Lords Sitting of 25 May 1897

JURIES DETENTION BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments. The Report thereof to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended.—[No. 98.]
EXCISE LICENCES BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to consolidate the enactments granting and relating to the duties payable upon excise licences—Was presented by Viscount Peel: Read 1a; to be printed; and to be Read 2a on Tuesday next.—[No. 99.]

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE)rose to move the Second Reading of this Bill. He said: In the Education Bill which was introduced in the other House last Session, clauses were contained which, besides providing for a certain amount of assistance to Voluntary Schools, were intended also to meet the case of the acknowledged grievance of the excessive educational burden in some School Board districts, and when the Bill which had passed through Parliament this Session was introduced dealing only with the question of aid to Voluntary Schools, a pledge was given that a further Measure would be brought in, if time permitted, giving a certain amount of assistance to districts where the pressure upon the ratepayers has been found to be unduly excessive, and this Bill has been introduced and passed through the other House in pursuance of that pledge. I am perfectly aware that this Measure is considered by some noble Lords opposite as being very inadequate. I do not imagine, however, inadequate as they may conceive it to be, that it is likely to meet with any more opposition here than it
1218
met with in the other House, and, therefore, I do not think it will be necessary for me to enter into any elaborate explanation of the details of this Bill. If I were to attempt to give such an explanation it would of necessity be rather intricate and complicated. But probably the proposals of the Government, after the discussions in the other House, are already tolerably well understood by those who take any considerable interest in the subject, and I am afraid that I must despair of being able to make the details of the Measure clear to those who have not already taken any such interest in the matter. It may, therefore, be sufficient for me to say that this Bill is an extension and to some degree a. modification of the 97th Section of the Education Act of 1870. That clause is itself rather complicated in character, and, indeed, has not been fully understood. It has not been understood by all the School Boards to which it applies, for it was found in the discussions of last year that a considerable number of School Boards which would have been able to claim some assistance under this section had always omitted to do so, and the amount that had been claimed since the Debates of last year called attention to the matter has considerably increased the payments made under the section, which was explained in 1870 by Mr. Gladstone in the other House. It was supposed at that time that the expenditure on school maintenance in Board Schools as well as in Voluntary Schools would not exceed the sum of 27s. or 28s. per child in average attendance, and that in addition to the annual grants provided by the Government and the fees which the schools would receive from the children an expenditure of not more than 7s. 6d. per child in average attendance would have to be provided from the rates. In districts where the 3d. rate would be sufficient to provide this amount of 7s. 6d. it was thought that the burden on the locality would not be excessive, and the section had no application to them; but where the district was so poor, or where the number of children who had to be educated in Board Schools was so large, that a 3d. rate would not provide the sum of 7s. 6d. per scholar in average attendance, the section made provisions for a special grant which should supplement the produce of a 3d. rate up to a

1219
limit of 7s. 6d. per child. But the expectations entertained at that time have not been fulfilled. The expenditure upon the maintenance of children in Board Schools now amounts on the average to a sum of over £2 10s. The Government subvention has been largely increased, and now amounts to £1 9s. 6d. per child; but, in spite of that increase in the Government grant, a balance is left over which has to be provided by the locality, amounting to 20s. 6d. per child instead of 7s. 6d., which was the estimate for 1870. These figures are only the figures for the average maintenance of schools. Besides this, the School Boards have to find for interest on loans, and for repayment of loans, a further amount of 14s. per child. They also have imposed upon them other expenses, such as those of management, election expenses, and the expenses of schools for the deaf and blind, and the total expenditure of School Boards out of the rates has now risen to the sum, of £2 2s., which is equivalent to a 9d. rate all over the country. The provision, therefore, which was made by Section 97 has proved inadequate to meet what were supposed to be the needs of the poorer School Boards, and in a great many districts in. the country the school rate has become abnormally high. If the expenditure per scholar in all School Boards had remained the same this state of things might have been met by a simple extension of the plan laid down in the 97th Section, which took into account only the two elements of the rateable value of districts and the number of children in attendance in School Boards. That plan, together with some adjustment of the actual rates, might have provided successfully for the increased School Board expenditure if that expenditure had not varied greatly in different districts. The expenditure necessarily varies according as the Board is called upon to provide for the whole of the children in a district, for a very large number of them, or for none at all, as is the ease in some localities. It varies also according to the character of the district. If the children can be educated in a very few large schools, the cost is, of course, less than where they have to be educated in a larger number of smaller schools. It varies also because it is found that higher salaries have to be paid to the teachers in certain districts than have to
1220
be paid in others. In attempting to deal with this question, therefore, it has been found necessary to introduce an additional element into the plan of the 97th Section —an element additional to that of rateable value, and to that of the number of children in Board Schools. We have had to take into consideration the amount of the rate which has been found to be necessary to provide for the expenses of the School Boards. This Bill, therefore, proposes to do away with a, fixed limit of 7s. 6d., and to substitute in its place a sliding scale by which that limit is increased in a certain proportion to the rate levied. The subvention, which it is proposed to give will be increased, not in direct proportion to the amount of the school rate, which might evidently lead to undue expenditure and extravagance, but in a ratio which will be ascertained by putting together the three elements of rateable value, the number of children in the schools, and the amount of the rate which it has been found necessary to levy in order to meet the expenses of the Board. Perhaps I may explain the operation of the Bill by giving one or two examples of the way in which it will work in certain districts principally affected. I take, in the first place, the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire, where the population is engaged chiefly in mining. There the School Board has to provide for an average attendance of 3,074 children. The produce of a 3d. rate per scholar is only 3s. 6d.; the rate in the pound is 1s. 6d., and the limit of the Section in this case will be raise by this Bill from 7s. 6d. to 12s. 6d., and the grant per head which it is estimated the district will receive will be 9s. in lieu of 4s., which it now receives. The total subvention which it will get will be £1,385, instead of £616. Still more important is the county borough of West Ham in the county of Essex, which is practically a suburb of East London. A very large working population, chiefly employed in various industries in London, is collected there, and education is carried on almost entirely in Board Schools. West Ham has an average attendance of 33,024 children; the produce of the 3d. rate is 6s. 3d., the School Board rate in the pound is 2s. 2d., and the limit will be raised under this Bill from 7s. 6d. to 15s. 2d., and the grant per head of the children in average attendance will be raised from 1s. 3d. to 8s. 11d.,

1221
while, the county borough of West Ham will receive a, subvention of £14,723 in lieu of £2,064. There are other districts not equally necessitous, but which still educate a. very large proportion of their children in the Board Schools, which will receive help of varying amounts, though considerably smaller. Such places as Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Nottingham, Portsmouth, Sheflield, Sunderland, and Swansea will all receive certain amounts, but not nearly so large as those to which I have referred. There are, on the other hand, other districts in which the 3d. rate produces a very considerable sum per scholar—in other words, a small rate provides for a very considerable expenditure, and they will not receive any benefit at all under this Measure. Such districts are London, Liverpool, Manchester, Brighton, Bristol, and Newcastle. In those places the 3d. rate produces £1, or even more, per head of the scholars in average attendance. There are other districts less wealthy where the resources which they possess in the rates do not, as it is believed, give them any special claim on account of their poverty to receive any assistance from the extension which it is proposed to give to the 97th Section of the Act. I think, on the whole, it may be said that this relief will be given in cases whore the need is the most urgent. No attempt to equalise the educational burden in every part of the country would be possible unless, as some have desired, the cost of education were made a national instead of a local charge; but so long as the settlement of 1870 is maintained, and it is admitted that to a large extent the burden of education is to remain a local charge, this Bill appears to go in the direction of alleviating the most pressing and the most obvious grievances and inequalities which exist under the present system. The total annual cost of the subvention to School Boards is estimated at nearly £154,000. The similar grants under the present system are £43,000; and therefore the Bill will entail an extra cost of.£110,600. The present Measure will afford a larger measure of relief to the necessitous School Boards than the proposal which was contained in the Bill of last year, the total cost of which for poor School Boards was estimated at £89,000. It may, perhaps, be imagined by some that this proposal, while introducing a new element in the
1222
amount of the School Board rate, may lead to extravagant administration. It might have done so but for the fact that the aid which it is proposed to give is restricted to those districts where a 3d. rate produces less than a certain sum per child, or where the rateable value, compared with the number of scholars, falls below a certain amount. In such cases it is obvious that a School Board cannot provide for the average expenditure which is found necessary in School Boards generally, except by a very much larger rate than an average rate exceeding the aver-ago rate over the country of 9d. It has been ascertained by careful examination that in the most extreme cases which could be produced, a district, in order to obtain an additional grant from the Treasury, would have to tax itself to at least three tunes that amount, and in a great majority of cases it would have to tax itself by a rate exceeding five or six times any amount that could be expected from the Treasury. In such cases I think extravagant administration in districts so poor is almost impossible. On the contrary, what is most to be apprehended in the case of poor School Board districts like these is rather an undue economy than any tendency towards extravagance. I have no wish to enter on any controversial matters. I have no reason to suppose-that the Bill is likely to meet with much opposition, but I submit this proposal with some confidence in opposition to that which I understand has found favour with some noble Lords opposite. It was suggested, I think, in our Debates on the Voluntary Schools Bill, that a fairer arrangement, and one which would have met no opposition from the other side, would have been an equal grant of 5s. per head in Voluntary and Board Schools all round. That proposal would have given less than the present humble proposal which we have, to make to those districts which appear to require it most. It seems to me that it would have involved a very large additional expenditure, and if the money were not actually wasted in unnecessary and extravagant expenditure, at least it may be said that it was not required. Any part of 5s. a head, if given to the London School Board, would not even have the effect of relieving the London ratepayers to an equal extent. A part of it would undoubtedly have gone to increase expenditure, which, in the

1223
opinion of many, is already excessive. It would have had the effect of increasing and intensifying the competition, especially in the matter of teachers' salaries, which makes it difficult for Voluntary Schools to exist in London and other large towns. It was not needed in such places in order to secure efficiency. It is admitted that the Board Schools in London and other great and wealthy towns are already efficient, and are made efficient without any extravagant claim being made on the resources of the ratepayers. It is extremely difficult to meet arguments which one fails to understand, and I cannot understand how any man who is of opinion that education is to remain a local charge, and to a certain extent a varying local charge, can argue that it it would be just to apply an equal subvention from. Imperial funds to those districts in which that charge is a heavy one, and in some cases almost an intolerable one, as well as to those other districts in which experience has shown that it is a comparatively light and easily borne charge. I have endeavoured to give a very short—and I hope tolerably clear—statement of what is rather an intricate and complicated question; and I venture with some confidence to move the Second Reading of the Bill. [Cheers.]
*LORD PLAYFAIRsaid that this Bill for aiding necessitous Board Schools was necessarily linked to the Act which had been passed for aiding necessitous Voluntary Schools, but they were to be aided in very different proportions. There were two and a half millions of children in Voluntary Schools, and two millions in Board Schools. As the Act for Voluntary Schools gave to them at the rate of 5s. per child, the natural expectation was that the same amount per child should be given to the Board Schools, but this Bill only gave them about one-fifth the amount. The Act gave to Voluntary Schools upwards of £600,000, and to the Board Schools £110,000. The Education Department might try, and, he hoped, would succeed, in making increased efficiency one of the conditions for increased grants, but as that was not the motive of the Measures, the Department would have a hard struggle to attain it. Those who, like the Bishop of Chester, approved of Lord Hugh Cecil's party cry that Voluntary Schools have a
1224
right to consider that "tenure by subscriptions is essentially a tenure by blackmail," would certainly look upon the new grant of £600,000 as a relief Act and not as an educational Act. When the Government announced their intention of giving substantial relief to Voluntary Schools he welcomed the proposal, as he aided Mr. Forster in 1870, and had always valued their great aid to educational progress. He did not grudge in the least the £600,000 given to them, but he strongly regretted that the opportunity was not taken to secure that the sum should be so applied as not only to maintain but increase their efficiency as a great agency for educational progress. This smaller Measure for rate relief to poor Board Schools, which was now to be read a Second time, might, to the extent to which it went, increase the efficiency of education, but only to a small degree. It was the fashion—one which had been much encouraged by the Vice President of the Council—to decry the management and efficiency of rural Board Schools. No doubt there were a good many inferior rural Board Schools, as there were also a good many inferior rural Voluntary Schools, but there was no evidence from the educational statistics that there was any marked difference in rural schools, whether they were managed by School Boards or by Voluntary agencies. He had beside him the returns of 209 rural Voluntary Schools in 12 typical counties, and of 161 Board Schools in the same counties, the result being that the Board Schools paid their teachers an average of 2s. per child more, and that they obtained an average grant of 6d. per child more than the Voluntary Schools. There could, then, be no justification in treating these schools as inferior to Voluntary Schools by giving them only one-fifth of the grant given to the former. The Bill would no doubt become law, but it would leave in the minds of a large portion of the public the impression that, whether these Measures be viewed as relief Bills or as educational Bills, they had given five or six times as much public money to the irresponsible managers of Voluntary Schools as to the accredited and elected educational representatives of the nation. Of the 2,500 School Boards throughout the country, about 1,500 were voluntarily formed by the ratepayers, but 1,000 were

1225
compulsorily formed to supply the deficiencies in education not covered by the voluntary system. If the Voluntary Schools might justly claim recognition for relief on account of their voluntary money contributions, surely the 1,000 School Boards, which had to make compulsory contributions under the mandate of the State, might have looked to an equal measure of relief. They had not obtained it, and the Government need not be surprised if many educationists did not accept this Bill as a final settlement of the question. The two Measures which would soon become law might have been so framed that the largely increased grant of about three-quarters of a million, while it relieved tension in subscriptions raid rates, might also have greatly increased educational efficiency. The opportunity had been lost, and it was quite certain that before long an agitation for a modification of the Acts would arise in the country, probably from the supporters of both branches of schools.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK, dealing with Lord Playfair's criticisms, said the Board Schools, though they did not receive the same amount of public money from the funds of the State, received a vast amount of public money in the shape of rates, of which the Voluntary Schools were altogether deprived. [Cheers.] If they were to vote at one time 5s. per head to the Voluntary Schools and 5s. to the Board Schools, they would simply increase the competition, and put upon the Voluntary Schools an additional burden which they were attempting to alleviate at the present moment. He was far from saying that the time might not come when there might not be a reconsideration of many things in connection with education, but at present they were dealing with comparatively small matters. The Voluntary Schools supplied an enormous gap in education—nay, they supplied an amount of education prior to the School Boards which was not only enormous, but was increasing and growing rapidly, and which, even in spite of their being deprived of State grants and other things, had increased enormously since, without calling on the public for money from the rates or from the funds. That being so, they had gone to the expense of a large additional subsidy to the Voluntary Schools,
1226
because, if they had not done so, the chances were that the Voluntary Schools would have fallen, and a far larger demand would have been made both upon the rates and the public funds. They had increased the efficiency and expense of education, and that was the reason why they must make increased demands on the public purse, and by that means, too, necessitous Board Schools, where they were necessitous, would also benefit. If, when the experiment was tried, it should be found that something more should be done, no doubt it would be done in due time. Though he should have wished to see larger pleasures than these, he welcomed both the Voluntary Schools and the Board Schools Bills. The former afforded the means of maintaining the schools which had done great work in the past, and still had great work to do, and by the latter he trusted that the necessitous Board Schools would be able to work fur the advantage of education. ["Hear, hear!"]
*LORD REAYsaid that the objection to this Bill was not that relief had been given to the Voluntary Schools, but that the relief to be given to the Board Schools was not adequate, and placed those schools in a condition of inferiority. Why should Unit be? Whatever progress had been made in the matter of primary education in this country had been mainly due to the Board Schools. In many instances they had been in advance of the requirements of the Department, and they had shown a mastery of the subject of education which had been admired all over Europe. They had dealt not only with mental instruction, but in many cases had promoted manual instruction, which was of the greatest importance in primary education. The Board Schools had been accused of extravagance. What had the late Archbishop of Canterbury said: —
"He should not be so very Lard upon it, because the Board School was a magnificent system, which had been set on foot in a grand manner, and had done wonders for the education of the people, and also stimulated the education given in Church schools."
And how did the expenditure compare with that of the Swiss Canton of Zurich? The town of Zurich in 1896 spent two millions of francs on its primary,

1227
secondary, and technical schools, or 13 to 14 francs per head of the population. The town of Winterthur, with a population of 20,000, spent, in 1895, 326,000 francs, or more than 16 francs per head of the population, on education. In addition there was a contribution from the canton of about 3½ francs per head of the population. The total expenditure was £4 per head for every child in the elementary schools; one-third of the whole expenditure of the canton was devoted to education. It was alleged against the Board Schools that they did not give definite religious education. The syllabus of the London School Board did not bear out this allegation. What did The Guardian —an impartial authority—say on the 15th July last year of the syllabus of the London School Board?
"It is our firm conviction that if the Conservative Party in the country had to declare, by ballot, the kind of religious instruction they think most suitable to the children in elementary schools, a majority of them would be quite content with the syllabus of the London School Board minus the circular."
The late Archbishop of Canterbury said i on this subject: —
"I am persuaded that in a very great number of Board Schools there is very good religious teaching indeed."
and the Bishop of Durham said that—
"It had been a constant encouragement to him to notice the work done in Board Schools, and the loyal and true conditions under which the religious instruction was given."
The Blue-book on religious teaching in Board Schools also showed that the results were very satisfactory. The Board School teacher was as conscientious in his teaching as the teacher in the Voluntary School. They were trained at the same denominational colleges, and teachers who had been transferred from Voluntary to Board Schools denied that the religious teaching in the latter was inferior to that in the former. The legitimate requirements of the parents are certainly met. Besides, the Board Schools would be discredited if they did not give the religious teaching which the parents desired. As to the Scotch system, there were very erroneous notions abroad. It was quite true that it gave much more latitude to the School Boards with regard to the nature of the religious teaching. The representatives
1228
of the ratepayers, who were also the' representatives of the parents, had absolute freedom in this matter, and the use which they had made of that freedom was to a great extent the cause of the success and of the popularity of the Board Schools in Scotland. It was true that the Shorter Catechism was taught in the majority of Scottish Board Schools with the assent of the parents, but by teachers who were appointed and under the direct control of the Boards, and with no control from the clergy except in so far as the clergy were the elected representatives of the ratepayers on the Boards. He was pleased to sec that in another place the First Lord of the Treasury had praised the Scottish system; and if primary education were to be paid for out of public funds, there was no doubt that the Scotch system gave the best guarantees for efficient and property organised education. But this Bill dealt with the pressure of the rate in the School Board districts in England. In the rural districts, as had been admitted by the Vice President of the Council, the situation could only be improved by widening the area over which the rate was levied. There was no justification for a smaller grant being given to the rural parish which had a Board School than to one which had no Board School. There was no reason why in a rural parish with a School Board the ratepayers should have to contribute more than those individuals who supported the Voluntary School in another parish. He could not see why a premium should be placed on the absence of a School Board. A parish with a high rate could be as necessitous as a parish where the school was supported by voluntary contributions. It might be said that the Rating Bill of last year gave relief to the rural districts. That was only true in as far as relief was given to the occupiers of land, but no relief was given to the occupiers of houses. The Assessment Committees were quite free in making deductions from the gross letting value. It was quite clear that if an Assessment Committee made a large deduction from the gross letting value, there would be a lower rateable value, and by so much the chance of getting aid under this Bill would be increased, as against a locality where the rateable value was nearer to the gross letting value. Besides, there

1229
were many places with a high rate which would get less or no help which other places with a low rate would obtain. In London there was a rate of 1s., and there were 422,000 children in average attendance. The rates which the School Board would have to pay on its school buildings were estimated this year at £103,000. if London wore to be put on the same footing for its Board Schools as for its Voluntary Schools, also with regard to the grant of 5s. per board scholar, it might claim more than £200,000. Again, Plymouth would get nothing, while Devonport would be aided, simply because it had a lower rateable value on account of the rates on the Government buildings being paid by the Government. There was a theory that the State simply contracted for results. That was a theory which lie could not admit. The State was responsible for the education of the country, and could not divest itself of this responsibility. It was the duty of the State to stimulate local effort, and to give financial aid on equitable principles. It was because lie considered that the Bill deviated from those equitable principles, that he did not believe, it would give that stability to our educational system which was needed. ["Hear, hear!"]
*LORD NORTONsaid that it seemed to him that the criticisms of the Bill were founded on the idea that the proposal of u Treasury Grant for Voluntary Schools and the proposal for relieving the rates of Board Schools were intended to meet a claim of a similar character. That was not so. There was not the slightest relation between the claims of the Voluntary Schools and the claims of the Board Schools. To say, therefore, that it was an unfair thing to give 5s. per head to the one and only 1s. per head to the other, was to say that it was an unfair thing to give money in different amounts for any two totally different objects. The Voluntary Schools gave the public £2,000,000 a year in contribution out of private purses for elementary education, and what these schools required the Treasury grant for was to enable them to carry on the higher branches of education which had been added to their original volunteer. It was positively to save that £2,000,000 a year which was given by the Voluntary Schools that the Treasury
1230
came in and said, "As a larger requirement is made now we must meet that requirement, or we shall lose the work that is done by the Voluntary Schools." It was different in the matter of the Board Schools. In certain cases it was found difficult to raise a sufficient rate for the purpose of the Board Schools, and the Bill proposed that in those cases, and only in those cases, the burden should be transferred to a certain extent from the local rates to the Treasury. The whole question of subsidies from imperial and local taxes was a very fair question to raise. Some think that all public money necessary for national education should be provided out of Imperial funds. Such an arrangement would make the taxation fair, and it would avoid the jealousies raised by imposing local taxation for national education in the way of religious rivalry. Comparison had been made between the merits of the Board Schools and the merits of the Voluntary Schools. That had nothing to do with the matter. In the other House the Government were actually accused in bringing forward the first Bill of favouring Voluntary Schools, and with being ready to crush the Board Schools, and they were also told this little Bill offered only hush money to the Board Schools to be silent. The accusation was perfectly absurd and irrelevant. The Government were not favouring the Voluntary Schools, but they were trying to secure them to the country. They were not adverse to the Board Schools by facilitating their public support. He thought the Government were rather weak when they allowed this Bill to be treated as a necessary corollary to the other Bill, for the two Bills had really nothing to do with each other. He supposed it was to get votes for the first Bill, by conciliating opposition, that the Government allowed one to be tacked on to the other. But the Bill now before the House had its own fair claim. There were some places with sparse populations where the required amount of educational rate was difficult to raise, and in those cases it was very right that a portion of the burden of taxation for the schools should be transferred from the local rates to the Treasury. These two Measures were merely' temporary makeshifts until the whole subject of elementary and secondary education was dealt with, and he was glad to hear that that complete

1231
revision would be dealt with immediately by the Government. A large system of scientific instruction had been added to elementary education, and when they came to deal with the whole subject they would have to separate these two. When that happened neither of these two Measures would be wanted at all. Art apprenticeship would have to be made self-supporting, except in the way of providing scholarships for clever boys of the poorer classes. To say that they should provide higher education for well-to-do classes at the expense of the country was utterly absurd. It would be a fatal discharge of parental responsibility. The whole question was no doubt a very great and difficult one, and he was glad to hear the Government would apply their present strength to cope with it. [Cheers.]
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am reminded by what my noble Friend opposite has said of the rather trite saying that "comparisons are odious." I am sorry to say that, notwithstanding that in the few remarks I propose to make I shall be obliged to make some comparisons. The Bill is undoubtedly a small one; and there is another proverb which I do not forget—that "you must not look a gift horse in the mouth." Therefore, we on this side could not oppose the Bill, even if it could really be opposed in this House, because it does something to relieve the Board Schools. For my part I will make an avowal. Speaking as an individual I prefer the Board Schools to the Voluntary Schools. I thing to-day and always have thought that the only just and wise system is the system of State or Board Schools. But I think it would not have been wise in 1870, and it would not be wise now, to neglect entirely the Voluntary Schools, which as a matter of fact are an important part of the system of education of this country. What I complain of is that this gift to the Board Schools is a mean gift. That meanness has arisen from the fact that there is a very strong, and as it appears to me extraordinary vehement, feeling on the part of the Party which is now in power in this country in favour of the Voluntary Schools and in point of fact against the Board Schools. As Lord Playfair said, there seems, to be more a desire to perpetuate one system of schools in this country than to do that which is the one object we should have in view—
1232
to see that all schools, be they Voluntary or Board Schools, are thoroughly efficient. As regards the comparison between the Board School and the Voluntary School, I for my part do not see why a subscriber to a school is entitled to more relief from the State than the ratepayer who pays School Board rates. I am a contributor to schools in both capacities; and I do not feel that I am in the least decree more aggrieved by paying a subscription than I am by paying a rate. In one parish I pay a large rate towards the Board School; and in another place, where there is no Board School though I confess I only contribute when I feel that the Voluntary School is desired by the people there—I pay a subscription to a Voluntary School or support a school entirely myself; and I feel I am entitled to as much assistance from the State in one case as in the other. I do not see why the ratepayers' claim should be neglected; and for that reason I think the only fair, just, and wise system would be to give equal subvention to all schools alike. The present system established under this Bill, as the noble Duke ingenuously said, is of so' complicated a nature that he did not trouble the House with details. I was very much obliged to the noble Duke, however, for what he did tell us was very clear. The fact is, it is a most complicated system, ingenious as regards the forming of a sliding scale, but as regards equality between the different persons who are to receive aid it is about as unfair and ill-conceived as could possibly be imagined. It may be argued that if you were to give an additional contribution to, say, the London School Board, that would be a terrible thing, as it would increase the expenditure which would fall on the ratepayers of London. But, if the ratepayers of London desire that their schools should be made more efficient by expending more on them, why are they to be deprived of the assistance of the State on that account? It seems to me they are very meritorious if they do so, and that they ought to receive the same assistance from the State. I could not help admiring the manner in which the noble Duke insisted upon the way in which this new Bill had been contrived so as to give assistance only to certain schools which by the Act are so defined that those schools alone will be regarded as

1233
necessitous under this Bill. I remember that, when we tried to induce the Government to define necessitous schools in the Voluntary Schools Bill, we were told it was impossible and unnecessary. Under this Bill an attempt is made to give only to schools which are necessitous. Why not have applied the same system in both cases? This system of only giving the public money where it is most required, is quite a new principle with the Government. I have not forgotten the Agricultural Rates Bill; we tried hard then to persuade them to give the money only to those particular parts of the country which really needed it, but they refused. I cannot help thinking that that must have arisen from a special sympathy with those receiving the aid. But when dealing with a Board School, then you must have a carefully devised system, so that no school which is receiving much money shall receive for the benefit of the ratepayers any subvention from the State. I do not think the whole matter has been treated on a basis which is just and fair all round. As my noble Friend said, these are merely two Bills for giving in one case a large dole and in another case a very small dole, and it is not in any way the establishment of any permanent portion of our educational system, except in so far as a larger sum of money will be spent in the promotion of education. I wish I could think it will all go towards efficiency, but I do not think it will. In some cases I think there are managers of Voluntary Schools as eager for good education as managers of Board Schools, and in such cases it will be applied for promoting the efficiency of a school, but in a great many cases it will go for nothing but the relief of subscribers. I dare say it has occurred to the noble Duke that there is to be a distinct premium under this Bill to have a low assessment. It is very well known that in many parts of the country assessments arc by no means up to the real value of the property; now there will be a distinct encouragement under this Bill to make the assessment as low as possible, because then there will be a higher rate in proportion, and the parish in that situation will get relief which probably if it assessed itself at the fair amount it would not. I entirely disagree with, the Bill except in so far as it gives a small assistance
1234
to certain School Boards, an assistance which, I venture to say, would not have been given unless there had been considerable pressure on the Government not to leave the Board Schools entirely out in the cold. ["Hear, hear!"]
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

INDUSTRIES (IRELAND) BILL.
*THE EARL OF MAYOmoved, "That this Bill be now read a Second time." His Lordship explained that the Bill was to afford facilities for the establishment and development of industries in Ireland. He trusted that those who were interested in Ireland would support a Bill of this kind. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill consisted of 14 clauses; it had been before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and had passed without opposition. The promoters proposed to take any water or water rights, or any land in connection therewith, and it was not proposed to take land except in connection with water. To work these industries water was to be used. Such water was intended to be used for producing electricity, provided its employment for such purpose would not injure the water power used for any existing mill, or the water supply of any city, town, district, or locality; that the proposed industry was not of a nature to cause pollution to any stream or river; that any land to be taken was principally barren, uncultivated, or mountainous; that no fishery of any substantial nature should be injured by the undertaking; and that the establishment of such industry would be of general or local advantage. Subject to these provisions, the Local Government Board might, after an inquiry had been held, make an order giving a provisional approval to the application, and such provisional order should be published in the prescribed manner. An order under this Act might contain provisions consistent with the Act for the Incorporation, with the necessary modifications, and subject to such exceptions and variations as might be mentioned in the order, of any of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, and of the provisions contained in the Second Schedule

1235
of the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, and of the provisions of the Waterworks Clauses Acts 1863, with reference to security reservoirs; provided that nothing in the section should authorise any variation of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, as amended by the provisions contained in the Second Schedule of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts 1890, with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement. Then there was another clause with regard to security for costs, which was very important: —
"No order under this Act shall be made unless the prescribed sum has been lodged or secured within the time and in the manner prescribed to defray the costs and expenses of the Local Government Board and of successful objectors, and to render any works constructed in pursuance of this Act innocuous in the event of the undertaking being abandoned or the promoters becoming bankrupt or (if a company) being wound up, and such sum may be disbursed or released in such manner as may be prescribed."
He hoped their Lordships would support the Bill, because it would encourage other industries than agriculture, and would bring money into the country. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL OF ARRANsaid he was cloth to oppose a Bill introduced in the cause of industry in Ireland, but he thought the principle underlying it was not appreciated. The principle underlying the Bill was that private companies and private individuals were to have compulsory powers to acquire land for the purpose of manufactures for private gain. That principle had never been sanctioned by Parliament. In his evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, Sir Courtenay Boyle said that there was absolutely no instance of such powers being granted to private companies. If this principle were to be sanctioned for the future it should be brought forward in a Bill introduced by the Government, and even then it would be of the utmost importance that such a Bill should be most carefully weighed before such an invasion of private property was sanctioned. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL OF DENBIGHthought it would be well for him to state at once what the position of the Government was with regard to the Bill. In the first place,
1236
it was not in any sense a Government Bill, but inasmuch as it went before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, on which prominent members of the Government Party in the House of Commons sat, and inasmuch as several Amendments were introduced at the instance of the Attorney General on behalf of the Government, the Bill had the sympathies of Her Majesty's Government. They believed that if it passed it would be a useful Measure, and that the harm which some noble Lords seemed to think would result from it, would not really come to pass. Considerable care had been taken to introduce safeguards which the Government believed would be amply sufficient, but if their Lordships thought otherwise he did not think there would be the slightest objection to consider further safeguards. The object of the Bill was to promote industries in Ireland which might be said to be dependent on electrical power. Although the Government could not deny the fact that the Bill introduced a somewhat novel principle, still in view of the fact that Ireland was, perhaps, an exceptional country—["hear, hear!" and laughter]—and that all classes were now doing their utmost to promote industries there, he thought their Lordships might, perhaps, overlook that novel principle provided that proper safeguards were introduced for the purpose of preventing any abuse of its provisions. He could only say that the Bill was believed to be a useful one and Her Majesty's Government hoped that it would pass.
*THE EARL OF MORLEY (CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES)trusted that he would not be accused of attempting to discourage industry in Ireland if he expressed his strong sympathy with the views of the Earl of Arran. ["Hear, hear!"] This Bill had a very innocent and almost frank appearance, and he must confess that until his attention was called to it, he had no idea that it contained the principle they had heard explained that night. He had looked in, vain for the safeguards of which the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading had spoken. This Bill went against every one of the principles that had hitherto been observed by Parliament in the granting of compulsory powers of purchase. In the first place, with very few exceptions, compulsory powers were only given by Parliamentary Committees before which the opponents

1237
had the right to appear. That was almost, though not quite, the invariable practice. The second condition was invariable—namely, that no powers of compulsory purchase under the Lands Clauses Acts should be given, except for a public undertaking, in which the public at large had a distinct advantage to gain—["hear, hear!"]—and in all cases, without exception, provisions were carefully made that the public should reap advantage from any undertaking sanctioned. The third condition, which was not absolutely universal, but almost so, was that compulsory powers should be given only to public companies established under the Companies Clauses Acts and incorporated by Act of Parliament. The reason of that was that Parliamentary companies were subject to certain restrictions and conditions, one of which was that the undertaking- which the company promoted was for the public advantage, the public advantage being paramount to the advantage of the company or its creditors. Moreover, no Parliamentary company was allowed to raise a loan on its property, so that no public undertaking could be stopped. It must be carried on for the public advantage. Thus it would be seen that in all cases the public advantage was the reason for giving compulsory powers. ["Hear, hear!"] In the case of individuals and limited companies, compulsory powers of purchase were only given for the purpose of improving communication in towns, sanitary improvements, the widening of streets, or matters of that kind; and he was quite certain that to give to a private undertaker these compulsory powers for his own private gain was absolutely unprecedented. ["Hear, hear!"] Every year all the large railway companies brought forward omnibus Bills, which almost invariably contained provisions for the construction of branch lines, and it was his duty to inquire whether those branches were really for the public advantage, or to serve a private manufactory or a coal-pit. If the promoters said they merely concerned a private undertaking, it was his duty to refuse compulsory powers of purchase, though not to refuse powers of construction. He did not for a moment wish to go into the details of the Bill, but it seemed to him to contravene all the principles he had stated as guiding Parliamentary practice at the present
1238
time. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill proposed that the requisite powers should be granted by the Lord Lieutenant in Council. No doubt the Lord Lieutenant in Council was an excellent tribunal, but it was a question whether powers of that kind should be transferred from Parliament to another body, however distinguished. ["Hear, hear!"] In Clause 2 there was a curious provision that the power was only to be used for the purpose of producing electricity. Why on earth should the power not be used where wafer power was to be used directly? ["Hear, hear!"] Clause 3 provided that no land was to be taken unless it was principally barren, uncultivated, or mountainous. That was rather ambiguous; but that did not in any degree detract from the value of the water power. ["Hear, hear!"] The last provision was that the establishment of an industry under the Bill should be of general or local advantage. Was there any value in that qualification? He assumed that any industry was of local advantage, and he would be extremely sorry if any action of his tended to discourage local industry; but to say that it must be proved that an industry was of local advantage was an utterly futile and worthless condition. It was curious to find in the second Subsection of the clause that the Local Government Board, who were to issue this order, which was to be final, were not to be bound by the conditions which he had just mentioned. They were to have the power—in any case where they thought they could exercise it without public or private injury—to dispense with those conditions and to make the order absolute upon the private individual. Clause 7 gave promoters power to conduct their pipes—it did not say for what purpose, but he supposed it was for hydraulic purposes—in or through any land or road, and to divert any right of way, and to alter or reconstruct any bridge, provided that the change did not cause any serious inconvenience to the public. Surely a provision of that kind would be likely to cause great injustice and great inconvenience. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought he had said enough to show how greatly this Bill encroached upon the principles and rules respected hitherto by Parliament. He objected to big principles being dealt with in this fragmentary and piecemeal fashion. If

1239
Parliament wished to alter the application of the Land Clauses Acts let it do so by all means, but let the change be effected by a properly considered Measure based upon some ascertained principles. But if they now passed a Bill of this kind applying to electricity, they would inevitably have to pass another very soon applying to other industries, and so they would have to go on. To deal with these large and important questions in this fragmentary manner would not be creditable to Parliament. In his opinion the importance of the objects of the Bill was not commensurate with the importance of acting in contravention of what had hitherto been the invariable practice and recognised principles of Parliament.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSobserved that Lord Denbigh, speaking on behalf of the Government, had given reasons for supporting the Bill, one of them being that this was an exceptional Measure. He hoped that English and Scottish Peers would appreciate the value of flint argument. It had been heard before in 1870 and 1881, and they might feel sure of this—that whatever Irish Measure they passed as an exceptional Measure to-day would be applied to themselves tomorrow. Lord Denbigh had told them that the Bill had the support of the Government, and he wished to ask the noble Marquess whether a Measure which had been shown to be objectionable by the Chairman of Committees really had their support, and had been considered by the Cabinet?
THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My noble Friend Lord Denbigh distinctly stated that this was not a Government Bill.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: He said that it had the support of the Government.
THE PRIME MINISTER: No, the sympathy of the Government; and the sympathy of the Government is, I think, precisely what it deserves. It does not deserve much more. [Laughter.] I mean that the intentions of the promoters of the Bill are admirable, and the object which it has in view of setting up industries in the more desolate parts of Ireland, and especially the object of putting to useful purposes the splendid water power that exists there, are admirable objects, and for them I have the deepest sympathy. But I confess that
1240
this beautiful spirit has been embodied in a less admirable frame, and, after listening to my noble Friend who sits fit the Table, and whose authority we all regard so much, I am compelled to say that the Bill appears to me to have defects. [Laughter.] I do not think, though legal care was devoted to its preparation, that sufficient regard was paid to the consequences that might follow from some of its enactments. After the speech of my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, I do not think the House ought to pass the Second Reading of this Bill. We trust to him, and never in vain, to guard our proceedings and to take care that important principles of property and legislation are not transgressed in Bills that are brought before us. I think, in the circumstances, it would be wiser not to press the Bill to a Division.
*THE EARL OF MAYOobserved that Lord Morley, after saying he did not wish to discourage industries in Ireland, proceeded immediately to tear to pieces this Bill for the encouragement of such industries. The scope of the Bill was really very small. Its promoters did not ask for the use of the fat land of Ireland. They only wanted a few places in the mountains, where there was strong water power, which could be used for industrial purposes. Of course, sneers and ridicule were likely to kill any Bill. No comparison could be drawn between the case of Ireland and the case of England in matters of this kind. In Ireland there were tracts of country where land could be got for nothing, and where nobody lived, but the use of this land and the water could not be obtained without special powers, and it was for these necessary powers that the promoters of the Bill asked. This subject would be heard of again and again, and he should look to their Lordships to assist in removing any defects in the Measure, so that the promotion of industry in Ireland which would do so much good to the country might go on. After what had been said by the Prime Minister and the Chairman of Committees he realised that it would be useless to attempt to proceed with the Bill, but it was with the greatest reluctance that he withdrew it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; original Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

MERSEY CHANNELS BILL.
LORD PIRBRIGHT, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that it was necessary, in order to enable rules to be made for preventing collisions in the sea channels leading to the River Mersey. The Bill, which came from the other House, consisted of only one clause, which proposed to enact that the powers conferred by the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, should extend to and include the power to make rules concerning lights and signals m the sea channels or approaches to the Mersey.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

APPEAL IN CERTAIN CIVIL MATTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Bill read a Third time, and passed.

LAND LEGISLATION (IRELAND).
*LORD INCHIQUINrose to call attention to the effects of land legislation in Ireland during the last 30 years on owners and occupiers, and to move: —
"(1) That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived when, in the interests of justice, some compensation should be granted to landowners for the rights of which they have been deprived by the State; (2) that some relief might equitably be afforded to landowners, by granting State loans, on the same terms as those given to land occupiers, to facilitate the purchase by the landlord of the tenant-right or goodwill of the occupier, where lie is willing to sell such interest, or for any other purposes sanctioned by Parliament."
He said that for various reasons lie had been compelled to defer bringing this question forward until then, and even then he was afraid that the time was considered to be somewhat inopportune by some of those whom the Irish landlords looked upon as their friends and supporters in that House. But it seemed to him that the fact that the Government had conceded a Royal Commission to inquire into the administration of the Land Acts was no reason why he should not propose this Motion for compensation to the landlords for the injuries which had been inflicted upon them. His
1242
Motion dealt almost exclusively with the past, but, of course, it did not follow from that that they would be debarred from making a still larger claim in the future if the course which had been pursued lately by the Land Commissioners were permitted to continue. In fact, it was all the more necessary to proceed with this Motion at the present moment, seeing that the Government had refused to stay the hands of the Land Commissioners pending the result of the inquiry which was to be held. He feared that in order to put his case clearly before the House, lie must go back over old ground and refer to the Irish land legislation of the last 30 years. Since 1870 no less than 25 Acts of Parliament had been passed dealing with land in Ireland. These Measures might be divided into two classes. The first class dealt with the questions of tenure, rent, and sale of holding, and the second class dealt exclusively with the question of purchase. It might be said generally that every one of those 25 Acts had been passed in the interest of the tenants. He called their Lordships' attention first of all to the Act of 1860. That Act introduced for the first time in Ireland a system of free contract. Under that Act the landlord could deal with his tenant as he pleased; he could turn him out on giving six months' notice to quit where a year's rent was duo either from a tenant under lease or from year to year. At the termination of a lease the landlord could take the land into his own hands without paying compensation. It was clear, therefore, that the tenant had no power to sell his interest, because if he attempted to do so the landlord could immediately defeat the sale by serving a notice to quit. The Act of 1870 interfered for the first time with the rights of the landlord. Roughly stated, the Act of 1870 legalised the Ulster custom, and it gave compensation for disturbance on a graduated scale through the rest of Ireland. It also provided that any improvements made by the tenant were to be paid for. The next Act was that of 1881, which included fair rent, fixity of tenure, and free sale. Those were the critical points which bad damaged the landlord's interest and had obliged landlords to come to Parliament and ask for compensation for the loss sustained. Fair rent practically meant

1243
perpetuity of tenure and a lease renewable for ever. The tenant also got the power to sell his interest at the highest price which he could obtain in the market; and it was this combination which had brought the landlords into the position they were now in. The next Act was that of 1887, the principle of which was passed by a Conservative Government. For the first time it broke leases and solemn covenants entered into by men perfectly competent to make agreements. Next came the Act of 1891, which brought in long leases extending over a large number of years. There was another Act at this time which gave the power to a tenant who had been evicted to resume his holding in certain circumstances. In 1896 an Act was passed which, brought in large graziers, men supposed to be well able to protect themselves, up to a valuation of, £100 a year. It also took away rights and privileges from the landlords—water rights, turbary, seaweed, and sea sand. It also prevented the landlord from having the power of redemption, which was one of the things which Mr. Gladstone specially reserved in certain circumstances. In 1885 came the Purchase Act, known as the Ashbourne Act. For the first time the tenant under it could borrow the whole of the money from the State for the purchase of his holding under an annuity of 4 per cent, for 49 years. The consequence had been that the whole of the money was promptly taken up, and a short time afterwards another Bill was brought in for the purpose of extending the amount of this purchase-money. This legislation had placed the tenant in this position—he could not be disturbed as long as he continued paying rent renewable for ever; he had the power to dispose of his farm for the best price he could get, and he purchased with State money the fee of the land. It might generally be thought that the tenant should be perfectly happy after all these things had been done for him, but he was afraid that was not the case. And the reason was obvious, because unless the man were in occupation before the Act of 1881, he had had to pay since that date large sums in, order to get into his holding. These large sums had lately been very largely increased, and the consequence was this, that the interest of the money, which the tenant had to pay for
1244
his tenant right in coming into a holding, together with, the reduced rent, very nearly amounted to his old original rent. What the Irish landlords said was this: You have reduced our rents, you have taken a large slice out of our property and handed it over to the occupying tenant, who is at liberty to go wherever he likes with the money. That was what Parliament had done. It had handed over to the occupying tenant the difference between the old rent and the judicial rent. He would take in illustration a peculiar case winch happened upon his own estate just after the Act of 1881 was passed. He happened to put a tenant into a farm a year before the Act came into operation. The tenant was to pay a rent of £150 a year. He had not paid a farthing for that, because tenant right did not exist in the south of Ireland, and as regarded his own estate, it was especially guarded. The tenant asked the rent to be reduced to £130. He asked to be allowed to sell and he was allowed to sell. The result was that he got £1,250 for his interest, having come in the year before without any interest whatever. This man walked off to America or somewhere else with his £1,250, and left the present tenant subject to the rent of £130 plus interest on £1,250, which, he was bound to add, the tenant was paying very regularly. Now that man was going into Court, and the question would arise—What would the Land Commission do? Would they take that man's interest into account or not? If they did, it would be taken absolutely out of the landlord's property and nowhere else. Numerous cases of the same kind could be cited. Mr. Healy stated the other day that in the large farms of £100 a year and approaching it, it was not the case that large sums were given for tenant right. But according to a Return which had just been compiled, this statement was not correct, there being a largo number of cases above £100 where very large sums had been given. There was a case where a tenant applied to be allowed to sell his tenant right for £500. The landlord objected that £500 was too much, and exercised his right of pre-emption. On going to the Land Commission, however, that body fixed the amount which the landlord was to pay at no less than £800. He quoted from returns of sales

1245
on a number of different estates to show the enormous sums given for tenant right, representing 20 and 25, and even 40, as muck as 40 and 44 years' purchase. Such were the enormous sums given for land which they were told was worth so little. He spoke as a largo farmer, having had for a considerable time as much as 4,000 acres on his hand, and he asserted that while undoubtedly prices had fallen, they had not fallen to anything' approaching the extent represented by the reductions made by the Land Commission, for the fall in prices represented only 10 per cent. Mr. Healy had stated that for every £1 of reduction the expenses to the country had been 19s. 6d. Adding the money spent by the tenant on lawyers and moneylenders, surely it would have been cheaper to the country to have spent the money on permanent relief to tenants, and left undisturbed property rights in the way that had been done. The landlord had been expropriated, and perpetuity had been given to the tenant. He had become a mere rent-charger, entitled only to an economic rent fixed by the State, whereas before 1870 free contract existed. Where before he would get from 25 to 30 years' purchase, he could now only get 15 or 20, and very often he could not sell at all. He had to pay high rates on his mortgages, and his powers of borrowing were practically done away with. Recovery of rent had been made more difficult than ever, and arrears had very largely increased, though allowances had been made. The landlord, besides, now had very heavy legal expenses. Landlords who before had never been obliged to go into Court, were now forced to go there. They had all the expense of the first hearing, and often of the appeal, which was entirely useless, as he knew. The landlord could no longer resume his land under any circumstances; his rents had been reduced by leaps and bounds, while the prices of tenants' right had been rising. Further, the landlord now had to pay the tithe rent, where formerly he was allowed to get it out of the tenant's rent. As to the Commissioners, if they were angels—and many of them were more like fallen angels—they could not possibly perform the task which Parliament had set them —that of fixing a so-called fair rent without any guidance at all. These men were
1246
let loose over the country to deal with an enormous mass of property, often without any previous knowledge, and simply judging in some cases from the smell of a stick which they had dug into the ground. That was no exaggeration, but fact. As Lord Dufferin had said, they wore sent groping in the dark to find the intentions of Parliament. They could not do the impossible, and the only rent which it was possible to fix was the market rent. If any lower rent were fixed, some one, not the landlord, must get the benefit of it, but some one would still be paying the market rent. These questions would never be settled until there was a return to freedom of contract. One party or the other must be bought out, and lie proposed that the landlord should have the same facilities for buying out the tenant as the tenant had for buying out the landlord. Surely Parliament did not wish to banish the landlords from Ireland altogether. Such a thing would be ruinous to the country, and the working people regarded the prospect with horror, for the landlords, and not the tenants, were the men who gave employment. The despised landlord, too, was still the constant adviser of the poor people in any difficulty. There must be one person, and one only, in ownership of the land. As to what the Commissioners were now doing, it was right that the attention of Parliament should be called to it. He had the latest returns as to the fixing of judicial rents. They Clinic down to the end of February 1897, and covered 1,672 cases. The total original rent involved in these cases was £52,994; the valuation was £39,368; the rent fixed for the first term was £42,289, or a reduction of 20·2 per cent., and the rent fixed for the second term was £30,957, or a reduction of 26·8 per cent. The total reduction on the two terms was equal to 41·5 per cent., or one-quarter under the valuation on which the rates were paid. The original rent, £52,994, was, curiously enough, one-quarter above the valuation. Lord Dufferin had well said that "the landlords were being jockeyed out of their property." It was all very fine to talk about the fall of prices; but the fall in England had been far greater than in Ireland, where most of the land was grass land. Besides, in England the landlord could always resume his land

1247
and farm it himself; in Ireland he could not. As to the Irish landlords not spending anything on their property, who could expect it with such constant inroads being made? They could have no hope of getting the money which they spent back again. Before the landlords were dealt with by the Act of 1881, they had a margin of not more than 50 per cent, to spend. The reduction made by the judicial rents amounted to 41·5 per cent.; so that the landlord was now left with a margin of 9 per cent., and in many cases the whole of his income had been swept away. Therefore he felt bound in honour as an Irishman and a representative of Ireland to come forward on behalf of the large number of people who were being reduced to absolute poverty, and to ask Parliament why nothing was being done to stop what was going on. He now came to an important matter. Mr. Gladstone clearly foresaw that the question of compensation would arise under the land legislation which he initiated in 1870. On asking for leave to introduce the Land Bill of 1870, into which he was asked to introduce "the three F's," Mr. Gladstone said, "Perpetuity of tenure on the part of the occupier is virtually expropriation of the landlord:" also "compensation would have to be paid for rights of which he would be deprived; "and he then wont on to show that the occupier only would benefit by the proposed legislation. Speaking again on March 11, 1870, Mr. Gladstone said:—
"If you value rents you may as well for every available purpose adopt perpetuity of tenure at once. It is perpetuity of tenure only in a certain disguise.
On May 19, 1870, Mr. Gladstone, discussing fixity of tenure and valuation of rents, said:—
"If we believe these provisions would be beneficial to the country it would be our duty to give them compulsory force by legislative enactments; and to consider from what source we ought to provide compensation to the landlord for rights he now enjoys."
Mr. Law, the then Solicitor General for Ireland, speaking on the Bill of 1870, said:—
"The property must be in some one, and if we were to secure the possession of the land
1248
and the enjoyment of the profit to the tenant and his successors for ever, subject only to a rent, we should in effect, no matter how we disguise it, transfer the property of the farmer to him and change the present landowner into a mere rent charger."
Sir Roundell Palmer (afterwards Lord Selborne) speaking in March 1870, said:—
"Fixity of tenure, which in plain English means taking the property of one man and giving it to another. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) said, according to the principles of justice, if we transferred property in that way we must pay for it. No doubt, we may take a man's property, but in that case we must compensate him for it."
Sir R. Collier, the Attorney General for England, taking part in the same discussion, said:—
"What does that mean but fixity of tenure —that is, that the landlord is to be deprived of his property."
Ten years later, Mr. Gladstone, in bringing in the Bill of 1881, said: —
"If, as has been said, Parliament is about to invade the property of Irish landlords, the question of compensation becomes a very serious one indeed, and one concerning which, if we are prepared to deal with it at all, we ought to speak in most decisive terms. If those classes, either or both of them, have a just claim for compensation in consequence of the manner in which their interests will be affected by this Bill, we are bound as a Parliament to give it to them."
Could any language in favour of compensation be plainer than that. On July 22, 1881, Mr. Gladstone also said:—
"We, in 1869 (on the Disestablishment of the Church) provided that every holder of an advowson in Ireland should receive the full market price of his property. This ire held to be the true principle on which compensation should be based, and this is the principle on which the question should be approached on the present occasion. If after experience should prove that, in fact, ruin and heavy loss is likely to have been brought on any class in Ireland by direct effect of this legislation, that is a question we ought to look directly in the face."
There was one letter he should like to read to the House. It was from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (the Lord Chancellor) in reply to a letter from a landlord in Ireland, asking him

1249
his opinion on the subject of compensation. The noble and learned Lord wrote:—
"Dear Sir,—As my words were not committed to writing, I cannot speak with absolute certainty as to what they were. But what I think I said was, that I could see no reason why Irish landlords should be excepted from the principle which was generally applied in all cases where State policy involved taking away something to which an individual had a right—that is to say, that compensation should always be given where, for State reasons, private rights were invaded.
He would also quote John Stuart Mill on compensation. The extract was quoted from "Principles of Political Economy."
"The principle of property gives them (the landowners) no right to the land, but only a right to compensation for whatever portion of their interest in the land it may be the policy of the State to deprive them of—to that their claim is indefeasible. It is duo to landowners and to owners of any property whatever, recognised as such by the State, that they should not be deprived of it without receiving its pecuniary value or an annual income equal to what they derived from it. If the land was bought with the produce of the labour of themselves or their ancestors, compensation is due to them on that ground. Even if otherwise, it is still due. on the ground of prescription. Nor can it ever be necessary, for accomplishing an object by which the community altogether will gain, that a particular portion of the community should be immolated. When tin; property is of a kind to which peculiar affection attach themselves, the compensation ought to exceed a bare pecuniary equivalent. The Legislature, which, if it pleased, might convert the whole body of landlords into fund-holders or pensioners, might, a fortiori, commute the average receipts of Irish landowners into a fixed rent charge, and raise the tenants into proprietors, supposing always full market value of the land is tendered to landlords."
The last extract he would trouble the House with was from Bentham's "Theory of Legislation."
"The principle of security require that reform should be attended with complete indemnity. The interest of individuals, it is said, ought to yield to the public interest; but what does that mean? Is not one individual as much a part of the public as another? This public interest, which you introduce as a person, is only an abstract term—it represented nothing but the mass of individual interests. Individual interests are the only interests; take care of the individuals; never molest them; never suffer anyone to molest them, and you will have done enough for the public. I shall conclude with a general observation of great importance. The more the
1250
principle of property is respected the stronger hold it takes on the popular mind. Slight attacks upon this principle prepare the way for heavier ones. A long time has been necessary to carry property to the point where we now see it in civilised societies, but a fatal experience has shown with what facility it can he shaken, and how easily the savage instinct of plunder gets the better of the laws."
The Legislature had always granted compensation where Measures had been passed for the public good, and had imposed it on public bodies, companies, or the individuals to whom it had granted compulsory powers to interfere with property and vested interests, And this compensation was not limited to damage done, but extended to prospective, possible, or contingent damage or injury. In 1833 the West Indian slave owners were enormously compensated when slavery was abolished, although it was questionable whether there existed in the planters any right to the ownership of other individuals. Compensation was also promised by the Government recently in the similar case of Zanzibar. It was also given in 1869 under the Irish Church Act; in 1874 and 1878 under the Public Health Acts and Acts directing the slaughter of diseased animals; in 1882 under the Arrears of Rent Act; and in 1871 on the Abolition of Army Purchase, He did nor propose to say what course the compensation should take, he left that to the Government, but he thought it should take a direct form. Of course, to those who had no mortgages on their estates what he proposed would not be very much relief, but to those who had it would be an immense relief. He saw no reason why advances should not be made to the landlord to pay off the charges with which he was saddled for no fault of his own, his income having been diminished by the State. The State would have perfect security, and they lent money upon much worse security to the tenant. He appealed to the House and to the country to consider the claim they now made; to consider it not only on account of men in the upper classes of life who were in a position like himself and those around him, but to consider what was the position of those who had been brought up, if not in the lap of luxury at least with every comfort around them. What position were they to be placed in? Were they to be destitute, and were their children to be left without

1251
education? Were their Lordships to fold their hands and say that political necessity obliged them to do this wrong, in id that they would not put their hands in their pockets to assist these people? He would ask them to bear in mind the saving, "Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum." [Cheers.]
LORD CLONBROCKsaid that, in view of the extreme importance of the speech of his noble Friend, he would move that the Debate be adjourned till Friday next.
Motion agreed to.
House Adjourned at Half-past Seven o'Clock, to Friday next, a Quarter past Ten o'Clock.