Lords Sitting of 20 July 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—(First Reading— Bankruptcy (Office Accommodation) * (191).
Second Heading —Shannon Navigation* (172); Land Purchase (Ireland) (184); Cholera Hospitals (Ireland) (182.)
Second Reading —Committee negatived —Marriages (Saint John, Cowley) * (187).
Select Committee —Report —Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) [No. 189].
Committee —Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Amendment (10–92); Housing of the Working Classes (England) (177).
Committee —Report —Local Grovernment Provisional Order (Municipal Corporations) * (166); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3)* (167); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7)* (168); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 9)* (169); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Labourers Act) (No. 5) * (173); Local Loans (Sinking Funds)* (175).
Report—Burgh Police and Health (Scotland)* (5–90); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) * (153); Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) * (176).
Third Reading —Archdeaconries, note Ecclesiastical Commissioners (No. 2) * (180); Tithe Rent Charge Redemption* (165), and passed.

ALEXANDRA (NEWPORT AND SOUTH WALES) DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."
  THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH,in moving—
  "That the Bill be not read a third time unless the clauses relating to running powers be previously expunged,"
  said, the clauses in question would operate injuriously to the Great Western Railway. Company, on whose behalf he asked their Lordships to amend the Bill.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he felt bound to defend the action of the Committee, who had inserted these clauses in the public interest. The case

  1153
  of the Great Western Railway Company had been fully heard and considered.
  On Question, "That the Bill be road 3a?" Resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly; and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COAST DEFENCES AND NAVAL VOLUNTEER CORPS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHrose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether the Report of the officer appointed by the late Board of Admiralty to inspect the coast defences and to inquire as to the condition of the Naval Volunteer Corps would be laid on the Table of the House (luring the present Session? The noble Lord said that, whilst the late Government were in Office, he had placed a Notice upon the Paper proposing that a capitation grant should be given to Naval Volunteers. He had taken that course on account of the indisposition which had been exhibited by the late First Lord of the Admiralty through a series of years to do anything to promote the efficiency of the Naval Volunteer Corps. That Notice stood upon the Paper for the very day on which the change of Government was announced; and during the interval, influenced possibly by some feeling out-of-doors, the Liberal Party, who had neglected for so many years the Naval Volunteers, suddenly showed great interest in their favour, and the noble Earl the late First Lord of the Admiralty made a stirring speech, in whichheincited the Government to do something to promote that Corps. He had been very glad indeed to read that speech on Saturday evening, and was sorry he had not been present when it was delivered. It was to be hoped that nothing that was done now would be understood to imply a slur on the corps that had been formed, whose efficiency had been attested by distinguished officers. In London, Brighton, Bristol, and Liverpool Naval Volunteer Brigades existed, and these were capable of performing all the duties which would devolve upon them on shore as well as on shipboard: andhehoped that the Admiralty would not only see that they had the capitation grant, but also that they were properly supplied as far as possible with material for their purpose. One very important part of the duties of
  1154
  these Volunteers broke down last year in consequence of the inefficiency of the vessel given to them by the Admiralty; and he trusted that henceforth the Admiralty would see that the assistance rendered was of a bonâ fide character. In conclusion, he wished to know whether there would be any objection to lay on the Table, in addition to the document referred to in his Question, the last Reports received from the Inspector of these Forces?
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Earl of HARROWBY)said, he would endeavour to answer briefly the two or three points which the noble Viscount had raised. His noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty had not the least intention of throwing any slur whatever on the loyalty of the Naval Volunteer Corps of London, Bristol, and Liverpool. Indeed, he had heard his noble Friend, as well as other authorities at the Admiralty, speak in the highest terms of the patriotic exertions and excellent good work of those Corps. For many years, too, he had been in association with the Naval Volunteer Corps of Liverpool, andheknew how highly they were praised by professional men. Therefore, the noble Viscount might be assured that the Admiralty would not throw any slur upon the Corps, for their wish, of course, was to extend the movement still further. He would not say more thanhesaid on Friday last as to the assistance they hoped to give to the Naval Volunteers of the country generally. His noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty would, he believed, this week take an opportunity of stating what material aid the Government could give to the Naval Volunteers, and consequently he thought he had better leave the matter in his noble Friend's hands. He had, however, committed the Government so far as to say that they felt it was quite necessary to give distinct material aid towards the maintenance of the Naval Volunteer Corps, and his noble Friend would know in the course of this week exactly the form it would take. With regard to the Report of the officer appointed to inspect the coast defences, it was only sent in at the beginning of this month, and it was called a preliminary Report. In these circumstances they could not present it; and, as to the full Report, he was afraid it would not be right to promise at pre-

  1155
  sent to lay it on the Table. A Report on our coast defences must, of necessity, by highly confidential; but if it contained anything which in the interest of the Public Service could be made public they would be happy to lay it on the Table. With regard to the Reports of the Inspector of the Naval Volunteers, he would communicate with his noble Friend, and, if possible, they would lay the document on the Table. The view of the Government on this great subject was that they must see that the Navy was fully up to strength, and that our ports and coaling stations were safe. At present they committed themselves to no opinion as to their condition. They felt that the work had to be done; but how it was to be done the Government could not at present say. It would be foolish and rash if, after having been in Office only about a month, they were to pronounce a decided opinion upon such a subject. His noble Friend was taking professional advice, and in a short time would be able to state the views of the Government. The War Office had long been in communication with the Admiralty as to the defences of this country, and a very important Departmental Commission had been considering the subject. Therefore, his noble Friend might feel well assured that the whole of this large subject of the defences of the country was being gravely considered, and that it would be promptly and effectively dealt with.

  THE FINANCIAL REEOKM ASSOCIATION ALMANAC—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,in rising to call attention to the remarks upon the Financial Reform Association Almanac made by Mr. Goschen at Ripon on the 30th of January, 1884, and to the continued sanction given to these misleading statistics by five Members of the late Government—Sir Charles Dilke, Sir Thomas Brassey, Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Mundella, and Mr. Caine, said, circumstances beyond his control had obliged him to postpone and alter the Notice now before the House. He had put it down a considerable time ago in the hope and expectation that at least some of the five right hon. Gentlemen who had given their names and sanction to the Financial Almanac would have withdrawn them, and made it needless to bring the matter
  1156
  before their Lordships. But the sense of personal honour had been less strong than Party spirit, and they appeared to have preferred the discredit of sanctioning the statements of the Financial Almanac to discrediting that electioneering agency. Mr. Goschen had said at Ripon that the statistics given under the heading of the Aristocracy and the Public Service were such as "to poison the relations between classes." It was not surprising, therefore, that the idea of this compilation should be due to Mr. Bright, and that it should have been introduced with extracts from three speeches delivered by that Gentleman in 1852, 1858, and 1862. It was to be hoped, now that the exaggeration of those speeches had been placed in a tabular form and its absurdity made plain, that that right hon. Gentleman would be ashamed of them. In 1884 27 pages, and in 1885 26 pages, of the Almanac were employed to prove Mr. Bright's assertion that "the Public Service is neither more nor less than a gigantic system of outdoor relief for the aristocracy of Great Britain." In order to do this, lists had been made of the Peers with their relatives who had held offices in the Army, Navy, Civil Service, Militia, and the Church from the year 1850 to the present time; and although a note at the commencement of these tables stated that as all moneys drawn in a person's lifetime were included, the account, therefore, necessarily included some large amounts drawn before 1850, yet the impression given was that the total arrived at was from 1850 to 1883. The total was:—Families, 532; relatives, 7,991; offices, 13,888; moneys received, £108,614,632. A great deal of this £108,000,000 was made up of Army pay. Before the abolition of purchase this was not pay, in the bulk of the cases given in the Almanac, but the interest on the price of commissions. In 1870, in introducing the Irish Land Bill, Mr. Gladstone alluded to—
  "That immense mass of public duties bearing upon every subject of political, moral, and social interest, without fee or reward, which has honourably distinguished for so many generations the landlords of England."—(3 Hansard, [199] 339–40.)
  Another note stated that it would be ridiculous to assert that all these individuals obtained preferment through such Peers, as happened to be their rela-

  1157
  tives, and that in many cases the relationships arose from marriages subsequent to the receipt of some or all of the public money indicated. The singular excuse was then given that though the compilers of the list knew of 10 such cases, they could not be expected to know them all; and if they excepted the cases they knew of, injustice would be done to those that were left, so they gave all, and left readers to use discrimination. In consequence of this, in nine particular cases the sum of no less than £494,000 was credited to the family of Peers, because certain functionaries late in life married some of their relatives; in two cases the connection with the Peerage by marriages took place after the death of the functionary who had earned his money by his industry without any favour or influence. For instance, the salaries of Baron Huddleston, Sir Henry Rawlinson, Mr. David Urquhart, Baron Alderson, Bishop Monck, Admiral Beaufort, were put down to the influence of the Peers with whom they became connected by marriage, in the last two cases, after their decease. Mr. Algernon West's advancement was put down to the influence of a Conservative Peer, when it was obviously due to his having been an efficient Private Secretary to the late Prime Minister. There was a Peer, a Member of the late Government, who was said to have received nearly £200,000, along with his 16 relatives. Of these 16, as a matter of fact, there were only three relatives. One married to a niece by marriage; the other died before this Peer was born; the third had left the Service long beforehebecame a connection by marriage. In his (Lord Stanley of Alderley's) own case, the salary he had received was put at nearly double the amount, and he was credited with the pay of Sir Edward Parry, the Arctic voyager, and of General Scott, who was badly wounded at Talavera, in 1809, both of whom, late in life, married relations of his father. They had put down £76,000 as the salary received by his father during his life; it should have been £50,400. From a calculation made for him in a public office, the error with respect to these two salaries was £29,000 in a sum of £83,500. Now, there were two noble Lords—the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) and the late Secretary of State for India
  1158
  (the Earl of Kimberley)—the whole of whose official career was described in the Foreign Office List; and, following that, he (Lord Stanley of Alderley) found that the salary of the first noble Lord had been overstated by some £35,000, and that of the second by about £25,000. Who would defend these fraudulent statistics? The noble Earl the late Secretary of State for India would not be very anxious to do so, whenhediscovered that he headed the list of those families who had been, according to the Almanac, living on a gigantic system of out-door relief. It was there stated that the noble Earl and 66 relatives had held 127 offices and received above £1,250,000. The noble Earl the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) might thinkhehad nothing to defend, because his name was absent from its place in the list of Earls; but that was because he had been put down as a collateral of the noble Duke (the Luke of Sutherland), and as having received £121,000, which had been used to swell the amount to £299,000 put down to the account of that noble Duke. Under the heading of Miscellaneous Facts and Figures, a number of irrelevant details were given with regard to 24 Peers, one of which was untrue, as the Peer mentioned had nothing to do with the transaction, and had not sold an estate, which had never belonged to him, but to his relative. As to the information given, its value and correctness might be judged from the statements, that the trading and mercantile class contributed the major portion of local taxation; that the corn land of the Kingdom might, without any strain, by the application of nitrate, be made to produce an additional wheat crop; if only a 20th part of the corn area were thus sown the loss of the Russian supply would not be felt; if all Europe were closed to them one-tenth of such double cropping would suffice to neutralize the effect. At page 26 of the Almanac of 1885, the total annual ecclesiastical income was said to be probably about £6,300,000, including annual value of palaces, deaneries, and glebe houses. Notwithstanding that, at page 21 it was said that for rating purposes some £8,000,000 per annum of value were freed by tithe from liability to local taxation. This was an astonishing statement, in presence of the frequent complaints of the clergy of the

  1159
  pressure of the rates on their whole incomes. Whilst tithes did not escape from local taxation, they were assessed and paid Income Tax twice over—first, whilst in the possession of the landowner or occupier; and, a second time, after they had passed into the hands of the clergy. As this Almanac was issued under Government patronage, it was to be hoped that it would publish the Question addressed last year, as to the nature of tithes, to Mr. Gladstone, to the noble Earl the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), along with the answers given to that Question. If he might venture to give an opinion, the best answer was that given by his noble Friend the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He should like to mention another insinuation against the Church, in page 26, which came with very bad grace from Members of a Government—
  "It may or may not be significant that in Wales, where the State religion has had least success, crime has the most rapidly decreased; in fact, the duties of the Judges of Assize have become almost nil."
  Under the head of the Civil List (Royal) Pensions, in the Almanac of 1884 (p.62), it was stated that the limit of £1,200 for new pensions every year was placed on the Prerogative at the commencement of the present Feign, that having been computed by the Actuary of the National Debt Office as the equivalent of £19,871 perpetual annuity. It went on to say—
  "How far the computation has proved itself correct, we must leave our readers to judge from the following table."
  The table gave the annual payments for each year, and the total for 45 years as £712,640; that gave an average for each year of £15,836, instead of £19,871. The difference between the money payments made and the £19,871 calculated by the Actuary was explained by the fact that, taking one year with another, only £1,066 had been given each year as new pensions, instead of £1,200. If grants had been made up to the limit of £1,200 the total amount paid in the 45 years would have been, under the same circumstances, £802,231, which was not so far off the total for 45 years of £894,145 calculated by the Actuary. In the list of Civil Service Pensions a
  1160
  number of remarks are added, of more or less bad taste, more or loss offensive, and often untrue—as, for instance, where a man had served for 36 years in various climates, and was untruly put down as having got his pension after only about a third of that time. The Almanac List of Royal Pensions mentioned the grant of a pension of £40 to Robert Young, Irish historical and agricultural poet, and gave three specimens of his poetry. In one of them the word "grievous" had been misspelt and italicized grevious, so as to represent the author as a writer of doggerel verse. In the first edition (Derry, 1840) the word was properly spelt. The object of these specimens appeared to be to impugn the grant of this pension by Lord Beaconsfieid, for the pensioner next but one on the list was Sarah Coulton, £75, with the remark that she was—
  "Widow of David Coulton, who reported for a newspaper with which Mr. Disraeli was connected."
  It was not probable that that remark was printed in the statement made to Parliament of grants of pensions. Neither the Literary nor the Newspaper Fund allowed it to be known what persons they assisted; and it would be bettor taste in the Vice Presidents of the Financial Association not to parade the names of those pensioners, nearly all of whom had been reduced by extreme distress to become recipients of those pensions. He thought he had now placed before the House a sufficient number of false statements contained in the Almanac to justify him in asking whether any Member of the late Government would assert that they were true; and whether, if they were admitted to be false, it was fitting—nay, whether it was not a public scandal— that five Members of the late Government should have participated in and sanctioned their publication by retaining their names in the list of Vice Presidents of the Association published at the beginning of the Financial Re-form Almanac?

  POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 176.)
  (The Lord Carlingford.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he wished to call attention to an Amendment which, had been accepted by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill (Lord Carlingford) on a Motion of a Peer sitting on the opposite side of the House. The Bill originally proposed that no person should be allowed to vote at an election of Poor Law Guardians who had not paid his rates within two months of the election. This period the Amendment had altered to one month. He (the Earl of Milltown) took exception to the change, as against the opinion of the Select Committee of their Lordships' House to whom the measure had been referred, and who had given it the closest investigation. He pointed out that the noble Lord who had brought forward the Amendment had not been a Member of that Committee, and complained that a private opinion of that kind had been preferred to that of a Select Committee. He moved to leave out the words "one month," in order to insert "two months."
  Amendment moved,
  In page 4, line 12, to leave out ("one month,") and insert ("two months.")—(The Earl of Milltoun.)
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he would assent to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to; words substituted accordingly.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

PROTECTION (OF YOUNG GIRLS— A ROYAL COMMISSION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they would take into consideration the propriety of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the expediency of further legislation for the protection of young girls? said, the interest their Lordships had taken in the Criminal Law Amendment Bill during three successive Sessions, and the ample discussion that bad been given to its details, justified him in calling attention to the present and the future aspect of this question. The Bill passed by their Lordships could give only an inadequate protection to girls from the deceits, devices, and violence to which they wore exposed; but it went as far as the facts obtained by the Committee in 1881–2
  1162
  seemed in public opinion to justify. The Committee reported the most important evidence they could find at that time. It was startling and painful, and gave a shook to the complacency and false estimates prevailing generally in the mind of the public. It aroused a number of earnest men and women to a fuller investigation of the horrible facts which were partially indicated by that evidence; many associations and committees went to work in good earnest, and at last the discovery of cruel fraud, violence, and imprisonment in private houses, unknown and hitherto unbelievable by ordinary people, had stimulated a desire for more adequate remedies to remove the shame of the imperfection of our law. The success of the first inquiry in suggesting legislation fitted to meet the criminal acts proved to exist pointed to the appointment of a further inquiry and the further raising of the dark veil which had hidden these abominable cruelties from the knowledge of the makers of the law. This inquiry ought to be directed by the Government, and not left to the direction and irresponsible impulses of private persons. If the Government declined to satisfy the demands of the public of all classes for a complete investigation of the nature and extent of these criminal practices, if it should ignore its responsibility, then probably the responsibility ignored by the Government would be taken up by individuals as a conscientious duty of mercy and protection towards tens or hundreds of thousands of weak and helpless girls. The most prominent of the facts was the organized trade in human flesh. It was increasing and acquiring more influence than any other trade except that of beer and spirits. It might be said—"Do not interfere with free trade;" but this was a trade in stolon goods, and was worse than the Slave Trade. The girls were kidnapped and imprisoned by force, and were more injured than any negro slaves. The object of the Commission would be not to interfere with vice between willing and responsible parties, but with that vice which became crime by the employment of fraud and force. The public was looking to the Government to deal effectually with this dreadful subject. It grieved those who had hearts to feel for the oppressed and consciences to protest against the weakness

  1163
  of the law which allowed such tyranny as now existed to go on unchecked. The public looked to their Lordships as the hereditary Representatives of the chivalry of England. St. George had become the Patron Saint of England because he conquered in his fight for the liberty and purity of woman, and rescued her from the devouring appetite of the dragon of lust. Their Lordships would not be defeated in their endeavours for the legal protection of suffering and injured young women.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (Earl BEAUCHAMP)said that, while he sympathized with the object of the noble Lord, he must confess he did not quite understand the motives of the noble Lord in asking for such an inquiry. The noble Lord must be aware that the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, which had throe times passed their Lordships' House, was now before the House of Commons. If the noble Lord meant by his inquiry that the Bill now before the House of Commons should be withdrawn, he had to state that such was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had already expressed the hope in the House of Commons that the Bill would be passed into law with certain modifications; and he thought it was hardly in accordance with the practice of Parliament or with the courtesy due to the other House that Her Majesty's Government should be asked to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into a subject dealt with in a measure sent down to the House of Commons. A great deal of evidence had recently-been brought before the public, and how far that was trustworthy he was not prepared to say; buthewould point out that a Royal Commission had no power whatever to examine witnesses upon oath, and he thought it would generally be agreed that any further inquiry into this subject should be in a form under which the evidence given should be under the sanction and authority of an oath. He did not think that any useful purpose would be served by further inquiry at the present moment not on oath. He could assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government was keenly alive to the evils to which he referred; but the view he took upon this matter was that, even supposing it would be
  1164
  right and proper to interfere with the measure now before the House of Commons, no useful purpose would be served by taking further evidence on this subject except under the responsibility of an oath. With regard to the law of this matter, he would remind their Lordships that the House of Lords had not shown themselves insensible of their duties on the question. They had three times sent a Bill upon this subject to the other House, and each time the responsibility for the rejection of that measure had rested upon the shoulders of the House of Commons, and not upon their Lordships' House.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, he did not expect that the Government would be prepared to issue a Commission immediately; but they were near the end of the Session, and he hoped that the Government would consider the question after the Session was over.

  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 102.)
  (The Earl of Dalhouse.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Fishery Board may make bye-laws prohibiting or regulating trawling within defined areas).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that whenever this Bill came under consideration he looked with curiosity at the countenance of his noble Friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss), who was President of the Property and Liberty Defence Association. Some of the provisions of the Bill were of a very arbitrary character. Under the 4th clause, as he read it, the Fishery Board in Edinburgh might prohibit absolutely over the whole coast of Scotland, within the three-mile limit, the great industry of steam trawling. That clause ran as follows:—
  "When the Fishery Board for Scotland are satisfied that any mode of fishing in any part of the sea adjoining Scotland, and within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Island, is injurious to any kind of sea fishing within that part, or where it appears desirable to make experiments or observations with the view of ascertaining whether any particular mode of fishing is injurious, or for the purpose of fish culture, or experiments in fish culture, the Fishery Board may make bye-laws for restricting or prohibit-

  1165
  ing, either entirely or subject to such regulations as may be provided by the bye-law, any method of fishing for sea fish within the said part."
  This really was a very serious question. The supply of fish in this country depended very much on the industry of steam trawling. Personally, he was interested, not in steam trawling, but in line fishing, and this was a Bill for the protection of the line fishings. Personally, his sympathies were entirely with the line fishers; but he must say it was really a most formidable thing that the Fishery Board should be given arbitrary power to make bye-laws to stop steam trawling over the whole coast of Scotland. He had great confidence in the Scottish Fishery Board. It was composed of very distinguished men, many of them Sheriffs, who were well acquainted with the law; and he hardly supposed that they would venture to issue a bye-law prohibiting steam trawling, for example, in the Firth of Forth. Take the case of the Firth of Forth. An enormous supply of fish had been got within recent years from the Firth of Forth by steam trawling. His noble Friend knew very well that a very small part indeed of the area of the Firth of Forth was beyond the three-mile distance from one shore to the other; and, therefore, under this clause the Fishery Board might prohibit steam trawling over the whole area of the Firth of Forth, and the only security they had was that the bye-law must have the sanction of the Secretary of State. Subject to that restriction, an absolute prohibition might be put upon that industry. But if such a bye-law wore issued, he did not think so violent an order would be sanctioned by any Secretary of State. Still, where a power of that kind existed, the pressure that would be brought upon the Board and the Secretary of State by local interests would be very great indeed; and under the new constituencies it might be much greater than it would be under the present circumstances. Only the other day he received a very interesting letter from a working man, who appealed to him whether it was not possible to devise some means by which a larger quantity of fish could be brought cheaply into the market for the consumption of the working classes. Having read that letter, he took up The Scotsman newspaper, and
  1166
  the first thing he saw was the speech of a new candidate for a Scotch constituency, in which it so happened there was a considerable number of fishing villages. As was common in such circumstances, he addressed himself to the voters in these fishing villages, and he actually propounded a scheme by which it should be made lawful for the Fishery Board that whenever a steam trawler came into a port with a large cargo of fish, and could not prove that these fish had been taken beyond the three-mile limit, the cargo should be sent away and allowed to be spoiled rather than sold. He would not venture to name the candidate nor the constituency; he only put forward this instance to show that there would be very great local pressure brought to bear upon every existing Government, and every existing Fishery Board, to shut up large areas of the sea against steam trawlers if the Bill passed as it stood. His attention was only drawn to this lately, and he should be sorry to oppose a Bill like this, with many good parts in it, without hearing the interpretation which his noble Friend put upon this clause. He would only say that it seemed to him almost a novelty to give such an enormous arbitrary power as this.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that the Bill was based upon the Report of the Royal Commission on Trawling, of which he had the honour to be Chairman. The Commission was originally appointed to inquire into the injury which the line fishermen asserted had been done to their industry by steam trawling. They had some scientific evidence, and that evidence went to prove that it was quite possible for inclosed spaces, such as St. Andrew's Bay, and perhaps the Firth of Forth, to suffer from over-fishing generally. Professor Macintosh gave, as one reason why fish had so much decreased in size of late years in St. Andrew's Bay, was that there was not sufficient time, after one period of vigorous trawling, for the fish to recover their size before there was another trawling; and it seemed to the Commission desirable that experiments should be made to show to what extent a given spot of the sea could be trawled or fished out, and also how long it would be necessary to give it rest before it recovered its original fertility. The clause to which the noble Duke

  1167
  referred was inserted for the express purpose of giving the Fishery Board that power. Professor Macintosh had, at the request of the Commission, conducted experiments extending over a period of eight months; and if the Bill passed the Fishery Board would continue them, and exclude trawling within the territorial waters of the Firth of Forth, St. Andrew's Bay, and a part of the sea known as Aberdeen Bay. There were experimental stations at Granton and St. Andrew's; it therefore seemed very desirable that those districts should be chosen for experiments. The Bill, while it gave power to exclude trawling, also gave power to prohibit any kind of fishing in order that the experiments might be properly carried out. He admitted the powers were large; but he had been in communication with the Fishery Board, and he considered the Board was likely to exercise them in a reasonable manner; and he hoped, whatever guarantees the House exacted in order that these powers should not be misused, that they would, at all events, leave it to the Fishery Board to make these experiments.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that on the second reading of the Bill he had taken exception to this clause. As it stood, the powers of the Fishery Board could be exercised entirely at their own discretion. Probably those powers would be exercised at present in a proper way; but there was no guarantee whatever for the future that they would not exercise them in a manner which would be disastrous to the trawling industry of Scotland. He did not mean to say that it was a very large industry; but it was one that was growing, and one upon which the fish supply for a large portion of the country would in an increasing degree depend. He hoped the noble Duke would be able to give the House some indication of the manner in which a guarantee could be obtained from the Fishery Board, as to the way in which they would exercise these powers in future. The powers ought to be clearly defined, and, if possible, more limited.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, the reason why he had not objected to the provision of this clause was because, living on the East Coast, he saw the devastation caused by the trawlers, which came close in shore among the nets and
  1168
  lines of the fishermen, who pursued an industry which was the nursery of the seamen for our Navy. It appeared to him, in consequence of the destruction of small fish and bait beds, and the injury to their nets and lines—leading to bad feeling between these hardy fishermen and the trawlers, and even to blows at times—that there was a case for the intervention of the State. The relation of the net and line fisheries was like that of a waggon to a railway, and perhaps 95 per cent of the fish that came to London was trawled; but the trawlers wont out 100 miles to sea. Whether the powers in question were excessive or not he did not pretend to say; but if sufficient security was not given by the publicity provided and the assent of a Secretary of State, perhaps his noble Friend in charge of the Bill would provide some further protection against the abuse by the Board of the powers proposed to be entrusted to it to the prejudice of the rights of trawlers.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Duke of RICHMOND and GORDON)said, his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) was not present when the second reading of the Bill was moved, or he would have heard the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) give very satisfactory reasons for the measure. Anyone who had taken the trouble to read the Report of the Commission presided over by the noble Earl would become aware of the enormous amount of damage which had been done to the line and net fishers by the trawlers; andhewas not at all surprised that the result arrived at by the Commission was that some such step as this was necessary to prevent the line and net fishing from being entirely destroyed. The Commission took evidence in various parts of Scotland, from the extreme North to the extreme South, and examined several witnesses who could scarcely speak the English language; and he was bound to say he thought the evidence completely justified the noble Earl in introducing this Bill. There were one or two points which he thought required amendment, and he had put down some Amendments which he should move presently. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) would see that whatever bye-law was proposed to be made by the Fishery Board should not have validity until it was confirmed by one principal Secre-

  1169
  tary of State; and he thought they might fairly conclude that no Secretary of State would give his consent to a bye-law unless it was proved to him to be necessary, and did not have a prejudicial effect on any interest concerned. It was stated that in consequence of the operations of trawlers in particular districts line and net fishers would find their occupation gone unless they were pro-tooted, and these were the men who, as his noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss) observed, were really a nursery for the Navy of this country. He was not prepared at present to limit the operation of the clause; but he should not be unwilling to accept any words which would satisfy the public that it would not have the very large effect which the noble Duke apprehended.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he hoped the noble Duke would withdraw his opposition to the clause. It was absolutely necessary that some such clause should be passed. There was no allegation that trawling destroyed small fish and spawn. The trawling net was a most efficient instrument for catching fish. The object of the clause was to compare the result at those places on the coast where trawling was in full force with the result at those places where trawling had been temporarily suspended. What they wanted to do was to find out whether trawling over fished a given place, and to what extent it did so.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he would not trouble their Lordships to divide.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 192.)

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (ENGLAND) BILL.—(No. 177.)
  (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved,"That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that before the House went into Committee
  1170
  on the Bill he desired to draw attention to some objectionable provisions which it contained. In moving the second reading of the Bill, his noble Friend in feeling and touching words had referred to the sufferings and privations of the working classes, especially in the Metropolis, from the want of healthy and sufficient accommodation. Words such as those could not fail to reach the heart of every one of their Lordships. He, for one, did not desire to be understood as differing from the great majority of the House in this respect. They all knew the history of the Bill. Two years ago his noble Friend wrote a very able article on the subject. In consequence of the public interest excited on this question a Royal Commission was appointed, which had issued a Report. The people of this country were deeply indebted to the Royal Prince and the other Members of that Commission, which sat for something like 70 days. The present Bill was the result of that Commission. Now, there were two classes of provisions in the Bill. The first consisted of the sanitary, and what he might call the destructive clauses; and the second were those which dealt with the housing of the poor and the construction of houses for them. He should be the last person to object to the sanitary proposals of the Bill. It was, and had been, the intention of the Legislature to get rid of insanitary or pest-generating houses. This was necessary, not only with a view to the health of those who lived in them, but for the sake of the surrounding inhabitants. If the existing law was insufficient or not properly enforced, it was desirable that improvement of the law or its machinery should be effected. To those provisions he had no objection; but there was another and totally distinct set of provisions which involved whathecould not but consider dangerous doctrines. In one of these provisions was really involved the question of "prairie value." He referred to the provision by which public bodies were enabled to sell public property for less than its value for a special purpose. The same principle was extended to private owners when the life tenants of settled estates were enabled to sell parts of the settled estate for less than its full value for the erection of labourers' dwellings. This aspect of the case had

  1171
  not escaped the attention of all the Commissioners, for Mr. Goschen made a pointed reference to it, and spoke of these proposals as being in the nature of a "State subsidy." It was really a State subsidy, whether it was done directly by the State or by the Municipality. The Scotch evidence before the Commission was hostile to such proposals. He hoped his countrymen were not harder-hearted than Englishmen; but they were perhaps harder-headed. He was glad to find that one witness who spoke on behalf of the Trades Council took the same view as being the view of the working classes, and condemned the proposal to give aid in this way for workmen's dwellings from the resources of the State or the Municipality. Some of the provisions of the Bill were dangerous, and would, if carried into effect, defeat their own end, inasmuch as they would put an end to that private enterprize which had been the cause of the success of all great undertakings in this country. It should be known that one Company alone had expended £12,000,000 in erecting this class of dwellings, which paid £5 per cent. He hoped the Bill before it left their Lordships' House would be divided into two parts, one of which might be passed this Session, and the other be left over for consideration to another Session. The questions raised in the Bill were so important that he did not think they ought to be passed by their Lordships in a hurry at that late period of the Session.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he wished to express his deep sympathy with the noble movement which had been inaugurated by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury). The evils which were disclosed by the evidence given before the Royal Commission were little short of a scandal to their civilization, and constituted a real danger to the commonwealth. Although he could not entirely agree with some of the remarks which had fallen from his noble Friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss), still he thought that the Bill was a somewhat dangerous extension of the very large powers already given under the Settled Lands Act.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the remarks of his noble Friends had been, on the whole, so friendly to the Bill that he did not think he should be
  1172
  right in discussing, while the noble and learned Lord was still on the Woolsack, certain matters of detail which had been brought forward. There were only two remarks that he wished to make with respect to something which was said at the close of his remarks by his noble Friend on the Cross Benches. In the first place, this was not a Government Bill, and the Members of the Cabinet were not more responsible for it than anybody else. Consequently, he had not availed himself of those means of obtaining support for it which it was usual to obtain in the case of Government Bills. And not only was this not a Government Bill, but it was not a Bill that was introduced in the interest of the Conservative Party, because, if it had been brought forward for that purpose, his noble Friend would have had to account for the phenomenon of its having been carried through the House of Commons by Sir Charles W. Dilke, who certainly was not likely to advance the interests of the Conservative Party. The truth was that the Bill was not intended to advance the interests of any Party in either House. He would say no more at present about the Bill. As to the particular clauses to which his two noble Friends had objected, they would be more fitly considered in Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 and 2 severally agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Provision respecting sites of certain Metropolitan prisons).
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, this clause appeared to him to be very objectionable. It provided that, in the event of two prisons being no longer used as prisons, they might be sold—that at Millbank by the Government, and that at Clerkenwell by the Middlesex magistrates. They were to be sold, however, not at the market value, but for such a price as would enable the Metropolitan Board of Works, without serious loss—and what would be serious loss was almost as difficult to put a meaning upon as "fair rent"—to appropriate the sites for the purpose of labouring class dwellings. He had no fear of the Justices of the County of Middlesex putting that Act in force; but he was not so sure of the Government. If these powers wore acted

  1173
  upon, the consequence would be that these properties would be sold at an inferior price; and the difference between that and a fair price would be given, in effect, to the working classes of the Metropolis. Why those persons should be given an improvement, at the expense of other people, he was at a loss to understand. Such a thing seemed to him altogether wrong, and he confessed he could not understand it. It was really taking money from the nation at large, and giving it to a part. He did not say that the proposal was a Socialistic one, although it certainly appeared to have somewhat of a Socialistic hue or character about it, which, perhaps, would not be, with some, an objection to it nowadays. But he did not think that it was the most profitable one that could be adopted. It would be better to sell the property for what it would fetch in the open market, and then to hand over a portion of the sum so realized to the Metropolitan Board of Works, so as to enable them to build on cheaper sites without serious loss.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the point raised by the latter part of the noble and learned Lord's argument had not escaped the attention of the Commission. Indeed, it had been the subject of a great deal of anxious consideration. He was not sure that the plan proposed by the noble and learned Lord might not be the more efficient; but it would involve a far larger scheme than that proposed by the Bill, which only authorized the Metropolitan Board of Works to apply the provisions of the measure to a part instead of to the whole of the sites mentioned to this particular purpose. The noble and learned Lord had said, in effect, that he had no objection to the proposal as far as Cold-bath Fields was concerned, because he was satisfied that the Justices of Middlesex would take good care of themselves, but that he was afraid of what the Treasury might do. That showed that the noble and learned Lord did not know the character of Her Majesty's Treasury. He could assure the noble and learned Lord that if the Justices whipped us with whips, the Treasury whipped us with scorpions on matters of economy. Therefore the noble and learned Lord need be under no apprehension of extravagance on the part of the Treasury. He fully admitted that the effect of this
  1174
  clause would be to give these sites, or portions of them, at prices somewhat lower than they would fetch in the open market. It was a matter of common knowledge that the Metropolitan Board of Works had spent enormous sums in obtaining sites for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Artizans' Dwellings Act, with the result that very heavy burdens had been cast upon the working classes. Therefore, by lessening the cost of the sites to be appropriated to building dwellings for the working classes a benefit would be conferred upon the ratepayers. With reference to the question of principle which had been raised by the noble and learned Lord, he wished to say that the noble and learned Lord had very fairly asked how Her Majesty's Government was justified in giving that which, in the long run, was undoubtedly public property to the benefit of a particular class. His reply to that question was that the State was now asked to undo the evil it itself had done. He had a great belief in the doctrine of laissez-faire; but it ought to be applied impartially on both sides. If he might venture to take exception to the doctrine as it appeared in the hands of the noble and learned Lord and his noble Friend it was a doctrine in operation only so long as it was a question of the State giving something, and it never came up when it was a question of the State taking something. What the State had done for London was that it had authorized the forcible seizure of large blocks of territory on which houses were formerly built, and on which the population formerly lived. It had, for objects that were good no doubt, cast out this population from their dwellings and thrown them on the general market for dwelling places in London. Thus the spaces left had been crowded more and more; and if there was enormous pressure on the space, Acts of Parliament were in many cases responsible. They could not wipe this legislation and its results out with a mere expression of regret, nor could they say to the population—"You must take your chance; our doctrines axe too pure, our political economy too high, to give you any assistance." They must come into court with the doctrine of laissez-faire when they had clean hands. But taking a less high ground, although a very important one, he might say that

  1175
  it was the moral duty of employers—a duty which had been very extensively fulfilled in many parts of the country— to provide for the accommodation of those whom they employed. And if that was the case of private employers, it was still more so in the case of the State, which was the largest employer of labour of any, and had done far more than the others to bring large numbers of persons into a single centre.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he thought the noble Marquess had offered a very fair defence of the clause; but he ventured to suggest to his noble Friend that the words in the clause, "without incurring a serious loss" were words far from capable of a judicial interpretion. It was an objectionable practice to introduce into an Act of Parliament colloquial expressions which wore not capable of judicial interpretation; and he would suggest to his noble Friend that these words might be left out with perfect safely to the Bill. In many large towns land had been acquired by the Corporations for the purpose of building dwellings for the working classes, and this had been done under the existing law.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would not defend the words, because he should have preferred the words "at a price not below the original cost of the land." He would bring up an Amendment on the Report.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, this was merely an enlargement of the principle already in force. The Metropolitan Board of Works had already suffered great loss on the works carried out. Who would have to pay that? Why the ratepayers. He might also point out that many of the works, such as railways, &c., for which large portions of the populations had been displaced, had been for the benefit of the whole of the community.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he had heard the statement of the noble Marquess with the greatest alarm; but he was more than surprised that the noble Duke should also have given expression to the same opinion, especially whenheconsidered the noble Duke's views on Irish legislation. It came to this— whenever a condition of things existed of which people complained, they might ascribe it to the effect of legislation and government, and demand amends from
  1176
  the State. In Ireland they had seen the principle applied in an extraordinary manner.
  LORD CARLINGFORD: But see the condition of things then.
  LORD BRAMWELL: See the condition of things now. They were told that there was justification for that legislation, because Ireland was within a measurable distance of rebellion. Had that distance decreased by the Land Act? The principle would be next taken advantage of by the Crofters, who would say—"Look at the condition of things in which we are. We are suffering owing to the previous acts of Government and its legislation; and we call, therefore, for an indemnity from the State."heprotested that there was not a grievance of which any man could complain in this country which could be in any way attributed to the legislation of the country, for which indemnity would not be asked if this doctrine prevailed. It was as great a piece of Socialism as he had ever heard of.
  EARL FORTESCUEcomplained of the injustice proposed to be done by the Bill in making any part of the expenses fall on one particular class of property alone; for rates could no longer be levied on any but real property.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the ratepayers had nothing on earth to do with this clause. It had reference to taxes, not rates.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, their Lordships were treading on very dangerous ground. Could anyone say that there was no danger in connection with the condition of the dwellings in large towns? What they did not see was how, consistently with the old principles they were accustomed to act on, to remedy this evil. Were they to sit down and make no attempt? Sooner than leave the evil unremedied, he was willing to accept this Bill, although he might deem it faulty in some degree. Let them feel certain of this—that the evils which existed would not be allowed to continue in this country without a remedy. If they had not found the remedy now, they would have to find it, andhehoped their Lordships would not be induced to delay the Bill.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSpointed to the experience of Scotland, as shown in the evidence before the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working

  1177
  Classes. The President of the Edinburgh Trade Council repudiated, on behalf of the working men, the notion that the State or Municipality should supply them with houses.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not wish to wound the national feelings of the noble Lord; but Edinburgh was not so large as London.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Amendment of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 130, and 42 & 43 Vict. c. 64).
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, the clause gave power to the Local Government Board, at the instance of a crotchety medical officer and a single ratepayer, to take possession of and to pull down houses, without any of the formalities or safeguards which were necessary in all other cases before compulsory possession was taken of land for public purposes.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that at present it was in the power of a Local Authority, on the recommendation of the officer of health, to compel the demolition of premises unfit for human habitation, or to order dangerous structures to be pulled down. This clause proposed, where the Local Authority did not act, that its place should be taken by the Local Government Board, acting on the complaints of another Local Authority, or of an owner of property, and after having instituted local inquiry through one of its Inspectors, and having received a Report favourable to their action. He did not think that any less securities would exist under the proposed clause than at present; but it was undoubtedly the fact that Torrens's Act was not now put in operation, owing to disinclination on the part of the Local Authorities.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he should feel it his duty to vote against the third reading, unless he obtained a satisfactory explanation from the noble Marquess with regard to certain provisions in the Bill.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL.
  (The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)

  (NO. 184.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland)
  EARL SPENCERsaid,hehad intended to make some remarks on this Bill; but looking to the lateness of the hour he would defer them till to-morrow, when the noble and learned Lord proposed to go into Committee.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid, that while expressing general approval of the Bill, and acknowledging the excellent motives of his noble and learned Friend who had introduced it,hewas surprised that that noble and learned Lord should have fallen into some of the pitfalls which were to be discovered in the Bill. The Bill, in his opinion, was too confined—it was not bold enough. He thought there should have been different sections suggested, or that there should have been an amplification of the different modes of transfer contained in the existing Acts relating to land purchase. Running roughly and rapidly over the Bill he wanted to know the exact meaning of Clause 2. Did it mean that all the different modes of transfer from the owner to tenant contained in the acts mentioned were to be governed for the future, if this Bill became law, by the new terms of advance, interest, repayment, and, above all, deposit guarantee? If so very serious complications would arise. Then there was the question of recoverable right. How was it to be defined? Surely if a farm was put up to auction, and was not bought by the owner or anyone else, then the original seller should have power to re-purchase it; otherwise his guarantee would be unnecessarily imperilled and in all probability lost. Such loose wording to his mind was very dangerous, and capable of producing very serious complications if improperly construed—in fact, it was even liable to render the Bill of no value. Coming to Clause 4, he thought there was surely an omission, as the Tramways Act of 1883 should have been inserted, inasmuch as it dealt with the same matter, and he should move an Amendment to that effect unless that was otherwise provided. In Clause 5 he thought the words "that a

  1179
  resale can be effected without loss" were unnecessary verbiage, and likely, as in the last case, to lead to a hitch in the working of the Act. If they had able and conscientious men to work the Act they would be held sufficiently in check by the Treasury without any of this unnecessary handicapping. After Clause 5, again, there was an evident omission of a very important character. Of course, if Clause 2 were to govern all past Acts it might be unnecessary to re-enact the clause from Mr. Trevelyan's Bill; but it seemed to him that if it was not inserted the owner would be left in a very different position. For example, an owner selling under the Act would first of all have to leave a deposit guarantee. Then there would be a mortgage of land as well. He would have out, therefore, one-fifth as a deposit guarantee, and take one-fourth as a mortgage on the holding. What was the possible result? By order of the Commissioners the debt was irrecoverable. The owner, therefore, would lose his one-fifth or deposit guarantee, andheimagined would find great difficulty in recovering his one-fourth or mortgage debt as it would be puisne to the recoverable debt. He knew many who had sold under the clause as it stood under the Act of 1881, and many who desired to sell under it at present; and he, therefore, attached great importance to having this matter cleared up. In Clause 12, which dealt with the registry of deeds versus the record of titles, they had what he believed to be one of the greatest blots in the Bill from a technical point of view. What did the Bill propose? They had a Registry of Deeds Office instead of a Record of Title Office. Surely the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill must be aware of the use that could be made of a Record of Title Office. In the case of the Registry of Deeds Office, they had to be content with an office where every deed of every kind was registered; whereas in the Record of Title Office they had an office specially created for the purpose of land registry, with special facilities for the transaction of such business. He strongly urged his noble and learned Friend to amend this clause by inserting "Record of Title Office" instead of "Registry of Deeds." He would also suggest the insertion of clauses to amend the scale of fees payable under the existing Act, and to authorize the establishment of local
  1180
  registries in connection with the Record of Title Office to enable people living at a distance from Dublin to satisfy themselves as to the title of any particular holding. This would simplify the working of the Bill enormously, would involve no extra cost, and was, in the opinion of some of the ablest lawyers who had investigated the question, of vital necessity to the rapid and clear working of the Bill. In regard to Clause 15, he thought it was a great mistake to place any charge on the Irish Church Surplus Fund. That Fund was essentially a local fund connected with Ireland. This matter, on the other hand, was entirely an Imperial question, and must be treated as such. He would oppose the clause most strenuously in Committee, and hoped that in the other House every effort would be made to remove it from the Bill. This surplus fund, although it was a paltry sum, could be well applied to local exigencies such as education, technical or otherwise; and as an Irishman he felt bound to resist the application of this local fund to an Imperial question. As long as Ireland contributed to the Imperial Exchequer she was entitled to assistance from that Exchequer on any matter bearing on Imperial questions. The solution of the Land Question by purchase was an Imperial matter, for as long as that question was not solved there would be no peace in Ireland, and every person was aware that a state of lawlessness and anarchy in Ireland reacted with great force upon the whole Imperial system. There was another matter—the appointment of Commissioners—whichhewould like to touch on. It was a very delicate matter, as everything would depend upon them; and all he could say was that if the rumour current in Dublin was correct, that a certain gentleman whom he would not name had been appointed, he believed his noble and learned Friend had better not indulge in great expectations about the working of this Bill. Neither tenant nor landowner could have confidence in a Commission ruled over by one who had hitherto, in the opinion of most people, rendered the present Act nugatory. It might be that his noble and learned Friend would be able to instil into his Commission some of his own daring and patriotism; but he had heard of the possible appointment he referred to with absolute dismay. Clause 17—the tenant-

  1181
  right clause—he welcomed as of great value. In conclusion, he wished to say that he believed the Bill, with some such Amendments as he had pointed out, would prove a workable measure. He believed the tenants would purchase their holdings as soon as they were impressed with the fact that this was the limit of concession which could be made to enable them to purchase. They would then see that it was to their interest to take advantage of the Act. He thought he might claim to take and to have an unusual interest in many of the provisions of this Bill; and he was sure his noble Friend would take the Amendmentshehad suggested into his consideration, and enable them to be thoroughly discussed, and, if possible, accepted. They would not in any way alter the main purpose of the Bill. He believed they would simplify its working, and would give different modes of transfer, which might be acceptable to different people, and in different parts of the country.
  LORD DENMANremarked, that it was impossible for the Government, after the Motion, in "another place," of the right hon. Gentleman, now Secretary of State for War, and after the Report of the Select Committee of their Lordships' House, to avoid bringing forward a Bill like that before their Lordships. But in the course of 49 years a tenant purchaser would have to pay £196 for every £100 borrowed; and it was a most difficult thing for a poor tenant to maintain himself, and for him to pay instalments for the purchase of his holding was almost impossible. It was far better for a tenant to be under a landlord than to be obliged to pay a fixed sum at a certain time on pain of forfeiture; and the happy agreements between landlord and tenant in Scotland had worked so well, that Lavergne, an author on agriculture, wrote that they never thought of possessing land as owners. So that the views of those who wrote that—
  "In Ireland an universal desire appears to exist among the people to possess their holdings, and to he freed from the present system of dual holding, so irksome both to owner and occupier,"
  and who acted upon those views, were visionary and unsound; and the objections of farmers, who thought it hard to be taxed to pay even arrears, to enable tenants to pay their landlords, would be
  1182
  far stronger as to a Bill like the present. He (Lord Denman) would have been supposed to have agreed to the principle of this Bill if he had not spoken; and he hoped their Lordships would excuse his pouring out, as he did, the thoughts of his heart.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, it gave him great satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government had attempted to deal with this question, and he trusted they would be successful in passing a Bill which would be found workable. He regretted the Government had not proposed to hand over the working of the Bill to the Landed Estates Court, instead of to the Commissioners, for it was necessary to appoint extra Commissioners, while the Court had little or nothing to do, and it commanded the confidence of landlords more than the Commission did. There were a number of matters that would require consideration in Committee. He failed to see how the landlord could be kept from loss, unless the Land Commissioners, who were to declare the debt irrecoverable, were bound in some way to take proceedings against a defaulting tenant immediately he became a defaulter. It must be made clear that there would be no loss upon the advances. The money was to be lent for 49 years, and one-fifth would have to remain out 10 years. Companies, no doubt, would be formed to lend that money for 10 years, and in the case of a defaulting tenant all the landlord would lose would be the difference between the 3 per cent he would have from the Land Commissioners and the percentage which would be charged for the loan of the one-fifth for 10 years. He would lose, perhaps, 2or 3 per cent. The landlords of Ireland, he pointed out, had not a very favourable opinion of the gentlemen at the head of the Land Commission; and what they feared was that they would go down, and, where an arrangement had been made between landlord and tenant for a 25 years' purchase, might say—"Oh, we do not consider this to be worth more than 15 years' purchase." The result might be that a nominal purchase—say of 15 years—would be fixed, and that would be the rule in Ireland, as to the value of the land. An arrangement, he thought, should be come to, so that if the Land Commissioners were satisfied with the annual value of the land sold they should be bound to accept the terms which might

  1183
  have been agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant. Was there any special reason why some agreement of that kind should not be inserted in the Bill? It would give a great security to the landlord and tenant, and would make the Bill workable. If, however, their Lordships thought they were going to pass a workable measure, and left in it provisions which vested the power of fixing the price to be paid for land in the Land Commissioners, all he could say was that they were very much mistaken. It would not work at all. The independent landowners would not sell their land for one iota less than they thought its fair value, though, of course, those people whose estates were in the hands of receivers would be obliged to sell. He warned the Government if they tied the landlords up in such a way as to give them a mere nominal value for their land the Bill would prove a failure.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, he gathered from the reception the Motion had received from the House that there was no desire on the part of their Lordships to challenge the second reading. The noble Earl who had been until recently Viceroy of Ireland had reserved his right to criticize the Bill until the Motion was made to go into Committee. The noble Earl was entitled to speak on this Bill with great authority, from the position he had filled and the attention he had given the question; and it would be his (the Lord Chancellor's) duty and pleasure to listen to what he might say with the closest attention. Other noble Lords had spoken on matters of detail. It was not for him now to enter into a discussion of the details of the Bill; but he might say generally that when the time came he would deal with all the suggestions which had been made as fully and as carefully as he could. He earnestly hoped that only a few Amendments would be made, and that of those only a few would be pressed, as it was idle to suppose that a Bill of this magnitude could be recast at this period of the Session. Some of the proposals made by the noble Lord (Lord Castletown) were as to the machinery, and he should be very glad to consider them. Others had a wider range, and when the proper time came he would venture to appeal to the noble Lord not to press them or they might imperil the Bill.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.