Commons Sitting of 5 May 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 67 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading there of, Standing Order No. 67 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Strabane and Letterkenny Railway Bill.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 66 NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading there of, Standing Order No. 66 has not been complied with, viz.:—
  Strabane and Letterkenny Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERE TO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading there of, the Standing Orders which are applicable there to have been complied with, viz.:—
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  Great Eastern Railway Bill; Great Northern Railway Bill. Read the third time and passed.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill. As amended, considered; Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Cudworth, Hucknall-under-Huthwaite, and Meltham, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the counties of East Sussex and Leicester, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8). Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Auckland, Shildon, and Willington, the Croydon and Wimbledon, the Tarvin, Malpas, and Tarporley, and the Windsor and Egham Joint Hospital Districts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Barry, Fenton, Leeds, and

  1359
  Tonbridge, and the Ports of Hartlepool and Manchester, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Cudworth, Hucknall-under-Huthwaite, and Meltham," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 177.)
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the counties of East Sussex and Leicester," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 178.)
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8, Bill). "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Auckland, Shildon, and Willington, the Croydon and Wimbledon, the Tarvin, Malpas, and Tarporley, and the Windsor and Egham Joint Hospital Districts," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 179.)
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Barry, Fenton, Leeds, and Tonbridge, and the Ports of Hartlepool and Manchester," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 180.)

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C).
  Sir JOHN BRUNNERreported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; That the parties promoting the Crystal Palace and District Gas Bill had stated that the evidence of Professor Vivian Byam Lewes, of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Professor Vivian Byam Lewes do attend
  1360
  the said Committee To-morrow, at Eleven of the Clock.
  Ordered, That Professor Vivian Byam Lewes do attend the Committee on Group C of Private Bills To-morrow, at Eleven of the Clock.
  London United Tramways Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Public Offices (Dublin) Bill. Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Public Offices (Dublin) Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Mr. Arthur Elliot.)

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolution reported from the Select Committee—
  "That, in the case of the Romford and District Tramways Bill, Petition for additional provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with; That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."
  Resolution agreed to.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers upon the company of proprietors of the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Navigation; and for other purposes." (Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [Lords].)
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to regulate the capital of the South Wales Mineral Railway Company; and for other purposes." (South Wales Mineral Railway Bill [Lords].)
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Acts relating to the Milford Docks Company; and for other purposes." (Milford Docks Bill [Lords].)
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to abolish the rate now levyable for certain church purposes in the parish of All Saints, Poplar, in the county of London, and to make other provisions for securing the stipend of the Rector of All

  1361
  Saints, Poplar; and for other purposes." (All Saints, Poplar (Rate Abolition), Bill [Lords].)
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for reviving and extending the period limited by the Knott End Railway Act, 1898, for the compulsory purchase of lands, and for extending the period limited by that Act for the construction of the railway by that Act authorised; and for other purposes." (Knott End Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords].)

  MUNICIPAL TRADING.
  That they concur with the Commons in their Resolution, "That it is expedient that a Select Committee of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider and report as to the principles which should govern powers given by Bills and Provisional Orders to municipal and other local authorities for industrial enterprise within or without the area of their jurisdiction."
  Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [Lords]; South Wales Mineral Railway Bill [Lords]; Milford Docks Bill [Lords]; All Saints, Poplar (Rate Abolition), Bill [Lords]; Knott End Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Hyde Corporation Bill; New Hunstanton Improvement Bill. Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary [Regulations Bill, with Amendments.
  Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP D).
  Mr. NICOLreported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday next, at half-past eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Bonville's Court; Batley West End; Clifton; Wollaton; South Kirkby; Wharncliffe Woodmoor; Monk Bretton; Biddulph; Cheadle; Forfield; Blackheath; Rowley Regis; North Staveley; Ackton Hall; Bromley Pit; New Duffryn; Tynewydd; Caerphilly; Larkhall; and Newton Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Chorley; and Gloucester; to lie upon the Table.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Forfar; and Alva; to lie upon the Table.
  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Wandsworth; and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Two Petitions from Aberdeen, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Greenock; and Clackmannanshire; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Penryn, against: to lie upon the Table.
  POLLUTION OF RIVERS AND STREAMS BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Workington; and Jarrow; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Edinburgh; Glasgow; and Greenock; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  Petitions for alteration of law: from Warrington; Bradford; and Chorley; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADES DISPUTES BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Bonville's Court; Batley West End; Clifton; Wollaton; South Kirkby; Wharncliffe Woodmoor; Monk Bretton; Biddulph; Cheadle; Forfield; Blackheath; Rowley; North Staveley; Ackton Hall; Bromley Pit; Elsecar; Hickleton Main; New Duffryn; Tynewydd; Caerphilly; Lark-hall; and Newton Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MANUSCRIPTS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS, VOLUME II. (NEW SERIES).
  Paper [communicated 4th May] to be printed. (No. 143.)
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 383 (Bermuda, Annual Report for 1902) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (CANTEENS, &c.).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee on Canteens and Regimental Institutes [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ROYAL NAVY (RETIRED OFFICERS).
  Return presented, relative there to [ordered 8th April; Sir John Colomb]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 144.)

  TREATY SERIES (No. 7, 1903).
  Copy presented, of International Convention relative to Bounties on Sugar. Signed at Brussels, 5th March, 1902.
  1364
  Ratifications deposited at Brussels, 18th June, 1902, to 1st February, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  AFRICA (No. 3, 1903).
  Copy presented, of Report by Mr. A. Whyte on his recent Travels along the Sea-Coast Belt of the British East Africa Protectorate [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WAGES AND PROFITS IN COAL MINING.
  Copy ordered, "of Tables showing for the United Kingdom, and the principal Coal Mining Districts, the quantity and value of Coal produced, and the number and average Wages of Coal Miners in the years 1901 and 1903, respectively, together with the estimated amounts expended on Miners' Wages, and remaining for other expenses and Coal owners' Profits in the United Kingdom in each year; with Explanatory Memorandum (in the same form, and with the same particulars, as Parliamentary Paper, No. 179, of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Joseph Walton.)
  EAST INDIA (FINANCIAL STATEMENT).
  Address for "Copy of the Indian Financial Statement for 1903–4, and of the Proceedings of the Legislative Council of the Governor-General thereon."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
  TRADE DISPUTES ARBITRATION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Friday read and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Motor Cars on Public Highways—Speed Regulations.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if in any Bill dealing with the registration and speed of motor-cars he will take into consideration the desirability of preventing vehicles being propelled at a high speed on the roads provided for foot passengers and ordinary traffic, and the imposition of a high minimum penalty for breaches of the law; and the imposition

  1365
  of a special licence varying with the rate of speed at which such vehicles can be propelled on the public roads.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) lam preparing a Bill on this subject, and the points referred to in the Question will receive my consideration in connection with it.

  Civil Service Examinations—Successful Candidates Offering Shorthand.
  MR. GEORGE BROWN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state how many candidates passed the Civil Service examinations in 1902 as clerks of the second division and as female typists in Government departments respectively; and how many of the successful candidates of each class offered shorthand as one of their subjects.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Elliot.)—Only one competition for the Second Division was held in 1902. At this 100 candidates were successful, and of these forty-six offered shorthand. There were also, in the course of the year, eleven men

  1899–1900.

  1902–3.

  Estimate 1903–4.

  £

  £

  £

  1. Management

  174,864

  180,144

  186,000

  2. Interest

  17,023,399

  17,069,665

  20,213,809

  3. Sinking Fund—

  (a) Terminable Annuities of which the capital portion was suspended in 1900–01 andl901–2

  4,651,874

  4,564,444

  3,922,420

  (b) Life Annuities and other Terminable Annuities

  1,129,987

  1,112,203

  1,123,726

  (c) New Sinking Fund

  19,876

  73,544

  1,554,045

  Total Sinking Fund

  5,801,737

  5,750,191

  6,600,191

  Total

  23,000,000

  23,000,000

  27,000,000

  China—Opium Tax.
  MR. HENRY WILSON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Government of the province of Canton last year, with a view to meeting its share of the indemnities imposed upon China, instituted an additional tax upon opium,
  promoted from lower grades to the Second Division, but none of these offered the subject. As regards female typists twelve fresh appointments were made in 1902, but in no case was shorthand prescribed by the nominating department.

  The National Debt.
  MR SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of the fixed charge (of £23,000,000) was, in the year ending 31st March 1903, applied to cost of management, interest on debt, and sinking fund, respectively, dividing the last item into the amounts due to the terminable annuities which were at first suspended and subsequently allowed to continue, to the other terminable annuities including life annuities, and to the new sinking fund; and what were the corresponding figures for 1899–1900 and the estimated corresponding figures for 1903–4.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.)The comparative figures are shown in the following Table:—
  both native-grown and imported, which was in operation for about two months; that in September last the British Consul at Canton remonstrated against this additional tax on the ground that it was inconsistent with the treaty obligations of China, and that it was in consequence discontinued; whether the Secretary of State for Foreign

  1367
  Affairs has sanctioned this action of the Consul, having regard to Clause 5 of the additional article to the Chefoo Convention, signed in London in 1885, which provides for further taxation on imported opium, subject only to the condition that such taxation equally applies to the Native drug.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) An attempt was made last year to levy an additional tax upon opium. Under the prescribed conditions this could only have operated so as to discriminate in favour of Native opium. But it was also in violation of Clause 2 of the additional article of the Chefoo Convention, because it was to be levied at the port and while the packages were still unopened for consumption, in which case the amount of the tax is by the clause specifically limited. His Majesty's Minister at Peking and His Majesty's Consul-General at Canton, acting under the instructions of His Majesty's Government, protested against the tax, and the new regulations were withdrawn.

  Edge Hill Station (L. and N. W. Railway) Telegraphic Facilities.
  MR. MARSHALL HALL: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will give facilities for the sending of postal telegrams from Edge Hill Station, on the London and North Western Railway.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I shall be happy to make inquiry on the subject, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Postal Telegrams to London.
  MR. MARSHALL HALL: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will give instructions to the telegraph offices throughout the kingdom that telegrams addressed to the various postal districts, such as E.C., S.W., and E, shall be accepted and duly transmitted to London without the word London being necessarily added to the address.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The existing instructions provide that telegrams handed in at provincial offices for well-known streets or suburbs in London may be accepted without the
  1368
  word London appearing in the address. The senders of such telegrams are, however, strongly advised to include the word in the address in order to avoid risk of delay or non delivery, there being less liability to mistake or delay if the fuller address be given. It has to be borne in mind that Liverpool, as well as London, is divided into postal districts.

  Listowel Poor Law Union.
  COLONEL M'CALMONT (Antrim, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the Report recently issued by the auditor of the Local Government Board (Ireland) in regard to the Listowel Poor Law Union; and, if so, will he state whether he proposes to take any, and, if so, what steps in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Report of the auditor is at present engaging the careful consideration of the Local Government Board.

  Pay of Volunteer Sergeant Instructors.
  MR. RANDLES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of modifying Army Order 187 of 18th July, 1902, which limits the payments to sergeant instructors of Volunteer corps to £6 10s. per year per company.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Reports have recently been called for from the districts on the working of the regulations set forth in the Army Order mentioned, and the whole question will on their arrival be considered.

  Agricultural Resources of the Transvaal —Colonel Thomas's Report.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the exact terms of the reference made to Colonel Owen Thomas, who was recently appointed to proceed to South Africa to report on the agricultural resources of the Trans vaal; whether Colonel Thomas's Report has been received and will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) Colonel Owen Thomas has received no

  1369
  appointment from Government to report on the agricultural resources of the Transvaal.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Fiji—Poll Tax.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been directed to the levy of the poll tax in Fiji and its effects upon labour; and if he will take into consideration the expediency of raising revenue by means of other channels.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): There is no poll tax in Fiji. The whole system of native taxation in the group is at present receiving the close attention of the recently appointed Governor. On learning his views, I shall consider whether any, and, if so, what alterations are advisable.

    Forced Labour on Fijian Roads.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will explain why Fijians, unaccused of crime, have been forced to labour on roads after having been compulsorily enlisted for military service only.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that the Armed Native Constabulary of Fiji, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, have been employed in road-making. They have been employed in levelling and draining their parade ground, used by them also as their camp, and the land used as a parade ground for the Volunteers. I have suggested to the Governor that when employed on such work they should receive some form of additional pay or allowances, as is, I understand, allowed in the case of His Majesty's Regular Forces when required to perform such duties.

    Native Regulations in Fiji.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will take steps to obtain from New Zealand a Report upon the Native regulations promulgated in Fiji.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of any reason why a Report should be obtained from New Zealand upon the affairs of another colony.

    Fijian Petition to the King.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the bearers of a petition signed by 20,000 Fijian Natives will be allowed to present it to His Majesty.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Any British subject may present a petition to His Majesty. The hon. Member is doubtless aware that the proper method of approaching the Crown with a petition from Fiji is through the Governor and the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

    Deportation of Fijian Chiefs.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if Ordinance XX. of 1887 is still on the Statute-book of the Fiji Legislature, under which Fijian chiefs have been imprisoned and deported without trial and without any opportunity of being heard in their own defence; and, if so, will he consider the expediency of disallowing the said ordinance.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Ordinance referred to is still in force. As at present advised I am of opinion that it is necessary to retain the power of deportation.

    Suva Bubonic Plague Hospital.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if a petition has been received from Suva protesting against the establishment of a bubonic plague hospital in the centre of the town; and, if so, will he explain why no reply has been returned.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: A letter was received in October, 1900, from the Warden of Suva, protesting, on behalf of the town and vicinity, against the establishment within the precincts of the town of an isolation camp in anticipation of an outbreak of plague for cases which could not be removed to the quarantine station. No case of plague ever occurred, and after some correspondence with the Governor (in the course of which it

    1371
    appeared that the matter had been amicably settled with the Town Board), a reply was returned in a despatch dated 1st February, 1901.

    Corn Duty.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange that millers who hold stocks of imported grain, or the products thereof, on the 1st July, upon which duty has been paid by themselves or others, shall be allowed a refund of the duty.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,: I am afraid there would be great difficulty about a refund of duty such as the hon. Member suggests. But I am very anxious to take every means of preventing hardship to the trade. I have therefore granted an unusually long period of notice, and given permission for the bonding of dutiable goods within that period. I have also instructed the Customs to make the operation of bonding easy and cheap in every possible way, and I propose, with the consent of the House, to remit on this occasion the ¼per cent. warehousing charge. Other measures in this connection are also under consideration.

    Regulation of Motor Car Traffic.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will take steps to place the law with respect to motor cars on a more satisfactory footing by removing the present hard-and-fast limit as to speed, subject to due security for the safety and convenience of other users of public roads, by requiring registration of the vehicles, and by enacting a high maximum penalty for breaches of these and any other conditions it may seem desirable to impose.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): I have in preparation a Bill on this subject, and I hope shortly to be in a position to introduce it.
    MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.): Will it provide that numbers be affixed
    1372
    to motor cars, so that they can be readily identified?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Really, the hon. Gentleman had better wait until the Bill is introduced. I am considering that point.

    Mr. Henry A. B Wallis, J.P.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if Mr. Henry A. B. Wallis, who adjudicated at Mill street Petty Sessions on 27th April, was sworn in as a magistrate in the manner required by law; and if so, when, and by whom.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,: In September, 1887, upon his appointment to the Commission. He was re-sworn in September, 1901, consequent on the demise of the Crown, before the local resident magistrate.

    Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the destruction of official documents and records by the Royal Irish Constabulary authorities in Ireland; and, if so, whether he will state who authorised their destruction, and for what purpose they were destroyed.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I replied to a similar Question on this subject yesterday†
    MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total number of recruits for the Royal Irish Constabulary who were informed that recruiting for that force had recently ceased; what was the average period over which the applications of those recruits extended; and, whether it is proposed in future to confine recruiting for the Constabulary to men discharged from the Army Reserve.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Eight hundred and eighty-five candidates for admission to the Constabulary were informed that
    †See page 1203.

    1373
    recruiting was suspended. Their names were on the list for periods ranging from one month to seventeen months. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the negative.

    Treatment of Emigrants at Londonderry.
    MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to an investigation lately held at Londonderry with reference to the conduct of the collector of Customs at that port towards emigrants arriving there from America; whether he has any information showing that the number of passengers landing at Londonderry has decreased; and whether he is aware that at the close of the investigation the collector was reprimanded as to the manner in which he discharged his duties; and, if so, will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. RITCHIE: In consequence of a complaint which was made to them in January last as to the manner in which the examination of passengers' baggage was conducted at Londonderry, the Board of Customs caused inquiry to be made into the matter on the occasion of the annual inspection of the Port by one of their surveyors-general. As a result of the inquiry, it appeared that there was no adequate ground for the complaint. It is not true that the collector was "reprimanded as to the manner in which he discharged his duties." I have no information as to the alleged decrease in the number of passengers landing at Londonderry.

    Irish Union Amalgamation.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has as yet appointed the Commission to inquire into the question of the amalgamation of workhouses in Ireland and Union Boundaries; and, if so, will he state the names of the Commissioners appointed, and when they purpose holding their sittings.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir, the Commission has not yet been formally appointed, but the warrant of appointment will, it is expected, be shortly issued.
    1374
    Until this has been done it would be unusual to announce the names of the members.

    Irish School Teachers' Remuneration.
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education have received complaints as to the financial loss inflicted on a number of teachers, whose schools had been increasing in attendance and improving in efficiency from year to year during the three years preceding 1900, and who, owing to the change in the mode of payment, receive less now than formerly; how many of these teachers have been awarded normal salary and how many refused; and what steps will be taken to remedy the alleged grievances of teachers in this respect.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Representations were received by the Commissioners to the effect stated in the first part of the Question. Practically, all such representations were investigated, and in every case in which the Commissioners considered that an increased income, or a normal income, was equitably due, it was awarded. The number of such cases is. not officially recorded.

    Labourers' Cottages in Ireland.
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board can state the number of cottages erected under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, in cases where compulsory powers were sought when applying for the Provisional Orders, and the number of cottage erected where the local authorities sought no compulsory powers when proceeding to put those Acts into force.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The total number of cottages included in Provisional Orders which were either confirmed or made absolute was 19,541 on 31st March, 1902. Of these, the number included in Orders under which the sites were acquired by agreement was 289. In many cases, however, where compulsory powers are sought, it is believed that terms are subsequently arranged

    1375
    between the parties, thus rendering unnecessary the enforcement of compulsory powers. But the Board has no material that would enable it to say how many cottages were erected on sites acquired by agreement or taken compulsorily, as the case may be.

    Sligo Asylum.
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what action has been taken on the Reports of the Inspectors of Lunatics as to the state of Sligo Asylum; and what steps have been taken to carry out the resolutions of the Leitrim County Council and the Mohill Rural District Council to have the Leitrim Poor Law Unions amalgamated, and one of the workhouses thus dispensed with converted into an auxiliary asylum for the patients in excess of the authorised number at present detained in Sligo.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Asylum Committee has called for plans and specifications with a view to the reconstruction of the sanitary system of the asylum where defective. The question of union amalgamation will be referred to the Commission about to be appointed for the purpose of inquiring generally into this subject.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. SCHWANN: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the first Vote in Supply on Thursday will be the Post Office Vote?
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): When Supply is next taken the first Vote will again be the Post Office Vote. I am sorry to hear that some doubt is entertained whether the Second Reading debate on the. Irish Land Bill will be concluded today. It would be unfortunate if it were not concluded, as in that case the debate must go over till Thursday, a very inconvenient course. To-morrow afternoon has long been allocated to the consideration of the Transvaal loan. Such an arrangement as this would necessitate Supply being taken on Monday, and perhaps the Budget Resolution would
1376
then be taken on Tuesday. But I trust that some means may be found by which this contingency may be avoided. If not, I give notice that I shall change the Supply day from Thursday to the Monday following.

IRISH LAND BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question (4th May), "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Which Amendment was—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Mr. Coghill.)
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
Debate resumed.
MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I do not think it is any business of ours to find fault with any criticisms of this Bill that have come from British Members on either side of the House. I only hope that some of our good friends who sympathise with us as to the excessive price the landlords are to get, will not sympathise with us more than we sympathise with ourselves until we know precisely what terms the landlords are to receive. I think it is due that we should at once acknowledge the fairness and friendliness of the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, following as he did in the footsteps of the right hon. Member I for the Montrose Burghs. In the earlier and still more delicate stage of these negotiations there may have been circumstances that would be a temptation to make party capital out of the present situation in Ireland, and we could not have found fault with human nature if there had been some yielding to it, but I join with my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo in the hope that the Liberal and Radical Party, following the generous example of their leaders, will have the chivalry and statesmanship to see in the present situation something higher than mere party capital, something which will hereafter reflect credit and lustre on the principles to which they have adhered with so much fortitude.

1377
And I hope the Government and the right hon. Gentleman opposite will have the glory of passing a Bill which, if it be only adequately amended, as it can be easily and safely, may bring to the Irish people blessing and emancipation that we Irishmen, with our unlucky history, almost shrink from calculating upon with too much sanguineness.
It is, I hope, a good omen for the Bill that the only serious complaint that came from the British taxpayer in the course of yesterday's debate was a complaint that will be reechoed just as seriously by the Irish taxpayer and the Irish tenant, and that is the retention of a minimum price in Clause 1. I submit that the sum and substance of yesterday's debate is that these limitations will have to go, and that nobody will be a sufferer when they are gone. I hope we are not wrong in construing the professions of the Attorney-General, of an open mind, and his somewhat perfunctory defence—if I may be allowed so to describe it—of the minimum price as an admission on his part that that minimum price is absolutely indefensible. It is indefensible from the point of view of the Irish tenant because for him it is compulsion pure and simple—a compulsion that will weigh most heavily on the poorest part of the population. It is indefensible from the point of view of the British taxpayer because it would be mere midsummer madness to have an extravagant price, such as twenty-eight years purchase, established as the tenant purchase price even as a legal possibility. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General defended this minimum price on two grounds. First there was the suggestion of oppression of some kind by the tenants as against landlords. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have abandoned that ground almost as soon as he had stated it, as a downright absurdity, considering that there is no shadow of compulsion on the landlord to sell at all under any circumstances. The second ground, as far as I recollect it, was the desirability of securing uniformity of price. That is equally absurd, because, we know the almost infinite variety of the value of holdings and estates in different parts of Ireland, and the certainty that it is the poor and not the rich tenants who would be the sufferers.
1378
The Attorney-General, unconsciously, I am sure, but still some what ungenerously, attempted to account for the limitations in Clause 1 by a reference to the terms of the Land Conference Report, the inclusion of which, he might have explained, was the means of preventing the break up of the settlement which is the foundation of this whole Bill. The right hon. Gentleman omitted to mention to the House that Lord Dunraven's Committee, including all the landlords' representatives at the Land Conference, have since, upon more mature consideration, passed a resolution practically recognising that these limitations cannot be maintained, and recommending that the Estates Commission should have the power of dispensing with them altogether at their discretion. So that here we have an absolute agreement among the best friends of the Bill on this point. You have the British taxpayer insisting on the abolition of the minimum price for his own protection, and you have the Irish tenant also insisting on it for his own protection, while you have the majority of the Irish landlords making no objection whatever. I earnestly ask the Chief Secretary Why, in Heaven's name, he should not at once recognise the fact and drop this minimum price altogether out of the Bill right away? By doing so he would spread relief and joy throughout Ireland, and, I believe, in England as well; he would remove the last substantial reason for disquiet in the mind of the British taxpayer, and he would, practically speaking, satisfy the principal demand of the Irish people; for the amendment would ensure a practically unanimous vote on the Second Reading, and would remove the most formidable obstacle to the success of the Bill. He would, at the same time, make the tenant's bargain a bargain that would be safe for himself, and, safe for the State.
I beg the House not to be frightened by the demands of the Irish representatives changes in the Bill. The Amendments for we shall have to press in Committee will be found to resolve themselves into pro visions for securing, in the first place, that the tenant shall be absolutely free to make his own bargain, and, in the next place, that he shall not be obliged to pay a larger price for his land than has been paid by purchasers in the open market

1379
during the last fifteen years under the Ashbourne Act. The whole basis of the Land Conference was that whatever extra compensation was necessary to induce the landlords to sell should be supplied by the State, in whose supposed interest landlordism was created, and in whose real interest it is now about to be abolished. On the other hand, the tenants should not, under the pretence of offering a boon or favour to the landlords, be obliged to pay three or four additional years purchase above their 80,000 neighbours who have purchased under the Acts of 1885 and 1891. I venture to say that that is a moderate claim, and is just as essential for the safety of the State as for the safety of the tenant. It has been pointed out already that under the restrictions in Clause 1 and in Clause 17 the tenant's power of bargaining is very seriously, if not fatally, crippled. In the fourth Section of Clause 5 the tenant's power of making his own bargain is practically destroyed, and as one effect of all these restrictions the tenants will have to pay. Instead of receiving any relief from their present burdens, they will have imposed upon them an additional three or four years purchase over and above that paid by their neighbours, who have already purchased. All I can say is, that it might very easily happen that we would be driven to say, "You might as well spare yourself the pains of passing this Bill if you insist on these restrictions." But this difficulty is an exceedingly small one, as will be seen the moment it is boldly tackled. So far as this Bill has had a successful initiation up to the present, you owe it to the fact that you have followed the advice of united Ireland in its construction, and in so far as it may be a failure, your failure will arise from your not having adopted that advice in all its bearings. I think it will be found that, on almost all the Amendments which the Irish Members will have to press upon the House, there is substantial agreement among all parties in Ireland that they are vital to the successful working of the measure. Of some thing like sixteen Amendments which I had the honour of proposing and carrying at the Nationalist Conference in Dublin, it is a literal fact that, as to the organisation which represents the majority of the landlords in Ireland, they have not objected to a single one of them, and even
1380
the Landlords' Convention have only objected to one. So you have the amazing and unexampled prospect that, practically speaking, all the Amendments to be proposed in Committee on this Bill will, with one exception, be non-contentious, so far as either party in Ireland is concerned. The secret of the tremendous strength of the Bill is that for the first time in the history of Ireland the State will have the landlords and tenants of Ireland in one boat, for both the landlords and tenants of Ireland are so much at one as to what is required, that it seems almost impossible to conceive of any one, except perhaps, ex officio, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having any interest in obstructing any kind of Amendment proposed; and even as to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we all recognise that he has displayed a broad and generous spirit in dealing with this transaction in somewhat difficult circumstances. But the pecuniary risk, in this Bill is so small and the gain to the Empire so tremendous, that, if we were carrying on this debate in better times and in the normal state of the money market, the House would not hesitate a minute in doing the extremely little that is necessary to make the settlement complete and effective.
For the first time in your history you have the chance of a settlement that will protect every race, every class, and every creed in Ireland. More than that, I believe that Englishmen have begun to realise that the sacrifices which the British taxpayer will be called upon to make are a pure figment of the imagination, and one that was perhaps a little irritating to Irish feeling, considering the extent to which Irishmen and not Englishmen are called upon to make sacrifices in order to ensure this settlement. I acknowledge that the State credit is a consideration of great magnitude, but that credit is secure, and otherwise the financial arrangements of this Bill are purely an Irish affair, involving purely Irish money. If there is to be any complaint that an excessive ransom is paid in connection with the abolition of landlordism, that complaint ought to come from Ireland alone, because every pound that the landlords will receive will eventually come out of Irish pockets, and, heavy as is the price we have to pay, all we ask is to be free to devote our own money

1381
to what we believe will be a beneficent settlement, instead of having it devoted to your present wasteful and corrupt Imperial expenditure in Ireland. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that what British Members have principally to concern themselves with is whether it is possible to come to a great national settlement which would mean peace and prosperity for Ireland. If it is possible, then you will find that the matters which will have to be threshed out in Committee although of vital import ance to Ireland, are matters with which Englishmen need concern themselves very little. I go further, and say that if you are satisfied the result will be agrarian peace and good-will in Ireland, every Englishman, Scotchman, and Welshman has just as deep an interest as we have, in seeing that the bargain shall be completely satisfactory, and one which will enable the people to feel confident that in the future they will be free from obligations which might very easily depress them. Let me give one illustration to show how little need there is for alarm at the demands of Ireland. The foremost resolution passed at the Dublin Convention demanded that the evicted tenants should be restored to their homes frankly and without exception—that one section should not be restored and another section left on the road-side—as something like one third of them would be under Clause 2 of this Bill. That, as my hon. friend for East Mayo pointed out last night, would cost next to nothing except good-will, hut it would be worth millions of money in the pacification of Ireland. It may, perhaps, be thought that this is a small and sentimental question. The same thing might have been said, if, in the first year of the war in South Africa, you had been offered peace on the sole condition of handing over one man in the British ranks to the vengenance of your enemies. But it would mot have been done. Rather would you have fought to the last man. Neither will the Irish people, for any human consideration, give up one of the men whom they are accustomed to call the wounded soldiers of the campaign. But there is no real difficulty about the matter on one side or the other. The landlords have had at least as many wounded
1382
men in the land war as the Nationalists. These wounded landlords, who only two months ago were at least as hopeless and broken in their fortunes as any of the evicted tenants, will under this Bill be new men, solvent men, comparatively rich men. The Irish people do not envy them their good fortune. Their representatives have not hesitated to recommend that the provision for the wounded landlords shall be a large and generous one, and I am glad to say that the generosity has not been all on one side. Lord Dunraven's Committee proves that the mass of the intelligent landlords of Ireland—the men whose courage and foresight has made this settlement possible—will, I am satisfied, tell the Government as straightly as I do, that the cost of making a complete settlement of the evicted tenants question will be small. To leave it unsettled, or only half settled, would be to leave everything unsettled and to keep up a state of fermentation that might easily enough be fatal to the satisfactory working of the whole of the vast national settlement contemplated by the Bill. That is the first and the most passionate of the Amendments demanded by the National Convention, and in the interests of British Members in this House I hope it will be carefully and completely complied with.
The only other question is as to the miserably inadequate provision made for the congested districts. As to them, I am certain that when we come to deal with them in Committee we shall secure assent from both sides of the House to our proposition that the machinery of the present Bill is miserably inadequate in this respect. Even when adequately amended, the Bill, it must be understood, can settle nothing except the agrarian question, although it may open the way to other settlements. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent required from us some pledges of finality. So far as I know, there is no such word as "finality" known in the history of the British Constitution. There is no such thing as finality for us in this world until we are settled in our graves. What we do say, without arrière pensèe is that we recognise in the generous scope and framework of this Bill a hope and potency, and a promise such

1383
as no human being could have conceived twelve months ago, of ending once for all the land war and class war in Ireland. And what we do say to you is, that it will be no fault of the Irish people or of their representatives in this House, if that promise is not realised in its fulness. If some of the English Members who were present at the National Convention in Dublin were here they would probably tell you that there was something in the conduct of that assembly, consisting of nearly 2,500 delegates—that there was a spirit of generosity and moderation, and a determination to brush aside and put down any mere suggestion of rancour or of passion—which, if English statesmen were only wise, they would consider one of the most extraordinary consummations that all your money could not buy and that all the armed force of coercion could not have accomplished. Up to the present the English Press and Gentlemen in this House have had rather a fatal knack of misunderstanding all that occurs in Ireland. It is quite natural. I daresay they know as much about us as we know about you. This time, for the first time, apparently the English Press and the English people have begun to realise the real forces and the real currents of life in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has commenced to reduce the force of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and as I sat at that Convention I could not help thinking that if the Chief Secretary had visited it he might have come without a police escort. At that Convention he would have found the materials for a standing army of law and order which might very easily indeed have relieved him from any uneasiness about diminishing the standing army of idle mercenaries through whom you have hitherto governed Ireland, to our misery and to your cost. The hon. Member for Stoke last night said that this Bill was about to be given to a disaffected and disloyal people. Why, Mr. Speaker, the most important feature of that Convention is that it represented the Irish difficulty in all its strength and intensity, not the moderators, but the very elements, and the very men, who are the hearts' blood of disaffection in Ireland. In this, as in all the astonishing
1384
things that have occurred in the last six months, the Chief Secretary and his Government occupy a position of advantage which, unless in the case of Mr. Gladstone's great and glorious experiment, no English statesman has ever enjoyed before, and that is that you are dealing directly with the disaffected masses of the people themselves, and that you are proceeding upon the principle of attempting to conciliate and to content the people, instead of the old vicious plan of buying off a few Parliamentary leaders to desert the people. I would venture to lay some stress on that fact, because I am satisfied that if Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen could only appreciate the spirit of that Convention, and all that it might mean for the future relations between these two countries, they would learn more than if we were to go on debating this Bill for weeks.
I would earnestly entreat the Government and this House not to misunderstand the friendliness of that Convention, or of those who, at some risk of misunderstanding and misrepresentation, laboured to increase that friendliness. If you were to do so you might easily indeed create a feeling in consequence of which we could no longer answer for our countrymen as we can answer for them now. The lesson you have lodged most deeply in the Irish minds is that whatever instalments of justice we have ever won, have been wrung from you by an uncompromising and implacable fight, and not by any effort of conciliation. [Mr. WYNDHAM indicated dissent.] The Chief Secretary shakes his head, but I am sorry to say the records are too numerous and too crushing to the contrary. Any forbearance on our part has always up to the present been treated as a sign of weakness. Whenever our people have remained quiet it has been considered safe to despise and trample on them. The Irish people and their representatives have been induced to take a different attitude owing to the unique circumstances of the present position, owing, in the first place, to the fact that we are proceeding upon a basis of common agreement with the landlords of Ireland, and owing also to the promise of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary

1385
himself, to give loyal effect to that agreement so far as possible. My hon. friend and leader the Member for Waterford, and some of his colleagues, have taken the heavy responsibility of advising our people to look rather for points of agreement than for points of antagonism, and to take up a friendly attitude towards this Bill, with the view to smoothing the way for Amendments, instead of a nagging or irreconcilable attitude which might make Amendments impossible. We have taken the not inconsiderable risk of telling our people that their moderation would not be misconstrued and would not be traded upon in the House of Commons. I may, candidly speaking, say that we did not do so without painful searchings of heart, remembering the history of our country, and, however unpopular some of us may personally be in this House, I would earnestly and strenuously ask the House not to dishonour the draft that we have dared to draw on the capacity of this House for not misunderstanding our position. There are enemies of this Bill who are watching to catch you in a blunder. We do not consider that good faith on our part is credulity. We are satisfied that in any eventuality the Irish cause will not suffer by our having done our honest best in this matter. There is no use disguising the fact that if you were to read the proceedings of the Dublin Convention as meaning that the Irish people are satisfied, or will be satisfied, with this Bill as it stands, and that you are safe in rejecting the Amendments which the Irish people have asked you to pass, then you may possibly pass the Bill, but it would have the fate of all your other unfortunate measures; you would have lost a great opportunity of establishing in the Irish mind a belief in the good faith of England, and you would perhaps find—you would certainly find—that it will be a question for this House between accepting those Amendments now, when they would mean complete satisfaction and contentment, and accepting them in an amending Land Bill in a few years to come, when all the bloom will be gone. God forbid that any evil prophecy of that kind should be realised. I quite agree with the Leader of the Opposition that this Bill will be either made, or to a large extent marred, by what is done in relation to the Amendments. I do not
1386
know whether the right hon. Gentleman, whose good intentions in this matter are transparently sincere, will in his eventful speech to-night give any indication of what the fate of the Bill may be in Committee, but all I can say is, that when we go into these discussions, if the two great English Parties in this House—and I appeal to both of them—only rise superior to the making of party capital, if you in this House only imitate the extraordinary spectacle of union among all classes and parties which is to be witnessed at the present moment in Ireland—a union which is standing the test of time—all I can say is that you will have nothing to fear, and you will have nothing to lose. You will have more, than any Member of this House can yet estimate, to gain, if you boldly give effect to the advice that both landlords and tenants in Ireland have united to give you, and if, for the first time in your history, the peaceful and friendly demands of united: Ireland are ratified by a united England.
SIR EDWARD GREY: Of course I feel and recognise that the concern of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and of his friends, for the fate of this Bill, the hopes and fears with which they regard it are more deep and searching than those which are felt elsewhere. But my attitude towards the Bill at this stage—I say at this stage advisedly—will be much the same as that of the hon. Member for Cork. I agree with him entirely as to the natural human temptation to make party capital out of the Bill. It is a Bill which offers great opportunities in that respect. I believe with him that those opportunities ought to be forgotten, and the temptation ought to be resisted. True, the Liberal Party has suffered, in my opinion greatly suffered, in past years from, attempts to make party capital, especially out of the Irish Land Question, but that Ireland has suffered still more. On all those of us who supported Mr. Gladstone in his efforts for the conciliation of Ireland, and the solution of that question, there remains, and will ever remain, a special obligation to do our utmost to put party interests aside, and to spare no pains to understand, whether it be on land or any other

1387
question, the Irish point of view, and no efforts to support that view whenever we believe it to be in the public interest I freely admit I desire to support this Bill; and my object at this stage is to give it a helping hand. It is not a Bill which, by its own naked provisions, rouses enthusiasm. My desire to support the Bill comes from the spirit in which the people of Ireland have approached the Bill, and from the spirit in which the Government have introduced it. The hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, in moving the rejection of the Bill, evidently had his thoughts carried back to 1886, and compared the letter of this Bill with the letter of Mr. Gladstone's Land Bill of 1886. My thoughts have also been carried back to the Bill of 1886, not by comparing with it the letter or the text of this Bill, but carried back by the speeches of the right hon. the Chief Secretary and of the First Lord of the Treasury. It is not by the letter but by the spirit that I am reminded of Mr. Gladstone's Bill. It would be an insult, after what fell from the First Lord of the Treasury yesterday, to suppose for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman's particular objections to Mr. Gladstone's proposals, either as to the Government of Ireland or to Irish land, are in the least modified at the present day. I see no evidence from what I have read of the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman or his Government that their opinions are altered; but the spirit in which they approach this question in the Bill before the House is altered. It seems to be the same spirit which was felt to be such a new departure in Mr. Gladstone's Bill of 1886. What is that spirit? It is the penetrating consciousness of the difference between Irish and English problems, an abiding sense of the harshness and pathos of Irish history, and a real sense of the present difficulties and grievances in Irish affairs; and from these considerations spring that spirit of sympathy and chivalry in approaching Irish affairs which we have lately observed in the speeches of the Chief Secretary and the First Lord of the Treasury. That I believe to be the spirit which is underlying this Bill.
Now, the last seventeen years, I think, have left us certain convictions, and there are certain lessons to be drawn
1388
from them. One of these convictions is that you will never be able to turn your back upon Irish problems until you have advanced very much beyond the present stage. The next is that, though the Irish problem may present itself in various forms sometimes education, sometimes land, sometimes general questions of Irish government—we have got to approach it whenever and in whatsoever form it does present itself, in the spirit, the same spirit as has been lately shown on the Benches opposite, and as was shown by Mr. Gladstone. And the third is that we must work in that spirit. That is why I welcome this Bill and I shall address myself to its consideration in the spirit which underlies it. I defer to a subsequent stage criticism of its details. Let us take the principle of the Bill. I recognise, however, that a real objection on principle has been raised to the Bill by the hon. Gentleman who moved and seconded its rejection. This objection represents the extreme Unionist view of the Bill. I see the Chief Secretary shaking his head; but I would remind him that what is extreme is not typical. That extreme view, as I understand it, is that Ireland is not merely a part of the British Empire but also part of England; that the differences between Irish and English conditions are no more than the differences between town and country in England; and that you cannot consider the poverty or the social problems in Ireland without at once considering at the same time the poverty and the social problems in England. That, I understand to be in the mind of the two hon. Gentlemen. They say. "Why should we deal with the social problems in Ireland and not in England, when we have the same problems in England?" This Bill has, I believe, been put forward without any prejudice whatever, and can be discussed and passed without any prejudice whatever, to the discussion of social problems in England. What I understand the spirit of the Bill on this point to be, is that it is necessary to give a separate and special treatment to the problems in Ireland; but that is no prejudice to dealing with any English questions. And if there is a prejudice likely to arise in regard to the sympathetic treatment of these questions in England, I should say that the severe and unbending attitude of the hon. Member for Stoke is a bad augury for dealing

1389
not only with Irish questions sympathetically, but for dealing with questions at home sympathetically. In dealing with Ireland, then, you must have a plan to give these questions separate and special treatment, and not mix them up with English questions.
In the next place, taking an extreme view of the Bill, it is said that there are no special needs in Ireland needing special treatment. That is an argument always supported by a reference to Irish prosperity and the statistics of the savings banks. But the figures of the savings banks do not dispose of the Irish difficulty. I am quite sure that any one who has been through Irish controversies as long as I have been, must realise how perfectly hopeless it is to approach Irish questions in the spirit of an accountant, for that is what it comes to. I differ entirely from that point of view. The Irish question has been an enormous embarrassment to politicians, all because some men believe that because Ireland is more prosperous, or quiet, the embarrassment and trouble of the Irish question is passing. I think British electors and Members of Parliament have said that often enough now, to be quite sure that it is not true. Now, can any Government bring Ireland into the same relations and the same attitude of mind towards the central Government as the other parts of the Empire? Would not such a consummation be the greatest possible triumph to the British Government and the greatest relief to national affairs? I remember the time when it was fashionable with Members on the other side to say that the settlement of the Land Question would mean the end of political agitation in Ireland. I have never shared that view; but I do admit that the Land Question is a very great element in the social conditions in Ireland, and the political conditions, too. I do not believe that by settling the Land Question you will get a complete political settlement. I would infinitely prefer to see a political settlement, but, short of that, I believe the economic settlement of the land will be a most valuable asset to Ireland and to us. We hear of agreements between landlord and tenant, and the hon. Member for Waterford laid great stress on the unanimity of that sentiment, even in the proposed Amendments to the Bill. If anyone takes a cheap and superficial view of the matter he can say it is not hard
1390
for two parties to be unanimous on the subject of getting money from the public funds. But is that all the Irish landlords and tenantry are unanimous about? They are unanimous also about the desirability of a great transfer of property from one class to another in Ireland, of great alteration in the condition and status of the tenants; and I do believe it is a fair statement to say that underlying the unanimity is a sense of weariness of the struggle, and that the attraction which has brought landlords and tenants together is the prospect of peace and good feeling and a sense of common citizenship. Is that not an interest which, from the British point of view, it is our interest to promote? Do we owe no responsibility for the trouble in Ireland? The position in regard to Irish land has long been an impossible one; and I think in the main, it is due partly to the ignorance, and partly to the inadequacy of British legislation. I hold that some development on the lines of this Bill is an inevitable consequence of the Land Purchase Acts. If the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment supported the Ashbourne Acts, they have their share of the responsibility for the introduction of the present Bill. Surely no one can have listened to the speech of the First Lord without realising how much ignorance of Englishmen in regard to Irish history has had to do with the present position. It was years, indeed generations, before people on this side came to understand that the English and Irish land systems were different. For generations British Administrations and British legislation went on the assumption that the two systems were similar. That was believed in all good faith, but the result was bound to be injustice in Ireland, and incalculable misery and neglect in our relations with Ireland.
We are told that this Bill is unpopular. Remedies for past mistakes are not apt to be popular; and remedies for grievances not felt on our side of the water are not apt to be popular. But either this Government, or any other Government that succeeds it, will have to go on until these difficulties are got over, and will have to be prepared to face unpopularity, or else cease to be responsible for the government of Ireland, or, if they pay any attention to the condition of Ireland,

1391
they will have to do real violence to their own consciences in the matter by doing nothing. That is why I welcomed the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury last evening. I admit it dealt mainly with Irish land, and hat we have no right to draw from it any inference with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's attitude on affairs in Ireland other than the land. But, with regard to the land, the right hon. Gentleman has nailed his colours to the mast. He explained more powerfully than lean, the differences in the English and the Irish land systems. He dwelt upon these differences in a most striking and emphatic way; and he concluded by saying that the peculiarities of the Irish land system had been such as to naturally foster the sentiment of co-ownership. I take special note of that word "naturally." I take it, it means that if the First Lord of the Treasury or any one of us had been an Irish tenant we should naturally have acquired the sentiment of the co-ownership of the land. If only an understanding of that fact had been worked into other days! It is but a little way back in history since an English Prime Minister—if he was not Prime Minister at the time he was Prime Minister more than once—laid it down that tenant-right in Ireland was landlord wrong. I am quite aware that that was said from the Liberal side of the House; and I imagine it represented the opinions of both parties at that time. It was to Mr. Gladstone's great honour that he made the Liberal Party, at any rate, understand the injustice of the Irish land system. Now we have a Conservative Prime Minister stating that the peculiarities of the Irish land system naturally foster the sentiment of co-ownership, which is the exact opposite of the statement that tenant-right was landlord wrong. I am not surprised that the Irish Members take note of such a tremendous advance in progress, and I believe that the hon. Member for Cork is right in saying that progress has been made in the consideration of the Irish land question not by one side alone, but by the House of Commons generally.
There is one more difference which I might add to the differences mentioned by
1392
the First Lord of the Treasury yesterday as existing between the Irish and the English land systems. The right hon. Gentleman said that Irish land was not a marketable commodity, where as English land was. That is true; but there is something else remarkable about Irish land as distinguished from English land. That is that Irish land from the point of view of the purchase of ownership has had very little marketable value, where as in regard to letting to tenants it has had a monopoly value. Some go so far as to say that land which has no marketable value has yet a monopoly value. If that is so, it is one of the most remarkable differences between the Irish and English land systems, and needs special care in dealing with the Land Question in Ireland. Among the other things regarding which we must be on our guard, there is the possibility of monopoly value being offered for Irish land by the occupiers. Surely if the price is to be based on monopoly value we are working on an insecure foundation. Let us see how we stand with regard to the Irish Land Question at this moment. First of all, we did not recognise tenant-rights as the sentiment of co-ownership. Then came the Act of 1870, which legalised the principle provided other people were prepared to recognise it; but in the Act of 1881 that principle was imposed. It is easy to complain of the Act of 1881; and I understood the First Lord of the Treasury to say that he still remained very hostile to it; but I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it was much easier to find fault with the Act than to say what should have been done in the circumstances. It is a very cheap part to play to find fault with the Act of 1881 unless it can be shown that there was a better alternative at the time. But we have, I admit, got beyond the Act of 1881. It was a just Act, in as much as it imposed what was a natural sentiment, and what was in accordance with the facts and ideas of co-ownership; but it seems to me to prove we must go beyond that. Having imposed the idea of co-ownership we have now got to do what we can to abolish co-ownership in order to substitute single ownership.

1393
Then we come to the question of price; and on the question of price depends the prospect of re-payment. I agree entirely with my right hon. friend who spoke yesterday, that the interests of the British taxpayer and the Irish tenant in this matter are closely bound up together. I welcome again what the First Lord of the Treasury said in regard to his opinion as to how far we may build on the willingness of the Irish tenant to repay. But the price must be a fair one. How are we to discover it? I quite see that there must be a limit at one end. We must see that an excessive price shall not be paid, because if an excessive price is paid we diminish the security of the British taxpayer. This is not a compulsory but a voluntary measure, and the interest in this limit being fixed is security for the taxpayer who lends the money. There is no danger to the security of the taxpayer if an unduly low price is paid, and I cannot see the object of the minimum limit of price. If it were a compulsory Bill, then I admit, of course, we should have narrow limits on both sides; but being a voluntary Bill there is only one object in fixing the limit, viz., public security. I cannot see why the lower limit was introduced at all, as from our point of view the lower the price the better the security, and I feel that this minimum limit is a very serious blot on the Bill—so serious that although I propose to reserve detailed criticism on it for the Committee stage it is one which, if not dealt with in Committee, may modify my attitude towards the whole of the Bill. Then there is a further fault in the Bill which I do not press, but which I think will have to betaken into consideration, if not in this Bill, then in some subsequent Bill. That is the question of larger powers for dealing with the congested districts. I am sure you will have to go further in that direction, not in the way of general but of special compulsory powers, than the Bill goes at the present time. You realise that it may be necessary to bring some compulsion to bear on the tenants who stand out, because if a fourth of the tenants stand out you propose to deprive them of certain privileges they now possess, and make their position less favourable than at present. You realise
1394
that the Bill, to be useful, must be large and comprehensive in its object. But is there no danger of a minority of landlords, perhaps one landlord, standing out, perhaps in those districts where the Bill is most needed. You will have to face the question, and even if you consider that you will launch the Bill without large powers in this direction, I think the House of Commons ought to be prepared to feel that in passing a Bill of this kind, the more largely and extensively the Bill operates the better; and you will have to take into consideration the question of dealing with special districts and special cases in Ireland.
One more point, and here I am not in agreement with what I understand to be the views of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland generally. I frankly admit that I like the rent-charge being reserved. I should like to say that the rent-charge, if maintained, will have to be reserved to an Irish local authority. I think that will have to come; and I do not cavil with the establishment of the principle that, subject to fair compensation, there is inherent in the private right of holding land a recognition of the paramount rights of the community at large. I entirely agree that if you carry out this Bill you must retain control to prevent subdivision and mortgaging. I see in the rent-charge a valuable principle underlying the right of the community with regard to the land; and in so far as it enables control to be exercised as regards subdivision and mortgaging it can have nothing but a practical effect. I rather prefer the rent-charge because it lays down a central principle when we are making a new start with regard to the land; and it is desirable it should be preserved. But there is another method of retaining control. That would be to offer the local authorities the right of pre-emption without a rent-charge and make it impossible for land to be subdivided, or mortgaged, or disposed of without the consent of the local authority, leaving the individual owner,, in all other respects, in complete control. But even those who objected to the rent-charge are agreed that something must be done to give the public authority control and to prevent these evils from

1395
arising. Now, let me come to the minor objections of principle. As to the free grant, it is an obvious retort to those who have pressed for economy to say that it is inconsistent now to advocate the expenditure of money. But in the instance cited, that of the Army Votes, we were pressing for the economy of millions; and the annual expenditure for this free grant, including the Sinking Fund, will only be £390,000; and unless the Bill operates more rapidly than is expected, that expenditure will not be reached for fifteen years. In pressing for economy on the Army Estimates, our reason was precisely that we knew that more money was needed at home. The Chief Secretary has given some figures of how money will be saved if this Bill be passed. Some of these figures may be open to question. But what is not open to question is that, directly or indirectly, if this Bill achieves only a part of its objects, the public saving with regard to Irish government will be infinitely greater than the annual interest of the free grant. In my opinion it is not fair to say that this free grant is a grant to the landlords. It is quite true that the money is to be given to the landlords, but the interest in the grant is both the landlords' and the tenants'. If the landlord gets the money, the tenant gets the land; and when we discuss the grant we ought to speak of it as a grant of money which is given, not in the interest of one class, but equally in the interest of both classes.
I sympathise with the desire to see the evicted tenant question dealt with as comprehensively as possible. We are told that in money and in the numbers of persons affected it will be a comparatively small matter. But in sentiment it is a large matter. There is sentiment underlying all these questions; and it is at least a subject for consideration whether it would not be wise, considering the great gain in sentiment and spirit, to re-open the question in Committee. As to the working of purchase, we have experience to go on, and we know what the effect of the Bill is likely to be in Ireland. Mr. Bailey's report says that the holdings of tenant purchasers have largely improved; that in many districts the actual carrying power of the land has been increased,
1396
largely by good management; that the tendency to sub-let and sub-divide has to a great extent disappeared, and that the tendency to sell has diminished; that the general solvency and credit of the tenant purchasers has much improved; that the Gombeen man has to a great extent disappeared; and that the standard of comfort has risen considerably within the last generation. That is a body of evidence drawn from experience which does make the prospect of a new Land Purchase Bill attractive. Because Ireland has depended mainly on agriculture, she has suffered with exceptional severity from what I think, was a right fiscal policy and from economic causes which could not be helped. Lately there has happily come into the Irish government a recognition of the fact that agriculture is an industry which must be conducted on scientific lines and with modern organisation. That that has been done better than in England is largely, if not entirely, due to the courage and persistence of Mr. Horace Plunkett. The hon. Member for Stoke held up Mr. Plunkett's political opinions to opprobrium. I do not care what his political views are, in view of the practical value of his work in Ireland. Ireland has now a prospect, which she has never had before, of being a good model of successful agriculture; and we are asked to get rid of this blighting system of the dual ownership of land When, for the first time within living memory, Ireland has a prospect of being commercially successful, surely that time is opportune for removing this obstacle to agricultural prosperity. Irish Members have thought it right to declare that, in dealing with the agrarian question, we must not hope to settle the political question; and the First Lord said that the Bill was not intended to alter people's convictions. We all of us entirely accept that position. We used to be told that to settle the Land Question was to settle the political question. We must be ready to abide by the result; but we must not regard the political question as in any way prejudiced. In my opinion, this Bill is not going to solve the political question in Ireland. It is not going to abolish Irish demands for more self-government. But it is going to introduce composure and reason into the future discussion of this question. It is going to enable the British electors,

1397
provided that it operates on the large scale that is hoped, to deal for the first time with the Irish political question on its merits, and to discuss Irish demands unbiased by all the misapprehension, bitterness, and ill-feeling to which the struggle for the land has given rise. I agree that it would be desirable to have introduced the Irish local authorities into the working of the land purchase system. I am sorry it is not in the Bill. It would have been an extra guarantee of the good and successful working of the system. But I am deeply impressed by the experience of recent years, with the futility of attempting too much at once. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the introduction later on, of the Irish local authorities as parties to the working of the system The Bill has difficulties enough before it in Committee. I do not regard it as an unpopular and disagreeable necessity. I see at the present moment a great opportunity of dealing with Irish land, and an attempt in the Bill to use that opportunity for good. It may be so handled in Committee that our attitude to it will be entirely changed. But I wish to see the Bill sent to Committee with the best encouragement we can give to it; and I hope to see it emerge as an active measure. That being so, as far as I am concerned, to vote against the Second Reading or to withhold my vote in favour of the Second Reading would be to take upon myself the responsibility of risking being a party to the doing of a mischief both to Ireland and to our relations with Ireland, which it would be beyond the power of the Liberal Party, or I think of any Party, to repair.
SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: For a good many years I have taken the greatest interest in Irish land legislation, and on this account I think I may claim the indulgence of the House. The question of land tenure is one which, in all ages, has been attended with the very greatest difficulty. There are two or three main obstacles which have prevented princes and rulers from getting a good system of land tenure. The first difficulty which has to be encountered is, that as soon as a system gives any tenant fixity of tenure
1398
in his land, he is able to borrow, and it is this facility for borrowing which has rendered the system so unsatisfactory. In England, though farming families continue for many generations, it is very seldom that the yeoman owning his own land continues for long, because the fatal facility for borrowing makes it necessary for him to sell his farm. Then when the individual had no permanent interest in any particular piece of land, when it was held by the village in common, as it has been in Russia and elsewhere, they were met by the difficulty that the land was so badly cultivated that it would only support a very small population. When the period for re-distribution approached, whoever cultivated a certain piece of land would take all he could out of it and put nothing into it, because he knew he would not have the opportunity of cultivating it any longer. The result of this system was that land went into an extremely bad state of cultivation. Hon. Members will probably ask, what is a good system? Although I know the hon. Member for East Mayo will not agree with me, I assert that, as far as I can see, the English system of farming at present is as good a one as we can find. The farmer in England does not want to buy the land, and it would not pay him to do so. Suppose a man possessed £800 capital. If he were to buy the land he would be lucky if he could get twenty acres of good land with house and buildings for £600, and that would leave him only £200 for stock, and to put the house and drainage in order. But if he got twenty acres he would be a very small man indeed. Instead of doing this he uses the a hole of his money as working capital. He takes a farm with a house, with buildings and fences and roads provided and everything in a good state, and he has not to lay out one penny on these things. Consequently he is able to keep the whole of his money for stocking the farm. The result is that he gets a farm of 100 to 150 acres instead of twenty, and in that way he manages to live extremely well. The first question I may be asked will probably be, why cannot the English system be adopted in Ireland? The reason is that the holdings in Ireland are so extremely small that the landowners could not afford to build a house upon them. On a holding of £35 a year

1399
how could you expend £150 upon a house and buildings—and I am sure you could not provide them for less. And if they were provided the tenant is not willing to pay any more rent. In cases where the tenant has built his own house, of course it is only right that he should have a certain amount of compensation.
I approved of the compensation clauses in the Act of 1870, but I entirely disapprove of the Act of 1881. In order not to introduce any unnecessary irritation I will confine myself to the economic objections to that Act. To begin with, you ensure that every new tenant shall always be rack-rented. A man leaving his farm and going to America or to the Antipodes has no interest in his successor on the farm, and, naturally, he extorts the last farthing. The result is, that, by allowing tenants to sell to successors at the highest price, you ensure that every future tenant will always be rack-rented. The next objection I have to the system is that it does not ensure good cultivation, because when the fifteen years rent revision is approaching the tenant wants his farm to look as wretched as possible so that the Commissioners will fix a lower rent. Therefore you give to every tenant an inducement to cultivate the land badly. As the result of the working of the Acts which have been passed upon this question, I came to the conclusion, before the speech of the Prime Minister, that we had got into as bad a state of land tenure in Ireland as could possibly be arrived at. The small holdings of £5 a year, and so on, have been the greatest curse to Ireland, because they are not large enough to employ the energies of a man and his family. The Acts we have passed have tended to perpetuate these small holdings, and they have also given full powers of borrowing money, although as yet those borrowing powers have not been exercised so much as we might have expected. We have now arrived at an impossible position, and the question is, what is to be done? We are not starting afresh, but we are facing an impossible position created by successive Acts of Parliament. If we were starting from the year 1869 I believe we might make a better scheme. What we have now got to do is to find a scheme that will work, and find a way out of the present deadlock. It seems to me that if we do not pass this Bill we are going to get in-
1400
to very great difficulties. Re-valuations are now going on, rents are being again enormously decreased by the Commissioners, and loud complaints are being made that there has been no fall in prices since the last valuation sufficient to justify reductions in rent averaging about 22 per cent. In my part of the world the farmer is always complaining that the price of Irish store cattle always goes up, and the dealers say that the price of horses in Ireland goes up. Therefore, I do not see how the Government, if this Bill is not passed, can refuse a very searching inquiry as to whether the reduction of rents is not being made unfairly. I do not see how any just Government can avoid inquiry into this question. Supposing it is found that the rents have been reduced too much. Are we to have the whole question of land Commissioners and Sub-commissioners and their system of fixing rents fought out in this House? Take another case. Prices cannot always go down. If they did we should get eventually to nothing, and then, instead of selling your produce, you would have to pay some one to take it away. Supposing prices went up all round for agricultural products. If prices go up, then, of course, if justice is to be done, rents must go up too. Tenants have got into their heads that re-valuation means reduction, and if they were raised I think we might have all the difficulty over again. I agree with every word that has been said by the hon. Member opposite as to the tone and spirit in which we ought to approach this question, and as to the great opportunity which now presents itself for solving the problem once for all. It is no use for me to pretend that I approve of the Act of 1881, or that Members on this side of the House approve of it. We do not. But that is no reason why I should not try to find the best means out of the difficulty, or to find a scheme which commends itself to Members on this, as well as to Members on the other side of the House. Having given the most careful attention to the subject, I can honestly say that I mean to do my best to help the Bill through in a conciliatory spirit, and I hope it may do all the good that is expected of it.
MR. LAMBERT: Everyone who has listened to this debate must have noticed the difference between the spirit in which the leaders of the Liberal Party have approached this great subject, and that in which the Unionist Party dealt with the measure in 1886, when every kind of misrepresentation was used. Yesterday the Leader of the Irish Party was good enough to criticise an Amendment I had placed on the Paper objecting to this free gift to Irish landlords as an inducement to sell their land at prices in excess of its value, and I was practically told that it was none of my business. It was an excellent instance of the hon. Gentleman having become gamekeeper of the landlords' preserves. He warned me off, but he has himself been a poacher on those preserves for a great many years, and he affords a good illustration of the saying that an old poacher makes a zealous gamekeeper. As to this being none of our business, I only wish the hon. Gentleman had acted on that principle last year in connection with the English Education Bill. But I will pass from that. I am absolutely astonished at the attitude of hon. Members opposite when they tell us we may, with perfect security, invest £100,000,000 in Irish land, and that we can expect the Irish tenant to repay that money with regularity and punctuality—in fact, that the Irish tenant, in his dealings with the British Exchequer, will be one of the most punctual and honourable of men. They almost invest him with a pair of wings, but when it comes to a case of Irishmen dealing with Irish affairs in Ireland, then it appears that they are invested with a double dose of original sin, and cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs. I do not quarrel with the attitude of the Government; all I hope is that they will carry their principles a little farther, and let Irishmen have an opportunity of managing their own affairs in their own country.
I come now to what, after all, is the main point of this Bill—namely, the price which you are going to pay to Irish landlords for their land. When Mr. Gladstone introduced his Bill in 1886, we had pictures at the election of
1402
truck-loads of gold going into the Irish landlords' pockets. But what wag the price Mr. Gladstone proposed to pay! He did not propose to pay, as is proposed in this Bill, something like twenty-five years purchase of the first-term rent, but to pay sixteen years purchase, that is to say, instead of £2,500, he proposed to pay £1,600.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): At sixteen years purchase of what?
MR. LAMBERT: Of the first-term rents.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: There were none fixed at the time.
MR. LAMBERT: The Act had been in operation for four years, and Mr. Gladstone distinctly stated that he would take the first-term rents or a fair equivalent, and he proposed to give sixteen years purchase upon that basis. Was that a generous offer to the Irish landlord? The present Colonial Secretary, speaking on 20th April, 1886, said—
"I do not know if the Irish landlords will think it a sufficiently advantageous offer; I should, if I were in their place."
That was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman then. In June he said—
"There are 10,000 individuals in Ireland who are cared for; they have no cause to complain of the proposals made for their benefit. So far as they are concerned, the protection is complete. The 10,000 landlords in Ireland are to be protected at the cost and risk of the British taxpayer."
I ask, if the Irish landlords were well paid by sixteen years purchase of the first-term rents in 1886, why is it they have to be paid this larger sum to-day? I will take the Chief Secretary's own figure of £4,000,000 second-term rents. If we take twenty years purchase, it will be found that Mr. Glad tone proposed to give the Irish landlords £80,000,000 for their £4,000,000 of rental, but this Bill proposes to give them £112,000,000. What real reason is there for giving the Irish landlords to-day £32,000,000 more than Mr. Gladstone proposed in 1886? I will go further. What has been the price of Irish land on second-term rents? I can take no better authority than Lord Dunraven,

1403
who, writing to the Freeman's Journal on 11th April, said that the average price of second-term rents had been nineteen and a half years' purchase. On £4,000,000 of rent that would work out at £78,000,000. Why are we called upon to make an advance of £112,000,000 for that which is admittedly worth only £78,000,000? We were told last night by the Prime Minister that the landlords never spent a single penny on their estates. If that is so, why are they to have twenty-five years purchase, plus three years as a bonus, making twenty-eight years purchase altogether? That is the question I want to ask. and it is the question, I think, which follows up the argument of the Leader of the Opposition. It is all a question of price, and you are giving the landlords too much. If I possessed the incisive eloquence of the Colonial Secretary, I should call this a bribe; instead of that, I will call it a kind of solatium to the Irish landlords—a slight token of our esteem for what they have done in the past. What have they done in the past? My own impression is that they have been the cause of a great deal of the agrarian strife in Ireland, because they have extracted, or attempted to extract, impossible rents from the tenants. The Chief Secretary said, "Oh, yes, but the police in Ireland are required largely because of the illegalities born of agrarian unrest." That is a pretty euphemism for "attempts to extract impossible rents from Irish tenants." It seems to me that we have very topsy-turvy ideas as to the position of Irish landlords. We seem to imagine that their position is a very unenviable one. The Chief Secretary described to us an Irish landlord being supported in the workhouse by the rates of his tenants. If the Irish landlord was so harassed an individual, one would have thought that he would be very glad to sell at a fair price. But not a bit of it. We were told by Lord Dunraven on April 24th that the great majority of landlords were not anxious to sell. Why are they not, if their position is so precarious? We have been told that they were like corks drifting on seas of litigation.
An HON. MEMBER:That is since 1881.
MR. LAMBERT: Oh, no! Prime Minister made a very different statement from that. He said that in Ireland there was a system under which, for historical reasons—and historical reasons go back farther than 1881—the landlord did not spend a shilling on his property. Why is the credit of the Imperial taxpayer to be pledged to give to Irish landlords an enormous benefit, which I think they hardly deserve? We were told at the Landlords' Convention that the Irish landlord was to receive a sum which would bring him in something like 3¼ per cent. I really do not understand why the Chief Secretary should value Irish land at this enormous figure. Moreover, I will try to show that this bonus of £12,000,000 is in reality £32,000,000. I take twenty years purchase, which, according to Lord Dunraven, is more than the average price of second-term rentals. Does the right hon. Gentleman dissent from that?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,: You said it was in the Bill.
MR. LAMBERT: But you have £20,000,000 wrapped up in the Bill about which you say nothing. The landlords are to get all their legal expenses paid—that represents a considerable sum—and they are generous enough to suggest that all economies in administration in Ireland shall go towards the relief of the tenants' instalments. We heard a great deal of the Act of 1881. One would believe the Irish landlord's position prior to 1881 was a bed of roses, that no Irish landlords were intimidated, no agents were shot, and that there was no difficulty at all in obtaining the rents. Now the effect of that Act was to reduce first-term rents by 20 per cent. and second-term rents by 17½per cent., therefore you have a reduction in Ireland of 37½per cent. I can point to hundreds, of cases in England where landlords have made all the improvements and the reduction has been 37½ per cent. and

1405
more. British land ought to be as valuable as Irish land, but can you find estates in England where you can get a twenty-eight years' purchase. What are the results of the Act of 1881? I find that whereas in 1881 there were 3,000,000 cattle in Ireland the number had increased in 1891 to 4,600,000; during the same period sheep had increased from 3,200,000 to 4,300,000, and whereas in 1881 5 per cent. of the people were living in mud cabins, I am glad to say that in 1891 the figure had decreased to l·4 per cent., and I hope that number will soon disappear altogether. Then there is the tremendous bonus as regards their demesne land, and it gives the demesne owner the advantage of British credit, and enables him to clear off a mortgage, and put money in his own pocket as well. It was proved the other day in a letter to The Times that if you had demesne to the value of £10,000, of which £6,000 was on mortgage at 4½ per cent., the landlord would get the mortgage cleared off in sixty-eight and a half years and put £85 into his own pocket. That is the excessive price you are going to pay for this Bill.
That brings me to the point of tenure, and I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it is by the tenants' inability to pay the instalments that we have to judge of this Bill. I would rather see the Imperial money spent in relief of the tenants of Ireland, than in the relief of the landlords of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has so fined down the instalments that he has been able to give a larger purchase price to the Irish landlords. Altogether this Bill teems with examples of how the landlord's interest has been protected. He has been swaddled in purple and fine linen. They are even better off than the people in the Rand, because they get their sovereigns for nothing, where as other people have to work for them. Then the Ashbourne Act provided for a seventeen years purchase, but under this Act you are going to give twenty-four to twenty-eight years purchase, and in order to give other advantages to the tenant you have reduced the Sinking Fund from 4 to 3¼ per cent., and made other changes. I contend that all these ingenious calculations and contrivances have been made to give the Irish landlord an extreme price for his land, and
1406
thus tend to reduce the security of the State. A recent example is that of a sale of a Waterford and Kilkenny estate which has a nominal rent of £4,300. The landlord will receive in cash about £75,000, and had agreed to the sale on those terms. Now the landlord and his representatives want to postpone the sale because they will get an infinitely better price under the Bill. They will get £107,000 instead of £75,000, and what justification is there for putting £32,000 into the pocket of that Irish landlord, who had agreed to sell under the Ashbourne Act for £75,000. I think also that this increase in the number of years instalments to be paid by the State, constitutes a great danger and blot on the Bill. What will happen? In thirty or forty years time all the tenants under the present Act—some 74,000 as far as I can ascertain—will have their land free, and will not have to pay another penny, but the tenants who buy under the Act will have to pay another thirty or forty years and will never have their land free. That arrangement will not add to the contentment of Ireland. I take also, as I have stated in my Amendment, a rather serious view of bringing the Treasury into contact with something like 400,000 tenants. There are 275,000 tenants in Ireland whose holdings are under £10 a year, and fancy bringing the Treasury into direct contact with these tenants of holdings of uneconomic value, and who, if they had their holdings for nothing would hardly get along. Mr. Gladstone in 1886 spoke of that danger, and his words are as true to-day as they were then. You are bringing the Treasury into direct contact with this enormous number of tenants in Ireland, and you cannot expect, especially in bad seasons, that your instalments will be regularly paid. Of course public opinion supports the view of punctual payments in Ireland at the present time, but it may change under pressure of events. The right hon. Gentleman says we have material security in the Bill, but does anyone believe that you can withdraw the Exchequer contribution grants from Ireland? What would be the views of the Irish members on that point? Then we are told that this Bill is intended to check the deadly stream of emigration from Ireland. The Freeman's

1407
Journal says that not for many years past has the exodus reached so high a standard as in the present year. How-are you, by giving this large grant to the Irish landlords, going to stem the stream of emigration? Under the Local Government Act of 1898, you put direct into the landlords' pocket £316,000 a year in payment of their poor rate. I opposed that Bill because it would do nothing to help the poor tenants, and it has done nothing. The emigration returns show that two years before the Bill passed the number was 32,000 and two years after it had increased to 43,000.
I agree with the Irish Members in giving more power to the Congested Districts Board, and in putting upon that Board the Chairman, and possibly others, of the County Councils in Ireland, but, in this case, where you could do some good in that way to these poor people, the Bill is miserably inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman told us he hoped this Bill would settle the Irish Question, but he did not speak with great confidence on that point. Then we had the opinion of an authority, a right hon. Gentleman who now sits on the Treasury Bench, who tells us he will look forward to the next Bill. I notice the Unionist newspapers, who give a sort of squirming support to the Government on this measure, suggested that the Solicitor-General ought to hand in his resignation to the Government. The right hon. Gentleman of course has the power in his own hands. We know that the Prime Minister dare not dismiss him from his position because, if he poured in a couple of broadsides into this Bill, it would founder the whole concern. You are giving this enormous grant to the Irish landlords—£32,000,000 more than the land is worth—and yet you are doing nothing for the self-government of Ireland, or to settle the Irish questions. It was said the other day that if the King visited Ireland he would get no official reception, and we were told last night that this is intended to make he people of Ireland loyal.
I imagine that the supporters of the Government will rub their eyes with astonishment when they read the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo that we are going to give this enormous
1408
grant of money in order to facilitate the sale and purchase of land, and that it will not make Ireland more loyal, and that it will not turn Home Rulers into Unionists. I do not object to the system of land purchase if you carry it out under reasonable conditions and give the Irish landlord a fair price for his land, which I maintain is not more than twenty years purchase. Supposing that an English landowner is to have land compulsorily taken from him you would give him compensation of 10 per cent. There is another evil which we will have to face, especially if you give this enormous grant to the Irish landlords. The Government will be turned into an absentee landlord in Ireland. I do not know what will be the result of that, because if the landlords leave Ireland you will be turning the Exchequer into a gigantic absentee landlord for sixty-eight and a half years. I do not regard this Bill as one for purchasing peace in Ireland. I regard it more as ransoming the Irish landlords.
MR. LONSDALE: My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary is, I think, to be warmly congratulated upon the reception which has been given to this Bill, not only in this House and in Ireland, but, I may add, throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. There has been a general, practically a universal, recognition of the fact that its principle is sound, that its object is worthy of support, and that its scheme, both in its financial and other aspects, may reasonably be expected to go a long way towards the final settlement of the Irish land problem. I have no doubt that my right hon. friend has carefully felt the pulse of public opinion in reference to this large and generous measure which he has submitted to the House and the country. I am sure that he and this House must have been impressed by the practical unanimity of that opinion throughout Ireland, among all ranks and classes of the people, in favour of the general principle and main provisions of the Bill. Those of us who have taken advantage of the Easter recess to visit our constituents and consult with them in reference to the Bill are, I think, in a position to assure the Chief Secretary and the House that the manifestations of

1409
public opinion in conferences and conventions, in speeches and in letters to the newspapers, accurately reflect the earnest desire which permeates the minds of the Irish people that the Bill should pass into law. I desire to emphasise this fact because many points in the Bill have been subjected to criticism, but that has been only upon matters of detail. General exception has been taken to some provisions which may or may not be considered by the Government to be vital provisions. But what I wish the House to bear in mind is that there is no body of opinion in Ireland which desires the rejection of the measure; but that, on the contrary, the earnest wish of the whole people of Ireland is that it should become law. Consequently all Amendments that may be proposed will be intended only to facilitate its operation and to more effectually attain the end we all most earnestly look for—the complete and lasting settlement of the Land Question. In his speech introducing the Bill my right hon. friend expressed the belief, which events since then have fully confirmed, that possible failure would not be due either to the Irish landlord or the tenant, or to the general taxpayer. I believe with my right hon. friend that neither the Irish landlord nor the Irish tenant will place obstacles in the way of the successful working of the Bill. I believe, moreover, that the general taxpayer, both in Great Britain and Ireland, will appreciate the advantages which must accrue to the United Kingdom and to the Empire from a settlement of this question, and that the hon. Member who has moved the rejection of the Bill will have a very small following, either in this House or in the country. And it is because we are deeply anxious that there should be no failure owing to what my right hon. friend has modestly called "shortcomings in the framing of the Bill," that we who represent the cause of Unionism in Ireland submit such suggestions and criticisms as appear to us to bear in the direction of strengthening the Bill.
Now, of course, there are defects in the measure—several serious defects in my opinion, and, indeed, in the opinion of all who are conversant with Irish land problems. To some of them I should like to refer, as they are not the subject of controversy at all in Ireland, but are
1410
universally regarded as defects in this great scheme, though, I must add, not by any means incurable defects. There is, for example, the restriction contained in Clause 17 dealing with the tenant's right to have a fair rent fixed. To take away this right, as the Bill proposes to do in certain circumstances, will be resented strongly, and naturally resented, by all the tenants—certainly by all the tenants in the north of Ireland. There is no right so dearly prized by the tenant farmer. To take it away from him as the Bill proposes in certain cases, or even to suspend it, as is proposed in other cases, would inflict on him a great injustice. It is, moreover, an element of compulsion in a Bill which is intended to go upon purely voluntary lines. Besides, in the vast majority of cases there is no pressing need for it, as the great inducements offered by the Bill will be sufficient in themselves. But every tenant will be irritated by the possibility of compulsion being applied to him, and that in itself will tend to check, not facilitate, the purchase of land. I trust that the Chief Secretary will in this important matter give way to what, by this time, he must know is the unanimous feeling of the Irish tenant farmers, and that he will delete this irritating and unnecessary provision. Then as to the limits of what the Chief Secretary has described as the "zones of reduction within which bargains for purchase may take place." Irish opinion is adverse to such cast iron limits. I believe that the minimum limit should be retained, but that there should be no limitation upon the maximum reduction. This, I think, should be left to agreement. I think that at this stage we should have at least an explicit statement from the Government of the reasons for the provision of the limits of reduction of rent. Again, with regard to the perpetual rent-charge of one-eighth, this seems unnecessary and should not be insisted upon. The only reason claimed for it is that it is an effectual check upon unauthorised dealings with purchased holdings. Now such unauthorised transactions cannot take place for sixty-eight and a half years, until all the instalments of the purchase money have been repaid. The retention of the rent charge, I submit, is therefore unnecessary. Its only effect would be injurious. It takes away from that magic sense of proprietary which in all ages and

1411
countries has been the greatest incentive to industry. The Irish tenant farmer wants to buy out all other interests. He is content to pay for the long period of sixty-eight years provided he is freeing himself from the whole burden, and not merely from a portion of it. I think, therefore, that the rent-charge is calculated to check the desire for purchase, and, of course, that would be very unfortunate. I would, therefore, suggest the omission of this provision, and that the reservation of a small quit rent would effect the object which is desired.
I come now to the feature of the Bill which has much impressed the popular imagination—that is the grant-in-aid of £12,000,000. The necessity for some such grant has been amply demonstrated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and is, I have no doubt, clear to all who know the practical difficulty that at present retards land purchase in Ireland. That practical difficulty is, of course, that the sum which the tenant can afford to give falls considerably short of what the landlord is equitably entitled to receive, and, indeed, what he can afford to accept, and some such grant is needed to bridge over that difference. I would remind English and Scotch Members of some important points in connection with that grant. In the first place the sum of £12,000,000 is a maximum, extending over many years, and which can only be reached if this Bill becomes completely successful; and I think nobody will deny that its success will far more than justify the expenditure. Then another point is that not more than £390,000 is to be charged upon the Exchequer in any one year, and of that sum, I need not remind the House, Ireland is entitled to £185,000, its equivalent for the education grant to England. Besides, if, as seems reasonably certain, the expectations of my right hon. friend are realised, and economies in Irish administration are effected to the amount of £250,000 a year in consequence of the Bill, the result would be that practically no money whatever would have to be found by the State in respect of the object of the Bill. So far as the British taxpayer is concerned the grant would practically not affect him in the least. While £12,000,000 is a generous provision I do not think it is sufficient to meet the case. What is sufficient has been variously estimated; but there is
1412
I think, a general consensus of opinion in Ireland that at least £15,000,000 or £16,000,000 would be required. I desire to know, therefore, whether there is any hope of the grant being increased. If the Government cannot see their way to give a larger bonus I hope they will seriously consider the advisability of imposing a time limit of, say, three or five years, within which only those landowners arriving at an agreement to sell their estates should be allowed to participate in the grant. This, no doubt, would form a sort of compulsion, but one that was only counterbalancing that put upon the tenants in depriving them of their fair rent rights. If the latter restriction is retained, some such pressure as that of a time limit should be applied to the landlords. But I should prefer that the inducements to landowners should be made more effective and more equitable by an increase of grant. Besides, by increasing the grant the bonus could be made uniform and at the same time increase the average. All parties in Ireland are agreed that the graduated scale of bonus should be abandoned in favour of a uniform scale. The graduated scale under the Bill does not offer sufficient inducement to large landowners to sell. I trust that the Government will give an assurance upon this matter, as there is practical unanimity in Ireland that it is desirable and necessary.
There are several other points on which the Bill might be usefully amended. For example, I think the limit of £3,000 for advances should be increased to £5,000 at least, so as to include large farms, of which there are many in the north of Ireland, and I think it would be unfair that the holders of them should be excluded from the benefits of this measure. Then the exclusion of mill farms from the present Land Acts is recognised as a great hardship, and as most of these mills are of no value, and are never likely to have any, the tenants of them are, properly speaking, only agricultural tenants. I hope some provision will be made to give-purchase powers to such mill tenants. I think that special provision is needed in the case of Church perpetuity leases and Trinity College leases. These tenants have had to submit to

1413
judicial reductions of their sub tenants' rents on two occasions, but after having submitted to these reductions no relief whatever has been made available to them in respect of their rents, simply owing to their special tenure. This hardship is one which, I believe, will be accentuated by the purchase rights granted to these sub tenants under this Bill, and ought to be met by the insertion of some provision in the Bill. There is one provision in the Bill which I regard as of some importance, viz., Clause 16, by which the sporting rights are reserved to the vendor who has purchased part of his estate. I believe this to be a very proper and useful provision. We want to encourage the present landowners to remain in the country. It will undoubtedly be to the great advantage of the farmers and trades people, and to the general community, that this loyal and independent class should not be deprived of one strong attraction to reside amongst the people.
There is another matter to which I desire to allude, and that is the provisions in the Bill relating to labourers. These provisions are good so far as they go, but they do not go anything like far enough. They only touch the fringe of what is a very important part of the land problem in Ireland. I trust that we shall have some assurance from the Government that that part of the Bill will be amended or extended, so as to confer greater benefits upon a very deserving class, or else that separate legislation will be proposed to secure a very necessary amelioration of the condition of the agricultural labourer. The points I have referred to, are, I believe, important and essential to that complete success of the scheme which we all so earnestly desire. Apart from that, however, they are in a measure subordinate to the main principle of the Bill. All we ask from the Government is that full and fair consideration may be given to them. As an Irish Unionist Member, I appeal to this House to sanction this measure I appeal to hon. Members representing the interests of the United Kingdom to join in settling this question, which has cost the Empire many times more than the grant under this Bill. The immediate and the direct benefits it will confer
1414
to Ireland, and indeed to the whole Empire, cannot be over-estimated. As Unionists we can afford to disregard the professions of the belief of some hon. Members opposite, that the removal of the Irish land difficulty will be a stepping-stone to Home Rule. On the contrary, in my opinion it would rather tend to the strengthening of the ties that bind Great Britain and Ireland together. The Land Question has been at the bottom of all the political agitations, and of the greater part of the crime, in Ireland for the last hundred years. Settle that question by establishing the Irish farmer upon his holding as the owner, and he will apply himself with an energy he never before exhibited to the cultivation of his land. And the possession of the land will destroy in him the germs of disloyalty and unrest which have hindered his prosperity so fatally in the past. Moreover, as he witnesses the steady improvement of his own position, he will more and more realise the advantages of having open to him such a market as Great Britain offers for the disposal of his produce. And from such material advantages the conviction will grow in him that his prosperity depends in a vast measure upon the maintenance of the Union. The prosperity of Ireland—the contentment of her people—the stemming of the tide of emigration which is draining Ireland of the most virile portion of her population—in short, the full development of her resources—these are the results which will follow from the settlement of the land problem; and they are surely worth the pledging of the Imperial credit, and the expenditure of a few hundred thousands a year. I shall, therefore, support the Second Reading of this Bill, knowing that I shall, thereby, carry out the unanimous desire of my constituents, and firmly believing that it will confer lasting I benefits not only upon Ireland, but upon' the United Kingdom and the Empire.
DR. THOMPSON (Monaghan, N.): Mr. Speaker, everyone must admit the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Land Bill of 1903 has done so in as able an address as was possible, considering the weakness of his case. His speech abounded in assertions, but not in facts,

1415
and certainly not in logic. He demanded if the Land Bill becomes law-similar privileges for English tenants and labourers, and he asked was it a wise policy to yield to threats of violence and continual agitation, if the demands of the Irish representatives are any longer refused. As regards the other statements of the hon. Member, the argument contra is the simple but effective one that the circumstances of the Land Question in both countries quite different, and that a law which would be manifestly necessary and fair in one country would be unjust and uncalled for in the other. Prior to the famine time the old class of Irish landlord, although possessed of unlimited power, was as a rule generous and kind to his tenants, and seldom increased the rent. It was the advent of the Encumbered Estates Court Act of 1851, and a new race of landlords, which produced the state of confusion prior to 1881, and which is responsible for most of the troubles which have so grievously afflicted Ireland for the past fifty years. In the county in which I live landlords like the Duke of Abercorn, Lord Belmore, the Earl of Castlestuart, Sir James Strong, Lords Powerscourt, Ranfurly and Charlemont, and many others, were always kind and indulgent to their tenants, whose rents had not been increased for generations. When the Land Bill of 1881 became law they suffered quite as much reduction in rent as the landlords who had bought under the Act of 1851, most of whom had doubled or trebled the rents, and had in consequence enjoyed 10, 15 or 20 per cent. on their outlay for twenty or thirty years. I know a case where a property was bought to pay 5 per cent., which was immediately doubled, and the landlord received the increased income for thirty years. When, in 1881, the rent was reduced by 30 per cent., he took the matter philosophically, and remarked that he had not fared so badly after all. In another instance a noble Lord bought a small property for £10,000, revised and increased the rent, and immediately resold it for £15,000; again, a wide-awake solicitor, hearing that a well-known physician was anxious to become a landlord, with a view to civic honours in a northern city, bought a large property in the Encumbered Estates Court, doubled the rents, sold half of it to the doctor for a larger sum than he had paid for the
1416
whole estate, and kept the other half, thus clearing a profit of 100 per cent. without spending a shilling of his own money. These are only a few examples within my own knowledge of what was a common practice, and one which was suggested and encouraged by a British Act of Parliament. What excuse has the hon. Member to make for a law, the evil consequences of which British statesmen must, or rather should, have known, and which they allowed to exist for thirty years without taking any action to remedy. If the same conditions had been allowed to exist in Great Britain, the British people would have soon solved the difficulty by a revolution, and they would have been justified in doing so.
When times were fairly good, the poor Irish people had to submit to all those evil results emanating from British misrule; but in 1878 and 1879, prices fell away and the sufferings of our people became so great that flesh and blood could no longer tolerate the wrongs they were obliged to suffer. The result was the terrible uprising of an oppressed people, followed by that great act of reparation, the Land Act of 1881, introduced and passed by the greatest British statesman of the century, whose memory will always remain fresh and green in the hearts and minds of the Irish people. This Act was hailed with enthusiasm, it gave new life and freedom to an enslaved race; but as year after year its beneficial effects became more apparent, so also did its injustice and defects. It reduced rents indiscriminately, treating the old race of landlords in the same way as those who had purchased under the Estates Court Act. The Act of 1881 undoubtedly interfered with the known laws of political economy, and statesmen recognising in future years its baneful results introduced Purchase Act after Purchase Act, and also amending Land Acts, each doing some good, but still not curing the evil, and producing in those who could not purchase bitter feelings at their unequal treatment. In the West also the condition of the people, notwithstanding the efforts of the Congested Districts Board, became more menacing and intolerable These poor people live a miserable hand-to-mouth existence, and are often on the verge of starvation.

1417
Their condition is a standing danger and disgrace to the British Government. Discontent being therefore rife in the land, it was not hard in 1898 to stir up agitation once more; but the effort was feeble in comparison with former efforts, and was controlled by the decisions in the Taff Vale and Tallow and other cases, which prevent village busybodies and boycotters from carrying on their nefarious trade of stirring up local and general strife and profiting themselves by the turmoil they produce. The Roman Catholic Clergy also, and notably the patriotic Bishop of Elphin, condemned in the interests of their country the wiles of these disturbers. Ireland in certain parts became, however, so unsettled that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary, had no alternative except to enforce an exceptional law which everyone hates. Although strong, however, he was gentle and sympathetic, and while he showed that he would not allow Ireland to be ruined by feebleness and irresolution, at the same time he was determined to do all in his power to heal her open wounds. With this object in view he introduced into the House of Commons the great Land Bill of last year, which at first was received on all sides with approval, and which was a much better Bill in many respects for the tenants than the Land Bill which to-day is receiving its Second Beading. Only two clauses were objected to, viz: the 16th and 36th. The first was certainly bad; the second contained within it excellent germs which could have been made to bear good fruit. This Clause ordained that any landlord or tenant who wished to sell or buy could apply to the Land Commission to fix a purchase price, which he could either accept or reject. If the price was considered fair no doubt the landlord would have sold, in which event the tenant was obliged to buy or else forfeit his right to go into the Land Court to have a fair rent fixed. This was undoubtedly unfair, but if the Land Bill had been submitted for consideration to a Grand Committee, composed chiefly of Irish Members, it could have been easily amended and made to work admirably. No seller would sell a cow or a horse or other article without knowing the price a purchaser will give for it. Neither could a landlord be expected to part with his estate to the Land Commission with-
1418
out knowing what he was going to get for it. The very fact, however, of a landlord applying to the Commission showed clearly he wished to sell, and also' that he could not expect to get more than, at the very highest, twenty years purchase of his first-term rent, which would have been one year more than the average price. Supposing, then, an original rent of £100, reduced by 20 per cent. to £80 as a first-term rent, was sold at twenty years' purchase, the landlord would have received a capital sum of £1,600. The Bill of last year proposed to lend the cash at 3¾ per cent. I have every reason to believe the terms would have been reduced in Committee to 3¼ per cent., the same as in this year's Bill, and if this had been done, then, in the example I have taken, a first-term rent of £80 would have been reduced by £28 to £52, or a reduction of 35 per cent. Under the Bill of this year the minimum is placed at 20 per cent. of a first-term rent, which would make the future rent £64, or £12 annually worse for the tenant than in the Bill of last year. In addition the landlord will receive 15 per cent. bonus, or £295 on the capitalised value of the property, viz., £1,970, which will give him a lump sum of £2,265, and an income, if the cash was invested at 3¼ per cent., of £73 12s. in lieu of an uncertain rent of £80. A landlord, therefore, is £21 12s. better off in such an example, and the tenant loses £12.
Again, under the Bill of this year if the first-term rent is £80, reduced by 40 per cent. to £48, it continues for 68J years, and its present capitalised value is £1,497 6s. Under last year's Bill the average of the lowest reductions would probably be seventeen years, and in this case the rent would be £51, terminable in forty-nine years, the capitalised value of which would be £1,336 2s.; the tenant is, therefore, even in this instance, £161 4s. to the bad. Under the old Bill, even if the interest had remained at 3f per cent., the highest rent a tenant would have had to pay would have been £60, and this sum, capitalised and terminable in forty-nine years, would: amount to £1,572. Under the Bill of this year the capitalised value of a rent of £64, terminating in sixty-eight years, is £1,996 8s., and the tenant loses £424 8s. Either way, therefore,

1419
the new Bill is looked at, whether the rent is the highest or the lowest possible, the tenant is a heavy loser when compared with the Land Bill of last year. He must, however, accept the situation unless he determines to reject the Land Bill of this year, which, although not nearly so beneficial to him as the Act of 1902, still possesses sufficient attractions to render its rejection a simple act of madness, which no one having his country's interests at heart could ever dream of for a moment. The fact is, the Taff Vale decision, the Tallow judgment, the decisions of County Court Judges making the boycotters and village tyrants and other evil counsellors responsible for their acts, and in addition, the general apathy of the Irish people, who are really sick of agitation and recognise the injury it has done to their country and themselves, as well as a general industrial revival, and the strong opposition to all their ways of a determined but intensely patriotic band of Independent Nationalists, to whom the country owes a deep debt of gratitude, forced the hands of those who had been prominent in the agitation. Hence the Conference under Lord Dunraven and the proposals which emanated from it, including the toast of His Majesty King Edward VII, which doubtless all the Nationalist Party will join in honouring as soon as the Land Bill becomes law, thus acknowledging, as they have a right to do, if all we hear is true, the warm sympathy His Majesty has for our country and his desire to make the Irish people as happy and contented as the other countries embraced within the British Empire. Last year eight or nine Nationalist Members of Parliament dared to attend the Coronation of our King, and for doing so were abused and slandered in various newspapers. Six months afterwards the very same journals were praising His Majesty to the hilt, and several of the leading Members of the Nationalist Party, as well as a great teetotal advocate, were pleasantly engaged in pledging the good health of the King in flowing bumpers of champagne. It is a blessed change in sentiment and policy, and one which in the near future will bear ripe fruit. The fault of those who advocated a different
1420
policy lies, or rather lay, in their want of the faculty of detachment, by reason of which until the last few months they seemed unable to understand Ireland's altered and improved condition, which required very different treatment to that accorded to the patient In 1879 and 1880. All honour, however, to the man and men who, however late in the day, have at last diagnosed the conditions and applied the necessary remedy. Our country has a price to pay for the mistake, but under all the circumstances it will I believe be cheerfully rendered.
I have referred to the 36th Clause of last year's Bill; I have shown that the opposition to it was inconsiderate and wrong. No landlord would have applied under it unless he was prepared to accept at the most twenty years purchase of the second-term rent, which was above the average price prevalent in Ireland, and I have demonstrated that under it the tenant would have received a reduction of 35 per cent. in his rent. This, then, was the compulsion he was to be afflicted with, viz.: that he was obliged to change a rent of £80 for one of £52, which latter included repayment of the Sinking Fund equal to a further reduction when compared with the former rent of £8, and he was told that if these terms were not accepted he would continue as the tenant of the Government, and would not be allowed the doubtful privilege of again applying to the Land Courts for a further revision of his rent. Fancy pitying a buyer of a cow or horse who was offered the animal at 35 per cent. less than its supposed value; and let us picture the terrible compulsion that we all would suffer if we had a similar offer made to us; and yet it was over a clause having this effect that the hon. Member for South Tyrone almost went into hysterics in denunciation of a perfidious Government, which dared to harbour such malicious intentions. It is a pity the Irish people can be so easily misled, but they trust without question some of their leaders, and in doing so of ten suffer from serious delusions. Probably the lesson they have recently learned will teach them to think for themselves, which will have good results in the near future. When the Bill of last year was in serious danger, in common with others, and notably the

1421
hon. Member for North Louth, some of the Nationalist Members tried to stem the torrent of abuse with which it was assailed. In a series of four letters to the Press I showed the great benefits which the Land Bill of 1902 offered to the tenants. First in Ireland by many weeks; I suggested a Conference between landlords and tenants. I asked Questions on this subject in this House, as the records of Hansard can prove. The way for the Conference had been thus well paved when Captain Shawe Taylour appeared on the scene and made his brilliant and daring suggestion, actually naming the members who should compose the Conference, and calling upon them to come together and arrange the Land Question in the only satisfactory way it could be settled, by a friendly discussion between the opposing leaders. The proposal was certainly startling, because no one in Ireland believed there was a room in Dublin large enough to hold such discordant elements. Unfortunately, the Landlords' Convention did not rise to the occasion, but there were others of the class who were not so easily discouraged, who gladly met the representatives of the tenants, and produced a series of suggestions, many of which are embodied in the present Land Bill, which we all hope will soon become the law of the land, and prove a firm foundation upon which to build a future for Ireland of peace, progress, and prosperity.
The Land Bill of 1903 is a great measure which contains eighty nine clauses; its chief characteristics as compared with the Land Act of 1902 are the cheapness of the loan, the offer of a free gift of £12,000,000, the enlargement of the investing power of trustees, and the power given to both landlords and tenants within certain limits to arrange their own terms of sale and purchase. There is also a clause providing in some measure, hut not sufficiently, for the evicted tenants. Most of the other clauses in the Bill are merely repetitions of the many excellent provisions in the Land Bill of last year, and relate to simplification of the landlord's title, local registration, the appointment of a public trustee, arrangements about bogs, reduction in legal expenses and on sale, protection of sporting rights, enlargement of the powers of the Congested Districts Board, and the division of the purchase instalments into a seven-eighth terminable
1422
annuity, and one-eighth quit rent. From all I have been able to gather from frequent interviews with solicitors and others, there can be no doubt that the framework of the Bill is excellent, and that the value of most of its provisions and their liberality is striking and original. The blot on the Bill is the small notice taken of the labourers, which, in the present state of the labour market and its importance to the welfare of the farmer, should not be overlooked. It would seem to me a valuable provision if power could he given to the County Council to buy up vacant farms and divide them into allotments for the labourers, building on each a comfortable cottage, and allowing the labourer to become the owner of his home much on the same terms as the farmer. Some such arrangement as this would enable the labourer to be well housed. Where a cottier house at present exists, and is in the occupation of a labourer, if unsuitable and insanitary it should be rebuilt by the District Council, and an acre of land purchased for the holding as a right. As regards the other clauses of the Land Bill most of them are sufficiently explicit, and require little amendment. Clause 1 defines the minimum and maximum reductions above and below which the purchaser cannot, on an estate with encumbrance not exceeding two-thirds of its value, go. I see no reason why the landlord and tenant should not be allowed to agree to a greater reduction, if they so please. It seems to me the lower the future rent the greater the State security. There is some objection to the quit rent. The amount is considered excessive. There can, however, be no reasonable doubt that a small charge, say of 10 per cent., would he a benefit to the country, and should be made a permanent Government charge. The difficulty will be in the collection of this tax. A very efficient and simple plan would be to make the tax collectors of each county include this quit rent in the county collection, and earmark it for useful county purposes, industrial development, secondary education, and the better housing of the working classes.
The clauses dealing with sporting and riparian rights should be amended, so as to give the whole power over the surface of his farm to the tenant; the

1423
Government retaining for the benefit of the State all mineral rights. Moors, bogs, and mountains should be excepted, and the shooting and sporting rights over them, as well as riparian rights, reserved to the Land Commission or County Council for the public benefit. Since the tenants have become so largely their Own masters Ireland has suffered severely by the ruthless cutting down of timber. I believe the trees on each farm should be preserved to the State and placed in each county under the control of the county surveyor. Every effort by suitable clauses should also be made to re-afforest waste lands. Very little mention has been made of future tenants, or those who possess mills. I believe both parties should be allowed to participate in the benefits of this Act, and should be granted the privilege of considering their present rent as a first-term rent, and purchasing under the same terms as other tenants. If some arrangement of this sort is not made, it is hard to see how the landlords can dispose of their estates as a whole to the Land Commission, as there are future and mill tenants on nearly all of them. Another matter of consequence is the position of the middle-man tenants; hitherto they have been left out in the cold, and it would seem only fair to allow them the same privileges under this Bill as other tenants. Great objection has been taken to the clause which allows a simple majority of tenants on an estate to dictate terms to a minority which might be only one less than the majority, and which hinders the minority if they refuse to buy, from seeking the benefit of the Land Act of 1881. If a three-fourths majority was required the objection would not be so strong; but there can be no doubt that any compulsion or deprivation of the rights of the tenants under the Act of 1881 is strongly disapproved of. The remedy, however, is easy. Allow the dissenting tenants to remain as tenants of the Land Commission and leave them all the rights they now possess; in a very short time the tenants would see the folly of their action, and understand it was hardly to their interest to remain any longer than absolutely necessary the tenant of the party which has the power of appointment of both the Sub and Chief Land Commissioners.
1424
The first schedule detailing the percentages of the purchase and aid grant is unpopular with everyone except the smaller landlords; it is framed entirely on a misapprehension. It is the larger landlords—two dozen of whom own half Ireland—who should be induced to sell. Five per cent. on the capitalised value is not a sufficient inducement in their case. The aid grant of £12,000,000 should be sufficient to offer each landlord a bonus of three years rent purchase. Twenty years ago I suggested this very proposal. If this offer was only made available for three years, within which time all those who proposed to sell their properties to the State must have registered their intention, I believe when the time had closed, and with it the offer, there would be very few properties indeed left unsold. The restriction of the amount of sales to £5,000,000 in a year is a mistake. The figure should be raised to £7,000,000, or even more. The quicker the sales the better for our country and people. The speed at which sales will be effected depends upon the perfection of the machinery, and this would be greatly enhanced by the appointment in each county of an Examiner of Title. If not possible in each county, then at least two examiners should be appointed in each province. Irish solicitors complain greatly of the inconvenience, delay, and petty obstructions placed in their way in the Central Dublin Office. Again, the clause in the Bill authorising the Estates' Commissioners to appoint per sons to make title is objected to, not only as a serious interference with the rights of the solicitors, but also because these new authorities could not possibly have the same knowledge of the various estates and their peculiarities and charges as the family solicitor must necessarily possess. Another important class who must be conciliated, if the Bill is to work smoothly, is the land agents. Unless they are fairly treated sales will be few. Their knowledge of the different estates is essential to the speedy working of this great Bill. I believe they would not make any unreasonable demand, and would be satisfied if the law gave them a right to a small percentage on the completion of each sale, or else made them the receivers of the terminable annuities at half their present fees. This matter was referred to on the First Reading by the hon. Member for North Louth, and

1425
many Members on this side of the House Agree with the hon. Member, notwithstanding the recent suggestion of the hon. Member for South Tyrone that he would much prefer to compensate emergency men. The Bill requires Amendment as regards bogs. If the Government buys a landlord's estate, it should buy it as a whole and not in part; without turbary at a reasonable price the tenant is greatly handicapped. It would meet all the requirements if the Government bought the bogs with the estate, and subsequently rented to each tenant and landlord the bog holding which he formerly held. The tenants, however, have this matter in their own hands by refusing to purchase their holdings without a due allotment of turbary.
Another point upon which there seems general agreement is the folly of keeping the tenants in leading strings; they are not to mortgage their holdings, etc., and a spy is to be put upon them in these matters in the shape, under a penalty, of the tax collector. This might answer in India but is quite impossible in Ireland. Prevent subdivision without the sanction of the Land Commission, if you like though even this is a doubtful advantage, and in some countries, notably in France, subdivision has been found to act advantageously by encouraging a return to the country of those who have made money in towns and wish to spend their declining days in or near the old home: but nurse and interfere with your newly-made tenant as little as you can, or you will interfere with his sense of self-respect and self-dependence. In the working of the Land Bill of 1881 you had experience of the evil results of interference with the ascertained laws of political economy; and in attempting to throw obstacles in the way of the owner of a farm, acting as his interests dictate, you are only laying up for yourselves difficulties which you may find it hard to limit. If a farmer wants capital he will have to get it somehow and if he cannot borrow on the security of his farm he will on his disposable effects cattle, furniture, or other property; and if these go in liquidation of his debts, how can he work his farm? Besides, hard times may come, and in order to live he must borrow—you can never protect the improvident man, in time he will certainly go to the wall, and if his place
1426
is taken by someone else of more business habits, surely it is better in the end for the general interests of the country. The Irish tenant must be allowed to borrow; many of them have no capital, and they are all liable to sudden small losses. The proper plan to overcome these troubles is by education, and by the establishment in as many districts as possible of agricultural banks; which, wherever initiated, have worked well and completely met the difficulty. Another mistake in the Bill is the proposal to make one sub-commissioner do the work of two. The present system, evil as is its result, is the evolution from previous blunders, and should not be disturbed; the sooner, however, the peregrinations of the sub-commissioners are put a stop to the better, for no country could possibly flourish where such a system has long continued. That it has not long since ruined and demoralised Ireland—setting as it does, and did, a premium on idleness and lying—is simply due to the honesty of the Irish people. No one denies, of course, that some Act was necessary to protect the tenants and give them fixity of tenure, fair rents and free sale; but all this could have been accomplished, after the first rent-fixing, by a system, such as was often suggested, of allowing the rents to rise and fall automatically in a fixed cycle of years, according to the rise and fall of produce and cattle within fixed areas.
The clause relating to the evicted tenants is insufficient, and every reasonable inducement should be held out to these men to return to their homes, where their farms are still vacant. I fully understand the reasons that prevent graziers coming under this Bill. I certainly would not suggest that their landlords should share in a bonus on sale to them, but I see no reason why, with the consent of the Land Commission, the landlords and tenants should not be allowed to consider the existing rents as first-term rents, and arrange between themselves, minus the bonus, reasonable terms of sale and purchase by the State. The Congested Districts Board has done a great deal of good, and some foolish work; it should be strengthened by adding to it a few representatives of the people, nominated by the County Councils which are affected by the provisions of the Congested Districts Act. There are, of course, a

1427
great many other questions of importance raised in the Bill which require close attention. Taken as a whole the Land Bill of this year is a most comprehensive, well arranged, and well thought out measure; notwithstanding its many difficult and intricate details, its main characteristics are easily found out and understood. It reflects great credit on the Government, and especially on the Right hon. Gentleman who is its sponsor In this House, and who moved its Second Reading in one of the ablest and most sympathetic speeches towards my country I ever heard in this House or out of it. Never before has Ireland's harp been played upon by a more skilful British player; hitherto, its chords have remained untuned and unstrung, and any time they have been touched they have only given out discordant music. Yes, Sir, the harp that once reverberated through Ireland has ceased to give forth sweet music. All life and song is stayed in our country owing to the grotesque folly of successive British Governments, who from the time of the Union until the year 1869 paid no more heed or attention to Ireland than if the country had no connection with the British Empire; our manufactures you killed, our tenantry you robbed, our labourers you failed to give employment to, and your own friends the landlords you treated unjustly by an Act of Parliament which was framed with the best intentions, but was administered in such a way that the good landlords—the old Irish families who were the friends of the people in dark and troublous times, who were residents and not absentees—were plundered, while another race of landlords grew up, too many of whom were only impelled by mercenary motives, and who oppressed our people without mercy within sight of your shores, and without your British statesmen raising a finger of protest or doing anything to ease the situation or apply a remedy. Is it any wonder, under all these circumstances, that you are not loved by any parties in Ireland?
If what I have attempted to prove is true, and you can satisfy yourself on this head by referring to histories, is not the case for a settlement of the Irish Land Question by some such Land Bill as the present measure abundantly proved? If the present Irish difficulty has
1428
been produced by your bungling legislation, if the fault is yours and not that of the Irish people, is it not your duty to repair the damage you have done even if it requires a few millions of sovereigns to accomplish the desired end? Do you not owe to Ireland countless millions for your neglect and wrongdoing? Do you not owe her something for the sons she has produced who have fought your battles everywhere over the face of the earth? Have you repaid her by attention to her wants, for the statesmen who saved India, for the soldiers who fought for you in the Peninsula and at Waterloo, in the Crimea, and recently in South Africa, and for the host of Irish generals who came to your assistance in the dark days that followed the disaster at Colenso? Have you forgotten the gallant deeds of your Irish soldiers on many a stricken field throughout that campaign? Do you remember Colenso and Pieter's Hill, and will you repay all Ireland's great services to your Empire by your present Land Bill and a gift to your own people in Ireland of£12,000,000? I ask the hon. Member, in all humility, has he been satisfied in this debate that Great Britain is only giving us back a small portion of the money she owes us, or does he imagine that the Irish people are going to the British Government, hat in hand, to beg for a dole. I tell him our people would rather starve than occupy such a position. We place little dependence on British Governments, but we do rely upon the sense of justice of the British people, and we feel sure that, when they are convinced a great wrong has been done to Ireland, they will have no hesitation in accepting the proof and applying the remedy, even if it requires some millions to accomplish it.
A good deal has been said about the danger which may result in the Irish people not fulfilling their obligations. Is there in history a single example of their having failed to do so? For twenty years Purchase Acts have been in existence, large sums have been lent to the Irish people, and you have it in evidence, and especially in the recent most valuable report of Mr. Commissioner Bailey, that almost every farthing of these loans has been repaid. Indeed, if the House dived deeper into these transactions it would be found that the

1429
British Treasury has made a very considerable profit. I can vouch for it that the Irish people will honestly fulfil their obligations. I have spent over thirty years working amongst them. I know them in a way very few in this House can boast of doing. I have spent my life in the closest contact with them. I have seen them in their homes. I have sat with them for hours in their times of sorrow and suffering. I have been a witness of their love and sympathy for each other, of their patience, their pluck, their courtesy, their deep religious and high moral character; and in business transactions I can vouch for their honesty. To a people with such a character the British people need be under no apprehensions whatever. What they undertake to do through their representatives in this House, you may rely upon it they will faithfully perform, fulfil, and keep. The British people have a great opportunity. The policy of the present Government is to redress the wrongs and to bring back contentment and peace to Ireland. You have already seen the beneficial effect produced by one little touch of kindness. You know how the name of King Edward VII is revered in Ireland, because he is believed to have taken a part in trying to heal the wounds of our country, and you know the splendid Irish welcome which awaits him when he crosses the North Channel. The necessity for this great Irish Land Bill has been demonstrated to you. Will this British House of Commons reject it and plunge Ireland again into despair and agitation? I feel certain it will not do so; on the contrary, I believe in the justice of the British people now that their eyes are open to the true light, and that their statesmen are determined to see justice done. Pass this Bill then, and the beautiful prayer of the Irish Leader—when he closed the recent Convention—will be fulfilled, and the God of our fathers will fill our land with peace and plenty and bless our country and the British people.
MR. SEYMOURORMSBY-GORE: I desire to say a few words on this Bill because I possess an attribute which is common to those who have lived in Ireland for a considerable portion of their lives—namely, a deep interest in the country and in the
1430
Irish people, and because in the constituency which I represent in this House there is a considerable Irish population. The last charge which can be levelled against an Irishman when he is away from his own country is that of neglect or want of thoughtfulness of those whom he has left behind. I believe that this Bill presages a new era in Ireland. I believe that any legislation framed on new and equitable principles could scarcely be worse than the system of land tenure which has hitherto obtained in that country. My hon. friends the Members for Stoke and North Islington, if they wished to object to this Bill, ought to have propounded some scheme whereby the Irish Land Question could be settled. The question must be settled. It occupies a most anomalous position; the dual ownership must cease. The recent Land Conference opened up a new vista in Irish affairs, and will go down to history as one of the greatest landmarks in the relations between England and Ireland. Before the Conference was held I do not believe that anybody anticipated any good result. The opinion in this country was very much the same as that which was held about the Bloemfontein Conference four years ago, when we imagined that one party at least to the Conference met the other only with a view to finding out the weak joints in the other's harness. It is a subject for congratulation that we were mistaken. There has never been so signal an instance of the wolf lying down with the lamb, but it would be invidious to try to discriminate as to which was the wolf and which the lamb; but I am perfectly certain if the Conference had been less successful that each party to that Conference would have claimed separately to represent the sublimer and more edible animal. I wish briefly to touch on the Act of 1881. I do not think that anyone will deny that on the whole it was a beneficial Act—at any rate to the tenants. But there were three things which it professed to do but did not do. It professed to be a final Act; it was supposed that it would establish the tenant in a perfectly happy position, so that he would live on terms of contentment and amity with his landlord; and, thirdly, the landlord was to occupy a position very similar to that of landlords in this country. Those predictions have been falsified by

1431
events. Mr. Forster, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said—
"If these arrangements had the effect, which we say they will not have, of converting landlords into mere rent chargers, the consequence of it would be that we should lose the advantage of a landlord class, which would be very injurious."
The prophets of evil were right, and Mr. Forster was wrong. The direct consequence of the Bill of 1881 is the Bill now before the House, and I think it would have been much better if the foresight of the statesmen of that period had seen that this Bill was inevitable and had brought it in at that time. How much anxiety, sorrow, and crime, would have been obviated if that had been done. I hope that this Bill will achieve great results, but as an English agricultural Member I believe if my right hon. friend had seen his way to bring in a Bill exactly on the lines of the Land Conference it would have been still more satisfactory. I do not say that from the landlord's point of view, but I think the methods of the Land Conference would have accelerated purchase and the object we have at heart. It is true that the Conference proposals would have involved an expenditure of three or four millions more, but what are three or four millions in our vast expenditure? As compared with the scheme of the Government to impose on the British taxpayer a charge of seven millions or eight millions annually under the Brussels Sugar Convention, the whole of this is nothing more than a flea-bite.
I do not wish to delay the House, but there is one other part of the Bill to which I wish to refer, namely, the question of the one-eighth which appears to give so much displeasure to hon. Members opposite. I do not mind if it is one-eighth, or some other very small portion, if in the future it safeguards the peasant proprietary in Ireland, and ensures that we have no recrudescence of landlordism and its concomitant troubles. Safeguards are needed. What is the position of the peasant proprietors in France? They would hardly exist were it not for the existence and help of the Crédits Fonciers. Or take the land in Russia granted to serfs; that is now nearly all in the hands of Jews. I will come nearer home.
1432
There is in my constituency probably the largest cohesive peasant proprietary in the kingdom; it is about twenty miles in length and fifteen or sixteen miles in breadth. The people are the most industrious to be found in any country, and it will appeal to hon. Members opposite below the Gangway that many of them are Irish. But the large proprietors have been successful and the small proprietors rather the reverse. Up to 1810 they enjoyed a meed of prosperity, but after that date bad years and the fall in prices produced calamities there as in other parts of the world. The small peasant proprietors, having nothing to fall back upon, had to revert to the simple process of mortgaging their holdings, and thus this part of the country has become known as the "Solicitors' Paradise." I hope that safeguard will be maintained so that small holdings shall not lapse again into anything like that state.
I wish to touch upon another part of the Bill, and that is that I think it is a most ill-advised proceeding on the part of the Government to graduate the scale on which this bonus is to be doled out. You want to accelerate and lubricate the wheels of purchase, and therefore I think the selling of estates in globo will prove most efficacious. If you sell the large estates the small estates will almost automatically follow. I will give a few figures. I take estates between£120,000. I take two estates of£60,000 each, three on the 6 per cent. scale of£40,000; six estates in the 10 per cent. at£20,000,. and twenty-four on the 15 per cent. at£5,000 each. The total bonus on the first group would be£6,000 or£3,000 apiece; on the second group£7,200 or£2,400 apiece; on the third group£12,000 or£2,000 apiece; and on the fourth group£18,000 or£750 apiece; On the 15 per cent. basis the first group would get£6,000 or£7,000 apiece; the second£10,800 or£3,600 apiece; the third group£6,000 or£1,000 apiece more. This shows not only the injustice of the whole system of graduation, but it will tend to wreck the whole aim and object of the Bill, which is to get purchase accelerated. Take what is almost accommodation land outside Dublin, Belfast, or Cork. That land will get 15 per cent. while the poor estates in the West, such as the

1433
Murphy and De Freyne, estates will get only 5 per cent. I am glad to see that the cost of stamps and transfer will be paid by the State. Mr. Bright in 1847 initiated that principle. Mr. Bright said it was their duty to bring in a Sale of Estates Bill and make it easy for landlords to dispose of their estates; and he further said that they should diminish temporarily, if not permanently, all stamp duties which hindered the transfer of landed property. There is another point, and that is the question of a local body being created to carry out this Bill. I cannot approve of this principle, because the great amount of the money will come from this country. I know some people can look after other people's goods and chattels very well, and even after other people's children, but I think the principal proprietor of the money should look after the money bags himself. Therefore, I shall resist any proposal of that kind. There is one other respect in which I think there is a chance of this Bill breaking down, and it is with regard to those gentlemen who were granted special provision in Scripture, and who have a knack of providing for themselves wherever they may be, the lawyers. I hope every effort will be made to cut down legal expenses under this Bill, and this measure, when amended, will become one of the greatest legal achievements that this House has ever passed. I thank the House for listening to me, and I shall support the measure which the Government has brought in as strenuously as I possibly can.
MR. ROBSON: I am sure the House has listened with pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for Lincolnshire, and we were surprised at the remarkable utterance that fell from his lips, in which he said that he hoped we should not have in Ireland a recrudescence of landlordism with its concomitant troubles. The hon. Member went on apparently to express the hope that this Bill would not be used as a lever in the direction of obtaining Irish self-government. That is a subject upon which hon. Members have touched lightly. I desire, however, to direct the attention of the House to this aspect of
1434
the Bill, which is one about which we can perfectly well understand the silence that prevails among the different classes of hon. Members who are supporting this Bill. Hon. Members from Ireland desire not to complicate that wider question with this particular one, and that is a legitimate desire. We who represent English constituencies have our minds full of that, and hon. Members from Ireland would not desire that we should repress the expression of our views, upon such an important consideration, in connection with this Bill. There are two views put forward. On the one hand we have the Ministerial view, which is that by this Bill you will settle a long-standing dispute which has destroyed social order in Ireland, and having made the problem of social order so much easier to solve, they infer, not unnaturally, that Irish Government will be a simpler matter. On this ground they commend the Bill to the country as one which will make against Home Rule. There is another view put forward by hon. Members for Ireland. They think that if they achieve the object they have so long desired of abolishing landlordism in Ireland, they will have captured a position which has been very steadily contested, and promote the solidarity of different classes in Ireland, and they will proceed as a more united, and firmer and stronger force for the attainment of their final end, namely, the self-government of their country. Which view is correct? I think we should give some consideration to that problem. This is the only stage at which we can consider it. In the Committee stage we shall have passed to the details, and this subject will be totally irrelevant. Which of these two views is correct with regard to the bearing of this measure upon the wider question of self-government? For my own part I am disposed to think that the view taken by the Irish Members is correct. The Ministerial view is one which undoubtedly is supported on high authority, but when one comes to look at the views of Ministerialists, and particularly of this Ministry upon any subject, particularly any Irish subject, our experience of them does not tend to increase our confidence in their powers

1435
of prediction. They have generally been wrong, and they have never been so conspicuously wrong as upon this question of Irish Government.
Most of us, I think, listened with astonishment to the speech of the Prime Minister last night, but that speech certainly did not increase our confidence in him as a prophet. That same speech, had it been made in another country, might have come under the Crimes Act, and led to a plan of campaign. We heard for the first time from his lips, and for the first time from the opposite side of the House, that Irish landlords never put a shilling into their land. In the past the indictment was not brought up against a sect, but it was the Irish people who have been held up as the people who would not pay their debts. What did we have from the Prime Minister last night? He attributed all this to what he euphemistically described as a co-ownership. What would have been said by some of the Irish landlords, or those representing them, if, in the various struggles with the land question, when they were appealing for eversion, the Prime Minister had told them that these little characteristics were only due in a sense to co-ownership? That is a handsome tribute to the Irish people. We have already got a tribute from the Chief Secretary, who thinks that the Irish people not only pay their debts, but pay them with pleasure. That is a view which ought not to pass unnoticed. I venture to say that no Englishman has felt anything but pain and indignation at the way in which a campaign of calumny has been carried on against the Irish during all the years we have been dealing with this question. The Prime Minister went so far as to repudiate any intention to bring in a Home Rule Bill, and he had the daring to refer to the character of Ministers. It is precisely the character of Ministers which gives rise to apprehension on the part of their followers. Even this very question is a test of the accuracy and value of previous and present Ministers. Mr. Parnell proposed an Arrears Act which was declared by Lord Salisbury to be dishonest, but six weeks after that declaration the Government of that
1436
day brought in an Arrears Act. This Government, after condemning the plan of campaign, are now likely to adopt it, and I suppose that in time we shall have it expressly approved.
I pass from the character of the Ministry to the character of the Bill, and I ask, what is the influence it will have upon self-government. We are going to buy out our landlords, but some of them will remain. Those who go will, of course, cease to exercise any influence on the character of the country, but what of those who will remain? There is a very ingenious clause in the Bill which has been inserted with the intention of inducing some of them to remain. There is a provision in the Bill by which the landlord, having disposed of the land which he has previously let to farmers, may next part with his own demesne to the State and receive it back again as a tenant on very favourable conditions. The intention of that obviously is to get him to remain in the country. Why is it desired by hon. Members to keep him there? I doubt very much whether the provision in the Bill relating to sporting rights will survive the Committee stage, but if it does those rights will be but of little service to him. His duties will be very greatly curtailed and his responsibilities and functions as landlord will disappear. There will be nothing left for him but to take part in public life, and the only way in which he will be able to do that is to become a Nationalist, because he cannot take part in it under his present constitution. So long as the elective principle is left unmolested by this Government, and it prevails to any extent in Ireland, the remaining landlords, if they desire to do anything for the country, will have to range themselves on the side of the country. This will increase the solidarity of Ireland on the question of national and local self-government. Then what is the effect of the Bill on the other classes? You have 300,000 labourers for whom only the most inadequate provision is made; you have there an element which will still remain an element of unrest and disturbance. That element will appeal to the national sentiment, and on its side national sentiment will surely range itself.
Now, with regard to the farmers generally. You are going to give the land of Ireland to these tenants at a

1437
rate of purchase higher than any yet made in Ireland. An anonymous, but obviously well-informed writer in The Times shows that the second-term rents on which purchases have been made have been capitalised on the average of nineteen years purchase. Under this Bill the lowest number of years purchase is twenty-six, and it seems to me to be more like twenty-eight. But, taking twenty-six years, you have seven years purchase more to be paid under this Bill than has been hitherto paid. They are obviously paying a substantial rent for a very long number of years, but it is a commonplace of Irish politics that you have an enormous number of tenants in Ireland, out of whom you cannot extract any economic rent whatever. That condition of things will still remain. The Irish tenants will no doubt fulfil their legal obligations to the best of their ability, but now and again, in times of stress and bad seasons, they will find it impossible to fulfil them. What will happen then? You will have under this Bill no collective responsibility of control on the part of the Irish people, and, depend upon it, you will have a recrudescence of the old trouble. The State cannot make any sort of abatement which the tenant formerly got out of the landlord, who, whether a good or a bad landlord, had to make abatements somehow. The State dare not make any abatement, because if it were made in one district it would be immediately demanded in another. You will, in this way, have a new wrong created in Ireland. A large number of tenants will be called upon to pay a rate which they cannot possibly pay, and Irish national sentiment will range itself on the side of these distressed tenants. Irish sentiment has always taken advantage of such an opportunity, and it will not cease to do so in the future. The injury inflicted by the landlords on the Irish people has always been put in the forefront of the argument, and in course of time this Land Question will be revived as a weapon of attack against our system of government—not revived dishonestly, but necessarily. I am not pointing that out for the purpose of alarming hon. Members opposite. I am not
1438
pointing it out as a necessary and desirable result.
The Chief Secretary went on to say that there had been few defaults as yet on the part of the tenants. The right hon. Gentleman said that out of the 80,000 cases we have had, there had only been cases of default to the extent of£3,000, and that this amount would be diminished yet further. I should like to examine that a little. We have not been told to what extent selection and choice have been at work in the making of advances to particular tenants. They have not, I apprehend, made advances to every tenant. They have cut down not merely the amount of the advance required, but they have, I imagine, in certain cases reduced the advance to the tenant. Now, there is to be no selection in future. That, however, is not the most important consideration put now to the Irish Nationalist Party. They have assisted land purchase when a tenant has been sold up under the land purchase scheme. I do not know how many cases have been so dealt with, but there has been no accusation against a person that he was a land grabber because the Irish Nationalist Party had supported land purchase fully. How many cases there are of default we have not been told. In cases of default there has nearly always been a purchaser ready to give a price for the land. I would ask the House to consider the situation that will be created under this Bill, and to see what is likely to be the attitude of the Nationalist Party in these changed circumstances. I have asked you to conceive a condition of things in which there is an existing wrong and in which a price is demanded under this Bill, and to consider if the price is more than the tenant can fairly pay. To put the question argumentatively—who can doubt that the Nationalist sentiment will be on the side of the tenants? In that case I think you will have a recrudescence of the situation you have existing in regard to private landlords. If in Connaught you have a certain number of persons sold up because they cannot pay the rent, which public opinion pronounces to be excessive, you will have public opinion

1439
going a step farther and condemning the men who take the farms in these circumstances, under sales and the result will be that you will have, in connection with a farm which imposes an excessive rental on the tenant, an exact repetition of the situation we all condemn now.
There is a further point which I think has not been adequately considered in the debate. We were told, as if it were a light or unimportant matter, that you have twenty-five or thirty years for the whole of the transactions under this Act to be wound up. Just think what that means. You have got as a maximum£5,000,000 a year, which you are going to apply to the purposes of the Act. You have, therefore, an enormous number of tenants waiting their turn, and some of them apparently will have to wait twenty or twenty-five years, and it is not improbable that some will have to wait thirty years. Why, under these circumstances, should the land agents ask compensation? I should rather say that they should be commended to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as fit subjects for additional taxation. If some have to wait for twenty-five years that means that a large number of tenants will say, "Why should we go on paying the existing rents?" and the situation created by the Bill will be repeated all over Ireland. On the one side of the road is a man who has got the advantage of the Act, who has got an abatement, and who is paying off the purchase money on his farm. On the other side of the road is a man who is not paying off the purchase money. Is he to be expected to go on paying the same rent? He will not pay the same rent. He will say, "This is a rent which is going to be reduced. I may draw one of the lucky numbers next year." Certainly in many districts it will almost paralyse the trade of the place. Again you will be told, and rightly told, by the Irish Members "Let us manage this matter. You cannot do it, you do not understand how to do it." They will say, "Give us effective responsibility and give us effective control." You will be bound to do it, and it is not right of everyone to go on discussing the Bill as if we did not know it. Hon. Members get up and talk about peace in Ireland, and repudiate all intention
1440
of passing a Home Rule Bill, but there is not one, who takes the trouble to exercise his intelligence for five minutes, who does not know that he is helping the Home Rule cause in Ireland. Let the English public be clearly informed on the matter no matter, who it tells for. The Irish Members are not strongly in our favour at present, but they may have some strategic motive for their action. We ought to mark the meaning of this measure, and let the country know what it is about.
There is one other aspect of the Bill to which I should like to direct attention. I say that you are asking too much from the tenant. I venture to say that you are also asking too much from the British Exchequer. I am not going to repeat that part of the argument which was so much dwelt upon by hon. Members as to the number of years purchase you are demanding. I am going to draw attention to a point which has been absolutely ignored in the debate, and on which I shall carry the assent of hon. Members from Ireland. We have been speaking of the amount the Exchequer is asked to pay. Let us consider the amount England has already given to the Irish landlords under the Local Government Act. The Irish Local Government Act was passed in 1890. It is old enough to be completely forgotten. In that Act the bribe took the form of paying the rates of the Irish landlords. We made a grant of£730,000 a year, and they have got it yet. Why did we give that money? It was said that unless we paid their rates we could not expect the landlords to submit to local government. Well, I consider that that has failed. What is to become of this money? It is a large sum. Instead of suggesting that it should cease to be paid by the British Exchequer, the Chief Secretary sets up the theory of equivalent grants. He says that he is in want of£185,000 a year more, because you are educating yourselves much better in England than they in Ireland, and that you owe Ireland that amount on the principle of equivalent grants. I would like to know what equivalent grant we are getting in England for the£730,000 the Irish landlords are getting in Ireland. The bases on which these grants are allocated between the various countries in the United Kingdom are eighty to England, eleven to Scotland and nine to

1441
Ireland. Well, now, you have got under the English Agricultural Rates Acts£1,700,000. But is a ninth of£1,700,000£730,000? Of course the thing is absurd. The theory of equivalent grants should not be carried too far. We in England do not ask for this, and I hope we never shall. But, at all events, when£730,000 is given to one interest in Ireland we have a right to ask in the name of equivalent grants why you should give Ireland£185,000 more. These two sums granted to Ireland make£915,000 from the British Exchequer, the capitalised value of which is£30,000,000. The Prime Minister asked in a surprised tone—"What is£30,000,000?' I think we have reached a stage in our finances in which£30,000,000 is a very substantial sum. [An HON. MEMBER on the Irish Benches: What about the war?] That is all the more reason why we should not throw money away on Irish landlords. You have got to add that£30,000,000 to the£12,000,000 under the Bill, but I insist that the£12,000,000 under this Bill must be exceeded. It is an estimate of this Government. I believe the estimate of this Government of the cost of the South African War was£10,000,000, and that one very cautious person even estimated it at£8,000,000; but that Estimate was enlarged to£250,000,000. The rental of Ireland has been assessed at about£9,000,000, and, therefore, we may suppose that the rental of agricultural land is£4,000,000. That is an adequately small estimate. Therefore, the£12,000,000 bonus will have to be largely increased. But even the£42,000,000 which the Government have voted away to get rid of the Irish difficulty is not quite enough. We do not know what further sacrifices may not be demanded from the British taxpayer in support of the Irish landowners, who were the cause of all the difficulty. I hope hon. Members for English constituencies will consider that; and also consider it from the point of view of the future working of this Bill, which I insist is an unjust burden alike on the Irish tenants and on the British taxpayers, in favour of a class which certainly has not, hitherto, been considered as the most meritorious in the British Empire.
MR. GOULDING: I cannot follow the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken in his party recriminations. I should like to know what Member of this House, whether sitting on the Unionist Benches or on the Opposition Benches, is prepared to endorse all the actions in the past of the party he belongs to in regard to the treatment of Ireland? We have to remember that Ireland to-day is the only place where your policy of constitutional government has not succeeded. Your policy of constitutional government is adopted in the colonies, where it is received with acclamation. It is the model of constitutional government in every other country in the world, but in Ireland we know that this policy is accorded a different reception. And why? Because on every single occasion when you start to e-dress a grievance in Ireland, to repair the mischief of past legislation, you have always done so with the appearance of compulsion. You have never done it as a willing gift. You have only done it as a last resort. Surely this House is not for a moment going to rest and be satisfied with that! It is a blot on the good name of Great Britain, as the mother and leader of constitutional government, if this one stain remains on her fair fame. I for one rejoice greatly that the Chief Secretary has had the courage, the foresight, and the statesmanship to devote himself to the work of this Bill, and I venture most sincerely to hope that whatever criticisms of detail may be given, his work will receive the cordial approval and endorsement of the vast majority of the Members of this House from all quarters, and not from one section. Why is there ground for distrust which some Irishmen have for your constitutional government? It is because you have too long left their grievances unredressed. Can any single man look back, through the whole history of the Catholic reform, dealing with the religion of the vast majority of the people of Ireland, and say he is satisfied with the actions of our Parliament? he must regret the vacillation and delay. Has the House, has Parliament, ever fully appreciated or realised the passionate love and attachment which the Irishman has for his own home? They have taken no

1443
practical steps, except in times of disorder, to give vent to the wishes of the people. What are the facts to-day? You have no disorder in Ireland. You have no regular statements of landlords seeking their rents in vain. You have none of those deplorable sights of evictions which, when carried on in large numbers, are degrading to the country on whose behalf they are executed. On the contrary you have peace prevalent in Ireland to-day. You have all parties represented by landlords and tenants coming together to formulate their demands for settlement on reasonable terms. Whatever individual Members on the Radical side may say, I do not think Irishmen, at all events, will ever be forgetful of the gratitude they owe to Lord Dunraven and the Leader of the Nationalist Party for what they did by bringing the claimants on one side and the other, to a common table, both of them engaged in a most difficult task and one which many thought to be impossible. The result of that Conference was that a common basis of settlement was proposed, based on second-term rents minus the amount of collection, which should not exceed 10 per cent. The hon. Member for Waterford is evidently determined from his speech to carry the same spirit of toleration to his actions in Committee, for he has told us plainly on behalf of the Nationalists that he is resolved to enter upon Committee in the spirit of compromise and common sense, and that a settlement shall be arrived at. Though I know my hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone has also occupied a worthy position in Ireland, in doing what he could to press forward the solution of this question, and was himself a member of this Conference, I cannot for the life of me understand how a man who has endorsed and signed a paper saying that these second-term rents are ample and sufficient, and should be secured to the landlord, can, on the floor of this House, say that they are imposing a rent which it will be impossible for the Irish tenant to pay. I, for one, hope that in Committee the Amendments will receive that patient consideration which I know they will from the Chief Secretary, and that the result of criticism in Committee will be to give such a measure as will justify fair hopes of settling this long-drawn-
1444
out trouble which has impregnated the Sister Isle.
What are some of the points which exist to-day in the land system of Ireland? You not only have dual ownership—which is difficult in itself—but two forms of tenancy. You have a tenant paying by instalments a rent which is to secure him the freehold of his holding, and next door you may have a tenant, paying a rent at even a greater rate per acre than his neighbour, with no prospect of ownership in the future, but with the certainty that within a period of fifteen years those rents may be revised. How can it possibly be expected that such a system will not lead to the chaos which undoubtedly prevails as regards the Land Question. How can it possibly be expected that any individual, animated in the way we all are, to do the best we can for ourselves—how can you possibly expect these tenants, when they know the period for the revision of rent is coming round, to devote the best of their time and intellect to the cultivation of the soil? Instead of that they will be turning their time and intellect to the consideration of the way in which they can get their rents reduced. That position of affairs cannot possibly go on. Therefore this Bill is introduced for the purpose of terminating that intolerable position, and of putting these tenants who desire to purchase, in the possession of their holdings, so that they may have a further inducement to cultivate and use their energies on the soil. This country is making a considerable sacrifice. Then, let that sacrifice be a generous one, and let us as far as we can remove all chances of failure. I for one, sitting for an English constituency, am willing to join hands with hon. Gentlemen opposite in trying to persuade the Chief Secretary to bring where possible the evicted tenants under the blessings of this Bill. The sacrifice we are going to make being considerable, I hope we shall endeavour to get the best security for the money we are going to spend. There is another point I would like to call attention to, and that is in Clause 1 of the Bill. I know that this is specially drawn to exclude all the great grazing holdings in Connaught and other parts, and special provision in

1445
another clause is given to enable the Land Commissioners to deal with these farms. Hon. Members from Ireland will be aware, as no doubt the Chief Secretary is aware, that there are many estates outside Connaught, which have these large grazing farms, and it certainly will not help the landlord to part with his estate unless he is assured of being able to part with the whole of the property, and not only portions dotted about the estate. Therefore I should hope that the limitations in Clause I may be removed. If my right hon. friend does not see his way, as regards these large grazing holdings, to give them the benefits of this Act as it is drawn, surely what money remains over from previous Acts might be ear-marked for the purpose of giving the occupiers of these farms opportunity of purchasing the land which they now hold.
The hon. Member for Waterford has specifically stated that he wishes the landlords of Ireland to remain in that country. If we wish that we must make every effort in our power to make the position of the landlord in Ireland such as will induce him to remain in Ireland. If you take away his occupation as regards the management and supervision of his estate, and if you hem him in to a small domain where shooting cannot possibly be carried on, what possible inducement is there for the landlord to remain in Ireland? Wedesire that he should remain. He will only remain there if you give him the same kind of conditions he has today, and if you enable him to educate his child as he comes home from school in those manly sports which he himself at present pursues. Therefore I do hope the Chief Secretary will see his way to modify the clause dealing with sporting rights. As regards sporting rights, I believe fishing rights are some of the most important of Ireland. I would like to have the fishing rights transferred to the Agricultural Board. The Agricultural Board should be compelled to offer to the landlord the first, option to lease the fishing, and the income thus derived should be devoted by the Board to local purposes. I do not believe the Land Commission have the ability to
1446
give effect to the proper preservation of these fishing rights, which constitute a great asset for Ireland, not only for the land lord but also for those who come to spend their holidays in our land. I have one other suggestion to make with regard to the Bill, and that is with regard to title. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Healy) raised a most critical point to my mind as regards the success of this Bill when he touched on the question of the agents in Ireland. The agents in Ireland are the men at present who control the situation, and they are the men whose good-will we must secure if we wish to get this Bill to work. I do not know whether the expenses provided under Section 43 of this Bill will enable the landlords to adequately compensate the agents who have acted for them for years, and in many cases have been associated with particular estates from father to son. But I will take another case—a case which Irishmen know to be prevalent in many parts of Ireland—and that is the position of an estate where the jointures and mortgages are such that the whole income of the estate is eaten up in the payment of these charges and mortgages and the management charges of the agent—the landlord has but a nominal interest.
The owners of the jointure and mortgages are not going to sell, because when they are paid off they will have to invest their money at a less return. The nominal landlord has no inducement to sell—the agent is the only man who can bring about the sale, but why the agent is to be expected to set the Act in motion when, if he is successful in selling the estate he is doing away with his own living, I do not understand. I do hope my right hon. friend will take this point into consideration in order to remove as far as possible this hindrance to the success of the measure. The fact that I sit here as an Irishman representing an English constituency as a Unionist opposed to Home Rule, does not prevent me from voting enthusiastically for this Bill. I do not believe we shall shake by it one single Nationalist from his present adhesion to his ideal of Home Rule, but I believe the Bill will give cause to the Irish people to forget some of the sorrows of the past and wipe out the memories of those wrongs committed on one side or the other connected with the

1447
land, give an opportunity to banish the differences of class and creed, and enable all to work together as Irishmen. What greater heritage can you desire? I go farther, and venture to think that as my countrymen at Ladysmith and Colenso sacrificed their blood freely for the British Empire, hon. Members opposite, in their heart of hearts are proud of their British citizenship, and as their grievances are removed one by one, will vie with us Unionists in their devotion to the Empire, and participate as Irishmen more than ever before in shaping its government and its destinies.
MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.): As representing a rural constituency in the North of Ireland, I feel bound to state the grounds on which I shall vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. Indeed, when I recall the history of the Land Question in Ireland, I feel at a loss to know how any Member on either side of the House can oppose the Second Reading. In supporting it, I reserve the right of insisting as far as I can on a great number of Amendments in Committee, because if the Bill were to pass in its present shape I think it would be a great disappointment, and almost a calamity to the country. But I assume that ample opportunity for Amendments will be accorded. I speak with some authority; on this subject, because, although I may not rejoice in the recollection, I believe, in point of duration at all events, I have a greater experience of the Land Question in Ireland than any other person in this House. Unfortunately for myself, I can recall the time when the tenant in Ireland had no protection. As the majority of the estates were let out on tenancies from year to year, there was nothing to protect the tenant from the caprice or avarice of his landlord. When the father of a family was thrown, often in the depths of winter, out upon the roadside, when he saw the homestead which he and his fathers had built out of their own resources, and the land which had been so improved as to more than double its original value, pass into the hands of strangers, he had no protection—nothing but despair, and, too often, weak and human as he was, he yielded to desperate influences, and
1448
avenged himself by taking the landlord's life. That is the state of things I remember in the County of Tipperary, and it is that recollection that has made me watch with interest and anxiety the various steps that have been taken from time to time to remedy those evils. Whether it is pleasing or not to those who hear me, I unhesitatingly say that to Gladstone and his memory Ireland owes a greater debt than to any other statesman who figures on the pages of English history. I would remind hon. Members behind me—not referring, of course, to those below the Gangway—that John Bright was almost the first to advocate the creation of a peasant proprietary, and that the first attempt to carry out the principle of this Bill occurs, in the Act of 1870, in what are called the "Bright Clauses," by which public money was pledged for the purpose of assisting tenants in purchasing the freehold from their landlords. Therefore, those who respect the name of Bright and regard that statesman as one of the heroes of the Liberal cause, should recollect that, though he afterwards opposed Home Rule, he was always in favour of abolishing dual ownership.
We come then to the Act of 1881. That Act also contains provisions enabling the public credit to be pledged under certain conditions to assist the tenant to become the owner of his holding. That was the natural consequence of the policy of the Gladstone legislation, because Mr. Gladstone, for the first time, effaced from the Irish Code of law the terrible injustice which previously existed, viz., that all the improvements of the tenants became the property of the landlord, and that the tenant ceased to have any right or interest in them. It was to that state of things that Mr. Gladstone applied his legislation—first in the Act of 1870, by giving the tenant a statutory right to compensation for improvements which he had made, and then in the Act of 1881, by enabling a rent to be fixed in estimating which the improvements made by the tenants were to be left out of account. I do not think many English Members understand the peculiar position in which the Irish tenants stood before and since the

1449
Gladstone legislation. Having recognised that principle, the Act of 1881 created what has been called the dual ownership or co-ownership. They gave the tenant the right to hold the land in defiance of the landlord so long as he paid the rent, and in estimating the rent the improvements made by the tenant were to be excluded. The principle was just and right, and for the first time did common justice to the struggling and labouring peasantry and tenantry of Ireland. Mr. Gladstone gave certain facilities for purchase by the Act, but they were never availed of because they did not go far enough. That is an argument for this side of the House. How can any hon. Gentleman opposite refuse to adopt the principle of this Bill? In 1885 Lord Ashbourne's Act, which has done great benefit to Ireland, recognised the principle of advancing public money to enable this end to be attained. In legislation of this sort we must go by degrees, and the Act only enabled a limited sum to be advanced out of the public Treasury. That sum, being found insufficient, was afterwards enlarged, but the principle was there, and no hesitation was felt by the House of Commons of that day in pledging the credit of the nation to enable this great end to be achieved. That Act was amended in 1885 and extended, but before we come to the extending Clause, which enabled larger sums to be advanced, let me recall the attention of Liberal members in this Parliament to the fact that Mr. Gladstone in 1886 brought in the Bill which has been so often referred to in this debate. I have examined that Bill carefully to its foundation, and the principles of the Bill which is now under consideration in this House are the same in foundation and the same in principle, however they may differ in detail. That Act enabled the landlord to sell for twenty years purchase at the net rent and it enabled tenants to buy, and£50,000,000 were to be advanced out of the public Exchequer, without many of the safeguards provided by the present Bill, to enable that object to be achieved. That was, in many respects, a more risky undertaking than the present, because the interest to be paid by the purchas-
1450
ing tenant was at the rate of 4 per cent., which is heavier than is contemplated in the present Bill. With all due respect to my colleagues on this side of the House, I say that they cannot object to the principle of this Bill with any show of consistency. The fate of a Ministry depended upon that Bill, and hon. Members were willing then to risk their all in carrying the measure into law, and they did risk their all. It was somewhat disputed yesterday, but anyone who reads the history of the question knows that it was upon that Bill, and not upon the Home Rule Bill, that the Gladstone Ministry was wrecked.
Passing on from 1886 we have the Conservative Ministry in power, and the Ashbourne Act was extended, not in principle but in detail. In 1887 and 1891 greater powers were given to achieve this object, and larger sums were granted out of public money. There was no hesitation in passing the latter Bill, and I am not aware that it was seriously contested on its Second Reading. I rather believe that it was not contested, and although it was very much criticised in Committee the Bill ultimately passed; and the provisions of that Bill go very nearly as far as the provisions of the present Bill. Under the beneficial legislation with which the name of Ashbourne is associated in Ireland enormous advantages have been achieved, and we have it further, on irrefragable authority, that out of 80,000 peasant proprietors representing a payment of£350,000 a year, there has only been a default of about£3,000, showing that there is no need to apprehend that the Irish peasant proprietor will not keep faith with the public creditor. It was found that the machinery for land purchase was cumbrous and slow, and it became necessary to have an investigation and approval by the Court of the value of every farm that was sold. We all know that in the case of a vast number of farms there was a process of ascertaining by a public authority the annuities that could be properly charged upon the tenants, and this process must necessarily be slow and cumbrous. The consequence was that after four, five, or six years, only a very small proportion out of the number of agricultural tenants have derived any advantage, not from the want of will, but

1451
from the want of opportunity. Now, what is the proposal of this Bill? It proposes to advance£100,000,000 on the security of the whole of the agricultural land of Ireland, and it guarantees the security of that£100,000,000 by what is called the guarantee fund, which in round numbers amounts to£3,000,000 a year, and which would amply secure the whole of that£100,000,000. I will assume that there was a universal strike against the payment of annuities, although no sensible or reasonable man could ever contemplate such a thing. That seems to me to be the only objection that has been even hinted at by the opponents of this measure. Neither the mover nor the seconder of the Amendment rejecting this Bill, has ventured to say it would not be a great boon to Ireland to have the system of dual ownership abolished, and a peasant proprietorship substituted for it, but they endeavoured to create a prejudice by suggesting that the English taxpayer might be prejudiced at some future time. Past experience shows nothing more unlikely, and the provision of the Bill gives that guarantee fund of£3,000,000 a year which can be closed upon to meet any deficiency.
I have no hesitation in grasping this opportunity for going a step farther for the amelioration of Ireland. I should be sorry to assume that this Bill will be a final settlement of the Irish Question. I should be very sorry if I thought it would be a final settlement, but I regard this Bill as a measure that will almost remove the remaining ground of discontent and complaint so far as it arises from the relations between the landlord and tenant in Ireland, and that relation has been the bedrock of all the troubles, all the difficulties, and all the miseries which Ireland has gone through for centuries. It is a step in the direction, and an almost final step in the sense of the evolution of those principles which were initiated by Mr. Gladstone's Bill of 1870 and the measures which followed it. I claim it as such, and I am sure that the principle of it is right, and it ought to be passed unanimously and nem. con., so far as the Second Reading is concerned, by this House. But saying that, I wish to remind the right hon. Gentleman that
1452
the key to this Bill is the bonus to the Irish landlords—a more meritorious body of men never existed, and I say that fearlessly to the Irish Members below the Gangway We know that the present, and that the last generation of landlords are suffering more or less from the sins of their forebears, and for the extravagances of their forefathers, and that most of them have come into heavily encumbered estates by reason of which it is as much as they can do to keep the wolf away from the doors. I hope, and it will be necessary, to increase the dole or grant of£12,000,000 to the Irish landlords. I think it should be£20,000,000, and I am satisfied that before the Bill passes this House it will be£20,000,000. But be it£20,000,000 or£12,000,000 you must fix the purchase annuity at such a low rate that the tenant will be able to pay it for sixty-eight and a half years regardless of changes of time and circumstance. The men of Ireland will be loyal and prudent and economic. I cannot finish the sentence, I do not want to intrude upon the House after the allotted time, and therefore I must sit down.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  MIDLAND, BELFAST, AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL.
  MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)said the instruction which appeared on the Paper in his name was in no way hostile to the Bill which had gone to a Committee upstairs. The promoters of the Bill, however, took some objection to the form in which the instruction appeared, and as they had sent him a written statement granting all he asked he would beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Instruction, by leave, withdrawn.

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to question [4th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time,"
  Which Amendment was—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the question to add the words 'upon this day six months,'"—(Mr. Coghill.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESE: I have intervened in this debate because I did not want to give a silent vote in the division which is coming on, and because I do not wish it to be thought the English Liberal Members of Parliament sitting on the back benches are not in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill. I therefore desire to give one or two reasons why I shall vote in favour of the Second Reading. I do not think we ought to run away from this Bill in a fright. The people of this country appear to be in a quiescent state, I have had no letters complaining of the Bill or any adverse petitions of any kind. That is not because the British elector has no interest in this matter, or knowledge. He has both knowledge and interest in granting to the Irish freedom from the present impossible position in regard to Irish land. I want to show, according to my own view at any rate, what is the feeling and sentiment of the elector, and what is in his mind with regard to the Second Reading of this Bill. He knows Ireland has been for many years in a disturbed and discontented condition. He thinks that is from two causes; first, because it has been misgoverned for many years—and that is politically true—and that, as a chief result of that misgovernment, Ireland of to-day—whatever it once was, or might have been if it had had fair play—is now almost purely agricultural. He knows that, except in the north-east corner of the island, there is no industry but that of agriculture, and he concludes that if its people are to live by work they must work on the land, the cultivation of the land being the chief trade. The British elector knows that those who owned the land have always been in a strong position when the Irish people sought to hire it and to try to live out of it. The English elector thinks that the landlords availed them-
  1454
  selves of the great demand for land and a limited supply of it to rack-rent the tenants for many years past. Then, again, he is familiar with such terms as "moonlighting," "agrarian outrage," "rack-rent evictions;" all these he credits to the land system. He is familiar with the consequent conflicts between the Government and the participators in these offences and their sympathisers. He has seen soldiers called out to evict tenants from their holdings, and the Government thus acting on the side of the landlords, and for some years he has asked himself what is the cause of all this, and why should the Government help the strong against the weak, and he has come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that in most cases high and impossible rents have caused these troubles. He naturally associates landlords with high and impossible rents. He then asks himself why are rents high and impossible in Ireland and not in England? and finds his answer, first, because in Ireland there is practically no occupation but that of tilling land; and an Irish peasant must have land, or starve, or emigrate. Second, because there are more applicants for farms than there are farms, that therefore, the demand exceeds supply, and the rents become impossible.
  Then the British elector remembers that tenants have done all the improvements on the land; that they built houses and fences, and made drains; that they reduced wild bog land into cultivable soil; and not only paid rent for these improvements, but paid increased rent because of them. The British elector is, after all, an intelligent person, and he knows a real hardship when he sees one. He recognises this Irish case as one. Then he sees political risings—"1848,"—Fenianism,—perpetual Coercion Acts, aggressive Land Leagues, and no-rent manifestoes, and all these matters he connects with the land wrong. That is why he accepted land legislation which interfered with the so-called sacred right of contract. He doubted the existence of a free contract. He does not trouble himself as to how far this particular Land Act goes. He recognises that the evil is not yet cured, and he says, "What's the use of nibbling at this cherry? Let me see if you cannot present to me a cherry that I can swallow whole. I recognise that the land is the

  1455
  chief cause of most discontent in Ireland. Show me a plan to put an end to that once and for all, and I will listen sympathetically to your suggestions." He starts, therefore, with a strong inclination to accede to a plan which shall have this effect. He asks himself, "Will this Bill remove the chief causes of irritation?" The answer is that it will abolish landlordism at any rate. "So far so good," says the British elector. "But what about the gilding of that cherry that I have to swallow whole?" And then he is faced with a loan of£100,000,000 and a free grant of£12,000,000. I think what sticks in his gills most is the£12,000,000. But when he is told all this money will not be wanted at once, and that some of it can be found by saving in Irish administration, in consequence of this proposal, he is, I think, easier in his mind. Again, he does not like legislating for sixty-eight years. He begins to reckon that he is leaving a legacy to his great-grandchildren. And he knows that a thousand things may happen in sixty-eight or seventy years. Here again he is consoled by being informed that in sixty-eight years the payments will cease and the liability of the tenants be wiped out, and that he need not fear repudiation, for that under similar Acts, now in operation for some years, the Irish tenant has faithfully paid his rent. Then he draws upon his own common sense, and argues that if landlordism is removed the tenant will gradually become the owner. Then will begin the natural workings of conservatism. The tenant will have something to conserve for the first time in his existence, and he will take care of it. The full support of law and order are the best means to that end, and he knows it. If I dare be a prophet I would say that this legislation, added to the natural conservatism of the Roman Catholic faith, will build up in Ireland the most conservative peasantry in the world. The British elector thinks that he may safely leave moonlighters and agrarian outragers to the tender mercies of the new owners of the little farms themselves. On the whole, therefore, I conclude that the British elector would say, "I will agree to your principle, so read your Bill a second time, but I shall require you in Committee to satisfy me that your financial schemes are correct, and that I shall get an honest return for my money." Therefore I shall vote
  1456
  for the Second Reading of this Bill. I shall expect the Government and supporters of the Bill to confirm in Committee their contentions that the Irish tenants are not called upon to make unfair sacrifices, that the money which the State is going to lend shall be really and truly secure, that the£12,000,000 is to be gradually expended, and that the savings from Irish administration will really provide the bulk of it and that the landlords shall be reasonably recompensed for their land, but not extravagantly, as the present proposal appears to provide.
  MR. WOOD (Down, E.): I venture to detain the House for a few moments while I endeavour to offer a few observations upon this Bill. [Cries of "Speak up," from the NATIONALIST Benches.] I do not propose to give my support to this measure because of any official position I may occupy on this side of the House. I do not intend to give it only a minimum of support, although, as a fact, the adoption of such a measure will be to me a very striking and very great pecuniary loss. In that respect I differ from the position occupied by the Solicitor-General of England in this matter, because whatever happens to this Bill four quarter days in the year will remain for him. This is a Bill which, at least in my constituency, has not received very much enthusiasm. It is a Bill that is recognised by the farmers and labourers of Ulster to be but a feeble effort on the part of the Government to meet the position in Ulster, and, indeed, in Ireland; but we recognise that the Bill is an attempt on the part of the Government to clear away obstacles to progress, and that the near future will see us free of the curse which has hung over us for centuries. At the same time, I admit the Bill possesses many merits. It provides for universal occupier ship in Ireland, and it provides money for the purpose of getting rid of the landlords. I can recognise the difficulty the Government must have had in introducing such a Bill as this When we remember on this side of the House that there are in the Government five Irish landlords, the difficulty of the Government must have been extreme to meet this question in a way which was

  1457
  fair and reasonable to the Irish, tenant farmers and to the labourers, but it is a remarkable fact that there is no Member returned to this House from loyal Ulster who dare go and ask for the support of the men of Ulster in the agricultural constituencies, who did not declare himself in favour of universal and compulsory sale. There is not a Member, except the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh—whose illness I regret there is not a single Member for Ulster on this side of the House who is not in favour, at least at election times, of compulsory sale.
  In the last election, when the hon. Member for North Fermanagh was returned to the House, we had an Ulster landlord contesting the seat, and his motto was "Vote for Craik and the land for the people," but the electors preferred occupying ownership to the land for the people, and they preferred to send my hon. friend here because they believed he was with them, of them, and would look after their interests and secure them in the ownership of their land. The Bill provides a substantial sum to carry the programme into effect; it lends the money at a rate of interest reasonable and fair, and for that the Irish tenant is obliged and grateful to the Government. In addition to that it provides a sum of£12,000,000 to help to bridge over the gap that exists between what the tenant can afford to pay and what the landlord can be reasonably asked to take. It does more—it may seem strange speaking from this side of the House for an Ulster representative, representing a loyal Ulster constituency, to say we are as anxious as any hon. Member on the Irish side of the House to see substantial justice done to the old soldiers of the land war. They have at last attained their majority, and it is quite time that the Government that had put them out of their holdings should aid in putting them back, because, remember, it is by their suffering and sacrifice that we in Ulster are here. We recognise that and know the benefits we have received through their sacrifice and suffering. So for as we are concerned, and I speak for my Party, we are prepared to aid and assist the representatives of the evicted tenants and to help them to procure a settlement of the great question which has so long agitated that part of Ireland.
  1458
  There are great merits in this Bill, but there are also serious defects. So serious are those defects that neither my hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone nor the hon. Member for North Fermanagh dare go back to the people of Ulster unless we have an assurance from the Government that these defects will be remedied and cleared out of the way. That is our position in Ulster to-day. The Ulster farmer has found out his strength, and he is determined to see this matter settled on fair and equitable terms. He is willing to pay an honest price, and a fair price, to get rid of his landlord, but not a farthing more, and he was not prepared to have a measure passed into law to take away the rights and privileges he at present enjoys. We recognise that Ulster landlords will not be so willing to sell as they are in the south and west; we believe that they will be the last to go; we believe that in the south and west they have been able to supply their own compulsion, but we in the north prefer or preferred to have compulsion by Act of Parliament. In that belief largely the Ulster farmer is doubtful whether or not his representatives should support this Bill and see it right through. They have actually expressed the fear that the Irish Party, having secured for the farmers in the south and west their holdings, and having got them out of bondage, they might wish not to give their aid to the farmers and labourers of Ulster. It is extraordinary that they have that great fear that the Irish Party will not continue to help them to get rid of this curse, which has enslaved them for so many years, and which is as bad in Ulster as in any other part of the country.
  There is a further objection, and that is as to the interference with the Land Act of 1881. I should like to see the Attorney-General go down to North Derry and speak against the Land Act of 1881 as he did last night. I should like to hear the opinion of the "purple heroes" of North Derry upon the charge against the tenant farmers and labourers of North Derry. It is fashionable in this country for a Chief Secretary, in addressing a meeting of Primrose Dames, to abuse the Act of 1881 and the author of it, but we in

  1459
  Ireland, who know the benefit of that Act, and know what we have gained by it, and know the sacrifices by which that Act was placed upon the Statute-book, remember that that Act was obtained by blood; we remember the service rendered to us by the great statesman who rolled away the stone from the sepulchre which entombed the Irish farmers. The tenant farmers do not care to forget the name of Gladstone and the work he performed for them. Had the Land Act of 1881 not been placed upon the Statute-book, and had Irishmen not laboured to obtain it, the Irish landlord would have been easily settled with to-day. What did that Act do? It took account of the partnership between the landlord and tenant in the holding. Previous to that, the tenant did all the work and the landlord took all the profit. It allocated to the landlord what was his property and to the tenant what was his, and it declared that the tenant's property was not to be taxed in the interest of the landlord. It was the maladministration of that Act that caused further outrage and fresh agitation. The northern farmer has suffered as much by reason of the maladministration of that Act as the farmer of the south and west. Let me illustrate this: A farmer in North Down built a small addition to the existing house on his farm. The Land Commission took that into account as directed by the Land Act, and they came to the conclusion that the tenant's house was far too respectable for the size of the holding, and it was assessed to the extent of£25 a year. That was remedied by the Land Act of 1896. That tenant had been paying£25 more than he was justly entitled to pay upon his own property and capital. He has been looking forward to the present year when he can go back to the court and avail himself of the great Magna Charta of the Irish tenant provided by the Act.
  Now there is the question of the maximum and minimum price. In the interest of the State it is necessary to fix a maximum price beyond which the landlord and tenant cannot go. But why fix so high a maximum as that stated in the Act? In the County Down, on the estate of the Marquess of Londonderry, holdings have been sold to tenants at twenty to twenty-three years purchase.
  1460
  The price is paid in land stock which, at the present reduction, is only valued at£90, and without bonus, and yet the Government, with full knowledge of that, propose to fix a higher price than that at which a Cabinet Minister has been selling his land. Why then has the Government fixed upon a higher price than that? To fix a minimum price seems to me to be absurd and ridiculous in the extreme. Does the Government think the Irish landlord is unable to look after his own interest? Do they think he cannot drive a hard bargain? Why not put him under the control of the Lord Chancellor, who has charge of all infants? That is the position Ulster's representatives must take on the question, and the sooner the Government know it the better. The proposal cannot be defended, and it must not be defended if the Government want to get the Bill through and to retain Ulster.
  On the question of mines and minerals, why should the tenants who purchase under this Bill have these reserved? Is this a censure on the previous legislation of the Government? The tenants who are to purchase under the Bill are to give the full value of the landlord's interest in the holding. Why should they not have every right of the landlord? Besides, they are to become owners of their farms. Are they not entitled, as owners of their farms, to the enjoyment of their property—for the opening up of mines and quarries on a farm would cause the farmer to live off the farm. There would be no security or fixity of tenure for the Irish farmer. The Irish farmer must be retained in the home, which is endeared to him by many and loved recollections, and no company or syndicate must come to take down the property of his fathers, and around which there are hallowed associations. The question of the one-eighth has already been spoken of by many Members who have addressed the House. I join those who have spoken in favour of the decadal system. I ask that the Land Act of 1896 should be embodied in this Bill, so as to give the tenant the opportunity of looking forward for ten years for the purpose of getting further relief. Now, with the prices ruling for agricultural produce, he will be in a better position to pay a larger sum, and he will have the opportunity of laying up a store for the

  1461
  time when there may be some agricultural depression, and when the wages of the agricultural labourer will rise, as they must rise, for they are too low at the present time. The tenant must be in a position to pay the agricultural labourer a living wage. My hon. friend the Member for South Antrim will no doubt be heard on the question of the labourers. The private secretary of the Chief Secretary was sent down to the South Antrim election to promise free homes for the labourers. Where is the performance by the Government of that promise in this Bill? If the Government are sincere on the question of the labourers, let them consult the friends of the labourers and they will be glad to aid and assist them in formulating a Bill. We ask the Government to aid and assist in passing a measure for the relief of the agricultural labourer, and to place him in a position as partner in the land with the tenant and to aid and assist in working out the salvation and regeneration of our country—a country whose people are devoted to plain living and high thinking. Then you will have a people of whom you may be proud; Ireland will be a strength to the Empire and not a weakness, and you will have a nation of brave men and fair women.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.): It is a great pleasure to me that the first words I have the honour of addressing to the House should be in support of the Second Reading of a Bill which, in my opinion, will confer incalculable benefits on my country. It is a mistake which has too frequently pervaded this House that only to hon. Members opposite belongs the right of speaking on behalf of the Irish people. We Ulster Members, on this side, claim the right to speak on behalf of the farmers and of the labourers of the north of Ireland. I entirely dispute the claim set up by the hon. Member for South Tyrone to be the representative of the north of Ireland farmer. I claim for myself, as representing an Irish constituency in the north of Ireland, as much right to speak on behalf of the Ulster farmers as either the hon. Member for East Down or his leader the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The hon. Member for East Down remarked that the Ulster farmer has just discovered his strength, and
  1462
  that nothing could be done in this House without his assistance in matters connected with Irish land affairs. The hon. Member will only have to call his memory back a few weeks to a certain Convention held in Belfast to discuss the terms of the Bill, to remember that on some observations made by a certain ecclesiastic gentleman who addressed the meeting, his leader, the hon. Member for South Tyrone, informed him in a very few words that they had no power at all unless they attached themselves to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong; I said nothing of the sort. What I did say was that it was necessary that the tenantry in the north and south of Ireland should move together in this matter.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: My recollection of what the hon. Gentleman said was that without the assistance of hon. Gentlemen opposite the farmers in the north of Ireland had no power whatever.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I never said I anything of the sort.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: If I have been misinformed I withdraw. Having disposed of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I will proceed to criticise the Bill without controversy with my hon. friend the Member for East Down. Now, Sir, I think it is admitted by everybody who has had to do with the land question in Ireland, that the system of dual ownership, which has existed from time immemorial, has done more to retard the progress of Ireland as a whole than any other thing. I am glad that every representative in the north of Ireland is agreed on that point. The partnership—if indeed one can call such a combination a partnership, in which one partner has had practically no rights beyond the right of making a precarious livelihood out of the land he tills, and in which the tenant is allowed to invest his capital and labour, but, at the same time, is liable to be deprived of both at any moment at the mere will or discretion of his landlord—is one which was bound to bring in

  1463
  its train all the misery and discontent which has dogged the system from time immemorial. I think that certainly every Unionist Member from the north of Ireland will accept that proposition, and then we have to add to that disadvantage a Government which, up to the time of the Union was so rotten that it was a bye-word to the whole world, and which since the Union, I am sorry to say, has not been a great deal better. Since the Union the Government of Ireland has been vacillating and uncertain, showing at one moment firmness, and when the results of that firmness had shown themselves they at once relaxed into slackness and weakness. Under those circumstances, the wonder is, not that Ireland is backward and discontented, but that Ireland exists at all. The hon. Member for East Mayo told us in his speech yesterday that the Act of 1881 converted the tenants of Ireland from bondsmen to freemen.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): I said it was the first step in the conversion.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: In any case, I am glad that the Act of 1881 had at least one redeeming feature, but I do not admit that that was the redeeming feature of the Act. I will tell hon. Members in a moment what I do think was the redeeming feature of it. My idea of the Act of 1881 is, and always has been, that it was one of the most unfortunate Acts ever passed for Ireland except in one particular, and that particular was that it has reduced the state of Ireland which existed prior to 1881—which was, in all conscience, bad enough—to such a chaotic and deplorable condition that at last we have come to the point when not only the Irish Members are agreed, but English Members also of all shades of opinion, that the system of dual ownership must disappear once and for all. Bad as the Act of 1881 is, it deserves our thanks for bringing about that consummation. That Act may have established a system of land tenure in Ireland, but it established such an intolerable condition of constant litigation that no words would be too strong to condemn it Prior to the passing of that Act there were landlords and tenants who looked upon each other with mutual respect, but the measure
  1464
  swept all that away, and from that year down to the present time there has been nothing but friction and discontent. I will not go so far as to say there has been mutual hatred, but certainly there has been mutual distrust between landlords and tenants. We have arrived at the time when that must cease, and I am glad the Government have stepped forward, and have taken the bull by the horns, and brought forward this Bill, which, I believe, will with moderate Amendments carry out this great reform in land tenure in Ireland which everybody, whether Englishmen, Irishmen, or Scotchmen, most heartily desires. I hope the Government will be able to see their way to increase the grant-in-aid from£12,000,000 to£20,000,000. If they can, I shall be quite prepared to vote for compulsion all round, but I cannot see on what principle the Government can impose penalties on the tenants without doing the same to landlords. The Bill, so far as I understand, is supposed to be a voluntary Bill, and therefore the restrictions contained in Clause 17 are to my mind absolutely inconsistent with the principle of the Bill.
  The last point on which I wish to touch is the question of the labourers. There is an old story, I cannot vouch for the truth of it, that when the Almighty was creating this world and came to the Sahara Desert he was so weary that he stopped work when he had half finished it. I think the same story might be applied to the right hon. the Chief Secretary who has expended all his energies on the purchase clauses of the Bill, and when he came to the question of the labourers he was too fatigued to finish it. I agree with several hon. Members in saying that it would have been better not to include these three scanty sections dealing with the labourers or to have invited some Member of this House who is more intimately connected with the labourers question than he is, to deal with it. The three sections are absolutely inadequate, and there can be no settlement of the Land Question which does not include the settlement of the labourers question. The Chief Secretary, in introducing the Bill, said that the

  1465
  labourers question was, after all, a minor one. I admit that it is a minor question, but it is one of the greatest importance, and I have myself pledged to see that it is properly dealt with in the Bill. There is at present on the Statute-book a long series of Acts dealing with labourers in Ireland. They were meant to enable decent houses to be provided for the labourers. The same defect runs through them all, too many formalities are required before they can be brought into operation, and it costs as much time and trouble to erect a labourer's cottage in Ireland as to carry through a Strand improvement. There are certain things in the different Acts which are wrong, and which should he amended in the present Bill. What is more important, however, is the simplification of the procedure by which the Labourers Acts can be put into force. I hope the Chief Secretary will accept the Amendments which will undoubtedly flow in upon him in a proper spirit, and incorporate them in the Bill. I wish to touch for a moment on the question of the evicted tenants, although this is a class of people with which we in the north of Ireland are directly interested. Seeing that this is a great conciliatory measure which is intended to settle the Land Question once and for all, I would join with my Ulster colleagues most heartily with hon. Gentlemen opposite in asking the Government, I do not say to reinstate the evicted tenants, for it is impossible in every case, but to help them. This would complete the measure and heal, once and for all, all sores. We Unionist Members are therefore willing to support hon. Gentlemen opposite in their Amendments on this part of the Bill, provided they in no way interfere with the men who are at present in the evicted holdings. The question of Home Rule has been touched upon fey several Members. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have told us very plainly and frankly that they do not consider this Bill, when passed into law, will check Home Rule, but, on the contrary, will act as a step towards Home Rule. They must be allowed to act on their own Opinions, as we on this side of the House must be allowed to have ours. I believe that if this measure is passed into law it will push back Home Rule, as the Ulster Members understand
  1466
  it, still further into the distance, if it does not render it impossible, and dispose of the question for ever. I am glad, however, that at this early stage of the discussion of the Bill, it has been made absolutely clear, whether it staves off Home Rule or not, that the measure is to be discussed on its merits. There is one other matter to which I wish to refer—the graduated scale of bonuses proposed to be applied. I believe that that finds as little favour on this side of the House as on the other. The chief object of the Bill, I imagine, is to induce the large proprietors to sell their properties, and to create as many tenant proprietors as possible. If that is so, I do not see for what reason the Government have proposed this graduated scale of bonuses. The £12,000,000 to be given as bonuses should be applied equally to all landlords, whether they hold land producing £500 or £20,000 per anuum.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I think the House of Commons is to be congratulated on the additions which have been made to the Irish ranks in our midst, and if I may presume to do so, I congratulate my two hon. friends opposite on the speeches which they have just delivered. I notice that diverse historical views have been expressed as to what has led up to the situation in which we find ourselves; but I wish to say at once how very cordially I agree with the hon. Member for East Down in the view he has taken of a very considerable defect in the Bill, that is, the section dealing with sporting and mineral rights. This Bill proposes to abolish dual ownership of the land in Ireland; but to abolish dual ownership of land and preserve dual possession, by this confusing reservation of sporting and mineral interests, is an absurdity, even in Ireland; and I hope that that absurdity will be eradicated from the measure. I have considered and reconsidered this Bill with all the interest born of a sincere desire to do my best to promote the industrial interests of Ireland and the social peace of that country. For the importance of the measure lies not only in regard to its bearing on the social peace of Ireland; but also in regard' to the economic prosperity of that island. What has been the occasion of this Bill? It has been, in a single word,

  1467
  the violent contrasts which have been experienced in recent years in Ireland between the lot and the rights of those who have acquired their property under the Purchase Acts, and the lot and rights of those in their immediate neighbourhood who find themselves in a situation lower in legal status, and worse in financial position through no fault of their own. In introducing the Bill the Chief Secretary said that "an overwhelming majority of the landlords and tenants in Ireland desire that the system of purchase shall be universally extended." That testimony is all the more important from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman gave it when he was bringing in a Bill which, I fear, does not practically effect anything of the sort. My sympathy is with the object and principle of the Bill; and I, for one, could not take upon myself the responsibility, in view of the social conditions of Ireland, of the history of that country, and in particular in view of the recent events which have led to the present situation, of declining to give a Second Reading to a measure of this kind.
  How does this Bill propose to give effect to the principle of extending the system of purchase universally in Ireland? I say without hesitation that this Bill does not extend the existing system of land purchase in Ireland; it creates for the first time a new system of land purchase in Ireland of a kind and on a scale vastly more onerous to the tenantry of that country than ever heretofore experienced; and it is not compulsory. I desire to give the result of my observations on both these points. In the main it is a purchase measure. The principle remains in so far as it gives effect to the idea of abolishing dual ownership; but when you have said that in regard to the relation of this measure to what has gone before it, you have practically said all. How can you predicate the success of a measure of this kind, if the terms proposed for the tenantry are so heavy and so burdensome as to impose upon them the risks of an enormous speculative transaction, as to which three-fourths of the rural population will be bound for two-and-a-half-generations. The safety of this measure depends upon the terms of the bargain which it imposes upon the tenantry of Ireland, and I, for one, shall do all in my power to mitigate what I conceive to be the harshness, the severity and the rigour of these terms, and put the tenants under a better scale of payment. Some-
  1468
  thing has been imported into these discussions which is not helpful to reaching a good result. I totally object to the. cavilling at the Act of 1881. That Statute; is one of the most enduring titles to. honour of the illustrious statesman who passed it; and to-day we are, in an increasing measure, recognising the magnitude of the task he undertook and the boon he granted. The Act of 1881 is the Charter of the tenantry of Ireland; it is the creator of tenant right. What was its great offence? It was that it, once and for ever, put an end to the system of continuous confiscation of the labour of the tenants by the landlords. Are we not all indebted even to-day to the Act of 1881 for furnishing a standard and a datum for all our calculations in regard to the Land Question down to this hour? The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth says that he supports this Bill because it is in some degree a make-weight for what he is pleased to call the "economic collapse" after 1881. I say that there was no such thing. The collapse was the collapse of an unjust right, and the substitution for that unjust right of a system of equitable possession and of the reward going to those who had earned it. I protest against my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland talking of the situation of the landlords after 1881 as one surrounded with exasperation, and speaking of the landlords going impoverished. One would have thought to hear him that prior to 1881 there had been a paradise in Ireland, so magnificently described by the last speaker, in which the landlords were the natural friends and guardians of the people of Ireland. Was there no agitation in regard to the relations between landlords, and tenants before 1881?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): What I said was that the Act of 1881 had surrounded the agricultural population with exasperation and litigation.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: Well, there are worse things than litigation: there are more primitive kinds of conflict. Litigation is a kind of quarrel in which there is an arbiter who will settle the matter, but the exasperation which preceded the Act of 1881 was not an exasperation of litigation but it

  1469
  was an exasperation of a much more troublesome kind, and many a landlord would have been glad to substitute for that exasperation the litigation which subsequently ensued. Under the Act of 1881 an assured position had been created for the tenantry of Ireland, for they secured a re-adjustment of rents and the fresh assessment of these at particular intervals; and I do want to know—and I hope the Chief Secretary will attend to this matter, which has been mentioned at least a dozen times, when he comes to reply—what defence the Government can offer for penalising under Section 17 of this Bill a person who declines to take advantage of the operations of this measure by depriving him of his right at law under another Statute. This seems to m e extraordinary. I could understand a measure which was either optional or compulsory, but here is a kind of cross-breed between option and compulsion. It is optional to decline to take advantage of this provision, but if you decline, in the exercise of the option, you will be penalised by being deprived of most valuable rights and privileges which another Act of Parliament has conferred upon you. Coming to this Bill. I do not suppose that, out of Ireland, the transactions which are adumbrated in it would have entered the imagination. It could not be imagined, out of Ireland, that at one time, and in one place, two people should meet, and one should buy for one figure and the other should sell for another figure the very same thing at the same moment, and then in their trouble they should appeal to John Bull, whom I take to be not only an Englishman but the representative of the three countries, and it so puzzles his brain that he says to the two persons who could not equate their relations, "This is too complicated for me to understand; please don't quarrel any more about it; how much is there to pay?" That seems to me to be the principle of this Bill. I venture to approach the Bill simply as a person acquainted with valuation and having considerable experience in litigation—that much despised art—and arbitration both in this country and in Scotland. The great point with
  1470
  regard to valuation of interests is to get some past experience to go upon. Now you have had experience under the last Purchase Act, and it has produced an ascertainable result. On an average, seventeen and a half years purchase was the average amount paid. But then it is said, "Oh, that is an experience happening in cases only where the person was perfectly willing to sell." To which I reply that that is the experience always. Take any arbitration or litigation with regard to the settlement of the value of land. The question is, what will a willing buyer give to a willing seller, and if you have a willing buyer coming; to a willing seller during an experience of seventeen and a half year, then you have a definite datum, and can make an absolutely fair start. The next step is to transmute your moral compulsion into money, and to do this you ought just to add the usual and acknowledged 10 per cent. and no more. That is what would be done in any other country in Europe, and certainly in America, except that in America where there is a claim at the instance of a public authority they make very short work of the additional value. I want to see upon that showing how this Bill stands, and here I must dissociate myself from both sides of the House. In the first place I take the landlord's case. I must dissociate myself altogether from my hon. and learned friend the Member for South Shields, who says that we ought to drive a rigid and stiff bargain with the landlord because he has been so much favoured in recent years. I grant that he has been favoured, but I protested strongly in my place at the time against yielding to him, at the clamour of his class, a claim for £300,000 per annum, which was what lubricated the passage of the Local Government Bill. But that is now the law, and we must take the landlord as we find him. The landlord has been clothed and vested by Parliament with those rights, and I am not going back upon the principle that if I want to get at a just value I must take the men exactly in the position in which they are situated. I grant, further, that the landlord has got relief in other ways, and he has got privileges with regard to the sale of his demesne even under the provisions of this Bill; but I will take it

  1471
  that he has got nothing more than what the law gave him before this Bill came into being, and I find his position is neither better nor worse than the ordinary person whose property is taken from him at the instance of a public authority or a company vested by Parliament with compulsory powers. And now with regard to the tenant. Here again I dissociate myself entirely from the view that the tenant is to be put in to some kind of depreciated position because of the second-term rental having been fixed so much lower. Here again the only safe line is the line of justice and law on the basis of existing rights. The second-term rents are de facto the correct rentals for calculation with regard to purchase. And, therefore, what should I do in such circumstances except apply the ordinary provisions and practice in a situation in which a public authority, for public purposes, changes the nature of a man's interest and pays him in money for what has hitherto been his exclusive property. I start with my seventeen-and-a half years, and I add to that 1·7 years or 10 per cent., and I reach 19·2 years purchase, and that is the limit of it by the ordinary law; but make it twenty years purchase. After considering and reconsidering the matter, I cannot see that the landlord is entitled to one penny more. After considering and reconsidering the matter I cannot see that the tenant is entitled or bound to pay more than eighteen years purchase. I am taking in each case the seventeen-and-a-half years, or rather eighteen years purchase us the full price, and then I add a percentage from the State. For it is the act of the State as the undertakers because it is carrying on a large onerous public undertaking, and it is the act of the State that warrants this extra payment of two years purchase. The tenant, in short, should pay only eighteen years, and the State as the commander of this undertaking should pay only two years, making in all twenty years purchase.
  Now what is the finance of the arrangement under the Bill? It is as follows. It is rather difficult to get the correct number of people affected by this but I take Act, the number to be about 490,000 holdings, less 90,000 already settled and arranged, leaving in all about
  1472
  400,000 holdings. This, it is assumed, gives an average rental of £10, and the result is that we are dealing with regard to this measure with a rental of £4,000,000. For that rental of £4,000,000, the State, in respect of its inaugurating this enterprise, is to give, as I have said, an extra two years purchase, and therefore the State could give a grant of £8,000,000 for purchase, and this would be for an out-and-out purchase on the very fullest terms. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask the House, and in particular I do ask my hon. friends below the Gangway, very seriously to consider what is the result of the finance of this Bill. Instead of that eighteen years which the tenant has to pay, he has under the maximum and minimum of this Bill, to pay not eighteen years purchase but from twenty-two to twenty-eight years purchase of the second-term rent. Of course I have no knowledge anything like so adequate or great as that of my hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone on this question, but I agree with him when he says, if, instead of eighteen years purchase, you have from twenty-two to twenty-eight years purchase laid upon the tenantry, that may prove to be a load under which that tenantry will ultimately break down. With regard to the landlords' position it is still more peculiar, and it reaches the grotesque. Instead of the landlord getting only twenty years purchase he gets from twenty-three to thirty-two years purchase, with the assistance of the bonus. I will take this case at the average between the minimum and the maximum. On the average the tenant pays five years too much, that is, he pays the difference between his eighteen years which would be just and the twenty-three years which is to be charged under this Bill. And what does it mean with regard to the landlord? The landlord gets seven-and-a-half years too much, namely, the difference between the twenty years which was justly due and the twenty-seven and a half years which is the medium figure under the Bill. These figures cannot be denied and upon the footing on which I have presented them, the result is this:—the tenant is burdened with five years extra purchase, of £4,000,000 of rental equal to an extra burden of £20,000,000 put upon his shoulders, and the landlord is to receive seven-and-a-half years purchase at £4,000,000 per annum or equal to

  1473
  £30,000,000. In other words it is £20,000,000 too much which the tenant has to pay, and £30,000,000 too much which the landlord has to get, and that is the scheme of the finance of this Bill.
  In regard to the former part of this proposal I ask hon. Members from Ireland to consider whether it is not their duty now to protest against initiating for two-and-a-half generations a scheme which, upon all the essentials of actuarial finance, seems to point to ruin rather than to prosperity. It is a preposterous bargain; it is a speculative transaction in which everybody stands to lose except the landlord, and he can disappear with this money in his pocket leaving the tenant and the State confronting each other in very awkward circumstances. The result is that we may find in the end that the tenantry will have to face a situation after the memory of the transaction has gone in which the one salient feature of the position will be that they will be paying too much per annum and paying a sum as they think harshly imposed by the Government. If the maximum is reached the figures are far worse. If you have twenty-eight years paid instead of eighteen by the tenant, he pays ten years too much, which is equal to £4,000,000 per annum or a total of £40,000,000. If the State pays thirty-two years instead of twenty years it is twelve years too much, and that is equal at £4,000,000 per annum to £ 18,000,000. The figures I have given are sufficiently startling to entitle me to say here and now that I think the Irish Members will deserve every help in this House to make the finance of this Bill more in accord with the elementary principles which ought to govern the valuation of land. I wish to say finally that in my view this stupendous excess makes too great a price to pay for non-compulsion. The effect of non-compulsion will be to widen the area of what I might call the Dillon and De Freyne trouble. All over Ireland you will have cases where bargains will be made on, I hope, the minimum terms, but bargains under which the tenantry will be transmuted into owners and become masters of their own destiny alongside of cases in which such bargains have been refused. I cannot look upon
  1474
  that as a state of matters that will settle Ireland. My hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General for Ireland talked in a somewhat fantastic way of the retrenchment which would be effected in regard to the Irish police, on which he said they were going to save £300,000 a year. I wonder how much he would have if the Dillon and De Freyne trouble is increased tenfold in Ireland. I see no signs of any such retrenchment in finance in that quarter, unless some scheme be devised for compulsorily taking the land in all cases where there is disorder. Fortunately Ireland gives a precedent as to what may be done in cases of social disturbance. The Lord Lieutenant appears on the scene, pronounces his fiat, suspends the constitution, and imports the police and the military. And all for the sake of not allowing the ordinary law of free meetings and the like to go on. Can we have no help with regard to this Bill from the Lord Lieutenant? I wonder if it is not possible in this Bill to add something of this kind to Section 5. I think if my hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General was only of the mind to do it he might accomplish it in two hours by adding to Section 5 a proviso that wherever there was social disturbance caused or threatened by the non adoption of the Act the Lord Lieutenant could issue his fiat and make the position such that it would be necessary for the provisions of this Bill to come into operation. It looks very simple; but you will hear more of it as years go on, and unless something of that kind is done you will have recurrent trouble in Ireland. More and more the idea of universal compulsion will come forward, and more and more men's minds will turn to some compromise between universal compulsion and a case of specific policy of intervention on the ground of social disorder—such disorder as forms an overwhelming case for particular compulsion. I present that view to the House, and I think that even under this Bill it is possible for us to rearrange Section 5 and other clauses in such a way as will at all events put the Government in the position of saying that they will adopt this principle wherever social disturbance or social crime exists. The Lord Lieutenant is now vested with authority to suspend the ordinary law

  1475
  and import the police, and I want him to have power to make the importation of the police unnecessary by putting in a beneficent provision such as I have indicated. Let the Government introduce a clause which will bring in the Lord Lieutenant, this time not to do what the people do not want, but to do what the people do want; let him have power not to suspend the constitution but to make this constitutional measure of healing applicable to the disturbed districts. Of course all these things seem simple as to be almost fantastic. Simple as the matter seems, and as it grows more familiar it will be more and more thought of in Ireland, and it will be found that we are not in future to treat the machinery of law and order simply for upsetting law and order, but surely also for a purpose for which it was created, viz., giving the whole tenantry of Ireland the benefit of the law in its best and most beneficent sense. Without these two things—better terms and some provision authorising some public authority to take stock of the situation and get the Act adopted in cases of social disturbance—I think the Bill may prove a leap in the dark. It may provoke even wilder jealousies in many localities than past history can show. But there are in this Bill the bones of a skeleton which, if properly clothed may be productive of great good, and if the measure is suitably amended, a happier day may yet dawn for Ireland, when industrial prosperity and social peace will take the place of the present unrest and distress.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM-QUIN (Glamorganshire, S.): I am prepared to support this Bill, not only on account of the national spirit, which I contend is as strong on this side of the House as it is on the other, but also on behalf of my constituents in the principality of Wales. The Government, in introducing it, have shown that while busily engaged in knitting together our ties of Empire beyond the seas they are not unmindful of the Celtic fringe on this side of the Atlantic. Some twenty years ago it was my lot to be serving with my regiment in Ireland and on the staff of the then Lord Lieutenant. It was a time of great anxiety, and from my knowledge of the country at that
  1476
  period and from my sad experience of the wholesale evictions which took place in the year 1882, many of which it was my duty to attend, I should never have thought it possible that anything like the conciliatory spirit now prevailing among all classes could have been brought about. I take, therefore, this opportunity of tendering my sincere thanks and congratulations, not only to the representatives of the landlords but also to those representatives of the tenants who sat in the late Conference at Dublin, for, doubtless, it is principally due to the tact and ability shown by the nominees of the people that conclusions of so satisfactory a character were arrived at. I believe it is largely owing to the work of the joint conference of landlords and tenants that this Bill has been framed and introduced. Ireland herself is to be congratulated on having, at this most critical period of her history, a Chief Secretary with the heart to resolve, the head to conceive, and the hand to execute. I shall vote for this measure, feeling that those I represent have embarked their money in a thoroughly sound business undertaking, and if any hon. Members have doubts on that score, I think they must have been reassured, not only by the admirable speech delivered by the Chief Secretary on the First Reading of this Bill, but also by the explanations we received yesterday from the Attorney-General on the financial side of the question. The right hon. Gentleman told us that out of the £25,000,000 already invested in land purchase in Ireland, only £3,000 now remained in arrears, and that it was probable a good deal of even that comparatively small sum would be received.
  I repeat it should not have been stated both in the Press and on public platforms, that the sum of £12,000,000, to be provided by this country in order to ensure the passage of the Bill, constituted anything in the nature of a bribe to the landlords. Surely it is just as much a contribution to the purchase price of the tenants, for we have (1) the reserve price of the landlord; (2) the offer of the tenant, while the bonus given by the State completes the bid, a bid for the priceless possession of peace and concord in

  1477
  Ireland, and which may be obtained as has already been mentioned by my right hon. friend the Member for North Armagh, at about one quarter the cost incurred by the construction of one viaduct.
  Sir, I conceive no good purpose would be served were I to go into the history of Land Legislation in Ireland during the last twenty years, or the unhappy results it has produced; they are too well known, not only to hon. Members of this House but also to the general public outside. I would like, however, to put one question to my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary in connection with the financial proposals of the Bill, I should like to know what position the Remainder Man will find himself in should it become law. I myself am what may be called a Remainder Man and, curiously enough, my partner in the trust with which I am connected happens to be the noble Lord who presided with so much ability and success at the recent Land Conference. My question to the Chief Secretary is this: "In the event of the vendor being tenant for life, will that portion of the bonus of the free grant which goes to him be at his absolute disposal or will it be vested in the estate trustees? "I am given to understand that my noble friend will have the absolute disposal of this sum, and if that be the case, I should like very much to know where I come in, for I clearly foresee that while my noble friend and his former tenants are waxing fat on the proceeds of the bonus, the day may arise when I, who ought to have participated in these good things, will, the only discontented man in Ireland, be wandering about the streets of Limerick soliciting alms for the poor Remainder Man.
  Sir, I deplore the suggestion that this Bill has been brought forward for any political purpose or with the object of in any degree promoting the repeal of the Union. It is most unfortunate that any such statement should have been made. I am a patriotic Irishman, and the only object I have in supporting the Bill is to secure agrarian peace in my country. No one can foretell what the result of the Bill will be from the political point of view, but I hold that it will certainly bring about a more satisfactory state of things
  1478
  generally and a better feeling than has existed for many years past. Ireland, too, in her altered circumstances, will learn that no national independence an subsist without due regard for social organisation, the absence of intimidation, or the curtailment of individual liberty. Undoubtedly there is at the present moment a sincere desire for peace and goodwill, a sentiment which, I believe, has found an echo in the hearts of many of those living on this side of St. George's Channel, and a yearning that Parliament will set its seal on the goodwill which has already been commenced. Personally I feel with regard to this Bill that there is absolutely no alternative to offer, and if we do not adopt it, then we shall have to go back to the unhappy condition of affairs which has prevailed in Ireland for so many years in the past. I, for one, shall vote for it with a light heart and easy conscience, justified with the knowledge that I am not only acting in the best interests of those I represent, but following my own inclinations as an Irishman whose family has never been absentee but for generations dwelt on the soil it owned, which has ever identified itself with the local life of the people, and I am proud to think on the occasion of every election before the Union, contributed a Member to the national Parliament of Ireland.
  MR. MOULTON: I fear that what I have to say will be somewhat out of sympathy with most of the speeches which have been delivered in this debate, because, whether they have been in favour of or opposed to the Bill, there has been manifested in them a tendency to regard this measure as a very great and noble effort, coming at a particularly favourable crisis. I cannot regard the Bill in any such light. Its appearance did not surprise me. It seems to me that a Bill, or I ought rather to say a proposition, of this kind, which would very likely be taken up by a Unionist Government, must have been felt to be inevitable by any person who studied the history of economics in Ireland during the last ten years. It has been suggested—and I confess I was touched by the eloquent language of the hon. Member for East Mayo on this point—that it is the result of some

  1479
  wonderful spell of peace that has come upon Ireland as though breathed by an angelic ministrant. But when one comes to consider what it is to which that language is applied, one feels that such language may be spared. The origin of the measure is found to be a meeting of representatives of tenants and landlords in Ireland, at which resolutions were come to that the landlords should, if they chose, be paid a large price for land which was to be sold to the tenants, if they elected to take it at a price which required much smaller annual payments than they are now paying as rent, and that the burden of the arrangement should be borne by an absent party. Bear in mind that in each case it is an option, not an obligation. Really, I think it is not a wonderful thing that the representatives of these two parties should vote in favour of these valuable options without obligations being given to them when the burden is to be borne by a third party, namely, the British nation.
  As a representative of the nation which will not benefit by this proposal, but which will have to bear the burden, I have always watched Irish questions with the deepest sympathy, and I have found with great regret that they are always discussed in this House either with passion or with sentiment—both quite fatal to good legislation. If sentiment means a desire to consider the feelings of those whom the legislation touches, then sentiment ought always to be present in our debates; but if sentiment means yielding to a vague feeling of desire, not educated by knowledge, it is a bad guide. I feel satisfied that when we come to consider this subject quietly and clearly we shall find two things: first, that this is not a crisis which we ought to seize for the purpose of making a gigantic experiment, unknown in the history of the world, in order to get what I think will be a doubtful good; and, secondly, whatever be our opinions about the Bill, that it is very unfair that this measure should be passed without consulting those who are to bear the expense, viz., the British nation. And this second point goes to the root of the Motion that is now before the House. What is the meaning of this Bill being brought in
  1480
  now? The Bill is one which will only slowly be put into force. It is an optional Bill. If the desire to avail of the option does not last with the tenant or with the landlord, the Bill in future years will be barren. Why, then, can you not wait until the nation has been consulted, before you bring in a Bill the working of which will depend on the temper of the people, not at the present moment but some years hence? I will tell you why. It is because no Government could go to an election with the weight of this Bill on its shoulders. It is said that the English nation do not understand Irish questions. That is the best of all reasons for not risking £140,000,000 upon a suggested solution of an Irish difficulty. The nation would want to know whether the change to be effected was of such paramount importance that a vast outlay and risk of this kind must now be incurred in precedence of all other wants of the nation, and I doubt whether you would be able to give a satisfactory answer to such a question to the electorate of England.
  I want to examine quietly but thoroughly the desirability of this Bill, from the point of view of what now exists in Ireland, and what you are going to make this gigantic experiment to settle.
  I have listened with the greatest interest to the references to the Act of 1881. The greater part of those references have alluded to the Act as though it were a temporary nuisance that fortunately is now to be swept away. Such is not my view, and I was glad to hear the hon. Member for East Mayo speak of it as the commencement of legislation in favour of the tenants. It is far more than that. It fixed those very rights which we are now thinking of commuting, and it did it in such a way that by no manner of means can the property of the Irish tenant in his land be either diminished or transferred to another by any act of his landlord. By that Act the Irish tenant became as definitely and completely an owner of his land in the sense of being free from the fear that the product of his labour or the land on which he expended it would be taken from him as though he had been made a freeholder. I quite admit there have been abuses of the Act, but I think I shall be able to show that those abuses were not due to any defect of principle, but to a radically bad system

  1481
  of administration. After long consideration, I have come to the conclusion that, if you want a free and unencumbered peasantry, the very best thing is to have fixity of tenure, with a rent fixed by an external power that fixes it on the principle of a fair rent. The proposed scheme of land purchase does not effect this. I know that the picture that is always drawn of the Land Purchase Acts is that of a man paying his instalments year after year, and then, when the last instalment is paid, having the unencumbered freehold of the land. Is that the result of land purchase? Long before that time comes, one generation at least will have passed away. Probably the whole of the savings of the man have been invested in the farm, and he has to leave, not to one, but to each of his children, some portion of the little he has thus put by. That little is to be found in the farm. The consequence is that the farm has to be burdened or sold. You cannot make a peasantry permanently wealthy; you can make them permanently entitled to the possession of land and the right to cultivate it, but you cannot make them permanent unencumbered freeholders.
  What is the difference between the ultimate position when they have purchased their land under the proposal of this Bill and the position under the rights given them by the existing Land Acts properly administered It is this. A tenant under the Land Acts properly r administered has a permanent right to cultivate his land without the expense of purchasing his farm; but a tenant under a system of freehold proprietorship, whether it is a peasant proprietor or any other, can cultivate his farm only after he has purchased or rented it and—if you are going to prevent renting, only after he has purchased it. But if there is a difficulty in regard to adequate cultivation under a system of small holdings, it is that the tenants have not the capital necessary to get the full result from the land. Are you going to better that by a system of tenancy under which they have to acquire their land before they can cultivate it, when, if only properly administered, they already have a system whereby they have not first to acquire in order to cultivate? I
  1482
  can assure hon. Members that if they carefully consider the position of peasant cultivators under the two tenures they will find that the probability is that those under a freehold tenure will be in a far inferior position to those holding land on the principle of fair-rents. One speaker lamented the fact that where you have small holdings you have mortgages, and he thought that that might be restrained. Why, without mortgages small holdings would be impossible. Where would the tenants get the money to acquire their holdings?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member, but I should derive much more information from his speech if he would address himself to the point that the instalments by which the tenant is to acquire his holding are less than the rent.
  MR. MOULTON: I can assure the Chief Secretary that I have not forgotten that point, and I am going to deal with that presently. What I am pointing out is this: You are asking England to go into a huge experiment, risking, as I have shown, £120,000,000, and giving £12,000,000, for the purpose of changing the tenure from the right to cultivate at a fair rent, without using capital to acquire the freehold into a universal or quasi-universal tenure under which the tenant will have the freehold, but he must pay for it by mortgaging the property, or borrowing the money in some other way. I say it is, at all events, a very grave question whether the tenure under the Act of 1881, properly administered, is not far better than that of the encumbered freehold, as it must been cumbered, in the hands of a peasant proprietary. The encumbrances on small freeholds, especially when, as in this Bill, there is a limited right of mortgage, will be due to money borrowed, either to acquire the land or to cultivate it, and the interest that will have to be paid on that money, especially when you are prevented from giving the land as a security for the money, must always be at a high percentage. It has been found in connection with almost every system of peasant proprietary that there have been mortgages and liabilities to money-lenders- which have produced

  1483
  grievous financial and economic difficulties. At all events, it must be admitted that it is a very debateable question whether the proposed system is better than the existing system if properly administered, and certainly the continuation of the present system involves no expenditure or risk of national capital.
  Let us, for a moment, consider whether the defects of the Act of 1881 are such as to justify universal condemnation. My feeling about it is that, if properly administered, it gave at one stroke the complete charter of the Irish peasant. What is more, even though under this Bill you may have, dotted all over Ireland, patches of land held under other tenures, the security that the tenant will never fall back into the position of an over-rented man will always be the 1881 Act. The defect of that Act was that instead of adopting the principle of fixing the fair rent in kind, so that when you had once got the rent of the holding settled it would automatically adjust itself with the price of produce, you allowed free litigation at the end of every fifteen years, just as if the plot had never been valued before. If a system had been adopted by which the natural produce of the land under tillage was noted, and the variations in price of such produce automatically fixed the rent, substantially the whole of this litigation would have been obviated. The condition of the land at the end of the fifteen years ought to affect the rent neither for good nor for evil. If you raise the value of the land by cultivation the rent ought not to be raised, and if you neglect it the rent should not be lowered. If such a system as that which I have described, had been adopted all through Ireland, there would have been a fair rent determined from time to time automatically and without litigation, the payment of which would have rendered the tenant as secure in his holding as if he had been the freeholder. I know the Chief Secretary believes that by this reduction he is going to put the tenant in a better position than he would be in under a fair rent, because he is going to take off, he says, 10 per cent., I say 25 per cent., of the second term judicial rents. But even thus he does not give to the tenants the security of a fair-rent tenure. He is going to take it off once for all, and who would
  1484
  say what the price of agricultural produce will be twenty years hence? Prices may go down so much that the rents fixed to-day will be as crushing as were the rents of old. The only ground on which the Irish representatives, of the tenants are right in accepting this Bill, is that they get an immediate reduction of 25 per cent., and they know perfectly well, just as we know, that if the price of produce falls, so that the instalments are too heavy for the tenants to pay, England will not dare enforce payment no matter what arrangements had been made. Therefore, the bargain we are asked to enter into is to consent to an enormous immediate reduction of rent, without any security that it can be paid. Of course the proposal is gladly accepted by the Irish tenants. No wonder the Bill is popular in Ireland—it ought to be. No wonder the Irish representatives fight for it—they ought to. But I speak on behalf of a part of the United Kingdom that is not in Ireland. You are asking us to go into this huge land speculation with the certainty that if prices go up we cannot raise that which the tenants will have to pay, and with the certainty that if prices go down, we dare not exact that which they promised to pay, and no man can look ahead for sixty years and say that that is a prudent bargain for the British nation to make.
  These considerations take away any enthusiasm I might otherwise feel for a system of land purchase. It is costly and risky to the British nation and is not so good for the tenants as the present system if properly administered. If half the ability that has been shown by the representatives of the Irish constituencies, and if the skill which they have thrown into piloting through systems of land purchase had been thrown into getting rid of the two real mischiefs of the administration of the Act of 1881—first the de novo valuation after each fifteen years, and secondly, the crowd of officials, surveyors and lawyers who live on that Act, and keep up litigation—if they had expended half that ability and skill in the working out of that Act, which I consider gives a more perfect system of protection for the poor peasant, I feel satisfied that, so far from being glad to get rid of the Act of 1881, the peasants

  1485
  would feel that it was in very truth, as intended by Mr. Gladstone, the real defence of the poor.
  So much for the question as it affects the tenants. Now, let me turn to the landlords. Here is a Bill introduced only a few months after the suggestion of the scheme it embodies was first made. It is introduced in the middle of a Parliament which, at its election, never dreamt of such a thing as this. This Bill as brought in is framed as a Landlords' Relief Bill and not as a Tenants' Relief Bill. The terms it secures to the landlords are such as they could never get by free bargaining. I am satisfied that if the British nation at an election had to pronounce upon these terms, there would not be the slightest chance of getting them accepted. Let me ask the Chief Secretary what defence there can be for a Bill for promoting the purchase and sale of land in Ireland, the very first enactment of which is that not only shall not one penny of the bonus go, but not one penny of the money to be lent under this Act shall go to carry out a purchase from a landlord who does not insist upon twenty-two years purchase. That is the very first enactment in this Bill. Unless he insists upon twenty-two years purchase not a single penny of this £12,000,000 shall go to assist a landlord to sell his land. And yet the average number of years purchase in sales under previous Land Purchase Acts has for many years past varied between seventeen and eighteen. In the face of this do you think that any argument will persuade the British people that this is not a Bill for the purpose of preventing the landlord from selling his land cheap? How can you get over this? Why should the Bill say that you are not to use that public money which we are asked to provide except in the case of bargains which are five years more than the average of free bargains? I know that in a debate like this one must restrain one's self, but if you look closely into this question you can see plainly that this Bill has to be rushed through in order that landlords may get large prices for their land. These
  1486
  prices I have shewn are far beyond those obtained by landlords who came in under the former Land Purchase Acts. Why should anyone have better terms than those settled by free bargain. Nothing could be stronger than the long succession of returns issued year after year upon this point, which show that the proper number of years is seventeen or eighteen, and whenever it comes to a higher figure it is because it is reckoned in depreciated land stock. Yet here we have a Bill that insists upon these terms being exceeded on the part of the landlords before it gives them the assistance of any public money.
  I understand the support that is given by the Irish Party to this Bill, and I do not blame them at all, and least of all do I attempt to criticise politically their conduct. I feel that in political management and in understanding how to take advantage of the weakness and the strength of a representative system we are all amateurs compared with the Irish Party. We have seen them during all these years supporting a cause against which was arrayed the whole of the wealth and power of England. We have seen them bit by bit getting their own way, and now they have come to obtain the last and final triumph of their skill. They know perfectly well that this Bill cannot work out to the injury of the tenant, for they know well that if it results in payments which oppress the tenants their serried ranks will soon get the terms altered. In other words it greatly benefits the tenant at the moment, and it cannot be maintained in the future if it hurts him. Otherwise they would protest against the absurdity of the land tenure that is contemplated. The land tenure is to be this: That the holdings of to-day are to be stereotyped. They are not to be sub-let, sub-divided or mortgaged unless you get leave from a Government official. In other words, the whole administration of these small holdings will be in the hands of Government officials, and if anybody thinks that this will be a tolerable system of land tenure in the circumstances under which these officials work, representing in the eyes

  1487
  of the peasants an alien Government, he must be of a singularly sanguine frame of mind. That is the land tenure you propose to set up. Nor am I surprised at the support that the Bill receives from the Irish landlords and their friends. The future success or failure of the arrangement with the tenants does not concern them. The money which is going to be paid to the landlords for the whole purchase is; going to be cash, and when once you have paid the cash away you may whistle for it, but you cannot recall it. This bargain is one which they naturally support. But those who have regard for the interests of the British nation ought to insist, at all events, upon time being given to the nation to consider this Bill. When I think of the needs of England, when I look at the wants of our towns and of the dwellers in slums, and the way in which any assistance they have has to be borne, not by the general taxpayer but probably by a very over burdened town through its rates—when I see how the most niggardly and stern economy is shown even in connection with such a thing as stimulating thrift by allowing good interest on the savings of the people, when, not only is no mercy shown but even harsh finance is insisted on in these and other like matters, I say to myself what justification is there, when we have given to the Irish peasant certainty of tenure and security against being over-rented—what justification is there for asking Parliament now to place this huge burden on the shoulders of the nation? What justification is there for entering on this enormous borrowing at a time when Consols in three or four years have fallen 20 per cent., when our expenditure is so high and the difficulty of borrowing so great that it looks as if this
  1488
  money would be lent to Ireland at less than it costs us to raise it? I no justification for it, and I am satisfied that the country will not either. Those hon. Members who sit on the opposite side will support the Government because it is the Government, but that is a very different thing from getting the support of the nation. The nation has never been asked its opinion of this proposal, and the only time a similar Bill was put before them the people at once stamped it with their disapproval. Feeling as I do how many other things there are which are more pressing, I say that if you have no better scheme than this, if you have no other scheme whereby this tenure will be set up on more reasonable terms without making this demand on the national credit, then you ought to wait. I am satisfied that the constituencies of this country will say that we should not cripple powers of dealing with other national needs simply to jump at a bargain whereby the landlords of Ireland are so grossly overpaid.
  Mr. SPEAR: I am certain that the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman will not convince the House, and I am equally confident that the hard-headed farmers of the Launceston Division will know very much better on that point than the hon. and learned Member. Knowing that the present condition of things cannot fail to cause unrest and dissatisfaction, surely it is the highest statesmanship to endeavour to remove it. The hon. Member for Launceston has trotted out again the accusation of this measure being a Landlords' Relief Bill. We heard a great deal of that sort of thing during the last session of Parliament

  1489
  Only yesterday we heard the hon. Member for Bedfordshire call it a landlords' dole. Unfortunately, whenever there is a proposal in this House to promote the welfare and the interest of the tenant farmer, hon. Members opposite can always be found ready to hinder the passage of such a measure of justice by crying "landlords' dole." I do not stand here as an advocate for preferential treatment to either landlord or tenant. It may be that under this Bill too favourable terms are proposed for the landlord, but if that is so I venture to submit that is a question to be dealt with in Committee, and not upon the Second Reading. I rose principally in this debate for two purposes. In the first place, as a British agriculturist I wish to congratulate the Irish farmers upon having within their reach a settlement of the Land Question on the principles laid down in the Bill before the House, and I venture to say that though good security to the tenant farmer is valuable security, the ownership is still more valuable, and more likely to call forth the greatest capabilities of the occupier in the development of his holding. My second purpose is to tender to the right hon. Gentleman my congratulations for the courage and statesmanship which he has shown in introducing this great measure. Never, in my judgment, has such an opportunity occurred to settle this difficult problem on a permanent basis. Owners and occupiers, and, in fact, the united Irish people, are anxious for a settlement on just and equitable lines, and I cannot think that this House would be justified in refusing to approach the question with a determination to settle it on a satisfactory and just basis. There are details in the Bill which I think will require considerable amendment, but that
  1490
  is a matter for Committee rather than for the Second Reading. I confess that I listened to the various Amendments foreshadowed by the Leader of the Irish Party with considerable apprehension, but I believe that if we approach these matters in Committee with moderation the difficulties which present themselves at first sight will be overcome, although I feel that while my constituents are anxious for a settlement of this question, they will not consent to assume the responsibility that will devolve upon them under this Bill unless it offers a fair prospect of being a permanent settlement. I will not attempt here to review previous land legislation for Ireland, for I admit that land purchase under the Ashbourne Acts has been successful. Nearly 80,000 tenants who have purchased their holdings under that Act are prosperous, and, as shown by the statistics given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick, these tenants have greatly increased the productive power of their holdings, and they possess better dwellings and enjoy increased prosperity. I think that we should be neglecting our responsibilities if we did not use this tangible proof of prosperity to further extend the system. If the agrarian difficulty in Ireland is to be settled this Bill is inevitable. I am convinced that there is no alternative, and because I believe that this Bill will promote the prosperity of Ireland I support it, and I do so also because I dread to think of the consequences that may follow if the hopes that have been engendered by the very moderate discussion of this question in Ireland are dashed to the ground.
  The hon. Member for Launceston makes a great deal of the cost to this country. Like the hon. and learned Member I depend for my position in this House

  1491
  upon the votes of the electors, and I am not afraid to go and tell the electors that the cost of this Bill will be £390,000 per annum, and at the same time we shall be saving on Irish expenditure £250,000. I have every confidence that the electors will be satisfied that to secure justice to Ireland, and secure what we hope will be a permanent settlement of the Irish Land Question, it will be well worth the expenditure of the money which I have stated. Personally I am persuaded that the security is good. I know that doubt exists upon this point, but surely this can be made quite clear in Committee. Before I sit down I should like to refer to the charge brought against Unionists of inconsistency in supporting this Bill, whereas we felt it incumbent to oppose Mr. Gladstone's Bill of 1886. In reply to that argument I would remind hon. Members that that Bill was part of a Home Rule scheme which we believe would have proved injurious to England and Ireland alike. I know there is a difference of opinion on that point, but I maintain to give effect to this scheme of voluntary purchase is to consistently carry on the Unionist method of dealing with the Irish Land Question. Hon. Members who make this charge little realise that the great hope and desire of Unionism is to help to promote the prosperity of Ireland, to join in the uplifting of the nation, and to enable the Irish people to enjoy to the full the advantages of being part of this great Empire. Therefore I feel quite justified in voting for this Bill. We intend to do everything we can to bind the Irish people to this country in bonds of loyalty and kindred association, and I think this Bill will be a step in that direction. Mr. Gladstone's Bill of 1886
  1492
  compelled the tenant to purchase, and there was a much greater temptation to refuse to pay the instalments there under than there will be by the voluntary purchase provided by this Bill. I maintain that the very position of things under this Bill will conduce to that end. There is truth in the statement that the Irish farmers are being offered better terms than are now enjoyed by the English farmer, but I have faith in the Unionist Party. Everything that has been done in late years for the English farmers has been done by the Unionist Party. I support the Unionist Party in this attempt to do the Irish people justice, and then look to them to do the English farmers justice also. I would like to see a system of land purchase in this country. I believe that this Bill will create in the breasts of Irishmen a sense of security, will lead to the greater development of the country, and will remove that friction between the agricultural classes which has, in the past, distressed the land and retarded progress. I intend to vote for the Bill.
  MR. EMMOTT: I am glad to have an opportunity to say a word in favour of this Bill, and especially so because of the opposition that has been shown on this side of the House, The hon. Member for the Launceston Division seemed to think that the Act of 1831 was the "be all and end all "of legislation on the Irish Land Question. Every one who knows anything about Ireland is aware that there is endless litigation under that Act which cannot be got through. It pleases neither landlord nor tenant. Under it the landlord has seen his rents twice reduced, and is looking forward to a further reduction. He is

  1493
  consequently dissatisfied, and the tenant is also dissatisfied, because, at the end of his fifteen years tenure, he is not inclined to make his holding look too good; he is always afraid to put on its best clothes, so to speak, or to put on any air of prosperity for fear of his rent not being reduced. So that dual ownership, which was necessary as an intermediate step, is breaking down. My hon. and learned friend also said that the position of the tenant under dual ownership was far better than that of the occupier of the land. He cannot have read the remarkable Report recently presented to the House. That report shows that with regard to what is produced on the land, the condition of the tenements, and the standard of living, there has been a great advance all along the line. Then, particularly on the question of encumbrance, that Report shows that instead of these occupying owners becoming more and more encumbered, they are less encumbered. In one way the landlords are getting too much under this Bill, but then the rent of land in Ireland is not like the rent of land in England. The two cases stand on very different grounds.
  This Bill is a non-compulsory Bill. I wish it were a compulsory Bill; but hon. Members opposite are pledged against compulsion, and if you are to have a non-compulsory Bill, you must have terms that will induce the landlords to sell and the tenants to buy. The landlords say they must have the same income in the future as in the past. In my opinion the encumbered ones will get more, but you must level up rather than level down. If you level down this Bill will have no effect, and if you pass a Bill on these lines it must be on the line of levelling up rather
  1494
  than down. It is very difficult for a non technical man to arrive at the rights of the case. Some look at the number of years, but I would rather look at the actual reduction to the tenant. Is it not the case that the number of years' purchase must vary according to the terms on which the money is borrowed? I am a supporter of the principle of the Bill, and I am not what a Member of the Government called a "minimum supporter. What ever may be the Party in power this is not the time for heroic measures. There is a great deal to be said for evolution rather than revolution. The Irish question is the greatest Imperial problem that has yet to be solved. The heart of the empire must be sound, and it cannot be sound so long as Ireland is disaffected. Ireland has too long been a political nightmare and a source of unrest to us. It must be generally admitted that the differences between landlord and tenant are the chief irritants, and it must be conceded that land purchase is probably the best method of meeting the difficulties that face us in Ireland. The spirit of this Bill is accepted by all parties in Ireland. A great deal has been said about the unpopularity of the measure in this country, but on the other hand, I am quite sure that the great heart of the people of this country is sound as regards Ireland, and if they see a chance of having the question settled they will not grudge the money. On the other hand what will happen to this empire if we meet this Bill by a non possumus. Who would dare to contemplate the results that would follow such an attitude; and who would then like to be responsible for the government of Ireland? The present state of affairs has been called a "truce of God," and I am glad to think such a phrase can be used

  1495
  with truth for the first time in a century. I ask hon. Members on this side who oppose the Bill what is their remedy for Ireland? It is said this state of things is a mere subterfuge—a pretence to make a raid on the British Treasury. I think it is impossible to simulate unanimity except on the basis of some principle in which all believe. I do not think much about the bonus, but the loan is a very large matter, and it is right for the sake of the taxpayers that we should take every possible measure to ensure success, and to see that we have proper security. The real inducement to the landlord does not lie in the face of the Bill, as many landlords have considerable mortgages on their estates at higher rates than 3¼ per cent. The weakness of the Bill is that there is no compulsion. It is said you cannot draw a Bill containing compulsion, but you can draw one containing a penalty on the landlords not selling in the same way as is imposed on the tenants in Clause 17. I think the bonus must be equally divided whatever it is. My real doubt is as to whether the tenants will be able to pay up their instalments. Land-hunger still exists in Ireland, and where it exists it must make the tenants weak. We ought not to make the terms too high, because if we do there is a great danger of the Bill breaking down before twenty years go by. I am informed that the Land Commissioners have in the past refused to ratify bargains under which second term rents are to be reduced merely 10 per cent. Such terms have in many cases in the past been reduced by the Land Commission, and we ought to be very careful on that point in the future. I think that 10 per cent. as the minimum reduction ought to be increased, at any rate, to 15 per cent.,
  1496
  and if the bonus we have to give on that account is more, then I would rather we gave £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 more, than that the arrangement should break down and we risk the loan of £100,000,000.
  A great deal has been said as to the effect of this measure on Home Rule. If Home Rule, or a demand for autonomy, rests on the fundamental fact that there is a difference between the English and the Irish people, then something in the nature of autonomy will come, but if that is not so, the demands will die down and the matter will not trouble us, and, thank God, the bogey of Home Rule will not trouble us in the constituencies. I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has dealt with the difficult problems which underlie the question of Irish land, and I most heartily congratulate the Irish people on the remarkable manner in which they have come together in this matter. The present state of affairs in Ireland has been called a "truce of God." My fervent prayer is that it may not be a truce only, but a permanent peace.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  And, it being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed Don Thursday.
  Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve o'clock.