Lords Sitting of 19 July 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further-Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Durham (County of) Electric Power Supply.
Lancashire Electric Power.
Also the Certificate that in the case of the following Bill the further proofs required by the Standing Orders Committee have been given:—
Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devonport Tramways.
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.
Report of Her Majesty's Attorney General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
  Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday n ext.
MARKET WEIGHTON DRAINAGE AND NAVIGATION BILL.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (WALES) BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  The Queen's consent, and the consent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is right of his Duchy of Cornwall, signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL
  COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.

    HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL.
    ALEXANDRA PARK BILL.
    SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL.
    Moved, That the Order made on 12th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be road a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; and Bills read 2a accordingly.

TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.
  COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
    ALEXANDRA PARK BILL.
    Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
    SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
    MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    SOUTH-EASTERN METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
    PORTLAND URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL.
    Committed for Tomorrow.
    BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to, with an Amendment; and Bill returned to the Commons.
  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    FALKIRK AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
    Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    HAMILTON, MOTHERWELL, AND WISH AW TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Commons Amendment considered, and agreed to.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
    WELLIXGBOROUGH AND DISTRICT TRAMROADS BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
    ASTON MANOR TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    GWYRFAI RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
    KINGSCOURT, READY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL.
    Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; road, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 26th of June and Monday last discharged; and Bill committed for Tomorrow.
    CROYDON TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
    Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on Thursday and Monday last discharged; and Bill committed.

    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL.
    Report from the Select Committee That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition
    412
    thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 2nd instant and Monday last discharged; and Bill committed.

  LONDON (ST. LUKE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    LONDON (SOUTHWARK) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Moved, That the order made on the 12th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought before the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 2Gth day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House Tomorrow.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3" Tomorrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to-Order). Bills reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a Tomorrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL. ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LONDON (CLERKENWELL AND HOLBORN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    LONDON (POPLAR) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
    (Chester Rural Order.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
    (Dorchester Order.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
    (Torquay Order.)
    TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
    (Weston-super-Mare Order.)
TOTTENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  BRAY AND ENNISKERRY RAILWAY BILL.

    ALEXANDRA PARK BILL.
    NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.:—

    E. Carrington,

    L. Churchill,

    L. Stanmore,

    L. Rathmore (chairman),

    L. Heneage;

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 14 (1900).
  Treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Honduras; signed at Guatemala, 21st January, 1887 (ratifications exchanged at Guatemala, 3rd February, 1900); together with an explanatory protocol signed at Guatemala 3rd February, 1900.
  METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Maps, plans, and diagrams to accompany the minutes of evidence and report of Her Majesty's Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of the water supply within the limits of the Metropolitan Water Companies.
  LOCAL TAXATION ( [RELAND).
  Return for the year 1898–99.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 30th June, 1900.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK.
  Annual Report of the President, for the session 1899–1900.
  IMPERIAL INSTITUTE (INDIAN SECTION).
  Annual Report for the year 1899–1900.

  GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.
  Report of the Astronomer Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, road at the annual visitation of the Royal Observatory, 26th June, 1900.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  Account of receipts and payments in respect of the Land Registry for the year ended 31st March, 1900.
  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND COURT OF APPEAL.
  Account showing the receipts and expenditure in respect of the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal during the year ended 31st March, 1900.
  COURT OF PROBATE DIVISION (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE) (IRELAND).
  Annual account of receipts and disbursements, for the year ended 31st December, 1899.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 29th June, 1900, granting a retired allowance to Mr. Thomas Alfred Inch, a second division clerk (higher grade) under the

  415
  Board of Trade, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Second Report from the Select Committee made; to be printed; and to be considered on Tuesday next. (No. 191.)
  COPYRIGHT (ARTISTIC) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 192.)
COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
  COPYRIGHT (ARTISTIC) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with the proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed (No. 193): Minutes of evidence, together with an appendix, laid upon the Table, and delivered out.

  POOR REMOVAL BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD DAVEY: My Lords, I must apologise for troubling your Lordships with an Amendment to this Bill at this stage. My noble friend Lord Avebury, in Committee of the whole House, moved a clause which had the same object, but which was not substantially in the same words as the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper. That Amendment was, however, rejected. My noble friend was under the impression that he could move it again before the Standing Committee, but the noble Earl who presides over that Committee expressed the opinion that that could not be done. Therefore I ask your Lordships to consider the Amendment which I have put down. The first sub-section of Clause 1 of this Bill is as follows—
  "A person who has resided continuously for five years in England shall not thereafter be removed to Ireland under the Acts relating to the relief of the poor."
  416
  It has occurred to many of us that that is rather a large order and rather vague in its terms. An Irish labourer may have tramped about the country seeking and finding, or not finding, work, for five years or for a less period, and then he may apply for poor relief in a parish into which, perhaps, he has only come within the previous week. It is unjust to the ratepayers of that parish or union that they should be burdened with the maintenance of the Irish labourer, who really has no connection whatever with the place, merely because he happened to be in a particular parish or union when he applied for relief. I propose, therefore, to insert, after the first sub-section, the words—
  "Provided that such person shall have resided continuously for at least six months in the parish or union from which it is proposed to remove him."
  That will give a guarantee of some residential connection with the parish or union in which he seeks relief, and it will also follow the precedent in the Scottish Act. Under that Act the pauper cannot avoid removal from Scotland to Ireland unless he has resided for, I believe, a whole year in the place from which it is sought to remove him. I am sure your Lordships will see that the clause, as it stands, may impose a great burden upon the ratepayers of a parish or union with which the pauper has no connection whatever, and I hope the House will agree to my Amendment.
  Moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after 'the poor' to insert 'provided that such person shall have resided continuously for at least six months in the parish or union from which it is proposed to remove him.'"—(Lord Davey)
  LORD MORRIS: My Lords, I hope the House will not agree to this Amendment, which would practically render the Bill entirely inoperative and useless. I do not think my noble and learned friend can have studied the history of this question, which has been agitated for the last fifty years. It is thirty-four years since I myself moved in the House of Commons†—
  "That the state of the law of removal from England to Ireland of persons receiving poor-law relief is one deserving of the immediate attention of Parliament and of the Government."
  † See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. clxxxiv., p. 299.

  417
  The late Mr. Charles Villiers, who was at j that time at the head of the Poor-Law Board, stated that this was "a very old grievance." That was his language thirty-four years ago, and this is the first practical attempt to remedy that grievance. I think I can appeal—in support of my statement that this has always been a subject of great grievance in Ireland—to the noble Earl opposite, Earl Spencer, who had a very long reign in Ireland as Lord Lieutenant. Under the present state of the law an Irish labourer who comes over here as a boy, and who probably spends the whole of his life in this country, may, in his old age, when he is like a squeezed lemon, be sent over and pitched on the coast of Ireland to be taken care of by the first union into which he is placed. It is not a question between one parish and another parish; it is an international question between England and Ireland. There is at present no reciprocity. An Irish pauper who applied for relief in England can be removed to Ireland, but an English-born pauper who applies for relief in Ireland must be kept in Ireland by the union to which he applies. This question between different parishes in England has nothing, to do with the Irish grievance. The English parishes must fight it out amongst themselves. If a man who has been absent from Ireland for five years does not form a settlement according to English law in a certain parish, what has that to do with Ireland? Why should he he sent back to Ireland on that account? The promoters of this Bill have drawn a very large limit in saying an Irish person should have resided for five years continuously in England before becoming irremovable. In my opinion that period is too long. I hope the House will not, at the twelfth hour, strangle a Bill which has been long looked forward to in Ireland, and which will remedy what has always created a great deal of annoyance and dissatisfaction.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, the Amendment I moved when the Bill was in Committee was discussed for some little while and withdrawn. It was not rejected. The noble and learned Lord who has just spoken has not dealt with the case of this Amendment. It is not an Irish question. We have agreed that an Irishman who has been five years in Eng-
  418
  land is to be relieved in England, but the question is where. The Bill gives him his choice, the amendment says he is to be relieved where he has worked. Why should an Irishman be placed in a different position in this matter from an Englishman or a Scotsman? If he were a Scotsman or an Englishman he would not obtain a settlement in the way indicated by this Bill. Under this Bill an Irishman, although he may not have lived in the parish or union in which he applies for relief more than a few days, is able to throw himself upon that parish or union for the rest of his life. Surely, if he has been working for some time in one part of England there should be power to remove him to that part of England when he becomes chargeable to the poor law. By this Bill as it stands you are cutting into the root of the whole law of settlement. All that my noble and learned friend asks is that the person shall have been for six months in the parish or union in which he claims relief. Surely that is a very reasonable suggestion. What we fail to see is why, in the case of an Irishman, all the safeguards in the working of the poor law which Parliament has devised in the case of Englishmen and Scotsmen should be dispensed with.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I still maintain the view I expressed when Lord Avebury's Amendment was before the House. It is impossible to put the two countries on the same footing, for the very reason that in Ireland there is not a law of settlement and in England there is. An Englishman who happens to be in Ireland and applies for relief has to be relieved by the union in which he applies, and cannot be removed, whereas an Irishman applying for relief in England can be removed back to his own country. Therefore I say, if you are going to remove this difficulty, do it in a liberal spirit. It is only fair that, as an Englishman cannot be removed from Ireland, an Irishman should be placed in a similar position when in this country.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: This Bill does not give reciprocity. It says an Irishman must have resided five years in England before becoming irremovable. Reciprocity would be to put an Irishman in the same position in England as an Englishman occupies in Ireland. It

  419
  would be reciprocity if an Irishman in England was entitled to obtain relief in any parish or union where he might apply for it and be irremovable. I certainly do feel as strongly as the noble and learned Lord opposite that this has been a real and substantial grievance in Ireland. The question is whether, in removing this grievance conditionally upon a residence of five years, it is desirable that you should place upon the parishes in which Irishmen apply for relief, and in which they may only have been residing for a few days, the burden of perpetually maintaining them.
  LORD HARRIS: I was under the impression that the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition spoke on the Second Reading, and that he was a supporter of the measure.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I made exactly the same remarks on the Second Reading.
  LORD HARRIS: I do not contest, as I said in Committee, the fact that England will suffer under this Bill. The measure was introduced with the idea of removing from Ireland some of the injustice she has long laboured under, and I do not deny that the burden has fallen upon England. I may remind your Lordships that this Amendment was negatived in Committee after a long discussion.
  LORD AVEBURY: I beg my noble friend's pardon. It was withdrawn.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): Yes, after a full discussion.
  LORD HARRIS: I understood that the noble Lord accepted the arguments as sufficient, and withdrew his Amendment. Technically I was wrong in saying it was negatived, but the noble Lord had an opportunity of going to a division, which he did not avail himself of. The proposal on that occasion was that the pauper should have resided continuously for at least twelve months in the parish or union from which it was proposed to remove him. The noble and learned Lord opposite now proposes a residence of six months. This would really do away altogether with the justice the Government asks you to do to Ireland. It would make
  420
  removability very much more easy and irremovability very much more difficult. If you are going to do this act of justice to Ireland, I submit that it is better to do it with a good grace. The noble Lord below the gangway (Lord Avebury) argued that it would be hard upon the union of the parish on which the liability of maintaining the pauper would in future rest unless such an Amendment were adopted. I admit that, but all the unions and parishes in England run the risk, which is therefore shared amongst them all. I submit that as the Bill has gone through its various stages in this House, there is no reason for amending it in the way suggested by the noble and learned Lord.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Bill passed.

  DIOCESAN REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
  CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS) BILL.
  Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
  MEMBERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES RELIEF BILL [Hi L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order): A further amendment made: and Bill to be read 3a To morrow.
  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  VETERINARY SURGEONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I shall occupy as little of the time of the House as possible.

    421
    The Bill is brought in to remedy what is a clear grievance, and to do a piece of tardy justice. In Ireland, as in England, tithes were a charge upon the land, and for a very considerable time were paid by the occupier. Until the year 1823 tithes in Ireland wore paid in kind by the occupier, but at that time a change was made, and although the occupier was left still the person to pay, the change was made that there should be a money composition. That wont on for a considerable time—namely, until the year 1838. Then a further change was made, and for public convenience, which was recognised upon all sides, the landlord was made the person who was to pay. A tithe rent-charge was created, and he was made the person to pay a sum that was measured at three-quarters of the previous money composition. The assumption, I presume, was that he might add, possibly, the amount of the tithe that he was called upon to pay to the rent. That may have been done in some cases, but I do not believe it was at all generally done. I have read statements by those who have studied the question indicating that it was not generally done. In Ireland, as in England, it has at all times been of the very essence of tithe that it should be variable and subject to occasional revision. The statutory machinery provided in Ireland for this purpose was different, fortunately for England, from that in England; the statutory machinery pro-Tided in Ireland was that if certain not very simple methods were adopted, the tithe rent-charges might be varied by reference to the average price of wheat and oats that were published from time to time in the Dublin Gazette. That method was clumsy and inconvenient, but it worked, as clumsy and inconvenient methods do work, in a kind of way for a long time. But in the year 1889 a change was made in the Dublin Gazette— no one has ever been able exactly to trace how the change occurred—and the publication in the Gazette of the prices of the two commodities, wheat and oats, teased.
    EARL SPENCER: In what year?
    LORD ASHBOURNE: In the year 1889. I have mentioned no year that touches any particular conscience, and I have said that nobody has ever been able to ascertain why the change was made.
    THE EARL OF MAYO: In what year did the noble and learned Lord say the publication of the averages in the Gazette ceased?
    LORD ASHBOURNE: In 1889.
    THE EARL OF MAYO: I thought it was lone; before that.
    LORD ASHBOURNE: No. The publication of the averages ceased in 1889, for what reason no one has ever been able to find out, and, strange to say, the cessation of their publication was not ascertained or relied on in our Courts for a considerable time. The matter, however, came before the Courts in Ireland, and it was then contended, with irresistible force, that, as the averages had ceased to be published in the statutory way required, there was nothing that could be appealed to to satisfy the requirements of the Statute. Accordingly, what was an obvious injustice resulted. Up to a comparatively recent time the position of Irish lay and ecclesiastical tithes was exactly the same as to variation; they each had to be varied and revised by reference to the publication of prices in the Dublin Gazette. But at the time I am referring to this only applied to lay tithes. It is obvious that the absence of any machinery by which these tithes can be varied and revised is a clear and distinct grievance. This is, indeed, not denied or questioned by any one. The position of ecclesiastical tithes at the present time is somewhat different. They were dealt with in the Irish Church Act of 1869, when it was distinctly stated by Mr. Gladstone — I have his words here, and they have been quoted in the other House during the last three weeks—that the calculation of the then Government was that ecclesiastical tithes should be commuted at the purchase of 22½ years, with an interest not exceeding 3½ per cent. and an annuity not exceeding 45 years. When the Act came to be examined, however, it was found that the annuity, instead of running from the time stated, was to run for 52 years. How the figure 45, stated by the Prime Minister in his place in Parliament to be the proper figure, became 52 has not hitherto been explained; but it has never been suggested that it can be seriously defended or that it was anything but a most inconceivable blunder.

    423
    Moreover, the 3½ per cent. interest pays oft' every farthing in 45 years, and it is only the simplest justice to get rid of the additional seven years which have in some way been added, and which cannot be defended or even explained on any theory of common sense or ordinary arithmetic. During the discussions—the anxious discussions—which took place in the House of Commons there was no effort on the part of the fitful Opposition interveners in Debate to give any vestige of explanation of this figure, and every one was compelled to admit that every farthing of the tithe was paid off in 45 years. The next step was taken in 1872. At that time, I believe, the Government had under consideration a loan on the security of the Church property—a loan of £9,000,000—and it was deemed desirable by Mr. Gladstone and the able Ministers who composed his Government that there should be a change in reference to tithe rent-charge, and that the power of revision should be taken away. It was considered a more satisfactory security not to have a variable charge, but that there should be a fixed tithe incapable of change. That was regarded as a better asset on which to rely as a security, and also more satisfactory to deal with. Under those circumstances the power of revision was taken away by the Act of 1872. It was a very short Act—a Treasury Act—and one which did not, so far as I can see, excite any attention whatever. It passed through Parliament towards the close of the session without debate, but it has been gravely alleged that the Act of 1872, by which the power of revision was taken away, was a bargain. The habits of my life and of my office require that I should use moderate and temperate language, but I am at a loss to describe in adequate terms this suggestion. It is a grotesque absurdity. Who was the bargain between? What was the bargain about? Why should there be a bargain? There is not a trace of any such suggestion to be found in Hansard, and I have spoken to gentlemen who were then members of the House of Commons, and they inform mo that they never heard or dreamt of such a thing as this being a bargain. The suggestion is absolutely unsupported by proof, and has really no bearing upon the question. Had the power of revision remained, had it not been taken away
    424
    by this Act of 1872, the Irish ecclesiastical tithe, like the English tithe, would, I have heard, be payable at a percentage much less than at present. At any rate, wheat has fallen from that time by about 40 per cent., and oats by about 22 per cent., and, as every one knows, there have beer; enormous reductions in the value of land. Therefore it is simple justice to do what the Bill does. If my statements cannot be contradicted, am I not right in saying that there is a clear grievance to be righted and a palpable injustice to be got rid of? The first of the proposals is to reduce from 52 to 45 years the period provided for the redemption of the annuities, and, secondly to restore the variation and power of revision with regard to both lay and ecclesiastical tithes. In England, where revision exists, there has been, as your Lordships know, a vast reduction in tithes. Irish tithe payers have been deprived of that benefit, and therefore it is simple justice to do what this Bill does. The measure has been described as another dole to Irish landlords, but it is the simplest, the nakedest, and the merest act of justice. If the payment of the tithes had never been handed over to the landowner and were still payable by the occupier, could any human being, with any regard for his own sanity, suggest that every dictate of justice did not require that everything I have suggested should be carried out? This is. not a one-sided proceeding at all. It was pointed out in 1885, when the first of the Land Purchase Acts was introduced, that it was not reasonable to ask glebe tenant-purchasers to go on paying their instalments with the inclusion of the original rate of interest, and their friends in both Houses of Parliament said that justice required that there should be a revision. They wore given it with universal approval, and the 3½ per cent. interest on their loans was cut down to £3 1s. 8d. No one said then that justice should not be done. Justice required that that should be done then in the interests of tenant-purchasers, and it requires that it should be done now in the interests of the landlords. In Ireland the system has always been cumbrous, inconvenient, expensive., and difficult to carry out. Wheat is not now grown in Ireland to the extent it used to be; and the standards that were formerly appealed to have ceased to be

    425
    efficient regulations for the purpose. The plan by which it is proposed to ascertain the amount of variation—namely, by the average judicial reduction of rents in each county, is fair, intelligible, and a thousand times better than resorting to the old methods. Another important feature of the Bill is that it takes away the power of redeeming tithe rent charges, save in the case of sales under the Land Acts, and then it is intended to safeguard the terms. There is another clause in the Bill, dealing with the deduction of Poor Kate from tithe, which the Chief Secretary calculated would assist the Irish Church Fund by a sum of about £6,000 a year. This benefit will be obtained in connection with decisions as to the deductions made from tithes for the Poor Kate. The figures in reference to these matters have been very fully stated in the other House of Parliament, and I have confined myself to presenting the case to your Lordships in the shortest possible way, because I recognise that there are many other topics on your Lordship's Paper for discussion to-night. Of course, I will be quite ready to give any information to the House or to answer any questions that may be put to mo at this or any subsequent stage.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I certainly feel a certain amount of embarrassment in controverting what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, because he has so pointedly laid it down that every proposition which he has put before the House is absolutely just, absolutely sound, and absolutely impossible of doubt. It may seem somewhat remarkable that I doubt the greater portion of the assertions the noble and learned Lord has made. First of all, I will deal with the very novel argument with which he commenced his speech, and which, I must say, surprised me extremely. It appears that at some stage of the Irish Church Bill, Mr. Gladstone, who was then at the head of the Government, and who, as the noble and learned Lord most justly said, took a special interest in that legislation, said that ecclesiastical tithes should be commuted at the purchase of 22½ years, with an interest not exceeding 3½ per cent., and an annuity not exceeding 45
    426
    years. Subsequently it appears that an interest of £4 9s. Od. per cent. and a period of 52 years wore fixed in the Act. On that the noble and learned Lord says there has been a great injustice, and that we should regard the statement made by the Prime Minister of that day in the course of a speech as conclusive. I have never heard such an argument. I always thought Acts of Parliament were conclusive. Mr. Gladstone is not alive to explain the words he used in 1869, but I entirely deny that we are bound by the statement of even so great a man as Mr. Gladstone.
    LORD ASHBOURNE: Mr. Gladstone's, words are not contradicted by arithmetic.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: But they are contradicted by something which is binding upon us quite as much as arithmetic—namely, an Act of Parliament. According to the noble and learned Lord, it is so perfectly clear that a great injustice was committed, because the Act is not in accordance with some words which he found in a speech of Mr. Gladstone, that we are bound now, after twenty-seven years, to remedy what was. then done. If this is so extremely simple, so perfectly evident, so absolutely conclusive, what was the Conservative Government which came into office in 1874 doing? Had they no supporters amongst Irish landlords? The Act then was a very fresh one, and if the injustice had been so wonderfully apparent it would naturally have been for the Government of that day, which had no particular love for Mr. Gladstone's legislation, to remedy it. I dismiss that argument of the noble and learned Lord as having no bearing on the question. The noble and learned Lord said there was no bargain. The case really is that twenty-seven years ago Parliament laid down a certain principle for the payment of tithe, and it seems to me a dangerous doctrine, after Parliament has dealt with the matter so long ago, that we should now set aside that Act. Past legislation may have inflicted hardships on those subjected to it. That argument is one which may always be used. But I am surprised that twenty-seven years should have been allowed to elapse without any attempt to remedy any hardships in the present case. I deny that the Bill is a matter of justice; it is purely a matter of expediency. In

    427
    the present state of prices an undue burden has been laid on the landlords of Ireland, and that should be lightened. That is the case of the Government, and I dismiss all other arguments. It comes to this, that after twenty-seven years the Government have made up their minds that they ought to make a present to the Irish landlords of a certain portion of the Irish Church fund. T feel some sympathy for the Trish landlords in the position in which they find themselves, but I must repeat what I have often said, that if the Irish landlords lived in the part of the kingdom in which I do they would not consider themselves so badly off. I object to the Bill on the ground that it is upsetting a deliberate arrangement made by Parliament, and then regarded as just and fair, for the purpose of giving a money advantage; to a certain class.
    LORD CLONBEOCK: My Lords, it is gratifying to those who are interested in the Bill introduced by my noble and learned friend to hear him describe it as a mere measure of justice. It is, indeed, a tardy measure of justice, for relief in this matter has been promised to Trish tithe rent-charge payers for the last twelve years. In support of its being a measure of justice, I should like to compare the position of the English and Irish tithe rent-charge payer since the year 1872. It is somewhat singular, my Lords, that when a comparison can be made, by any stress of imagination, to the detriment of the interests of property in Ireland, such as, for instance, the comparison of the reduction of rents in England and Ireland, it is pressed home, however unsound may be the foundation up on which it rests; but when there is any comparison which would tell the other way. St. George's Channel appears to be an insuperable objection to its being adduced. Indeed, as to all rights of property, it seems to make all the difference in the world on which side of St. George's Channel the property is situated. I was much struck some days ago at hearing the noble Earl the leader of the Opposition condemning a Government measure—the Military Manœuvres Bill—on the ground that it assumed a certain control over a landlord's property for three weeks in the year, for ever. I thought at the time that there was a certain force in the noble Earl's objections, but I could not help contrasting this solicitude for the rights of property
    428
    with the slight regard paid to those rights by the Land Act of 1881, an Act which deprived Irish landlords of more than 25 per cent. of the fee - simple of their property, not for three weeks, but for all the year round, for ever. I wonder the noble Marquess who had charge of that Bill did not notice the inconsistency, but I suppose that the severe training which he underwent in 1896, before he was reduced, as he then told us, to the position of a tame elephant, has rendered him somewhat callous to the injuries inflicted on his wilder brethren. But a comparison between the English and the Irish tithe rent-charge payer shows that the former in 1872 had to pay £108 16s. Od. for every £100 tithe rent-charge as fixed in 1836, while in 1899 he only paid.£68 2s. 4d. Now by the Act of 1872 tithe rent charge in Ireland was rendered invariable, and the tithe rent-charge payer has ever since been paying the same amount as in 1872, notwithstanding the fall in prices. It is no wonder, therefore, that the opponents of this measure take very good care not to draw a comparison, which they might be ready enough to do if it told the other way My Lords, this settlement in 1872 is spoken of as a bargain, which tithe rent-charge payers gladly accepted, fearing that the price of corn might rise. Now, no one probably anticipated the deplorable agricultural depression which has since occurred, but, on the other hand, no one in his senses, seeing the continually increasing facilities for the importation of corn, could have dreaded as a tithe payer, or hoped for as a farmer, any decided rise in the price, of corn. Indeed, prices, after some fluctuation, showed a tendency to fall in the years immediately preceding 1872. The fact is that the Act of 1872 was slipped through Parliament in August as a Departmental measure, without any explanation in either House, and escaped observation. But tithe rent-charge payers have suffered in another way by legislation. By the Church Act of 1869 the price of redemption of tithe rent-charge was fixed at 22½ years purchase. A high authority on the subject, Mr. O'Brien, has stated that in previous times it never was worth more than 17. On the other hand, in consequence of the Land Act of 1881. the selling value of property has been reduced from about 22½ years purchase of the old rent to about 17 of the new. Consequently the value of property

    429
    has been artificially reduced about 5—, years purchase, and the charge on it artificially raised by the same amount. And yet wonder is expressed that Irish landlords complain of being unjustly treated. It is needless to point out that the Church Fund has benefited by the extravagant price exacted from those who have redeemed, mainly wider the Land Purchase Acts. The amount must be over half a million sterling. And now, my Lords, as to the provisions of the Bill itself. While we can only consider it as a measure of justice, and as a partial measure of justice, we must acknowledge that the Government have spared no effort to pass it in the face of a most determined and unscrupulous opposition. But the pity is that when they were prepared to take so much trouble, they did not make it a more comprehensive measure. For I must point out that, while it otters some relief to what I may call the more improvident persons, who did not commute their tithe rent-charge, it offers practically nothing to the more provident who did, for the reduction of the number of years from 52 to 45 is nothing more than the rectification of an arithmetical blunder. It cannot be contended that the Government intended to charge those who commuted £3 16s. 3d. per cent. interest, when the ordinary rate for Government loans was £3 10s. Od If the interest is taken at £3 10s. Od., payment of £4 9s. Od. per cent. for 52 years would mean the payment of £130 for every £100 advanced. We hoped that, in the case of those who had commuted, the Government would have ascertained the capital amount already redeemed, and treated the residue as a loan to be redeemed in the same way, and on the same terms as loans made to tenants. This would have involved no loss to the Treasury. Finally, my Lords, there is the case of lay tithe rent-charge payers, and holders of perpetuities. In their case there is no question of public money. But they have suffered from the failure of duty of some Government official. Their payments were not affected by the Act of 1872, but remained variable in accordance with the average prices of oats and wheat which ought to be published, and up to 1872 always were published, in the Dublin Gazette. The rents of perpetuity holders were also variable in accordance with those prices. But soon after 1872
    430
    these prices were at first incorrectly published, the mean being taken instead of the average, and since 1887 have not been published at all. Consequently no variation has been possible. The lay tithe rent-charge payers urge that they have an undoubted grievance against Government in this matter. They are by no means satisfied with the scale of variation proposed for them in the Bill, and cannot see why the prices published by the Land Commission should not be adopted in place of those which ought to have been published by the Government. The holders of perpetuities who have just the same grievance are not included in the Bill at all, as might easily have been done. My Lords, we are given to understand that if we attempt to introduce any amendments into this Bill, we shall probably lose it altogether. I do not, therefore, propose to do so. But I think it necessary to point out how much it falls short of what we might have expected, and to protest against the | statements which have been made that it is a singular act of beneficence to Irish landlords. Moreover, it is not a measure affecting landlords alone. I may mention that in 1869 there were 36,000 tithe rent-charge payers, while the number of proprietors who could correctly be described as landlords was not more than a third of that total.
    THE EARL OF MAYO: It is a pleasure to see our old friend the Tithe Rent-charge Bill, of which we have heard so much, first of all in two Queen's Speeches and also in a great many debates, brought forward. It is a measure of justice, and I deny the statement of the noble Earl opposite that it is a boon. As usual, we are compared to English landowners. That is the comparison which is always made in this House, but what are the facts of the case? English landowners can have their tithes revised by the prices of corn and oats, but in Ireland there is no revision at all. As my noble friend Lord Cronbrock has gone so fully into the subject there is very little for me to say, except that we accept the Bill not as a boon but as a simple act of justice on the part of the Government. It is really time that the Bill was passed, and I am delighted to see it in this House. A short section was slipped into the Bill in the House of Commons which creates an obvious in-

    431
    justice. By that section it is provided that:—
    "Sections three and four of this Act shall not apply to any tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission out of hereditaments the fee simple of which has, after the tenth day of August one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two and before the twelfth day of May one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, been conveyed to a purchaser on a sale."
    The argument adduced for the insertion of these words was that when the estate was purchased a certain allowance was made for the tithe rent-charge. But I must draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the rents on the estate are reducible every 15 years, and it is hardly fair that the man who purchased the estate should go on paying the same tithe rent-charge. I only raise this by way of protest. I know it is no good moving an Amendment; but I hope the noble Marquess who is going to wind up the debate will say something on that point.
    THE EARL OF ARRAN: Before my noble friend the Marquess of Londonderry makes his speech, which I am sure will throw a great deal of light on this question, I should like to say a few words. I agree with my noble friends who have spoken from this side of the House that this Bill is an act of tardy justice to the Irish landlords. One of the advantages of the Bill is that the question of revision of tithe rent-charge will be rendered perfectly simple. Under the old Act, to get a tithe revised necessitated the proving of the whole title to the estate. It was a matter of great difficulty. The co-operation of several people had to be obtained as a rule, and the cost was very often a great deal more than the thing was worth. I hail with satisfaction the simplification of the procedure. Having said that, I venture to express my opinion that we owe very little gratitude for this Bill. It is a sort of salve for the policy which has been pursued by the British Government in regard to Ireland for 28 years past, and which I cannot help thinking will inevitably lead to the absolute expropriation of the Irish landlords. I should like to ask, What has this country gained by this policy? Is Ireland more contented or more loyal? I venture to think, speaking for that part of Ireland with which I am best acquainted, and, I think I may almost say, for the whole Western seaboard of Ireland, that whatever may be the feeling
    432
    of the Western Irishmen as regards her Majesty the Queen, there never was a time when the Western peasant was more disloyal to the English connection; and the smaller landlords, the men who are being ruined by the land legislation, would not raise a hand to help this country in any difficulty she might be in.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My lords, although my noble friends who have last spoken have alluded to the fact that I was to wind up this debate, I confess that after the extremely concise, explanatory, and, I think, complete speech of my noble and learned friend in introducing this measure no words are necessary from me to recommend the Bill to the support of your Lordships. But I do not think it would be right that the speech of the noble Earl who followed him should be passed over in complete-silence by the Front Ministerial Bench. As an Irish landlord, the Bill will not affect me in the slightest degree, and consequently I can speak of it in the most disinterested manner. My feelings of justice force me to recognise that the Bill removes an unjust burden under which the land-owning classes have for many years laboured. The measure is not a "boon" or a "present" to the Irish landlords, as it has been described by the noble Earl opposite. To my mind it is not even an act of generosity or kindness. It is merely an act of ordinary justice; an honest endeavour to remove, very late in the day, a most unfair burden from the Irish landlords —a burden that would not be tolerated if imposed upon any other class in any other part of the kingdom. My noble and learned friend who introduced the measure stated that this small act of justice was of a very tardy character. Never were truer words said. The Irish landowners have lived many years in the hope that this tardy act of justice would be brought forward at some time or other. They remember the words of the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who, as Lord Privy Seal, declared so long ago as 1888, speaking on behalf of the Government, that they recognised the difficulties under which Irish landlords laboured in regard to tithe rent-charge, and that it was their anxious wish to afford a remedy for a state of things which nobody could deny required immediate consideration. I am the most recent addition to the Government, but I

    433
    should say that the landlords of Ireland have a grievance in not having this act of justice done them, according to promise, years ago. What strikes me as very extraordinary is that there has been so much opposition to this measure, which is in itself so small. The amount of opposition to this Bill has filled me with amaze- merit. After all, what is it that this measure enacts? It merely enacts that where a landowner has paid off the principal and interest the charge should cease to exist, and, secondly, that tithes should be variable as they were up to 1872, and as they are in England at the present moment. It is obvious that they should be variable. If you go back to the Book of Genesis you will find that tithe was a proportion of the produce of the producer. That principle has been recognised from time immemorial, but since the Act of 1872 revision of tithe has been made impossible in Ireland. My noble and learned friend stated with justice that the price of wheat and oats had fallen very materially in Ireland since 1872. I have ventured to look up the statistics, and I can endorse his remarks on that subject. In the year 1872 the price of wheat, which in Ireland is calculated by the barrel of 20 stone, was £1 9s. 11d. per barrel, but in 1899 the price had fallen to 15s. 6d. per barrel. I can endorse also what my noble and learned friend told the House with regard to the fall in the price of oats. In 1872 a barrel of oats fetched 14s. 8½d. in Ireland, or, according to English calculation, £1 6s. 8d. per quarter; but in 1899 it was only worth 10s. lid. per barrel, or 18s. 4d. per quarter. Under these circumstances it is only fair to ask that the tithe rent-charge should be varied. The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition stated, I think, that it was after close calculation in 1872 that the charge was fixed permanently, but in 1872 I do not think anybody imagined that there was going to be the Act of 1881, under which rents could be compulsorily reduced periodically until eventually the tithe rent payer might be left with no margin at all. I know cases in which rents have been reduced by 30, 40, 50, and even 60 percent.—I will not say one word as to whether they were rightly or wrongly reduced—but surely it is not right, after such reductions have been made, that there should remain the same permanent tithe rent-charge upon the landowner. You
    434
    should pursue the same system in Ireland as you do in England, which this measure is endeavouring to carry out, and not ask a landlord, because he is an Irishman, to pay on a different scale from that which obtains in England. In the House of Commons the Home Secretary of the late Liberal Government denounced the Bill as an iniquitous encroachment upon the Irish Church Fund which was intended for the relief of unavoidable calamity and suffering in Ireland. The funds of the Irish Church have been used—and rightly used —for other measures than those to relieve unavoidable calamity and suffering. They have been used for arrears of rent, for sea-fishery loans, for the Intermediate Education Act, for the benefit of national school teachers, and for the Royal University. That attack comes with a very bad grace from a member of a Government who passed through the House of Commons a measure, fortunately rejected by your Lordships, for giving £250,000 out of the Church Fund to the evicted tenants—a body of men described by the Pope of Rome as having been guilty of an immoral action, and by the judges of the land as having taken part in an illegal conspiracy. Is it in the interest of the tenant-farmers that the Nationalist Members are opposing the Bill? I say "No," and I ask myself again the question —Are the Nationalist Members of Parliament, who are all members of the United Irish League, real friends of the tenant-farmers, and is it in the interests of those farmers that they are endeavouring to oppose the Bill? I say that if they were true friends of the Irish farmers they would at the present moment be endeavouring to assist that class to take advantage of the Technical Education Act for Ireland, and to make the most of their opportunities, but instead of doing so they are trying to induce them to leave their land derelict. The real secret of the determined resistance offered to the Bill in the House of Commons was explained recently by Mr. Dillon, when he said that the great object of the League, and consequently of the Nationalist members, was to abolish landlordism and drive it out of the country. Now we know the real reason of the opposition to this measure. It is to drive landlordism out of Ireland, because it is the one barrier to total separation from this kingdom. When Mr. Dillon tells us that it is the object of the United Irish League

    435
    to drive landlordism out of the country, I think it may be as well to consider whether it would be for the advantage of Ireland if this were to occur. I do not believe that the tenant-farmers generally desire that the landlords should be driven out of Ireland. Would it be beneficial to Ireland that the landlords should be expatriated? I reply deliberately that with the disappearance of the land-owning classes the ruin of Ireland would begin. The land-owning classes have been for generations past the backbone of the agricultural community in Ireland, and agriculture, as your Lordships know, is the great industry of the country. If you expatriate the landlords their places will be taken by the class below them, who, in their turn, may be forced out by the class below, and the result will be that Ireland will be owned and farmed by a race of men without capital and without resources, the majority of whom will be in the hands of the Gombeen-men. With that class of person in possession of Ireland there would be no confidence, and without confidence there would be no capital expended in Ireland. In the interests of Ireland it is the duty of your Lordships not only to relieve an injustice, but to retain in the country people who have its welfare at heart.
    On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

    LAND CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
    Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.

    THE RESERVE FORCES OF AUSTRALIA.
    LORD BRASSEY: My Lords, I think I shall best introduce the subject which I desire to bring very briefly under your notice with a few figures. The armed forces of Australia include for service afloat 350 permanent men, 1,250 reservists, and 1,350 naval volunteers. For the land service the numbers are 1,250 regulars, 8,000 militia, 13,000 volunteers, and 12,000 cadets, trained as the cadets are trained in the public schools of this country. When we compare these figures with the citizen army of the Swiss Re-public, it will be clear that hitherto preparations for defence, with the exception, perhaps, of harbour defence, have not been regarded as a matter of urgency
    436
    in Australia. There was no formidable enemy near at hand, and full reliance was placed upon the Imperial navy. Today we stand in a different position. Patriotic feeling in the colonies has been keenly stirred. The war in South Africa has given occasion to our Australian fellow subjects to show how ready they are to share our responsibilities, and how great are the resources at their command. It seems a fitting opportunity to consider how best the mother country and the colonies may co-operate in the preparation of forces for the common defence. My Lords, I will deal first with the mounted infantry. The Australian colonies undoubtedly possess most exceptional resources for raising a force of that description. Every governor who serves in Australia is expected to travel widely over the country. Wherever he goes he is attended by a strong escort of mounted infantry, and it is impossible not to admire the endurance of men and horses under a fiery sun, and the skilful and bold horsemanship with which the escort will ride, fours abreast, over the most formidable timber fences. It was a natural reflection that here were men specially fitted for such a service as our forces have been called upon to render in South Africa. Privately I made inquiries, addressing myself to the Imperial and colonial officers in all the colonies, and I was assured that at least 5,000 men could be raised upon the same footing as our yeomanry at home, and at a comparatively small expense. It was much to be regretted that on a late occasion when there was a most patriotic desire to send contingents to South Africa, those 5,000 men were not ready at hand. In Victoria we had several hundreds of mounted infantry upon the musterrolls, but they were recruited from a class which could not be expected to volunteer in large numbers for foreign service. The majority were small farmers, to whom it would have spelt ruin to leave their farms at the commencement of the harvest. The true men of the bush were not numerously represented in the first contingent which we despatched. They came in later when special efforts were made and Imperial subscriptions had been contributed, and the resources were available for preparing a corps of bushmen. A force ready to serve whenever required must consist of the younger men. It should be raised rather from the wage-

    437
    earning than from the wage-paying class. The training should be more complete, especially for the officers, than has hitherto been attempted in Australia. To a certain extent the force must be a paid force. Our mounted infantry in Victoria were not a paid force. I strongly urge that Her Majesty's Government should concert measures with the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia with a view to raising an Imperial Yeomanry in Australia of at least 5,000 men, under engagement to serve in any part of the Empire, the cost to be met by joint contributions from the Imperial Exchequer and from colonial funds. If the principle be accepted, a scheme could be best worked out on the spot by the commandants and the ministers of defence. It must take time to gather information, time to mature a plan, time to confer with the Colonial Government on the political considerations involved. The work I venture to say should be taken in hand without delay, in preparation for practical action as soon as the Federal Government of Australia has been set on foot. My Lords, I pass from the enrolment of a force of mounted infantry to the general efficiency of the colonial military forces. In deference to political considerations, the Imperial forces have been wholly withdrawn from the colonies. Their removal has left the colonies without infantry or cavalry up to the standard of smartness which can only be obtained by constant drill. In the altered circumstances in which we stand to-day the question of raising and maintaining a small Imperial force of infantry and cavalry in Australia would seem worthy of consideration. It will not be necessary that the forces should be kept at the full strength in the time of peace. A single squadron of cavalry and a few companies of infantry at the military headquarters in the several States would be of the greatest value for the instruction of large bodies of militia and volunteers assembled for reviews and for camps of exercise. They are needed to stiffen the Militia and Volunteers, which have not the advantage of constant drill. There is only one further suggestion which I should like to offer bearing upon efficiency. It is borrowed from a recent work by an eminent military writer, Sir George Clarice. I refer to the advantage of occasional, perhaps annual, inspections of the colonial forces by an Imperial officer of high
    438
    standing. If it were possible that his Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught should pay a visit of inspection to Australia it would give great encouragement to loyal feeling, and I feel sure would be an immense advantage to the army. I may mention that under a recent regulation the naval forces of Victoria are annually inspected by the Commander-in-Chief on the Station, and that inspection has proved of the greatest advantage. My Lords, I pass from the military to the naval forces. Australia will not compare with the sister colony of Canada in the numbers of its seafaring population, but there are in Australia ample resources for the creation of a colonial naval reserve. Official inquiries have lately been made and it has been ascertained that we have, in the coasting trade and fisheries of Australia, more than 30,000 men. The men earn high wages, and those wages are well earned. The seamen in the coasting trade and fisheries of Australia are men of superior qualifications both in seamanship and in general intelligence and conduct. Having for many years taken the deepest interest in the question of a Colonial Naval Reserve, it was to me an immense satisfaction when I came home two years ago on leave, to hear from Mr. Goschen that the Admiralty had at last decided to take steps to raise a Colonial Naval Reserve. The announcement was followed by an official communication from the Commander-in-Chief on the Australian station. The terms offered by the Admiralty were identical with those established for the Naval Reserve at home, and without modifications they were not acceptable to the seafaring class in Australia. I may refer more particularly to the regulation requiring six months service on a man-of-war upon a low scale of wages. I earnestly hope that the Admiralty will not allow this matter to drop, and I would urge that instructions should be given to the Commander-in-Chief, directing him, in consultation with the local officers, to revise the regulations which are established for our Naval Reserve at home, so as to make them suitable to Colonial conditions. In this connection, I would like to say a few words with reference to the report made by the naval advisors of the Australian colonies with reference to this question of a Colonial Naval Reserve. That report has boon criticised as a proposal to

    439
    establish a merely local force. I believe that report to have been misunderstood. The true feeling in the colonies must be gauged by recent events. When we stood in a recent crisis face to face with the sudden emergency in China, no objection was urged to the removal of certain vessels from the Australian squadron to China. The colonies offered a ship, which has been accepted; they offered the services of their naval brigades, which have also been accepted. What has happened lately I feel sure would happen again. I feel certain that all the available naval forces of the Australian colonies will at all times be available for Imperial defence. My Lords, I have only one other observation to make. The proposal that payment should be made from Imperial funds for the maintenance of forces in Australia may be challenged in certain quarters, but the principle of paying men from Imperial funds in Australia was accepted when the Admiralty consented to the enrolment of a Naval Reserve. If a retainer is paid to the seamen, why not to the mounted infantry? In conclusion, it seems to me clear that recent events have made it evident that steps must be taken to strengthen our military and our naval resources. If the work is to be done without imposing intolerable burdens, it must be by means of reserve forces, and I hope I have shown to the satisfaction of your Lordships that proposals for raising reserves in Australia should be included in the comprehensive scheme for which we look to the Government in the next session of Parliament.
    VISCOUNT FRANKFORT,*VISCOUNT FRANKFORT, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention had been drawn to a letter in The Times of July 12th "on Colonial Reserves," and whether he approved of the suggestion therein made by Major General French, commanding the New South Wales military forces; and whether he proposed to consult the Secretary of State for the Colonies in regard to the advisability of taking steps to obtain the insertion in the Federal Defence Act for all Australia, shortly to be brought forward, the necessary powers for the formation of such war reserve, said: My Lords, I have listened with great attention to the noble Lord who has just sat down. The question I have put on the Paper is rather with regard to war reserve than with regard to forces to be
    440
    raised in the colony, but I think we must all agree that the defence of the Empire is a most important subject. A few days ago the Australian Commonwealth Bill received the Royal Assent, and there is no doubt that the people of Australia are willing to take their share in the defence of the Empire. I am anxious that no time should be lost in taking steps to obtain the insertion in the Federal Defence Act for all Australia of the necessary powers for the formation of a war reserve. The writer of the letter which appeared in The Times of the 12th of August is by no means an amateur. He has served some 12 years in Canada and a like number of years in Australia. He was more or less responsible on the military side for the Military Lands Act of 1884; at the present moment he is commanding the New South Wales Military forces. He has come to the conclusion that a scheme is feasible which would be mutually advantageous to England and the Colonies and of benefit to the Empire in which they live, and to use his own words "for which we ought to do our utmost." With regard to Canada, the suggestion Major General French makes is this. He suggests that the 75,000 fishermen and sailors on the Atlantic seaboard might make a very large and a very useful war reserve for our fleets. With regard to Australia the rate of wages current in Australia is so high that it is impossible to have a very large force for peace duties. But on the other hand any number of men will come forward in time of war at a fair rate of pay. Now what is proposed is to form a reserve of, say, 10,000 men with a retaining fee of £8 per man per annum for efficient privates of infantry, £12 per man per annum for troopers of mounted corps who have horses and saddlery effective for service, and other ranks in proportion. The approximate cost of this force at, say, £10 per head would be about £100,000. The requirements of efficiency would involve an annual course of training and musketry. This reserve force should be formed mainly from the efficient officers and men who have passed through the ranks of the defence forces, and who agree to serve within or without Australia in war time. The 6,000 men that are now out in South Africa would make a capital start for this reserve. As I have said, the notion is that the reserve pay is to be paid by the Imperial Govern-

    441
    merit as a retaining fee. I am quoting word for word from General French's letter. He knows well the feeling of the Colonies, and I think this paragraph is most important as regards pay for extra services. Your Lordships know that the Colonial Government are paying the difference between the imperial rate of pay and the rate of pay to their own men in South Africa. Major-General French goes on to say, "They might well do so in the future in view of the substantial advantage of having 10,000 trained reserves kept up in Australia in peace time at no expense to them." Thus, My Lords, by this scheme the imperial Government would have 10,000 men, and when they are called up for service in any future war they would only have to pay them the imperial rates of pay. I think steps should be taken by the Government to form a reserve in Australia something on these lines, and steps should be taken soon. As soon as the war in South Africa will allow it these Australian soldiers will go back to their country, they will be disbanded, they will disperse all over the country, and it will be most difficult to collect them again to form this reserve which I am suggesting. With these observations I beg to ask the noble Marquess the question standing on the Paper in my name.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, with the general principle laid down by the two noble lords, who have addressed your Lordships I desire to express my entire concurrence and sympathy. The war which is now going on in South Africa will be ever memorable as that in which for the first time the troops of this country and those of our great colonies have fought side by side, and I do not think we can overrate the deep impression which has been produced, not only upon the people of the United Kingdom, not only upon the people of the British Empire, but upon all parts of the world, by the exhibition of colonial patriotism and loyalty, which we have lately witnessed. Throughout these difficult and arduous operations, during the initial stages when success seemed to come to us with slow and halting steps, and later, when our progress has been more rapid and satisfactory, the colonial troops have borne a distinguished and honourable share in the hardships and in
    442
    the dangers of the war. My Lords, as I have mentioned this, I am impelled to refer to the telegram which we all of us have read from Lord Roberts two days ago in which he mentions how in a recent hard-fought action beyond Pretoria, two young Canadian officers, when leading their men in a counter attack on the enemy's flank at a critical juncture of an important engagement lost their lives, one of them being the only son of the Canadian Minister of Militia and Defence, a young officer whom Lord Roberts describes as having twice before been brought to his notice in despatches for gallant and intrepid conduct. When we think who was the writer of that telegram, and with what feelings he must have written it, I think we may say that no more touching tribute could have been paid to the memory of these brave young representatives of our Colonial forces. With regard to the Australian contingents, I do not think the noble lord who spoke first at all overrated the value of the services which they have rendered. I think there are between 8,000 and 9,000 of them at this moment fighting for us in South Africa, and they have exhibited those qualities, not only of personal courage, but of great endurance, fine horsemanship, and resource and readiness which his experience of the Australian Colonies led him to attribute to them. I think the noble lord is perfectly right when he describes Australia as pre-eminently a country of mounted infantry. You have there men of the right stamp, and you have abundance of horses of the right stamp. There may be a certain difficulty in obtaining horses of the type that we require for cavalry and artillery, but the mounted infantry horses can be obtained in almost infinite numbers. I am sure we all of us feel that this co-operation of the colonial forces has not been the result of any passing mood on their part; it is not a mere momentary effervescence of loyalty, it is the result of a deep-seated patriotism and an abiding desire to bear with us a part in the burden of Empire. I am sure one and all of us would wish and hope that if this country should find itself again circumstanced as it has been of late we should find the colonies ready to take their place by our side. And if it would be possible, as the noble lord behind me desired, for us to come to some understanding with the colonies by which

    443
    that co-operation might be rendered easier both for them and for us, I for one should greatly rejoice at it. But I venture to suggest that the matter is one in which we can scarcely proceed with too much caution. I cannot help thinking that increased assistance in numbers and increased efficiency, might be too dearly bought if they were paid for by any loss of that wonderful spontaneity which has characterised the co-operation of the colonies on this occasion, I could not help being struck by the concluding sentence of the letter of General French, which the noble and gallant Lord quoted, in which he says:— "Now is the time to act. If we wait till the cold fit comes on progress may be made impossible." I cannot help saying that this sentence suggested to my mind an inference rather different from that which the writer probably intended to suggest. I should be sorry if we were at this moment to take advantage of the manner in which the colonies have come forward during the last nine or ten months in order to hurry them into any arrangement which upon mature Deflection afterwards some might think irksome or inconvenient. I confess I am a little reminded of the analogy of the Volunteer Bill, which I lately passed through your Lordships' House and which was severely criticised by noble Lords opposite, who said we were endeavouring to persuade the Volunteers in a moment of popular excitement to assume permanently a liability which the force as a whole might afterwards object to. That provision met with an unfortunate fate in another place. But I think there is an object lesson to be drawn from that Bill, and I would say that if it is necessary to proceed with caution when we are dealing with our own forces in this country, still more must we be cautious when we are dealing with the forces of the colonies. I entirely agree with what the noble lord on the back bench said, that in a case like this the scheme must be worked out on the spot. There is no doubt about that. I also agree with him that it should be worked out under the supervision of that Federal Government which is about to come into existence under such auspicious circumstances. All I can say is that we are perfectly ready to discuss a scheme, but in our opinion it is desirable that the initiative should come from the colonies, and that we will
    444
    certainly give them all the advice, all the assistance, and all the expert cooperation that they can possibly desire from us. The discussion of the details of such a scheme would at the present moment, I cannot help thinking, be a little premature. The two noble Lords seem to be agreed upon this, that they would like to see raised in the colonies a special body of troops, receiving special training, paid partly by us and partly out of colonial funds, and liable in certain circumstances for active service beyond the limits of the colony to which they belong. The noble Lord opposite spoke, I think, of a force of 5,000 Yeomanry. He did not mention the particular financial arrangements which he would recommend. The noble Lord behind me regarded with favour the scheme of General French, who proposes that we should have a force of 10,000 men in Australia, receiving, in time of peace, a retaining fee of from £8 to £12, to be paid by us, and who would be liable for active service in case of Imperial emergency. I must ask the noble lord to receive with a certain amount of caution General French's estimate of the relative cost of these proposals, because, I see that according to his calculation, while 10,000 British cavalry would cost this country £1,000,000 a year, 10,000 Australian mounted infantry would cost £100,000 a year. To begin with, I do not accept a calculation based upon a charge of £100 per head for each British cavalry soldier; and then, of course, it is impossible to make a fair comparison between the cost of troops who are only available for active service at rare intervals and on special occasions and the cost of troops whose liability is continuous and whom you can always make use of whether the emergency be great or little. There are obviously a great number of points which it would be necessary to consider with the greatest care before any scheme of this kind could really be adopted. I can only mention one or two of them. In the first place, I presume that if the British taxpayer is to be called upon to pay for these colonial reserves he will require to be satisfied as to the efficiency of the troops for whom he pays. Then would arise the question of the tests of efficiency which would have to be applied. Who would lay down those tests? Who would from time to time inspect these troops?

    445
    What facilities would they have for training at intervals?—these are all points which would require to be examined. Then there is the most important question as to the extent of the liability which these troops would be expected to assume. I think it was the noble Lord behind me who quoted General French's letter and proposed that these troops should be liable to be called upon within or without Australia in war time. Who is to decide whether the war is one of such importance as to justify a call upon the colonies? We know that in this country we cannot call out our Reserves, we cannot embody our Militia, we cannot call up the Volunteers without a proclamation of emergency. In the Case of the colonies who would issue the proclamation of the emergency? Would it be the Parliament at home or the Parliament in the colonies? It would be very regrettable if it should ever happen that while in the opinion of one Parliament it appeared that there was emergency, it appeared in the opinion of the other Parliament that the emergency was not sufficient, Those are all points that would have to be looked in the face and, as the noble lord said, worked out on the spot before we could arrive at an understanding. There is another point. What would be the place of these colonial troops in the military system of their own colonies? The noble Lord knows very well that for many years past it has been our policy to concentrate our Imperial troops at home, in India, and in a few of the great garrisons We have withdrawn our troops from the outlying colonies, and our policy has been to induce the colonies, so far as possible, to make arrangements for their own defence. Now, would the Empire really gain unless those colonial reserves, which the noble Lord wishes to form, were additional to the colonial forces required for the defence of the colony itself? If the Imperial Reserves were only a part of the colonial Militia, I do not think it would be very satisfactory if, at a time of emergency, we found ourselves calling away from the Colonies the very élite of their force. That would be what is called "picking the eyes" out of their little army. That, again, is a point that will have to be considered. Then the noble Lord made another suggestion. He said, "Why should we not raise in the colonies an Imperial corps of cavalry or infantry which would form part of the British
    446
    Army, but which would be raised and maintained in the colonies?" The noble Lord knows the colonies a great deal better than I do, but I confess that I should have thought that an almost insuperable obstacle in the way of the adoption of such a, proposal is the very high rate of wages which obtains in the colonies. General French tells us in his letter that the minimum rate of wages paid by Government contractors is 7s. a day. I am afraid that that is a rate which, when compared with the wages the British Army receives, becomes almost prohibitive. When the noble Lord, not long ago, was in communication with the War Office upon this subject calculations were made, and I believe the result was to show that a force of 5,000 men paid at the rate of 6s. a day would cost no less than £400,000 more than a similar force paid at Imperial rates; and at the rate of 7s. a day it would cost nearly half a million a year more. That is rather a formidable obstacle, I think, to the proposal that we should raise a part of the Imperial Army within the colonies.
    LORD BRASSEY: I said only a small force for the purposes of instruction.
    The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No doubt the smaller the force the less the expense would be. One reason the noble Lord adduces in favour of his pro posal—and I think it a very sound reason indeed—is that since we have withdrawn British troops from the colonies there has necessarily no longer been in the colonies that high standard of smartness and efficiency provided by the well-trained and permanently trained forces forming part of the Imperial Army. I confess I think it is extremely desirable that that standard should, if possible, be afforded, and an attempt has been made to arrive at that by a system of interchanging units between the colonial and the Imperial forces. I mean that a colonial corps should for a time take its place in a British garrison and a British force should take its place for a time in a colonial station. That is a matter that was discussed by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies at a conference with the Colonial Premiers in the year 1897. The idea was, on the whole, favourably received, and the War Office entirely approved of it. New South Wales, I believe, accepted the

    447
    proposal, and was prepared to exchange a company of its garrison artillery with a company of Imperial Garrison Artillery. I believe New Zealand made an offer, and in Canada there have been similar interchanges between the troops belonging to the garrison of Halifax and the troops belonging to the Canadian Militia. The matter was progressing far from unfavourably when unfortunately the war came, and put an end to the negotiations which were going on. With regard to Naval Reserve, I can say little of my own knowledge, but I am authorised to say that, in principle, the First Lord of the Admiralty entirely accepts the idea of a colonial Naval Reserve, but he thinks, as, no doubt, does the noble Lord opposite, that it would be more prudent to wait for the accomplishment of Federation before attempting to advance the matter any further. My Lords, I can only add to what I have said that, agreeebly to the suggestion of the noble Lord behind me, I shall make it my business, in consultation with the Secretary for the Colonies, to advance the policy the noble Lord has advocated as much as we can possibly advance it. I can assure you no one hopes more anxiously and keenly than I do that in years to come we may find the soldiers of the great colonies fighting side by side with our own Imperial troops in the same patriotic and loyal spirit which they have exhibited during the war now in progress.
    EARL CARRINGTON: I hope your Lordships will bear with me for one single moment while I express the pleasure with which we on this side of the House have heard the eloquent words of the Secretary of State for War, when he spoke of the patriotism of the Colonies, in answer to Lord Brassey, whom we are glad to see present after five years service rendered with so much pride to himself and so much advantage to the great colony of Victoria. With regard to what Lord Brassey has said as to colonial mounted infantry, perhaps I may be permitted to say that fifteen years ago when I was in Australia I was much struck with the possibilities of mounted infantry in those colonies, and it was with peculiar pleasure that I read that the New South Wales Lancers were the first of the colonial contingents to arrive at the Cape, the first to be sent to the front, and the first to come under fire.
    448
    Lord Brassey spoke of the deep-seated patriotism that exists in the colonies. I hardly think that the colonists themselves know how deep-seated that patriotism is. It seems to me to be like one of those great Australian underground rivers that disappear in the bowels of the earth and then come up again, and appear and disappear again, and then when they are tapped they rise in a huge geyser, finally rushing down in a mighty torrent to the ocean. I think we can always rely on having the colonies on our side, but it must be on one condition. This country must recognise that there must be perfect equality between the soldiers of our great self-governing colonies and the English, Scotch, Welsh, and Irish troops. The noble Marquess said that we must move with great caution. Naturally, great caution is necessary, but I would venture very respectfully to suggest to him that we ought to insist that there shall be perfect equality between the Imperial and colonial forces, and that all honours and rewards shall be shared and dealt out equally to both branches of Her Majesty's servants in proportion to the strength of the men turned out.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR — HOSPITAL, AND MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS— COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN,who had on the Paper notice of the following question: "To ask if Her Majesty's Government can inform the House when the Commission to inquire into the question of the treatment of the sick and wounded soldiers in South Africa is likely to be appointed," said: My Lords, the announcement which was made in the other House of Parliament after the question in my name was placed on the Paper of course anticipates the answer to this question, which has, therefore, a somewhat belated appearance. However, although very apologetically, I take advantage of the fact that the question is on the Paper, to say two words by way of expressing the hope that, notwithstanding the important avocations of members of the Commission, it will be possible for the inquiry to be commenced without delay, not only because of the great interest and importance of the matters in question, but because many of the individuals who could give evidence regarding the state of matters at the particular period in question may be dispersed. For

  449
  example, it was mentioned the other day in the newspapers that a certain number of the Canadian contingent were sailing for home from Liverpool. Some of these men wore asked to contribute their impressions upon the matters referred to in this question, and I think the statements reported are significant. Of course I am only speaking from the reports given to the public; but what was said in effect was that in some respects there were things which were remembered with regret in regard to the medical arrangements, but at the same time they offered a hearty tribute of admiration with regard to other matters. I venture to think that that is significant, because in such vast operations as those of this war it is obvious that in certain sections of arrangements there might be defects or misfortunes, while side by side with those there were arrangements and matters calling forth only admiration. My Lords, I cannot refrain from expressing satisfaction, which, I am sure, will be common to all your Lordships, at the touching words of sympathy which fell from the noble Marquess, with regard especially to the death in South Africa of the two young Canadians, one being Lieutenant Borden, the only son of the Minister of Militia in Canada. The noble Marquess speaks not only as Secretary of State for War, but as a past Governor-General of Canada, and one whose name is familiar in the best sense in that country; and, as one of his successors in the position of Governor-General of Canada, I venture to assure the House that the words which fell from the noble Marquess will be welcomed throughout the Dominion with peculiar appreciation. With regard to the subject-matter of the question I would point out that at Netley there must be many soldiers invalided home from South Africa whose evidence might be taken regarding their experience at the seat of war. I trust that there will be no delay in the inquiry getting to work.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have every reason to believe that the Commission will commence its labours without any delay. The noble Earl is aware that the appointment to the two last seats in the Commission was only made yesterday or the day before. But I know that the Commission intend to meet immediately, and I know also that it is their desire to lose no time in taking
  450
  up the important question committed to them.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Seven of the clock till Tomorrow, half past Ten of the clock.