Lords Sitting of 18 July 1901

TRIAL OF EARL RUSSELL.
Garter King of Arms by his Deputy, Norroy King of Arms, permitted to come to the Table.
House called over.
House adjourned to the Royal Gallery. Commission appointing a Lord High Steward read. Writ of Certiorari, Return, and Indictment read.
Earl Russell brought to the Bar and arraigned on the Indictment. Objection taken by counsel for Earl Russell to the said Indictment; objection overruled. Then, in answer to the arraignment, the said Earl pleads "guilty" to the felony whereof he stands indicted.
Counsel heard in mitigation of the sentence.
The said Earl is also heard.
House adjourned to the Chamber of Parliament.
Then the Bishops deliver a protestation and desire leave to be absent when judgment is given upon Earl Russell; upon which leave is given.
Sentence considered.
House resumed in the Royal Gallery.
Earl Russell brought to the Bar and informed by the Lord High Steward that the sentence of the House, unanimously agreed to, was that he be imprisoned for three calendar months in His Majesty's Prison at Holloway as an offender of the First Division.
Ordered That John Francis Stanley Earl Russell, who at the Bar of this House has pleaded guilty to the charge of felony bigamy, be imprisoned in His Majesty's Prison at Holloway, in the county of London, for the space of three calendar months, and that he be treated as an offender of the First Division.
The Commission was then dissolved.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
Ordered that the proceedings on the trial of Earl Russell be printed. (No. 165.)

EARL OF LEITRIM.
Petition of Charles Earl of Leitrim, in the Peerage of Ireland, and Baron Clements of Kilmacrenan, in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
EARL OF CAVAN.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Frederic Rudolph Lambart, Earl of Cavan, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
OFFICE OF LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN.
Petition of Gilbert Henry Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby, Earl of Ancaster, Baron Willoughby de Eresby, to His Majesty, praying His Majesty that it might be declared that he and his heirs are entitled to the office and dignity of Lord Great Chamberlain of England, and that if, contrary to his contention, it should appear that the said office and dignity are in abeyance between the co-heirs of Peregrine and Robert, Dukes of Ancaster and Kesteven, Barons Willoughby de Eresby, to determine such abeyance in favour of the Petitioner; and further that, if His Majesty should be pleased, pendente lite, to appoint a deputy to execute the said office, and that such appointment may be made subject to the Petitioner's right, if any should appear to exist. Presented (by command); read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges to consider and report.
The Lord Dunalley took the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GOLBORNE GAS BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  STALYBRIDGE, HYDE, MOSSLEY, AND DUKINFIELD TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRICITY BOARD BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered and agreed to.
  BELFAST AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 21st day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, 27th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.

    LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (DEARNE VALLEY JUNCTION RAILWAYS) BILL.
    BURTON-UPON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL.
    METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (AMENDMENT OF ACTS) BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

    BIDEFORD AND CLOVELLY RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
CHESTERFIELD IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
  LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ALDERSHOT GAS AND WATER BILL.
  BURY CORPORATION BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  SOUTHAMPTON AND WINCHESTER GREAT WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord de Saumarez be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord de Mauley; read, and agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Moved, That the order made on the 21st March last, "That no Provisional
  776
  Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 27th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  NAVAL WORKS (PROVISIONAL ORDER) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CLYDEBANK BURGH TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  EDINBURGH AND DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 167.)
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AFRICA No. 6 (1901).
  Correspondence respecting the Uganda Railway.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2659. Norway.
  No. 2660. Colombia (Barranquilla).
  No. 2661. Costa Rica.
  No. 2662. Turkey (Beyrout, etc.).

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Report of the Commissioners for the period from 1st April, 1900, to 31st March, 1901.

  BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT).
  I. (Wages and Hours of Labour).—Report relating to changes in rates of wages and hours of labour in the United Kingdom in 1900; with statistical tables.
  II. (Strikes and Lock-outs).—Report by the Chief Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade on the strikes and lock-outs of 1900; with statistical tables.

  Paper by the Secretary of State laying down the requirements for our Army, dated 1st June, 1901.

  RAILWAY RETURNS.
  Returns as to the capital, traffic, receipts, and working expenditure, etc., of the railway companies of the United Kingdom, for the year 1900.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Report to the Board of Education of the proceedings of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales under the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869 to 1899, for the year 1900.
  SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS FUND) (SAVINGS BANKS FUND) (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES FUND).
  Accounts for the year ended 31st December, 1900.

  PILOTAGE.
  Abstract of returns relating to pilots and pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 265, of 1900) (as furnished by the various Pilotage Authorities).
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITIONS.
  DECLARATION AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
  Petitions against alteration of; of inhabitants of Tewkesbury; and Gloucester; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  FINANCE BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (The Lord Privy Seal, M. Salisbury.) (No. 166.)

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, I am induced to ask for a Select Committee on the recommendations of the Fry Commission owing to the unsatisfactory answers that I obtained about a week ago, when I addressed a series of questions to His Majesty's Government respecting the procedure in the Irish Land Commission. I am also prompted by the desire of an enormous number of land owners in Ireland who are most anxious that, whilst their property is being taken away from them, they should have some idea as to the procedure by which their rents are being year by year reduced. Your Lordships may recollect that on Thursday last I asked six questions of the Government respecting the recommendations of the Fry Commission to the Land Commission, with regard to those which they accepted, those which they declined to accept, and those which they also thought it better that they should not accept. That Commission was composed of five gentlemen. There were two competent British land valuers, one Nationalist solicitor, and an academic Unionist, and they were presided over by a gentleman who had been a most distinguished judge, and who was and is now a most eminent lawyer. It appeared to everyone that these gentlemen were the most competent to give decisions on the various points brought under their notice, but except in very minor cases these points have been almost entirely ignored by the Land Commission. To these questions I received no satisfactory reply from the noble and learned Lord who responded on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and I therefore feel constrained to ask your Lordships to grant a Select Committee in order that these points to which I have referred may be fought out and sifted.
  There is no intention of asking that this Select Committee should be appointed to take over again any evidence on the subjects upon which evidence was taken by the Fry Commission. It would be limited almost entirely to ascertaining certain facts relative to the recommendations made in the Report of that Commission, and to a few questions which have arisen, or have become urgent, since that Report was issued. Least of all is it intended to examine the Judicial Land Commissioner, or any other judges of the High Court, as to their reasons

  779
  for any decisions which have been given by them on questions of law. Therefore your Lordships will see that this Select Committee, if it be granted, will in no way interfere with the decisions of the Land Commissioners. It will simply inquire into the procedure adopted by the Land Commission, changes in which have been strongly and unanimously recommended by the members of the Fry Commission.
  With regard to Reference No. 1 in my motion, the recommendations of the Fry Commission which have been already adopted are more or less known, but it seems necessary that they should be included in the reference, partly to enable the Select Committee to present a complete report, and partly to afford an opportunity of ascertaining how some of them are carried out in practice, and whether anything could be done to meet some of the objections to them in their present form which were mentioned by me in my speech in your Lordships' House on 11th July. With regard to Reference No. 2, the proposal to obtain a list of recommendations which have not been adopted is again a suggestion largely intended to enable the Select Committee to present a complete Report, but it also has a distinct connection with Reference No. 3 and Reference No. 4. I now come to Reference No. 3. There has always been considerable uncertainty as to the recommendations which could not be carried into effect without new legislation. It would, therefore, be important to have a definite report on this subject, as it would enable those interested to consider whether it would be desirable to ask for new legislation upon all or any of them. Reference No. 4 would enable the Select Committee to obtain from members or officials of the administering tribunals full particulars of the objections entertained by those tribunals to each of the Fry Commission recommendations which have not been adopted. Such a course could hardly fail to have a satisfactory result. In some cases the evidence might satisfy all parties that certain recommendations ought not to be pressed. In others, discussion might result in removing the objections hitherto entertained by the tribunals, or in the suggestion of modifications of the recommendations, or in the proposing of new and more acceptable recommendations. With regard to Reference No. 5, in his speech on July 11th
  780
  the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland said—
  "he was told that the prices were circulated most carefully, and that every means was taken to enable people to know the prices."
  This statement gave no information whatever as to whether, and in what way, the prices of agricultural produce and stock are taken into account in fixing judicial rents, which is what we in Ireland are endeavouring to obtain from the Land Commission. With regard to Reference No. 6, experienced valuers have frequently said that "all the circumstances of the holding and district" are certainly not taken into account in the fixing of judicial rents, and the Fry Commission (at page 20 of their Report) explicitly say that—
  "in point of fact, fair rents are now ascertained, with rare exceptions, by reference only to what we have called the technical line of evidence, and the circumstances of the case and of the districts do not receive that consideration which the Act of 1881 directs."
  The general object of this reference is to enable the proposed Select Committee to ascertain to what extent these statements are well founded. I know that this is a very dry subject, and one that can interest but few of your Lordships living on this side of the water, but it is of immense importance to those who live on the other side of the water. They feel it most deeply. I therefore respectfully and earnestly hope that His Majesty's Government will accede to my request for the appointment of this Committee, and I beg to ask, if the Government decline, for the sympathies of other noble Lords in supporting me. We are not asking for anything in any manner out of the ordinary way. We simply ask for justice. The people of Ireland, the landowners of Ireland, who have their rents, as I have said, greatly reduced, think it only right that they should be able to have a knowledge of the manner and the procedure under which their rents are so reduced. I think your Lordships will agree with me that this is a fair and reasonable request. In England when any land is taken away by compulsory means for any public object, railways, or anything else, evidence is taken on oath, and that evidence is the cause of the verdict for the appropriation of the land, and the amount to be given for the appropriation. We in Ireland under the Land Commission have no evidence on

  781
  oath. Evidence is entirely voluntary, and the witnesses, as a rule, are men without any expert knowledge of the value of land, They are brought into court for the purpose of giving evidence in the manner that seems best to their own minds. Having made these few remarks, I beg to move that a Select Committee be appointed.
  Moved, that a Select Committee be appointed to ascertain and report:—1. What recommendations of the Fry Commission have been adopted; 2. What recommendations have not been adopted; 3. What recommendations could not be adopted without new legislation; 4. What objections are entertained by the existing tribunals to recommendations which they have so far refused to adopt; 5. Whether, and in what way, the average prices of Irish agricultural produce and stock (as annually published by the Land Commission, and now published by the Department of Agriculture) are considered and taken into account in the fixing of judicial rents; 6. Whether, in determining the fair rent of a holding, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, there are any (and, if so, what) "circumstances of the case, holding, and district" (other than that specified in Section 8, Sub-section 10) which the Land Commission do not take into account, and what are their reasons for refusing to take same into account.—(The Duke of Abercorn.)
  LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, in rising to second the motion I wish to support what my noble friend has said as to the apparent impossibility of getting the information we wish to have in any other manner. The Lord Chancellor for Ireland has spared no pains to give us all the information in his power. He has told us that all the points to which these questions refer are covered by judgments of the Court of Appeal and the Land Commission. These judgments are public, and are accessible to everyone. What we wish to know is the nature of the instructions that are given by the Land Commission to the Assistant Commissioners in pursuance of these judgments. We are told in general terms what the instructions are, but we wish to know the nature and the tenor of the instructions as a guide to people whose property comes under the Land Act of what they may
  782
  expect as to the course of inquiry, and the points to which the most importance will be attached. Apparently my noble and learned friend Lord Ashbourne is not in a position to give the information. I think the reason is a tolerably clear one. He has repeatedly told us that the Land Commission is entirely separate from the Government; that they are not a Government department, or in any way responsible to the Government for the mode in which they administer the law; therefore we want to get the information from the fountain head. Mr. Commissioner Bailey, a legal Sub-Commissioner of very great experience, gave in February last his interpretation of the judgments, or some of them, to which reference has been made. Now, we wish to know whether the Land Commission concur in his interpretation of those judgments, and, if not, whether they have signified their dissent to him, because it is clear that otherwise his interpretation will be adopted by his colleagues. The interpretation appears to us to be open to objection, and therefore we wish to know whether the Land Commission concur with Mr. Bailey or not. The points are of an entirely technical description, and I do not propose to go into them in detail. I merely ask whether the Commission concur with Mr. Bailey, and if not, why not?
  Mr. Commissioner Bailey, two years ago, gave a judgment, and the matter was brought before the House by Lord Templetown, and the answer then had to be given that Mr. Bailey was abroad, and therefore it was not possible to obtain any information as to whether the report in the newspapers was correct or not. But Mr. Commissioner Bailey on that occasion laid down that it was not the practice in valuing land, if the Commissioner thought a farm rented too highly, to reduce the rent unless the tenant applied to the Commissioners, and so similarly if they thought a farm too low rented it was not their practice to raise the rent unless the landlord applied. The result therefore appeared to be that Mr. Bailey and his colleagues fixed unfair rents on account of the omission of the landlord or the tenant, as the case might be, to apply for a change. We should like to know whether information has been given to Mr. Bailey or his colleagues as to whether that was a proper course for those who valued farms to adopt. I

  783
  have put a question on the Paper which I think it would be more convenient that I should now submit. It is—

  1. Whether it was at any time (and if so between what dates) the practice of the Irish Land Commission, or of their Assistant Commissioners, or of independent valuers, or court valuers appointed under Section 48 (4) of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, to value a holding on the assumption that same was wholly or partly in the landlord's hands, and to estimate what rent (on that assumption) he might expect to obtain from a prudent and solvent tenant.

  2. In the case of Assistant Commissioners and valuers to what extent was any such practice due (1) to instructions from the Land Commission, and (2) to the initiative of the Assistant Commissioners and valuers themselves.

  3. Under what circumstances was any such practice discontinued, and will His Majesty's Government ask the Irish Land Commission to furnish for the information of this House copies of any rules, minutes, orders, or instructions issued or made by them under which any such practice was discontinued.

  I hope that the noble Lord in his reply will be able to answer the question with reference to the instructions which were issued a long time ago by the Land Commission to valuers as to the methods they should adopt in valuing land. I find that in 1882 the then Secretary of the Land Commission, writing to the valuer, Mr. Gray, said—
  "You will give your opinion of the present fair letting value of each holding, irrespective of buildings, and on the assumption that the holding is actually in the hands of the landlord, and now to be let."
  In his instructions to valuers, dated February, 1882, Sub-Commissioner Ulick Bourke said—
  "In ascertaining the value of these farms you will please to state what, in your opinion, would be the annual sum that a tenant of ordinary capital, skill, and intelligence could afford to pay, one year with another, for the several holdings as they stand, with all their surroundings, regarding the circumstances of the holding and district, and assuming that the landlord had the farms in his own hands to let to a solvent tenant for a period of fifteen years."
  Again, in February, 1882, Sub-Commissioners Roche, Lynch, and Morrison
  784
  gave this instruction to an independent valuer—
  "The present letting value of lands, exclusive of buildings, assuming them to be in the landlord's possession."
  It would appear, therefore, that in the earlier operations of the Land Commission they did request their valuers to value land on the assumption that it was in the landlord's hands. What I would like to know is when the instructions were given, when they were modified, if they have been modified, and when different instructions were given. This is a matter of the gravest importance, because if the position of an occupying tenant is so different from that of a new tenant, it is clear the occupying tenant must be possessed of something which the new tenant has not, and it is impossible for any ordinary layman to distinguish that from an occupation interest which has been ruled to be illegal, and not to be a basis to be considered in fixing, rent. The present reduction of rents is a matter which puzzles everyone. So far as prices go, the figures published by the Agricultural Department in Ireland show that prices are at least as high as they were fifteen years ago, and, in spite of this, rents are being reduced 20 or 25 per cent., and it is clear, therefore, that the reduction cannot be on the basis of variation in prices. This is a matter on which we would like information. It is desirable that some information should be given as to the basis for fixing rents. The county of Cheshire in England resembles Ireland in its agricultural and pastoral conditions, and I wonder if anyone connected with Cheshire would agree that the rents ought to be twenty-five per cent. lower than they were fifteen years ago.
  I suggested last year that there were certain things which might be added to the pink schedule. The answer of my noble friend was that the Land Commission were of opinion that the pink schedule was already overloaded. We should like to know why they think so, because it is felt by people connected with land that too much information cannot be given in the pink schedule. The Land Commission try to persuade us that it is against the interest of the landlord to place this information on the schedule, but I think their chief objection to placing it on is that it would involve

  785
  additional work. I will give your Lordships one particular point. I had a pink schedule in my hand last year in which "100 perches of fence" was mentioned, but it was not specified whether the fence was stone wall, mud bank, or wire, and, therefore, there was no way of ascertaining as to how far it was a permanent improvement. It seems to me very proper that in a case of that kind some description should be given of the fence and its position, and, if possible, that it should be accompanied by a map. I hope His Majesty's Government will see their way to grant this request, and I trust that we shall not be accused of attacking the Government. As the Government have assured us that the Land Commission is entirely independent of and not responsible to them, why our request for definite information should be regarded as an attack on the Government entirely passes my comprehension.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, I have been asked these questions more than once in several years, and I have loyally endeavoured to give the fullest possible answers. I have put myself in the frame of mind to give as full information as possible, and if I have not succeeded it is from no lack of desire on my part. It appears that I was particularly unfortunate on the last occasion, because the moment I sat down—it was at a critical time, ten minutes past eight—notice was given that my answer was so unsatisfactory that this motion would be made. I do not take it as an attack on the Government, as my noble friend asks me not to take it so, but, at the same time, its effect is none the less serious upon the working of an important public department like the Land Commission, because it must necessarily be a disturbance of the work of the Land Commission to be told that one of the Houses of Parliament is so dissatisfied as to their conduct that they have gone to the trouble of appointing a Select Committee to examinine into all their doings—
  THE EARL OF MAYO: No, no.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Well, into a great many of their doings.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: No.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: To inquire why they have done some things, why
  786
  they have not done others, how far their decisions will be carried and which are to be considered final. It is obvious that such an inquiry would be far reaching, and if my noble friends are dissatisfied from their point of view, it may be that others who are dissatisfied from another point of view may ask also for an inquiry. It would be very difficult for a public Department continually called upon from one side or the other to satisfy Committee inquiries to properly discharge its duties. On the several occasions on which questions have been asked I have answered as fully and as fairly as I could. I told my noble friend Lord Clonbrock last year a great number of things that had been done by the Land Commission in deference to the Fry Commission Report. I read a long list showing that the Commission were doing whatever their experience told them was right. Last week I gave a list of eight recommendations of the Fry Commission, which, since the date that I was asked, had been adopted by the Land Commission, and now I am asked on the part of the Government what attitude I take in reference to a motion seeking for a Committee to inquire into the working of the Land Commission on all the points as to which I was interrogated on the last occasion.
  My noble friend wants the Committee to inquire into and report what recommendations of the Fry Commission have been adopted. Why, I have told him three times over in this House. Then he wants the Select Committee to inquire into and report what recommendations have not been adopted. Those the noble Lord also knows, and the Landowners' Convention gave a list of them. He has nothing to do but to subtract one from the other. Why there should be a Committee of your Lordships' House to inquire into these points I cannot understand. Then the noble Duke wants to know what recommendations cannot be adopted without new legislation. I have given point after point in all the important matters that cannot be met without fresh legislation, and the report of the Landowners' Convention, of which I think the noble Duke is either president or chairman, shows that my noble friends are also in possession of that information. The next point they want the Committee to inquire into and report on is, what objections are entertained by the existing

  787
  tribunals to recommendations which they have so far refused to adopt? I have pointed them out repeatedly in my speeches, and several times indicated the decisions of the Land Commissioners themselves, and of the Court of Appeal. The next point is on the subject of prices and the cost of production. I mentioned on the last occasion, and I may just refer to it, that there was a large volume of prices compiled by the Department presided over by my friend Mr. Horace Plunkett, and that that very careful document was circulated amongst those people who have the duty of considering how prices bear on value.
  Then came what my noble friend admitted was a very special point. I quite recognise its importance—"whether, in determining the fair rent of a holding, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, there are any (and if so what) 'circumstances of the case, holding, and district' (other than that specified in Section 8, Sub-section 10), which the Land Commission do not take into account, and what are their reasons for refusing to take same into account?" It is hardly possible to imagine a more searching cross-examining question than that to be addressed to a tribunal, and it is obviously of very great importance. My noble friend presented to the House that it was obviously of the utmost importance in his eyes and those of all his friends. All his argument was addressed to that last point, because it really deals with what is the meaning of fair rent. More than half the speeches of my noble friends the noble Duke and Lord Clonbrock, have been directed to the point of getting not only at the definition of fair rent, but the elements that should go into the ascertainment of fair rent, obviously topics of the first importance. I see that my noble friend assents to that. The noble Duke, with the fairness and candour which always marks his dealings with the House, was good enough to send me a private memorandum on the last occasion on the sixth question, that what he particularly wished to know was this—was fair competition value taken into account in fixing judicial rents? The meaning of that of course was a reference to the fact that the Fry Commission had given a definition of fair rent, which rested on
  788
  the assumption that the lands were in the occupation of the landlord, and that was the governing, pivoting set of words in the Fry definition of fair rent. That is a matter that came for decision before the Court of the Land Commission. Of course it was there as a recommendation from the Fry Report, but the Fry Report was not a judicial pronouncement; it was the suggestion of men in perfect good faith as to what they hoped might be made into a definition. But when the matter was submitted to a court of law, presided over by a judge of the High Court, and the points argued, the learned judge arrived at the conclusion that the words in the recommendation of the Fry Commission were not consistent with the Act of 1881, that they introduced the element of competition value, and that therefore he was unable to accept them as a definition applicable to all cases. That was the judicial decision of the judge of the High Court who presides over the Land Commission. That was not, of course, acceptable to my noble friends, who have always sought in some shape or form to get at this element of competition. Therefore it was that my noble friend, the noble duke, very kindly sent me a memorandum showing that what he now wanted was not the element of strict competition value, but the element of fair competition value. That is a very important question that I know has attracted a good deal of attention, and my noble friend Lord Clonbrock has supplemented it by drawing my attention by the series of questions he has made—very searching ones—to know whether certain decision of Mr. Commissioner Bailey, in Walker v. Lord Gosford, was accepted. That pivoted upon the words "fair competition rents," while the noble Duke used the words "fair competition value."
  Now obviously these questions are of the very highest and of the most extreme importance. My noble friend Lord Clonbrock introduced the question whether in the early days of the Land Commission—I think he said February, 1882—there was not a letter sent by Mr. Godley, the then Secretary to the Commission, to Mr. Gray, a valuer, in which the words "in the landlord's possession" were used in reference to valuation. All I can say in reference to the matter is that

  789
  none of the present Commissioners were in office then; they are only responsible for their own procedure, and their decision in reference to the matter is laid down with the most absolute clearness in the case of Ripley v. M'Naughten, that they could not and would not accept the words "in the landlord's possession." That is their attitude as to what they believe to be the requirements of the law in reference to the case, and it would not be right or proper for me to discuss that matter. The Court of Appeal was asked whether the Fry definition could be applied, and they declined to answer abstract questions. But Lord Justice FitzGibbon indicated that if the words were to be dealt with in an abstract way, he did not see how a definition could be made applicable to all cases which rested upon a false assumption of fact. I do mot discuss the matter at all. It may come up when I am present in the Court of Appeal, and when I may have to give an opinion upon it.
  I am asked pointedly by Lord Clonbrock what I had to say in reference to the decision of Mr. Commissioner Bailey, who refused to allow "fair competition rent" as a test. My noble friend Lord Clonbrock said he wanted to know how far the Land Commission concurred in the decision of Mr. Commissioner Bailey. I am sure my noble friend cannot be aware that these cases are under appeal. The idea of suggesting to have a Committee of your Lordships' House to inquire into the developments of a case mow pending is obviously a matter which, if my noble friends were aware at the time, they would not have put forward. That is practically all that I have to say. The suggestion of having a Committee of the House to inquire into that case, and not only into the particular case under appeal, but it may be into other cases waiting decision, is a matter on which I could say more, but I do not think it would be reasonable to occupy your Lordships' time. I have said that it is a serious thing to distract a great department with an immense amount of work on its hands. It would be very undesirable to have a Committee of your Lordships' House, not composed of experts, to inquire into the decisions of the Commission. It would be outside the range of all precedent and fitness to suggest that cases that are waiting appeal should be submitted to the discussion
  790
  and examination of a Committee of this House.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, on last Thursday night the debate came to a sudden conclusion, and I had not then the opportunity of answering the speech made by the noble and learned Lord. The speech made on that occasion was one that did not answer our questions. The noble and learned Lord on that evening made use of the following words:—
  "He had to look at the matter from a reasonable standpoint. The legislation which they were condemning represented the law of the land. It must be fairly administered, and one must apply one's mind to it if one was to understand what was reasonable and proper in reference to all that was said on the subject."
  I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord as to the Act of 1881 being fairly administered as to the strict letter of the law, but it has been hardly administered. A great many of your Lordships must remember the circumstances maintaining in Ireland when that Act passed the Second Reading. To bear out what I say I should like to quote the words of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Selborne, on the Second Reading of the Land Act of 1881, on August 2nd. He said—
  "Whenever you find that the customs, habits, and life of men have become developed beyond the letter and strict terms of the law; whenever you find that the interests of large and important classes have grown intermixed, entangled with each other in a way that makes some readjustment necessary for the safety of society; whenever that happens, however fixed the law may be, still the same moral necessity arises for the exercise of legislative power to make readjustments, whether they be large or small, whether they may seem violent or easy, which that state of circumstances renders necessary."
  Lord Selborne wound up the argument by saying—
  "Under these circumstances the State has to discharge one of its greatest duties, the neglect of which might lead to injustice, and under some circumstances lead to revolution."
  We all know what that meant in those days. What was the answer of Lord Cairns to the speech of Lord Selborne? I will not quote Hansard, but in The Times the next day it was very briefly summed up in these words—
  "He was not able any more than other opponents, or rather critics, of the Bill to deny that the Lord Chancellor's—that is to say, Lord

  791
  Selborne's—plea of a paramount necessity was an irresistible one."
  A good deal of water has gone under the bridge since then, and circumstances have changed. Ireland is quieter, but the Act of 1881 is still vigorously applied to the revision or lowering of rents. Some call it confiscation of the property of the landlords. During times of revolution there is no doubt that edicts are passed that in more peaceful times are revoked. For instance, at the inception of the French Revolution on 10th October, 1789, the States General confiscated the property of the Church. In 1801 the Concordat restored the Church of France shorn of its wealth. This only shows that when times of revolution have passed away strong measures that were needed at those times, to say the least of them, require amending.
  Passing away from the time of 1881 I turn to the Fry Commission. In the speech which my noble and learned friend Lord Ashbourne made on Thursday he said—
  "The high prices paid for tenant-right cannot be accepted as demonstrating that the rents have been needlessly reduced. That was the sheet-anchor of the landlord's argument. The Commission had refused to accept that as a powerful argument against a large, lavish, and indiscriminate appeal against the Sub-Commissioners. That had been treated as mere idle talk and waste paper."
  Our sheet-anchor, he said, has been treated as mere idle talk and waste paper. That was a rough-and-ready way of answering us, no doubt, but I do not think it satisfactory. A foolish man gives a high price for a piece of bad land he loves. That is what is meant by paying a high price for tenant-right. What we say is that this fact has never been taken into consideration by the Land Commission. This is a cut-and-dried argument of the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords who have answered for the Government on this question. They always seek to minimise the recommendations of the Fry Commission. We have heard it before, and doubtless we shall hear it again. I prefer to take the questions which were put by the noble Duke, and which were not satisfactorily answered, but before doing so I should like to draw attention to the question of fair rent. What the noble and learned Lord said last Thursday on this question was this—
  792
  "It was decided in 1881 that, fair rent was that sum which could be ascertained by the tribunal under the Act, having regard to the interests of landlord and tenant, and having regard to the circumstances of the case."
  Well, right or wrong, we have to live under that definition, and we have to live under the Land Law administered by the, Irish Land Commission. The noble and learned Lord has said, and I agree, that certain small recommendations have been adopted by the Land Commission. What are they? In reality they are only rules of procedure. What I desire to emphasise is that the land laws in Ireland are pressing very heavily upon us. We have to speak in. this House for those who have no voice in the matter, and who live the life of loyal country gentlemen in Ireland. Now, the first question of the noble Duke (the Duke of Abercorn) was, what recommendations of the Fry Commission had been adopted, and that was answered the other day by Lord Ashbourne in this way. He said that the list was so technical that he did not like to explain it in detail then. The second question was, what recommendations had not been adopted. What was his reply to that? He said, "Subtract one from the other and you will find it out." In all fairness is that the way to answer the noble Duke's question? I know what the noble Lord means. It is that the Irish Landlords' Convention have produced a paper, and that therein is given a list of recommendations which have not been adopted by the Land Commission. The third question was, what recommendations could not be adopted without new legislation, and that is answered generally by the statement that if a Select Committee is appointed we shall be interfering with a great judicial body. I think that was a simple question which could be easily answered. The question as to what objections are entertained by the existing tribunals to recommendations which they have so far refused to adopt still remains unanswered. I now come to the real point of the question with regard to prices. I have spoken about this before. One would think that when rents in any country were dealt with, the prices of agricultural produce and stock would be taken into consideration. The noble and learned Lord said that the new department had published tables and statistics which dealt with this I hold in my hand the volume to

  793
  which the noble Lord referred. The tables are compiled by that clever public servant Mr. William P. Coyne, superintendent of the statistics branch of the new Department of Agricultural and Technical Instruction in Ireland, and he says—
  "The prices of Irish agricultural products given in this long return relate only to agricultural products produced or manufactured in Ireland. In addition to the twenty-six annual tables which have hitherto been given in the Irish Land Commission returns, I have inserted in this return statements for each quarter of the year 1900. The diagrams which accompany the tables, without pretending to mathematical accuracy, will, it is hoped, illustrate the general tendency of the price levels of the various commodities and animals enumerated."
  You can see at a glance, in the same way as you read a barometer, exactly how the case stands. An examination of these tables shows that the average prices of the eleven years from 1890 to 1900 are higher than those of the three bad years from 1887 to 1889, during which the judicial rents fixed in 1881 and 1885 were temporarily reduced, and there could be no excuse therefore for further reducing those rents in the second statutory period. Now what generally is the result of the fixing of judicial rents by the Land Commission? I will repeat what I said last year—
  "That the fact of the matter, with regard to prices, is that the Land Commission have an Agricultural Department which publishes prices, and a Department which fixes rents; the former are embodied in the tables I have mentioned, drawn up by the new Department which fix the rents, and it is impossible to reconcile these tables. For instance, the reduction in agricultural prices in given at 4·7 per cent., whilst the reduction in rents has been 24·7."
  I should like to draw attention to the fact that the noble and learned Lord stated that there was no precedent for the appointment of a Select Committee. There is a precedent, for on the 24th February, 1882, on the motion of Lord Donoughmore, a Select Committee was appointed by the House of Lords to investigate into the working of the Land Act of 1881. Mr. Gladstone's Government opposed the motion, but the House appointed the Committee, and they were reappointed in 1883. They examined a great number of witnesses, and made altogether four reports.
  Now, what broadly is this system and these laws pertaining to land that we are forced to live under in Ireland? It
  794
  is this, every fifteen years landlord and tenant, tenant and landlord are thrown into the melting pot of the law. They are taken out in the case of the landlords poorer and not wiser men. In the case of the tenant his condition, although it may be better, leaves him dissatisfied, and with the full knowledge that there may be an appeal, and also that after fifteen years his rent may be raised. I think I am right in saying that the framers of the Land Act of 1881 had no idea that this fifteen years' revision of rents would continue for ever. It is exactly like the case of the man who sits down at a gambling table on the Continent. A certain sum has to be put into a basket, in order to enable him to take the bank and deal the cards, and he has only to play long enough and everything by degrees will go into that basket. It is a system of legislation that exists in no country in the world, and no matter in what way one wishes to improve or develop property, no matter what schemes—commercial, agricultural, or industrial—one desires to embark in, these laws pertaining to land hit one in the face whichever way one turns. The remedy for a long-standing evil, or, rather, I will call it law, is hard to find, and the recovery must be gradual. In my opinion, and in the opinion of everyone I have spoken to in Ireland, the first step must be in the more generous application of the Voluntary Sale and Purchase Acts. It was the opinion of the Fry Commission that the practice of the Department, i.e., the Land Commission had been over strict in the matter of security, and that applications to the Department had been thereby discouraged. In the matter of procedure, it is most important that there should be a simplification of procedure in the courts dealing with the proving of title. I know that the noble; and learned Lord said that we may hope to see a Bill passed to facilitate land purchase. We have been told that "Hope springs eternal in the human breast," and we have been hoping for a long time. It is very easy to sell bad land in Ireland, but very hard to sell good land, because, if the tenant and the landlord come to an agreement as to the price and shake hands over the bargain, they may, by the present system, be placed in the same position as before. Anything which will facilitate land purchase will be a great

  795
  benefit. This is not a landlord's or a tenant's question, for both have long agreed that this system hampers every possible development. To imagine that these terrible land laws are to go on for ever is impossible to any sensible man.

  CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Annaly, L.

  Headley, L.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abereorn.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Winchester, M.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Annesley, B.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Bandon, E.

  Castletown, L.

  Muskerry, L.

  Drogheda, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  O'Neill, L.

  Essex, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Ponsonby, L.(E Bessbwotigh.)

  Feversham, E.

  Clonbrock, L. [Teller.]

  Rathdonnell, L.

  Grey, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Rossmore, L.

  Lucan, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Mayo, E. [Teller.]

  De Ros, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Rosse, E.

  Deramore, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Dunalley, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Dunboyne, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Dunleath, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Frankfort de Montmorency, V.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Templemore, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Greville, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Derby, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Glanusk, L.

  Howe, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Mansfield, E.

  James, L.

  Morley, E.

  Kenyon, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Spencer, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Stamford, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Portland, D.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Lawrence, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Cross, V.

  Ludlow, L.

  Napier, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Norton, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain)

  Ashbourne, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Belper, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Windsor, L.

  LISCANNOR HARBOUR, COUNTY CLARE.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government if, owing to the defective state of Liscannor Harbour, county Clare, which was constructed by the Board of Works, Ireland, and which is the port of shipment for that district, and from which harbour vessels are only able to enter and leave at high spring tides, they will order the said harbour to be made effective. The history of this harbour is rather a sad one. The Board of Works tried to improve it,
  I hope that the noble Duke will press his motion to a division, and that your Lordships will support the motion.
  House divided:—Contents, 61; Non-Contents, 48.
  and the result is that all the seaweed washes into the harbour and the sand silts up. I believe it was originally made as a fishing harbour, but since that time the shipping of immense quantities of large paving flags has become a very important industry there, not less than £8,000 a year being spent in wages. I do not wish to say unpleasant things about our Board of Works, but the coasts of Ireland are dotted with harbours made by the Board which defy the efforts of skilled navigators to enter them. If large steamers cannot get into Liscannor

  797
  they cannot ship these paving flags, and the whole industry is hampered. Lord Zetland, when he was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, visited the place, and these complaints were made to him then. I trust that His Majesty's Government will see their way to make the harbour effective.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, the noble Earl has correctly stated that the harbour at Liscannor was originally formed for fishing purposes. It was constructed before the establishment of the Board of Works, between the years 1825 and 1831, at a cost of £2,919, of which £2,000 was a Government grant. Additional works were undertaken at the harbour under the Sea Fisheries Act of 1883, which cost £5,184, of which £3,885 was a free grant. The total cost of the works was, therefore, £8,103, of which £5,885 was a free Government grant. Neither the Board of Works nor the Irish Government has any responsibility for the keep-up of the harbour, nor for extending it to meet the local trade which has grown up there. The harbour, as I have said, was originally constructed for fishery purposes alone, and the county council in whom it is vested is under a statutory obligation to maintain it in a condition suitable for the fishing boats which use the harbour. The question of the present condition and accommodation of the harbour has arisen from a movement in the locality (a very laudable one, no doubt) to facilitate the exportation of stone from the neighbouring quarries. But to render the harbour suitable for commercial purposes and to provide the necessary increased accommodation would entail an expenditure estimated by the Board of Works to amount to £13,000. There are no funds at the disposal of Government for the carrying out of works of such magnitude, and, even if there were, the question could only be considered in connection with similar claims from other localities.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: My Lords, I was myself in Liscannor last week. I can assure the House that on both sides of the streets, from the pier to the end of the town, are large numbers of these paving flags—the finest, I think, that are procurable. This industry, if developed by the improvement of the harbour, could be made of great benefit to the whole country. The opinion locally is that all
  798
  that would be needed would be to deepen the harbour, and I cannot help expressing surprise at the large amount of the estimate mentioned by the noble Earl who represents the Irish Office. I trust the Government will be able to render some help in the matter, as the district in question has no resources of its own.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: Who made the estimate?
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: An inspection was made by the Board of Works engineer at the end of 1897, and he stated that to effect the improvements required by the quarry owners would involve an expenditure of £13,000. Unfortunately there is no money available unless a special grant is made for the purpose.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: Does the estimate include works other than the deepening of the harbour?
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I have not the details.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: I am under the impression that a very small sum would be sufficient to pay for the deepening of the harbour, which is all that is required.

  MILITARY TRAINING FOR BOYS.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I beg to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the military training given to boys between fourteen and seventeen years of age in the British colonies of New South Wales, Victoria, Natal, Tasmania; to ask whether it is not the case that in some of these colonies encouragement and financial assistance are given by the local governments; whether, as reported at the time in the public press, in reviewing some cadets and schoolboys at Pietermaritzburg on his way from the Transvaal to this country, the present Commander-in-Chief, Field Marshal Earl Roberts, made the following remarks:—
  "I hope the old country will follow the example of one of her children, and insist upon all boys joining cadet corps;"
  and whether His Majesty's Government will take steps to follow the example of those colonies which give special financial and other encouragement to lads old

  799
  enough to become efficient in the use of the rifle. I have asked these questions with a view to drawing the attention of His Majesty's Government, of this House, and, I hope, of the public, to the very important question of whether or not it is advisable that we should train our lads up to the age of eighteen years, so that if they choose, and only if they choose, they can be of service to their country in time of stress and need. I believe it is difficult to conceive in the present day a question of greater importance to the country than this one. If any serious struggle arose at this moment between the Empire on the one hand and any one or two large Powers on the other, we should find it absolutely impossible to depend entirely on the resources of the regular army. We should have to call for a universal—I will not say conscription, but assembly, of the free citizens of this country to assist the regular forces. What I wish particularly to remind your Lord ships of is this, that the state of things which exists to-day is quite different from that which existed when the present system originated. Matters have entirely altered, and the conditions of the British Empire to-day are absolutely different from what they were, let us say, when her late lamented Majesty came to the Throne. What was the condition of affairs now? Take Europe. At that time we were absolutely supreme at sea, and there was no Power which in any way approached us. What is the case at present? France is openly vieing to be on an equality with us; and all the countries are increasing their naval strength. We are, therefore, even at sea, in a very different position from what we were at the time the late Queen came to the throne.
  Now let us take the position of Great Britain and America. At the time Queen Victoria came to the throne there was practically no population on the frontiers of the United States and Canada, but we now have on both sides of those frontiers an active, intelligent, and intensely jealous population. I hope the day will never come when the Anglo-Saxon race will be divided by conflict, but we must, as common-sense people, look to the future and avoid offering temptation even to our cousins of the United States. If we turn to the Atlantic and the Pacific, we have miles and miles
  800
  of British frontiers which have to be defended. Let us look at Asia. In olden days Asia was almost an unknown country, which took three months or more to reach. Asia, so far as England was concerned, meant India, and India was isolated altogether from European influence by mountains and enormous tracts of country. There was no civilised or military Power which could endanger India, and all we had in those days to consider was the maintenance of internal order and the keeping up of an army which could protect us against the uncivilised tribes. I believe that at the time of the Indian Mutiny there were not more than 12,000 British soldiers in India. But what is the case to-day? India has been nearly doubled since the annexation of Burmah, the frontiers have been considerably increased, and we have to keep 70,000 men in India alone. Our Indian Empire is now almost conterminous with Russian and French territory. Let us next turn to Africa. In the days when her late Majesty ascended the Throne the Briton was practically supreme in Africa. There were a few French settlements, but they were very small. The French had not even claimed authority in Algeria, and if at the time of Her Majesty's accession some person had said that before the accession of another Sovereign to the throne of this country France would have surrounded our West Indian possessions, and would have extended her territory so that it would spread from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic and away to the East bordering upon a country under the protection of Great Britain, namely, Egypt, he would have been laughed at. In those days Germany had no possessions in Africa; now she has large possessions there. Italy had no possessions in Africa; now she has. And we have France with thousands of miles of frontier conterminous with our own. All the nations of the world, you may say, have come in and are dividing Africa with us, and consequently we have enormous land frontiers to protect. We have land frontiers in America, in Asia, in Africa, and yet we go on under the impression that we are a tight little island with nothing to think of except the defence of these shores.
  Great Britain at this moment has the largest land frontier of any Power, and

  801
  our territories, we must remember, are conterminous with those of the greatest military nations in the world—nations that have conscription and millions of warriors whom they can call to their aid at any moment. I think I have shown that the conditions of Imperial defence are absolutely different from what they were when the late Queen came to the throne, and yet we are going on the same old principle and neglecting our military forces. In the colonies, however, a very much wiser view of this question has been taken. There is at this moment an Act passing through the Parliament of the Australian Commonwealth which says that it is the duty of every Australian to be prepared to be called upon at any moment, if need arises, to serve his country. They do not say he should be conscripted or go into the regular army—they trust to voluntary service for the regular army—but they say every man ought to be compelled to defend his country. I hope the day is not far distant when a similar policy will be carried out by His Majesty's Government. But in the meantime we desire that the young lads of the country should be trained, I will not say in a military fashion, but trained so that they can without unnecessary loss of time be placed in the ranks of their country's defenders in case of need. It is many years since I was in the diplomatic service, but I have kept in close touch with foreigners, spending a couple of months every year out of England, and I am convinced that our attitude on the military question has been the cause of a great deal of our trouble, and that owing to that action foreign countries imagine that we have no force behind us except the Navy, and that if they press us we must give way. I believe that if it had been known to ex-President Kruger that we had, behind the regular troops, a nation trained in their youth to the use of the rifle, there never would have been any Boer war, and the enormous amount of money which is being spent on South Africa would have been saved. It is because we always make the foreigners believe that we have no force behind us that they venture to attack us. I was unable to speak on the Military Instruction Bill the other day, and many of my noble friends had no opportunity of speaking on the subject. I believe that on that day our proceedings were irregular
  802
  from beginning to end, and that all of us, from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the noble Marquess who leads the Government, were out of order.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): When?
  THE EARL OF MEATH: Monday of last week, the day on which the Military Instruction Bill was before the House. In this matter the colonies have taken the lead. In Victoria drill has been obligatory for many years in State schools. Until the financial crisis the local government gave 10s. a year for every efficient cadet, and from £3 to £10 for every efficient corps. Masters of schools had to qualify as drill instructors, and drill was given to the lads in school hours. The Government provided them with rifles, bayonets, ranges, etc. In Natal they have gone still further. Every boy in the State schools has to drill from the age of six to ten years, at ten years of age he must enrol himself as a cadet, and at fourteen he must proceed to the butts. Therefore since 1893 conscription has been carried out within the British Empire. It has been a very sensible conscription, and one which has not pressed too hard on the population. In Victoria they have had some 6,000 cadets, and in Natal 26,000. Of the 2,445 officers who left Victoria for South Africa, two-thirds passed through the cadet corps. I think the noble and gallant Earl the Commander-in-Chief and all who took part in the war will acknowledge that the fact of these lads having been trained in their youth was of enormous assistance to our Army in Natal at the time when we only had a few thousand men there, and when it was of the greatest importance to hold our heads against the Boers till reinforcements arrived. I know it has been said, "This is all very fine, but we cannot spend money upon lads. We must have trained soldiers." Surely, it is wise to look ahead and remember that in a few years these lads will be trained soldiers. Lord Roberts has himself said that after three years a trained lad will be as efficient a soldier as a Reservist who has left the Army and gone back to his work. It has been said, also, that these cadet battalions would not furnish lads for the Army. The idea is not that they should

  803
  furnish any large percentage to the Army, but that they should be a Reserve. As a matter of fact, however, cadet battalions do supply recruits for the Army very largely. In the last ten years the 1st Cadet Battalion of the King's Royal Rifles has passed 500 boys to the Army, or 10 per cent. per annum, and I know another battalion which has supplied 25 per cent. to the Army, Navy, and the Militia, and 25 per cent. to the Volunteers. I hope that during the autumn His Majesty's Government will take the whole subject into their serious consideration with a view to doing something next session to enable patriotic lads to fit themselves for the defence of the country.
  VISCOUNT FRANKFORT DE MONTMORENCY: My Lords, the noble Earl has explained what is done in our colonies. I should like to say a few words on the training of boys in Switzerland, as I think the Swiss system could be easily adapted to this country. The Swiss boy begins training at eight years of age. He commences in school to be instructed in the rudiments of drill, and between ten and fifteen years of age he must attend a course of gymnastic instruction. On reaching the age of sixteen all compulsory instruction ceases for a period of four years, which enables him to learn his trade or whatever business he proposes to enter; but during that time he is encouraged to join voluntary classes which practice rifle shooting and military exercises. When he is twenty years of age he presents himself for a recruit's course. The infantryman has to undergo forty-five days drill, the artilleryman and the engineer fifty-five, and the cavalryman eighty. I mention these figures to show your Lordships how well the lads must have been trained for these few days training to be sufficient. Our militiaman goes up for forty-eight days military drill; and when he comes down he knows about as much as a Swiss boy when he commences. Something has been said about conscription, but I feel sure it will never be agreed to as a permanent measure. The idea and character of the Saxon are opposed to it. During the war in America the North had conscription for a time, but as soon as the war ended conscription ceased. If Great Britain were in difficulties I believe she would agree to
  804
  conscription for a time, but only for a time. Therefore we must never depend upon it. If the youth of the country were to drill at school, and were taught the elements of soldiering, what a strong position we should be in! Suppose a panic occurred, instead of having to learn to march and shoot, these drilled men—for they cannot always remain boys—could fall in, understanding discipline, drill, and musketry.
  It has been frequently said that boys learn very little drill and musketry at school. That is not the conclusion I have come to. The school and cadet corps which I have seen drill well, are very steady, and thoroughly versed in discipline. The inspecting officer would see that their military training was up to the standard laid down. Only a few weeks ago it was my pleasure to see the cadet battalion of the Grocers' Company's school. The boys had no uniform, but they drilled very well, and did some difficult battalion movements without loss of distance in a manner which would have done credit to any well-trained body of men. They also did manual exercises and physical drill as a battalion with decided credit to their colonel, to themselves, and to their instructors. Look at this training from another point of view. See the good it does. Look at the poor boys with rounded backs, sloping shoulders, narrow, sunken chests, and almost fleshless limbs who abound in our large towns. We do a great deal to educate these sickly boys, but what is the use of book work if they have not the strength to put what they have learned to any use? First make the boy strong and healthy by physical training, and then he will be able to learn his lessons and put them to some practical use. I cannot understand why, when all our colonies are doing so much to improve the physique of their youth and protect their country, the Government of this realm should do nothing but throw cold water upon the movement by naming fabulous sums as the cost of drilling a few thousand boys, and placing difficulties in the way of an easy and inexpensive scheme when it is suggested. You may depend upon it that to do anything well we must begin young, and military raining is no exception to the rule.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My

  805
  Lords, with regard to the noble Earl's first question, as to the military training given to boys in the British colonies, I have not, I am afraid, been able to find out anything very definite, but I will give your Lordships such information as I have been able to gather. The noble Lord was quite correct in saying that in Natal military training is compulsory on all boys over ten years of age attending the Government schools. They are arranged in cadet corps, under the command of the Volunteer commandant. They have been provided with uniforms, in some cases by school entertainments, and in others from the Government allowance. The number of drills attended is not known, but the corps usually attend a general encampment, lasting about four days. From this year's estimates it appears that £2,695 was spent upon the cadet corps in the year 1899–1900; £3,500 was down as the estimate for 1900–1; and £2,000 is put down for 1901–2. From the Defence Report for 1899 it appears that there were 1,964 cadets, of whom 995 attended under arms at the annual general encampment from 24th June to 30th June. With regard to New South Wales, the cadets are formed into two different classes—senior and junior. Senior cadets' corps are affiliated to the partially-paid units, and are under the Military Department. Presumably they undergo the same drills, namely, twenty-five half days and a course of musketry. Uniform is found by the Government. Junior cadets, actually attending school, are under the control of the Minister of Education. For the year ended June, 1900, £4,310 was estimated to be expended under the sub-head "Cadet Branch" of the head "Public Instruction." This £4,310 included amounts of £1,000 for the purchase of arms and ammunition, £300 for the pay of military instructors attending country schools, £350 to complete the equipment of school cadets, £150 for rifle practice, musketry instruction, etc., and £40 for school drum and fife bands.
  In Tasmania the cadet corps, which is 300 strong, undergoes twenty-four evening drills per annum, and is under the commandant of the local forces. In 1898—which seems to be the latest year of which particulars can be found—£196 odd was spent on cadets' corps at Hobart and Launceston. With regard to Victoria, the senior cadet corps, formed of
  806
  youths between fifteen and twenty years of age, is about 530 strong. It is under the commandant of the local forces. It is practically a Volunteer battalion, and as such the members must attend twelve daylight drills and twelve night drills. The members are supplied with clothing, and a capitation allowance is granted for each efficient member. There are several junior cadet corps, with a total strength of 3,800. These do not appear to be under the local commandant, and consequently are not likely to receive any allowance beyond the use of arms and equipment. This is all the information I have on the subject. The remarks quoted are correctly attributed to the Commander-in-Chief. The difference in position between the colonies and this country is considerable. In the United Kingdom there is a large force of trained and partly-trained men in the Army, Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers, and besides these there are able-bodied men to the number of hundreds of thousands who at some time have served in one of these forces. In the colonies, with the exception of Canada, where there has been a Militia for many years, there are only small armed forces recently established, and no reserve of trained men, and therefore a system for training cadets is the readiest way to create a reserve. The position of Natal is peculiar. There is a small white population in the midst of a large coloured population, and on the frontier hostile tribes or a hostile nation of European blood, and so it is that in Natal military training is compulsory on all boys over ten attending Government schools. The system in Switzerland is part of the compulsory service, and is adopted so that the service should press as lightly as possible upon the population by commencing training in youth. The views of the Government I have recently expressed. The figures I gave on a former occasion have been questioned, but there is no doubt that the expense of carrying out such a scheme would be considerable, and for boys who when they became men would not be liable for military service. I cannot follow the argument that because military expenditure is large this opportunity should be taken to extend it still further. The value of military training for boys I fully appreciate, but the question is largely a financial one, and on the

  807
  part of the Government I can make no promise in the direction desired.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven of the clock, till tomorrow, half-past Ten of the clock.