efforts which were being made in favour of popular self-government, it was the duty of all Irish Members to protest against the action of the Government, and show the constituents that the increase in the rates was not due to the county councils, but to the action of the Local Government Board.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the sealed Order which had been stated by the Attorney General for Ireland and the Chief Secretary to be a more Ministerial act was, in fact, something more. It was a fiat which enabled the county surveyor of Wexford to take action against the Wexford County Council. In his opinion greater discretion ought to have been exercised, and the Local Government Board ought to have waited until the time came when no compromise between the county council and the county surveyor appeared to be possible. The Government ought to have had more discretion than to allow the Local
Government Board to have acted as they had done, and to that extent the Government were responsible.
MR. POWERdesired to join in the protest which had been made by the Irish Members against the way in which the Local Government Board had treated Wexford by the issue of the sealed Order. He was glad that the county council had taken the step they had with regard to it, for the reason that if matters like this were allowed to pass without protest, the inhabitants of Ireland would look not to the counter councils, but to the Local Government Board, as the local authority. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would show the same regard to the various localities, and not seek to override their action as he had done with regard to this matter.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 114; Noes, 199. (Division List No. 188.)

AYES.

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

Harwood, George

O'Kelly, James

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Oldroyd, Mark

Allison, Robert Andrew

Hazell, Walter

O'Malley, William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Paulton, James Mellor

Atherley-Jones, L.

Holland, William Henry

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Horniman, Frederick John

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Baker, Sir John

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Price, Robert John

Barlow, John Emmott

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

Reckitt, Harold James

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Jones, William (Carnarvons.)

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

Billson, Alfred

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Birrell, Augustine

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Blake, Edward

Langley, Batty

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'nd)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Caldwell, James

Leng, Sir John

Souttar, Robinson

Carew, James Laurence

Lewis, John Herbert

Spicer, Albert

Causton, Richard Knight

Macaleese, Daniel

Stevenson, Francis S.

Cawley, Frederick

Mac Donnell Dr. M. A. (Queen's C.)

Strachey, Edward

Channing, Francis Allston

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Colville, John

M'Crae, George

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

Crilly, Daniel

M'Dermott, Patrick

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Crombie, John William

M'Ewan, William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Ghee, Richard

Ure, Alexander

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Wallace, Robert

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Dillon, John

M'Leod, John

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Doogan, P. C.

Mandeville, J. Francis

Wason, Eugene

Dunn, Sir William

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Wedderburn, Sir William

Emmott, Alfred

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Weir, James Galloway

Engledew, Charles John

Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

Wills, Sir William Henry

Evans, Sir Francis H (South'ton)

Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr)

Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Moulton, John Fletcher

Woods, Samuel

Flynn, James Christopher

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

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Yoxall, James Henry

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Cornnor, James (Wicklow, W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

Gold, Charles

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Dowd, John

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Gilliat, John Saunders

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Arrol, Sir William

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Myers, William Henry

Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Baird, John George Alexander

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Baldwin, Alfred

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Parkes, Ebenezer

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

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Pender, Sir James

Banbury, Frederick George

Gull, Sir Cameron

Penn, John

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

Gunter, Colonel

Percy, Earl

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Bartley, George C. T.

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

Pilkington, Rich (Lancs Newt'n

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B.(Hants.

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bethell, Commander

Hardy, Laurence

Purvis, Robert

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Pym, C. Guy

Biddulph, Michael

Heath, James

Rankin, Sir James

Bigwood, James

Helder, Augustus

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Bill, Charles

Henderson, Alexander

Remnant, James Farquharson

Blakiston-Houston, John

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs.)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Boulnois, Edmund

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Howard, Joseph

Round, James

Brassey, Albert

Howell, William Tudor

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

Brodrick. Rt. Hon. St. John

Howorth. Sir Henry Hoyle

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow)

Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Carlile, William Walter

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Sandon, Viscount

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

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

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

Kimber, Henry

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

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

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Knowles, Lees

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

Charrington, Spencer

Lafone, Alfred

Spencer, Ernest

Chelsea, Viscount

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Coddington, Sir William

Lawrence, Sir. E. Durning- (Corn.

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks

Stanley, Sir Henry M (Lambeth

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth

Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Carbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Edw, H.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Leighton, Stanley

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Curzon, Viscount

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swan.)

Thornton, Percy M.

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Long, Rt Hn Walter (Liverpool)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D.

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lowe, Francis William

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

Doxford, Sir William T.

Lowles, John

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

Fardell, Sir T. George

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Macdona, John dimming

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. (Manch'r

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Malcolm, Ian

Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.

Fisher, William Hayes

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

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

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas John

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Flower, Ernest

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Wyndham, George

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Milward, Colonel Victor

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Galloway, William Johnson

Monckton, Edward Philip

Garlit, William

Monk, Charles James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monmthsh.)

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the Tithe Rent-
990
charge (Ireland) Bill, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, Sittings of the House."—(Mr. Balfour.)

The House divided:—Ayes, 200; Noes, 122. (Division List No. 189.)

TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 3:—
MR. DILLON: I confess that when I read, with great interest and satisfaction, the report of the debate in another place on Friday last,* I hoped we should to-night have the welcome announcement of the withdrawal of this Bill. Any Government with the feelings of ordinary human beings in their breasts would have been determined to withdraw the Bill, by the act of the Irish landlords, in selecting this instant to inflict upon them a humiliating defeat.
*See page 728 of this volume.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss that matter. I called upon him to move an Amendment.
MR. DILLON: I will come to the Amendment, and I hope to find the Government in a more reasonable frame of mind than was the case last week. I trust they will consent to accept the Amendment I am about to move, for it appears to me to be an Amendment so manifestly reasonable, and so just on the face of it, that I do not understand how any argument can be used against it. The Government have decided not only to break up the settlement of 1872 and to make tithe rent-charges in Ireland once more variable, without offering to the Committee a single reason for making that great change, but they have decided to make them variable on a totally new principle. That principle is that they shall vary in accordance no longer with

995
the prices of agricultural produce, but with judicial rents. Is it unreasonable that I should ask, when they have decided so radically to alter the standard of variation, that that variation should be confined for the future to cases of tithe rent-charge which issue out of hereditaments in respect of which judicial rents have been fixed? I think it is hardly possible to imagine a more reasonable or logical Amendment than that. I can fortify my case in support of this Amendment by referring to that portion of the speech in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary attempted to make a case of grievance in justification of this reduction of tithe rent-charge. There can be no doubt that the only attempt he made to justify this proposal was on the ground that the landlords' rents had been reduced. If that be the cause of this alteration—and we have listened in vain throughout these debates for any other alleged ground of justification—is it not manifest that the benefit of the change should be confined to cases in which the rents have been reduced? We who have followed the operation of the Irish Land Courts are aware that the application of the judicial rent sections of the Land Acts is confined strictly to certain classes of farms, and that there are large areas of land, including a great deal of the richest land in the country, which do not come under those sections at all. Are we to be told that a man who is deriving a large income from, say, grass farms, future tenancies, and so forth, or any of the various classes of farm which are specifically excluded from the judicial rent clauses of the Land Acts, is to obtain a reduction in his tithe rent-charge in proportion to the reduction of judicial rents on other holdings in which he has no financial interest, simply because of the grievance caused to his class by the reduction of judicial rents? That is a perfectly grotesque absurdity in the present Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to break up the settlement of 1872 simply and solely by restoring the law as it then stood, something could be said for not going into the figures, and refusing to investigate the operation of the proposal. But the right hon. Gentleman is not proposing to recur to the condition of the law prior to 1872; he is deliberately proposing to apply to this tithe rent-charge a new standard of variation which will be infinitely more favourable to the
996
laudlords than the old standard. The case for this Amendment is greatly strengthened by the fact that, according to the landlords themselves, this new standard will do much more for them than the old system would do. I feel bound to say a few words on this point, because the right hon. Gentleman, in various speeches, has asserted that if the old system under which tithe rent-charge was variable were reverted to, the reduction would be greater than under the scheme now proposed. Let us hoar what the landlords themselves have to say. Commenting on the remarks of the Chief Secretary in regard to certain Amendments proposed on Wednesday last, the Daily Express, the chief organ of the landlords, used this language—
"The enacting part of this arrangement is in Clause 3, Clause 2 merely directing preliminary steps. It was, however, opposed by the Nationalists, who desired that the industry of that noble body, the Land Commission, should be devoted to ascertaining something quite different, that is, the variation in prices of agricultural produce during that period. We say advisedly 'something quite different,' for it is notorious that the reduction in rent has been out of all proportion to the fall in agricultural values. The Nationalists have reason to know this better than anybody, as the difference has gone into their own pockets. Consequently they are in favour of setting up a standard which would justify reductions much less than that foreshadowed by Mr. Balfour's Bill."
Whether or not that is a correct view, it is the view of the landlords. It appears to me that this is an exceptional case, and therefore I trust the Government will without wasting time accept this Amendment, and let us proceed to other and more contentious matters. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 28, after the word 'hereditaments,' to insert the words 'in respect of which judicial rents have been fixed."—Mr. Dillon.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,)contended that the Amendment was wrong in principle and would be unfair in practice. It was wrong in principle because it assumed what he had again and again denied—that the Government were proposing to make tithe rent-charge variable because rents had been reduced. The

997
alteration in rents was taken merely as a measure. The Government did not say that tithes should be reduced because rents had been reduced, but they said that tithes should be made variable, and variable by a measure or standard better than that which had hitherto been in use. The Committee had decided that the standard to be adopted should be that proposed in the Bill, and now the hon. Member came forward and asked that that standard should be applied only in cases where rents had actually been fixed by the Land Commission. Why should the application of the standard be restricted to those cases? It was impossible to give any reason for such a restriction when once it was clearly appreciated that the alteration in rents was taken merely as a standard and a measure. The Amendment would also be grossly unfair in practice, because it would exempt from the operation of the clause lands which had every bit as much right to the benefit as those to which the clause would then apply.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The right hon. Gentleman has again repeated the denial he has made on previous occasions, that the reduction of rents by the judicial process is the reason for this Bill. He says the reduction of rents is the measure of the relief proposed, but not the reason for proposing that relief. He asserts that as a member of the Government, having a knowledge superior to that possessed by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. I accept his declaration with some difficulty, because I cannot reconcile it with the equally emphatic declaration made by members of the Cabinet in another place two or three days ago. In answer to a motion which expressly declared the grievances suffered by Irish landlords through legislation since 1881, and demanding relief for those grievances, the Duke of Devonshire stated that relief had already been provided, first, in the Purchase Acts; secondly, in the remission of rates to the extent of £316,000 a year; and then he went on to say in the same connection that—
"The measure now before the House of Commons will give landlords further relief of the same character."
Later on he said that—
"The Tithe Rent-Charge Kill now before the House of Commons shows a sympathetic spirit for a class and an interest which we
998
believe to be in an unfortunate and difficult position"—
the unfortunate and difficult position being that which is created by legislation since 1881, which I suppose may be summed up in the reduction of rents by the judicial courts. How, in the face of that declaration, can it be maintained that the judicial reduction of rents is not the reason for, but only the measure of, this relief? I think as between those two statements, which are absolutely irreconcilable, I must accept that made by the superior authority, and therefore we are entitled —nay, we are bound—to regard the reduction of judicial rents as the reason as well as the measure. And what are the contradictions in which we are involved thereby? The right hon. Gentleman said, as if it was an argument on his own side, that all the land in Ireland is not subject to rents. I do not know much of the Irish land question, but I believe this is a fact—that the land of Ireland can be divided into three categories. There are the hereditaments not under rents, but which pay tithes; there are the hereditaments which are not under judicial rents which pay tithes; and there are those under judicial rents. How in the name of goodness can it be a reason for giving relief to the first two classes that the third are subject to a judicial process? Or how can you get a rational measure thereby? What reason can be assigned why this particular mode of reduction should be more rational than any other? When the variation depended on prices, you had a variable element which affected practically all the land of Ireland, but now you are selecting as your measure of variation an element which has no relation to two out of the three classes into which Irish land is divided. Therefore, whether regarded as a measure or as a reason, the proposal of the Government is one which cannot really be defended, and I shall be constrained to vote for the Amendment. I would warn the House against the introduction of these artificial measures. We had exactly the same question of artificiality in the Merchant Shipping Bill, and it is essential for those of us who want reasonable legislation in a matter of this sort to vote for the Amendment of my hon. friend.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLlooked upon the Amendment as fair and equitable. The new standard of

999
variation should be confined exclusively to tenancies which had been affected by the conditions to which the new standard of variation was applicable. It was perfectly ridiculous to say that the tithe rent-charge of tenancies which had not been subjected to judicial rents should be subject to a measure of reduction which was the creation of the Land Acts from which those tenancies had been absolutely exempt. It might be, and it was, alleged that this new variation would work out some compensation to those whose property had been affected by the reduction of rents. Be it so; but how could the standard apply to those whose property had been as unaffected by any legislation of Mr. Gladstone's as they were before 1870? There was no use disguising the word. The Bill was an outrageous fraud. Under the Irish Church Act it was provided that the surplus of the Irish Church Fund should be applicable to charitable purposes or the relief of those who suffered distress. If they applied the reduction of tithes to land unaffected by the legislation of the last thirty years they were perpetrating a palpable fraud. What was the object of this Bill, and what was the reason for its introduction? If it was not for the relief of the landlords, why did they include in this system for the reduction of tithes the owners of land who, under no possibility whatever, had been affected by recent land legislation? If ever there was a fair and equitable Amendment it was that proposed by his hon. friend. Unfortunately, this Bill was to lay Members a Chinese puzzle, and it was very difficult to distinguish between the legal and technical terms with which it was draped. Could the right hon. Gentleman give any reason which would appeal to any fair-minded man why land which had never come under the operation of the Church Acts or of the Acts of 1870 and 1881 should be included in this clause? By including these lands which had not been subject to this law before, Parliament violated two distinct Acts of Parliament— the Church Act of 1869 and the Amending Act of 1872. There was not a shadow of a pretext for this proposal, which was purely the exercising of a dominant power. He believed in his heart and conscience that if the hon. Gentlemen opposite had taken the trouble to master this Bill, they would never have supported it.
MR. FLYNNsaid that this Amendment proceeded actually on the lines of the clause itself, and on the lines upon which the Bill was originally framed and introduced. The Amendment really meant that if there were to be reductions or variations they should only be in respect of holdings of which the judicial rents had been fixed. Surely that was the line upon which the Bill was constructed and upon which the clause proceeded. He thought this was an Amendment which ought to be accepted. He did not think the Chief Secretary would hold that where a judicial rent had not been fixed there should be a variation and a reduction of tithe rent. The clause proposed that whether the judicial rent had been fixed or not, or whether there had been a reduction of rent or not, there should be a reduction of tithe-rent charge. It was perfectly hopeless for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to argue that this variation in tithe-rent charges did not aim at compensating landlords who had had their rents reduced by the Court. That case had been given away completely by the speech of the Duke of Devonshire in another place. He thought they were bound to take the noble Lord's declaration as the view of the Government. This Bill had been brought in to give relief to the landlords in cases where the rents had been reduced by judicial process. He wished to ask if they were now prepared to provide that the tithe rent-charges should be reduced to landlords in respect of holdings of which the judicial rents had not been fixed? Was the tithe rent-charge to be reduced on behalf of landlords where the rents had not been reduced at all? He understood that, roughly speaking, the judicial rents fixed in Ireland were very much less than 50 per cent of the whole. What became of the other 50 per cent.? There must be a large number of cases where the landlord and tenant came to an agreement, and where the tenant considered that he was not justified in seeking the protection of the Court. But even in those cases where the landlord had lost nothing and where the rent had not been reduced, he was to get the benefit of this clause just the same as those whose rents had been reduced, and also to the same extent. The class of tenants who at the passing of this Act were in arrears—which had been held

1001
in terrorem over them—had never been able to get judicial rents fixed, and those arrears were held over them to prevent their seeking the benefit of the legislation. If the Committee did not accept this Amendment, the landlords to whom he had just referred would get the benefit of this clause just the same as those landlords where judicial rents had been fixed by the process of legislation. There was another large class at the present moment upon whom the landlord had reimposed the whole rent under Section 7 of the Act of 1887. They were still paying the old unreduced rents, and in tens of thousands of these cases the landlord would be entitled to the full amount of reduction on the tithe rent-charge. And why I Were they justly entitled to it? Nobody ever heard of such a hard-and-fast line. If they were bound to have some fixed rule, at any rate they should try and make it approach as near to justice as was possible, but nobody would argue that the reduction embodied and enshrined in this clause was either fair or equitable. They knew now that during the same period rents in Somersetshire had been reduced 35 per cent., whilst in Ireland the average was only about 15 per cent., and under those circumstances they were now proposing to give further relief to the landlords of Ireland. It was not sufficient for the representatives of the Government to make a few perfunctory remarks on the Bill, and then join in a conspiracy of silence, when they could not meet the arguments brought against their proposals. It would be more satisfactory if the Chief Secretary for Ireland declared that, no matter what case was made out, or whatever powerful arguments were brought forward, the Government did not intend to accept any Amendments; and the right hon. Gentleman might as well say bluntly, "Whether right or wrong, we shall accept no Amendments whatever to this clause."
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he quite agreed with his hon. friend who had just sat down that it would be a saving of time, and a much more regular and forward policy on the part of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he would abstain from offering any arguments or making any speeches in reply to the Amendments proposed, because it seemed quite clear that the right
1002
hon. Gentleman traversed not only the statement made by others who are members of the same Government in a higher and more responsible position than himself, but he even traversed his own statements. He was not surprised that the Chief Secretary should deny that this Bill was founded upon a reduction of rents. The right hon. Gentleman vehemently denied that, because he knew that if he came down to the Committee and said this Bill was based upon a reduction of rents he would be confronted with two difficulties. He would be confronted with the delaration of a Cabinet Minister in another place, and there would be the greater difficulty that if he came down to this House and defended this Bill on the ground of reduction of rents his case would be absolutely extirpated by the speech to which he had just alluded. How could the right hon. Gentleman put the case of exceptional hardship forward as a plea in favour of this Bill, in face of the fact that one of the greatest of Irish landlords and a Cabinet Minister had asserted that the landlords of Ireland were in an exceptionally favourable position as compared with the landlords of England? He was glad that this debate had at least elicited a great truth which they had been endeavouring for the last fifteen or twenty years to impress upon this country—namely, that in spite of agitation, and in spite of the legislation of the past twenty years in this House, they had not even succeeded in getting the rents in Ireland reduced in the same proportion as they had been reduced in England. In face of the confession made in another place by a Cabinet Minister that rents in England had been doubly reduced as compared with Ireland, he was not at all surprised that the right hon. Gentleman disclaimed altogether that the principle of this Bill was governed by the reduction of rents in Ireland. Upon this question the right hon. Gentleman was forgetful even of his own words. The Chief Secretary was almost driven to anger when the hon. Member for Dundee suggested that the reduction of rents had something to do with this Bill; but when his hon. and learned friend made that assertion he was only repeating what the right hon. Gentleman himself had said in a previous debate upon this Bill. That was his recollection of the debate, but since then he had consulted the records, and he found the report absolutely in

1003
accord with his own recollection. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not think the tithe rent-charge should be reduced because rents had been reduced, but he said the hardship of the situation was emphasised by the fact that rents had been compulsorily reduced. So that the right hon. Gentleman brought in the reduction of rent not as a sole reason for the reduction of tithes, although he said that the compulsory reduction emphasised the hardship. He admitted that the reduction of rents was at least a contributing cause, and it was considered a very potent reason for the reduction of tithes. Therefore his hon. and learned friend, when he declared that the reduction of rents was brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman as a reason for introducing this Bill, was strictly in accord with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman himself. Therefore they arrived at this position: that this Bill had been brought forward, according to the right hon. Gentleman, partly because a grievance had been created in Ireland in regard to the tithes, by the compulsory reduction of rents. They were now face to face with the fact that the more the rents were reduced the greater relief would the landlords get under this Bill. Relief was now to be given with an equally liberal and bounteous hand to the landlords whose rents had been reduced judicially, and also to those whose rents had been reduced voluntarily. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the rents had been compulsorily reduced. Yes, they had been reduced compulsorily in Ireland by about 16 per cent.; but during the same period the rents had been voluntarily reduced in England by 35 per cent. If the reduction of rent by judicial process was a hardship and entitled the landlords to a reduction of their tithes, all they asked for was that those landlords should be loft out who had not reduced their rents. Those landlords had no complaint to make. Their rents had not been reduced at all, or if they had been reduced it was by voluntary process. His hon. friend proposed, by his Amendment, that, as the whole foundation of the Bill was practically based upon the compulsory reduction of rents by judicial process, those estates should not get relief where there had been no compulsory reduction. He put it to the hon. Members opposite, who
1004
understood the affairs of Ireland very well, whether they ought not to consider seriously how wide and far-reaching the effect of this proposal would be. There seemed to be a popular idea in the House that every single farm in Ireland had been brought before the Land Court, and that in every case the rent had been reduced. That was an entirely erroneous impression. He had not had the time to run through the figures exhaustively in the short time at his disposal, but he thought the Attorney General would confirm the figures which he would give, and which he had taken from the last Report of the Land Commission. He believed there were about500,000 holdings in Ireland altogether; and what had happened in regard to them? Of this total 144,689 had been brought before the Land Commission and had had their rents reduced. In addition there had been 32,040 brought before other courts, and altogether 176,729 cases had been dealt with. To put it roughly, about 200,000 cases had been the subject of judicial process. What did that moan? If this Amendment was accepted the reduction of tithes would apply only in the case of these 200,000 holdings. In other words, the statistics showed that not one-half of the entire number of holdings in Ireland had been made the subject of legal process; and what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do under this, Bill was to give relief not to the 200,000 judicially-rented holdings, but also to the 300,000 which had never gone through any judicial process at all. He thought his hon. friend had made out a good case for this Amendment.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I think it is the bounden duty of every Irish Member to endeavour to inform the Committee as to the nature of this Amendment. It appears to me if the clause remains unamended that there cannot be a. more arbitrary or illogical standard than that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman for reducing the tithe rent-charge. I will not repeat what has been so forcibly stated by my hon. friend who has just spoken, but I wish to emphasise the fact that in every county in Ireland there are three classes of tenants—namely, present tenants, whose rents have been subject to the orders of the Land Commission; future tenants, who are not within the purview of the Acts at all; and a great

1005
number of tenants whose rents are moderate, who have reasonable landlords, and who are satisfied to pay on the old system. Why should you select one, and that the smallest class, as the standard by which all the tithes are to be reduced? There cannot be a more illogical or indefensible proposal. Tithes in England are revisable by a certain standard based on the price of corn.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now entering upon a discussion which has already been disposed of.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I will not pursue the point further. I was only about to remind the Committee what the existing standard in England is, because I am always glad, whenever I can, to adopt the procedure which obtains in this great country of England, with its great prosperity and its great wealth. Has any reason been assigned for this arbitrary standard? I could understand the argument, if the fact was so, although I would protest against it, that as all the rents in Ireland had been reduced by the action of the Land Commission, that universal reduction would be adopted as the standard for reducing the tithe rent-charge. There would be some substance in that argument, but it is wholly inconsistent and illogical to select this standard, especially when we recollect that, in the wisdom of Parliament, it was decided years ago that, as far as ecclesiastical tithe rent was concerned, it should not be revisable at all.
MR. DOOGANsaid, to his own knowledge, there were many tenants in Ireland who had not their rents reduced at all, because they had been kept out of the courts by the ingenuity of clever agents, who always allowed arrears to hang over them, and by that simple means prevented them from taking advantage of the Act. Would the landlords of these tenants have the same reduction as the landlords on whose estates fair rents had been fixed? He merely mentioned that to show the unfairness of the manner in which the spoil was to be distributed. There was another class of tenants in Ireland who were fairly satisfied with their rents, and who had certain turbary rights which they would lose if they went into the courts, and they pre-
1006
ferred to keep those rights rather than lose them by having their rents reduced. He should like to know what the state of Ireland would have been had not Parliament compelled the Irish landlords to reduce the rents. A few weeks ago a very important English landlord told him that he had reduced his rents 75 per cent., which he said was the general reduction throughout England. Assuming that the Irish landlords had been as sympathetic with their tenants and as anxious to see their tenants thrive as English landlords were, the law would never have stepped in to compel them to reduce their rents. Morever, the English landlords made all the improvements, whereas the Irish landlords not only made no improvements, but charged an exorbitant rent to the tenant for the improvements he himself had made.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to me to be discussing the general land question.
MR. DOOGANsaid he would put himself in order. He wanted to show that the element of the compulsory reduction of rent which was necessary in order to make landlords do their duty in Ireland should not be adopted as an argument for the reduction of tithe. The basis of the distribution of the money was unfair, because many landlords on whose estates no reductions had been made would benefit equally with landlords on whose estates the rents had been reduced. Under the Bill the landlords would get an enormous reduction, but if the Amendment were accepted they would still get a substantial reduction, though not to the extent now proposed. The limits of the question were very narrow. The proposed basis for the division of the money was erroneous, and would work unequally. He supported the Amendment because of the injustice that would be perpetrated if the Bill remained as it was.
MR. G. W. BALFOUErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 179; Noes, 106. (Division List No. 190.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.

Allsopp, Hon. George

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Arrol, Sir William

Gilliatt, John Saunders

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Goldsworthy, Major-General

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

Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Baird, John George Alexander

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Myers, William Henry

Baldwin, Alfred

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geor's

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banbury, Frederick George

Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

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

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Pender, Sir James

Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Penn, John

Bartley, George C. T.

Gunter. Colonel

Percy, Earl

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

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B (Hants.

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton

Bethell, Commander

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Pretyman, Ernest George

Biddulph, Michael

Hardy, Laurence

Purvis, Robert

Bigwood, James

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Pym, C. Guy

Bill, Charles

Heath, James

Rankin, Sir James

Blakiston-Houston, John

Helder, Augustus

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Henderson, Alexander

Remnant, James Farquharson

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

Ridley, Rt Hon Sir Matthew, W.

Boulnois, Edmund

Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs.)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. T.

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Robertson, Herbt. (Hackney)

Brassey, Albert

Houldsworth, Sir William H.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Howard, Joseph

Round, James

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Howell, William Tudor

Russell, Gen. F. S (Cheltenham)

Carlile, William Walter

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Sandon, Viscount

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thomas, M.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. Edw. J.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

Chamberlain. J Austen (Worc'r

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kimber, Henry

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Charrington, Spencer

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Chelsea, Viscount

Knowles, Lees

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

Coddington, Sir William

Lafone, Alfred

Spencer, Ernest

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk)

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Stanley, Sir Henry M (Lambeth)

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

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

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Curzon, Viscount

Leighton, Stanley

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(S'wns'a)

Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Thornton, Percy M.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lowe, Francis William

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lowles, John

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Man'r)

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton)

Finch, George H.

Macdona, John Cumming

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Fisher. William Hayes

M'Killop, James

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Malcolm, Ian

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

Flower, Ernest

Middlemore, John T.

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

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Wyndham, George

Galloway, William Johnson

Milward, Colonel Victor

Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Garfit, William

Monckton, Edward Philip

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Gedge, Sydney

Monk, Charles James

Sir William Walrond and,

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(City of Lond

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Mr. Anstruther.

992

993

NOES.

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

Gold, Charles

O'Malley, William

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Allison, Robert Andrew

Harwood, George

Paulton, James Mellor

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Hazell, Walter

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H

Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs S.W.

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles, H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Holland, William Henry

Price, Robert John

Baker, Sir John

Horniman, Frederick John

Reckitt, Harold James

Barlow, John Emmott

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighshire)

Billson, Alfred

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Birrell, Augustine

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir. U

Shaw, Chas. Edward (Stafford)

Blake, Edward

Kearley, Hudson E.

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'nd)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Caldwell, James

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Souttar, Robinson

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Leng, Sir John

Spicer, Albert

Carew, James Laurence

Lewis John Herbert

Stevenson, Francis S.

Causton, Richard Knight

Macaleese, Daniel

Strachey, Edward

Cawley, Frederick

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

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Channing, Francis Allston

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Colville, John

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Crilly, Daniel

M'Crae, George

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Crombie, John William

M'Dermott, Patrick

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

M'Ewan, William

Ure, Alexander

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Ghee, Richard

Wallace, Robert

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Leod, John

Wason, Eugene

Dillon, John

Mandeville, J. Francis

Wedderburn, Sir William

Doogan, P. C.

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Weir, James Galloway

Dunn, Sir William

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Emmott, Alfred

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Wills, Sir William Henry

Engledew, Charles John

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wilson, John (Govan)

Evans, Sir Francis H.(South'ton

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

Woods, Samuel

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Dowd, John

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

Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

O'Kelly, James

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Oldroyd, Mark

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

Garfit, William

Monk, Charles James

Allsopp, Hon. George

Gedge, Sydney

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Alison, Sir William Reynell

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (Cy of Lond.

More, Robert. J. (Shropshire)

Arrol, Sir William

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Morrell, George Herbert.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Morton. Arthur H. A (Deptford)

Baird, John Geo. Alexander

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Mount, William George

Balcarres, Lord

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Muntz, Philip A.

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

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

Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Myers, William Henry

Banbury, Frederick George

Green, Walford D.(Wednesb'y

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Barry, Rt. Hn A H Smith-(Hunts

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Parkes, Ebenezer

Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B.(Hants.

Gull, Sir Cameron

Penn, John

Bethell, Commander

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Percy, Earl

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Bigwood, James

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Pilkington, R. (Lanes Newton)

Blakiston-Houston, John

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Pretyman, Ernest George

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo

Purvis, Robert.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Heath, James

Pym, C. Guy

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Heaton, John Henniker

Rankin, Sir James

Brassey, Albert.

Helder, Augustus

Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Henderson, Alexander

Remnant, James Farquharson

Butcher, John George

Hermon-Hodge, Robert. T.

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Carlisle, William Walter

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Howard, Joseph

Robertson, Herbert. (Hackney)

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

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Round, James

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cecil, Evelyn (He Rt. ford, E.)

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm)

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Charrington, Spencer

Keswick, William

Sidebottom, William (Derbsh.)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Kimber, Henry

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Knowles, Lees

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

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lafone, Alfred

Spencer, Ernest

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Curzon, Viscount

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Dixon-Harland, Sir Fred. D.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Donkin, Richard Sim

Long, lit. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lopes, Henry Yande Buller

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Doxford, Sir William T.

Lowles, John

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Williams, Joseph P.- (Birm.)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Willoughy de Eresby, Lord

Faber, George Denison

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

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

Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r)

M'Killop, James

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

Finch, George H.

Malcolm, Ian

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart.-

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Marks, Henry Hananel

Wylie, Alexander

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Wyndham, George

Fisher, William Hayes

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

FitzGerald, Sir Robert. Penrose-

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Middlemore, John T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Flower, Ernest

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Milward, Colonel Victor

Galloway, William Johnson

Monckton, Edward Philip

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Blake, Edward

Charming, Francis Allston

Allison, Robert. Andrew

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Colville, John

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert. Henry

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Crilly, Daniel

Atherley-Jones, L.

Burns, John

Crombie, John William

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Caldwell, James

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Baker, Sir John

Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Beaumont, Went worth C. B.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Dalziel, James Henry

Billson, Alfred

Carew, James Laurence

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Birrell, Augustine

Cawley, Frederick

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

1008

1009

Dillon, John

M'Crae, George

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Doogan, P. C.

M'Dermott, Patrick

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Dunn, Sir William

M'Ghee, Richard

Souttar, Robinson

Emmott, Alfred

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Spicer, Albert

Evans, Sir Francis H (South'ton

M'Leod, John

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Mandeville, J. Francis

Steadman, William Charles

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Molley, Bernard Charles

Stevenson, Francis S.

Flynn, James Christopher

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Moulton, John Fletcher

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

Haldane, Richard Bunion

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

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Tennant, Harold John

Hazell, Walter

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Dowd, John

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Hogan, James Francis

O'Kelly, James

Wason, Eugene

Holland, William Henry

Oldroyd, Mark

Weir, James Galloway

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Malley, William

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Wills, Sir William Henry

Kearley, Hudson E.

Philipps, John Wynford

Wilson, Hn. J. (York, W. R.)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

Pilkington, Sir G.A.(Lanes S. W

Wilson, John (Govan)

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Woods, Samuel

Leng, Sir John

Price, Robert John

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Lewis, John Herbert

Reckitt, Harold James

Yoxall, James

Lough, Thomas

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Macaleese, Daniel

Robson, William Snowdon

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

MacDonnell, Dr. MA (Q'n's C.)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Sinclair, Capt. J.(Forfarshire)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 105; Noes, 177. (Division List No. 191.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas H.

Pilkington, Sir G.A.(Lancs S W

Allison, Robert Andrew

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Hogan, lames Francis

Price, Robert John

Atherley-Jones, L.

Holland, William Henry

Reckitt, Harold James

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Horniman, Frederick John

Rickett, J. Compton

Baker, Sir John

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robson, William Snowdon

Billson, Alfred

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cum'land

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh

Birrell, Augustine

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Blake, Edward

Lewis, John Herbert

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

Lough, Thomas

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Macaleese, Daniel

Souttar, Robinson

Burns, John

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q'n's C.

Spicer, Albert

Caldwell, James

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Steadman, William Charles

Carew, James Laurence

M'Crae, George

Stevenson, Francis S.

Cawley. Frederick

M'Dermott, Patrick

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Ghee, Richard

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

Colville, John

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Crilly, Daniel

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Tennant, Harold John

Crombie, John William

M'Leod, John

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Mandeville, J. Francis

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dalziel, James Henry

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Wallace, Robert

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wason, Eugene

Dillon, John

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

Weir, James Galloway

Doogan, P. C.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts

Dunn, Sir William

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Wills, Sir William Henry

Engledew, Charles John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.

Evans, Sir F. H. (Southampton)

O'Dowd, John

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

FitzMaurice, Lord Edmond

O'Kelly, James

Woods, Samuel

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Oldroyd, Mark

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Malley, William

Yoxall, James Henry

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Philipps, John Wynford

Hazell, Walter

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

NOES.

Allsopp, Hon. George

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Balcarres, Lord

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

Arrol, Sir William

Baird, John Geo. Alexander

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Banbury, Frederick George

Goldsworthy, Major-General

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

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

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Morrell, George Herbert

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

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

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Bethell, Commander

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mount, William George

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)

Muntz, Philip A.

Bigwood, James

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham(Bute)

Blakiston-Houston, John

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Myers, William Henry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gull, Sir Cameron

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

O Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens.

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

Parkes, Ebenezer

Brassey, Albert

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Penn, John

Brodrick, Rt. Hon St. John

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Percy, Earl

Butcher, John George

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Carlile, William Walter

Heaton, John Henniker

Pilkington, Rich (Lancs Newt'n)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir. Edw. H.

Helder, Augustus

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Henderson, Alexander

Purvis, Robert

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

Pym, C. Guy

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Rankin, Sir James

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Howard, Joseph

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm)

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Remnant, James Farquharson

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Chaplin, Rt. Hn. Henry

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Charrington, Spencer

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Button, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Round. James

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

Corbett, A. Cameron Glasgow)

Keswick, William

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col Edw. J.

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Kimber, Henry

Seton-Karr, Henry

Curzon, Viscount

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Knowles, Lees

Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lafone, Alfred

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Donkin, Richard Sim

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William E. H.

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

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea)

Spencer, Ernest

Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Faber, George Denison

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Thornton, Percy M.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lowles, John

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Finch, George H.

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

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

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Killop, James

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Malcolm, Ian

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

Marks, Henry Hananel

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Flower, Ernest

Meysey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcrstersh. N.)

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Meysey-Thompson. Sir H. M.

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Galloway, William Johnson

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Wylie, Alexander

Garfit, William

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Wyndham George

Gedge, Sydney

Milward, Colonel Victor

Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond.)

Monckton, Edward Philip

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Monk, Charles James

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

MR. DILLON: I do not propose to move my next Amendment on the Paper, as it refers back to a point in Clause 2 which has already been decided. I, however, propose to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, which is—
"In Clause 3, page 2, line 35, after 'accordingly,' to insert, 'provided that any such tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission shall not be deemed to be so varied to a greater amount than that
1012
in which the rents payable to the person by whom such tithe rent-charge is payable in respect of the hereditaments out of which the same is payable have been varied by the fixing of judicial rents as aforesaid."
*THE CHAIRMAN: I think that Amendment is out of order. It raises points which the Committee have already decided. For instance, in regard to the Land Commission the Committee have already decided to draw no distinction between tithe rent-charge payable to the

1013
Land Commission and that payable to the lay impropriators; and the Committee have just decided to draw no distinction between those who have to pay tithe rent-charge who are in receipt of judicial rents and those who are not.
MR. DILLON: I have studied this matter very carefully, and I confess, with all submission, that I do not accept the interpretation which you, Mr. Lowther, put on the effect of the Amendment on other clauses. In the first place, this proposal is not to make the tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission invariable, as the previous Amendment did, but it is a proviso that there should be some distinction between the tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission and that payable to lay impropriators. The previous Amendment would have cut the tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission completely out of the clause. The question raised by the latter portion of the Amendment is totally different, though somewhat analogous—namely, that the advantage given to individuals participating in these results should be proportioned to their receipt of judicial rents. I will put a case which I know personally. A man is the owner of an estate of which one half is left tenantless, and in respect of which he loses a portion of his income. The other half is let to another man. Now, the judicial rents of the whole estate are affected, but the man who is compelled to pay tithe rent-charge on the whole estate loses his income in respect of half. The point of this Amendment is that he should only get the benefit of the reduction in respect of half the rent-charge.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I followed the argument of the hon. Gentleman, and I think I also understand his Amendment. It seems to me that the Committee decided on Thursday last that no distinction will be made between tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission and tithe rent-charge payable to lay impropriators. As to the second part of the Amendment, the Committee have just decided that no distinction will be made between those persons whose rents have been judicially fixed and those whose rents have not been judicially fixed. The Amendment raises the same two questions again. For these reasons I ask the hon. Member to move the next Amendment.
MR. DILLON: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section 2 of Clause 3. This subsection provides for the carrying forward the variation according to judicial rents to each succeeding period of fifteen years, and thereby emphasises the evil consequences of this proposed Act. I am not at all surprised that the Chief Secretary said he utterly denied that this provision for reducing tithe rent-charge according to judicial rents was based upon the fall in rents—although I was amazed at his courage in saying so—because if he had adhered to the position he took up in introducing the Bill, it would have been absolutely impossible for him to have resisted the last Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill last year, said—
"It must be remembered that the charge is a charge upon rents, and while rents have been greatly reduced under the supervision of a state tribunal the rent-charge can no longer be varied. While I am not prepared to place this grievance in the same category with the first-mentioned, I do think a hardship has been inflicted on the tithe-payer to which it would be desirable to apply a remedy, if a reasonable remedy can be found."
I maintain that there is no meaning in that sentence at all if it does not mean that the grievance of the landlords was the reduction of rents in Ireland. Twenty-eight years ago the landlords of Ireland agreed to make the tithe rent-charge invariable, and no reason has been given for a change in that settlement, except that the landlords have a grievance. But we are entitled to demand some explanation and definition of the nature of the grievance. According to the statement in the Dublin Daily Express, the landlords themselves admit that the standard, of which this sub-section of Clause 3 is a most vicious continuance, is one giving to them a far greater reduction than they would have got under the old law. Admitting for the sake of argument that the landlords had a grievance—which I most certainly deny —no reason has been brought forward on behalf of the Government to show that the injustice should be remedied, not according to the old law, but according to a new and unheard of standard which will give the landlords a vastly greater reduction than under the old law. I assert, without fear of contradiction, that from the first introduction of the Bill down to this hour, no attempt has been
*See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxi., page 494.

1015
made to justify that change. This subsection asks us to accept this vicious principle, and carry it on to successive periods of fifteen years, and the Government afford us no information as to what the reductions may amount to in the future, whether twenty, thirty, or fifty per cent. I move to omit the sub-section because I believe it to be an illimitable application of an extremely unjust and vicious principle, and because it is a leap in the dark, the effect of which is absolutely uncertain.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 36, to leave out Sub-section 2."—(Mr. Dillon.)
MR. FLYNN MR. FLYNN, in supporting the Amendment, maintained that the House was entitled to know what was to become of the Church Fund thirty or forty years hence. Where did the matter stand if, after the expiry of fifteen years, when this provision was put into force, it was found that there was a further and dangerous incursion into the coffers of the Church Fund? The grants to the Agricultural Board and the Congested Districts Board and other grants were all thrown upon the Irish Church Fund, and yet the Government, not content with throwing all those charges upon it, were going a step further. How would the matter stand if at the end of thirty years the fund was put into such a condition that it could not meet its engagements? Would it not be better to allow the clause to run for fifteen years only? Then, if it was necessary, a further Bill could be introduced for another fifteen years. Under Sub-section 2 as it at present stood steps were being taken which would seriously imperil the Irish Church Fund; that was a very serious matter. This sub-section set up a very dangerous principle. With regard to the Land Act they knew to an extent where they were; that the average reductions which had been made since 1881 could be pretty well ascertained; but when Sub-section 2 came to be considered they were dealing with a hypothetical set of figures. Let the Committee assume for a moment that, owing to the increased importation of foreign produce, prices continued to decline; the reductions for the second period of fifteen years would be much greater than the reductions during the first period, and that would make a still further incursion into
1016
the Church Fund, which might render it unable to perform its obligations. It might be said that these results could not occur, but in all probability they would occur. If they did, was the reduction of the judicial rents to go on with the reduction of tithes, and, if so, why? So far as the Government was concerned, no argument urged against the sub-section made the slightest impression, and it was a significant commentary upon this piece of legislation that upon the only Irish Bill of the session there was not a single member representing the. Treasury present to safeguard the Irish Church Fund. Irish Members had long ceased to look to the Chief Secretary to safeguard any Irish fund, but they had hoped, if this step was to be taken with regard to the first fifteen years after the passing of the Act, it would have been limited to that, and the Government might then be left to deal with the condition of things which might then arise. Even at the eleventh hour he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the position with regard to Sub-clause 2, and make some slight concession in a clause which bristled with difficulties.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILLjoined in the appeal to the right, hon. Gentleman to leave out the sub-clause. It was a most reasonable suggestion that the experiment should not be made perpetual, and by leaving out the sub-clause it would always, be open to the Legislature to say whether this legislation should at the end of fifteen years be renewed or not. He desired to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that this particular clause applied to-both ecclesiastical and lay tithes. They already knew that during the last fifteen years in many parts of Ireland rents had been greatly reduced—33⅓ percent, in some instances; and the effect of this sub-clause would be to whittle away the ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge to a very great extent. The Government did not appear to apprehend the fact that this was a leap in the dark; the Church Fund itself was nothing more than the accumulation of the revenue of the tithe rent-charge, which amounted to some £200,000 a year. It was the only fund existing to pay the costs of all the charitable Acts of Parliament passed for the benefit of Ireland, which, if that fund was whittled down, would all fall upon the Exchequer. Under those circum-

1017
stances, why perpetuate a state of things until it was found whether it was right or wrong? With regard to the lay tithes, he had put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, in order to prepare for this discussion, asking for information as to the amount of the lay tithes. The attitude which the right hon. Gentleman took up was that the Government had no means of ascertaining the amount of the lay tithes, which was quite possible and reasonable, seeing that the lay tithes were private property. But the revenue from the lay tithes I have heard stated to amount to £140,000 or £150,000 a year, and that was private property and dealt with as such, yet a perpetual clause was introduced into the Bill which might whittle that down to nothing if prices continued to fall and depression continued to exist for the next fifteen years, because that would necessitate further reductions. The Committee really did not realise how far-reaching the evil might be, and he hoped under the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR, who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to say that he had been attacked for not having given the reasons for this clause. He had given his reasons more than once, but he invariably found that, when he had sat down, hon. Gentlemen jumped up and asked for them again. He would, therefore, confine himself entirely to the question of whether the variations which the Committee had decided should take place during fifteen years should be continued for a further period. The only argument urged against that was the effect which this provision would have on the Church Fund. But in the Memorandum made in the previous year allowance was made for a further increase in the average reduction of rents in Ireland to the extent of from 20 to 30 per cent. He did not himself look forward to an indefinite series of reductions in the rents of Irish land. Those reductions, of course, must depend principally upon the fall of prices, but he did not think that they might look forward seriously for a very long time to come to reductions taking place that would impoverish the Church Fund to anything like the extent which the hon. and learned Member anticipated. Taking all reductions into account, the Church Fund would suffice to meet all the
1018
burdens upon it up to 1947, and even after that would be able to afford a large sum annually to the Department of Agriculture. Under those circumstances he thought he might fairly say that no serious danger need be apprehended to any of the purposes for which the Church Fund was security for the next generation, and if after thirty years the Church Fund should prove unequal to the burden of £70,000 for the Agricultural Department,, that would be subject to such revision as the Treasury might deem necessary. But, for a generation at least, certainly the Church Fund would meet all its liabilities. If such an improbable contingency should arise that the fund could not bear the £70,000 for the Agricultural Department, it would be for Parliament to consider how the deficiency should be met.
MR. JAMES O'CONNORsaid that his objection to the clause was that by it a perpetual arrangement was made by which the landlords were really made the possessors and manipulators of the Irish Church Fund. He thought the operation of the sub-section should be restricted to the next fifteen years. If that were done it might be considered a reasonable modification of the clause. That the landlords were to be the possessors of the Church Fund in perpetuity was not reasonable, and he hoped therefore that the right hon. Gentleman would limit the operation of the clause to fifteen years.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had put the case fairly and succinctly. This Bill, like a great many other measures passed for Ireland by English legislators, cursed him that gave and him that received. He had heard that it would not benefit the Irish landlords to any great extent. Only about £40,000 would go into their pockets. That amount distributed amongst a great many landlords would only result in a very small sum for each—so small that it reminded one of the story of the man who, during the revolution of 1848, went to Lord Rothschild and said all men are brothers, and demanded his share of wealth. Lord Rothschild gave him 10 centimes, and said that if he gave all his brothers a like amount it was more than they ought

1019
to receive. The result to the individual would be small. At the same time, £40,000 would be a serious peril to the fund. The Agricultural Board had £70,000 which they devoted to agriculture. It was a large sum, but the good which they were able to do with it in benefiting the various districts was very large indeed. In this Bill the right hon. Gentleman ran the risk of interfering with the good work done by this Board, simply in order to put an infinitesimal contribution into the pockets of the Irish landlords. That alone was a sufficient condemnation of the clause. He did not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could be precluded from accepting the Amendment of his hon. friend. It would not interfere with the working of the Bill, and by adopting the Amendment no new precedent would be created, because in the Irish Agricultural Rating Bill, passed a few sessions previously, a similar limitation was imposed. After a Parliamentary inquiry, the Government consented to limit the operation of that Act to five years. He hoped, therefore, in the present case the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to comply with the reasonable request of the Irish Members to limit this measure not for five years or even ten, but for fifteen years, which could not be considered not to be a reasonable time to give for the experiment. This clause meant that the landlords would hold a perpetual mortgage over the Church Fund. In Ulster he found that the reduction in the second statutory term—that was to say, the reduction not on the original rents, but the reduced rents—was in Antrim 25 per cent. and Fermanagh 24 per cent. The average reduction in the province of Ulster was 25 per cent., in the province of Leinster 24·3, in the province of Connaught 23·8, and in the province of Munster 21·3. He might interject the observation that the more he went into the question of rent reduction in Ireland the more convinced was he that the farmers who had suffered most from exorbitant and unconscionable rack-renting were those of the loyal Unionist province of Ulster, for whom the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh and other such gentlemen were the advocates in that House. It was now near the dinner hour, and he hoped his congratulations might aid the appetite of
1020
the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He congratulated the Member for North Armagh on the extraordinary political adroitness by which the landlords of Ulster had been able to convince the loyal but violently rack-rented farmers of that province that they were doing so exceedingly well by their English connection. The reduction of 25 per cent. in the second statutory term, added to the reduction in the first statutory term in Ulster, made altogether something like 45 to 50 per cent. If that was to go on what was to become of the Irish Church Fund? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had come to the extraordinary conclusion that the reduction of rents in Ireland had come to an end. How did he know?
MR. G. W. BALFOURremarked that reductions could not go on for ever.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORhoped the right hon. Gentleman would be in office in another House of Commons—which was at least possible—and that he would bring in a measure which would abolish rent altogether in the greater part of Ireland by a judicious and fair system of compulsory land purchase. That was, perhaps, what the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind, and to that extent he agreed with him that these reductions could not go on for ever. At the same time they saw no sign of that step now. The causes which had produced the present reduction of rent were still going on. What he might almost call the wickedness of this Bill practically was that it might, by the redemption of tithes, reduce to the vanishing point that magnificent fund which was doing such wonderful work in Ireland. While this clause perpetuated what they regarded as an injury, it would not have the effect the right hon. Gentleman anticipated. If the right hon. Gentleman had any hallucination that this clause, or any other clause, would have the effect of stopping the mouths and the demands of the landlords of Ireland, he must have come to that conclusion within the last six or seven days. At the very moment when he was pushing this Bill through the House, the landlords of Ireland defeated his colleagues in another place. In pushing this Bill the right hon. Gentleman was using precious Parliamentary time—time which the Leader of the House found so valuable that he was not

1021
able to give it to any measure called contentious in any sense of the word—time so valuable that the children of the country could not be relieved from the tyranny of wicked and unprincipled parents who sent them to the public-house. At the very moment when the right hon. Gentleman was wasting Parliamentary time by pushing this Bill through the House, his friends and protégés were bringing in their claim for another piece of impossible relief in another House. This Bill would have the effect of doing great injustice to the tenantry of Ireland, it would seriously impede the best and the only good Department in Ireland, and at the same time it would bring no peace or satisfaction to the class it was intended to benefit.
MR. G. W. BALFOURwas understood to say that the conclusion the hon. Member had come to in regard to the effect of the redemption of tithes on the Church Fund was not in accordance with his own expectation.
MR. POWERcomplained that the provisions of the Bill were so complicated, and the information supplied so meagre, that it was difficult to form any true idea of the effects of the measure.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Dr. TANNER:, Cork County, Mid). House counted, and, forty Members being found present,
MR. POWERcontended that it would be very much fairer if, instead of making this charge a charge in perpetuity, the standard was tried for the first fifteen years, and then it could be re-considered. The fund upon which the charge was to be made was established for purposes of general public utility, and no one could contend that the object to which the money was to be applied in this case was one of "general public utility." There were certain crying demands, such as education and migration, which would come within that category, but certainly the relief of the worst class of rack-renting landlords would not. He altogether failed to see why these tithe-
payers should have any such terms offered to them, as they were perfectly well satisfied with the terms they received when the Church was disestablished. The Chief Secretary had made the admission that it was quite possible there would be larger calls upon the fund than were anticipated, in which case the grant to the Agricultural Department would be jeopardised to some extent, but that then Ireland would have a very good claim to come to the House and ask for a grant out of Imperial funds. That was an admission they were glad to have, but how did they know who would be on the Treasury bench when that time came? This proposal would not satisfy the landlords, but at the same time it would dissipate a fund which, by judicious management, might do great good to the country generally.
MR. JAMES O'CONNORdesired to make a last appeal to the Chief Secretary to limit the operation of the clause to the next fifteen years. The right hon. Gentleman had with an iron inflexibility stuck to every word of the Bill, and had conceded nothing whatever to the representatives from Ireland. He admired the right hon. Gentleman's firmness when he had a good ease, but this was an iniquitous Bill, and in such a case firmness was not a virtue, but a vice. If the experiment was limited to the fifteen years, the matter could then be again considered, and any further necessary changes might be made. Surely the Chief Secretary could concede that much to the universal demand of Members from Ireland.
MR. FLYNNdeclared that the Treasury Memorandum of 1899 could not be accepted, because four years previously a Treasury Minute declared that the Irish Church Fund could not bear any further charges without serious danger of insolvency. Moreover, the belated document of 1899 could not be taken as authentic, as it was evidently a "cooked" Memorandum prepared for an obvious and specific purpose.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 139; Noes, 76. (Division List No. 192.)

AYES.

Allsopp, Hon. George

Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

Arrol, Sir William

Balcarres, Lord

Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith- (Hurts

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

Bethell, Commander

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Murray, Rt. hon. A. G. (Bute

Bigwood, James

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Bill, Charles

Gull, Sir Cameron

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Blakiston-Houston, John

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Pease, Herbe Rt. P. (Darlington

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert. Wm.

Percy, Earl

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hardy, Laurence

Pilkington, R. (Lanes, Newton)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cecil, Evelyn, (Hertford, East)

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Purvis, Robert.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hobhouse, Henry

Rankin, Sir James

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Howard, Joseph

Rasch, Major Frederic Came

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Charrington, Spencer

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Robertson, Herbert. (Hackney

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Round, James

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Russell, Gen. F. S.(Cheltenham)

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth.)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W)

Keswick, William

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles-

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

Curzon, Viscount

Knowles, Lees

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Denny, Colonel

Lafone, Alfred

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Donkin, Richard Sim

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Lecky, Rt. Hon William Edw. H.

Spencer, Ernest

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpool)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

Faber, George Denison

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lowe, Francis William

Strauss, Arthur

Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r)

Lowles, John

Thornton, Percy M.

Finlay, Sir Robert. Bannatyne

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Macartney. W. G. Ellison

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Fisher, William Hayes

Macdona, John Cumming

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

FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

Maclure, Sir John William

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

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

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Flower, Ernest

M'Killop, James

Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Marks, Henry Hananel

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

Galloway, William Johnson

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Wylie, Alexander

Garfit, William

Milward, Colonel Victor

Wyndham, George

Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond.

Monckton, Edward Philip

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

More, Robert. J. (Shropshire)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Morrell, George Herbert.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Mount, William George

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Muntz, Philip A.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Price, Robert. John

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Rickett, J. Compton

Billson, Alfred

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh-)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Blake, Alfred

Langley, Batty

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Caldwell, James

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Carew, James Laurence

Lewis, John Herbert.

Souttar, Robinson

Cawley, Frederick

Macaleese, Daniel

Spicer, Albert

Crilly, Daniel

MacDonnell, Dr MA (Queen'sC.

Steadman, William Charles

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Stevenson, Francis S.

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Davies, M. Vaugham-(Cardigan

M'Crae, George

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

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Dermott, Patrick

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Dillon, John

M'Ghee, Richard

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Doogan, P. C.

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Wallace, Robert

Dunn, Sir William

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Moulton, John Fletcher

Weir, James Galloway

Flynn, James Christopher

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert. John

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

Wills, Sir William Henry

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Harwood, George

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Hazell, Walter

O'Dowd, John

Yoxall, James Henry

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

O'Kelly, James

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Oldroyd, Mark

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

Hogan, James Francis

O'Malley, William

Holland, William Henry

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Horniman, Frederick John

Power, Patrick Joseph

MR. DILLONsaid he did not intend to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Louth, although he believed he would be in order in doing so. The Amendment he wished to propose was to provide "that the owners of lay impropriate tithe rent-charge may elect to have the tithe payable to them varied according to the provisions of the present law." He protested against mixing up two utterly different subjects. Observe what this Bill proposed to do with lay impropriate tithes. Those tithes were private property, and had been private property since the Reformation. They were just as much private property as railway or any other stock. In dealing with lay impropriate tithes there was no question of a grievance in the same sense as had been contended in the case of the landlords. Lay impropriate tithes had been dealt with as private property, and had been bought and sold for many generations without any variation. He did not know any class of property which had been more frequently sold, and these tithes were very frequently made the subject of investments under marriage settlements. These tithes had always been valued in accordance with a certain standard. In some parts of the country they were variable in proportion to the price of oats, and in other parts in proportion to the price of wheat. But whether they were variable according to the price of wheat or oats, those who had bought and sold them had done so upon the basis of the price of the article with which they were varied. The necessity for legislation in the case of lay impropriate tithes appears to arise from a totally different cause than the necessity for legislation in the case of ecclesiastical tithe-payers. In this case the only necessity is the neglect of the Government in Dublin to publish the average prices of oats and wheat in the Dublin Gazette. But whatever difference arose in the case of lay impropriator tithe-payers would be removed by a single clause making the variations depend on the prices published in the Annual Reports of the Land Commissioners. That would remove the difficulty, and restore the owners and the payers of these tithes to their strict and well ascertained and legal rights which had prevailed since 1838. The Government in this Bill proposed
1026
to deal with private property in a way in which it was never proposed to be dealt with before. Without a shadow of reason or ground, the Government proposed to deal with this private property by introducing a new standard of variation never heard of before, which would, in many instances, reduce this private property by a greater percentage than it was legally rateable under the present law. Let them consider the case of the person of moderate income, who held £50 invested in lay impropriate tithes. Suppose that was in a district where oats was the measure of the value, and where they were entitled to get tithes revised on the basis of the price of oats. If he got them revised on that basis under the present law he might obtain 10, 12, or 15 per cent. reduction. But because the authorities at Dublin Castle neglected to publish in the Dublin Gazette the average price of oats and wheat, which was necessary for this man to get his tithes revised, the Government now came forward and proposed a Bill under which the tithe would be revised on a new scale, which would cut away from the owner of this private property a much larger percentage of the property than would be the case under the present law. What excuse do the Government give for such a scheme? They propose to apply Subsection 2 of Clause 3 to the lay impropriate tithes as well as to the ecclesiastical tithes, with the result that this private property will be reduced by a further 25, 30, or 40 per cent. in future. During the twenty years he had been in this House he had never heard such a monstrous proposition. So peculiar was this tithe that the man who was paying it might be twenty times as wealthy as the man who was receiving it. It might be the Duke of Devonshire who was paying the tithe, and it might be some very poor widow who was receiving it. Without rhyme or reason or just cause it was now proposed to cut down the value of this private property. He waited with much curiosity to hear the excuse the Government would put forward for this extraordinary proposal.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 5, at the end of the clause, to add the words, 'Provided always that owners of lay impropriate tithe rent-charge may elect to have the tithe payable to then varied according; to the provisions of the present law' "—(Mr. Dillon.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid the hon. Member should remember that the Government had been obliged to touch the tithe problem in consequence of the difficulties to which reference had been made, and partly in consequence of the hardships which the Acts of 1869 and 1872 threw upon the tithe-owners. Having boon compelled to deal with the question and to recognise the indefensibility of the existing system of variation, the Government determined in consequence of the many difficulties in the way to reform the whole system. This had been done by means of this Bill, and he could not allow any exception like that suggested by the hon. Member in the Amendment.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the right hon. Gentleman had referred to two alterations by statute in regard to lay impropriate tithes, but he wished to point out that those alterations were made at the earnest supplication of the lay impropriators themselves. He knew that hon. Members from Ireland sometimes attacked great interests, but on this occasion they wore defending the rights of property the owners of which were poor people. To them every single farthing was of very great consequence. Every Irish lawyer must recollect, if he had not forgotten his law, that lay impropriate tithes used to form a very important part of Irish marriage settlements. The amounts were generally not more than £1,500 or £2,000, but these tithes were adopted as securities because they were a first charge upon the land, and they formed a capital security to those persons to whom every single farthing was of importance. What did the right hon. Gentleman propose to do? He proposed to render that which was now secure insecure. This was a perfect invasion of the law of property. The owner of lay impropriate tithes was a poor man, and the person benefited by this proposal was a rich man. This variation according to the fixed standards of the price of wheat and oats had prevailed since 1838, and that value had been understood, and now a reduction was proposed in that property which was not called for in any way. Unfortunately he did not believe hon. Members opposite had read this
1028
Bill, for it would be an insult to their intelligence to assume that if they had read it they would vote for it. Up to the present time lay impropriate tithes had been considered as good a security as the National Debt, and there was no excuse for this proposal. If the First Lord of the Treasury understood it, as he does not, he would say that there was no excuse for attacking private property in this way. He (Mr. Swift MacNeill) was delighted to pose for once as the defender of the rights of property. The money invested in these tithes belonged to the very poor, and it was a monstrous thing to disturb the value of that property in this manner. This was a miserable attempt to rob the very poor. They must recollect that the second portion of this very atrocious section applied to lay impropriate tithes. The excuse for doing this was that the old system of revising upon the standard of wheat and oats had failed. Why had it failed? Simply through the folly and malfeasance of the Government themselves, who had not published the prices in the Dublin Gazette. he thought the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend was a just and reasonable one, for it simply gave the owners of these lay impropriate tithes the option of having their tithes revised in accordance with the system which had prevailed for more than two generations. Lay impropriate tithes were held by individuals, as distinguished from ecclesiastical tithes, which were held by the Church. He hoped his hon. friend would go to a division, for a more unconscionable attack upon private property he never hoard of before being proposed from the Front Bench. It was all the more unconscionable because it was going to attack the poor for the benefit of the rich, and it was an attack made in the interests of the landlords. A more revolutionary measure he had never heard of.
*MR. MOULTON: This Amendment is one of a totally different character to others which have been moved. It appears to me to be an Amendment which I should have supposed, from my knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, he would either have accepted or would have expressed his regret at not being able to accept. I confess I was astonished to hear from him a speech so irrelevant and flippant in answer to a complaint

1029
made in very moderate terms, that it shows that the Bill is in the hands of a man who wishes to carry it through without giving himself the intellectual trouble of seeing how it will operate, I am not given to using language of this kind, but I use that language in this case because, knowing the great intellectual ability of the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot think that he was honouring this Committee in treating us to that speech. I am going to put as plainly as I can, and without the use of any language that might aggravate, the meaning of this Amendment and the claim for its acceptance. Tithes always were a charge on the gross produce of the land. They passed into the hands of private persons, and they were bought and sold with well-defined legal rights, namely, rights to such and such a proportion of the gross return of the land. The difficulty of collecting them made the owners willing to alter the shape but not the nature of their right, and consequently Tithe Commutation Acts were passed not only with the consent of the payers of the tithes, but at the earnest desire of the receivers. Gradually the tithes got into more definite form, until at last they came to be a certain number of quarters of certain agricultural produce the price of which was fixed in a specified way, and they were paid not in kind but in money. In that form they passed into the hands of persons whose fate is in our hands to-night. Largo quantities of tithe passed into public hands and the Legislature felt it might deal more freely with them, and they were commuted for a fixed payment gladly accepted by the landlords. But the Legislature did not touch the tithes which had passed into private hands and which wore the subject of definite legal rights. Now we come to the cry of the landlords who pay tithes that are in public hands that they would like the fixed impost they had gladly accepted in lieu of the variable demands on them changed, and the Government has decided that it must be changed. It is going to be altered in this way. If judicial rents have gone down, then this fixed impost is to be put down also. But how about those who have no fixed impost? Their returns have also been going down, because the price of the produce on which the tithe was based has been going down, and now it is proposed to strike these
1030
tithes down again, because in consequence of produce going down rents have also gone down. Is it just that they should be punished twice? They have already borne the consequences of the fall of wheat and oats, and now you are going to reduce them still lower because the fall of wheat and oats has affected rents. I say that that is unjust. These tithe-owners are to be punished more severely by making them take the consequence twice over of the fall of wheat and oats. But apart from this consideration there is a special injustice in making tithes go down in the same proportion as judicial rents. Judicial rents, like all other rents, are the value of the margin between the return of the land and the necessary cost of producing that return, and that margin we know in many parts of England has fallen to nothing. The reduction in the value of a marginal return like a rent is in a far higher ratio than the reduction in the price of produce. You now propose to reduce the tithes in proportion to the reduction in rents, although these tithe owners have already taken the consequences of the fall in the price of produce, because it was part of the bargain they entered into, and to which they loyally adhered. You are going to tell them after they have borne the burden of these bad years, that because you want to relieve the landlords of a fixed impost, you are going to reduce the returns they purchased, and reduce them in this exaggerated manner. I was going to say, "exaggerated and unjust manner," but the word "unjust" is perfectly needless, because you have no right to meddle with private property at all when no public need demands it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite display a scrupulous devotion to the rights of private property, and I do not blame them for it. These rights only ought to give way when a great public need demands it, and I am perfectly certain if this were an English Bill it would be howled down, and no one would have dared to suggest on this side of the channel that a peaceable set of proprietors of property of this kind should in face of no public need have their property altered in this way. If we are ever going to make Ireland a contented part of this realm we must be as sensitive to Irish questions as we are to English questions; and if hon. Gentlemen opposite deliberately shut their ears to the plain and simple demand that those people

1031
should be allowed to enjoy that which they have purchased, it will confirm that belief in Ireland—which is the greatest difficulty we have in uniting it heartily with our great country—that no one cares a button whether an injustice is done to Ireland or not.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The hon. and learned Gentleman could not have spoken with greater confidence if he had known something of the subject. It has been my fortune, good or ill, to have had to devote some study to the tithe question in Ireland, and to have listened to remarks upon it by various speakers, and I can confidently say that I never heard anyone approach the subject in such blank ignorance as the hon. and learned gentleman. This Amendment, which, by the way, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not read to the House, and which I do not think he could have read, even for his own private information, gives the tithe - owner the option of selecting either the system set up in the Bill or the existing system; but the hon. and learned Gentleman does not know that there is no existing system in Ireland.
MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the Amendment, which evidently he has not read. There is not a word in it about the existing system; it only refers to the existing law.
MR. ATKINSON: I take it for granted that what is meant by that is the existing system. If that is so, it means that, instead of the system set up in the Bill, the tithe-owner should be allowed to select the existing law, which gives him no relief, and cannot give him any relief unless it be revised. The reason it gives no relief is because, according to the existing law, when revision is brought about, you compare the price of either wheat or oats mentioned in the certificate with the average price of wheat or oats for the seven years preceding the date of the application; but such average prices have not been kept since 1879, and therefore, if they were set on foot now there would not be the material on which to work for a revision under the existing law for the next six years. The hon. and learned Gentleman was not aware of that,
1032
but that is the fact notwithstanding. Therefore, when an Amendment is proposed that an option should be given to the tithe rent-charge payer of taking the system set up by the Bill or the existing law, it is really no option at all. I doubt whether the hon. and learned Gentleman ever heard of the Act of 1824, of Goulbourne's Act of 1832, or Stanley's Act of 1838, because he appeared to me to talk as if tithes in Ireland were as they are in England, subject to revision from year to year. What are the facts? In 1828, the owners of tithes were forced to take a composition regulated on certain lines, whether they liked it or not, and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks as if there had been no interference with tithe property. I suppose he is talking in ignorance of the legislation on the subject, because whether it was right or not there was legal interference both in 1832 and 1838. In 1838 the tithes that had been settled on Irish settlements were deliberately cut down by 25 per cent.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With the consent of the people themselves.
MR. ATKINSON: On the contrary. In 1838 a different system of revision was adopted, because the tithes were revised according to the price of wheat or oats. Wheat or oats were not fair samples of produce, and were not fair samples of what the tithe was entitled to take. They were merely selected because the records of the prices of these two cereals had been preserved for other and entirely different purposes, and that machinery was taken as a test of revision. That is a bad system, and it has become impossible to work it owing to the fact that the officer whose duty it was to furnish these averages has ceased to exist. It is a cumbersome and difficult system, and the system which we propose is, as we think, more reasonable. It is automatic, and will produce more uniform and regular results. So far from there being an invasion of private property any more than has taken place under previous Acts, nothing can be further from the truth. Tithes have always been subject to revision, and we maintain that more justice will be done and more uniform results will be obtained under the system we propose than under the previous system.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: It appears to me from the two speeches we have heard from the Treasury Bench that the great weapon being used in defence of this indefensible Bill is to sneer at the arguments advanced on this side of the House. The Chief Secretary commenced by sneering at the arguments of the Member for East Mayo, and said he was astonished to see him stand up and protest against interference with the rights of property; but in indulging that sneer he forgot how vulnerable himself and his party are in bringing in a measure more confiscatory than any measure ever introduced into this House with regard to the private rights of property. My right hon. and learned friend who has just spoken thought fit to attempt to disparage one of the ablest, if not the very ablest, contribution to the debate we have heard during the four days the Bill has been under discussion. He felt his withers gall under the unanswerable arguments of my hon. and learned friend, because he failed to meet the gravamen of that speech, which was that without any public demand or necessity or any agitation for it, the Government are cutting away the very foundations of property which for centuries has been held in the ordinary way as any other fee simple estate. My right hon. and learned friend cannot deny that. These tithes have been the subject of settlement over and over again. They have been the subject of marriage settlements, of mortgages, and of sales; and I know, because my attention has been called to it by friends, that this Bill will inflict the greatest hardships in many respects. Jointures have been charged with these lay tithes, and if this Amendment is not carried, very great hardship will result. I happen to know a case where a lease of lay tithe was taken for a long number of years, the lessee paying a fixed rent, just as if he had taken the lease of a farm. The lessee is bound to pay that rent, whatever happens.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,): That would not be so under the Land Acts.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I am speaking of a lessee of tithe, and the Land Acts do not apply; and I would ask my right hon. friend to reserve his contributions to
1034
the debate until I have sat down. A lessee of tithe might have covenanted years ago to pay £100 a year, expecting to get £150 from the tithes. He is irrevocably bound to pay that £100 as long as his lease continues; but if the tithe is to be reduced in this way, instead of making a profit he may suffer a loss, as the tithe may pay less than £100 a year. That is only one of the innumerable illustrations which might be cited. Again, a jointure of £200 a year may be charged on a tithe worth £300 a year, and the result of this Bill will be to cut away the property on which the jointure is charged. The point of my hon. and learned friend's argument has not been fairly met, nor has the argument of the Member for East Mayo been appreciated, because that hon. Gentleman in introducing this Amendment said that it was quite true that there should be some change in the law in order to reinstate the old system of the average price of corn as the standard for adjusting the tithe. That was lost sight of altogether, and I would remind the Committee that so late as 1882 tithe in England was made to depend on the price of corn, the prices being ascertained and determined by what is called the Corn Returns Acts, and it is on the average of seven years prices of corn that the tithe system of England depends. Would the Committee listen to any change in or encroachment on that system? My right hon. and learned friend says, "Oh, but there was the Act of 1824 and Goulbourne's Act and Stanley's Act, by which a reduction in tithe was made." But my right hon. and learned friend forgets the lessons of history, and especially of the history of Ireland. In the early part of the century Ireland was almost in a state of revolution because of the determination of the people not to pay tithes which were then paid by the tillers of the soil. We have only to take up an Annual Register to see that tithe-collectors were shot by the dozen. I do not know whether my right hon. and learned friend ever indulges in a study of the history of Ireland. If not he ought to do so. Does he not recollect the famous battle in Ireland where several policemen were shot in endeavouring to force the payment of tithes? It was these events that led to the Stanley Act, and under the Act of 1838 the tithe was reduced 25 per cent. in consideration of its

1035
being made a first charge on the land, and the tithe-owner had no longer to subject himself to the danger of being shot. He was only too glad of the change, and yet that is the Act referred to by my right hon. and learned friend as an argument in favour of this confiscatory measure. It was merely by a decision of the Court, on which there was great difference of opinion, that because the returns had not been published in the Dublin Gazette, it was laid down that there was no standard by which revision could take place. But that could have been remedied by a short Act of Parliament, or even by a clause in this Bill. Therefore the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston stands completely unanswered and unanswerable; and it will be impossible now or hereafter to justify this aggression on private property, which may affect many orphans and widows, and as to the extent of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has not furnished materials to enable the House to form a judgment, although I have seen it stated, I know not with what accuracy, that the lay tithe amounts to a million and a half a year.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: It is not my business to make any reference to the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman towards one of the most brilliant members of his profession in this House, when the right hon. Gentleman was denouncing the interference of an Englishman in Irish business. While attacking the hon. and learned Member for Launceston for ignorance and unintelligence in Irish affairs, the right hon. Gentleman might have done the justice to correctly state what he did say, and not put into his mouth words and principles which he did not enunciate. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman said that the hon. and learned Member for Launceston had declared that the rights of private property had never been interfered with, and then he went on triumphantly, as an answer to that, to point out that in 1824 there had been legislative interference with the rights of tithe-owners in Ireland. In the first place, the statement of my hon. and learned friend's principle was incorrect; and, in the second place, the inference which the right hon. Gentleman drew from that incorrect statement was fallacious. What my hon. and learned friend said was that the rights of private property were never interfered
1036
with in this House unless a public necessity had been shown for it. Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean the Committee to believe that my hon. and learned friend was stupid or childish enough to say that the rights of private property had never been interfered with? My hon. and learned friend never laid down any such an absurd proposition. His proposition was that when you come to interfere with private property you ought to show a great public necessity for so doing; and his object was to demonstrate that the Government were interfering with the rights of private property without showing an absolute necessity for it.
MR. ATKINSON: What I said was. that there was no interference in this Bill with the rights of private property different in kind or nature from that to which tithes have been subjected from the year 1824.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: That is an entirely different point. The Act of 1824 was a very great and serious interference with the rights of tithe ownership; but then that was because there was a great public necessity for so doing. The right hon. Gentleman is quite as familiar as my hon. and learned friend with the history of tithes in Ireland. Early in the century all over Ireland the payment of tithes by the occupiers of the soil was resisted, and scones of bloodshed and murder were frequent during that armed resistance. In 1825, the very year after the Act of 1824 was passed interfering with the tithes, Archdeacon Trench, in the county of Tipperary, raised a riot in which life was lost, because he endeavoured to sequestrate a number of geese in carrying out his right of tithe. So hot and wide-spread was the feeling against the payment of tithes in Ireland by the occupants of the soil, that even the collection of a few geese or a few sheaves of corn was quite sufficient to produce a riot in which blood was shed. In the face of these facts the right hon. the Attorney General has the coolness to come down here, when there is no demand in Ireland for it, no resistance of the tithe - payers, no petitions from them, and introduce a Bill following the precedents of 1824 and 1828, when the soil of Ireland was wet with the blood of the slain in the collection of tithes. The right hon. Gen-

1037
tleman has established the argument of my hon. and learned friend, by showing the difference between the past and the present. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to seriously consider this Amendment. He was not satisfied with a misrepresentation of my hon. and learned friend the Member for Launceston, but he actually had the courage to misrepresent the scope of the Amendment before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Amendment was in favour of the existing system. There is no existing system. Nobody used the words "existing system." Here are the words of the Amendment—
"Provided always that the owners of lay impropriator tithe rent-charge may elect to have the tithe payable to them varied under the existing Jaw."
The existing law is not the existing system. Was it fair for the right hon. Gentleman not only to so grossly misrepresent the statement of my hon. and learned friend, but also the terms of the Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman says there is no system at the present moment. Does the law exist or does it not? Is the law suspended in regard to the collection of tithes?
MR. ATKINSON: It is inoperative.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Let us examine this startling proposition laid down by the Attorney General—
MR. ATKINSON: It is inoperative because the system by which it was to work does not exist.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman and is the Government treating us fairly in regard to this matter? Is that a candid way of dealing with us? He says the law is inoperative. Does he mean that under the existing law, owing to what occurred in connection with the Dublin Gazette, the tithe-payer cannot effect a reduction of his tithe proportioned to the prices of produce? But that is not the question we are discussing. We are not discussing the amount of money that the tithe-payer is bound to pay, but the question of the rights of the tithe-owner. Is the law inoperative in regard to them?
MR. ATKINSON: Neither the tithe-owner nor the tithe-payer can get a revision.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I think this is rather an irregular, though Socratic, method of getting at the truth. The Committee, however, ought to be grateful for once for this means of getting at the bottom of the matter. It is quite true that the tithe-owner or the tithe-payer cannot get a, revision. But have the tithe-owners asked for a revision? Are we to understand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that they have allowed the law to remain in suspense, and that the only debtors in Ireland who cannot recover their debts are the tithe-owners?
MR. ATKINSON: They may recover their debts, but they cannot get a revision.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am asking one question, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman always takes care to answer another. I did not say that the tithe-payers or tithe-owners could get a revision; but that the tithe-owners were able to recover their property. Have the tithe owners asked for a change in the law? The Government have offered no evidence whatever that they have done so. We are in this position: that because certain debtors demand a revision of their debts, the creditors are to have a revision of these debts carried in this House for the benefit of the debtors. And this is a Government which, above all the Governments of the world, pose as the defenders of the rights of property! The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government have brought in this Bill for the relief of the landlords of Ireland. But the Duke of Devonshire says that they are much better off than the landlords of England. The Government in this House contradict the Duke of Devonshire, and say that, "the landlords of Ireland have a grievance, and therefore we will reduce the burden of their debts." The landlords of Ireland are usually men of vast estates and great property. But who are the tithe-owners? They are not all landlords. A very considerable number of them, if not the majority, are not landlords at all. They are small people, and tithes form the subject of jointures and marriage settlements which are passed from hand to hand like Consols. Why benefit the Duke of Devonshire, the Duke of Abercorn, the Marquess of Lansdowne, the Marquess of Londonderry, the Marquess of Clanricarde, and the like? I do not

1039
know whether the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh would be benefited by the Bill or not, but if so I congratulate him. The Duke of Devonshire, the Duke of Abercorn, the Marquess of Londonderry, the Marquess of Lansdowne, the Marquess of Clanricarde, and other persons of vast possessions and princely incomes are the charitable objects of this Bill, but what about the poor small landlord? What about the young woman who married with a little fortune consisting of £100 in tithes? What about the widow with a jointure of £200 a year from tithes? Whenever I hear of the vicissitudes of fortune caused by the land war, I am deeply moved by the stories of want and suffering that have come to small landlords, some of whose wives have even died in the workhouse. Why, that is the class we want to protect—the small tithe-owners, whose income is going to be reduced from 25 to 50 per cent. in order that the Duke of Devonshire, the Duke of Abercorn, the Marquess of Clanricarde, the Marquess of Londonderry, the Marquess of Lansdowne, and the like may have a considerable reduction in the payment of their tithes. If this were a question of dealing with private property in England, a Bill of this kind would have been hooted out of the House of Commons and if it had been brought in by a Liberal Government, such a proposal would have met with the most determined and obstructive opposition from hon. Gentlemen opposite; and if it had had the strange fortune to pass through this House—as such proposals rarely do—it would have got very short shrift and hard measure when it went to another place which is mainly concerned with the rights of property.
MR. DILLON: I wish to say a few words in reply to the right hon. the Chief Secretary; but before doing so I must express my astonishment at the attitude of the Attorney General towards the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Launceston, who has exhibited a thorough acquaintance with this measure and the subject with which it deals. The right hon. and learned Gentleman sneered at an English Member interfering with Irish affairs. Well, I wish that he would request the legions of English Members behind him to retire from the House, and then we could
1040
deal with the Bill in an intelligent way. It is monstrous that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should adopt an outrageous tone in objecting to an English Member intelligently discussing the Bill, when he knows that his only chance of passing it is dependent on the votes of his legions of English Members, who neither understand the Bill nor listen to the debates on it, and who only came in to-night because they expected some lively scenes. The right hon. the Chief Secretary absolutely declined to argue the merits of the Amendment. The Attorney General said that in the year 1838 the tithe proprietors in Ireland were obliged to submit to a reduction of 25 per cent. They did submit gladly and willingly to the reduction, and why? Because they got a good quid pro quo. They exchanged the tithes leviable at great expense in the face of ferocious opposition at a great personal danger, for a first charge on the land just as secure as Government stock, and leviable without any expense or risk. In the present instance the Government are asking the tithe-owners to submit to an uncertain though great diminution, but they are offering them no quid pro quo whatever. The right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to give any reason for this assault on property in Ireland. He talked of the extreme imperfection of the present system, and said the Government were going to effect a general reform. This system has been in existence in Ireland for sixty-two years, and when did the Government become so keenly sensible of its defects? Only when the landlords wanted a dole! They are going to effect a general reform—a general reform which consists in a reduction of the private property of men who have given no cause of offence, and property payable by people who are, for the most part, really well able to pay it, and who in many instances are much wealthier than the people who own the tithes. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to indulge in what I must confess was cheap sarcasm about the Members on these benches standing up in defence of the rights of property, and that we never did so except where the interests of the tenants were concerned. We might make the forcible retort that hon. Gentlemen opposite show no interest in the rights of property except when the rights of land-lords are concerned. I never saw a more

1041
glaring instance of the hollowness of the pretensions of hon. Gentlemen opposite than in their attitude towards this Amendment. Why do they sneer at us for our protection of tithe-owners? It is because the tithe-payers are mostly rich landowners, men of position and influence, and because the men and women who are interested in the rights of property, and for whoso rights we are standing up, are poor and not influential. Then the Attorney General came to the rescue and thought he had annihilated my Amendment by pointing out that I propose to refer the payer of lay impropriate tithes in Ireland for his remedy to the present system. That is what I did not do. I referred him to the present law. The quibble of the Attorney General is perfectly preposterous and absurd. It is impossible for any man, even the Attorney General, to deny that the law exists in Ireland today and ever since 1838, giving to the lay impropriate tithe-payer the right of revision; and when I referred to the remedy under the present law I stated when moving the Amendment that my proposal would involve the insertion of a short clause in the Bill giving the right of the lay impropriate tithe-payer to use the corn average prices published by the Land Commissions in their annual Reports. I say that the wording of my Amendment is absolutely correct. It proposes, instead of setting up a new, arbitrary, and most unjust standard, whereby the property of these men

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Faber, George Denison

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Crae, George

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Dermott, Patrick

Atherley-Jones, L.

Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

M'Ghee, Richard

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herb. J.

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Barlow, John Emmott

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Kenna, Reginald

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Billson, Alfred

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

M'Leod, John

Blake, Edward

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Mandeville, J. Francis

Caldwell, James

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Carew, James Laurence

Hazell, Walter

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Causton, Richard Knight

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Moulton, John Fletcher

Cawley, Frederick

Holland, William Henry

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Channing. Francis Allston

Horniman, Frederick John

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

Crilly, Daniel

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cumin, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Dalziel, James Henry

Jones, William (Carnarvons.)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Dowd, John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kitson, Sir James

O'Kelly, James

Dillon, John

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Oldroyd, Mark

Doogan, P. C.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

O'Malley, William

Dunn, Sir William

Lloyd-George, David

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.

Emmott, Alfred

Lough, Thomas

Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley

Engledew, Charles John

Macaleese, Daniel

Pilkington, Sir G. A. (LancsS W

Evans, Sir Francis H (South'ton)

MacDonnell, Dr M A (Queen's C)

Power, Patrick Joseph

can be cut and carved, that it should be referred to the law as it has existed for sixty-two years, by which revision would take place automatically, and which could be re-affirmed by a short clause in the Bill. Before the division is taken, I wish to repeat that the proposed mode of reducing the tithes of the lay impropriate tithe-owner in proportion to the judicial rents is most grotesque and unjust. It implies a widely different standard in different counties-a thing unknown to the law before. Why should the lay impropriate tithe-owner who lives in the county of Antrim, who, under the law as it stands, has suffered a reduction of 14 per cent. of his measure of oats, have the value of his property reduced by this Bill, without rhyme or reason, 30 per cent., and in another fifteen years have it cut down by another 30 per cent.? Take the county of Cork. Why should the lay impropriate tithe-payer of Cork, who might get a reduction of 50 per cent. on his tithe, be barred by this clause from getting more than 15 or 16 per cent. Never in the history of this House has a more absurd and reckless proposal been brought forward. It is perfectly grotesque in its operation, and utterly divorced from every consideration of reason or justice.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—9; Noes, 195. (Division List No. 193.)

Price, Robert John

Souttar, Robinson

Weir, James Galloway

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Spicer, Albert

Whiteley, George (Stockport).

Reckitt, Harold James

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Wilson,' Henry J. (York. W. R.

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.

Steadman, William Charles

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Rickett, J. Compton

Stevenson, Francis S.

Wilson, John (Govan)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Strachey, Edward

Woods, Samuel

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Robson, William Snowdon

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on Tees)

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Wallace, Robert

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex, F.

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Arrol, Sir William

Flower, Ernest

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

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

K'Killop, James

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Galloway, William Johnson

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Garfit, William

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Balcarres, Lord

Gedge, Sydney

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (Cy of Lond.)

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

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

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Banbury, Frederick George

Godson, Sir Augustus F.

Mil ward, Colonel Victor

Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Monckton, Edward Philip

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

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Morgan, Hn Fred.(Monm'thsh.)

Bigwood, James

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morrell, George Herbert

Bill, Charles

Graham, Henry Robert

Mount, William George

Blakiston-Houston, John

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Muntz, Philip A.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

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

Bond, Edward

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gull, Sir Cameron

Myers, William Henry

Brassey, Albeit

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Han bury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

Butcher, John George

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Carlile, William Walter

Hardy, Laurence

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Helder, Augustus

Pollock, Harry Frederick

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

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire)

Hoare. Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hobhouse, Henry

Purvis, Robert

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Pym, C. Guy

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Howard, Joseph

Rankin, Sir James

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm.)

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Remnant, James Farquharson

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Rentoul, James Alexander

Charrington, Spencer

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Richards, Henry Charles

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasg'w)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Keswick, William

Round, James

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

Curzon, Viscount

Knowles, Lees

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lafone, Alfred

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col Edw. J.

Denny, Colonel

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Digby, John K. D. Wingneld-

Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)

Sidebottom, T. Harrop (Stalybr)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lecky, Rt. Hon William Edw. H.

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)

Donkin, Richard Sim

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swan.)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Smith, Abel H.(Christchurch)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

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

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Eillot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Lowe, Francis William

Spencer. Ernest

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. (Man'r)

Lowles, John

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Finch, George H.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stanley, Ed, Jas. (Somerset)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Stephens, Henry Charles

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Fisher, William Hayes

Macdona, John Gumming

Stone, Sir Benjamin

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Maclure, Sir John William

Strauss, Arthur

1044

1045

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Welby, Lt -Col. A C E (Taunton

Wodehouse Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath

Thornton, Percy M.

Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Tollemache, Henry James

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Wylie, Alexander

Tomlinson, Wm Edw. Murray

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Wyndham, George

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Willoughby de Ereshy, Lord

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Willox, Sir John Archibald

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

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

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

MR. G. W. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill he now put."
Question put, "That the Question 'That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 11)7; Noes, 101. (Division List No. 194.)

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Thornton, Percy M.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

Tollemache, Henry James

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

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

Tomlinson, William Edw. M.

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

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Wylie, Alexander

Stephens, Henry Charles

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

Wyndham, George

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Williams, Jsph. Powell- (Birm.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Strauss, Arthur

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Willox, Sir John Archibald

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Holland, William Henry

Pilkington, Sir G. A (Lancs S. W.)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Horniman, Frederick John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Price, Robert John

Atherley-Jones, L.

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Reckitt, Harold James

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.

Barlow, John Emmott

Kearley, Hudson E.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Kitson, Sir. James

Robson, William Snowdon

Billson, Alfred

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Blake, Edward

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Caldwell, James

Lloyd-George, David

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Carew, James Laurence

Lough, Thomas

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Causton, Richard Knight

Macaleese, Daniel

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Cawley, Frederick

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

Souttar, Robinson

Channing, Francis Allston

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Crilly, Daniel

M'Crae, George

Steadman, William Charles

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

M'Dermott, Patrick

Stevenson, Francis S.

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Ghee, Richard

Strachey, Edward

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

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

Dillon, John

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Doogan, P. C.

M'Leod, John

Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)

Dunn, Sir William

Mandeville, J. Francis

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Emmott, Alfred

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Wallace, Robert

Engledew, Charles John

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Moulton, John Fletcher

Weir, James Galloway

Flynn, James Christopher

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

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

Wilson, Henry J. (York. W.R.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

Wilson, John (Govan)

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Woods, Samuel

Gurdon sir William Brampton

O'Dowd, John

Yoxall, James Henry

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Kelly, James

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Oldroyd, Mark

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

Hazell, Walter

O'Malley, William

Hemphill, Rt. Hon Charles H.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Question put accordingly, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

AYES.

Acland Hood Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Arrol Sir William

Brassey, Albert

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Atkinson Rt. Hon. John

Butcher, John George

Curzon Viscount

Bailey James (Walworth)

Carlile, William Walter

Dalkeith, Earl of

Balcarres Lord

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

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

Denny, Colonel

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derby)

Dickinson Robert Edmond

Banbury Frederick George

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Beach Rt. Hon. W. W. B (Hants)

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

Doxford Sir William Theodore

Bemrose Sir Henry Howe

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Dyke Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Elliot, Hon. A Ralph D.

Bigwood James

Charrinton, Spencer

Faber, George Denison

Blakiston-Houston, John

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edward

Blundell colonel Henry

Colling Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r)

Bond Edward

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Finch, George H.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 201; Noes, 102. (Division List No. 195.)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Rasch, Major Frederick Carne-

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Remnant, James Farquharson

Fisher, William Hayes

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

Rentoul, James Alexander

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Richards, Henry Charles

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Flower, Ernest

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Galloway, William Johnson

Lowe, Francis William

Round, James

Garfit, William

Lowles, John

Russell, Gen. F. S.(Cheltenham)

Gedge, Sydney

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond.)

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col. Edw. J.

Godson, Sir A. Frederick

Macdona, John Gumming

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Maclure, Sir John William

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

Sidebottom, T Harrop (Stalybr..

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

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

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

M'Killop, James

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Malcolm, Ian

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Graham, Henry Robert

Martin, Richard Hiddulph

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Stephens, Henry Charles

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Monckton, Edward Philip

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart,

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Hardy, Laurence

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Helder, Augustus

Morgan, Hon. F. (Monni'thsh.)

Strauss, Arthur

Henderson, Alexander

Morrell, George Herbert

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Mount, William George

Thornton, Percy M.

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Muntz, Philip A.

Tollemache, Henry James

Hobhouse, Henry

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Howard, Joseph

Myers, William Henry

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

William's, Colonel R. (Dorset),

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. L.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pender. Sir James

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Penn, John

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

Keswick, William

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Knowles, Lees

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Wylie, Alexander

Lafone, Alfred

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wyndham, George

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn,)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arey

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Purvis, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Pym, C. Guy

Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

Rankin, Sir James

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Engledew, Charles John

Macaleese, Daniel

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry

Flynn, James Christopher

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Atherley-Jones, L.

Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

M'Crae, George

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

M'Dermott, Patrick

Barlow, John Emmott

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Ghee, Richard

Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Billson, Alfred

Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

M'Kenna, Reginald

Blake, Edward

Haldane, Richard Bunion

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Caldwell, James

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

M'Leod, John

Carew, James Laurence

Hazell, Walter

Mandeville, J. Francis

Causton, Richard Knight

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Cawley, Frederick

Holland, William Henry

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Canning, Francis Allston

Horniman, Frederick John

Moulton, John Fletcher

Chilly, Daniel

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

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

Dalziel, James Henry

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardig'n')

Kearley, Hudson E.

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

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kitson, Sir James

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Dillon, John

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

O'Dowd, John

Dongan, P. C.

Leese, Sir J. R (Accrington)

O'Kelly, James

Dunn, Sir William

Lloyd-George, David

Oldroyd, Mark

Emmott, Alfred

Lough, Thomas

O'Malley, William

1050

1051

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs. S. W.)

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Wallace, Robert

Power, Patrick Joseph

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Price, Robert John

Souttar, Robinson

Weir, James Galloway

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Reckitt, Harold James

Steadman, William Charles

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Wilson, John (Govan)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Strachey, Edward

Woods, Samuel

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Yoxall, James Henry

Robson, William Snowdon

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Scott, Charles Prestwich (Leigh)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Clause 4:—
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked why the clause had been inserted, its only object being to repeal a portion of Section 7 of the Irish Church Act. He found that the schedule of this Bill consisted entirely of Acts repealed, and among the Acts mentioned was that referred to in Clause 4, in so far as it related to the sale of tithe. It was a matter of drafting. Everything in the Act of 1872 worth preserving was the definition of the word "owner."
MR. ATKINSONsaid Section 7 of the Act of 1872 was a very long section, and the draughtsman determined that the form adopted in the Bill with respect to the repeal was preferable, in order to make it perfectly clear what was meant.
MR. CALDWELLsaid it appeared that Clause 4 was not in the Bill as drawn at first. He pointed to the provision of Clause 10, and stated it was rather curious that after completing their Act they came and stated that certain sections mentioned in the schedule should be repealed. That might be an Irish way of doing business, but it certainly was not English or Scotch.
MR. DILLONsaid there was another point in connection with the clause to which he desired to direct the attention of the Attorney General. Of course he would be told that he was ignorant of the drafting of Bills, but if he was ignorant he wanted to be informed. The power to purchase tithes was given by Section 32 of the Act of 1869, and the Act of 1872, as far as he could remember, did not repeal the clause in the 1869 Act. What it did say was that the clause should be in substitution of so much of Clause 32 in the Act of 1869. What he wanted to know was this: Were they sure that, if the clause
1052
in the 1869 Act was not specifically repealed, the repeal of the clause in the amending Act of 1872 would not revive the clause in the 1869 Act?
MR. ATKINSONwas understood to reply that the repeal of the clause in the 1872 Act implied the repeal of the clause in the 1869 Act.
MR. DILLONsaid he was still unconvinced that the clause in the 1869 Act would not be revived when they repealed the amending Act of 1872. He was told now by the Attorney General that Section 7 of the 1872 Act was an implied repeal, but why not make the thing clear? They had no assurance that the interpretation put upon the statute by Ministers would not be set aside by the courts of law. They might say that the repeal was implied, but they had no repeal. He was still in doubt as to whether Clause 32 of the Act of 1869 would not come into force on the repeal of Clause 7 in the 1872 Act.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he did not find anything in this Bill to show that it was to be read along with the other Act. It was quite usual to find in the case of an amending Act a provision that it should be read along with the other Act.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid it should not be left to the courts hereafter to determine what the intention of the clause was. There was a great deal of ambiguity whether the sale of tithe rent-charges included the conversion of the old tithe rent-charges into terminable annuities. He thought so all along, and he thought so still. If the Attorney General preferred to leave the matter as it was, and if the hon. Member for East Mayo was right, it might be all the better, because tithe rent-owners would be able to redeem on the old system.
MR. DILLONsaid there was a very grave objection to that. It would enable landlords to redeem tithe rent-charges at twenty-two and a half years purchase. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said had greatly increased his alarm. There would be no remedy except by an amending Act if the courts should decide in that way, and he would like to see the Government that would bring in an amending Act if there was a mistake in this matter. Why not put a repealing clause into the Bill, which would remove all doubt on the question?
MR. ATKINSONsaid that as the matter stood now the 32nd Section of the 1869 Act would be entirely repealed if they repealed the 7th Section of the 1872 Act. Under the Interpretation Act of 1889 it was provided that where any Act which repealed another Act was itself repealed subsequently, that did not set up the law which had been originally repealed. They were now repealing the 7th Section of the 1872 Act, and that would not revive the clause which it repealed in the 1869 Act.
*MR. MOULTONsaid the difficulty which the hon. Member for East Mayo had was that there was no express repeal. There was no difference of intention, and he thought the Attorney General should consider the matter, and insert a clause which would put it beyond doubt.
MR. DILLONcould not imagine what objection the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to make the matter clear by expressly repealing the clause.
MR. ATKINSONsaid the Interpretation Act which he had quoted put an end to the doctrine that the repeal of an Act revived a previous Act which it had repealed.
MR. DILLONsaid his whole objection rested on the fact that there was no express repeal. An implied repeal was of a doubtful character, and it was an arguable question.
MR. ATKINSONsaid he would consider the point by the Report stage.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5:—
Question proposed, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."
MR. DILLONwished to understand the full effect of this clause. Supposing a man was paying £10 a year of tithe rent-charge, and that ten years ago he got a reduction of £2, and he went on paying £8. Then came in the Medge decision, which declared the reduction illegal. Could the tithe rent-charge owner sue for £20 of arrears?
MR. ATKINSONsaid the clause set forth that the payments made would be deemed valid and sufficient in cases where the arrears had not been recovered up to the passing of the Act.
MR. DILLONsaid the clause would work in an extraordinary way. Suppose he was the owner of a tithe rent-charge, and that it had been reduced £2 a year— he and the tithe-payer believing that to be legal—and the tithe rent-charge payer meant only paying the reduced sum. But ten years after it was discovered that the reduction was illegal. He then served a summons on the tithe rent-charge payer for £20—the amount of arrears—and obtained a judgment order of the court of quarter sessions for the amount. If he recovered under that judgment order before the Act came into force, good and well; but if he kept the order in his pocket until the Bill passed into law, was that judgment order then nil?
MR. ATKINSONsaid they must draw the line somewhere. All that the clause provided was that after the Act was passed the tithe-owner should be prevented coming down on the tithe rent-charge payer to recover anything beyond what had been paid according to the last revision. But, if before the Act was passed the tithe-owners had got a judgment for the amount of arrears, then that became a judgment debt which the tithe rent-charge payer was bound to pay.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid after the explanation of the Attorney General the proper title of the Bill ought to be "A new way to pay old debts." The boon to be given by the Bill was that the offence for which there was no forgiveness was to pay your debts.
MR. DILLONthought the clause a monstrous one, and he should be obliged to divide against it.

Acland-Hood, Capt Sir Alex. F.

Garfit, William

Morrell, George Herbert

Arroll, Sir William

Gedge, Sydney

Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford)

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(Cy of Lond).

Mount, William George

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

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

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

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

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Nicholson, William Graham

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Banbury, Frederick George

Goulding, Edward Alfred

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

Graham, Henry Robert

Parkes, Ebenezer

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

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

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

Greene, Hn. D. (Shrewsbury)

Pender, Sir James

Beckett, Ernest William

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Penn, John

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Gull, Sir Cameron

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Bigwood, James

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bill, Charles

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Blakiston-Houston, John

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Pryce-Jones, Lt -Col. Edward

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hardy, Laurence

Purvis, Robert

Bond, Edward

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Brassey, Albert

Hobhouse, Henry

Rentoul, James Alexander

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Richards, Henry Charles

Butcher, John George

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Carlile, William Walter

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Jackson, Rt. Hon. William L.

Roberston, Herbert (Hackney)

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

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Round, James

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

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Keswick, William

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Knowles, Lees

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

Lafone, Alfred

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r)

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn)

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Charrington, Spencer

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Chelsea, Viscount

Lea, Sir Thomas(Londonderry)

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Llewelyn, Sir Dilwyn, (Swansea)

Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

)Stephens, Henry Charles

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Curzon, Viscount

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Strauss, Arthur

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lowe, Francis William

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lowles, John

Thornton, Percy M.

Denny, Colonel

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tollemache, Henry James

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Macdona, John Cumming.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Maclure, Sir John William

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

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

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

Williams. John Carvell (Notts)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

M'Killop, James

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Faber, George Denison

Malcolm, Ian

Willox, Sir John Archibald

F'ellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Finch, George H.

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Wylie, Alexander

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Middlemore, In. Throgmorton

Wyndham, George

Fisher, William Hayes

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Milward, Colonel Victor

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Flower, Ernest

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

Galloway, William Johnson

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

NOES.

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

Caldwell, James

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardig'n

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.

Cawley, Frederick

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Barlow, John Emmott

Channing, Francis Allston

Dillon, John

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Crilly, Daniel

Doogan, P. C.

Billson, Alfred

Dalziel, James Henry

Dunn, Sir William

Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 175; Noes, 77. (Division List No. 196.)

Emmott, Alfred

M'Dermott, Patrick

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Engledew, Charles John

M'Ghee, Richard

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Souttar, Robinson

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbt. J.

M'Leod, John

Steadman, William Charles

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mandeville, J. Francis

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Moulton, John Fletcher

Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Hazell, Walter

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Tennant, Harold John

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Dowd, John

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Kelly, James

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Oldroyd, Mark

Wallace, Robert

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

O'Malley, William

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb)

Weir, James Galloway

Kitson, Sir James

Power, Patrick Joseph

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Price, Robert John

Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Macaleese, Daniel

Reckitt, Harold, Tames

Yoxall, James Henry

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

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

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

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

M'Crae, George

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Clause 6:—
Question proposed, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
MR. DILLONsaid he did not intend to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Louth; but he desired to say a few words on the clause itself, which was an extreme illustration of the absurd methods of the present Government. As he understood the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill, under this clause it was proposed to recover from the Church Fund £6,000 a year, and then to pay out of it £30,000 a year. The Act of 1898 had tied the whole rating system of Ireland into a knot, and under this clause further complications would be introduced.
MR. ATKINSONexplained the object of the Clause. It provided as follows—
"The amount of tithe rent-charge payable by any person as from the first day of November, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety-eight, shall be deemed to have been and shall hereafter be reduced in respect of every pound in value thereof:—

(a) if the tithe rent-charge is payable out of hereditaments situate within a rural district, by one-half of the standard rate of poor rate certified under Section 49 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, as having been levied off those hereditaments; and

(b) if the tithe rent-charge is payable out of hereditaments situate within an urban district, by the whole of such standard rate so certified as having been levied off those hereditaments."

The last section of the clause provided that if a person had paid more than he
1058
ought to have paid a deduction might be made in the manner prescribed.
MR. DILLONwished to know how many Members of the House understood the explanation. The Attorney General had done his best to make it clear, but he had made it as clear as a London fog in November. This would be a fruitful cause of disputes. It was an illustration of the tangle into which the whole rating system of Ireland had been thrown.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7:—
Question proposed, "That Clause 7 stand part of the Bill."
MR. DILLONsaid that so far as he understood the clause it was of rather an extraordinary character. He did not know the object of putting it in the Bill at all. The clause appeared to have for its object to split up without any limit or discretion in the Land Commission the liability for the tithe rent-charges. Take, for instance, a tithe rent-charge of £10 or, £20, that would be split up between twenty or thirty persons, leaving each only liable for his own share. Before attempting to argue against the clause he wanted to know the object of it and the motive for introducing it.
MR. ATKINSONsaid the hon. Member was the first person he had ever heard of who objected to a provision for apportioning rent-charge or any other charge. To have no power of apportioning the charge gave rise to the greatest inconvenience and difficulty in

1059
dealing with property. In the case of property out of which tithe rent-charge issued which was owned by several persons, the clause enabled the charge to be apportioned according to their individual interests.
MR. DILLONsaid the Attorney General had abstained from explaining what motive the Government had in introducing this clause.
MR. ATKINSONsaid it would enable a particular owner to have the charge properly and rightly adjusted.
MR. DILLONsaid the right hon. Gentleman has still declined to explain what relation it had to the present Bill. He very much desired £1,000 a year added to his income-he wondered if the hon. Gentleman would introduce a Bill for that purpose. There was no justification for the clause, and it had no connection with the rest of the Bill. The clause struck at the security of all these charges. The power of apportioning the tithe given to the Land Commission was for a wholly different purpose, and to

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Arrol, Sir William

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Hamilton, Rt. Hon Lord George

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Curzon, Viscount

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

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

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hardy, Laurence

Banbury, Frederick George

Denny, Colonel

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S. (Hunts.)

Digby, John K. D. Wing field-

Hobhouse, Henry

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Beckett, Ernest William

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Win. Lawies

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Bigwood, James

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Bill, Charles

Faber, George Denison

Keswick, William

Blakiston-Houston, John

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Knowles, Lees

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Finch, George H.

Lafone, Alfred

Bond, Edward

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn)

Brassey, Albert

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lawrence, Wm, F. (Liverpool)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Fisher, William Hayes

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Bullard, Sir Harry

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Lecky, Rt. Hon William Edw. H.

Butcher. John George

Flower, Ernest

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Carlile, William Walter

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (S'wns'e)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

Galloway, William Johnson

Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire)

Garfit, William

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

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Gedge, Sydney

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond)

Lowles, John

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J.(Birm.)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Macdona, John Cumming

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Maclure, Sir John William

Charrington, Spencer

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Chelsea, Viscount

Graham, Henry Robert

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)

M'Killop, James

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Malcolm, Ian

meet a great public need. The Commissioners were required to exercise that power with due regard to the security of the charge, and they rarely exercised it, though they did redeem the tithe. The radical difference between the power given the Land Commission and the proposal in the clause was that in the first case it was in connection with the great system of land purchase, and to facilitate the sale of land to occupying tenants but this proposal was objectionable and injurious because it was for the purpose of facilitating and encouraging the sale of land, not to tenants, but to others who wished to buy over the heads of tenants. He must persist in his opposition.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the clause was not in accordance with the tenor and spirit of the Bill. It was a complete excrescence on the Bill. It was a disgraceful, mean, and cowardly fraud perpetrated in the interest of the rich against the poor.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 163; Noes, 72. (Division List No. 197.)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Thornton, Percy M.

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Purvis, Robert

Tollemache, Henry James

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Remnant, James Farquhar

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.

Mil ward, Colonel Victor

Rentoul, James Alexander

Tuke, Sir John Hatty

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Richards, Henry Charles

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

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Williams, Colonel K. (Dorset)

Morgan, Hn. F.(Monmouthsh.)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

Worrell, George Herbert

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Mount, William George

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

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

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

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Sidebottom, Wm.(Derbyshire)

Wylie, Alexander

Nicholson, William Graham

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wyndham, George

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Pease, Herbert P.(Darlington)

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

Pender, Sir James

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Penn, John

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork N.E.)

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Reckitt, Harold James

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Jones, William Carnarvonsh.

Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

Barlow, John Emmott

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cum'land)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Acerington

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Billson, Alfred

Macaleese, Daniel

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Caldwell, James

MacDonnell, Dr M A (Queen's C)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Cawley, Frederick

MacNeill, John Cordon Swift

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Crae, George

Souttar, Robinson

Crilly, Daniel

M'Dermott, Patrick

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Chee, Richard

Steadman, William Charles

Davies, M. Vaughan-('Cardigan

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

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

Dillon, John

M'Leod, John

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Doogan, P. C.

Mandeville, J. Francis

Tennant, Harold John

Dunn, Sir A William

Moulton, John Fletcher

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Emmott, Alfred

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Engledew, Charles John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Dowd, John

Weir, James Galloway

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Kelly, James

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Oldroyd, Mark

Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Malley, William

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

Hazell, Walter

Price, Robert John

Horniman, Frederick John

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Clauses 8, 9, and 10 agreed to.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It will be in the recollection of the Committee that on the first day in Committee on this Bill a debate arose on an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. It was then proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman that if the Government would accept the principle of the Amendment the discussion on the Committee stage of the Bill might be narrowed down to reasonable limits. Certainly I understood, at the time when the Government acceded to that request, that the de-
1062
bates in Committee would be limited. That hope has been disappointed. The discussions have been by no means narrow, but of a most extensive description. I consider, however, that the Government are bound to introduce the Amendment on the Paper, but I see no reason why in carrying out that pledge we should give an occasion for further argument of the kind of which we have had so much today. I do not propose, therefore, to move the Amendment at this stage, but when we reach the Third Reading the Chief Secretary will move that the Bill be re-committed, which will give the fullest opportunity for carrying out the wish expressed on Tuesday that this subject should be brought on for discus-

1063
sion at an early rather than a late period of the evening. I hope this view will commend itself to all parties in the House.
MR. DILLONthought that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had been somewhat unfair to him, because although at the commencement of the discussion on this Bill the hon. Member for North Louth had indicated that if the principle of his Amendment was adopted by the Government he hoped the discussion would be concluded on Tuesday last, the hon. and learned Member for North Louth only spoke for himself. If it were a question of an honourable understanding he was perfectly prepared to justify the action he had taken. He got up immediately, and although he had every reason to be grateful to the hon. and learned Member for North Louth for the able assistance he gave and for one or two speeches he made, he said that while he did not deny the right of the hon. and learned Member to speak for himself, so far as he was concerned there was no understanding of the nature to which the First Lord of the Treasury had alluded. He had been requested by the chairman of his party to take charge of the conduct of the Bill through the House, and he had communicated, through the usual channels, with the right hon. Gentleman, and had agreed that the Second Reading should be taken on a certain date; but on being asked if the Committee stage would finish in a reasonable time he said he could give no pledge, because he regarded this Bill as one which the Irish Members should oppose by every means in their power. It was perfectly understood that the Bill was to be fought by every legitimate means, provided the Government did not make any concessions. They had not got a single concession, and that was not the way any Government proceeded if it desired to facilitate the passing of a Bill. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had not a single scrap of evidence in support of the attitude that had been taken up. He had always intended to oppose the Bill as long as he could find a foothold, unless substantial concessions were to be made. They had come to the end of the Bill, and had not been able to get a single Amendment adopted by the Government. He did not think that
1064
that was the way to appeal to the Irish Members to facilitate Irish Bills, or to encourage them to place any confidence in the fairness either of the Government or of the House. It was absurd to imagine that a Bill of this kind, full of technicalities and very badly drafted, could not be improved by any Amendment. The Irish Members, from beginning to end, had been met by the most dogged opposition to every improvement which they had suggested; and, in fact, they had been hardly treated to the ordinary civility of an answer to their arguments. The Government depended on defeating these Amendments by summoning their supporters from the lobbies and the smoking-rooms. He maintained that the effect of Clauses 2 and 3 would be to reduce the tithe rent-charge in Ireland, which by the present law was invariable, from 14th November next, from 40 to 50 per cent. in the south of Ireland, and further reduce it fifteen years hence by another 40 or 50 per cent. In May, 1896, under the Land Act of that year, the Land Commission obtained power, in the case of the sale of lands in Ireland to! occupying tenants, to redeem the tithe rent-charges at twenty years purchase— the original price being twenty-two and a half years purchase, fixed by the Act of 1872. When the Chief Secretary was moving the Second Reading of this Bill he endeavoured to persuade the House that the Church Fund would be perfectly solvent, even after this Bill was passed. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether his calculations were based on the idea that there would be no more sales of land in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman replied "Yes"; that was to say that the Treasury Minute professing to show the solvency of the Church Fund was based on the assumption that the sales of land in the Land Courts would cease. But they all knew that they had not ceased; on the contrary, they were likely to increase enormously during the next seven or eight years. Every £100 of tithe rent-charge sold at twenty years purchase took £40 a year oft the revenue of the Church Fund. If the Amendment he now proposed was not i accepted the tithe rent-charge, which had already been reduced 20 per cent., would therefore be reduced a further 40 per cent. The effect of this, if carried, would be to bankrupt the fund in the near future

1065
beyond all question. Having given this reduction, the Land Commission should in the future be able to fix the redemption price at not less than twenty-five years purchase. He fixed that period because he did not think it was unreasonable that the tithe rent-charge, being a first charge on the land, should be put on the same level as quit rent.
New clause—
"After the passing of this Act, when the Land Commission order the redemption of tithe rent-charge in pursuance of Section 15 of The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, the price fixed shall not be less than twenty-five years' purchase."—(Mr. Dillon.)
—brought up and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. G. W. BALFOURsubmitted that the clause in the Bill was sufficient to meet the necessities of the case, and he should be reluctant to introduce anything in the Bill which would have a prejudicial effect on a great number of landowners.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware—or he ought to be well aware, because he signalised his entry into office by giving peremptory orders to the judges—how to arrange matters.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is quite untrue.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The statement I make I adhere to. The right hon. Gentleman wrote a letter to Judge Bewley.
*THE CHAIRMAN: That question is very remote from the point now before the Committee.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is quite true, and I will not pursue it; but the right hon. Gentleman has said that what I stated is quite untrue, and I wish to state that he, the very first time he addressed this House as Chief Secretary, stated that he had written a letter to Mr. Justice Bewley.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to go into that question.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It is only a personal explanation, Mr. Lowther, and I adhere to what I said. The right hon. Gentleman must be well aware what is the practice of the Land Commission, which is to fix the redemption at twenty years purchase. This Amendment of my hon. friend fixes the minimum at twenty-five years. I hope my hon. friend will press this Amendment. I must say that the discussions on this Bill on the part of the Government have been conducted in a manner which I never recollect in my fourteen years Parliamentary experience. I never remember such small information given, such scant Parliamentary courtesy extended to others, and such small conciliation. I have no recollection of a Bill of this kind passing through Committee without being amended by a jot or line, although we have pressed Amendments again and again. The true character of the Bill is that it is a dole to the landlords.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is reviewing the whole Bill.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I was arguing in favour of this Amendment. [Cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Members at twenty minutes past one are bad judges whether I was or was not, especially in that part of the House. I think the proposal of my hon. friend is reasonable.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORthought he was bound to say something in support of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had laid down the extraordinary doctrine that land purchase was not going to proceed at a large or accelerated pace within the next few years. That was one of the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman thought that the fund would not be so largely diminished. Nobody knew better than the right hon. Gentleman that land purchase had considerably accelerated within the last few years. As a matter of fact, the whole tendency in Ireland was towards an increase of land purchase. He had little doubt that the right hon. Gentleman, if he should still be in office, would

1067
be seen introducing a compulsory land purchase system before many years, perhaps months, were over. At present the Land Commission redeems tithe at twenty years purchase, but under the Bill the period would be reduced to fifteen years. Was not nearly every Irish Member, with the single exception of the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, who represented an Ulster constituency, pledged to compulsory land purchase? He asked anyone acquainted with the history of Ireland if there was a single demand which was backed up by united Ireland—by Nationalists and Unionists combined—which the House would not ultimately adopt if it did not cost the English taxpayer a penny or inflict a burden on Imperial taxation. Therefore, compulsory purchase would take its place on the Statute-book of these realms in the near future. Applying that political probability — he might say political certainty—to this Bill, it followed that, all over Ireland, the tithe rent-charge would have to be redeemed on the reduced scale. In other words, the tithe rent-charge now redeemed at an average of twenty years purchase would be redeemed at twelve years purchase; and in some parts of Ireland— notably in the province of Ulster—it would come to a vanishing point. Therefore by these links of reasoning he had proved that this Bill in its present shape would practically lead to the extinction at no distant date of the Church Fund. There was a way of preventing that evil consequence, and that was that if the tithe was to be seriously reduced, the term of purchase should be increased. His hon. friend suggested in his Amendment that it should be increased to twenty-five years purchase. He put it to men of impartial mind on either side of the House that, if the period of redemption was reduced from twenty-two and a half to twenty years purchase, the loss in many of the counties in Ireland would be from 20 to 30 per cent. He knew the Government would reject the

AYES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Doogan, P. C.

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Crilly, Daniel

Emmott, Alfred

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Dalziel, James Henry

Engledew, Charles John

Billson, Alfred

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Caldwell, James

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Flynn, James Christopher

Cawley, Frederick

Dillon, John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Amendment, but he offered his hon. friend this congratulation—that the Government would not reject it on its merits. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill knew that the longer it was discussed the more it was discredited, and therefore he was anxious to prevent another stage for discussion. It might be good Parliamentary tactics, for the right hon. Gentleman had the forces of the Ministry behind him, to recommit the Bill on Third Reading, instead of adopting the ordinary course of passing the Amendment now and allowing the Bill to be discussed on Report; but he condemned that course, of which there were few examples in the history of the House, and he would give the Amendment his strongest support.
MR. DILLONthought that the Chief Secretary in his last speech had distinguished himself quite as much as in his previous speeches. He had been obliged to admit that the Land Commission ought to charge 22½ years purchase for the redemption of the tithe rent-charge, but he airily assumed that the Land Commission, which was carefully packed, had been pressing and badgering the Government to reduce the rate from 22½ years to twenty years. They had, in fact, been at that game for twenty years past, and at last they had got the Treasury to allow them to reduce the period of redemption from 22½ to twenty years. But could the right hon. Gentleman point to a single case in which the tithe rent-charge had been redeemed at more than twenty years purchase? The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that they never redeemed at the maximum of 22½ years, and that their unbroken practice was to allow redemption at twenty years.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 64; Noes, 147. (Division List No. 198.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Moulton, John Fletcher

Steadman, William Charles

Griffith, Ellis J.

O' Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

Hazell, Walter

O'Dowd, John

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Kelly, James

Tennant, Harold John

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Oldroyd, Mark

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

O'Malley, William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Weir, James Galloway

Macaleese, Daniel

Price, Robert John

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

M'Dermott, Patrick

Reckitt, Harold James

Yoxall, James

M'Ghee, Richard

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

M'Leod, John

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

Mandeville, J. Francis

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Morrell, George Herbert

Arrol, Sir William

Galloway, William Johnson

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Garfit, William

Mount, William George

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gedge, Sydney

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

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

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.(City of Lond.)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Goldsworthy, Major-General

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Brist'l)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

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

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Beckett, Ernest William

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Graham, Henry Robert

Penn, John

Bill, Charles

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Blakiston-Houston, John

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gull, Sir Cameron

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bond, Edward

Purvis, Robert

Brassey, Albert

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Rentoul, James Alexander

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hardy, Laurence

Richards, Henry Charles

Butcher, John George

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.

Carlile, William Walter

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas Thomson

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col Edw. J.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Keswick, William

Sinclair Louis (Romford)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Knowles, Lees

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

Lafone, Alfred

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

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

Charrington, Spencer

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Chelsea, Viscount

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Thornton, Percy M.

Curzon, Viscount

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Lowles, John

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Dalkeith, Earl of

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

Denny, Colonel

Macartney, W. C. Ellison

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Macdona, John Cumming

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Digby, John K. D W. Wingfield-

Maclure, Sir John William

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers-

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

M'Killop, James

Wylie, Alexander

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Malcolm, Ian

Wyndham, George

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F.

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Finch, George H.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas John

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Fisher, William Hayes

Milward, Colonel Victor

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Flower, Ernest

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Morgan, Hon. Fred(Monm'thsh.)

Schedule agreed to.
Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill without Amendment to the House."
MR. DILLONsaid he thought the conduct of the Government on this occasion was entirely without precedent, and it was exceedingly unfair to those taking part in the debate. He maintained that it was not in accordance with the usual practice of Ministers in charge of Bills to resort to dodges of this kind. The Minister in charge of the Bill, in pursuance of a promise, placed on the Notice Paper of the House a new clause. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was bound to move that new clause unless there was some fair reason for not doing so. When the time came for moving the new clause, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill did not rise in his place at all, but the Leader of the House intervened and took the matter out of his hands. The Leader of the House proceeded to make a statement in regard to certain understandings, the accuracy of which was open to question; but whether accurate or inaccurate, it did not afford justification for the extreme and unprecedented course the Government had taken in this case, in withdrawing the new clause which was placed on the Paper in pursuance of a promise. The clause was withdrawn for the purpose of avoiding the Report stage, and the Government had resolved to adopt the extreme course of re-committing the Bill for the purpose of inserting this clause, which they could easily insert now. He never heard of such a thing being done before in the House of Commons. He did not believe anything of the kind ever was done in the House of Commons, and as the only means of protesting against such treatment, he proposed to divide the House on the motion that was now put.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid it would be in order now to make a general review of the Bill, but as he was strong, he would be merciful. He would not do so, looking to the early hour of the morning. He thought the Government might have
1072
yielded to the Irish Members some of the small Amendments they had proposed. He did not recollect a Bill of this magnitude being pushed forward against the opposition of the Irish Members without even one comma being altered to suit their Amendments. He protested against the whole method in which the Bill had been introduced and pushed through the House. Every clause was a Chinese puzzle, and some of the clauses two or three Chinese puzzles combined. He protested against this Bill, because it was simply for the purpose of taking money out of the pockets of the poor and putting it into the pockets of the rich.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the merits.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he would be equally out of order in discussing the demerits. He did not know that he could do more than protest against the Bill. He was not allowed to discuss its merits or demerits, and under the circumstances discussion became a difficult matter.
MR. FLYNNsaid it was most uncandid on the part of the Government, after the pledge which was given, that the new clause should now be withdrawn and relegated to a stage subsequent to the Third Reading. He was under the impression that the First Lord of the Treasury gave the Irish Members to understand that this clause would have been brought in at a reasonable time on the Committee stage of the Bill, so that they might have an opportunity of discussing it.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the Leader of the House had that night established a precedent as to the conduct of business in the House. He thought he was correct in saying that the right hon. Gentleman had done something which had never been done before in the many centuries of the existence of that assembly. It was very true that Bills had been recommitted on the Third Reading, but in all such cases, at least in all the cases he was familiar with, the recommitment of the Bill on the Third Reading had been regarded as a somewhat violent and unusual

1073
proceeding, only to be justified by the fact that there had been an oversight, quite inevitable, and that the insertion was necessary to the proper force and authority of the Bill. The Leader of the House had that night announced that a certain Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of the Minister in charge of the Bill would not be moved, and that instead of adopting the ordinary and regular course of introducing the Amendment on the Report stage, he would ask that the Bill be recommitted on the Third Heading. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman had violated all Parliamentary precedent and the traditions of centuries for the purpose of saving a stage of this Bill. He was quite conscious of the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman in the responsible position he held as Leader of the House, especially at this time of the year, and the duress he must feel in regard to time. He was rather astonished at the right hon. Gentleman giving so much time to this Bill. He did not know whether it was on account of affection for the Irish landlords or a feeling of affection for the particular

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn

Arrol, Sir William

Douglas, Rt. Hon A. Akers-

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lawson,. John Grant (Yorks.)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

Finch, George H.

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpool)

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

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lowles, John

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Beckett, Ernest William

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Flower, Ernest

Macdona, John Cumming

Blakiston-Houston, John

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Maclure, Sir John William

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Bond, Edward

Galloway, William Johnson

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh, W

Brassey, Albert

Garfit, William

M'Killop, James

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gedge, Sydney

Malcolm, Ian

Bullard, Sir Harry

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(City of Lon)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F

Carlile, William Walter

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Milward, Colonel Victor

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

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

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

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Mount, William George

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Gull, Sir Cameron

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

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Charrington, Spencer

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Chelsea, Viscount

Hanson, Sir Reginald

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Penn, John

Curzon, Viscount

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Keswick, William

Purvis, Robert

Denny, Colonel

Knowles, Lees

Remnant, James Farquharson

Minister who happened to be in charge of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had given at this time of year an unparalleled amount of time to a Bill of this kind, and that was the reason why he grudged an additional moment's time. He sympathised with that feeling, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman might have regarded something higher than even the claims of fraternal affection and the saving of the time of that House, and that was the preservation of the unbroken traditions which were necessary to the good conduct of the business of the House. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that the precedent was rather a dangerous one for a Conservative Minister to make and offer to gentlemen of other political opinions, who might find in his action a very useful precedent for accelerating the course of legislation.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 132; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 199.)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand

Wills, Sir William Henry

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Wylie, Alexander

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Wyndham, George

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

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

NOES.

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Billson, Alfred

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumberl'd)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Caldwell, James

Macaleese, Daniel

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Cawley, Frederick

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Steadman, William Charles

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Ghee, Richard

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Crilly, Daniel

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

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

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Leod, John

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Mandeviile, J. Francis

Tennant, Harold John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Dillon, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Weir, James Galloway

Doogan, V. C.

O'Dowd, John

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Engledevv, Charles John

O'Kelly, James

Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Oldroyd, Mark

Yoxall, James Henry

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Malley, William

Goddard. Daniel Ford

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

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

Griffith, Ellis J.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Horniman, Frederick John

Reckitt, Harold James

Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday.

MINES (PROHIBITION OF CHILD LABOUR UNDERGROUND)BILL,
CHANGED FROM
"COAL MINES (PROHIBITION OF CHILD LABOUR UNDERGROUND) BILL."
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for Thursday.
Adjourned at twenty minutes after Two of the clock.