Lords Sitting of 2 May 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Bankruptcy Offices (Sites) * (76).
INDIA (THE NORTH-WESTERN FRONTIER)—THE QUETTA RAILWAY.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Pishin Valley Railway was yet open for public traffic; and, if not, when it would be?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, there are two railways to Quetta, both starting from Sibi, on the North-Western Frontier system. The Bolan route is now quite completed, and traffic is working on it throughout. On the Sind-Pishin route the rails have already been linked through; but the line is not yet opened for traffic. I hope that the railway will be opened shortly.

ISLANDS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC— THE NEW HEBRIDES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY, in rising to call attention to the condition of affairs in the New Hebrides, and to ask, What course is proposed to be taken with reference to this important subject by Her Majesty's Government? said, he desired to draw the attention of the House to the continued presence of French soldiers in the Islands of the New Hebrides, although there stands on record a diplomatic understanding between France and England that neither Power should do anything in contravention of the independence of the Islands. He submitted that the subject was an important one from three points of view. In the first place, it was important from the Native point of view; secondly, from the Imperial and Australian point of view; and thirdly, and still more important, because if it was the fact that French troops were still in occupation of these Islands, the sanctity of all International engagements was called in question, or, rather, would be called in question, if such an occupation was sanctioned by the Go-

  497
  vernment of France. He could not but believe that it was the rashness or over-zeal of Local Authorities which had kept French troops in the Islands, for unless he had strong evidence to the contrary, he should be very unwilling to suppose that the French Government would, for one moment, take the line of showing such complete disregard of International undertakings. The presence of the French troops was a clear breach of the International engagement, and if it were likely to be sanctioned by the Government of France a serious breach would occur. The Islands, he might remind their Lordships, were discovered in the first instance by Captain Cook, and under the Charter of 1840 they were included in the Colony of New Zealand. They consisted of about 30 Islands, extending over a length of ocean of about 400 miles North and South. They were extremely rich, were more healthy than the rest of the Pacific Islands, and contained several valuable harbours. The population, numbering from 100,000 to 150,000, were rapidly becoming civilized, and the story of their civilization and Christianization by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland was one of the most creditable in our history. So far as any European language went English was the only tongue known in the Islands, and the feeling of the Natives towards English people was exceedingly friendly. In every Island an Englishman might go about unarmed, though he did not know that quite the same could be said with regard to other nationalities. Australia was especially interested in these Islands from their proximity to her shores, and she was in a panic lest they should become the home of the relapsed criminals from France. In quite recent times both France and Germany had shown their appreciation of the strategic and commercial importance of the group. He thought we had a right, when we found those Islands civilized entirely by British enterprize, Christianized by Scotch enterprize, and wholly British in feeling, to protest against their being handed over to any other country. France, of course, would like to have the Islands for a labour supply to her Colony of New Caledonia. That labour question in the Pacific was one of the most terrible blots in our modern civilization. A French Admiral who had held a high position in the
  498
  Government recently stated in the Senate that the labour that France got from the New Hebrides was simply another form of downright slavery, and that might be accepted as undoubtedly true. In the French Chamber it had been announced that New Caledonia could not take more convicts, and that it would be well if she could get them over to the New Hebrides. Anything more pitiable than such a result he could not imagine. What was the legal position now between France and England as to the New Hebrides? Lord Derby wrote to the Colonial Office in February, 1878, inclosing a letter from the French Ambassador, calling attention to articles in Australian newspapers advocating the annexation of the New Hebrides to the British Crown, and stating that though the French Government did not attach great importance to this annexation movement, still, as they themselves had no intentions with regard to that group, they would be glad to have an assurance to that effect from Her Majesty's Government. Lord Derby informed the Colonial Office that he proposed, if they concurred, to inform the French Ambassador that Her Majesty's Government had no intention of proposing any measures to Parliament with a view of changing the condition of independence which the New Hebrides then enjoyed. The Secretary for the Colonies concurred in this answer. As time went on the feeling in favour of annexation became stronger and stronger in Australia, and alarmed the French Government. A communication was made to Her Majesty's Government that the Government of the Republic felt it their duty to ascertain whether the Declarations of 1878 still remained as valid in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government as in that of France, as otherwise they would feel it their duty to insist on the maintenance of the existing state of things. In a despatch to Lord Lyons, the noble Earl who was then at the head of Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) had said that the Agreement of 1878 was considered by Her Majesty's Government to be perfectly valid. On the 31st of August, 1883, the English Chargé d'Affaires informed Lord Granville that he had left at the French Foreign Office a note verbale to this effect. Lord Derby, when at the Foreign Office, had assured the Australian

  499
  Colonies that no proposal for the annexation of the New Hebrides would be entertained without consulting the Australian Colonies, and also without securing conditions satisfactory to those Colonies. When the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery) had been Foreign Secretary an offer had been made by France to give up the transportation of relapsed criminals if she might take the New Hebrides. That was refused by the Australian Colonies on being consulted, and the noble Earl had then informed the French Government of that refusal. There the matter rested; but in June, 18S6, without any formal annexation on the part of France, or without the Central Government at Paris being in any way connected with the matter, French troops were placed on the Island. From a letter which he had received from a well-known Scotch gentleman at Melbourne, he understood that the French still occupied a military station and were erecting what appeared to be permanent buildings, and putting up wooden sheds either for convicts or for additional troops. He had had another letter, dated December 6, 1886, from another Scotch gentleman at Havannah Harbour, Exatè, stating that on June 1 a military post had been established in that harbour with over 100 French Marines, and immediately afterwards a similar post had been established at Port Sandwich. He thought that these letters would justify him in bringing this matter before their Lordships' House, as it was a matter which ought to be decided quickly one way or another. The Government had shown no undue pressure in the matter, and, on the other hand, he believed that the Central Government in Franco had in no way been committed to this infraction of the Treaty. It might be said that this occupation had been rendered necessary on account of outrages; but he had made inquiries, and had found that no serious cases of outrage had been brought home to the inhabitants of the New Hebrides. As often as not what were called outrages were the result of the abominable system of labour trade which prevailed in those parts, and which had done more to set the Natives of the Islands against the Whites than anything which could be done. He would, therefore, implore Her Majesty's Government, in the interests of the Natives, in
  500
  the interests of our Australian Colonies, in the interests of our Imperial and commercial obligations, but, above all, in the interest of the sacredness of good faith in public International Agreements, to take up this matter and bring to a termination the French occupation. As Germany had recently shown, there was no need for any sense of wounded pride, and no humiliation, in an admission on the part of a great nation that it had done a wrong act.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby) has made a very interesting speech, and I only feel very great regret that it is not in my power to give him in return anything nearly so valuable or so interesting. The truth is, I heard with some dismay my noble Friend go from point to point on matters which have been laid before the House, and I have very little indeed to add to what he has said. My noble Friend will understand that there are matters which he has discussed, and which he has a perfect right to discuss, but into which it would not be right for me to follow him. For example, I could not examine the motives which induced the French Government to attach value to the New Hebrides, and the same reason likewise precludes me from examining into motives which have induced the Australian Colonies to look upon these Islands with exceptional interest. There is no doubt of the International state of the case—that France and England have engaged to each other not to annex the New Hebrides, and there is no doubt that at this moment the French Government is in occupation of these Islands; but that they have assured us, in tones whose earnestness and sincerity we have no right to doubt, that they have no intention of permanently occupying those Islands; and, therefore, no definite character ought to be attached to their proceedings. They have informed Her Majesty's Government that they have been obliged to take the step they have taken, solely in consequence of the outrages which have occurred. There have been outrages—we do not quite know how many; but, undoubtedly, certain persons in 1885 were killed, and several others wounded and attacked. The position of the French Government is that

  501
  as soon as satisfactory arrangements can be made by which the peace of the Islands can be maintained, and Europeans can be preserved from danger of outbreak, they would be glad to withdraw their troops. Her Majesty's Government have made proposals for the purpose of carrying this object into effect. These proposals have not been rejected, neither have they been absolutely accepted. Under the pressure of political events which have happened internally and externally upon France during the last six months, the negotiations have not gone on with that rapidity which we should like to see. We have, upon more than one occasion, called attention to the delay, and the French Government have always assured us that they were prepared to make proposals, and I believe that the French Ambassador is likely to make a communication of some importance in the course of the present week. I can make no further answer, except to assure my noble Friend that I am as fully sensible as he is of the sacredness of the International engagement which prevents both France and England from occupying these Islands of the New Hebrides, and Her Majesty's Government have no intention of departing on their side from the engagement.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he was far from urging on the Government to take any other course than they had taken, and he did not doubt that the noble Marquess the Prime Minister had kept that course adequately in view and had expressed his opinion to the French Government; but he was sure the answer would cause great disappointment in the Australian Colonies and among those in this country who were interested in the question. Could the noble Marquess state whether there were any ships of war in the vicinity of the New Hebrides? He should be glad to learn that the British ships of war which were at the New Hebrides last May were still there, and whether there was any force representing our interests in the Islands. That was a matter of some importance, as showing that we attached weight to the question.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he could not answer the Question without Notice. It was his impression that some of Her Majesty's ships had been there from time to time. There was, however, no permanent station there, and whether
  502
  there were any ships there at this present moment he could not say.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, no one in England who had followed these matters closely, and no one in Australasia, could avoid regretting its present position, or could regard the present state of things as satisfactory. With regard to these Islands an understanding had, so far back as 1840, been come to between this country and the French Government that their independence should be respected. In 1858 a definite agreement to this effect was entered into, and that agreement had for years been recognized by successive English Governments and by the French Government. Now, however, after several years of pour parlers on the subject the French flag was to be found flying there. It was difficult to reconcile this with the amiable theory set up by his noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby) who introduced the subject that it might be the indiscreet act of some agent or imprudent officer on a foreign station. He was sorry that this was not the only case of this nature which had arisen. There was another group of Islands, well known to Colonists and mariners—the Society group—one of which formed the subject in 1847 of a distinct reciprocal agreement between this country and France that its independence should be respected. Yet for at least five or six years the French flag had been flying upon it, notwithstanding all protests and complaints that had been received on the subject. At the great distance England was from these Islands and the scene of these transactions, and owing to attention being diverted at home by the multiplicity of political questions, matters had been occurring in the South Pacific which often escaped our attention, but which to the great Colonies were questions of life and death. He did not make any charge against the French Government—or oven a complaint—it was, perhaps, very creditable to French policy and foresight; but if their Lordships took a map and referred to the present state of things in the Eastern part of the South Pacific, they could not fail to be struck with the enormous amount of the recent French annexations. Tahiti, for instance, which some years ago nearly led to a collision between the two countries, was till lately under French protection. Recently the

  503
  protectorate had been converted into sovereignty. Similarly the Society Islands, Rapa, the Austral group, and the mass of the Islands that went by the name of the Lower Archipelago had, in recent years, been annexed. The desire for territory, and the wise foresight which looked to the opening of the Panama Canal, accounted partly for what had taken place. Turning from the East to the West Pacific, where Australian interests mainly lay, a similar state of things existed. In the West Pacific there was the great French Colony of New Caledonia, peopled by convicts; there were the Loyalty Islands, and, if the New Hebrides were by any accident transferred to the jurisdiction of France, there would stretch a great block of intervening Islands between Australia and Fiji—all under the French flag—and which might be described as our outpost on the other side. Whatever might be thought of these things in this country, no Australian would, or could, or ought to regard the prospect without a feeling of considerable anxiety. He could not say what were our precise relations with other countries with which we came into contact in the Pacific. No one who was not in Office could exactly tell. But he had no reason to believe these relations were otherwise than satisfactory. About three years ago their Lordships might remember that an important agreement was come to between this country and Germany by which the two Governments agreed to delimit their jurisdiction—their spheres of influence it would be more correct to say—in the South Pacific. The result of this had been that, so far as Germany was concerned, the chances of friction had been very much lessened. He would throw out for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government the suggestion whether some such understanding might not be arrived at with France as regarded the same seas. The noble Earl pointed out strong reasons why this matter should be satisfactorily settled without delay. There were two special reasons for this. It was a question that closely affected the natives of the South Pacific. He (the Earl of Carnarvon), about 1876 and 1877, was the author of two Acts which created the Office of High Commissioner with jurisdiction to deal with all cases of outrage on natives, especially such as arose out of the labour
  504
  traffic. Those Acts had done great good, but they had not altogether attained their object. It was not possible for the British Government to give the High Commissioner jurisdiction over foreigners, or natives, in any but British Islands. He earnestly recommended the Prime Minister to consider whether some amendment of the existing state of things, which allowed a large part of the criminal and uncivilized community in those quarters to escape jurisdiction, could not be come to by the consent and co-operation of foreign Powers. There used to be a mixed Slave Trade Court which worked very well in the Slave Trade days; and he believed this Slave Trade Commission—which, as he said, formerly existed—might contain a suggestion for a precedent. There was another reason which rendered the settlement of the matter urgent—namely, the Recidivist question in New Caledonia. That was a very large and important question, and one that had moved the Australian public mind to its lowest depths. Until this question of the New Hebrides—with which it was connected—should have been settled it would remain, he feared, a burning question, containing in itself the germs of future anxiety, trouble, and possible danger.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I rise to express my gratification that, being in Office, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) seems to think that there is some weight in the principle which I was in the habit of asserting, that an answer should not be hastily given without Notice to Questions relating to important foreign affairs. There is still this difference between us, however. When I laid down that principle I adhered to it, and did not answer Questions until after Notice; whereas the noble Marquess, after enunciating the principle, has really told us how the matter stands to which the Question put to him refers. There is certainly no one more anxious than I am to avoid causing any feelings of unnecessary excitement between our great neighbours the French and ourselves. The proof of this is, that when we first received the news of the landing of French troops in the New Hebrides, and considered the advisability of sending immediately ships of war to the scene, we hesitated to do so, lest it should cause unnecessary

  505
  irritation. A short time afterwards, however, on getting further information, we agreed that it was desirable to send British ships, not as a menace or in any spirit of hostility, but in order to put the two countries on the same footing. Since then, as far as I know, the occupation has been consistently disowned by the French Government, who have always given us assurances that they do not desire the occupation of the New Hebrides, and that they intend to adhere to the International agreement. Last year the noble Earl near me repeated that assurance, which he had recently received from the French Government. But now that this French occupation of the shore had gone on, not only for weeks and months, but for more than a year, a change in our policy, and a reversal of the order that ships shall be on the spot, may exercise an unfavourable impression, especially on the Colonial mind. I am glad, therefore, to hear from the noble Marquess that he is about to receive an important communication from the French Government. In conclusion, let me say that no one can desire more heartily than myself that the communications between the Governments may lead to a really satisfactory result for the French nation, ourselves, and our Colonial fellow subjects.

NAVY—POSITION OF LIEUTENANTS— RETIREMENT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD SUDELEY, in rising to call attention to the present system of retirement in the Navy, and to the Hock which at present exists in the Lieutenants' List; and to ask, Whether the Admiralty propose to take any steps to improve the position of lieutenants? said, that he did not wish to cast any blame on the retirement scheme of 1870. In fact, he looked upon it as a settled charter which could not be altered, and which had, on the whole, worked very well. Their Lordships, doubtless, remembered the state of the retirement list of all ranks before 1870, the endless confusion that existed, the number of retirement lists with separate letters of the alphabet to each, and the perfect block of promotion. Year by year feeble attempts were made to overcome the difficulties that surrounded the question; but it was not
  506
  until 1870 that any considerable attempt was really made to grapple with them. The general result had been very satisfactory, and he was glad to find that the calculations made by Mr. Childers as to cost had been fully borne out. Mr. Childers said that the cost of the executive officers (including navigating officers) on non-effective pay would rise for a few years and then gradually diminish. This had been the case. In 1870–1 the cost was £387,798; in 1875–6 the cost was £456,185; and in 1887–8 it was to be £341,540. One great principle of the scheme was that there were to be young officers on all the lists, and with that object Mr. Childers gave a high retired pay. Unless that principle was kept up, the greatest advantage of the whole scheme would disappear. He wished to call attention to the state of the lieutenants' list, because he thought the time had arrived when some special help must be given to that list, so that the wheels of the retirement scheme might be made to work smoothly. In the lieutenants' list a block which was not foreseen had arisen, and the average age was getting older year by year. If the Admiralty did not act promptly very great discontent might result, and probably so much pressure would be exercised upon the Naval Authorities that they would find it impossible to resist a large inflation of the upper lists, in order to give what was called a "flow of promotion." That there was grave discontent among the lieutenants, who were the backbone of the Service, no one could deny. The total number of lieutenants and navigating officers now authorized was 1,000. It was thought in 1870 that it would be possible to keep the number down to 600, with 200 for navigating duties, making a total of 800, but in 1879 it was found necessary to raise the number by another 200. It had not yet been found practicable to get the list up to the authorized number. There were still only 873 lieutenants, and he believed that it would be seven or eight years before the entries as naval cadets would make it possible for the full number to be reached. The annual average number of promotions was only about 23, and it was only possible for two lieutenants out of nine ever to be promoted. This constituted the great cause of complaint; because the list was below its authorized numbers it had

  507
  been impossible to allow any special retirements. In 1871 there were 79 lieutenants of over 10 years' seniority; in 1879 there were 150; in 1883 there were 193; and in April, 1887, there were no less than 279, or nearly one-third of the entire list. Now, it was well known that when a lieutenant had over 10 years' seniority he had arrived at an age when—unless he had a prospect of promotion within the next two or three years—he was bound to become more or less discontented and unsettled. What was specially wanted in the Navy was that the lieutenants' list should be kept young and efficient. At present it was perfectly clear that the list during the next few years would get considerably older, with the very greatest disadvantage to the Service in general. When a lieutenant became over 12 years' seniority he knew that he could never reach the higher grades of the Service, but would, even if promoted, have to be retired either as commander or captain. It was absolutely necessary also that young men should be selected for promotion to commanders, as otherwise the age would be raised in every rank, and there would be constant expensive retirement. A pamphlet had lately been published, which he understood had been approved by nearly all the lieutenants on the list, pointing out very fairly their complaints in respect to promotion, position, and pay. He was told that it was contemplated to increase the commanders' list slightly. If that were done because of the requirements of the Service, it would be a wise course; but if it were done merely in order to facilitate promotion, much as he desired to benefit the lieutenants, the result would be most disastrous. The captains' and commanders' lists must be small, and an attempt to increase them, except for the requirements of the Service, would do away with the main features of the retirement scheme of 1870, and there would be no stop to it. In respect to promotion, the lieutenants seemed to desire that certain special regulations should be enacted in their favour, so that every man might have a certainty of promotion to commander. On this point he could not go with them, as they asked what it was impossible to concede. In framing the scheme of 1870, Mr. Childers laid this down very clearly. He stated—
  508
  "No lieutenant should be deemed to have a moral right to promotion; but promotion from his rank or that of commander was to be purely by selection on account of efficiency and prospective usefulness. The idea of promotion from that rank merely to enable a good flow to be secured was absolutely rejected."
  So soon as there were a sufficient number on the list, the only way in which the matter could be dealt with was by allowing the optional retirement at an earlier age, of, say, from 32 to 35, to all lieutenants who found that from various causes they were not likely to obtain promotion. At present no man had the right to retire until he was 40 years of age, and although the Admiralty had obtained an Order in Council to enable them to allow officers to retire younger that power was not known in the Service. It would be far better that officers should be allowed to leave at a period when there was some prospect of their being enabled to obtain a livelihood in other professions, and it would be far more economical that you should retire men young than that you should retire men from age when captains and commanders at much higher rates. Some inducement ought to be offered to officers to accept this optional retirement, and if £100 were given in addition to the present retirement it would be found to work. A man of 32 to 35 ought to be able to retire upon about £200 a-year as a minimum. It was supposed under the present scheme that a lieutenant could retire at about £300 a-year. Although this was true under special circumstances if he held on until he was 45, no one had succeeded in obtaining so high an amount; and, as a matter of fact, the average rate of retirement was only about £150. As regarded the question of position, there could be no doubt that during the last few years there had been changes in the relative rank of officers of the civil branches which had placed them higher in many ways than the lieutenants. With respect to pay, a considerable change might be made at a very small expense. In the "Lieutenants' Pamphlet" this matter was stated very clearly. The pay of the ordinary lieutenant was the same now as it was in the year 1841—namely, 10 s. a-day, the only difference being an increase of 2s. per day after ten years' service. This rate was small even in 1841; but it was absurdly small when one considered the

  509
  highly-trained scientific officers of the present day. Forty-seven years ago a lieutenant had to be a thorough seaman, efficient in the command of men, and possessed of a general knowledge of gunnery, but he was not supposed to do much more. Now, he was required to be not only a thorough seaman, but a competent scientific officer, able to manage huge and unwieldy ironclads; well acquainted with engines, hydraulic gunnery, and torpedoes in all their branches; able to command a naval brigade on shore, to navigate and pilot his vessal, and to have a general knowledge of International Law. Some increase, therefore, ought to be made in the pay which was given 4o years ago. No doubt it was urged that extra allowances were given besides this 10 s. a-day for definite qualifications, and this was certainly true for trained officers, principally instructors, at from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. a-day. This was merely special pay for special work, and the average lieutenant's pay remained the same—namely, 10 s. a-day. He found that there were 58 gunnery officers, 34 torpedo, and 137 senior lieutenants receiving these special allowances for this special work. It was sometimes urged that there was an unlimited supply of naval cadets forthcoming, and therefore there was no necessity to raise the pay of lieutenants. This was a most unfair argument to use, because a boy of 14 did not calculate what he had to look forward to. In 1841 a lieutenant was the be3t paid officer of that rank, and now in 1837 he was the worst paid. In 1841 lieutenants received 10 s. a-day; in 1887, 10 s., rising to 12 s.; in 1841, masters received 7s. a-day; in 1887, 12 s., rising to 22 s.; in 1841, assistant surgeons received 7s. a-day; in 1887, Us. 6d., rising to 27 s.; in 1841, chaplains received 8s. 9d.; in 1887, 12 s., rising to 22 s.; in 1811, naval instructors received 7s. a-day; in 1887, 12 s., rising to 22 s.; and in 1841, paymasters received 7s. a-day; in 1887, 12 s., rising to 22 s. The lieutenants asked that progressive pay should be given, as had been done in every other branch. They proposed that the extra 2s. which was now given when they had 10 years' seniority should be given at eight years instead, and a further 2s. when they had served 11 years. This increase would, he believed, only cost about £ 10,000, and if it brought
  510
  with it moderate contentment it would be cheaply purchased. The lieutenants who were of 10 years' seniority had, with their junior service, actually been. 20 years in the service. Lot their Lordships think what it must be to a man to find himself with no chance of promotion before him after this service, and to have to remain a lieutenant until he was 40 years old on £216 a-year. We had at the Admiralty at the present moment a Board who were eminently fitted to deal with the subject, and Admiral Sir Anthony Hoskins, who had special charge of the Department, was one of our most able and distinguished Admirals, and one who had the interests of lieutenants most thoroughly at heart. He had consulted several great authorities on the suggestion he had made, and they all agreed. Perhaps there was no one who had given greater attention to the subject of retirement than Admiral Colomb, and had worked out the most copious statistics on the subject. He most cordially concurred in. the plan of optional retirement at an early age and increased pay. Mr. Childers allowed him to say that he also quite approved an optional retirement at an early age. There was much more that might be said on the subject; but he thought he had said enough to show that the lieutenants' list was in a most unsatisfactory condition. For many years the numbers would be short, and, in consequence, it would be impossible to do much either in retirement or by promotion year by year. In consequence the number of senior men would greatly increase, which would be a serious evil, not only to the lieutenants themselves, but to the Naval Service generally. The only possible alleviation at present that he could see open was a small progressive increase of pay, and a promise of optional retirement in the future. He ventured to say that this was a serious matter. The lieutenants were, as he had already said, the backbone of the Service. It was from this list that all our captains and commanders had to be selected, and whatever was hurtful to and detrimental to this body of officers must work with most disastrous effect on those who would command our ships. An officer in the Navy required special consideration. Life at sea was surrounded with perils and dangers which only those who had gone through them could tho-

  511
  roughly appreciate. When one thought of the years spent in different seas under the strictest discipline, far removed from the joys and happiness of home life, continually undergoing long night watches and monotonous voyages, it was impossible for the severest critic not to have a deep feeling of sympathy for these gallant officers, and to be most anxious that any feeling of discontent as to their pay and position should be speedily removed. Of this he was quite certain—that we had now a picked body of lieutenants, men imbued with the finest sense of honour and with the deepest devotion to their duties; and if the prayer of the petition which the lieutenants had put forward in their pamphlet was not entertained, he thought it would be one of the greatest mistakes that it would be possible to make. He trusted that the noble Lord who represented the Admiralty would be able to give a satisfactory reply.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he wished to say a few words on the case which had been so clearly stated by the noble Lord who had just sat down (Lord Sudeley). The small increase of pay which was made three years ago was in consequence of his having brought this subject before the notice of their Lordships in 1883. He then asked that 1s. a-day extra pay might be granted to officers of eight years' standing and upwards. The noble Earl who was then First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook) was not able to do anything in that year, but in the following year he provided for an increase of 2s. a-day to all lieutenants of 10 years' standing and upwards. That increase gave great satisfaction then, but he thought the time had now arrived when something more ought to be done, and he agreed with his noble Friend that the request of the lieutenants, as far as the increase of pay was concerned, should be acceded to. He did not intend, to offer any observations upon this question of retirement or choice of cabins, as he was not an authority upon those subjects, not having had the advantage of serving in the Navy. But there was no doubt but that the position of the lieutenants was much more unfavourable now than it was, say, 20 years ago. To show this, he would mention two matters within his own observation. When he went to Australia, he found, on his arrival at
  512
  Sydney, six ships on the station. Three were commanded by commanders; the other three were corvettes, commanded by post captains—one of these captains was the Commodore. He was then only about 40, having been appointed when 39.He had been posted at 26. Another, the late Admiral Hope, who had been flag lieutenant to Admiral Corry in the Baltic, had been made a captain at 32. The third, now Admiral Lyons, had become a captain at 27. But it might be said that two of those officers had had war service in the Black Sea during the Crimean War; whilst the third, as he had said, had been a flag lieutenant. He would, therefore, take another case. In 1866 the Duke of Somerset, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, brought out a new Warrant for the promotion of commanders, and 31 were, as it were, by a single stroke of the pen, promoted on June 11, who had been serving, probably, in all parts of the world. As a very near relation of his own was amongst the number, the matter had the more impressed itself on his memory. Of these 31 officers, only four were over 40 years of age; one was 51, three were 40,or between that and 50. The remaining 27 were between 30 and 40. The junior of these—not in age, but in standing—had five and a-half years' standing as a commander. Their average age was between 37 and 38. These men were made post captains. Nowadays, a lieutenant would be rather fortunate to be made a commander at 32 or 33, and 37 would not be a bad average of age for that rank. He thought that the lieutenants had a very strong case; and he felt sure that his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty would give the matter his careful consideration, and do all he could for them consistently with the requirements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  LORD ELPHINSTONE (A LORD in WAITING)said, he must, in the first place, take the opportunity of thanking his noble Friend. (Lord Sudeley) for having so fully and so courteously explained the question he intended putting. He was not surprised at his calling attention to the subject, for it was one in which he knew his noble Friend took a deep interest, and he also remembered the very active and prominent part he took in the other House of Parliament when the

  513
  question of naval retirement was under discussion in 1870 and 1873. The Admiralty were keenly alive to the matter. The problem how to insure a steady and an uniform flow of promotion through the various ranks of the Naval Service was one that successive Boards of Admiralty had for many years been endeavouring to solve. And he could assure his noble Friend that the present Board were as anxious to find a solution as he was himself. He would endeavour to show the causes which had led to the present state of the lieutenant's list. It was unnecessary to refer to the earlier schemes of retirement, or to any anterior to that of 1870, when Mr. Childers, then First Lord of the Admiralty, re-organized the list and introduced his retirement scheme, which, with slight modifications, was the present scheme of naval retirement. Mr. Childers's object was to reduce the list, first, by a compulsory age retirement, and, secondly, by giving such an increase to the retiring pension as would not only induce officers to retire but would make them contented to do so. Two hundred and seventy officers accepted that retirement. Three years afterwards, in 1873, Mr. Goschen, who succeeded Mr. Childers as First Lord, still further increased the retiring pension, as it was found that officers were not retiring as quickly as it was hoped and expected that they would do. About 170 officers accepted the new retirement. Under the scheme of 1870, Mr. Childers desired that the numbers should be only sufficient for the actual requirements of the Service with reference to employment and not as outlets for promotion. He therefore fixed the number of admirals at 60, captains at 150, commanders at 200, and lieutenants at 600. But, fully recognizing the difficulty, or rather the absolute impossibility, of passing 600 lieutenants into a list of only 200 commanders, he increased the retiring allowance, and gave what was considered an adequate and a liberal compensation for loss of promotion. He saw, in fact, that it was quite out of the question to hope to pass every young officer who entered the Service through the various grades until he became an admiral. He therefore said, in effect—"If I am unable to promote you, I will at any rate give you a fair money compensation when you retire." He spoke
  514
  in the presence of a noble Earl opposite who was a Lord of the Admiralty at that time. He would correct him if he was wrong, but he said that the very essence of the retirement scheme of 1870 was that, where an officer could not be promoted—and it was perfectly clear that all could not be promoted—they should be liberally compensated on retirement. In 1875 the number of admirals was increased to 68, of captains to 175, of commanders to 225; and in 1879 the lieutenants' list was increased to 800. Now, if a difficulty existed in 1870, when 600 lieutenants had to be squeezed into a list of 200 commanders, that difficulty was the greater when 800 lieutenants had to be squeezed into a list of 225 commanders. In the same year—1879—it was determined that the masters or navigating line should be abolished, and that the duties of navigating should be undertaken by the lieutenants. The navigating line was gradually to die out, and the number of lieutenants was gradually to increase until it reached its maximum of 1,000, which it would do in about six years. Anyone who had followed him through the figures he had given would readily understand the cause of the present state of the lieutenants' lists, and the limited possibilities of those officers rising to the rank of commander. The noble Lord opposite had referred in terms of well-merited praise to lieutenants as a class. He echoed every word. He yielded to no one in his admiration of their zeal and ability, and of the way they had set themselves to keep pace with the altered conditions of the Service and of the requirements of the times; and he sympathized with them in the difficulty they experienced in obtaining that promotion which they naturally looked to as their reward. He said more. He said that the Admiralty sympathized, and sympathized deeply, especially with the senior and deserving officers for whom no promotion was to be found. The commanders' list stood at present at 225. The Admiralty, finding that they could usefully employ a larger number of commanders, proposed to increase that number by the addition of seven yearly, until the maximum of 270 was reached, and they were in communication with the Treasury upon the subject. This addition to the commanders' list would, to a certain extent, benefit the lieutenants.

  515
  At present two out of nine obtained commander's rank. If the proposed change were carried out, two out of seven would obtain their promotion. In former times the number was about one in every 15. The noble Lord opposite proposed that lieutenants should be allowed to claim their retirement after 10 years' service as lieutenants. Under the existing regulations a lieutenant might claim his retirement with the rank of commander at the age of 40; but, were his noble Friend's suggestion carried out, a lieutenant would be entitled to claim his retirement at the age of from 30 to 35, at the very time when his services could be least dispensed with, and his experience was most valuable, and irrespective of the requirements of the Service at the time. At the present moment there were 875 lieutenants on the active list; and if this suggestion were carried out no less than 243, or more than one-fourth, could claim their retirement. Take this case. There were 88 lieutenants serving in the Mediterranean, 19 of whom were over 10 years' seniority; therefore, nearly one-fourth could insist upon retirement. Under the Order in Council of 1870 lieutenants could retire at any time, with the consent of the Admiralty, no matter what their seniority might be. The Admiralty were the best judges as to the present requirements of the Service, and they were and must be the sole judges as to the prospective requirements of the Service. To them, and to them alone, must be left the option of consent or non-consent to the application of an officer wishing to retire at an age under that fixed by the Order in Council of 1870. The Admiralty had no wish to compel any officer to serve against his will, nor was it to the interests of the Service that any reluctant or discontented officer should be retained whose services could properly be dispensed with, but so long as the lieutenants' list was below the proper strength and there were no officers available on half-pay, as was the case as present, they were bound to refuse applications to retire before the age established by the Order in Council of 1870, save in very exceptional cases. With regard to the suggestion that lieutenants should receive an increase of 2s. a-day after eight years' seniority, with a further increase
  516
  of 2s. after 12 years' seniority, instead of as, at present, 2s. after 10 years, he must remind his noble Friend that the actual amount received by a very large proportion of the lieutenants was greater now than at any former time, and that out of 875 lieutenants no less than 337 were in receipt of additional pay, varying from 1s. a-day to a possible 8s. as first lieutenant and gunnery lieutenant of a rated ship. He could only repeat that the Admiralty were fully alive to the matter. They were desirous of taking such steps as were feasible to improve the position of the lieutenants without departure from the principles laid down by the Order in Council of 1870, and they were giving the matter their fullest, their serious, and their most earnest consideration.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was at the Admiralty in 1870 and was familiar with the terms of the Order in Council of that year. This question of promotion and retirement was a question which had always been occupying the attention of the Admiralty, and would continue to occupy their attention so long as the Admiralty existed. When in 1868 Mr. Childers had this question of promotion and retirement brought under his notice the evils of the system had reached a very high pitch. The condition of things then was altogether different from that which now prevailed. The references that evening had been confined to one rank of officers; but with regard to the other ranks there had been an enormous block on the captains' list, and the same remark applied to other classes of officers. The principle which Mr. Childers applied consistently to every rank in the Navy was this. In the first place, he reduced the number; in the next place, he laid down the principle that in future establishments of each rank should be in proportion to the number of officers whom it was found impossible to employ, and not in reference to the number of other lists. He believed that principle to be a most important one, and he trusted that the Admiralty would never give it up. But beyond that Mr. Childers recognized that it would be impossible to promote all the officers of the various ranks, and therefore for the first time he instituted a very large and liberal scale of retirement. He would undertake to say that

  517
  the scale of retirement in the Navy would compare very favourably indeed with that of any other Service either in this country or any other. It was quite true that it was perfectly impossible to promote 1,000 lieutenants with a list of some 250 commanders, and therefore their Lordships must at once recognize the absolutely certain fact that a large number of lieutenants never could be promoted, and by no scheme that ingenuity could devise would it be possible to effect that object. Well, then, what wore the Admiralty to do? It must give them an adequate retiring allowance. That was a matter which rested entirely with the Admiralty, and their Lordships must look to the Admiralty to do that which was right. With regard to the proposed addition to the list of commanders, he did not, of course, profess to be able to judge how much employment there was for the commanders; but he hoped the Admiralty would exercise a very diligent scrutiny in this regard and take care not to create more commanders than they could find employment for, because that could only add eventually to the numbers of the discontented. It would be useless and prejudicial to the Service to make an addition to the commanders' list simply as a sort of sop to the lieutenants in the hope that by promoting a few just now they might allay the discontent owing to the necessary want of employment. His noble Friend had spoken of the inadequate pay of the lieutenants; but he omitted, to notice certain allowances which they received, and it must not be supposed that the pay was on the same footing as in 1841. Again, the proposition that a lieutenant should have an absolute option of retiring at the age of 32, as suggested by his noble Friend (Lord Sudeley)—considering that for five years, from 13 to 18, the country educated naval officers, and that at the latter ago their services really commenced—was surely one that was not advanced in a serious manner; at all events, he did not believe it was one which the country was likely to accept. He thought that there was no Naval Service in the world in which the officers were treated more liberally than the British.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, he could not agree that an adequate scheme of retirement would meet the necessity of
  518
  the case. An officer who was still a lieutenant at the age of 35 was placed in an entirely false position, for he could not find any possible pursuit on shore. In the interests of the Service it was not so much a question of money as of early promotion or of the officer being allowed to retire at an age when he might find some employment on shore. He remembered Lord Palmerston saying that the great object of the Military and Naval Services was promotion and not pay, and he hoped the Admiralty would give their j attention, not so much to the subject of | increased remuneration of officers as to their early promotion when lieutenants. He would now take the opportunity to ask the Question standing in his name with regard to interpreters. The number of officers qualified as interpreters was very much below that which was found in almost any other Navy in the world. There were about 90 officers of various ranks who are qualified so to act. Out of those not above 16 or 18 were qualified in French, only four in German, and about two in Italian. All the rest were officers qualified in Eastern languages which might or might not be extremely useful, but certainly not so much in the Naval Service as a thorough knowledge of the leading European languages. In the German Service there was hardly an officer who was not a thorough English and French scholar, and the same might be said with regard to Russia. Every Russian officer not only spoke excellent English, but was also thoroughly conversant with French, and most with German. He therefore wished to know whether the Admiralty would give further encouragement to the junior classes of Naval officers to qualify themselves to act as interpreters.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he wished to express his entire concurrence in the expressions which had been, made use of with regard to the high merits of the large class of lieutenants. There was no branch of the gallant and distinguished service which deserved more encouragement than the lieutenants of the Navy. It had constantly been a subject of great regret to successive First Lords of the Admiralty that they were unable to grant promotion to a great many of this class, whose claims they thoroughly acknowledged. He approved of the policy which the noble Lord opposite had told them the Admi-

  519
  ralty were about to follow. If it could be done with a duo regard to the interests of the public service, he thought it was wise to increase the number of commanders and thereby give additional promotion to lieutenants. It would not be to the advantage of the Service if the commanders' list was to be largely increased without additional employment being found for them; but, owing to the amalgamation of the navigating officers with the lieutenants, and the increase in the number of small vessels, he believed that such employment might be found. He thought that the Admiralty were right in effecting the change gradually. The responsibility must naturally rest upon the Admiralty, and he could entirely confirm what had been said with regard to Sir A. Hoskins, to whose particular branch this question referred, and in whose hands this matter was placed. For this reason he, for his own part, felt great confidence in the view which the Admiralty had taken of this matter, and he trusted that the proposals which the noble Lord had told them were about to be made would receive the assent of all the authorities concerned, because they would give considerable encouragement to the older lieutenants on the list, by holding out a greater prospect of promotion, which they wanted more than increased pay or speedier retirement from the Service.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, that he always received his instructions from the Admiralty before he answered Questions which were placed on the Paper, and his answer to the Question of the noble Viscount (Viscount Sidmouth) was that the Admiralty fully appreciated the desirability of the junior officers acquiring a knowledge of foreign languages, and their attention had been called to the matter in connection with the Britannia course of instruction, but the Admiralty did not propose to hold out any hope of further pecuniary inducement.

LAND IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he rose to call attention to the question of improvements made on their estates by owners of land in Ireland; and to move for a Return in tabular form of—I.
  520
  Totals of Loans by the Board of Public Works in Ireland for land improvement made between 1847 and 1881 inclusive to owners of land for (a) Erection of farmhouses and offices; (b) Labourers' cottages; (c) Drainage, reclamation, and improvement of lands; II. Totals of Loans between the same years to Drainage Boards; III. and IV. Similar Re-turns since 1881. He was impelled to move for this Return in consequence of the statements made in the debate on the second reading of the Irish land Bill by his noble Friend Earl Cowper, who had been both Lord Lieutenant and also President of the late Royal Commission, and whose utterances therefore commanded such attention, and had been, indeed, since quoted in another place against the landlords by a late Minister. His noble Friend had then rather astonished him by saying that the impression left upon his mind by the inquiries he had made—whilst presiding over the Royal Commission—was that except upon as many estates as one could count upon one's fingers, the landlords had not been in the habit of making in any expenditure upon their estates, and that in cases where the tenants had effected improvements it had been a general custom with the landlords to raise the rents. He had only one word to say with regard to the latter point, and he would say that first of all. He had no doubt read of such cases in the Press, and he had heard of one single case of late years on the part of a gentleman who was now dead, but he denied that the practice was a general one. With regard to the question of expenditure, he entirely dissented from the statement of the noble Earl. He was prepared to admit that in former days it was not the custom for landowners to spend money upon their estates. But to take the case of the North of Ireland, which had been settled by the plantation of Ulster in the reign of James I.—which was a colonizing scheme—it was governed by the rules of the Plantation, and one of the most important provisions of that system was the giving very long leases for lives or for other long terms, which grew into a custom. Upon that he did not believe much improvement was made until the middle or end of the last century. They gathered from the

  521
  very interesting account given of a tour by Mr. Arthur Young in Ireland in 1776, that an extensive system of overcropping then prevailed among the tenants. That clearly showed that no agricultural value could have been added to the land at that time or, indeed, for a very long time afterwards. He believed that in the latter part of the last century landlords were alive to the desirability of the maintenance of their estates, and by way of illustration he might say that he had in his possession the counterpart of a lease granted by the first Earl of Belmore in 1795, in which, in addition to rent, the tenant was bound to make some 50 yards of fences every year, and plant trees along them, during the term of a lease for three lives, or else pay 8s. extra a year. Further, he had to build two farmhouses or cottages or pay a small penalty. When the lease fell in all these improvements were to belong to the landlord, and all this was fully understood by the tenant. He always maintained that the landlord paid for the improvement by taking a smaller rent for the farm than he otherwise would have taken if he had to pay separately for the improvements made. The tenant was thus paid for his improvement by the long lease of his farm at a low rent. In modern times the landlords had spent large sums of money in improving their estates. There were some estates which, no doubt, his noble Friend had in his mind's eye when he spoke of landlords who did not make all the improvements themselves. But these, which were generally known as the English managed estates, were very exceptional, probably not more than five. There were landlords who had spent in improvements large sums obtained from the Board of Works, which sums could be shown in a Return made to Parliament. It was impossible on some estates to show how much had been spent on home farming, or how much upon improving the estate, but there was no doubt that in the aggregate it amounted to a very large sum of money. But besides that, there was another very large source of expenditure which it was impossible almost to get at—namely, the money paid for timber and slates allowed to-tenants by landlords in many parts of the country. He understood that there had been a very large expenditure in that direction
  522
  by the late Duke of Abercorn, in addition to a large amount of loans borrowed from the Board of Works. The late Earl of Caledon also had, he had heard, made a largo outlay in improvements on his estates after the famine time. He therefore felt that it was extremely unfair that landlords who had made sacrifices in this way should be condemned, as they had been condemned by implication in the statement of his noble Friend (Earl Cowper). He quite admitted that his noble Friend had a perfect right to form his own opinion. But in moving for this Return of money spent on their estates by improving landlords between the years 1848 and 1881, he wished to show their Lordships that the great bulk of the landlords in Ireland did not neglect the duties of their position, and spent large sums in providing for the welfare of their tenantry. He believed that some expenditure had been made since 1881, and he, therefore, included a head for such, in his Motion, and also for loans made to Drainage Boards, the interest of which would be paid partly by tenants and partly by landlords.
  Moved, That there be laid before this House Return, in tabular form, of—
  "I. Totals of Loans by the Board of Public Works in Ireland for land improvement made between 1847 and 1881, inclusive, to owners of land for

  (a) Erection of farm houses and offices;

  (b) Labourers' cottages;

  (c) Drainage, reclamation, and improvement of lands:

  II. Totals of Loans between the same years to Drainage Boards:
  III. and IV. Similar Returns, since 1881."—(The Earl of Belmore.)
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)said, there was no objection on the part of the Government to the Return being given for which the noble Earl moved. It should be laid on the Table as soon as possible.
  EARL COWPERsaid, that as reference had been made to some observations of his he desired to say a few words. He was exceedingly sorry if he gave any cause for annoyance or dissatisfaction to any noble Lords in that House. His remarks on the point referred to were quite unpremeditated, and were called forth by the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) who, speaking the same night earlier in the debate, had found fault with the

  523
  Land Act of 1881 on the ground that it stopped all improvements on the part of landlords. In answering that argument of the noble Duke, he pointed out that he did not believe that improvements as a rule were made by the landlords—that they were, in fact, usually made by the tenants, and that the only plan was to encourage tenants to make improvements, and to protect such improvements when made. He qualified his remarks by saying that "until recently" one could count on one's fingers the Irish estates on which improvements were made by the landlords. He was very glad that the Government had granted the Return, as he felt sure that the improvements which had been made by the landlords ought to be known to the public generally. In the course of the inquiry, which with the other members of the Commission, he recently made in Ireland, the question was often put as to the difference between the net and the gross income of an estate, and the difference was usually represented at 15 per cent. In some cases it was put at 20 per cent. This included agency and rates, and was very much less than was the case upon English estates. He would appeal to any noble Lord present to state whether he was not under the mark in saying that in one form or another fully one-half of the nominal income went back upon the land. In the case of a friend of his own, the owner of 70,000 acres, the carefully-kept accounts of the estate showed that in 22 years no less than £930,390 had been expended on the land and in improvements. In the face of those figures he thought he was justified in saying that as a rule improvements had been made in Ireland by the tenant, and in many cases the rent had been raised upon such improvements. Members of that House who were Irish landlords could not be taken as typical of the class of Irish landlords. Many landlords in Ireland had, owing to the improvidence of their ancestors, been placed in very straitened circumstances, and cases of rents being raised on improvements made by the tenant certainly had frequently occurred. As he had said, he should be glad to see this Return furnished, so that it might be shown what landlords had done in this matter. He fully realized that Irish landlords were at the present time,
  524
  owing to no fault of their own, in a very difficult position. Many of them were trying to do their duty under very adverse circumstances, and he was sorry if he said anything that caused offence to them.
  THE EARL OF ERNEsaid, he was sorry that the noble Lord had not withdrawn the statements more fully than he had done. Such statements, coming from one who had filled the high position of Viceroy, and who lately presided over an important Royal Commission in Ireland, could not fail to unduly prejudice public opinion against the Irish landlords in the settlement of the Irish Land Question, which now could not be very far distant. He merely rose to express his regret that this was not done, and to give one reason why Irish landlords could not improve their estates in the way that English landlords did, and that was the immense number of small holdings that existed on most of them. He had taken some figures on the subject from a Return which had been made to their Lordships' House. Prom this Return it appeared that there were 660,000 agricultural holdings in Ireland. Of these 415,000, or nearly two-thirds, were under £10 rental, and of these 215,000 were under £5 rental, while the average value of the holdings in that country was only £13 and a fraction each. Now, under these circumstances, was it possible for Irish landlords to improve their estates in the same way as English landlords? Nevertheless, the Irish landlords had spent large sums of money on improvements, as can be shown by the statistics asked for; and, in addition, had given very large remissions of rent to their tenants to aid them in making them. He believed that in many cases these improvements, which had been made with money given by the landlord, had been confiscated by the Sub-commissioners when fixing the judicial rents.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the speech of his noble Friend (Earl Cowper) failed to show that the criticisms which he had recently passed on the Act of 1881 were ill founded. His noble Friend said that it was the object of that Act to secure to the tenant the benefit of his improvements. Of that object of the measure he entirely approved. But he must point out that the promoters of the measure also intended

  525
  to secure to the landlords a fair share of the benefits of the improvements made by them. By the proviso at the end of Section 5 permission was given to increase the rent of a holding, subject to a statutory term in respect of capital laid out by the landlord on improvements. This proviso, in fact, allowed free contract between landlord and tenant in a material particular. Unfortunately, the provision was rendered worthless by the rule that at the expiration of every 15 years a tenant might ask for a revision of his rent. Fifteen years was not in itself a sufficiently long term to secure the repayment of capital spent on improvements and interest thereon, and as the rent might be revised at the end of that term, the landlord could not be certain that his improvements would be paid for. There was no probability whatever, under the Act of 1881, that a landlord would effect any improvements on the land held by his tenants, for he could not be sure that he would ever recover the capital spent upon them. That was the great defect of the Act. With reference to the question of raising rent on a tenant's improvements, he would like to know whether those who condemned the practice so vehemently disapproved what were called "improvement leases." In England leases of that kind were common. A tenant was granted a lease at a low rent in consideration of the improvements which he might affect, and at the end of a given period the rent could be raised. Surely there could be no objection to a contract of that sort. As to the Return which had been asked for, he feared that it would not cover the whole ground. It would not present any estimate of the amount of assistance given by landlords to the small tenantry in the improvement of their cottages. Landlords often contributed slates, wood, and lime—in other words, all that cost money—towards the improvement of thatched cottages, while the tenants only contributed the labour. If the system of landowning was to continue in Ireland, some means ought to be taken to encourage landlords to lay out capital on the land. Modifications ought to be introduced into the Act of 1881 for the purpose of rendering unassailable bargains made by landlords with their tenants with a view to the improvement of the land. In the absence of such
  526
  modifications landlords would not ex-spend a single farthing. He could conceive no greater calamity than that the whole rental of a country should be withdrawn out of the fund which, in happier circumstances, would be available for agricultural purposes. In Ireland there was still a vast field for the introduction of agricultural improvements, a great portion of the country being absolutely unreclaimed. He trusted that some system would be devised under which landlords would be encouraged to make improvements.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, in reply, that the noble Earl (Earl Cowper) had, in making his comparison between what he thought the small expenditure of Irish landlords, with the large amounts spent by English ones, entirely omitted to notice the very valuable tenant-right interest of the Irish farmers in their farms, which, of course, the English ones, who did not make improvements, did not acquire. To make a fair comparison this should be taken into account.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.