Commons Sitting of 8 July 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill [Lords] [not amended], considered; to be read the third time.
Birmingham District Tramways Bill [Lords]. Bradford Corporation Bill; Kip's Patent Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
Jewish Colonisation Association Bill [Lords] (by Order). Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Lords' Amendment considered, and agreed to.
North-Western Electricity and Power-Gas Bill [Lords]. Report (7th July) from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Bill to be read a second time.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from South Knapdale, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL.
  Petition from Bermondsey, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petition from Barnard Castle, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petition from Barnard Castle, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Deer; Edinburgh; and Galashiels; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  Petition from Bury, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CUSTOMS TARIFF (AUSTRIAHUNGARY).
  Copy presented of translation of the proposed New General Customs Tariff for Austria-Hungary, with comparison, as far as possible, of the Rates of Customs Duty contained in the proposed Tariff with the rates at present in force on Imports into Austria-Hungary from the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [LORDS].
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 7th July; Mr. Bonar Law]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 244.]
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS].
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 7th July; Mr. Bonar Law]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No 245.]
  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL LLORDS.
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 7th July; Mr. Bonar Law]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 246.]
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 7th July; Mr. Bonar Law]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 247.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates at Stratford.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home
  4
  Department if he will state how many applications have been made at the Police Court, Stratford, E., during the last twelve months for certificates of exemption from vaccination, and the number of cases in which certificates have been granted.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Doaglas.) I am informed that no record is kept at the Court referred to of the number of applications. The number of certificates granted during the year ended 30th June, 1903, was 159.

  American Customs Law—Effects on Export Trade.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the McKinley Tariff Law is still in force in the United States, and if under it preferential or reciprocity agreements exist with any other, and, if so, with what Governments; and if these preferential or reciprocity treaties deprive the United States Government of most-favoured-nation treatment in other countries; and, further, if he has any reports showing their effect upon the export trade of America with the United Kingdom or other foreign nations.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The answer to the first Question is in the negative. The present Customs Law is that of 24th July, 1897, and is known as the Dingley Tariff. Under this law reciprocity agreements have been concluded with France, Germany, Portugal, and Italy. The answer to the fourth Question is, so far as I am aware, in the negative. We have no reports on the point mentioned in the last Question.

  Grants to Students in University Hostels.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is yet in a position to state what stops the Board propose to take to give effect to the declaration of the First Lord of the Treasury made on 7th July, 1902, namely, that the Government were of opinion that a student in a University hostel should have the same contribution paid to him on behalf of the Exchequer as a student in a residential training college.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The steps taken by the Board in the matter in question are set forth in the regulations of the Board issued on Monday last.
  SIR JOHN GORST: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the increased grants which the Board of Education has undertaken to pay to those students of day training colleges who are inmates of hostels will be payable to such students of the Cambridge Day Training College as are members of the colleges of the University.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The increased grants mentioned will be paid to such students of the Cambridge Day Training College as are members of a college of the University.

  County Councils and Voluntary Schools.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the resolutions of certain County Councils whereby it is proposed to contribute nothing but the Government Grants to the maintenance of the voluntary schools within their area, and to apply the produce of the county rate levied for educational purposes over the entire county towards the support of county schools only; and what steps he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) My attention has been called to the resolutions mentioned. It is the duty of every County Council to maintain and keep efficient all public elementary schools within its area. The rate and the Government Grant together constitute the fund at the disposal of a County Council for this purpose. The standard of efficiency at which all public elementary schools are maintained must be alike, unless special educational reasons can be shown for a distinction. The action proposed in the resolutions would therefore be in contravention of the Act.

  Imperfect Vaccination at Liverpool.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that three out of the five vaccinated children under five years of age who have been attacked by smallpox during the present epidemic in Liverpool, and
  6
  whom the Liverpool medical officer of health alleged at a meeting of the Liverpool Health Committee on the 21st May last had been imperfectly vaccinated, were vaccinated by two of the public vaccinators appointed by the Liverpool Select Vestry; whether the local authority is entitled to recover these fees from the public vaccinators; and whether he will issue a definition of perfect vaccination with a view to a better understanding on this point between the medical officer of health and the Liverpool public vaccinators.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My attention has been drawn by the Local Anti-Vaccination League to the three cases referred to in the Question, and I have communicated with the clerk to the Select Vestry of the parish of Liverpool on the subject. As to one of the cases, the clerk informs me that there is no record of it in the vaccination registers or in the workhouse books of the parish. The other two cases appear to have been vaccinated by public vaccinators of the parish, and, according to the vaccination registers, successful vesicles were produced by the operations. In one of the two cases the child is in the hospital. In the other case the parents have removed and their address is at present unknown; but I understand that in both cases further inquiries will, if possible, be made at the instance of the Vestry. Upon the information before me I am not prepared to say that the public vaccinators were not entitled to fees in these cases. The instructions issued by the Local Government Board to public vaccinators direct that in all ordinary cases of primary vaccination the public vaccinator should aim at producing four separate good sized vesicles or groups of vesicles, not less than half an inch from one another. The instructions state further that the total area of vesiculation resulting from the vaccination should not be less than half a square inch. It does not appear to me that I can do anything further with the view of meeting the point referred to in the last part of the Question.

  Public Health Acts Amendment Bill—Date of Introduction.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: To ask the President of

  7
  the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the general desire expressed by local authorities throughout the Kingdom, he will state when he will introduce the Public Health Acts Amendment Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Looking to the period of the session, and to the other legislation proposed by the Government, I fear it will not be practicable to proceed with the measure referred to this year.

  Statistical Abstracts—Date of Publication.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Statistical Abstracts for the United Kingdom, the Colonies, and Foreign Countries will be circulated.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Low.) The Statistical Abstracts for the United Kingdom and the Colonies are usually issued about October and December respectively. Every effort will be made to publish these Abstracts as early as possible, but they cannot be issued until the requisite data are available. The Statistical Abstract for Foreign Countries will probably be issued in September or October.

  Exports to Foreign Countries of Woollen and Cotton Goods and Cutlery in 1872 and 1902.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount and total value of our exports to foreign countries of woollen goods, of cotton goods, and of cutlery respectively in 1872; and what were the corresponding figures for 1902 (or for 1901 if 1902 are not available).
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The values of our exports of the groups of

  To Boston.

  To New York.

  To Philadelphia and Montreal.

  To Baltimore.

  d.

  d.

  d.

  d.

  January 1.

  8

  8

  7½

  7¼

  June 9.

  6¾

  6¾

  6¼

  6

  December 8.

  8

  8

  7½

  7¼

  articles referred to to foreign countries in 1872 and 1902 were recorded in the Trade Accounts as follows: Cotton manufactures of all kinds, except yarns—1872, £43,054,000; 1902, £36,867,000; woollen and worsted manufactures of all kinds, except yarns—1872, £28,474,000; 1902, £9,195,000; hardware and cutlery — 1872, £3,728,760; 1902, £954,000. The figures for 1872 include the values of the exports to certain colonies in cases where these were not of sufficient importance to be separately stated in the Trade Accounts. The exports of cutlery in 1872 cannot be distinguished from hardware. It is not possible to state the aggregate quantities, some classes of articles being entered by value only.

  Imports of Parchment Coffee-Husk.
  MR. GARDNER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the quantity of parchment coffee-husk imported into the United Kingdom in 1902, the country or countries from which imported, and the use to which the material is put.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Low.) The value of the parchment coffee-husk imported into the United Kingdom in 1902 was £1,870, exclusively from Germany. I understand that this material is used for packing purposes.

  Reduction in American Railway Freight on Wheat during 1902.
  MR. HUGH SMITH: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can say what reduction, if any, was made in the American railway freight on wheat last year; and, if so, by what companies it was made and between which places.
  (Answered try Mr. Bonar Law.) The all-rail export rates for wheat per 100 lbs. from Chicago and Milwaukee during 1902 varied as follows—
  Further information as to the combined lake and rail freights between various places shall be put at the hon. Member's disposal if he will call at the Commercial Intelligence Branch of the Board of Trade.

  Government Stamp on Prepared Medicines.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, under a notification recently issued by the Board of Inland Revenue, a druggist will not be allowed to sell the smallest quantities of pills, powders, mixtures, or other form of medicine without attaching to every descriptive label, either written or printed, a 1½d. stamp; whether the Board has considered the extra cost to the poor of this additional charge, or the danger of selling drugs unlabelled; and whether, in view of the interests of the poorer classes and of the public safety, the Board will, still in accordance with their former intimation, recognise the necessity for giving to a preparation such a designation or name as shall distinguish it from other medicines and attribute some further meaning to such words as cough mixture, liver pills, lip salve, teething powders, corn paint etc.
  (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) The change in the Board's practice has been rendered necessary by the decision of the High Court in the recent case of Ransom v. Sanguinetti, the effect of which is to render liable to the Medicine Stamp Duty any preparation sold under a description which refers only to the ailment which it is intended to remedy e.g., cough mixture. But payment of duty will not be required in respect of a preparation which bears upon the label an indication of its ingredients, such as will bring the article within the scope of the special exemption in favour of known, admitted, and approved remedies, sold by duly qualified persons, as interpreted by the recent decision in the case of Farmer v. Glyn Jones.
  MR. SHAW-STEWART: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Board of Inland Revenue have notified chemists that after 30th September they will be no longer permitted to sell to customers small packages bearing a descriptive title unless a medicine stamp of the value of 1½d. is
  10
  affixed to each package even though the value of such package, be only 1d. or 2d.; and whether, seeing that the alternative will be for chemists to sell all packages without any descriptive title, he will state what steps he proposes to take to prevent, in the one event, so high a tax being placed on chemists and their customers; and, in the other, to guard the public against danger.
  (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) I would refer the hon. Member to the answer to Question 49, of to-day's date, on the same subject.

  Preservation of Ruins of Ardagh Cathedral.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury to state what steps he intends to take to preserve the ruins of the ancient cathedral at Ardagh, which the local vestry have refused to do anything to preserve, although the Board of Works, the County Council, and the Church representative body have all agreed that these ancient ruins should be preserved.
  (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) The ruins are not vested in the Board of Works, but in the representative Church body, and as the local vestry object to their transfer, neither the Treasury nor the Board of Works are in a position to take steps for the preservation of the ruins.

  Estates for Sale in County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland to state the number of estates for sale under the Ashbourne and other purchase Acts at present pending for sale to the tenants of County Longford.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) There are no applications for purchase pending in the County Longford under the Acts of 1885 and 1888. Under the Acts 1891–1896 there are seventy-two applications still pending in the county, which embrace holdings on ten estates. These are in various stages towards completion.

  Gordon-Bennett Cup Race—Delay in Telegraph Messages.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster - General whether he can state the reasons for the

  11
  delay on telegraph messages from Dublin in connection with the motor race on 2nd July; whether he can also state the amount of money received for Press telegrams on this occasion, and the cost of the special arrangements in connection with the race.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I much regret to find that in spite of the special arrangements that were made serious delay occurred in the transmission of telegrams between Dublin and London on the occasion of the automobile race on 2nd July. I am investigating the cause. Particulars of the receipts and expenditure on the occasion are not at present available.

  Loan Fund Legislation in Ireland.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the paragraph in the last Report of the Loan Fund Board of Ireland in which the Board asserts its opinion that Loan Fund legislation upon broad lines is still necessary, as it was in the year 1855, when a Select Committee of the House of Commons reported in favour of legislation having a tendency to secure more regular and business-like attention to their duties on the part of the treasurers and trustees of each society; and whether, seeing that recommendations similar to the above have been repeatedly made by the Loan Fund Board since the year 1855, he will explain why the Government have not made any attempt to legislate in accordance with the recommendations of the Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It is not for me to explain the inaction of previous Governments over a period extending so far back as 1855. But I may be permitted to point out that the present Government a few years ago introduced and passed a Bill, the object of which was to meet the most pressing of the difficulties of the Loan Fund system, That legislation secured satisfactory results. It was stated by the Attorney-General for Ireland on the 15th,* and again on the 22nd June, † that the
  * See (4) Debates, cxxiii., 953.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 52.
  12
  Government had drafted a further amending Bill granting facilities for the recovery of outstanding debts, and that the Bill would be introduced if Government received an assurance from hon. Members that it should be treated as a non-contentious measure. No such assurance has yet been received.

  Proceedings under Criminal Law and Procedure Act at Borrisoleigh, Co. Tipperary.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the circumstances under which three persons named Stapleton, Delany, and Carroll, were arrested at Borrisoleigh, in the County Tipperary, what is the charge against them, and at what hour of the night the arrests were effected, and by whom; and whether, seeing that the Crown have since obtained an order from the King's Bench Division changing the venue in the trial of these men to the County of the City of Cork, and that this order was obtained under the provisions of the 4th section of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, and that the Crown afterwards obtained an order that the trial should take place before a special jury, he will state whether any notice of these motions was given to the accused, and when this part of the county was proclaimed under the 5th section of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act to enable this course to be adopted, and if he can state what Judge of the High Court will try the accused at the forthcoming commission in Cork.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The case is pending for trial. I cannot therefore enter into the question of the circumstances which led to the arrests, as these may be contested on the hearing. The arrests were made at four o'clock on the morning of the 17th April last. The orders for a special jury and change of venue were obtained in strict compliance with the provisions of the statute. No notice was given of the applications for the order, as none is required to be given; but copies of the orders were served on the prisoners on the 30th May. The 3rd and 4th sections of the statute were put in force in this

  13
  part of the County Tipperary by proclamation dated the 16th April, 1902. The Judges who will preside at the ensuing Cork Assizes are the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Barton, either of whom may try the case.

  Army Pensions—Case of James Griffin, late of Royal Garrison Regiment.
  MR. JOYCE: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been directed to the case of James Griffin, Private 4th Battalion Royal Garrison Regiment, Keg. No. 4,172, discharged on the 12th May, 1903, as medically unfit for further service, his character on discharge being good; and whether, seeing that this man served fourteen years in the regular Army and nine in the militia, and in view of his health and circumstances, some pension will be given him.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) This man served with the Colours for less than nine years, and was discharged for dementia, medically certified as not the result of service or climate, and as having been aggravated by intemperance and misconduct. It was also stated that if he did not have a relapse he would shortly be able to earn a full livelihood. His case has been fully considered, but it is not one in which a pension could be granted.

  Imports of Canadian Cattle into the United States and United Kingdom.
  MR. HALDANE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonics whether he can state the number and value of Canadian cattle imported into the United States from Canada, and the rate of duty charged by the United States thereon; whether the Canadian Government has addressed to the Home Government any remonstrances of recent date on the obstacles placed on the importation of Canadian cattle into this country; and, if so, what reply has been made to such remonstrances.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) During the year ended 30th June, 1902, Canada exported to the United States cattle one year old or less to the number of 10,124, and the value of 124,497 dollars, and cattle over one year old to the number of 21,619, and the
  14
  value of 663,367 dollars. The United States duty on cattle less than a year old is 2 dollars per head, and on all other cattle, if valued at not more than 14 dollars per head, 3·75 dollars per head; if valued at more than 14 dollars per head, 27½ per cent. ad valorem. The Canadian Ministers made personal representations to the late President of the Board of Agriculture last year on the subject of the restrictions imposed on the importation of Canadian cattle, but I understand that no hope was held out to them that His Majesty's Government would propose any modification of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896, which prohibits the importation of live cattle except for slaughter at the port of landing.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The New Naval Base.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the importance of securing a commercial and strategic waterway connecting the West of Scotland with the new naval base on the Firth of Forth, any steps have now been taken to examine the possibility of enlarging the existing Forth and Clyde Canal on the lines of the recently executed Kiel Canal; and, if not, if the question could be examined and a report made as to the cost and time required for the execution of such a work.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): No steps have been taken of the nature referred to in the Question, and there is no intention of expending naval funds in the manner suggested.

  Navy Summer Cruises.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to say whether a training vessel will visit Loch-broom, Ross-shire, this summer.
  MR. PRETYMAN: I am not yet able to give a definite reply to the hon. Member, as the programmes for the coming cruises will not be drawn up until the middle of next month, but the undertaking given by my hon. friend that the

  15
  question of a visit to Lochbroom shall receive consideration will not be lost sight of.

  Boer Prisoners in Ceylon.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there are any, and, if so, how many, Boer prisoners of war in Ceylon; and what is the intention of the Government with reference to the return of these men to their homes in South Africa.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I understand that there are at present six prisoners of war in Ceylon. They will not be allowed to return to the Transvaal or Orange River Colony unless they take the oath or make the declaration of allegiance to His Majesty.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are these men actually detained in prison, or are they allowed personal liberty in Ceylon?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I should say a qualified liberty.

  Land Settlement in the Transvaal.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to a land settlement scheme in the Transvaal initiated or proposed by the Government or a Mr. W. Carlis, whereby Mr. Carlis is to obtain half profits of the labour of certain white settlers now in a helpless condition for want of funds, who are to be handed over to him on terms of forced labourers; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Government of the Transvaal is pledged to a philanthropic treatment of these indigent whites, why is an undertaking of land settlement not carried out departmentally instead of being entrusted to a commercial gentleman for the purposes of profit. And what arrangements, if any, have been made by the Transvaal Government for the supervision of the treatment of the indigent settlers placed under the control of Mr. Carlis.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no knowledge of the scheme to which the
  16
  hon. Member refers. Full information with regard to the schemes of Burgher settlement which appear to be referred to will be found at pages 65 and following of Cd. 1551 and pages 14 and following of Cd. 1553.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That answer does not give me much information.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: But the Papers will.

  Metropolitan District Railway—Electric Traction.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what progress has been made with the establishment of a system of electric traction on the Metropolitan District Railway.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): The Metropolitan District Railway Company inform me that the railway between Mill Hill Park and South Harrow—a distance of about six miles—has been regularly worked by electric traction since Sunday, June 26th. The Company add that the working of the main line by electric traction depends upon the date of the completion of the Power House at Lots Road, Chelsea, which is being pressed forward with the greatest possible speed.

  Cotton Trust.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has made further inquiry regarding the closing of mills in manufacturing districts, owing to the operations of the cotton trust; if so, whether he can state how many hands are partially disemployed and the wages value of such disemploy-ment; and whether he will make inquiry as to the precautions taken in other countries to prevent gambling in produce.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I have no information to give to the hon. Member beyond that contained in my answer to his Question on the 1st instant.* As I
  * See (4) Debates; cxxiv., 1026.

  17
  have previously informed him the reports which have been received from abroad bearing upon this matter will be laid upon the Table shortly.

  Destruction of Fish at Billingsgate and Aberdeen.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg, there being no Minister directly in charge of the fishing interest in this House, to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that about 50 tons of good and wholesome fish were destroyed at Billingsgate during the first three days of last week, and that on one day recently 30 tons were similarly lost for human food at a Scottish port; and, if so, whether he is prepared to take any steps in the matter; and can he also state the total quantities of fish so destroyed during 1902 in England and Scotland, respectively, specifying out of the total the amount condemned as unfit for food.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I am informed that owing to the sudden heat a large amount of fish had to be destroyed at Billingsgate on the 27th June, and that owing to the impossibility of disposing of it in any other way about 40 tons had to be sold for manure at Aberdeen on the same day. The Board of Trade have no power to prevent such destruction, and I have no information as to the total amount of fish destroyed in England and Scotland.
  MR. PIRIE: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman cannot provide greater facilities for distribution to the markets in order to prevent similar waste.
  MR. BONAR LAW: The waste at Billingsgate was due to the fish not being wholesome; that at Aberdeen to fish arriving on Saturday night in such large quantities that it could not be sold.

  British Imports and Exports for last Seventy Years.
  MR. HOULT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will furnish a Return showing the yearly total value of imports and exports during the last severity years; and whether he can give coals separately in tonnage and value.
  MR. BONAR LAW: So far as the figures are available the hon. Member will find the particulars he requires for the years from 1830 to 1840 inclusive in Parts VIII. and X. of the "Tables of the Revenue, Population, Commerce, etc., of the United Kingdom," and for subsequent years in the "Reprint of the Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom" for 1840 to 1854, issued in 1870, and in the 17th, 19th, 34th and 49th issues of the same publication. The values of imports before 1854 cannot be compared with those after that date owing to a change in the mode of valuation.

  Trade Statistics.
  MR. WHITE RIDLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will grant the Returns appearing on to-day's Notice Paper regarding cotton, woollen, and iron goods.
  MR. BONAR LAW: The information which the hon. Member desires will involve great labour on the part of the Department, and I must ask him to be good enough to give sufficient notice to enable the matter to be properly considered in connection with other requests for information of a kindred nature. If the hon. Member will communicate with me in a week's time, I shall then be able to give him a definite reply.
  Appended are the notices referred to in the Question:—1. Mr. Matthew Ridley—Cotton—Return showing for each year from 1890 to 1902, inclusive; (a) with regard to the United Kingdom (1) total consumption of cotton in the United Kingdom, with particulars of the chief sources of supply; (2) total exports of cotton manufactures from the United Kingdom to foreign countries, to self-governing colonies, to India, and to other British Possessions; (3) total imports of cotton manufactures into the United Kingdom; (b) with regard to the United States and Germany (1) total consumption of cotton; (2) total exports of cotton manufactures; (3) total imports of cotton manufactures, giving separately the amount of such imports from the United Kingdom. 2. Mr. Matthew Kidley—Woollen Goods—Return showing for each year from 1890 to 1902, inclusive; (a) with regard to the United Kingdom (1) total production of woollen manufactures;

  19
  (2) total exports, quantities and values, of woollen manufactures to foreign countries, self-governing colonies, India, and other British Possessions; (3) total imports of woollen manufactures; (b) with regard to the United States and Germany (1) total production of woollen manufactures; (2) total exports, quantities and values, of woollen manufactures; (3) total imports, quantities and values, of woollen manufactures, giving separately the quantities and values of such imports from the United Kingdom. 3. Mr. Matthew Ridley—Iron and Steel—Return showing for each year from 1890 to 1902, inclusive; (a) with regard to the United Kingdom (1) total production of iron and steel manufactures; (2) total exports, quantities and values, of iron and steel manufactures to foreign countries, to self-governing colonies, to India, and to other British Possessions; (3) total imports of iron and steel manufactures; (b) with regard to the United States and Germany (1) total production of iron and steel manufactures; (2) total exports, quantities and values, of iron and steel manufactures; (3) total imports, quantities and values, of iron and steel manufactures, giving separately the quantities and values of such imports from the United Kingdom.

  Fiscal Inquiry.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, is he aware that in 1901 sea fish of British take was landed in the United Kingdom of the value of £9,046,554, and that in 1902 diamonds to the value of £5,380,390 were exported from the Cape of Good Hope to the United Kingdom, and that neither of these two sums is included in the total value of all imports given in any published official statistics, and will he explain why this is. Are there any other articles imported into the United Kingdom the value whereof is omitted from the total value of all imports published in the statistics in question; and, if so, what are they?
  *THK CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): Fresh fish of British taking imported in British ships are exempt from report and entry under the Customs Statutes, and consequently the Board
  20
  of Customs have no data for compiling-statistics on the subject. I understand that particulars are prepared and published by the Board of Trade. I doubt if freshly caught fish could properly be described as imports either from a foreign country or a British possession. The Returns of the importation of diamonds are very imperfect, but the figure which my hon. friend quotes as regards imports from Capo Colony is already given in a note on page 39 of Volume I. of the Annual Statement of Trade. Whether this figure should be included in the total of imports is worth considering, and I will see that it receives attention; but the information would in any case be incomplete. My hon. friend is no doubt aware that the Abstract Tables at the commencement of the Annual Statement exclude bullion and specie, and also foreign merchandise transhipped under bond.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, is he aware that up to 1853 a general Customs duty was levied in the United Kingdom of 5s. per cwt. on turbot and on soles of foreign take, while soles of British take were admitted free; and do His Majesty's Government, as part of the inquiry now being conducted, propose to inquire into the advisability of giving to British fishermen the advantages of a preferential tariff by re-imposing the fish duties.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. With regard to the second paragraph I cannot add anything to the statements which have been made on the question by the Prime Minister.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Notwithstanding the view which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward it seems that fish is regarded as an import. In the previous answer he denied that it is chargeable.
  *MR. RITCHIE: What I said was that freshly caught fish could hardly be called imports from foreign countries.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great exception is taken to

  21
  foreign fish coming here free whilst our cargoes are subject to heavy imposts abroad?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I have heard that statement with regard to all other kinds of goods.

  The Fiscal Inquiry—Colonial Contributions to Imperial Defence.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in connection with the inquiry which it is understood the Cabinet is now making into the fiscal policy of the Empire, any questions will be put to Colonial Governments suggesting the desirableness of proportionate contribution to the cost of Imperial defence; and if not, whether, having regard to the burden of Imperial defence placed upon the taxpayers of the British Isles, he will consider the desirability of submitting the expediency of such contribution as part of the inquiry now being prosecuted.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It seems entirely premature to make any statement as to what suggestion should or should not be made to our self-governing colonies.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Do I understand that the suggestion in the first part of my Question is accurate?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will read the answer again. (Answer again read.)

  Fiscal Inquiry and British Agriculture.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the proposed inquiry into the fiscal system will embrace the conditions of tenure under which British tenant farmers hold their farms and the possibility of their position being worsened by their rents being raised against them in consequence of the proposed increase in the price of corn: I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the proposed inquiry into the fiscal system the question will be considered of the effect on the agricultural industry if permanent pasture in this country be broken up in consequence of an increase in the price of corn, and if
  22
  ultimately such land should fail to be profitable for corn-growing purposes owing to the development of corn-growing areas in the Colonies.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I have no information to give to the hon. Gentleman in reply to his Questions. They appear to be purely hypothetical, and the hypotheses on which the hon. Gentleman has proceeded seem to me, if he will forgive me for saying so, rather fantastic.

  Fiscal Inquiry—Preferential Rates on Railways.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to include in the inquiry on fiscal arrangements the present system of preferential rates to imported goods and produce; and whether the Railway Department of the Board of Trade will make inquiries and report upon the matter.
  MR. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

  Conferences with Colonial Premiers.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the fact that the proceedings of the conferences between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Prime Ministers of self-governing colonies, which took place in June to August, 1902, have hitherto been treated as confidential, and that only the statements made by His Majesty's Government thereat and the various Resolutions passed were made public, will His Majesty's Government publish the full report of the proceedings of these conferences, setting forth the special difficulties and considerations which affected the members of the conference in the practical consideration of the different subjects, before inviting public discussion of the proposals embodied in certain Resolutions therein agreed to relative to preferential trade within the Empire.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to refer him to an answer given by my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary to the hon.

  23
  Member for Dundee on June 19th. It is to the effect that the matter was fully considered at the time, and that the Government are not aware of any circumstances which have arisen likely to induce the gentlemen who objected to publication to modify their views.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESwas understood to ask if some such course was not desirable in view of the discussion now going on in the country.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is not a new subject at all. The Blue-book has long been in the hands of Members, and having been published and circulated, is of course open to discussion.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: May I ask whether the unpublished account of the proceedings will be laid before the Cabinet in the course of the inquiry which it is undertaking?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are no secrets of this kind kept from the Cabinet.

  Income Tax Returns.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make inquiry and consider the advisability of simplifying the form of income tax returns to be filled by traders, and of modifying the present practice of calculating future hypothetical profits as a basis of income tax assessments.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I shall be glad to consider any practical suggestions on this point, but the present Form has been very carefully revised within the last two years, and I doubt if it is possible to simplify it further than has already been done. An explanatory Memorandum is now issued with it, which I hope may be an aid to the reading and the understanding of the Form. If the hon. Member would look at this Memorandum he would see that traders are not required to make a calculation of future hypothetical profits, but are directed to base their return on their ascertained profits for the three years immediately preceding the year of assessment.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that traders are still required in the month of November or December to furnish a return of their profits for the year ending the following 31st March?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I do not see how that could be.
  MR. FLYNN: If I furnish the right hon. Gentleman with the information will he inquire?
  *MR RITCHIE: Certainly.
  MR. FLYNN: I can do so.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mr. J. C. Compton, the presiding magistrate at the Police Court, Stratford, E., recently refused to grant to Charles Crossley, of Byrom Avenue, East Ham, a certificate of exemption from vaccination, notwithstanding the fact that Crossley asserted that he conscientiously believed that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of the child; and will he have some inquiry made with a view to ascertain why applicants at the Stratford Police Court are unable to obtain certificates of exemption from vaccination.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's: I am informed that the application for a certificate of exemption was carefully considered, but that the applicant did not satisfy the Court, as required by the Act, of his conscientious belief that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of his child. The fact that 159 certificates were granted during the past year at this Court shows that it is not the case that certificates are systematically refused.

  Railway Cattle Transit—Humane Cattle Cars.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Railway Companies' Conference have refused to allow a patented humane cattle car to run over their systems in Great Britain; and, if

  25
  so, whether he will cause inquiry to be made, with a view to enable and encourage a more humane system of live stock laud transit to be introduced in the three kingdoms.
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The Board of Agriculture have not recently received any information as to the views entertained by the railway companies as to the merits of the car to which the hon. Member refers, which I think we are right in assuming is the car patented by Mr. John Rooth in 1894 and 1895 and now the property of the Humane Cattle Car and Ship Fittings Co., Ltd. We are always very glad to receive any suggestions for the protection of animals from suffering during inland transit, but we have no power to prescribe the use of a particular wagon. I may add that in 1901 the car in question was examined independently by the carriage and wagon superintendents of the railway companies represented on the Cheshire Lines Committee, who found themselves unable to recommend its adoption.

  Rotten Row Ambulances.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will arrange that a police ambulance shall be stationed at the west end of Rotten Row, and thus obviate the delay incurred in obtaining the police ambulance from Hyde Park Police Station; and whether he will arrange for the St. John's ambulances to be removed from their present positions in Hyde Park and for the police ambulances to be substituted.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: In answer to the first paragraph I am to say that there is already an ambulance stationed at the Alexandra Gate near the west end of Rotten Row, in order to obviate the delay of sending to the Hyde Park Police Station. The First Commissioner is making arrangements for an inspection of both types of ambulance by a medical expert, who will advise whether it is desirable to adopt the police ambulance in place of those now in use.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Why not consider the desirability of obviating the necessity for ambulances by improving the state of the roads?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Port of Ness Breakwater and Pier.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has yet received a report as to the extent of damage sustained by the breakwater at Port of Ness, Island of Lewis, through the storm of the 28th February last; and will he say whether any decision has yet been arrived at in regard to its repair.
  THE SOLICITOR - GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): The Secretary for Scotland has received a report as to the damage sustained by the breakwater. The question as to repairs of breakwater and pier must be considered together, and in connection with other expenditure which may be suggested in the Island of Lewis.

  Vaccination in Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the use of humanised vaccine lymph has been discontinued in England on the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and that during the year 1902 the Central Vaccine Institution for Scotland supplied on application from parochial vaccinators in various parts of Scotland 312 tubes of humanised lymph, will he consider the expediency of issuing a circular to parochial vaccinators throughout Scotland recommending the use of glycerinated calf lymph.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The proportion of calf lymph issued by the Vaccine Institution in Scotland shows that the use of that lymph is increasing, and the Secretary for Scotland after consulting the Local Government Board is of opinion that under all the circumstances it is not at present necessary to issue any circular on the subject. Parochial vaccinators have complete discretion in the matter.

  Crime in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether

  27
  he is aware that Judge Carton received white gloves at the recent Ennis Quarter Sessions; and whether, in view of the peaceable state of the County Clare, the proclamation of certain districts under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act will now be withdrawn.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): It is somewhat irregular to make a statement in anticipation of a more official announcement. But since the hon. Member postponed his Question at my request, perhaps I may say that action is contemplated in the direction which he favours.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: That is a very satisfactory announcement.

  Mayo Piers and Harbours.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the report issued by the county surveyor for County Mayo, at the request of the Mayo County Council, on the condition of certain piers and harbours along the coast, notably those at Glare Island, Louisburgh, and Mallaranny; and whether, seeing that, in order to render them of use to the public, the county surveyor recommended that certain improvements be effected, he will see that those improvements are carried out.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. The report has not been forwarded to the Government. Until this has been done I cannot make any observations upon it.

  Lung Grazing Lands.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board can state how many houses have been built, and how many farms have been formed out of the grazing lands in the neighbourhood of Lung, adjacent to the Dillon Estate; what has been the cost of this transaction; what was the tine required from prospective tenants; and how many tenants have been put into occupation of these houses and lands.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Fourteen houses and fourteen holdings. The cost of the buildings was £1,472. No tenants are yet in occupation.

  Granard Union Nurses.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he would lay upon the Table the notes of evidence taken by the Local Government inspector at the recent inquiry into the nursing question at Granard Union.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The notes of evidence taken at this inquiry form a very voluminous document extending to 200 pages. The cost of printing the notes would be considerable, and there does not appear to be any special reason for incurring the expense, the more especially as the notes have already been forwarded by the Local Government Board to the local authority. If, however, the hon. Member desires a copy of the notes I will direct that one be forwarded him.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I shall be much obliged for them.

  Boyle Waterworks Loan.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Works can state when they received from the Local Government Board their sanction of a loan to the Boyle No. 1 District Council for the construction of waterworks in Boyle; and can he explain the delay that has arisen in the issuing of this loan.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT, Durham: The delay was caused by the fact that the Rural Council did not reply till the 16th June to a letter from the Board of Works of the 18th May making inquiry on an essential point. So far as the Board of Works is concerned the case has been exceptionally hastened, having been specially submitted for Treasury sanction.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Who is the Chairman of the Rural District Council?
  MR. ELLIOT: I cannot say without notice.
  MR. TULLY: Is he removable?
  No answer was returned.

  Irish Income Tax Appeals.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in several cases of appeals last year at the Custom House, Dublin, to the Income Tax Commissioners in Ireland, they refused to go into cases in which the Returns had not been previously furnished, but confirmed the assessment without inquiry; and, if so, whether he will issue instructions to ensure that appeals shall be heard in the absence of previous Returns in future in Ireland as well as in Great Britain.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The meaning of the hon. Member's Question is not clear. If by "Returns," he means "Returns for Assessment" (Form No. 11), the Special Commissioners never refuse to go into cases on appeal, on the ground that such "Return" had not been made by an appellant. If by "Returns," he means the Accounts necessary to enable the Special Commissioners to ascertain the correct liability, those accounts should be supplied prior to the hearing of the appeal at the date and in the form required by the precept issued to the appellants in such cases. The law and the practice in regard to these points are the same in Ireland as in Great Britain.

  Irish Motor-Car Race—Breakdown of Telegraphic Arrangements.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that it took four hours to send a telegram from the scene of the automobile race to London; and, if so, will he state whether any special arrangements had been made by the Dublin office to provide extra clerks for despatches, Press and otherwise, on this occasion; whether there is any breakdown in the cable connecting the two countries; and what steps he intends taking to prevent such delay.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEM CHAMBERLAIN,): Special arrangements were made
  30
  for dealing with the telegraphic traffic on the occasion of the automobile race, but I much regret to find that serious delay occurred in the transmission of telegrams between Ballyshannon and London. I am investigating the cause.

  Irish Telegraphic Delays.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General to explain the cause of delay in the delivery of telegrams between London and Dublin, and Loudon and parts of rural Ireland; whether he can explain how it was that on Tuesday, 30th June, a telegram sent from Churton Street, London, to Long ford at 11 a.m. was not delivered till 3 p.m., whereas a later telegram sent from Fleet Street at 1.30 p.m. was delivered to same address half-an-hour before the other wire was received there; will he state is the delay due to mechanical difficulties or breakdowns, or due to atmospheric conditions, and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am having special inquiry made with regard to the transmission of telegrams between Ireland and London, but I may say at once that there does not appear to be anything like the delay which the Question of the hon. Member implies. The only telegram answering his description which can be traced as having been handed in at Churton Street on the 30th ultimo was handed in at 11.26, and reached Longford at 12.8. If the hon. Member is satisfied that its delivery was delayed for three hours at Longford, I shall be glad if he will supply me with all the information in his possession, so that I may make full inquiry into the circumstances.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I will do so.

  Irish Gold Ornaments—Gift to the Irish Academy.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he will state how the case stands in the matter of the Irish cold ornaments, and whether they are likely soon to be transferred to Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of Mr. Justice

  31
  Farwell's declaration that the Celtic ornaments in the British Museum are the property of the Crown, arrangements will now be made to have them placed in the Dublin Museum.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: These gold ornaments have been declared by the judgment of Mr. Justice Farwell to be treasure trove, and therefore the property of the Crown. In these circumstances, His Majesty has been graciously pleased to express the wish that they should be presented as a free gift to the treasurer of the Irish Academy, and His Majesty's Commissioners of the Treasury have accordingly given instructions that His Majesty's wishes should be carried out.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: The First Lord has made an extremely satisfactory announcement, which will be received with much pleasure in Ireland. I take the opportunity of conveying to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Chief Secretary our thanks for the attitude which they have taken up. I am sure their action will be regarded with much satisfaction by the Irish representatives. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will arrange that these ornaments shall be brought down to the tea-room of the House, so that hon. Members who have no other opportunity may be enabled to see them?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consider the point, but I am not sure that the policy which the hon. Baronet recommends is not rather a condemnation of that which I have tried to promote. He apparently thinks that if these ornaments once go to Ireland they would be buried from public sight.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: We want some of you to see them.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his gratifying statement, whether the transference of these ornaments to Ireland does not fulfil the object of the Bill which I introduced six years ago, and whether, in view of that, the Government will, in order to save time and the expense of lawsuits, treat my future Bills with more consideration.
  MR. WHITLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much it has cost the Treasury to decide to whom these ornaments belonged?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot answer that Question without notice. In regard to the Question of the hon. Member for East Clare, I am afraid that I cannot carry in my mind all the legislative projects with which he has been associated, but I will give the matter my close attention.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It will be useful to the Government if the right hon. Gentleman does so.

  Contempt of Court.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, and, if so, when, the Government will afford facilities for the introduction and passage through this House of a Bill to amend the law relating to contempt of Court in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: May I at the same time ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether his attention has been directed to the condition of the law regarding imprisonment for contempt of Court; and whether the Government will consider the necessity of bringing in a Bill to regulate and define the powers to be exercised by a Judge in such cases.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not make any assertions as to the law on this subject being perfect in its present state, but I cannot promise to introduce legislation on the subject in the course of the present session.

  Terminable Leaseholds.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will arrange to afford an opportunity for the discussion of a measure proposing to remedy the defects and powers existing under the present terminable leasehold system of tenure if a Bill dealing with this subject is introduced by a private Member.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I regret I cannot encourage the idea of opportunity being found for the discussion of a private Member's Bill at this period of

  33
  the session, and even if I were not barred by that consideration I could not give an answer in respect of a Bill which I have not yet had the advantage of seeing.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a Bill dealing with this subject has been introduced for the last ten years?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Housing of the Working Classes.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now fix the date for the introduction of the Bill to deal with certain matters affecting the housing of the working classes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot fix a date for the introduction of the Bill to deal with certain matters affecting the housing of the working classes, but my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board will very shortly bring the measure in.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As there have been several changes during the last two days perhaps the Leader of the House will say now what business will be taken in the next few days.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Education Estimates will be taken to-morrow, and the Scottish Licensing Bill on Friday. On Monday the Second Reading of the Naval Works Bill will be taken, followed by the Scottish Licensing Bill, if that measure is not concluded on Friday. On Tuesday, the London Education Bill will be taken.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I point out that the Scottish Licensing Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, has only been delivered to hon. Members this morning. It is an elaborate Bill, or rather an amalgamation of two Bills that have been greatly changed, and the public of Scotland will have no opportunity of informing Members of the views held in that country upon it, if the measure is taken on Friday. I do not wish to put any impediment in the way of the Bill, but
  34
  the right hon. Gentleman will see it can only go down to Scotland to-night.
  MR. LOUGH: Will the Sugar Convention Bill be taken next week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is very improbable that the Sugar Convention Bill will be taken next week; in any case not in the earlier part of the week. As regards the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I appreciate his point, but it is extremely difficult, I am afraid, in the general position of business to say what we can substitute for the Scottish Bill on Friday. I am quite willing, however, to consider the matter.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Bill is exciting great interest in Scotland, and it is only fair that the Scottish people should have a chance of seeing it in its amended form before we further deal with it. What will be taken after the Education Vote on Thursday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Civil Service Estimates, Class 2, Scotch Votes.
  MR. LAMBERT: Will the South African Loan and War Contribution Bill be taken to night?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask whether in the event of the Irish Land Bill passing through Committee to-night, the right hon. Gentleman can say when the Report stage will be taken? We all recognise that a reasonable interval is necessary, but it is right to say that there is a very strong feeling on the Irish benches that there ought to be no long delay, and that the Report stage ought to be taken as soon as possible, so that the measure can go to the House of Lords at the earliest possible date.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give any pledge to the hon. Member, but of course I will bear in mind any considerations which he may bring before me.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I will repeat my Question in a couple of days.

  AGED PENSIONERS BILL.
  Ordered, That the Old Age Pensions (Friendly Societies) Bill of Session 1898; the Old Age Provident Pensions Bill of Session 1900; the Old Age Pensions (No. 3) Bill; Old Age Pensions (No. 4) Bill; and Old Age Pensions (No. 5) Bill of Session 1901; and the Old Age Pensions Bill; Aged Pensioners (No. 2) Bill; and Cottage Homes Bill of the present session, be referred to the Select Committee on the Aged Pensioners Bill.—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 82.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 37, line 15, to leave out the words (other than domestic or menial servant).'"—(Mr. Tully.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the clause."
  MR. TULLYsaid that since he had put down this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had brought forward a new clause which went far in the direction of helping the labourers. What he desired to secure was that when an estate was for sale the Land Commissioners should among other things inquire as to the necessity for housing the labourers. Under the circumstances he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TULLYsaid that with regard to the next Amendment standing in his name, the object was to ascertain if there was power to build cottages for labourers in towns which were not urban districts, and for labourers living on the outskirts of towns. This was a matter of some importance. In some cases the free grant from the Exchequer had been accumulating for some years. In Roscommon, the annual grant was £837, in Leitrim,
  36
  £445, in Longford, £276, in Sligo, £657, and in Mayo, £944. His contention was, that the labourers living on the outskirts of these towns should not be deprived of the right of getting cottages.
  Amendment, proposed—
  "In page 37, line 15, at end, to insert the words 'town under the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, or a.' In page 37, line 16, after the words 'rural' to insert the words 'or urban.' In page 37, line 16, after the word 'district,' to insert the word 'or in an urban district with a population of less than 5,000 at the last census, and."—(Mr. Tully.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)said the Acts did not apply to urban districts.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid there was nothing in this Bill which would make anything like a settlement of the labourers question.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the clause as a whole.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid it was not his intention to do that. All he wished to do was to ask whether it was intended under the circumstances to go on with the labourers' clauses in the Bill?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said he had at an earlier stage of the discussion, made a statement on this very important question. He did not say that these clauses were a satisfactory settlement of the labourers question, which must hereafter be dealt with. Not only was it a large and complicated question, dependent on finance, local government and other questions, but alternative methods of dealing with it were recommended by different sections of the House. He had therefore come, with the greatest regret, to the conclusion that it would not be possible to deal with the subject, as it should be dealt with, in this Bill. It was, however, desirable to retain the labourers' clauses, as they were of some value.
  MR. TULLYsaid that in asking leave to withdraw his three Amendments he must point out that the Inspectors of the Local Government Board took a different view of the law from that stated by the Attorney-General.
  Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'SHEEmoved to leave out two restrictions in the clause—namely, that the term "agricultural labourer" should not include any person working for hire whose wages did not exceed 2s. 6d. a day, and who was in occupation of land exceeding one quarter of an acre. He believed that no fewer than 15,000 houses had been built under these Acts, and of these 4,000 at least were held by persons who occupied more than a quarter of an acre of land. If this restriction were insisted upon the District Councils would have to remove a large number of labourers from the occupation of the cottages.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 37, line 16, to leave out from the words 'district' to end of clause."—(Mr. O'Shee.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. ATKINSONsaid the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that this was a complete definition. It was only a supplementary one and would not affect those now held to be entitled to the benefits of the Act.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Time should not be taken up with absurdities of this kind.
  MR. O'SHEEretorted that a good deal of time was wasted the other day by the absurd speeches of the hon. and learned Member, and again last night as to whether £500 should be given to a certain Commissioner, and as to the procedure in a Court in which he practised, but of which he appeared to be ignorant. Was he to take it that labourers now entitled to the benefits of the Act would not be excluded by reason of this definition?
  MR. ATKINSON: They will not.
  MR. O'SHEEhoped it would be made perfectly clear. The clause did not to his mind state that with sufficient clearness. He thought that it ought to be made perfectly clear that this was an addition and not an exclusion in the case of any labourer who had obtained, or would be entitled to obtain, a cottage and land under the Labourers Acts as they now are. The incorporation of the amount of wages he thought was a mistake. As a matter of fact, he did not know whether the 2s. 6d. mentioned meant 2s. 6d. for every day in the year, or whether it meant an average daily wage of 2s. 6d.; if it did not mean that they would certainly have many men excluded from the operation of this clause, because although in harvest time many men earned more than 2s. 6d. a day, in other times they did not earn so much.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid words would be introduced to show that it was the average daily wage that was intended.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid that would satisfy him so far as the agricultural labourers were concerned, but the case of rural tradesmen was not met by this provision, and he therefore thought that the limit should be extended so far as they were concerned to 3s. 6d. a day; that would cover the case of the rural tradesmen, and unless that were done he should suggest that the whole of the restriction should be left out.
  *MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the position of those who, like himself, had a large number of labourers in their constituencies was most unsatisfactory, and he would like to know how the Chief Secretary intended to deal with this matter. He did not wish to waste the time of the Committee by discussing an Amendment which would not be accepted, but it was important that the labourers question should be settled, and he asked whether the subject would be dealt with by further legislation, and whether the Chief Secretary would give an undertaking to introduce such legislation early next session.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was of opinion that a Labourers Bill must be passed, and he would devote part of the autumn to considering this subject. It would be a mistake to deal piecemeal with the question. He therefore asked that this Amendment should be postponed.
  MR. CLANCYsaid the labourers had been expecting that their case would be dealt with in any Bill relating to the distribution of land in Ireland. He felt that certain clauses which would carry out the views of the labourers ought to be proposed, but, after the Chief Secretary's statement, he supposed it would be useless to propose these clauses.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid it would be satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that a Labourers' Bill would be brought forward and pressed through the House next session. In many cases the labourers were a defenceless class. Their position in the North was probably worse than in the South. If a labourer, living in a hovel not fit for a pig, petitioned to have a house built, he would be instantly turned off the farm; consequently, however much the Irish tenants disliked the Irish landlords, the labourers disliked the tenants more.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENexpressed his gratification that these clauses were in no way to be regarded as a settlement of the question. It was well to remember that this question was of tremendous importance for the future peace of Ireland, and an hour or two was by no means wasted if spent in coming to some sort of understanding with regard to it. He joined in pressing the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that a separate Labourers Bill would form the principal part of the Irish business of next session if he was then in office. The new clause was excellent so far as it went, but the frightful stream of emigration of agricultural labourers would never be stopped until the labourers were placed in the same favourable position as the small holders of the West hoped to be in under the present Bill. The two classes were really one, and deserved the same
  40
  treatment. They both lived principally by wages, and the labourers once possessed land from which they were driven into the present wretched hovels by eviction or famine. Except for a few weeks in spring and harvest-time, the wages were not sufficient to counteract the temptation of a passage across the Atlantic, and the result was that practically the whole of the vigorous young labouring population of the South was emigrating. If that emigration was to be checked the promised Labourers Bill would have to go much further than any of the existing Labourers Acts. These men would have to be given some opening on the land, so that they could many and settle down with better prospects than they had at present. It always seemed to be one of the little ironies of life that, whereas in England a premium would almost be given to people to live on the land, it was rendered almost impossible for the small farmer or labourer in Ireland, whose predominant passion was to possess some land, to do so. He hoped that as soon as the pressure of the present Bill was over the Chief Secretary would apply himself to this question with as much success as he had undoubtedly done in regard to the Western question, and that he would see whether something could not be done in the direction he had indicated in order to keep the labouring population at home. He believed the right hon. Gentleman would find the difficulty was not want of land, because in all the southern and central counties there could be bought, without inflicting injustice upon anybody, plenty of land which would afford comfortable homes for double the present population.
  MR. CREANurged that the limit of 2s. 6d. should be increased to 3s. Many labourers got as much as 4s. per day for two or three weeks, while their average for the whole year would be only 2s. If the right hon. Gentleman would make the amount 3s. he would go a long way towards meeting the views of the Irish Members on the point.
  MR. SHEEHAN, while appreciating the promise of the right hon. Gentleman to introduce a Labourers

  41
  Bill next year, thought it would be a misfortune if the present measure were allowed to pass without dealing with the question to as large an extent as possible. Great dissatisfaction would be felt among the labouring classes if their moderate and just claims were not in some way considered, and he urged that, at any rate, the 2s. 6d. limit should be increased to 3s. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make an explicit statement as to when he intended to introduce the Labourers Bill.
  MR. FLYNNwas greatly disappointed at the announcement that no scheme for dealing with this question was to be included in the present Bill. A measure was promised for next year, but, with all his good intentions, the right hon. Gentleman might not then be in the position he now occupied. A bird in the hand was worth two in the bush, and a future Chief Secretary might not feel himself bound by the pledges of his predecessor. It would have been extremely easy for the right hon. Gentleman or his advisers to have drafted a clause enlarging the powers of the local bodies, and facilitating the operation by which a labourer could get a decent cottage, and he was very sorry that nothing of the sort had been done.
  MR. DILLONsaid he understood that the 2s. 6d. limit applied to country workers and men who were not really agricultural workers. He could not accept the view taken by the Member for Cork when he said that the average earnings of an agricultural labourer amounted to 3s. a day, for he never came across such a specimen. The question was not a very large one, but it was, nevertheless, important, because, if they excluded these men from all chance of getting better houses, they would be simply compelling them to live in hovels in towns and wretched little villages where accommodation for them was bad, and where they would have to walk great distances to their work. The limit should be raised to some reasonable point, or else done away with altogether.
  MR. KILBRIDEcontended that if they maintained this limit many of those men who desired to reside in country districts would be prevented from doing so. The village rate of wages for carpenters or masons was considerably more than this limit, and therefore they would be excluded. Upon these grounds he pressed upon the Chief Secretary the necessity of at least raising the limit to 3s. 6d. or 4s. per day. By doing that he would be in eluding to a larger extent the very class that he was endeavouring to bring under the Labourers Acts who were now excluded by the definition of "labourer" in the Labourers Acts. He had great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for West Waterford. He hoped that if the Chief Secretary could not agree to exclude the limit altogether he would at least consent to raise it to 3s. 6d. or 4s.
  MR. CULLINANsaid that as one who had had a good deal of experience of the working of the Labourers Acts he must say that this limitation would be very detrimental. Instead of imposing more restrictions they ought to give more latitude to encourage the authorities to be more generous upon this question. In many districts they had a great number of artisans who were not able to get employment the whole year round. Those men were earning more than 2s. 6d. a day, and if they meant to bring them under the scope of the Labourers Acts they should increase the 2s. 6d. limit to at least 4s. He strongly urged the Chief Secretary to accept the general view expressed by hon. Members from Ireland upon this subject.
  MR. WYNDHAMassured the Committee that he was quite aware of the importance of this question, but he was not prepared to make any change in regard to this problem at present, which involved many fiscal elements. He was not prepared to accept Amendments without examination as to the ultimate fiscal bearing of such proposals, and it was not in his power to do so. He was not in a position at the present time to deal with this question on a larger scale than that which now appeared in the Bill. In this clause he had only tried

  43
  to do what could be done whilst they were passing the Land Bill, and he had not attempted to deal with the labourers' question because time did not permit. There was not time this session either for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or for himself to take up another great question. He agreed that it was an important subject, but he was not in a position to deal with it now. He would undertake to give the matter his consideration during the autumn.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Mid Cork which would not take the Committee one minute to adopt. There was no objection taken to it, and why on earth the Government could not agree to it he could not understand.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he was glad the Chief Secretary had not complained that the debate on this point had taken up some time, and he was glad also that he had recognised the importance of this question. There would be the most widespread disappointment at this Bill going through without valuable clauses dealing with the labourers' question. While he admitted that there was a difficulty in dealing with the question at this period of the session, he must express his deep regret that this Bill was not brought on earlier, in which case it would have been possible to have devoted sufficient time to the consideration of the labourers question to have enabled the right hon. Gentleman to make some valuable improvements in the law. He admitted that under existing circumstances it was difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to afford sufficient time to deal thoroughly with this question. The only satisfaction they had was that the right hon. Gentleman had most candidly admitted that these clauses did not attempt a settlement of the labourers' question, and he had promised to devote himself to the matter during the autumn; and he took that to include a promise to introduce next session a Bill to give effect to the result of his consideration of the subject during the autumn. Mere inquiry by the right hon. Gentleman without the assurance that he would legislate at the earliest possible moment would be of very little
  44
  value. There would certainly be the gravest dissatisfaction and disappointment amongst the labourers all through the country who had been looking forward to this Bill to obtain some of their rights. Of course, they could not press the right hon. Gentleman to turn this Bill into a comprehensive Labourers Bill, and they must be satisfied with the assurance he had given and press upon him the necessity of accepting one or two of the Amendments which had been alluded to. The hon. and learned Member for Louth had alluded to one Amendment, and there were others on the Paper of a similar character. Without embarrassing himself or occupying too much time the Chief Secretary might at least make the clauses he was proposing as workable as possible. They admitted that he could not turn this into a complete Labourers Bill, but if he would meet the points raised in the Amendments they would accept the inevitable and trust to the right hon. Gentleman, after consideration, introducing a comprehensive and satisfactory Bill doing full justice to the labourers.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the effect of the Amendment upon which they were now engaged would be to alter the money standard. That would bring in a number of other persons—he did not know how many—but he could not do that because the Labourers Acts rested upon the financial foundations of the rest of the Bill. It was not within his power as a Minister to embark upon an extension of policy which involved unmeasured fiscal burdens. He was willing to accept small Amendments here and there which would not add to the fiscal charges of the Bill. The Amendment which the hon. and learned Member for Louth asked him to accept would change the character of the Bill considerably.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid Clause 82 would really impose restrictions which did not exist at present under the Labourers Acts. From that point of view would not the right hon. Gentleman accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Waterford? The whole prospects of the labourers were rather damnified than otherwise

  45
  by the proposals in the Bill. While he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman would propose a Bill in the next session of Parliament dealing with the question of the labourers he felt bound to enter his strongest protest against the refusal of the small and reasonable Amendment proposed by his hon. friend. The Chief Secretary seemed to think that under the law as it stood the labourers were being dealt with at the rate of hundreds per month. That was not the case, for it took years to get a small scheme through. The acceptance of this Amendment would not interfere with the financial arrangements of the Bill, and the whole question would be left open to be dealt with next year.
  MR. MURPHYsaid that all interested in the labourers must feel grievously disappointed He could not understand why in dealing with the land question they should not at the same time deal with the agricultural labourers. The land agitation was due primarily to the condition of the congested districts and the condition of the agricultural labourers, and now they found that the Chief Secretary stated that he bad not had time to deal with the question of the labourers in a full and efficient manner. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to consider the question. He hoped hon. Members would not think that any promise had been made to bring in a Bill next year. Even if there was such a promise he felt a difficulty in relying upon it in view of what might happen in the meantime. The Chief Secretary might be Prime Minister, or the extraordinary trade wind which was blowing might waft him and his Party on to the Opposition side of the House. He could not understand why reasonable provision should not be made for the labourers now. One of the difficulties hitherto in dealing with them was that the Acts were administered by the Local Government Board. There were substantial sums remaining to the credit of many counties at present, and, as the hon. Member for Louth had pointed out, there was not the least possible chance that houses would be built in six weeks or six months. He should like to see a provision inserted in the Bill giving to
  46
  every honest working man in the country an oportunity of securing a house if he had not already a suitable one. If they allowed the limit in the Bill to stand at 2s. 6d. the result would be that practically every labourer in County Kerry would be excluded, because during the harvest season their wages were 3s. a day. He thought they should have a definite promise from the Chief Secretary that provisions would be introduced dealing with the question of the labourers. They ought also to have a promise from the right hon. Gentleman that his inspectors would not impede the progress of schemes which were at present being carried out.
  MR. FLAVINsaid the clause provided—
  "The expression 'agricultural labourer' in the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, and this Act shall include any person (other than a domestic or a menial servant) working for hire in a rural district whose wages do not exceed 2s. 6d. a day, and who is not, in occupation of land exceeding one quarter of an acre.'"
  What was the nature of the employment from which that wage was to be derived. When an inquiry was held a question might arise as to what was the average wage. There were many districts in Ireland where artisans were hired at so much per day including food, and there were other districts where they got a fixed sum exclusive of food. He thought the clause should provide that the 2s. 6d. per day was to be exclusive of food. He urged that immediate action should be taken in dealing with the labourers, because unless strong inducements were given to them to remain in the country they would leave in overwhelming numbers.
  MR. GORDONsaid this was not a question in which only one part of Ireland was interested. He did not think any part was more interested in it than the North of Ireland Very great disappointment would be felt among the labourers in that part of the country if nothing adequate was done for them in this measure. He had received resolutions passed by associations of working men asking him to support their views, and therefore he was compelled to enter his protest on their

  47
  behalf that their position had not been adequately recognised. He could only hope that performance would follow the promise, and that something adequate would be done next year.
  MR. CULLINANsaid the Chief Secretary had referred to the financial burden which this proposal would involve. He did not think there would be any greater financial burden because they had the security that the union rate should not exceed 1s. in the £.
  MR. O'SHEEsuggested that the clause should provide that the average daily wage of 2s. 6d. should be reckoned over the twelve months preceding the application. They would have troublesome inquiries on this point unless they fixed some definite time to which this standard was to apply.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he would consider that matter before the Report stage.
  MR. O'SHEEasked whether the Attorney-General would also consider the advisability of inserting the words "cash wages." The invariable practice of farmers was to employ a carpenter or mason for a certain wage and to provide him with food. Unless some definition more strict was introduced on this point there would be a good deal of friction. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether a fairly large class of agricultural labourers, who were being excluded in consequence of small towns of over 1,500 inhabitants being converted into urban districts, would now have the benefit of the Labourers Acts. He wanted to know whether the clause as it stood, would cover the case of that class. Although the men lived in the town, they continually went into the rural districts adjoining to work.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he would consider the point.
  MR. FLAVINasked the right hon. Gentleman for an answer on the point he had raised.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he did not think it was necessary to deal with that point.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid he would not withdraw the Amendment as it involved a question of principle.
  Question put and agreed to.
  MR. TULLYsaid that after the very satisfactory assurance of the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Amendment, which would have increased the wages of an agricultural labourer as defined in the clause from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. a day.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid he wanted to endorse what had been said by the hon. Member for Cork City as to the same basis of treatment being given to the agricultural labourers as to the cottier tenants in the congested districts. In the South of Ireland the great question at present was not the amendment of the Labourers Acts, under which a great deal of good had been done, and almost as much as could be expected under the existing costly and tedious procedure, but as to whether the labourers were to get allotments of land.
  Clause 82 agreed to.
  Clause 83 agreed to.
  Clause 84 agreed to.
  Clause 85.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 38, line, 23, at end, to add the words 'the expression "the Public Works Act," means the Drainage and Navigation (Ireland) Acts, 1842 to 1857; the Drainage and Improvement (Ireland) Acts, 1863 to 1892; the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1846; the Landed Property and Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1847, and any Act extending, amending, or incorporating the said Acts or any of them or any part thereof; and the Drainage Maintenance Act, 1866.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 38, line 23, at end, to insert the words—'(2) The expression "superior interest," in the Land Purchase Acts, shall include any reversion or estate expectant on the determination of an estate tail or a base fee, whether such reversion or estate is or is not vested in the Crown.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that this was a very great concession, not only in principle, but, what was of more importance, because it would remove many impediments in the way of land purchase.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 86 to 89 agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSES.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he did not want to say a single word in regard to the first two new clauses he wished to submit to the Committee. He moved:—
  New Clause (Sanction of advances in cases not within the zones.)
  "In page 3, after Clause 4, to insert the following clause:—'In the case of the sale of an estate where an application for an advance, to which the provisions of Sub-section 1 of Section 1 of this Act do not apply, is made, the Land Commission may, subject to the limitations in the Land Purchase Acts, advance the whole or part of the purchase money if they are satisfied with the security, and are of opinion that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the agreed price is equitable.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question, "That the clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  New Clause (Reservation of Ancient Monuments).
  "In page 8, after Clause 2, to insert the following clause:—'(1) Where any land, which is vested under the Land Purchase Acts in a purchaser, contains any ancient monument which, in the opinion of the Land Commission, is a matter of public interest by reason of the historic, traditional, or artistic interest attaching thereto, they may, with the consent of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, by order declare that the property in the monument shall not pass to the purchaser, and make an order vesting the monument in those Commissioners. (2) Where any such order is made, the provisions of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882, with respect to the maintenance of, and access, and penalties for injury to, ancient monuments, shall apply as if the monument were a monument under the guardianship of those Commissioners in pursuance of that Act. (3) In this section the expression "ancient monument" means any ancient or mediæval structure, ereciton, or monument, or any remains thereof."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question, "That the clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that he did not disguise from himself that the new clause be now proposed was of a most contentious character. He feared that even in respect of its objects it might be held to be contentious in some, although not in all, quarters; but when he considered the source from which the expenditure which must be involved was to be defrayed, then his fear was greater that in no quarter would it find ready acceptance except possibly from the hon. Member for South Molton. He feared that he should have some difficulty in convincing the Committee that this was a proper suggestion at all. He regretted that at this stage of the proceedings he found himself bound to introduce a contentions subject into the debate, and he felt he owed an apology to many members of the Committee who had made suggestions not of a contentious character and whom he had asked to withdraw them on the score that it was not possible to make alterations in the character of the Bill at this date of July. But a Land Bill must be practical if it was to succeed. Facts were facts, and they must be faced; and after long and anxious consideration of the problem of Trinity College head-rents he had come to the conclusion that unless this new clause was added to the Bill land purchase would be hampered over a great part of Ireland. In fact he was not quite confident that even this additional aid would succeed in solving the question, because money alone was not what was required. Trinity College tenure was elaborate and complicated almost beyond belief, and its unfortunate influence, through no fault of Trinity College, had spread in a sporadic way all over Ireland. His reason, on practical grounds, for asking the Committee to pass this clause was that, in his deliberate opinion, if it were not adopted some 9,000 or 10,000 tenant occupiers would be debarred from taking any advantage of this Act, and would not be able to purchase the farms which they now held. He would pass to the technical justification for making this proposal,—viz., that

  51
  Trinity College head-rents had been dealt with by this House under three, four, and even more special statutes. Therefore there was, in his judgment, a technical justification for taking the Trinity College head-rents out of the ordinary character of superior interests. He did not know whether the Committee would assent to that proposition, but even if they did, they might say—"Very well, but why should you put this burden on I the Irish Development Grant? Why not provide for this purpose out of the moneys voted by Parliament?" Well, that would have boon a far more agreeable course for himself to take than that which he invited the Committee to take. But this charge had to be taken into consideration with other charges, and he thought they had not altogether failed to meet the money difficulty of the situation.
  He would not refer to the £12,000,000 Aid Grant, but there were other proposals in the Bill enabling the appointment of a trustee. On that question it was urged that, even at the last hour, he should recede from the proposals of the Bill and pay that officer by fees instead of by salary. That would have placed a burden on land purchase as a whole. Take again the stamp duty. The Government went very far in regard to the stamp duty in the Bill. It had been urged upon him repeatedly that he had pressed his colleagues too far; that his proposal involved too grate departure from what had been done in the past, and that he ought to be content with taking off the stamp duty from one transaction, and not from both. Again, on that matter, he over-persuaded his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept; the Bill as it stood. That was half a million of money given in aid of land purchase in Ireland. The other point outstanding was whether the Crown should be asked to waive its rights in respect of these reversionary interests. On that he only succeeded in getting a favourable reply from his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the eleventh hour. Indeed it was not he that succeeded. The success was to be attributed to his hon. friend, and to the hon. and learned Member for Louth, who; pressed the point so assiduously for many hours that his right hon. friend the
  52
  Chancellor of the Exchequer was convinced that the retention of this reversionary interest would place a great barrier on land purchase in Ireland. It was when they were in that situation that he pressed for some aid in connection with the difficulty regarding statutory head-rents, that his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose opinion was that they could not have more money on these side issues, said that if this thing was a practical necessity it must be met out of some Irish money, and that the proper fund was the Irish Development Grant embodied in the Bill already presented to Parliament. As he had said, he was very doubtful of convincing hon. Members opposite that this was the best or the proper course, but it was the only course; and, that being so, he had to consider how this question could be met by casting the least possible burden upon that fund. According to their estimate, £9,000 a year would be needed to completely solve this difficulty; and unless some provision were made to indemnify Trinity College purchase would not go through. The middleman would suffer, and it would be in his interest not to sell unless some such provision were inserted in the Bill. To put, however, a possible expenditure of £9,000 on the Irish Development Grant would burden it unnecessarily. Nine thousand pounds of that Grant would, in that case, be always earmarked, and would not be available for other purposes. They could not finance other projects with that Grant without the reservation that £9,000 of it would not be available. Therefore, he thought it better to put, from the first, a definite charge on the Grant, which would accumulate, and might be hold to be sufficient in the long run for dealing with the question of the redemption of Trinity College head-rents. His proposal was to put a charge of £5,000 a year on the Equivalent Grant from the very start. Of course, the whole question of the redemption of the head-rents would not be developed to its full proportions until the land under Trinity College had been sold, and he supposed that that would take about as long as the whole operation of land purchase in Ireland. Those who would speak for Trinity College would make more clear to the Committee the technical difficulties of this subject. He would not say that the friends of Trinity

  53
  College were overjoyed at his solution, but they were satisfied with it, and were prepared to accept it as a definite conclusion of the whole matter. It was a technical question, but it was also a practical question, as it concerned 220,000 acres of land, and some 9,000 tenants. Why should those tenants be impeded in availing themselves of the Act, not through any fault of Trinity College, but because of the elaborate and complex system of finance which had been imposed on Trinity College by previous legislation? He submitted the proposal to the Committee as a necessary provision in order that land purchase should not be hung up over a considerable area in Ireland.
  New Clause (Trinity College, Dublin).
  "In page 19, after Clause 35, to insert the following clause:—'(1) There shall be paid to the public trustee out of the Ireland Development Grant the sum of £5,000 per annum for the account of Trinity College, Dublin. (2) The said sum shall be applied by the public trustee in indemnifying the college against any loss of income arising from the redemption under the Land Purchase Acts of any superior interest owned by the college, that is to say, the difference between the annual income payable in respect of the superior interest and the annual income of the investment in which the redemption money of the superior interest is invested. (3) Any portion of the said sum of £5,000 which in any year is not required to make good loss of income to the college, and any accrued interest thereon, shall be invested by the public trustee, and may be applied in any subsequent year to make good future loss. (4) The investment of the redemption money of any superior interest owned by the college shall be made in accordance with the advice of the public trustee.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he rose to oppose as vigorously as he could the clause of the right hon. Gentleman. It seemed to him that the apology which ran right through the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was in itself a sufficient condemnation of this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman had been cogitating over this Bill for two years or more, and the result of his
  54
  consideration had been put into this Bill. When proposals were made of a very moderate and admittedly reasonable character, from various quarters of the House, which involved new matter, the right hon. Gentleman met them by saying that he could not, almost at the end of the session, ask the House to take up and seriously consider new and contentious questions. Every proposal which introduced new matter was brushed aside in that manner; yet on the very last day of the Committee stage of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman springs on the House of Commons a proposal of a most intensely contentious character. He did not know who the right hon. Gentleman had taken into his confidence, except the Members for Trinity College. As far as he knew, the right hon. Gentleman had not consulted any Irish Member in the matter; and the first he himself knew of the clause was when he saw it on the Amendment Paper yesterday. He did not think that was a businesslike way of conducting a Bill, especially at that stage, and almost at the end of the session. The nature of the proposal was such that it was impossible for the Irish Members to abstain from the most vigorous opposition to it. The right hon. Gentleman himself said he knew he was making an unpopular proposal, and he also said that the only hon. Member of whose support he was assured was the hon. Member for South Molton, who, however, voted against the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was speaking of the source from which the money-was to be taken.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid even with that limitation that was the only support of which the right hon. Gentleman was assured.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the clause would be supported in other quarters of the House.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid no doubt the hon. Gentleman would develop his support later on. He was dealing not

  55
  with the speech which the hon. Gentleman had not delivered, but with the speech which the right hon. Gentleman had delivered. The right hon. Gentleman said that Trinity College was in a peculiar position; that it had leased out its land at long leases; that the middlemen had re-let to other tenants; and that the land could not be sold under this Bill without inflicting a loss on Trinity College. But Trinity College was not the only landlord in that position. Other landlords had leased their property in the same way, and they would lose just as Trinity College would lose. It was impossible to give the absolute figures as to the number of such cases, but it was undoubtedly true that there were a considerable number of proprietors in the same position as Trinity College. Yet there was to be no provision made for dealing with them; and Trinity College was to be specially selected to receive this compensation. As to the source, the Irish Development Grant would provide the money. Did anyone ever hear such a satire? That fund, which was entirely an Irish Development Fund, was to be drawn upon for the purpose of giving £5,000 a year as compensation to Trinity College. What was that fund? It was a sum of money which was Ireland's equivalent for the education grant given It England under the Act of last year foreland was entitled, as a matter of right, to a sum of about £185,000 a year as the equivalent to the English education grant; which meant that it was to be devoted generally to education in Ireland. Under this Bill the right hon. Gentleman was suspending the application of any portion of the grant for educational purposes in Ireland. He was drawing temporarily in one respect, and permanently in another respect, on that fund for the purpose of facilitating land purchase. But he now proposed to devote £5,000 a year from that fund to Trinity College for ever. That was to say that, while he did not propose to devote a single farthing to general educational purposes in Ireland, he picked out a State endowed educational establishment, the richest in the country, one against which, personally, he did not desire to say anything, but
  56
  against which there was undoubtedly a strong feeling in the country among all classes of the population, and proposed to devote this sum permanently to it. If he had spent the last two years in trying to find out what was the most contentious subject which he could introduce he could not possibly have succeeded better than by selecting this subject. It was one of the most contentious questions that could be raised. Every question connected with education in Ireland was raised by it. The Catholic University question was raised by it; and it was impossible to conceive any course that could be taken by the right hon. Gentleman that would be more certain to lead to excitement of feeling, bitterness, and prolonged discussions and he was afraid acrimonious discussion—both in this House and out of it. He deeply regretted the right hon. Gentleman had introduced this proposal. It would have been bad enough if he had put a clause in the Bill as originally drafted in order that they might be able to deal with it on the Second Reading. But to spring the question on the Committee in the middle of July, without consulting a single Irish Member, was a course which, in his opinion, was quite unjustifiable and one which he was intensely surprised the right hon. Gentleman had taken. He would at once admit that the right hon. Gentleman throughout the conduct of the Bill had shown a conciliatory spirit. He knew the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties perfectly well; and he knew how he was hemmed in and fettered. On the whole, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had exhibited a conciliatory spirit, and the greatest skill in the management of the Bill. But he confessed that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman entirely belied his record. He could not conceive a more fatal thing than, at the last moment, to throw down this bone of contention; and he felt sure that the view he had expressed was entertained strongly by every Member in that quarter of the House. He was afraid that if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in his proposal he would have to make up his mind to very considerable opposition, the very greatest dissatisfaction, and the very gravest acrimonious discussion in Ireland. He begged the right hon.

  57
  Gentleman to reconsider the matter. As for himself, he wished to enter his protest against the clause, and would offer it the most vigorous opposition.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid as he understood it, this was a proposal to preserve Trinity College and therefore proceeded on the lines of the Land Conference Report signed by the hon. Member for Waterford. On Second Reading he was urged by a large number of the Trinity College tenants to bring forward their case, which they regarded as a hopeless one under this Bill. He knew how the two law officers would resist any attack on Trinity College, and he had deliberately abstained from raising the question of Trinity College. He disliked this clause as much as did the hon. Member for Waterford, but were the Irish Members prepared to tell the 10,000 men who sat as tenants of Trinity College, they were to be denied relief, and that they would have no chance of becoming proprietors because of the tangle into which Trinity tenures had got. This was a "take it or leave it" clause, because he was certain that if it was opposed the Chief Secretary would drop it at once, and that was the alternative in which they were placed. They would either be misrepresented as having agreed to give Trinity College £5,000 a year or they must be prepared to stand by and see 10,000 tenants sacrificed. When he yesterday saw the clause for the first time he was startled, because it seemed to be an irony of fate that this development grant, which was the equivalent grant to which Ireland was entitled in respect of the grant for education, should go not to the unfortunate national schools of the country but should go in relief of the one exclusive university in the country which had distinguished itself in the bite election by pledging the Solicitor-General to oppose anything in the nature of a Catholic University. He did the hon. Gentleman the justice to say that he adopted a different attitude in the matter. He rose for the purpose of making a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman would never get this clause with the goodwill of the Nationalist
  58
  Party, and if they voted against it they would be in the position of cutting oft their nose to spite their face, because they would prevent the tenants of Trinity College becoming proprietors. Could not they appoint a small Commission to inquire into what rentals Trinity College got and what the middle landlords got from the tenants; to inquire into all the tenures which affected the right or probability of the tenants becoming proprietors of their holdings, and enter into the whole question with a well informed mind next session. He did not believe the clause itself was sufficiently drastic to carry out the object of the Government; it would not, he believed, work if passed into law, because in his view the middle landlords would not sell the holdings. His suggestion, therefore, was that the right hon. Gentleman should appoint a small Commission with power to report, and whose report when published should be binding on the Estates Commissioners, and that the whole of this matter should then be left to the Estate Commissioners to deal with.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he had always held that two classes would be hit by this Land Bill, the first of which was Trinity College. The position of Trinity College was not that which the hon. Member for Louth supposed. The landlords of these holdings according to the Land Conference were the middle landlords to whom Trinity College leased these lands years ago, and it must be remembered that under the Bill the middle landlord could sell. Every Land Act had passed over Trinity College without touching it, but from what he had heard the middle men were in such a bad way they would gladly go out with the bonus. He had no desire to say a word against Trinity College, but his point was that this was a part of the educational settlement of Ireland, and if the Government were proposing to come to the relief of Trinity College in this way, at this time they might depend upon it that before next session they would have appeals, which they could not withstand, from the Irish Church Representative Body, the General Assembly of

  59
  the Presbyterian Church and Maynooth College. They would say—"You compensated Trinity College under this Act and you must also give us a grant to make our losses up." He was prepared to vote for this grant to Trinity College as part of an educational settlement, but only as a part of the settlement and not as a grant in aid.
  MR. DILLONsaid he could only repeat the question put by the hon. Member for Waterford—Why had the Government introduced so contentious a matter in this Bill at so short a notice? Over and over again they had been appealed to by the Chief Secretary to withdraw Amendments because of the danger of introducing controversial matter, and even on the question of Irish labourers, which had been brought to the attention of the Government at the earliest stage of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman had appealed to them to drop the subject because it was too late in the session to take up so difficult a question. Within a few moments of that appeal the right hon. Gentleman himself came forward with a clause raising the whole question of Irish education—one of the most contentious and troublesome matters that could be conceived. But even supposing it were granted that the position of the tenants of Trinity College ought to be dealt with in some special way, why could not the right hon. Gentleman deal with it in a separate Bill next session, as he proposed to deal with the labourers' question? Did he contend that the grievance of the tenants of Trinity College was more pressing than that of the Irish labourers? This most contentious and objectionable clause would be opposed now, on the Report stage and on the Third Reading; and yet, although so much time was to be spent in the discussions therein involved, there was no time to settle the labourers' question, in reference to which there was practically no difference of opinion whatever. Was it to be understood that the question of the labourers and their grievance was shunted in order to make way for this extraordinary proposal? It was idle to say that Trinity College was in a special and peculiar position. There
  60
  was hardly a charitable institution in Ireland, not to speak of Maynooth College and the Church Body, which was not in a similar position. In all Irish land legislation the owners of superior interests had been treated somewhat summarily. Since 1881 it had been the practice to give the owner of the middle interest the right to expropriate or buy out the owner of the superior interest at a very moderate figure. That was exactly the fate which had now overtaken Trinity College, but it was proposed to treat them exceptionally, and do them a special favour. It was all very well to make fine-drawn distinctions between the losses which would be inflicted by this land legislation on Trinity College and Maynooth which stood to lose heavily. If this proposal were carried, on what ground would the Government resist the claim which would undoubtedly be made by the trustees of Maynooth next year to be put on an equality with Trinity College?
  Never in the history of the House of Commons had a proposal so far-reaching in its effect been brought forward in so frivolous a manner as this. It was a serious matter to attempt to draw a distinction between the losses inflicted by this legislation on public institutions which had mortgages, and those inflicted on the owners of superior interests. In the past no such distinction had been drawn; both classes had suffered more or less by land legislation, but no claim had been made for compensation to either. This proposal was, in reality, under the cloak of the Land Bill, and in a manner which was exceedingly mean, an attempt to grab for Trinity College a perpetual endowment of £5,000 a year, it being expected that for fear of risking the Bill the Irish representatives would abstain from opposing it on its merits. It was an outrageous attempt to force down the throats of the Irish people a proposal for which the right hon. Gentleman would be unable to get half-a-dozen Irish Members to vote if it were put on its merits in a separate Bill. He strongly appealed to the Chief Secretary to postpone so contentious a matter. In the meantime information could be gathered as to the bearing of this clause, and the House could be informed as to the special

  61
  difficulties of Trinity College, of the true nature of the facts. The right hon. Gentleman had declared it would take fifteen years to carry out this work of settlement. Suppose it took ten years, would it be any tremendous grievance to Trinity College, even if this difficulty really existed, to wait until next year? The proposal was absolutely contrary to the traditions and practice of the House of Commons, and if persevered with might lead to the grossest possible abuse. For the House to tolerate, at the end of a great measure of 82 clauses, the introduction, practically without notice, of a proposal of this character, by which a public body would be endowed with a large annual sum, without the general public having any knowledge of the fact, was an outrageous innovation. Moreover, it was not fair to many Members of the House. The official opposition, having adopted a certain attitude towards the Bill, were absent, having been under the impression that they had before them all the important financial proposals of the Bill. He contended that fuller notice ought to have been given, so that Members could have made arrangements to be present if necessary. On purely financial grounds it was a thoroughly objectionable and vicious proposal.
  A further consideration was the effect it would have on Irish opinion with regard to the whole policy of the development grant. Personally, he had always felt great uneasiness in reference to that policy. This policy of taking money and leaving it at the disposal of the Executive Government was a policy which would lead to corruption and jobbery unless closely watched, because it was a policy of withdrawal from all the elaborate financial precautions of the House of Commons. If it had not been for the existence of the Irish development grant the Chief Secretary would not have made such a proposal, but would have had to put this charge upon the Estimates. It would have been impossible, under the ordinary procedure of Parliament, to defeat all Parliamentary precautions, and evade that criticism which was necessary in all financial proposals. In his opinion this proposal was disorderly, and it most certainly was a gross innovation of the practice of the House of Commons. Even if it were not disorderly it was a warning to those who
  62
  wished business conducted in accordance with the practice of the House. This proposal was opposed by the solid opposition of representatives from Ireland who sat upon the Nationalist Benches. He considered this was a most unfortunate element to introduce into these discussions. This proposal was certain to create bitterness, and there was no urgency for introducing such a clause this session, more especially when the Chief Secretary had asked them to postpone the labourers question. The honest way to deal with the matter was to bring in a separate Bill, and then the Chief Secretary could state the grounds on which he proposed to deal with Trinity College separately from any individual or other corporation in Ireland which would lose under this Act. The right hon. Gentleman would do very little service to the promotion of good feeling or to the reception which this Bill would receive in Ireland if he persisted in this proposal. He wished to know if it was in order to introduce a clause seeking to appropriate a perpetual endowment to a particular corporation in Ireland from a fund which had not been appropriated by the House of Commons.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will no doubt recollect that the House of Commons had already passed a Resolution setting up the Irish development grant. The House has already agreed to that, and therefore it is in order to move that any of that money shall be applied to certain purposes.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLpointed out that Clause 35 provided that—
  "If by any Act passed in the present session provision is made for an Ireland development grant the following provisions shall have effect."
  Those provisions only came into effect if Parliament this session made provision for an Irish development grant.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: If the Irish Development Grant Bill does not go through then this proposal obviously falls.
  MR. DILLONsaid it might be held that by passing a clause appropriating a

  63
  portion of that grant they were interfering with the discretion of the House in setting up the rules and regulations under which that grant might be appropriated.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Of course it will be necessary, in dealing with the Irish Development Grant Bill to bear in mind that an appropriation to the amount of £5,000 has already taken place. Possibly this Irish Development Grant Bill which I have in my hand may require a proviso inserted to that effect. I do not think, from the point of view of order, that it is disorderly to allocate a portion of a grant which the House has already agreed to by Resolution, although it has not actually passed the Bill.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLcontended that the provision of £5,000 for a special purpose not directly connected with land could not be introduced according to the Resolution which the House had adopted. His proposition was that this special allocation of £5,000 was not within the terms of that Resolution. Amendments coming from the opposite side of the House which dealt with the allocation of sums which did not actually come within the terms of the Resolution had been excluded. This grant was for a sum of money not included within the purview of the Bill itself, and it contravened the usages and practices of the House of Commons. He submitted that there was no precedent whatever for proposing a grant which could not by any construction be brought within the main purposes for which the money Resolution of this Bill was passed.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has apparently forgotten Clause 35 of this Bill.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No, Sir, I have not.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will refresh his memory he will see that £20,000 has already been appropriated for one purpose, namely, the Congested Districts Board. Surely the Committee can appropriate further sums for another purpose.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid his point was that this proposal could not be
  64
  introduced because it did not come within the purview of the Resolution on which this Bill was founded.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Nor does Clause 35, which has already allocated portions, of the money to certain other objects.
  MR. DILLONsaid that whereas Clause 35 took a portion of the Irish development grant for land purchase in Ireland it was now proposed to take a portion for a purpose which was not within the four corners of the Resolution upon which this Bill rested. Therefore, this proposal had no reference to Clause 35.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: It is covered by the Resolution of the House, and I think that is sufficient.
  MR. BLAKE: Then there is no necessity for a money Resolution at all?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: If there had been no money Resolution there would have been no advances at all, because they would not have been covered by the Irish development grant.
  THE SOLICITOR - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL,)said his only object in rising was for the purpose of explaining the legal position of Trinity College in this matter. He thought it would assist the Committee when it was understood that some such provision as this was absolutely essential in the interests of ordinary justice and fair play. When the legal position was understood it would be at once seen that there was no analogy whatever between the case of Trinity College and the other cases referred to by the hon. Member for Mayo and by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. Trinity College was established under statute, and it could not depart one hair's breadth outside the powers and restrictions conferred upon it by statute. So far back as the reign of Charles I. Trinity College was granted power to make leases upon its landed estates, and those leases were to be of two kinds. In the case of agricultural land the lease could not be

  65
  longer than for a term of twenty years. In the case of towns that period was extended to forty years. The statute provided that in granting such leases it should be a condition that the rent fixed should be at least a half of the full value of the agricultural land. The matter became very burdensome to the College tenants and lessees, and they made frequent complaints on the subject, and the result was that Trinity College, exceeding its powers under the Act of Charles, proceeded to renew the leases to those tenants at much below the figure representing a half of the full value. That was done for the relief of the tenants, and it required a subsequent Act of Parliament in the thirty-fifth year of the reign of George III. to relieve Trinity College from that breach of trust, and to confirm and sanction the leases made at reduced rents. But still there was no perpetuity. Leases could not be longer than twenty years, and the College tenants began to complain bitterly of having no perpetuity on their estates, and having, therefore, no encouragement to spend money in improving them. In 1851 an Act was passed to regulate the relations between Trinity College and the lessees. The principal object of that Act was to bring relief to the lessees, and to accede to their request to have their tenure changed from terminable lease into perpetuity. That Act went on to provide that Trinity College should be at liberty to give leases for a period not longer than ninety-nine years, provided the rent was not less than three-fourths of the annual value of the land, but it also gave an alternative right to the lessees to demand a lease and grant in perpetuity, and that grant in perpetuity was to be subject to a rent fixed upon a basis having reference to the price of certain standard commodities. Inasmuch as these lessees were middlemen and had been, in recent years, making complaint as to the operation of the Act in regard to themselves, it was only right that he should mention that before the Act became law representatives of the lessees waited upon the Board of Trinity College, and certain suggestions were accepted by the lessees as a basis for the ascertainment of the perpetuity
  66
  rents. The Committee might take it from him that that basis was afterwards inserted in the Act of Parliament which now regulated the relations between the middlemen and Trinity College. The College had only received the rents agreed upon—nothing more and nothing less.
  But what was the position of the middlemen? Did anyone know, or would they ever be told, what rents they exacted from the occupying tenants during the long period from 1851 to 1881? He mentioned this because the whole matter had arisen owing to it being suggested that those middlemen under the operation of the Act of 1881 were placed in an unfortunate position. He admitted it, but that had been through no act of Trinity College. The College had never exacted a farthing from the lessees in excess of what it was empowered to charge by the Act of 1851 as the result of a deliberate bargain between the College and the trustees.
  *MR. LONSDALE: They increased the rents.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that observation showed that the hon. Member did not appreciate the legal position. Trinity College had increased the rents, but under what circumstances? It was agreed that the rents should be subject to decrease or increase according as the prices of certain standard commodities went up or down. That was the bargain, and to give the Committee an idea of the rents fixed under the Act of 1851 he would state what were the five articles. It was important to understand this for the purpose of seeing that the position of Trinity College was wholly different from that of any of the other bodies having lands to lease. The Irish Church Body and St. Stephens Hospital were not controlled in the management of their estates by Parliament, but as the funds of Trinity College were devoted to the purposes of public, education, Parliament exercised the right of controlling the administration of the funds. The five articles selected were wheat, oats, beef, mutton, and butter. The prices in 1851,

  67
  immediately after the famine, were probably lower than they had ever been before, or since. He would give the exact figures, the comparison being between prices in 1851 and now. Wheat in that year was 8s. 4d against 6s. 5d. oats, 5s. 6d. against 5s. 9d; beef, 41s against 55s.; mutton, 47s. against 60s; and butter, 64s. against 99s. [Au HON. MEMBER: Where?] These were the average prices for Ireland. He was not speaking of any particular district. Had prices gone down, so far from Trinity College being able to get an increased rent they would have got a decrease. Trinity College was in no way responsible for the grievances of the occupying tenants; but the middlemen—the lessees of Trinity College—so far from having any cause of complaint against Trinity College, whatever complaint they might have against Parliament for legislation subsequent to 1881, must admit that Trinity College had kept honourably, faithfully, and rigorously to the bargain that was made at the request of those gentlemen themselves. There had, however, been no check upon them up to 1881 as to the rents they received from the occupying tenants from year to year. They were at the mercy of the middleman. He doubted whether we should ever be told what rents the middlemen obtained from the occupying tenants between 1851 and 1881. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: All they could get out of them.] That being so, what was their grievance? It was that while they could not take the benefit of the Act of 1881, the tenants from year to year under them could; and that as the result of the reductions of rents to the occupying tenants they had not made so profitable a bargain as they had made in 1851, when they got that agreement into an Act. But how was that any justification for imposing any loss or burden on Trinity College? Trinity College had adhered to that agreement rigorously throughout, and their case in that regard for relief was in no way better or worse than that of any middleman who, having effected encumbrances, or created charges, or granted annuities, found that the rent on which he had made these encumbrances had been cut down.
  68
  Now, that was the legal position of Trinity College. And what was the remedy proposed? The question had been dealt with in debate as if this was a grant of an extra endowment of £5,000 a year for Trinity College. That was a ludicrous misrepresentation. Not one shilling of this money would ever be paid to Trinity College unless and until there was a loss on the existing income. So far from there being an additional revenue, it was only an insurance on its present revenue, and this present revenue was devoted to national education in Ireland. [Cries of "Class Education" and "Sectarian Education," from the Irish benches.] He did not want to go into that question. [Cries from the Irish benches of "That is the question."] He did not want to go into the different forms of education in Ireland, but he might say that, at the present hour, any person in Ireland, without distinction of creed or class was eligible to the highest or lowest mark of honour which Trinity College could give. He quite agreed that there were other considerations that influenced large numbers of his fellow-countrymen, and which prevented them from availing themselves of the advantages of the education offered by Trinity College. It might be said that the system under which these funds were administered might be changed, but why should not the funds be kept intact? It was not suggested that the governing body of Trinity College were going to make away with these funds. They would be there for the use of the nation, preserved, as trust money. Of course, if Parliament chose to interpose and alter their destination or alter the governing body of Trinity College on a new system that would not interfere with the funds. They would be available for Parliament to deal with in its wisdom. He wanted to get rid of the idea that this was an addition of even one shilling to the revenue of Trinity College. The object of the clause was to facilitate the working of the Bill when it passed into law. Trinity College was a head landlord, but it was also a direct landlord of a substantial portion of land all over Ireland, and this provision would have no application to that land.
  MR. FLAVIN: And a pretty strict landlord too.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: But this clause had no application to Trinity College in its dealings with tenants where it was the direct landlord. What was the position? £36,000 a year was the income of Trinity College from head-rents. That formed a substantial portion of the money with which it had to carry on the work of education in Ireland. Imagine to what extent Trinity College would be crippled if, at a time when every educational institution was putting forth a demand for more money for the purposes of scientific and technical instruction, they passed into law a Bill which would be a social revolution in Ireland—as they all hoped, on the lines of prosperity and improvement—on lines of the most liberal character—liberal in money and liberal in many respects not contained in the original Bill and which many Members on that side of the House had reluctantly yielded to, only in the expectation that the Bill would bring peace and prosperity to all Ireland—and which was going to hamper the operations of the University of which, he ventured to say, every Irishman was proud, and which not an Irishman would allow a word to be said against. In a measure of this kind, the object and purport of which was to bring an opportunity for social, educational, and economical reformation to Ireland, were they going to say that its operation would be of such a character as to cripple the resources of the principal educational establishment in Ireland, and one which had hosts of friends, not only in this country and in Scotland, but in every corner of the British Empire? In conclusion, he wished to say that while Trinity College was drawing this revenue of £36,000 in the shape of head-rents, that represented to them a very small number of tenants indeed—not exceeding 100. But it affected possibly 9,000 occupying tenants. It must be borne in mind that the head-rent ran the whole way down till it reached the land itself. What was really required was that Trinity College should sustain no loss, not that she should gain anything; and it should be remembered that in making this provision they were
  70
  doing something not merely in the interests of education in Ireland, but in enabling the advantages of the Bill to be granted to 9,000 occupying holders.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that the hon. and learned Gentleman had no reason whatever for making any apology for the speech which he had just delivered. It was a very able, interesting, and lucid exposition of a somewhat tangled series of facts. But to him the speech was not merely interesting as a revelation of the personal and political courage of the hon. and learned Gentleman; it was almost a surprise. The hon. and learned Gentleman stood up, and, in accents of alluring calmness and peace, asked hon. Members on the Irish benches, who represented a vast majority of the people of Ireland deprived of the advantages of a University education, to assist the most exclusive University, perhaps, in the world, to get an endowment from this House at the tail end of the Bill, and at the tail end of the session. But in the course of his exposition the hon. and learned Gentleman forgot to remind the Committee that he came here a few weeks ago from that same University pledged to maintain its exclusive privileges and to the exclusion of the majority of the people of Ireland from its benefits. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked them to put aside that part of the question from survey. They declined to do so. To them it was the kernel of the whole business. He agreed with the hon. Member for South Tyrone that if the proposal before the Committee had been for a generous system of education—a really national system of education in Ireland—and if Trinity College were really national, nobody would have raised any objection to an addition of, £5,000 a year, or even more, to its revenue. But when the proposal was to again endow—for that was the real fact—an exclusive University, and when that was done not by direct, straightforward proposal, but by a sudden proposal almost irrelevant to the purposes of the Bill, at the last hour, to keep up the exclusiveness of the University, it was bound to receive the most serious and determined opposition from Members from all parts of Ireland. The hon. and

  71
  learned Gentleman elaborated the point that this was not endowment or re-endowment. No, it was an insurance against loss by legislation! He never felt the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division more than he did at that moment. If the right hon. Gentleman asked for £5,000 to save the landed interest from loss resulting from free trade, would anyone say it was not an endowment? Was not insurance against loss, which was a necessary consequence of necessary legislation, an endowment? It was playing with words to speak of this proposal as not being an endowment. Suppose it was proposed that every holder of superior interests in Ireland should be saved from loss, would not that be an endowment? and would not hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had anything like popular principles, denounce it as a new endowment of the landed class? Would not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh think he had lived to see an extraordinary day when it was proposed to give back to his class the money they had lost through legislation? He thought the right hon. Gentleman would envy Trinity College; and that with even his own opulent vocabulary he would envy the still more opulent vocabulary of the Solicitor-General for Ireland who said that an insurance against loss by legislation was not an endowment.
  The third point was that this was for the benefit of education. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave a glowing account of the desirability of higher education in Ireland; but he might have spared himself the trouble of passing those eulogiums, because they were all in favour of higher education. There was a sum of nearly £190,000 which Ireland had earned for education; and according to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the object of this fund was not to promote the elementary, popular and free education of the people of Ireland, but that it should be given to an exclusive and rich University. That was what the right hon. and learned Gentleman called encouraging education. The money was to be filched from the masses of the people, and given to the intolerant University of the minority of the people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might think that he
  72
  was using a harsh word when he called Trinity College an intolerant University. What was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply? Speaking from the bench from which they had often heard the Prime Minister speaking on the Irish University question and Trinity College, the right hon. and learned Gentleman declared that Trinity College was a tolerant and national University, and that observation was cheered by hon. Gentlemen sitting near him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that all its endowments were open to men of all creeds. That was the language of the subordinate of the Prime Minister, who had done more to extirpate that miserable and mendacious fallacy than any other man in the kingdom, by speeches in which he declared, over and over again, that although all the endowments of Trinity College were nominally open to Catholics, its atmosphere was so exclusively Protestant that no self-respecting Catholic parent would send his son to it.
  What was the fourth defence? It was that Trinity College was in a different position from other bodies, because its relations with its tenants were regulated by statutes. They had heard that this statute did this, and that the other statute did that, and that such-and-such an agreement was embodied in an Act of Parliament. What inference did he draw from that? It was that another Act of Parliament was the proper way of dealing with this question; not a subordinate clause sprung on the House of Commons at the tail end of the session. He would prove to the satisfaction of every hon. Member that in order to carry out the proposal of the right, hon. Gentleman an Act of Parliament was necessary. The only real defence which had been made for this clause was that suggested by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. He said that unless this money were given to Trinity College the tenants would not be able to buy their holdings. He himself admitted there was force in that; but there again an Act of Parliament was required. He challenged the Chief Secretary to show that this clause would effect the object he had in view. The process would be this. The middleman and the tenant

  73
  would negotiate, the middleman would get as an inducement to sell a number of years purchase, and the bonus. He then had to pay Trinity College. But how was Trinity College going to deal with the matter? The right hon. Gentleman proposed to give Trinity College £5,000 to make up its loss. But what compulsion was there on Trinity College by this clause to make such an allowance to the middleman as would induce the middleman to sell? Direct provision would have to be made for that, and it could not be made in a single clause; it would require an Act to itself. But even if the right hon. Gentleman were to answer him satisfactorily on that point, his objection—an objection which was shared by every hon. Member on the Irish benches, and by some hon. Gentlemen opposite—would remain as it was. The clause was in his opinion anticipating, and unfairly anticipating, the settlement of the University question. They felt very strongly on that question. They had been urging the claims of their co-religionists in this matter for nearly half-a-century. Measure after measure had been proposed in this House for dealing with that grievance, and popular opinion in Ireland—not only on the part of the Catholics, but also on the part of tolerant Protestants—was unanimous as to its removal. The Prime Minister had admitted the existence of the grievance, and had asked that it should be removed; but it still remained unredressed. A Ministry, many Members of which were pledged to the principle of dealing with this question, was in office for several years, and it still remained unredressed, and after those long years of patient and weary waiting for the redress of the University question, Trinity College—a rival and exclusive University—was able to put a blunderbuss to their heads and demand a new endowment in addition to its already large revenues.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that some of the speakers who had taken part in the debate said that in making his proposal he had avoided details, and had placed a somewhat scanty defence before the Committee. His defence for having avoided details was that he knew his right hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General was prepared to deal with the details of the question; and hon. Members who had
  74
  heard his right hon. and learned friend's speech would agree that he was right in leaving the matter to him, and not taking it into his own more clumsy hands. The defence of this proposal was to be found in the speech of the Solicitor-General. Any hon. Member who had listened to that speech would agree with the Government that the Trinity College question was a unique question, and a very complicated question; and that it did constitute a bar to purchase in areas which were scattered here and there over the whole of Ireland. The hon. Member who had just spoken went into the distribution of the purchase money, and said that on the face of the Bill the middleman could sell without consulting Trinity College. That was not an overstatement of the case; but there was sometimes not only one but two, and in some cases three, middlemen intervening between the occupier of the soil and the superior interests of Trinity College. In the complicated task of ascertaining the value of these interests and of redeeming the superior interest, if it were not law it was human nature and sure prophecy to say that the fact that the business could be carried through would be an element of very potent and very beneficial effect. The middleman would not sell if he believed that after the sale he would get nothing but the bonus. Therefore, without following the argument of the hon. Gentleman at too great a length, he might say that the fact of putting sufficient in the general pool to leave the middleman something more than the bonus was a rough-and-ready, but, as far as it went, a practical help towards the solution of this difficult problem. Would it go far enough? He was not now speaking of money alone. He was very much struck by the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, with part of which he was disposed to concur. The hon. and learned Member asked them to substitute for this provision a separate and close investigation into the whole of the difficult questions of Trinity College head-rents and intervening interests. He could not accept that as a substitute; but he thought it would be well worth while for the Government to consider it as an addition. He feared that in respect of Trinity College and its head-rents and intervening interest they would find

  75
  the progress of land purchase delayed, and that would have the effect of disappointing the hopes which the Bill had raised. The result, as far as the occupier of the soil was concerned, would be accidental and adventitious. It was not his fault that he held under a lessee of Trinity College. They would have purchase going gaily forward on one side of the hedge and impossible on the other side.
  The hon. Gentleman for East Mayo asked why he was not prepared to deal with this problem in another session; and the hon. Gentleman followed that up by instituting a comparison between these 9,000 or 10,000 occupiers who held under lessees of Trinity College and the labourers of Ireland. If he could look at it from the abstract, he would be prepared to say that legislation that would give great satisfaction to the whole of the labourers of Ireland would be more important than legislation giving the advantage of purchase 9,000 tenants. But how could he look at it in the abstract? These 9,000 tenants were 9,000 out of all the occupying tenants in Ireland; and as this was a Bill to give the occupying tenants an opportunity of becoming the owners of their holdings he had to look at the 9,000 in relation to the balance of 490,000 tenants, and not in relation to the labourers of Ireland, whose wants he would consider in the ensuing months when the labours of this Bill were completed. He had been asked, "Why introduce a question of this magnitude so late in the session?"
  MR. T. M. HEALY: And at such short notice.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that he feared it would be difficult to give an answer which would be satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen opposite; but there had been an accommodating process going on, on parallel lines, involving a good many negotiations among those interested in the Bill. He was not saying that they had done all that they might have done, but every one had distinguished himself by a spirit of co-operation in dealing with questions more difficult than this one. Take the evicted tenants question. He should not dwell upon that, but many Members on his side of the House had co-operated to the best of their
  76
  power to arrive at a satisfactory agreement on that question. There remained a number of other questions, which remained in what he might call a state of suspended animation, and why should there be no set-off? The settlement of this matter had only been arrived at on Tuesday morning, and it was only one of a number of questions as to which he had been approached. As this was a Bill which was to carry goodwill to Ireland, he thought they ought not to allow this matter, touching a great institution of which all Irishmen were proud, to remain open, or to endanger its primary duty, that of educating the youth of the country.
  MR. CLANCYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had said that the defence of the Government proposal was to be found in the speech of the Solicitor-General for Ireland, but so far as he heard it the speech of the Gentleman was quite irrelevant to the issue before the Committee. The Solicitor-General dealt in his speech not with the question before the Committee but with the totally different question raised on the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Mid Armagh. The hon. and learned Gentleman discussed the relations between Trinity College and its middlemen, which had nothing to do with the question before the Committee. Whether the rents should be varied or not had no relation to the question of whether Trinity College should be reimbursed out of the equivalent grant, so that the defence of the hon. and learned Gentleman was no defence at all. The question was whether Trinity College on selling its superior interests ought to obtain out of an Irish Imperial fund £5,000 a year for ever; and the only ground upon which such a suggestion could be defended was that Trinity College occupied a unique position. But where was the difference between the position of Trinity College and all the other landowners of Ireland who only had a superior interest? The only difference that he could see was that in some cases Trinity College had acted under statute, and that the other owners had exercised their rights to agree with their tenants. That was the only difference. It was said that Trinity

  77
  College had middlemen under them, but there were hundreds of owners in Ireland in the same position whose superior interests were as well safeguarded as those of Trinity College; and that being so it was a most extraordinary thing that the Government should come at any time, but especially at a time like this, and pick out a single landlord for the purpose of making good to him the losses he might incur under this Bill by compulsory sale. Because Trinity College could be compulsorily relieved, and the price to be paid for its superior interests had to be determined by the Land Commission. In every county of every province in Ireland he could pick out dozens of landlords who had middlemen under them, and in their case the lowest middleman could sell to the tenants and every man above him could be redeemed against his will, but it was not suggested that all those landlords should be relieved. The Government proposed to compensate no one but Trinity College, the one landlord who in some respects had rendered itself most hated by the majority of the people of Ireland. But assuming that Trinity College ought to be compensated, the object of this Bill was a great Imperial object; its object was to pacify Ireland, to establish peace and settle the long-standing quarrel between landlord and tenant, and for that purpose Parliament was about to sanction a loan of £100,000,000 and a grant of £12,000,000, and if Trinity College was to be compensated surely the money required for effecting that object ought to be obtained out of an Imperial fund also. This grant of £5,000 a year was to be made not merely for fifteen years but for ever. How much could not that sum have done for the congested districts in the West of Ireland, or for all those poor localities which required piers and harbours, but were unable to provide the necessary money out of local sources? Instead of being so used, it was to be devoted to the endowment of an already rich University, which had certainly been too much favoured in the past, to the injury of the interests of the rest of Ireland.
  He was really astonished to hear the old story repeated about Trinity College being open to Catholics. It was open to
  78
  them in exactly the same sense as the Protestant churches were in the time of Cromwell. Trinity College did not satisfy Catholics, and it was to this institution, when other educational institutions were starved for lack of assistance, that a sum was to be given at the rate of £5,000 a year. The Chief Secretary had seemed to imply that a portion of the money would be pooled in order to filter into the pockets of the middlemen, who would thereby be induced to sell to their under-tenants. He did not think that would be the case. The £5,000 would be kept for Trinity College alone, to compensate it for any loss that might be incurred in the redemption of its superior interests. Not a penny would go into the pockets of the middle men for the purpose of facilitating land purchase. It was also urged that certain compensations were being given, the reference being to the ridiculous question of the reversions of the Crown. Those reversions were worth very little, and even that little had to be paid for, as there was no provision in the Bill, except in the case of an interest which had practically disappeared, for relieving the Irish tenant in the last resort from paying for these reversions. But even if the reverse were the case, it was no defence for this proposal.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid that if the estates, of which Trinity College was head landlord, were to be sold, Trinity College would undoubtedly suffer a considerable loss—a loss which had been put as high as £9,000 a year—and the question was whether the Committee were prepared to allow such a great educational institution to suffer that loss through the operation of a Bill from which so much good was expected. He believed that every friend of higher education in England and Ireland would deplore any result which either paralysed the activity or in anyway diminished the energies of that great institution. He regretted the hon. Member for the Scotland Division had seen fit to attempt to divert the discussion to the irrelevant question of the religious controversies in connection with Irish education. He would certainly not follow his example, and he was sorry the hon. Member had struck a jarring note which hitherto had

  79
  been conspicuously absent from the discussion. Trinity College deserved all the Committee could do for it. It had an illustrious history of which every Irishman was proud. It was almost the one institution founded in Ireland by England which had had such continuous success. For three centuries past Trinity College had been the home of literature, art, and science, and had produced many of the most illustrious men of the time. Had not such an institution a special right to claim the intervention of the Committee to save it from loss consequent upon the working of this Bill? It had been said that Trinity College had no more claim to be indemnified again loss than a private owner of superior interests. Surely the case of a great educational body, whose income was derived almost exclusively from land, was entirely different from that of a private individual? The Committee had been asked why Trinity College should be compensated, and Maynooth not. What would Maynooth receive under this Bill? Maynooth, and other institutions holding mortgages, would receive in full their mortgage money and all the interest. [Several IRISH MEMBERS: But not their income.]
  COLONEL NOLAN: Indemnify Maynooth, and we can settle the question.
  MR. BUTCHERthought there was hardly a place out of Ireland where a mortgagee would complain if he was repaid his money with interest in full. In view of the fact that Trinity College was a great educational institution and would suffer loss by the operation of the Bill, he held it was only right that provision should be made against its educational work being impaired through that loss. The only question was whether or not the money should come out of this particular fund. He did not deny that in some respects it would have been better if some other fund could have been drawn upon. But there was no other fund available, and that being so, he should certainly heartily support the clause.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid that it had been estimated that Trinity College might lose about £5,000 a year under this Bill. It
  80
  should not be forgotten that there was another college called Maynooth College. Trinity College educated the Protestant Church and Maynooth College the Catholic Church. It had been estimated that Maynooth College was going to lose £3,000 a year. That was the whole question. [NATIONALIST cries of "No, no."] He believed that was at the bottom of the whole of this debate. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Not at all, it never was mentioned.] That was his opinion at any rate. The Government were taking care of Trinity College but were taking no care of Maynooth College, which was placed practically in the same boat by this Bill. If this proposal were extended to Maynooth College he should be quite willing to vote for the Chief Secretary's proposal.
  MR. BOLANDsaid there was no proposal in the Bill to make either Trinity College or any other college sell its land, and they were giving this money to Trinity College without any compulsion to sell. Out of money due to primary education for the great majority of the Catholic children of Ireland they were going to devote £5,000 to maintain an utterly un-national University in Ireland, in its present position, and this would prevent the possibility of the education question in Ireland being regarded upon fair grounds in the future. It would be to the advantage of Trinity College to have no sales at all, but allow this £5,000 a year to accumulate indefinitely, and he believed this clause would have an absolutely opposite effect to that which was intended.
  MR. POWERsaid that after the speech of the Chief Secretary he had come to the conclusion that the Nationalist Members had been treated most unfairly upon this matter. The object of this Bill was to promote the transfer of land from the landlords to the occupiers, and in that object all parts of the House concurred. When this Bill was laid upon the Table of the House it was never contemplated that it would be used as a medium for a further endowment to Trinity College. All sections of the House had reason to complain that with little or no notice this clause was "dumped" down and they were asked to pass an endowment

  81
  of £5,000 a year. Very few Irish Members had ventured to take part in this discussion to support the views of His Majesty's Government. Very few Irish Members who voted for this endowment could face their constituencies with equanimity. He could not differentiate between Trinity College and other people in Ireland who possessed similar interests. He would not follow the hon. and learned Member for York into a discussion upon the merits of Trinity College. The Solicitor-General had told them that Trinity College was a great institution of which they might all be proud. He agreed that this College had produced eminent men, but as a Catholic he contended that it had failed in its mission in a most disgraceful way and left the vast majority of an intelligent people without the University education which would fit them for their part in life. He did not know why this differentiation should be made, because there were many other institutions in Ireland which had a much greater claim upon the public purse. He failed to see how they would be able to deal with other institutions like Maynooth later on after this proposal had been carried. He had heard no justification for the Government adopting this course under a Bill for transferring the ownership of land from the landlord to the tenant. The Government appeared to be seeking by a side wind to give a further endowment to an institution which had failed in its mission and which had already had too much from public funds.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he wished to impress upon the Chief Secretary the great difficulty in which he had placed hon. Members representing Irish constituencies. This debate illustrated the truth of the fact that the House of Commons was the place where surprises continually took place. They had got on fairly well with the Land Bill so far, and they had discussed it without treading upon those topics which in the past had caused strong Party feeling in Ireland; but now, by some evil chance, on the very last day of the Committee stage they came down expecting their labours to be over, and found themselves suddenly launched into a debate upon the one subject which above all others was most calculated to arouse Party feeling in Ireland
  82
  and the strongest possible expression of opinion from hon. Members in this House. If Nationalist Members followed the example which had been set by the hon. and learned Member for York, there would be no prospect of making, any progress with the Bill that day beyond this Amendment. He did not think anybody wished to enter into a discussion of the position of Trinity College, or of education in Ireland but it was an unfortunate thing that Trinity College should be treated in this special manner. He was perfectly certain that when the people of Ireland read that almost the first grant made from this sum of money given to Ireland was to Trinity College there would be consternation and indignation from one end of the country to the other. He had been simply inundated with letters from all parts of his constituency, and from all over the country containing suggestions as to how a considerable proportion of this money could be spent to better the education of the masses of the people and approving of the national system. He had received letters from national school teachers and managers in every portion of the county of Clare begging him to bring before the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of giving some of this equivalent grant to improve the national schools, many of which were in a deplorable condition. The schools were not properly heated in the winter time, and even from the point of view of making the schools habitable and tolerable, money ought to be spent upon them. He had told the people repeatedly that he believed that when this money came to be allotted large sums would be spent for improving educational facilities amongst the masses, and that, pending this Land Bill, it was impossible to deal with the matter. Tomorrow those people would find that the first sum dealt with out of this equivalent grant had been allotted not to education but had actually been given to Trinity College. It was enough to break the heart of any man who strove to bring conviction home to the people that any Government in this country could deal fairly and squarely by them. As a University for national purposes in Ireland, Trinity College had lamentably failed. This was not an occasion for discussing

  83
  the University question of Ireland, and yet it was almost forced upon them. He would beg the Chief Secretary at the last moment to try if he could hit upon some other plan of dealing with the matter than the one set forth in the Amendment they were discussing. He told the Chief Secretary with every desire to make the final stages of this Bill unanimous and satisfactory to all Parties that this one thing was a taint on their proceedings and would embitter all the good things that had gone before.
  It had been said that the Chief Secretary had endeavoured to meet the representatives of the masses of the Irish people, and he believed the Bill as amended undoubtedly proved that. Still the good results of any steps the Chief Secretary had taken to meet them in these matters would be completely wiped out and obliterated by this last proposal, which would raise in Ireland in one second all the question which most divided the people, and which were most calculated to cause excitement in the country. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to deal in a special way with estates where there were middlemen let him devise some scheme in future and deal not alone with property of Trinity College but with all properties where there were middlemen. And if money was to be devoted to the solution of that branch of the question, in the name of Heaven let him have one more interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view of getting the money from some other source. When £185,000 was placed at the disposal of the Irish Government as an education equivalent grant the very first thing the Chief Secretary did with it was to give £5,000 to Trinity College. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well from his intercourse with men of all sections in the country that this proposal was bad in itself. It would seem a great deal worse to the people of Ireland. It would be taken really as a challenge to them not only on the University question, but on the question of education generally in Ireland. In the name of goodness let them leave this equivalent grant alone until they could apply it to national purposes which would meet with the approval of a vast majority of the Irish people. He hoped the example of the hon. Gentleman
  84
  the Member for York would not be followed. This was not the time to go into the questions raised by the very mention of the name of Trinity College. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow them to depart from the House that evening with the consciousness that this Bill had been carried through in a spirit of toleration and fair play. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not in the last lines send a message to Ireland which would cause great indignation in the country.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNGasked whether this grant was conditional on the transfer of the land of Trinity College to the tenants?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that if the hon. Member would read the words of the clause he would see that it was only put aside for that purpose, and that it could be used for no other. He assured the hon. Member for East Clare that he had had in this matter to deal with a practical difficulty. He knew the solution he had adopted would not commend itself to hon. Members from Ireland. He wished he could find an alternative. He did not feel that he could leave this question out and he was afraid he must ask the Committee to allow the clause to pass. He knew the fund on which the burden fell was a fund to which all Ireland was looking, and he did not attempt to minimise the disappointment hon. Members felt. He would far sooner that the money could be found from another source. But the same objection would be raised if they looked to any other source. He was not in a position to lay his hand on money for the purpose. He should be sorry if the Committee stage, which had proceeded with so much amity, were to end in another tone, and he hoped that would not be the case.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: We will forget all about it in three months.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he believed this vote now to be passed would do no good to Trinity College, but rather the reverse. It

  85
  would embitter feeling against that institution. He was going to vote deliberately against this grant to Trinity College, because when he went through Ireland he saw the ruins of Irish Catholic Universities, and because University Education was withheld from his Catholic fellow countrymen. He would not have the heart in these circumstances to vote an additional endowment of £5,000 to Trinity College. The 220,000 acres held by Trinity College came to that institution from the Catholic University in Dublin. Before
  Oxford and Cambridge were founded the Irish Universities shed their light all over Europe, but these institutions were now silent. He had heard the Prime Minister say that he had not the heart to propose a Vote for £5,000 to Belfast College when the great mass of the Irish people who were Roman Catholics had no College at all.
  Question put.
  Committee divided. Ayes, 197; Noes, 134. (Division List No. 140.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Baird, John George Alexander

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Balfour, Captain C. B. (Hornsey)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

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

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bill, Charles

  Garfit, William

  Maasey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Bond, Edward

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Gordon Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Brassy, Albert

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Butcher, John George

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Morton, Artbur H. Aylmer

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

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Groves, James Grimble

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hain, Edward

  Myers, William Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Mid'x

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Chamberlayne, T. (Southmptn

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Chapman, Edward

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Charrington, Spencer

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Colomb, Sir. John Charles Ready

  Hoult, Joseph

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Renwick, George

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hutton John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Robinson, Brooke

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kerr, John

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Denny, Colonel

  Keswick, William

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Webb, Col. William George

  Wylie, Alexander

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

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

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-un.-Lyne

  Younger, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. Oxford Univ.

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

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

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

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

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Dowd, John

  Blake, Edward

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Boland, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Malley, William

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Mara, James

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burns, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Shee, James John

  Burt, Thomas

  Kitson, Sir James

  Partinglon, Oswald

  Caldwell, James

  Lambert, George

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Cameron, Robert

  Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Reddy, M.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Leng, Sir John

  Roche, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Russell, T. W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lundon, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Cullinan, J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dalziel, James Henry

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Delany, William

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Sullivan, Donal

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Govern, T.

  Thomas, E. Freeman (Hastings)

  Dillon, John

  M'Kean, John

  Thompson, Dr. E. C. (Monagh'n, N.

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Tomkinson, James

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Tully, Jasper

  Duffy, William J.

  Mather, Sir William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mooney, John J.

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Murnaghan, George

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fenwick, Charles

  Murphy, John

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Field, William

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Young, Samuel

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norman, Henry

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Captain Donelan.

  Question "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he proposed to move as an Amendment to add to the end of the clause—
  "Provided this grant-in-aid shall be so applied for a period of five years from the date of the passing of this Act."
  They had had a great deal of discussion on a time limit as to the general application
  88
  of the bonus, and he thought that there was a great deal to be said against the application of the time limit to the bonus itself, from the standpoint of the Stock Exchange; but nothing could really be urged against confining this grant-in-aid to Trinity College to a period of five years.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that the Amendment would practically negative the whole clause—the point of which was that the grant must be continuous. He could not receive the Amendment.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  New clause (Provision for sale at a loss of congested estates).
  "In page 20, after Clause 39, to insert the following clause—'(1) On the completion of the re-sale of any congested estate purchased by the Land Commission an account shall be prepared showing the profit or loss in connection with the purchase and re-sale of the whole of the congested estates purchased and re-sold up to date. (2) If the account shows on the whole of the transactions a net loss, that is to say, an excess in the amounts paid by the Land Commission over the capital sums realised by the Land Commission for re-sales, interest at the rate of two and three-quarters per cent. and sinking fund at the rate of ten shillings per cent. on the amount of the said net loss, within a limit of ten per cent. of the aggregate sums realised by the re-sale of the estates, shall, in accordance with rules made by the Treasury, be paid as part of the expenses of the Land Commission, and credited to the Irish Land Purchase Fund, until the amount of the loss is discharged. (3) In calculating the profit and loss on the purchase and re-sale of congested estates, no account shall be taken of any money expended by the Land Commission for the benefit or improvement of the estates, nor of any increase of price obtained by them in consequence of such expenditure.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  New clause (Resumption of holdings by Congested Districts Board).
  "In page 34, after Clause 75, to insert the following clause—'The resumption of a holding during the continuance of a statutory term by the Congested Districts Board may be authorised under Sub-section 6 and Section 5 of the Act of 1881 for the purposes of migration or the enlargement of holdings in addition to the purposes specified in that sub-section.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  New clause (Under Secretary to be member of Board).
  "In page 34, after Clause 75, to insert the following clause—'The Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant shall be ex-officio a member of the Congested Districts Board.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  New clause (Scheme under Labourers Acts to be framed by Land Commission).
  "In page 37, after Clause 84, to insert the following clause—'(1) Where the Land Commission have purchased an estate, or where application is made to the Commission to sanction advances for the purchase of holdings comprised in an estate, they shall make inquiry as to whether accommodation is needed for labourers on the estate, and if of opinion that such accommodation is needed they shall frame a scheme providing there for. (2) Every such scheme shall be forwarded to the Local Government Board for Ireland and the council of the rural district in which the land comprised in the scheme is situate, and shall be deemed a representation made to the council under the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, and those Acts shall apply accordingly.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBmoved as an Amendment to omit from the first sub-section, line 1, after the word "estate" to the word "estate" in line 3. The effect of this Amendment would be to exclude from the operation of the clause estates sold by the landlord direct to the tenants without coming to the Land Commission.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 1, to leave out from the word 'or' to the word 'estate' in line 3."—(Sir John Colomb.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that his hon. and gallant friend must be aware that both under the Land Act of 1881 and the Land Purchase Act of 1891, it was competent for the Commissioners to direct that provision be made for labourers who lived on the farm. The Commissioners would be more free to act when they purchased the estate. It had to be remembered that the scheme when promoted would only amount to representation. If the District Council made up its mind it would have the power to acquire compulsorily as much land as was necessary. It did not prevent in any way the sale being carried out, but simply put the new proprietors in the same position as the old proprietor.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the proposal was ridiculous and utterly ineffective. It might well be relegated to accompany the Bill which they were told might be introduced next session. As he understood it, the idea was to place the Estates Commissioners, who did not know the district at all, in the place of the boards of guardians who did know it, and to enable the Estates Commissioners to carry out the work at the expense of the boards of guardians. It merely meant that the Estates Commissioners could make a representation which any twelve labourers could make at the present moment. The whole clause was a farce. He could not conceive that either Mr. Wrench or Mr. Bailey would have the interests of the labourers more at heart than would the Poor Law guardians. It was the acme of ridicule.
  *MR. O'SHEEthought this clause was an advantage because, individually, labourers very often made a mistake which told against their own interests.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he only wanted an assurance that the scheme would in no way interfere or delay the sanction where the Commissioners purchased the whole of the estate. He did not like the clause, but he would not pursue the matter further.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid one advantage would be that the Commissioners would have the whole thing before them, whereas
  92
  at present each labourer sent in his own representation, and it was never done in the right way. Here the Commissioners would promote a general scheme that would be sent forward to the District Council.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLcould understand that the Estates Commissioners would be better able to form a scheme than the individual labourer. But if the Estates Commissioners made up their scheme and sent it forward to the Local Government Board and the District Council, who was to defend it or press it on if the District Council would have nothing to do with it?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid it had to be remembered that as often as not these Councils refused to act.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to-make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [In the Committee.]
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  *MR. O'SHEEsaid the Amendment he now proposed was for the purpose of enabling the local District Councils to do for the labourers living outside the villages and towns that which they now had power to do for those living inside the villages and towns, namely, to acquire tracts of land and parcel them out in allotments among the labourers. He never could understand the distinction which had been made in the Labourers Acts with regard to this matter. His Amendment was to insert in the new

  93
  clause before the word "accommodation" the word "house," and after the word "accommodation," "land for allotment," and after the word "accommodation" in the next line "or land." At present, under Section 16 of the Act of 1885, local authorities had power to compulsorily acquire land in towns and villages, and parcel out that land among the labourers living in those towns and villages. What he proposed to do by his Amendment was to give the Rural District Councils an extension of that right by enabling them to parcel out this land to any labourers. He could never understand the restriction placed upon the Rural District Council in this matter, but the fact remained that whereas they could grant allotments to labourers living in the villages and towns, they could not grant allotments to labourers outside without providing them with a house. He had put this Amendment down as a consequence of the statement of the Chief Secretary when he raised the question on Clause 4. The right hon. Gentleman then pointed out that the proper place to discuss it would be in Part IV. of the Bill, where he stated he intended to put down a clause to deal with the question. The word "accommodation" in the clause of the right hon. Gentleman read in conjunction with the Labourers Acts could only be interpreted to mean house accommodation, and his contention was that it should also include land accommodation and land for allotment. In many cases labourers living outside the villages and towns had fairly comfortable houses, which, at a small expense, could be made sanitary and fairly suitable for their accommodation, and they only applied for new houses in order to obtain the allotments which went with them. The provision of new houses for the labourers threw a very great burden upon the rates, and all he sought to do by his Amendments was to enable the rural district councils to allot land to those labourers without being under the necessity to provide them also with a house. His Amendments, if carried, would make the clause read as follows—
  "(1) Where the Land Commission have purchased an estate, or where application is made to the Commission to sanction advances for the purchase of holdings comprised in an estate, they shall make inquiry as to whether house accommodation or land for allotment is needed for labourers on the estate, and if of opinion
  94
  that such accommodation or land is needed they shall frame a scheme providing there for."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 4, after the word 'whether' to insert the word 'house,' after the word 'accommodation' to insert the words 'or land for allotment.' and in line 5, after the word 'accommodation,' to insert the words 'or land.'"—(Mr. O'Shee.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that he had great sympathy with the views and object of the hon. Member, who desired to give allotments to labourers living in the country, though no house had been built for them. But he desired to point out to the hon. Member that his suggestion really amounted to an alteration of the Labourers Acts, and in this way he had misapprehended the object of the Chief Secretary's Amendment, which was to render effective the provisions which had hitherto been abortive in the Acts of 1881 and 1890. The question of allotments and their size should be left aside until they came to be dealt with in the general measure which the Chief Secretary proposed to introduce.
  MR. O'SHEEurged that the Amendment was a reasonable one. He had put down an Amendment to Clause 4 to enable trustees to acquire land for allotments. He had also put down an Amendment to Clause 2 to include labourers among the classes of persons entitled to obtain untenanted land. The Chief Secretary had asked that the discussion of the claims of the labourers should be deferred until Part IV. was reached, and he had undertaken to deal in the now clause which he then promised with the question of allotments of land. But the clause as it stood did not fulfil the promise of the right hon. Gentleman in consequence of which he had withdrawn his Amendment to Clause 4, stating that he did so on the understanding that the claims of the labourers to a share of the untenanted lands would not thereby be jeopardised.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid a good deal which the hon. Gentleman had said had greatly interested him, but he would ask the hon. Gentleman in this matter for

  95
  one moment to place himself in his position. Since the discussion on Clause 2 a great deal had happened, but nothing had happened to diminish the claims of the labourers, while much had been done to convince them that they could not deal adequately with the question at the present moment. He would ask the hon. Member to realise that it was not fair to hon. Members on both sides of the House, who were deeply interested in various questions, to suggest that his Amendment should be accepted and theirs pushed aside. That was not likely to conduce to a proper solution of the labourers' question. He appealed to the hon. Member not to try and amend the general law at half-past nine on the 8th July. If that were attempted other Members would naturally follow suit, and it would be impossible to discriminate between their Amendments. They must therefore make up their minds either to devote another fortnight to the Bill or to deal with the question next year. If they would adopt the latter course he would pledge himself to give his attention to the matter in the autumn, and he would welcome and consider any suggestions the hon. Member might forward to him.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. CULLINANmoved a further Amendment, the object of which he said was to expedite proceedings.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To add at the end of the proposed new clause the following—'When the Council of the rural district approve of any such scheme the Local Government Board shall sanction the same without inquiry.'"—(Mr. Cullinan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. ATKINSONdescribed this as an attempt to galvanise into life two Acts which had proved dead letters. The Government could not accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Chief Secretary if he were seized of the fact that the case of the labourers in the north of Ireland was totally different from that of the south.
  MR. WYNDHAMreplied in the affirmative. He had gone to a certain extent into the question, and pledged himself to use his utmost endeavours to promote legislation next year.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  New clause.
  "In page 38, after Clause 85, to insert the following clause—'Nothingin this Act shall affect (a) any sporting rights, mineral rights, or water rights which are not in the possession or enjoyment of the vendor at the time of sale; (b) any mine or quarry which is being worked or developed by the vendor at the time of sale; or (c) any right to water power in actual use by the vendor at the time of sale.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he had intended to move several Amendments to this clause, but he would instead ask for an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that between this and the Report stage he would reconsider this question. The clause was not in any sense satisfactory. It proceeded upon two opposite principles in dealing with matters of outside arrangement between landlord and tenant. He had never been an advocate of taking anything from the tenants which really belonged to them. This clause proposed to exclude from the operation of the Bill sporting rights which were not in the possession or enjoyment of the vendor at the time of sale, while it also excluded mines and quarries, which were being worked by the vendor at the time of sale. These were two exactly opposite principles. A vendor might before sale open and work a quarry on the tenants' land, and would have the right permanently reserved to him; but, on the other hand, if he had a salmon or trout fishery in his own use and enjoyment it would have no protection at all. Surely the same principle ought to apply to both cases? Again, there were many mines in Ireland which were in process of working in the bad times of 1879–1882, which had in consequence to be stopped, because the circumstances of the period frightened away capital, and if

  97
  they were to lay down the principle that landlords were to be deprived of their rights in them because they were not actually being worked at the time of sale, the Bill would not be likely to bring a message of peace to Ireland. As to the sporting rights, Mr. Gladstone in his Act of 1881 was very careful to reserve the rights of landlords. The right hon. Gentleman had not been equally careful, and, therefore, this clause required reconsideration before the Report stage. He asked for an assurance that it should receive it.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid his hon. and gallant friend would not deny that the clause represented the general arrangement which was arrived at on a former occasion, and he thought he would feel that the question ought not to be reopened during the Committee stage. Of course, there would be an interval before Report, and during this interval he would be willing to listen to his hon. and gallant friend. But he would in return ask him to listen to him. If he would, he did not despair of convincing him that the clause was satisfactory.
  MR. DILLONhoped the right hon. Gentleman would also listen to the Nationalist Members, who thought a great deal too much was given to the landlords.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would, of course, listen to every one. But he urged that they could not profitably re-open the question at that stage.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he spoke for very large interests, and he doubted if the right hon. Gentleman, with all his tremendous power of persuasiveness, would convince him that the clause was fair as it stood.
  MR. KENNETH BALFOURdesired to enter his protest against the proposal to take away without payment the mineral rights now owned by landlords.
  MR. JOYCEsuggested that fishermen had rights which they had exercised for many years, and which ought also to be safeguarded.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think they are.
  MR. JOYCE: I don't think so, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will put in words to make it clear.
  MR. BUTCHERpointed out the necessity for some definition of mineral and water rights.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  COLONEL NOLAN, on behalf of the hon. Member for North Monaghan, moved the following new clause:
  New clause (Erection of new cottages)—
  "In page 37, after Clause 84, to insert the following clause, 'Where there is a labourer in occupation of a cottage which is declared on inspection by the health officer both unhealthy and possessing insufficient accommodation, and which is necessary for the proper working of the farm upon which it is built, the District Council, on receiving the health officer's report, shall direct the erection of a new cottage, and shall have power to purchase an acre of ground surrounding the cottage, for the purposes of the labourer.'"—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this clause be read a second time."
  MR. WYNDHAMrepeated his appeal to hon. Members not to bring forward those Amendments affecting the labourers' question. He had already promised to consider this matter in the autumn.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I withdraw the clause.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HAYDEN, on behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin County N. moved the following clause—
  New clause (removal of restraints on alienation).
  "For the purpose of a sale under the Land Purchase Acts, as defined by this Act, whether to the Land Commission or otherwise, all covenants, agreements, and conditions in any lease or fee farm grant prohibiting, restraining, or tending to restrain the alienation of any land held there under, shall be deemed to be wholly void and inoperative, and so much of Section 33 of

  99
  the Act of 1870 and Section 29 of the Land Act of 1881 as requires the waiver or determination of such prohibition is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Hayden.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he would accept the clause, on the understanding that between now and the Report stage he should be at liberty to consider the matter, as possibly some of the provisions at the end of the clause were rather too wide.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. O'KELLY: In moving a new clause, "Definition of congested districts," said he hoped to convince the Committee that several districts in the West were wrongly excluded from the operation of the Congested Districts Act, because the Board in making their valuations included valuations of each grazing rancher so as to artificially increase the valuation per head of the population to more than the 30s. limit. In view of the remarks that fell from the Chief Secretary a few days ago on the subject of the definition of congested areas, he could hardly have believed that he would resist a revision of the present system of scheduling districts—indeed, considering what he said on that occasion he was rather surprised that the Chief Secretary did not introduce a clause into the Bill dealing with this very important matter. At the present moment no electoral division answered to the description of a scheduled district if the valuation per head of the population was above 30s., but they knew, and no one knew it better than the Chief Secretary, that there were many districts where the condition of the people is not one whit better than the condition of those in the scheduled areas; yet under the present system these districts could not be brought within the Congested Districts Act of 1891. He could understand the fixing of the 30s. limit. Any rough and ready index sufficed in the experimental stages of the Board's work, but surely these stages were long
  100
  since passed. The time had come to enlarge the scope of the Board's work, and the first step in this direction must be the abolition of the 30s. limit. As he said, it did not much matter in the beginning, but as a fixed and permanent standard by which the condition of the people in the West was to be judged, he knew nothing more fallacious and misleading. Several districts now excluded would answer to the definition of a congested district if the calculations were made on the valuation of the actual holdings of the occupiers, a course that would seem the perfectly obvious one, but the Board could not do that. They had to include the valuation of the large grazing tracts, which had as little relation to the condition of the people as the gold mines in the Transvaal, with the result that the per head valuation of the population was artificially raised far above the standard. Let him show how this method worked. In the Claremorris Union, in the county of Mayo, there are nineteen electoral divisions, of which eleven are scheduled as congested. Eight divisions are unscheduled, although, to his own knowledge, not a single one of them is a bit better off than the scheduled districts. Take Ballindine electoral division; its area is 5,502 acres, population 849, valuation £3,136, roughly. The valuation works out at £3 13s. per head of the population when the grazing land is included. Of the 5,502 acres in the division, 3,403 acres were grazing land, and are in the sole occupation of four individuals, the 849 people having to be content with the balance of 2,099 acres, but if the valuation of the grazing land, which was £1,863, be excluded, the valuation per head of the people falls, roughly, from £3 13s. to £1 9s., at which figure the Ballindine Electoral Division could be scheduled as a congested district. In Caraun Division the per bead valuation, including the grazing land, was £1 16s. Excluding it, it dropped to a little over £1 1s. In Crossboyne Division, where twelve graziers hold nearly 2,000 acres out of a total of 3,437 acres, with a grazing valuation of £1,189, as against an occupying valuation of only £884, the per head valuation including the grass ranches ran up to £3 17s. Excluding them, it dropped to £1 6s,, well within

  101
  the figure at which they could be scheduled. In this paradise of the ranches 675 people had to be content with about 1,400 acres, whilst twelve graziers enjoy 2,000 acres. In Kilcolman the per head valuation, including grazing land, was £2 4s, excluding it £1 10s. In Ballyhowley Division, the per head valuation, including grazing land, was, roughly, £1 18s., excluding it, roughly, £1 11s. And so on. Taking the whole union, excluding the valuation of grazing land, which amounted to £8,949, the per head valuation came to a little over £1 6s. It was admitted by everyone that holdings valued at or under £8, some would say £10, but he confined himself to the former figures, were not sufficient to afford subsistence to a family. These were the very holdings which needed the attention of a body such as a Congested Districts Board. They were the holdings which needed to be enlarged and improved, but as those stood now they were shut out from any help. In Ballindine Electoral Division there were 173 holdings under £8 out of a total of 187; in Ballyhowley, 121 out of 187; in Caraun, 170 out of 218; in Crossboyne, 110 out of 137; in Carry more, 176 out of 256; in Kilcolman, 115 out of 162; in Mayoabbey, 149 out of 192; in Tagheen, 100 out of 125 — making 1,114 holdings under £8 valuation out of a total of 1,459 holdings in the eight unscheduled but really congested electoral divisions of the Claremorris Union. He would be curious to know what defence the Chief Secretary could make of a plan of scheduling that excludes 1,114 occupiers under £8 from the operation of an Act that was passed for the relief of that very class; and he might say here that almost three-fourths of these 1,114 holdings were under £4 valuation. These extraordinary anomalies were produced in every union in Mayo that was not scheduled as wholly congested. Take Killala Union. In this union but two of the eight divisions were scheduled. In the scheduled there were 439 occupiers of £8 valuation, while in the unscheduled districts there were no fewer than 1,004 under £8. How can the Chief Secretary have said that he was satisfied with the definition of a congested county that excluded 70
  102
  per cent. of small holders, the great majority of whom were under £4 valuation, in one of the poorest unions in the west of Ireland? Take Ballina Union. There are twenty divisions, of which ten were unscheduled In these ten unscheduled districts there were no fewer than 1,632 holdings under £8, the great majority of them being under £4. Here over 42 per cent of the small holders are excluded. Take Castlebar Union. Eight divisions out of nineteen were defined as congested. In the eleven undefined districts there were 2,917 holdings under £8, the great majority of them being under £4. Out of a total in the scheduled and non-scheduled divisions under £8, 5,444, or over 53 per cent. of the very poorest people were put outside an Act that was supposed to be passed for their benefit. What was the condition of things in Ballinrobe Union? Five out of eighteen divisions were scheduled. In the scheduled portion there were only 794 occupiers under £8, whilst in the unscheduled divisions there were 2,649 or nearly 77 per cent. of the small occupiers excluded by an arbitrary and senseless definition. Ballinrobe was essentially the land of grazing ranches. The thirteen divisions unscheduled were kept outside the provisions of the Congested Districts Act, because the high valuation of the grazing ranches, in which the Ballinrobe Union abounds, took them far above the 30s. limit. The occupying valuation in this union was £27,780, the grazing valuation no less than £26,000, forty-seven landlords, of whom thirty-four were absentees, holding one-third of the entire union; 43,115 acres at a valuation of £15,000; and thirty-four graziers, of whom sixteen were absentees, holding nearly 18,000 acres, at a valuation of nearly £10,000. It was not difficult to understand that in this union, in these circumstances the per head valuation was over £2 13s., including the grass lands, of course, whilst the per head valuation falls to £1 4s 3d. when the grazing lands were omitted from the calculation. He had not referred to the few unscheduled districts in Westport Union. In Belmullet and Swinford all the divisions were scheduled. From the figures placed at their disposal by the excellent reports prepared by the clerk of the Mayo unions they find that

  103
  over 9,000 occupiers under £8 valuation, representing some 40,000 people, the very class of small holders to whom the work of the Board would be an advantage, had their divisions unscheduled through a provision for which the Chief Secretary would find it hard to make even a plausible defence. What he (Mr. O'Kelly) suggested was that the counties be scheduled as a whole. Let the Board not be hampered in its work by a rule which confines its labours within narrow and arbitrarily selected areas. Let it be free to apply itself to congestion where congestion exists. The present Bill would give the Board a larger and increased credit. Let the area of its work be increased accordingly. He asked to have the counties scheduled as a whole. It was true that he did not give the figures for any county save Mayo, but the condition in the county of Mayo approximately represented the condition in every other county of the West. He would watch with interest to see whether the Chief Secretary would put an end to a system which results in such unfair and indefensible distinctions between the same class of small occupiers, and which were so lucidly set forth in the admirable reports of the Mayo District Council. However, the Chief Secretary said there were difficulties in the way of rescheduling. Of course there were. The land question bristled with difficulties in every aspect of it, but what was Parliament for? What were Irish Secretaries and Irish Law Advisers for? To solve these difficulties, of course. The Chief Secretary wanted this Bill to settle for ever the Irish agrarian difficulties, but his refusal to revise the present system of scheduling would not tend to improve matters in the West, and surely he ought to know by this time that until the problem of congestion be solved the last word would not have been said on the Irish land question. He begged to move.
  New clause (Definition of Congested Districts)—
  "The whole of each of the counties of Galway, Mayo, Sligo Roscommon, Leitrim, Cork, Kerry. Limerick, Clare, and Donegal shall be a congested districts county within the meaning and for the purposes of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts as amended by this Act."—(Mr. O'Kelly.)
  Brought up and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. DILLONsaid he desired to support the speech of his hon. friend, although it might not be of much avail at that period of the discussion. The original system under which these districts were scheduled was preposterous, and the only answer that had ever been made was that when the original schedules were prepared the Board had no conception of the importance of migration. It was a great misfortune that the Chief Secretary had not dealt with the question in this Bill in a more liberal and comprehensive spirit, but it was only fair to the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had mot many of the objections by the Act of 1901. That was a very valuable Act, as it gave the Congested Districts Board power to buy estates in any part of Ireland, and to turn them for the time being into congested districts.
  MR. WYNDHAMurged that the Bill should be given a fair trial. He recognised that this question had been very briefly discussed, and hon. Members who were particularly interested in this particular matter had shown a great sense of proportion in subordinating their interests to the interests of Ireland as a whole. He himself felt very deeply in this matter, and might easily be led into making a long speech. It was impossible to re-schedule the congested districts without altering the fundamental financial provisions of the Bill and existing Acts, and that was an operation that could not be performed now. He agreed that the present system was arbitrary and fallacious as regarded congestion and migration; where he differed was as to the proper course to be taken to remedy that situation. Although the Government could not adopt the proposal of the hon. Member, they had gone a long way to turn the position, if they had not attempted to take it by a frontal attack. The Board with its great credit facilities and working capital could buy land anywhere in Ireland. Where would it buy land? Outside the areas of the congested districts. He had made the Estates

  105
  Commissioners into a Congested Districts Board, with a 10 per cent. loss in addition to the bonus for all their operations in cases of congestion, and they would operate in the very zone which the hon. Member thought was neglected. The labour of dealing with this Bill, though heavy, had been made light by the spirit of those who had taken part in the discussions, and the real work would begin at the end of August.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid that, with the permission of the Committee, he would withdraw the clause.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TULLY, on behalf of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, moved the following new clause.
  New clause (Mill holdings)—
  "Where a mill or other non-agricultural ingredient of a holding is held under the same tenancy as agricultural land, the tenant may apply to fix a fair rent on the agricultural portion of the holding, and the Court shall direct that the non-agricultural portion of the holding shall thenceforth be treated as a separate holding, and shall be held at such rent during the continuance of the tenancy as the Court may determine to be the proper proportion of the rent reserved by the demise, and the Court may fix a fair rent for the remainder of the holding, and the Land Law Acts shall apply thereto as if it was a separate holding. This section shall apply irrespective of the nature of the tenure or demise under which the tenancy has been created."—(Mr. Tully.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid this clause was really an Amendment of the Land Law Acts, and he was not prepared at the present time to take up anything in connection with those Acts. This was a demand to amend the Act of 1896 in a Land Purchase Bill, and it was practically asking the other House to consider the question of land laws as well as land purchase.
  Question put, and negatived.
  *MR. LONSDALEsaid this clause was designed to relieve tenants holding
  106
  under the Ulster Tenant Right Custom from certain disabilities, which in some cases had entailed much hardship and serious loss. These disabilities were connected with the sale by tenants of their holdings under the Ulster Custom. In effecting such a sale two methods of procedure were open to the tenant to adopt. He might proceed under the Act of 1881, which expressly provided that the rights of a tenant holding under the Ulster Custom should not be interfered with or injuriously affected. Or he might proceed under the Custom. The procedure was different in each case, and the tenant must take one course or the other. He could not sell partly under the Act of 1881 and partly under the Ulster Custom. If a tenant who wished to dispose of his holding elected to proceed under the Act of 1881, he served his landlord with notice of his intention to sell his holding. That notice could not be withdrawn, and so soon as the landlord received it, he might make an offer to the tenant to purchase the holding. The tenant might not think the offer sufficient; but in that case it was open to the landlord to apply to the Land Commission and get the "true value" of the holding fixed, and the landlord might then compel the tenant to sell his holding to him at the price fixed. Now, Sir, the "true value," as decided by the Land Commission, was not by any means the amount which the tenant might get in the open market. As a matter of fact, the price so fixed by the Commission has been considerably below the price which the tenant might have obtained had the landlord not exercised his compulsory powers. Still, the tenant, having once set the machinery of the Act of 1881 in motion, was absolutely powerless to arrest it, and in nearly every case tenants suffered heavy losses. Within recent years, in his own county of Armagh, there had been a considerable amount of litigation between landlords and tenants in consequence of the general exercise by landlords on two estates, of the right of pre-emption given by the Act of 1881. The result to the tenants had been loss through delay, as well as loss of the far better prices they might have obtained in the open market. The natural consequence was that the tenants on these estates abandoned the practice of

  107
  seliing under the Act of 1881, and attempted to proceed under the Ulster Custom. In a sale under the Custom the tenant was not bound to give notice to his landlord of his intention to sell. Having, made an arrangement for the sale of his holding, he took the would-be purchaser to the landlord or his agent and got him accepted as the tenant. Of course, if he were a very objectionable person the landlord might refuse to accept him as tenant, and in that case a more acceptable person would have to be found. This was the procedure which the tenants on the two estates in Armagh, to which he had alluded, had to adopt, when the result of selling under the Act of 1881 proved so prejudicial to their interest. They were, however, at once met by a new move on the part of the landlords. There was a general refusal to accept the purchaser. The object, of course, was to force the tenants to sell under the Act of 1881, so that the landlord might exercise his right of preemption. The matter was taken into the Courts, and at the Armagh Assizes on 10th March, 1899, Chief Baron Palles decided that the landlord could not be compelled to accept any purchaser, however unobjectionable, in a sale under the Custom, and that the only remedy the tenant appeared to him to have, was to make a claim for compensation under the Land Act of 1870. The result of that decision was that in many oases the tenants were practically debarred from selling They would not sell under the Act, because they knew that the result would be litigation, delay, and a price fixed considerably below the tenants' right value. They knew that if they attempted to sell under the Ulster Custom, the landlord or his agent would refuse to accept the purchaser. They were in a cleft stick, and had a distinct and definite grievance which Parliament ought to remedy. The remedy which he proposed was that the landlord should be obliged to accept a purchaser to whom he could not make reasonable objection, and that the Land Commission should have power to decide whether the landlord's objection was reasonable or not. It was suggested that in a sale by a tenant under the Ulster Custom, he should give notice to the landlord of the name of the purchaser and the amount of the purchase money. Then if the landlord objected,
  108
  the tenant would have the power to take the matter before the Land Commission and obtain a decision as to the reasonableness or otherwise, of the landlord's objection. If the Land Commission decided that the objection was not reasonable, the objection could be set aside and the landlord would be obliged to accept the purchaser. He begged to move.
  New clause (Ulster Custom)—
  "When a tenant has agreed for the sale of a holding to which the Ulster Tenant Right Custom, within the meaning of Section one of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act of 1870, applies, and such sale purports to be made under the Custom, but the landlord, in breach thereof, refuses to accept the purchaser as tenant, any party interested in such agreement may apply to the Land Commission Court, who shall have jurisdiction, subject to the prescribed rules, to decide upon the reasonableness or otherwise of the landlord's objection and, if it thinks fit, may make an order declaring the purchaser, notwithstanding such refusal, to be entitled to all the interests of the tenant in such holding; and the Land Commission shall have all such jurisdiction and authority to make a decree for enforcing the rights of the purchaser in such case, including the payment of costs, as are vested in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland relating to the specific performance of contracts, subject to the like appeal as in the case of other orders made by the Land Commission."—(Mr. Lonsdale.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLagreed that this was a burning question in Ulster. During these discussions they had been discussing the right of landlords to sell, and now he wished to call attention to the right of the tenant to sell. The right of the tenant to sell under the Ulster Custom never was questioned until quite recently. Take the case of a tenant under the Ulster Custom who desired to sell his interest in his holding. He would probably find a farmer willing to purchase. That farmer might be a man of unblemished character, perfectly solvent, and in every way a suitable tenant for the holding. They might agree upon terms, and then, according to immemorial custom, the purchaser and the vendor

  109
  proceeded to the rent office where the landlord was asked to accept the new tenant. For nearly 200 years that practice had gone on almost without exception. What took place now? Since the Act of 1881 was passed a new system had sprung up which allowed sale either under the Custom or under the Act. The tenant could sell under the Act of 1881, or under the Ulster Custom. If he sold under the Ulster Custom the farmer got the full market value and the landlord accepted the new tenant; but if he sold under the Act of 1881, the landlord had the right to exercise pre-emption and the landlord might come in and buy the holding at the true value and afterwards sell it at the full market price. This was a regular system—he would not call it a conspiracy—which had sprung up since the Act of 1881 to destroy the old Ulster Custom, and the very best tenants of the land were being penalised in this way, and were practically being robbed of one-third of their property. The Chief Secretary might say that this was a question of land law; so it was in one sense, but it was a sale in another, and the result would probably be that many estates would not be sold under this Act. He put it to the Chief Secretary whether this was a fair thing. Here was an immemorial custom which, by the way, was legalised in 1870 under the Statute. The Act of 1881 gave this right of pre-emption to the landlord, and he thought it was time Parliament took this matter into very serious consideration in order to bring relief to the majority of tenants in Ulster, who under this system had been deprived of their rights and robbed of their property.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that this was no doubt a burning question, but he hoped it would no longer remain a burning question, because this Bill would put an end to that practice. This Amendment would really do nothing to settle this controverted and complicated question. He hoped that, in view of the circumstances in which they found themselves, the Amendment would be withdrawn and the question raised on some other occasion.
  MR. DILLONsaid this was a proposal to exempt a section of the tenants of Ulster from a penalty which affected the whole tenants of Ireland. If the hon. Member would bring in an Amendment upon the Report stage abolishing the right of pre-emption, which was a most oppressive and outrageous right, then he would give him his heartiest support. The proper course was to abolish the right of pre-emption, because by that course the tenants' right of free sale would be preserved all over Ireland. This was a burning and all-important question, and if nobody else did it, he should raise it himself on Report. He knew a poor tenant in the county of Cavan who, after having been victimised by this penal provision, was committed for contempt of court two years ago, and was now lying in Dundalk Gaol because his family took possession of the farm against this right of pre-emption on the part of the landlord. That unfortunate man was going mad in gaol because he would not surrender to what he considered was an act of robbery on the part of his landlord.
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid the Committee were indebted to the hon. Member for Mid Armagh for bringing forward this Amendment. It was a question in which Ulster tenants were more interested than any other that had been broached in connection with the present Bill. Great injustice had resulted in the part of the country he represented from the capricious refusal of the landlord to accept a reasonable purchaser to whom the tenant had sold in the exercise of his immemorial tenant-right. He trusted the hon. Member would bring this question forward on the Report stage in such a shape that the House would have to decide whether this injustice was to continue.
  MR. WYNDHAMagreed that this was a burning question, but it could not be discussed that night. He wished to point out in regard to the general state of affairs that the position was this. They had an hour and ten minutes left to-night. If they did not finish the Committee stage to-night it

  111
  would go over to next week, and every day next week was allotted to other business. There was enough on the Paper to-night to take up a week of Parliamentary time, and he thought they should all be ready to make sacrifices in order to get the Bill through. He appealed to the Committee to take that view of the question.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he and his colleagues all desired that the Bill should go through Committee to-night, in order that they might have the Report stage at an early date. He thought it would be a great misfortune it the Committee stage did not finish to night. If it went over to next week that would throw back the Report stage, and in that case he did not know what the result would be. It would not get to the House of Lords for a fortnight or three weeks, and that would be very serious indeed. The question now before the Committee could be brought up on Report, and he thought it would be fair that hon. Members should make sacrifices to night in order to let the Bill through Committee. He hoped that the Chief Secretary would use his influence with the Government in order to secure that the Report stage should not be postponed for ten days or a fortnight.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid his influence would be exercised in that direction. The other House had a right to discuss the Bill, and would discuss it. To drive the discussion back into the second week of August would be an act of suicidal folly.
  *MR. LONSDALEsaid he had no desire to obstruct the passing of the Bill through Committee, but this was a matter of so much importance to his constituents that he should like some assurance that the Chief Secretary would give it his consideration.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he had two Amendments on the Paper, but he would not move them as he did not desire to delay the Bill. The question raised by the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh was
  112
  a most serious one for the province of Ulster, and it was unfortunate that it could not be discussed on account of the Committee having given five hours of this precious day to the discussion of a question relating to Trinity College.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid he would not move the following Amendment, of which he had given notice—
  "In the framing of any rules under the Land Purchase Acts, as amended by this Act, the President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland for the time being shall be associated with the Land Commission or the Estates Commissioners, as the case may be, as a member of the rule-making authority."
  He asked the Chief Secretary whether he could bring up a clause on the Report stage to give effect to the proposal.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would consider the point.
  MR. HEMPHILLmoved the following new clause. He said the object of the Amendment was merely to prevent the legal assistant Commissioner from being dismissed summarily.
  New clause (Tenure of legal assistant Com missioners)—
  "Each legal assistant Commissioner on the permanent staff shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and shall hold his office by the same tenure as a Commissioner, other than the Judicial Commissioner, as provided by Section 28 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891."—(Mr. Hemphill.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could develop his objection to the clause at length, but if he were to do so he should be sinning against the canon he had asked other people to observe. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he thought the following new clause, of which he had given notice was necessary—
  New clause (Extension of Section 40 of the Act of 1896 to certain estates,—
  "Where a judgment or order for sale of an estate in Ireland which is in the main agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral, has been or shall be made by the High Court of Justice in England or Ireland, or by the Court of Session in Scotland, the Judge making said judgment or order shall be deemed to be the landlord of the tenants upon said estate for the purpose of sales to the Estates Commissioners under the provisions of this Act, or to said tenants under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts as amended by this Act. And if a receiver has been appointed over the estate, or the estate is so circumstanced that it would, independently of this Act, be sold without the consent of the owner as to price, the provisions of Section 40 of the Act of 1896 shall have effect in regard to the estate in the same manner, and all proceedings under said Section 40 in regard to the estate shall be had and taken in the court of the Land Judge as if an absolute order for the sale of the estate had been made under the Landed Instates Court (Ireland) Act, 1858."—(Mr. William Redmond.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was conferring with the Lord Chancellor of England and the Lord Advocate for Scotland on the subject, and he hoped to arrive at a conclusion before the Report stage.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTmoved—
  New clauses (Labourers representation, Repeal and Interpretation)—
  "In page 37, after clause 84, to insert the following clauses:—Where it appears to the Local Government Board that the labourers are not sufficiently represented on any rural district council in any county, the Local Government Board may nominate any number of persons not exceeding three to act with the rural sanitary authority for the purposes of carrying out the Labourers (Ireland) Acts. And such person or persons shall be appointed for such term as the Local Government Board may think lit, not exceeding three years, and shall have all the powers of the elected members of the rural sanitary authority. Provided, however, that
  114
  the Local Government Board shall have power at any time to remove any such person or persons without filling up the vacancy caused by such removal. Section 3 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1891, is hereby repealed. A representation under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts shall mean a representation signed by not less than six persons, each one of whom must either be rated for the relief of the poor within the sanitary district or be included in the definition of an agricultural labourer contained in this Act."—(Mr. T. L. Corbett.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  *MR. LONSDALEsaid as the Chief Secretary had appealed to them to allow the Bill to pass through Committee to-night he hardly liked to take upon himself the responsibility for entering upon a statement of the reasons why this Amendment should be accepted. If the right hon. Gentleman could not accept it now he would bring it up on the Report stage.
  New clause (Trinity College and Church perpetuity leases)—
  "Holders of land under ecclesiastical perpetuity leases and Trinity College leases may apply to the Land Commission to have their rents reduced proportionately to the reductions of rent granted to their tenants; and the Land Commission shall reduce such rents accordingly, and shall, in the case of any holding subject to a judicial rent fixed or agreed to before the passing of the Act of 1890, make a further reduction of 10 per cent. on the rent payable for such holding."—(Mr. Lonsdale.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not accept the clause as proposed. He therefore thought the best course to pursue was for the hon. Member to give notice of the Amendment for the Report stage. Between now and the Report stage he would discuss the question with the hon Member.
  MR. FLAVINsaid there was a strong feeling in many parts of Ireland on this question.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. TULLYmoved the following new clause, of which Mr. Healy had given notice.
  New clause (Compulsory acquisition of land)—
  "Where any land or easement sold under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts is required by any local authority under any Act enabling such authority compulsorily to acquire same, no appeal shall lie from any order of the Local Government Board sanctioning the acquisition of such land under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, or the Local Government (Ireland) Acts, and the decision of the Judge of Assize under Section 10, Sub-section 3 (d) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, shall be final except when the order therein referred to is refused."—(Mr. Tully.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time.'
  MR. WYNDHAMexpressed the hope that as the hon. Member for North Louth was not present the hon. Member for South Leitrim would be satisfied if he agreed that this should be considered on Report.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TULLYmoved the following new clause, of which the hon. Member for South Meath had given notice.
  New clause (Covenants against tillage)—
  "Where by reason of any covenant expressed or implied the tenant of a holding (other than demesne lands) is restricted from tilling or meadowing the whole or any portion thereof, such covenant is hereby declared void and of no effect, and the tenant of every such holding shall be entitled to any advance which under Section 1 of this Act may be made to any other occupier."—(Mr. Tully.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. WYNDHAMappealed to the hon. Member to acquiesce in the self-denying ordinance and not press the Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he would not move the new clause on the Notice Paper in regard to labourers' allotments, as he understood the Chief Secretary was going to deal with the question in the House on the first favourable opportunity.
  MR. WYNDHAMindicated that that was his intention.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTONmoved a new clause dealing with the question of the expenses of negotiation between landlord and tenant in sales of land. He was proceeding to state reasons in support of the clause when
  MR. DILLONinterposed and stated that the self-denying ordinance should apply to this question, where the interests of land agents were concerned, as well as to a question where the interests of the labourers were involved.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the question of the labourers had been discussed. The case of the land agents had not been discussed, but he could not go in regard to them beyond the undertaking he had already given in regard to the labourers. He recognised that the Act would not work smoothly unless the feelings of the land agents were considered; but that was a point which might be held over until the Report stage.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTONsaid he should detain the Committee for only a few minutes. He was sorry that the position of the land agents had not been brought forward by an Irish Member, but he thought it right to call attention to it, as he had the honour of being last year the President of a society of which the Irish land agents were members. The opinion of that institution on any question of the administration of land must carry weight with it in this House, and the members of that institution were entirely in agreement with the Amendment he now proposed. This Bill was unique in land legislation, and he might be allowed to say that it displayed broad minded statesmanship. He hoped that the expectations formed of it in promoting the peace and prosperity of Ireland would be abundantly fulfilled

  117
  But, if the carrying out of this state policy did injury to a great profession in Ireland, the members of that profession ought to receive consideration at the hands of the Government and the Irish Party. [Loud cries of "Divide."] He recognised that the feeling of the Committee was against him, and he would only say in conclusion that he trusted the Bill would settle the Irish laud difficulty without doing any in-justice to a great and deserving class like the land agents.
  New clause (Expenses of negotiation)—
  "In page 22, after Clause 43, to insert the following clause:—'After making or providing for the prescribed payments to vendors felling direct to their tenants, there shall, in respect of any such sale, be paid out of the Land Purchase Aid Fund to the Estates Commissioners, a sum not exceeding three per cent. on the purchase money of the estate, which sum or such less sum as may seem reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, shall be paid by them to the land agent negotiating the sale of such estate.'"—(Sir John Rolleston.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that the hon. Member was mistaken in thinking that the Committee was unwilling to hear him, or that they were insensible to the value of the services rendered by the land agents. The reason why some impatience had been shown was because he had made a personal appeal to all sections of the Committee not to press Amendments, and hon. Members having responded to that appeal, it was thought that any other Amendment, however important, should not be pressed on their attention. He had already suggested that the allocation of the bonus should be discussed on the first Schedule.
  Question put, and negatived.

  THE SCHEDULES.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Schedule 1, page 39, to leave; out lines 3 to 14 inclusive, and insert the words 'Twelve per cent. on amount of purchase money advanced under Land Purchase Acts.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that various suggestions had been made as to the proper allocation of the bonus. Those who desired to see justice done in all cases had approached the question from different points of view. He had attempted a rough-and-ready method of approaching a difficult question. The Committee did not know the particular circumstances of each transaction. Perhaps, therefore, the better plan was to mote out the bonus on equal terms all round—viz., 12 per cent. addition to the money advanced on each transaction. It was to be hoped that all those who had to deal with the money and the disposition of the bonus would take into account the claims of those whose co-operation was necessary if land purchase was to be a success. He believed that in making this proposal he was doing justice in the case.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."
  MR. DILLONsaid he fully recognised that it was impossible to discuss fully this very important matter at that period of the evening. Of course the subject was not closed, but would remain open at the Report stage, and he urged the right hon. Gentleman not to close his mind on this subject. The hon. Member for Waterford had an Amendment on the Paper proposing a sliding scale as the most just way of disposing of the bonus. His own plan was that a bonus should be given in the shape of three years' purchase of the rental to every landlord who sold. He would illustrate the absurd results which would follow from the Chief Secretary's scheme of distributing all round a bonus of 12 per cent. on the money advanced. Take the case of an estate in the province of Ulster or Minister where the purchase-money would amount to twenty years' purchase of the rental; the landlord would obtain a bonus of £12,000, but on a similar estate in the province of Connaught, whore the holdings were poor, the purchase-money would only be fifteen years' purchase of the rental, and the landlord would obtain a bonus of only £9,000. That showed the absurdity of the Chief Secretary's plan. The only justification for the bonus was to fill up the gap between what the

  119
  tenants could afford to pay, and what the landlords would receive for selling. Under the Chief Secretary's proposal, the bulk of the money would go to the richest parts of Ireland, and the lesser amount to the poorest parts. The injustice of that was manifest. He could hardly conceive that the Government would persist in that course, and he respectfully hoped that they would re-consider this question, which would be again raised on Report.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he would urge upon the Chief Secretary to re-consider this matter before the Report stage from the point of view of the general taxpayer. Hitherto, those who represented the general taxpayer had cheerfully acquiesced in the payment of the bulk, at any rate, of this bonus of £12,000,000, distinctly on the understanding that it was to facilitate the poorer class of Irish land lords in transferring their estates to their tenants; but if the bonus was to be distributed according to the new scheme, it would mean that a larger share of the bonus would be given to the rich landlords and the smaller share to the poor landlords.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he thought the two speeches to which they had just listened illustrated the difficulty of dealing with the bonus. The fact was, land purchase in Ireland was not simply a matter between landlord and tenant; it was much more complex. He had suggested originally that help should be given in a larger measure, not to poor landlords, but to small properties, which was a very different thing, as the man with the large property was sometimes poorer than the man with the small property, because his mortgages pressed more heavily upon him than the man with the small property. The hon. and learned Member for York and the hon. Member for Leicester thought that land purchase would not be a success unless the land-agents were dealt with. The fact that there were three or four points of view from which the distribution of the bonus might be approached, proved, at any rate, the necessity for the bonus, and for the life of him he could not hit on a better suggestion, in view of the various difficulties which existed, than that the bonus
  120
  should be dealt out equally all round' and that all parties should treat each other with reason and consideration.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he wished to offer a word of warning to the Chief Secretary. The Irish Members did not think the arrangement the right hon. Gentleman proposed was satisfactory, because, in their opinion, it violated the very principle he himself had laid down—viz., the principle of equality. In other words, by the right hon Gentleman's scheme, much was given to him that had, and little was given to him that had not. He thought that the bonus ought to be an inducement to the landlord to give fair terms to the tenants, and not be an inducement to them to make better terms out of their tenants. He considered that the bonus under the Chief Secretary's scheme would press most hardly on the poorer estates and on the poorer tenants. It must be understood that if they allowed this Amendment to pass through that evening, it was not because they approved of it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Second Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 269.]

  METROPOLITAN STREETS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  MR. CALDWELLasked if the Bill had been read a second time.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)said it was read a second time the night before last.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that the Under-Secretary for the Home Department was talking to him at the time, and he did not hear the question put from the Chair. It was always inconvenient for Members of the Government to talk to hon. Members, more especially when one of their own Bills was being passed.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE HOME OFFICE (Mr. COCHRANE,)said it was quite unintentional on his part.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid no doubt it was. The Bill purported to deal with an object which was very laudable in itself, namely, the question of collections in the public streets for charitable and other purposes. It proposed to empower the police, with the consent of the Home Secretary, to make certain regulations with regard to the places at and conditions under which money might be collected for charitable purposes in the streets. The object the Home Secretary had in view was that no person should be allowed to collect money in the streets who had not a right to collect it; but when he looked into the Bill that was not the object it would effect. It did not deal with the question as to whether a person had or had not a right to collect money for charitable purposes; but it went back upon the Metropolitan Streets Act, which dealt entirely with the management of the streets and the control of the traffic. Section 11 of the Metropolitan Streets Act, to which the Bill referred, and which it was proposed to extend as to the making of regulations to be observed by all persons with respect to the places at and conditions under which money was to be collected in the streets, dealt entirely with the management of the streets, and not with the purpose for which a person might be on the streets and referred only to a special district, namely, that within four miles of Charing Cross. The section referred entirely to the control of traffic and to the power of diverting traffic, and had no reference whatever to the case of a person collecting money. The object of the Bill might be particularly good, namely, that no person should be allowed on the streets on a begging excursion without some guarantee that it was
  122
  bonâ fide, and that the public were not being defrauded. But that could not be provided merely by reference to an Act of Parliament which dealt entirely with the regulation of traffic. The only power which the Bill would confer would be the power to regulate where a man might stand. The Bill had no reference whatever to the object for which a person might be collecting. The Bill assumed that the collection was for a charitable purpose, and therefore the theory that this was a Bill to find out whether a collector was bonâ fide or not was destroyed. The Bill assumed he was a bonâ fide collector; and it proposed, without any justification, to interfere with persons who were admittedly collecting for a charitable purpose. Section 11 of the Metropolitan Streets Act had reference solely to the position which a man might occupy in the streets, and it referred only to a particular district.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentle man is not entitled to repeat the arguments he has already used.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he was turning the argument in a different way. If a person were collecting for a bonâ fide charitable purpose, on what ground was he to be interfered with? If it was for the convenience of the public, the existing law provided a remedy. Was it to be laid down that a man collecting, for instance, on Hospital Saturday should stand in a particular spot and should not move from it? He did not see why such a laudable object should be interfered with. It was the small sums that were put into the boxes in the streets that mounted up. He thought they had a right to complain that the Second Reading of the Bill was passed without a word of explanation. He did not think that was the way to carry a Bill through the House. They had a right to have had a candid statement as to the object of the Bill, and then they would know where they stood. In the absence of all explanation, he did not think the Committee should agree to the clause, all the more as the Bill would not carry out the object in view. They ought not to impose any restrictions on bonâ fide collectors which would

  123
  interfere with the benevolence of the public as long as the collectors did not cause an obstruction. He thought the Bill was totally uncalled for, and that it would be invalid.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he thought the Committee were indebted to the hon. Member for Mid Lanark for the interest he had taken in the matter. He thought the complaint of the hon. Gentleman was not altogether unreasonable. He should like to ask one or two questions of the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman asked for powers to exercise authority which would not be exercised in any other city. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman should ask for such powers without telling the Committee what new and grave reasons had arisen to justify them. These powers were to be conferred on the right hon. Gentleman and his successors at the Home Office. They might have perfect confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, but what about his successors? He thought there was really some ground for suspicion. The powers under the Metropolitan Streets Act were to be exercised with the consent of the Common Council of the City, which was the only representative body in existence when the Act was passed in 1867. Now they had the London County Council, and the Borough Councils. Were they to be consulted?
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid there was no intention whatever of rushing the Bill through the House. He was under the impression that it was an agreed Bill; and it was introduced in answer to a general request made during the discussion of the Police Estimates a few months ago. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, the hon. Member for Battersea, and other hon. Members urged him to bring in a Bill dealing with this question. All it proposed was to give the Commissioners of the Metropolitan and City Police powers, subject, outside the City, to the sanction of the Home Secretary, who was responsible to this House, to issue regulations dealing with this question. During the discussion on the Estimates it was pointed out that
  124
  this begging in the streets was very undesirable, and ought to be put down. Hon. Members complained of collecting boxes being held up before pedestrians, and also of the great obstruction which was caused in the streets; and it was felt to be desirable that the police should have power to deal with this matter. It was with this view that the Bill was brought in; and he thought it would be regarded as an agreed measure. The Bill, although it was a small one, was necessary for London, and was desired not only by hon. Members, but by the London County Council.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid they were all agreed that the object of the Bill was a good one; but they were not agreed that it proposed the best method of achieving that object.
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid, in moving the adjournment of the House, that in consequence of representations from the Leader of the Opposition the Scotch Licensing Bill would not be taken until Monday. The Naval Works Bill would be the first order on Friday, and would be followed by the Employment of Children Bill.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked if the hon. Gentleman could say when the Report stage of the Irish Land Bill would be taken.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he could not say that.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.