Sitting of 27 July 1883

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 26] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Leave—Constabulary and Police Administration (Ireland), debate adjourned.
Committee—Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) [190] [Second Night]—R.P.; Supreme Court of Judicature (Funds, &c.) * [270]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Parochial Charities (London) (re-comm.) [215].
Considered as amended—Agricultural Holdings (England) [272]; Railway Passenger Duty, &c. * [219].
Third Reading—Greenwich Hospital * [253], and passed; Statute of Frauds Amendment [204], put of.

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT.

  SUEZCANAL COMPANY (FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS)—SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE'S MOTION.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSgave Notice that he would move, as an Amendment to Mr. Norwood's proposed Amendment to Sir Stafford Northcote's proposed Motion, to move to leave

  775
  out all after the words "this House" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
  "Having regard to the recent Correspondence between M. de Lesseps and the Prime Minister, thinks it necessary to declare that it maintains its entire freedom of judgment in regard to all matters connected with the question of water communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea."

QUESTIONS.

  IRELAND—PROVINCE OF ULSTER—COUNTY VALUATION.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Valuation Office would have any difficulty in preparing a Return showing the number of tenements valued at £4 in Parliamentary boroughs in Ireland, distinguishing each borough; and also the number of holdings in each county in Ulster valued at £11 10s. or any intermediate sum up to and excluding £12, distinguishing each county; whether he is aware that complaint is made of a systematic policy of excluding Catholics from the Franchise by rating them at a figure just outside the qualifying amount; and, whether the proper authorities will oppose any objection if application is made by the parties interested, where some trivial valuation excludes from a vote, to increase this to the qualifying amount when the holder is willing to pay rates and taxes on the higher figure?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that such a Return could be prepared, but that it is a question whether it could not be more accurately done by the clerks of the several Unions than by the Valuation Department. In any case it would take a considerable time; but if the hon. Member sets store by it I will communicate with the Local Government Board. With regard to the second paragraph of the Question, I am not aware of any such complaint being made, and the head of the Valuation Department assures me that he is quite satisfied that there is no ground for it. I am advised that alterations in valuation can only be made in accordance with the statutory requirements in that behalf, and that the suggestion in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question could not legally be carried out. The statutory requirements seem to be very strict.
  MR. DAWSON: With reference to this Question, I beg to ask the right
  776
  hon. Gentleman, Whether he is aware that though the law gives every £4 occupier in Ireland the right to vote, the Collector General's Act in Dublin prevents him rating anyone for the franchise whose valuation is not above £8?
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked, Whether the demand of the hon. Member for Monaghan was not met by a Return ordered on the 6th of April last?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Return at present before the House would not meet the demand of the hon. Member, because he wished to have the words "at and under £4." He was quite aware that the anomalous state of things complained of by the right hon. Member (Mr. Dawson) existed in Dublin.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—ARRESTS FOR MURDER, CONSPIRACY TO MURDER, AND TREASON-FELONY.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, How many arrests have taken place since the passing of the Crimes Act for murder, conspiracy to murder, and treason felony, how long each person was imprisoned before being committed for trial; how many adjournments took place during the preliminary hearings; and, how long each prisoner committed was confined between the committal and the Assizes; whether, in any cases, Assizes passed by, without such prisoners being tried, if this was on the ground that the Crown were not ready, can he explain the reason; how many prisoners are now awaiting for next Winter Assizes where the Crown opposed bail, and how long they will be confined before trial can be had; and, whether the Lord Lieutenant could do anything to expedite the trials of these prisoners?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, there had been several cases of murder, and conspiracy to murder, which had been postponed. There might have been some cases of treason-felony; but they must have been few. In some cases the postponement had been caused by the absence of material witnesses, and in others by the fact that additional evidence had been procured, particularly in eases which had recently been before the Assizes. He was most anxious to accelerate the trial of all cases where it could be done consistently with justice.

  777
  The detailed information asked for by the hon. Member would take three weeks to procure, and could not be given in answer to a Question.
  MR. HEALYgave Notice that he would move for this information as a Return. He presumed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the interests of law and order, would have no objection to give it, for the action of the Habeas Corpus Act was practically annulled in Ireland owing to the course pursued by the Executive.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF A GUARDIAN—CARNAMONEY DIVISION OF THE MAGHERAFELT UNION.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Louis Smyth, one of the candidates for the office of Poor Law Guardian for the Carnamoney division of the Magherafelt Union, demanded a sworn inquiry into the circumstances attending the election for that division in March last, alleging that he had been elected by a majority of votes, but that the return had been falsified by the misconduct of the returning officer and his assistant; whether the Local Government Board, on Mr. Smyth's memorial, granted an inquiry, but before the inquiry could be held, and without notice to Mr. Smyth, directed a supplemental election to be held, at which Mr. Smyth's opponent was declared elected without opposition; whether, when the promised inquiry into the validity of the March election came to be held, the inspector stated that his instructions from the Local Government Board forbade him to enter into a scrutiny of the votes given at that election, on the ground that the supplemental election ordered by the Local Government Board could not be affected by the voting at the impugned election; whether Mr. Smyth declined to be a party to an inquiry which ignored his claim to have been duly elected, on the strength of which the inquiry was originally demanded; and, whether it was competent to the Local Government Board, after ordering an inquiry, to prejudge that claim by directing a fresh election without notice to Mr. Smyth?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The voting at the March election for the Carnamoney Division was returned as equal; and, therefore, no candidate was elected. Mr. Smyth, one of the candidates, demanded
  778
  a scrutiny of the votes; but he showed no grounds for it, and it could not be ordered merely on his general allegation that he believed he ought to have had a majority. A new election was ordered. Mr. Smyth did not stand; but I am informed a candidate in his stead was elected—I mean a candidate belonging to the same way of thinking. Subsequently, I thought it necessary to direct an inquiry into matters connected with the action of the Returning Officer in this and some other divisions, and it was before the Inspector who was holding this inquiry that Mr. Smyth appeared, and again demanded a scrutiny of the votes. The Inspector properly declined to comply with this demand, as there was still no grounds for it, and Mr. Smyth then retired. I have received the Inspector's Report, which is very full, and it shows that there were irregularities in different electoral divisions, and I hope, in one case, to be able to annul the election. The order for the supplemental election was issued before the inquiry was ordered, and not afterwards, as alleged; and the result of the investigation, if Mr. Smyth had chosen to pursue it, could not have had the effect of establishing him as the Guardian of the Carnamoney electoral division.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Was not Mr. Smyth's claim originally that he had been actually elected, and was not the Inspector prevented from trying out that question by the way the inquiry was held?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board, in any case, had no power to override an election; they could not have declared Mr. Smyth elected; he did not give specific grounds to enable a scrutiny to be held. He only gave the general belief of his party.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE INFORMER WALSH.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the remarks by Baron Dowse on the informer Walsh, as follows:—
  "A worse specimen of humanity, if the word humanity could be applied to such a person, never in the whole course of my experience, which I am sorry to say is rather long, have I met with than this man Walsh. The jury should be careful before they believe the evidence of such a man;"

  779
  and, whether it is the fact that the informer was the chief witness, that the jury acquitted the prisoners; and, who is responsible for employing Walsh in the case?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, he had seen the remarks quoted by the hon. Member, and, no doubt, the quotation was accurate. Walsh was the chief witness in the case; but there were others, and their evidence was all considered by the jury in acquitting the prisoners. It was, nevertheless, in his opinion, the bounden duty of the Advisers of the Crown to have the case fully and fairly investigated; and it by no means followed, because a man by his own confession had been implicated in a great crime, that he was not truthful, although the jury was perfectly justified in declining to act upon his evidence, as in this case.
  MR. HEALY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the latter part of my Question—who is responsible for employing Walsh, and also how much Walsh will get for the job?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he entirely demurred to the use of the word "employed." The authorities entrusted with the investigation of crime, when they found a man could give important information in reference to atrocious crimes like murder, were bound to take his evidence; and if they considered there was a case to go to the jury they were bound to submit it. As to the other portion of the Question he could not answer.

  IRELAND—STATE-AIDED EMIGRATION.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is correct that a party of "assisted emigrants" intending to leave for America were not allowed to embark at Glasgow, and have been returned to Ireland in a state of extreme destitution; and, whether he can state how many emigrants have been sent away by the Irish Poor Law authorities, and how many have been sent back from the United States?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am glad to say the statement is not correct as regards any emigrants assisted either by
  780
  the Government or the Poor Law authorities. I believe it is true with regard to some persons who were sent by private charity to Glasgow for the purpose of emigrating from thence. They have since been returned to their homes. As to the second inquiry, about 10,500 per sons have been assisted by the Government to emigrate to the United States—that is to say, more have been assisted; but that number have gone out with Government assistance, and of these, seven families, consisting of 27 persons, have been sent back from the United States.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked if any provision had been made by the Government with regard to their future destination?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir. Very careful inquiry had been made into the circumstances under which they were sent back; but they are, at present, in Ireland. I may say, though it is very difficult to get exact statistics about this, that a considerable number of persons—I fancy a great deal more than 27—have been sent back from the United States to other countries than Ireland under the influence of the same considerations.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that Irishmen have been sent back to other countries?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir. The report of Irishmen being sent back to other countries is entirely incorrect.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the amount of money paid for the emigration of these 10,000 persons?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I should be sorry to say from recollection the precise manner in which the £100,000 allotted by Parliament has been distributed; but, roughly speaking, it has been entirely spent and allotted in preparing for emigration, or emigrating something like 18,000 or 19,000 persons, of whom 10,000 or 11,000 have been emigrated with the assistance of Government.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make any statement as to the steps that will be taken in assisted emigration from Ireland in the future? I think the Prime Minister intended that we should have an opportunity of discussing the question.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there would be an opportunity for reviving the subject on the Tramways (Ireland) Bill.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE BARROW DRAINAGE WORKS.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Barrow Drainage Works are likely to be carried out; and, if so, whether care shall be taken that no injury shall arise to the borough of Carlow, or the lands in its vicinity?
  MR. COURTNEY: Surveys of the Barrow are now being made; but it is premature to talk of a drainage scheme having been conceived, and still more to mention a time for beginning it. I understand that a proper system of arterial drainage is expected to improve the sanitary condition of the towns in the Barrow Valley, in which Carlow would, no doubt, participate. Care would certainly be taken to do no injury to any town or its neighbouring lands.

  EGYPT—THE CHOLERA—INTRODUCTION FROM INDIA.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to statements that the cholera in Egypt was introduced from India; whether it is true that in the first week in June, three weeks before the outbreak at Damietta, there were nearly 1,200 deaths from cholera reported in the Bombay Presidency districts of Khandesh, Poona, Thana, Nassick, Ahmednagar, Belgaum, and Sholapur; whether the cholera was of a very virulent type; and, whether he can state if all cases were reported to Government?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: In the first week in June there were 1,161 deaths from cholera in the districts named by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. There is no reason to suppose that these figures are understated. The population of the districts affected is over 6,000,000, which gives a cholera death rate of 9·86 per 1,000 per annum. We have no information that the cholera was of a very virulent type. As regards the first part of the Question, I informed the hon. Member on the 9th instant that during the last six months cholera had been little, if at all, more prevalent in Indian
  782
  ports than it usually is; and I quoted statistics on the subject.
  MR. O'DONNELL: The hon. Gentleman has not stated whether all cases have been reported to the Government.
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I stated that 1,161 cases had been reported, and it was not supposed there were any more.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I wish to give Notice that on Monday I will ask, Whether it is true, that during the week ending the 30th May, there wore 636 cases of cholera and 278 deaths from cholera in the Poona District, and 395 cases and 220 deaths in the Thana District; and whether this proportion of deaths proves the virulence of the epidemic? Further, whether, in reference to some districts, as in Ahmednagar, the official Reports fail to give any statistics but confine themselves to the statement there was "cholera throughout the district?"
  MR. MACFARLANE: Can the Government say whether any case has been reported of any Indian vessels leaving any Indian ports for Egypt with cholera cases on board during the year?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEThat is a Question of considerable importance; and I must ask the hon. Member to give Notice of it.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONasked, whether the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had received any confirmation of a report, sent upon the authority of Messrs. Cook, to the effect that cholera was materially decreasing in Egypt?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEThe last telegram with regard to the deaths at Cairo, undoubtedly, shows a considerable decrease in the number of deaths from cholera. I have not yet received to-day the ordinary telegram from Cairo, which arrives in the afternoon; but I do not wish to attach too great importance to these figures, because there can be no doubt there are unreported deaths; and it would be better in this case not to be precipitate and take too favourable a view of the circumstances. I certainly hope that the turn has come. The official figures prove that there is room for hope; but I can say nothing more.
  MR. VILLIERS STUARTasked whether the noble Lord could confirm the report that the Khedive had personally visited the cholera hospitals in Cairo at the risk of his life?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; I can confirm the report that the Khedive has shown very great courage, and has visited the hospitals at Cairo. I may also state that his action in the matter has produced a very excellent moral effect.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked, whether the noble Lord was aware that the Empress Eugenie had habitually visited cholera patients in hospitals; and whether he thought it extraordinary that a man should do what a woman had habitually done?
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War, If the General Officer commanding in Egypt has sent any information with regard to the health of the troops, and especially of the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry now at Ram-la, near Alexandria? There is very great uneasiness in many quarters with regard to this regiment.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I gave yesterday the latest telegrams which I had received from the General Officer, especially in reference to the troops at Ramleh. I have heard nothing more since then. I received yesterday afternoon the nominal return of deaths from cholera in Egypt, and as soon as I have compared them these will be sent to the papers.

  ENGLAND—REPORTED CASES OF CHOLERA.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to know whether the Government has received any information, confirmatory or otherwise, of the report that cholera has appeared in this country?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Those suspicious cases which have been investigated during the last fortnight have all proved to be cases, by the Report of the medical men, of simple cholera. There certainly appears to be no Asiatic or epidemic cholera in this country; and, so far as I know, there is none in Europe up to the present time. I may add, for the information of the House and of the public, that the deaths from simple cholera in this country are not up to their ordinary average at present. Last week the number of deaths in London from simple cholera was only half the average.

  SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL—COMMUNICATIONS FROM FOREIGN POWERS.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will state to the House the substance of the communications, or lay upon the Table the communications, addressed to Her Majesty's Government by Foreign Powers upon the subject of the late Agreement regarding the Suez Canal, and especially the communications from Germany, Austria, and Italy?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The only communication from any Foreign Power addressed to Her Majesty's Government is that from the Porte, to which I referred in my reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke) on the 19th instant.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether the noble Lord had not yesterday stated that communications had been received from Russia and France?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I tried to explain yesterday that communications had been received in reply to Lord Granville's Circular Despatch, which was sent to Foreign Powers generally, relative to a different matter. If the right hon. Gentleman has not forgotten that Circular Despatch, the difference of opinion that arose between us yesterday would not have taken place. I stated yesterday that replies had been received to that Despatch from Russia and France.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether it was the fact that a protest had been received from Germany against the proposals of the Government, and against the monopoly of M. de Lesseps?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have already distinctly said that no communications have been received.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Will the answers that have been received from Russia and France be included in the Papers about to be published?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I stated yesterday that they would be included in the Blue Book, which will be delivered to hon. Members either today or to-morrow.

  EGYPT—"ADMINISTRATIVE ANARCHY."
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

  785
  Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the alleged "administrative anarchy" in Egypt, and to the statements made by the correspondents of English Papers now in that country, especially to those published in the "Times" on Monday, the 23rd of July—
  "Trustworthy reports from the interior show that the administrative anarchy is almost beyond credence. Every official is trying to thwart some other, and rejoicing at every calamity, the cause of which he hopes to attribute to his rival. From one end of the country to the other, from Sherif Pasha down to the meanest effendi, both country and people have proved themselves beyond all expectation incapable of self-government. It may be safely said that the hardships and cruelties of Ismail's despotic thirteen years did not exceed those of the last four months of experimental self-government;"
  to the further statements in the "Times" of Wednesday, the 25th of July—
  "The utter breakdown of the whole administration has now become apparent, and, like the cholera, is no longer confined to the villages. Nothing saves the present Ministry from dismissal but the impossibility of finding less incapable men in the country. We are almost face to face with an alternative long foreseen, and which Lord Dufferin's Viceroyalty only served to stave off—namely, of undertaking the complete administration of the country, or of leaving it literally to stew in its own juice; '"
  also the similar statements in other leading newspapers; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government, who are now in Military occupation of Egypt, propose to take in order to remedy this administrative anarchy? The hon. Member added that his Question referred to a remarkable statement in the correspondence of a daily journal which had appeared that morning relative to the state of affairs in Cairo. He begged to ask whether the noble Lord's attention had been called to the communication to which he had referred?
  MR. O'DONNELLalso wished to ask whether the administrative anarchy in Egypt is not largely due to the fact that the Egyptian people possess no resources for employing high class native talent, and that a large number of highly paid foreign officials had fled from their posts before the cholera?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I will answer the Question on the Paper. As I informed the hon. Member yesterday, it is impossible for me to make any statement on this subject beyond what I have already made in reply to
  786
  the numerous Questions addressed to me during the last few days in regard to it.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that as the noble Lord was not as much responsible for the state of things in Egypt as the Prime Minister was, he would ask the latter whether he was not in a position to answer the last paragraph of the Question on the Paper?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not read the Question.
  MR. ASHMEAD - BARTLETTsaid, he felt that the Prime Minister should have the advantage of Notice; and, therefore, he begged to give Notice that on Monday he would ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps Her Majesty's Government, who were now in military occupation of Egypt, proposed to take to remedy the existing administrative anarchy in that country; and he would further ask why, as full warning had been given that such a deplorable state of things would result, stops had not been taken to prevent the terrible suffering which had fallen on the Egyptian people?

  INDIA (MADRAS)—THE MAGISTRACY—MR. WALLACE, DISTRICT JUDGE OF CUDDAPAH.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Why Mr. Wallace, District Judge of Cuddapah, Madras, has been suspended?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The case of Mr. Wallace is at present under the consideration of the Government of India, whose views upon it have not yet been laid before the Secretary of State. I am, therefore, unable at present to make any statement on the subject.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would ask whether Mr. Wallace had been suspended for charging a senior Member of the Council with accepting presents from Natives; whether, Mr. Wallace having declined to withdraw those charges, his case was referred to the Secretary of State; and, whether this Gentleman would have an impartial inquiry, not one conducted under the orders of the Madras Government?

  INDIA (MYSORE) GOLD MINING COMPANIES—CONCESSIONS TO BRITISH OFFICIALS, &c. —THE REPORT.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will

  787
  inquire whether the officials affected by the inquiry into their connection with the Mysore gold mining transactions are opposing the presentation of the Government Report on the subject during the present Session of Parliament?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan will be sent to the Viceroy by to-day's mail.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS—INCREASE OF CASES.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the increase of patients at the Naval and Military Hospitals at Stoke and Stonehouse (Devon); the number at the first place being 184 against 118, and, at the second, 100 against 45, as compared with ten weeks of the same period last year, when the Contagious Diseases Acts were in force; and, whether any steps will be taken by the Government to check the ravages of disease among our soldiers and sailors?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said lie had not yet had time to examine the statistics, they only having appeared on the Paper this morning; but he would reply to the Question on Monday.

  ARMY—THE 21ST HUSSARS.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that the 21st Hussars, now stationed in Dublin, have been, for several months past, five Officers short of the complement laid down by the official Army List; whether the annual Mess and Band Subscriptions of these five Officers, wanting to complete the establishment, are lost to the funds of the regiment; and, if there is any intention to take immediate steps to fill up the five vacancies?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There are five vacancies for subalterns in the 21st Hussars, which have gradually accrued during the last few months. The Mess subscriptions of these officers are lost to the regiment; but the Band subscriptions are not paid by subalterns. There is at present a paucity of candidates for commissions in the Cavalry; but the measures to be taken for filling vacancies are now under consideration.

  EGYPT—CHARGES AGAINST THE KHEDIVE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any substantial evidence has been communicated to him in corroboration of the anonymous assertion contained in the indictment against the Khedive of Egypt by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, or in any shape sufficient cause has been shown for a serious inquiry into this charge against the Prince whom we maintain in Egypt; or, if not, whether he will announce that no such charge is entertained by Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In reply to the hon. Member I may say, at any rate, as much as this—that nothing has been made known to us in corroboration, down to the present time, of these statements without name to which my hon. Friend refers. Nothing has occurred which at all tends to shake the confidence which our experience of the character of the Khedive, for some considerable time under very trying circumstances, has led us to repose in him. I have no further remark to make in regard to the Question.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether the guarantee of safety asked for had yet been given to the witnesses who had offered to come forward and give evidence on the subject?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not able to give—and I do net propose to give—any further answer at the present moment.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SATURDAY SITTINGS.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the event of time not being found to finish the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill, and to deal with the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, he will consider the advisability of a Sitting on Saturday to dispose of the Scotch Bills?
MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, he hoped he might be permitted to ask whether it was in his recollection that last year, when the Scotch Members endured a Saturday

789
Sitting, it was at the close of the Session of a very exceptional character, and was for the promotion of measures about which there was a very general agreement; but that, in the present Session, there was nothing of a remarkable character that he knew of, and the measures to which the Question referred were susceptible, at all events, of great varieties of opinion?
MR. GLADSTONE: I know that the House of Commons is very averse to Saturday Sittings; but, at the same time, these Sittings are usually reverted to towards quite the close of the Session; and when the time has arrived when Gentlemen had to make their choice between sitting on Saturday and postponing the Prorogation for a day, then the question becomes rather pinching, and that reluctance and natural horror which they feel to Saturday Sittings begins to be a little abated. With regard to these Bills, I am in hopes that we may be able to deal with them in the course of next week. But I certainly should hold myself free—though I do not wish to press unduly on the inclination of the House—as we should then be in the month of August, and looking forward to the early close of Business—if we are not able to deal with the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill conclusively, and with the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill as to its second reading in the course of next week, I should think it quite convenient, and according to the spirit of our usual proceedings, to submit to the House that we should have a Sitting on Saturday.
DR. CAMERONtrusted the Prime Minister would let the House know as early as possible whether there was to be a Saturday Sitting next week.
MR. GLADSTONE: I will endeavour to do that.
MR. DALRYMPLEgave Notice that when it was proposed to hold a Saturday Sitting for the disposal of Scotch Business, he should oppose the Motion, because it would come to be a precedent of a very unpleasant character, to consider that a Scotch Saturday was the obvious way of dealing with Scotch Business.
MR. HEALYsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman would give a Saturday for Irish Business, he and his Friends would be very glad.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EAST INDIA (EXPENDITURE).

    RESOLUTION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Main Question [8th May],
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary that early steps be taken to reduce the expenditure of India."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
    And which Amendment was,
    At the end of the Question, to add the words "and this House regrets the decision arrived at by Her Majesty's Government to cast a further burden upon the Revenues of India in order to meet the extraordinary charges incurred by that Government on account of the Military expedition to Egypt."—(Mr. Onslow.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
    Debate resumed.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that in supporting the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Onslow) he was not actuated by any sentimental motive. As his constituents were taxpayers, he could not allow such a motive to influence him. He was guided by a sense of their duty to India in these matters. All he desired was that justice, and only simple justice, should be done to India. He thought justice required that this extraordinary charge should not be thrown on India. When this matter was previously before the House, they were told by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) that the proposed settlement had been accepted by the Government of India. He was sure that the noble Marquess said so in the utmost good faith; but, still, when they came to see the Papers, it appeared that what the Government of India did was not to accept the proposal of Her Majesty's Government as a satisfactory settlement of the question, but to reserve their protest, only thanking Her Majesty's Government for what they got on the principle that half a loaf was better than no bread. The Viceroy and his Council had unanimously expressed, in very strong terms, their view that this charge should not be imposed on the people of India; and, so far as he knew, they still maintained that view. In the matter of Egypt, he contended, India had no interest whatever. The Government of India had in no shape or degree been consulted in this matter, and there was no reason

    791
    at all why India should be called on to pay. It was quite clear that, as a matter of strict right, it was impossible that we could demand this from the Government of India; and if, as a matter of equity, we said to India that she was more or less directly concerned in the Suez Canal, and we should make that country pay, he would meet that with another plea in equity, and say that India was poor, and that we had already swept away part of her Revenue arising from import duties. Besides, it now turned out in the accounts that India owed this country arrears amounting to £2,000,000. The only possible interest India had in Egypt was in the Suez Canal, and England had a greater interest in that respect; while the Colonies, whom we did not venture to ask to contribute, had equally a substantial interest. The whole of the ordinary charges had already been placed to the debit of India, and would be charged in the same way as in the Abyssinian War. He thought that a sufficient contribution in respect of the Suez Canal. He saw no justice, however, in seeking to lay upon her these extraordinary charges in addition. He was inclined to think, with his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), that the Suez Canal would have been as safe, or safer, if Arabi had been the Ruler of Egypt at this moment. If they were going to have a Native Ruler in Egypt at all, they must go on the Darwinian principle of natural selection, and let the strongest man come to the top. He appealed to Her Majesty's Government, in justice to India, to accept, even at the last hour, the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Guildford
    MR. R. N. FOWLERagreed that British rule had proved a great blessing to India; but England owed a great deal to India. In his opinion, they ought not to impose upon Indian taxpayers burdens incurred for Imperial purposes. The people of India were not only a poor and highly taxed people, but they were unrepresented in that House. This war was undertaken for Imperial purposes; and as to the keeping open the Suez Canal, that was as important to Australia as it was to India, and yet no contribution had been asked from the Australian Colonies. He heartily supported the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Onslow), because he thought
    792
    the people of India ought not to be called upon to contribute to the expenses of this war.
    MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he intended to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Guildford, for several reasons. In the first place, he objected to call on the people of India to pay any part of the expense of the Egyptian War, because the Government of India was never consulted as to the war before it was undertaken. It was said that it was impossible to consult them—that there was not time. Still, the fact remained; and he should like to quote what was said by the Viceroy and his Council in the despatch of the 4th of August, 1882. In passing, he wished to say that he could not understand how anyone could read that Paper without feeling how strong was the case of India. It was a most able Paper, and well worth perusal. In paragraph 20 the Government said—
    "We are intrusted with the government of India; we arc in close contact with the Indian people; we are in a position to watch the currents of public opinion in India; we are directly responsible for the tranquility of the country; and it seems to us, therefore, that we are better able than anyone in England, however eminent or experienced, can possibly be, to judge of the financial and political effects and bearing of a measure so important to Indian interests as a sudden and unexpected demand for a large and indefinite war contribution. We can scarcely conceive any subject upon which the Government of India, as representing, however imperfectly, the people of this country, can have a clearer or better claim to be heard."
    But they were not heard, and that was a strong argument against imposing on them this contribution. Again, he wished to observe that the people of India had no representation in that House, nor in the Government hero, except that one Member of the Cabinet was Secretary of State for India. The interest of India in the results of the war was remote and vague, except so far as respected the maintenance of the Suez Canal. But Australia was just as much interested as India in the Canal, and yet the Prime Minister seemed to laugh at the idea of a subvention from the Australian Colonies towards the expenses of the war. He could not see the distinction. The fact was, he supposed, that they knew that Australia would not pay, and India could not refuse to pay. But that was not all. He considered that the poverty of the people of India was so great that

    793
    they ought not to impose on them any new burden. So long as they were compelled to put a duty on salt in India he could not help feeling strongly opposed to any such proposal. So thought, also, the Government of India. In their despatch of the 1st of September, 1882, they said, paragraph 13—
    "The poverty of the people of India is a fact which is notorious, and, indeed, has been so frequently discussed that it is unnecessary that we should dwell on it at any length. That poverty is abundantly attested by the prevailing low rate of wages, by the statistics which show the pressure of the population on the soil, by the absence of accumulated capital, and by the rough calculation which has recently been made that the average income per head of population is only Rs27 a year [say £2 5s]. It is clear at a glance that to a population so situated, the maintenance of peace is a matter of vital interest."
    Again, they say—
    "Practically, therefore, it may be said that only two modes of imposing fresh taxation are open to us. We must either increase the salt duty or impose direct taxes. An enhancement of the salt duty at present is, on every ground, most undesirable. Not only would it involve imposing a tax upon the poorest classes to meet the charges on account of a war, the cost of which should, both in our opinion, and, we believe, in the opinion of most people in this country, be borne by the English taxpayers, but we should, certainly, for the time being, sacrifice one of the objects we had in view in effecting the recent reduction."
    He would ask the House to consider another proof of the poverty of India. The amount borrowed annually for productive public works was strictly limited to a comparatively very small sum, because it was thought dangerous to run the risk of imposing additional burdens in the shape of interest on loans. And yet the country urgently needed more railways. At this moment there was no doubt that India could send them wheat enough to supply the whole of their requirements, without taking a single quarter from America, were there sufficient railways to bring the corn down from the wheat districts to the ports. As it was, India sent them a greatly increased amount; but the wheat was wasted, and the resources of the country were imperfectly developed, through the want of carrying power. The only excuse was that India was poor; and yet they were imposing on her part of the expense of a war which she had not caused, and as to which her Government were never consulted. He should certainly vote against any such proposal.
    MR. J. K. CROSS: The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) said that the connection between the Indian Government and the Suez Canal was exceedingly vague and indefinite. If I could allow that such was the case, I should not be standing here now to ask the House to vote against the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I think the House will understand why the Expedition to Egypt was undertaken. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: NO, no!] The hon. Member may say "No, no;" but I think it will be in the memory of the House that it was undertaken for the purpose of preserving life and property, of maintaining order, and of preserving the direct sea route from India to Europe.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Is my hon. Friend quoting?
    MR. J. K. CROSS: Certainly not. I am speaking of what was the general sense of the community at the time.
    MR. ONSLOW: Might I ask if the hon. Member can quote any words to the effect that the Expedition was undertaken for the purpose of preserving the short route to India? Could he give me any words of the Prime Minister to the effect that the Expedition was undertaken for the purpose of maintaining our rights in the Suez Canal?
    MR. GLADSTONE: No. Where are they?
    MR. ONSLOW: That is exactly my point.
    MR. J. K. CROSS: I did not say that our rights in the Suez Canal were to be maintained. I said direct communication with the East, through the Suez Canal, was to be maintained. It seems to me that the two things are not quite the same thing. Notice has been taken of the contribution which was made towards the cost of the Afghan War. There is nobody in this House who worked harder, or who did more towards getting that contribution granted, than I did myself. I took that action mainly on this ground—that the war was undertaken for Imperial as well as Indian purposes; and I say that the Egyptian Expedition was undertaken for Indian as well as Imperial purposes. Therefore, on the same ground that I asked that England should be expected to give a solid and substantial contribution on account of the Afghan War,

    795
    I now ask that India may be charged with a moderate sum on account of this war. It seems to me that the Canal is of infinitely more importance to India than it is to England. It is said sometimes that the Marquess of Ripon and the Government of India objected to this Expedition because they had not been consulted upon the matter. It is true that they were not consulted; but that was simply because there was no time to do so. Things went on very rapidly, as the hon. Member for Eye knows very well. Perhaps he may have forgotten speeches that were made in this House. I remember the lion. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) coming down to the House and getting very excited about the Suez Canal. The hon. Member was so earnest about the question, and he had such a strong opinion about it, that many people believed from his speech that the Suez Canal was a fresh-water Canal, and required to be fed from somewhere near Cairo, or else our ships would be stranded. Major Baring's position with regard to the finances of India was a rather peculiar one. You must remember that it was the first year of his full control of the finances, and that the Viceroy only took his position there in 1880. In the first year of his management the war with Afghanistan was over, and he managed to reduce the Expenditure by £6,300,000; and in his Budget for the next year he proposed still further to reduce the Expenditure by £1,200,000. When the notice came to him that, in all probability, a large sum of money would be required to pay for the Egyptian Expedition, I do not wonder that he wrote the somewhat angry despatch on which so much comment had been made, without thinking out the whole circumstances of the case. If I had been in his place I very likely should have done the same thing; but the fact remained that it was impossible to consult the Indian Government with regard to this Expedition. The main question that I have to put before the House is this—Has India such an interest in the maintenance of that route to England as to justify her in paying a large sum for its continuance? The price of the commodities coming from India are not fixed by the price which articles fetch in India; but by the price at which they sell in Europe. Europe
    796
    is the great market of the world for grain and cotton, and any interference in the intercourse between Europe and India is not paid for by Europe but by India. We will take the price of Calcutta wheat. Calcutta wheat in England at the present time is worth 40 s. a-quarter; and the difference in the freightage, if that wheat had to go round the Cape instead of going through the Canal, would be 2s. a-quarter. Does that 2s. rest with the English consumer or the Indian producer? The price in Europe is fixed, and the price in India is equal to the European price minus the cost of carriage. India, therefore, derives the whole of that advantage from the existence of the Suez Canal. I must, however, go further, and point out that the Canal has been of advantage to India in another way, for it has opened the Southern ports of Europe to the Indian Empire. Previous to the establishment of the Canal, very little traffic passed between India and the Southern ports of Europe. Since the Canal has been opened the increase has been very great indeed. In 1872 the exports from India to the Mediterranean ports were £4,800,000; in 1881 they were £11,900,000. It must also be reckoned that the merchants who carried on that traffic to the Mediterranean ports were able to compete with the English merchants on advantageous terms. It is not only as a commercial advantage to India that this charge has been thrown upon the country; but there are other grounds. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that the Government of India has to pay a great deal for the carriage of troops from England to India, and from India back to this country. From the day on which our troops leave these shores to the day on which they come back to these shores, they are charged upon India. India brings her troops here, and she brings them, as my hon. Friend says, very dearly. Do not hon. Members see that any shortening of the line of communication between India and this country must be an enormous advantage to India? I was looking at a Parliamentary Paper the other day to try to see what was the cost of taking the troops round the Cape in March, 1865, and what it is now. The cost of conveying troops round the Cape at that time was £23 1s. 9d. per head. In a little time after that we sent the troops

    797
    by the overland route, and then the cost was reduced to £16 18 s. 8d. per man. By an Admiralty Paper, issued on the 9th of February, 1883, upon Indian troops, I find that the amount per head has decreased to £10 19 s. 7d. If anyone will reckon what the advantage to the Indian Government is upon the 11,500 troops who are sent each way between England and India in the course of a year, they will find that it amounts to a very large sum. Indeed, the advantage of the Suez Canal 'to the Government of India in the carriage of troops alone is no less than £138,000 a-year. That is not all the advantage. The time taken by the transport of troops by the Canal is very much less than that taken in going round the Cape. The average time taken by a voyage round the Cape is 47 days to Bombay, and the average voyage by means of the Canal to Bombay is 30 days. You, therefore, have fewer men on the water at one time. Now, if you reckon these 23,000 men going to and fro each year, and the saving of time for them being 17 days, you will find it is equal to a saving of £100,000 a-year. You can, therefore, do with 1,000 men less on the Indian Establishment than you could if you had not the Suez Canal, and as each man costs £100 a-year, there will thus be a saving of £100,000. As £138,000 is also saved in the carriage in those two items alone, the Indian Government saves by the maintenance of the Canal no less a sum than £238,000 a-year. The hon. Member for Cambridge departed very considerably from the scope of the Resolution when he went into the question of public works; and I should have very much liked to have followed him to-day a long way into that subject; but it is scarcely germane to the question. It has been stated that most extraordinary taxation is placed upon the people of India; but things are not nearly as bad in India as my hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell) thinks they are. The hon. Member seemed to think that the people of India are very poor. Well, Sir, as far as I can understand the finances of India, after a somewhat careful examination, I should say they are in a very different position to what they have been in times gone by. Some time ago India was oppressed by war and famine, and the loss by exchange seemed a terrible
    798
    evil. Happily war has passed away, and, it is hoped, for a long time to come. I do not wish to enter into controversial matters, or say why it has passed away; but the Government has managed its affairs in a way which will prevent us from getting into war, I hope, for a long time. We have managed to reduce the finances of India by nearly £3,000,000 a-year; and still I may inform the House that, notwithstanding, there remains in the coffers of the Government of India £4,500,000, which they have laid aside for famine and famine assurance, only £73,000 of which has been spent in relief, and the rest has been spent on productive works and in the reduction of Debt. In spite of the expenses of the Egyptian Expedition there was a surplus last year of £224,000, and, in the present year, India anticipates a surplus of £457,000. In the last few days I have received a telegram to say that, not only will the surplus be £457,000, but it will be a good round £1,000,000 in addition. This was besides putting aside good round sums for famine assurance, and paying off Debt. I cannot refrain from telling the House what the taxation of India is at the present moment. If we take the rent and taxes of India, what do we find? The rent of the land, the salt tax, stamps, excise, provincial rates, customs, and registration, these are all the taxes that are raised in India. In 1882 they amounted to £42,000,000, and in the next year £39,000,000. If you take off from these figures, as above given, the land tax, which is not a tax but rent, you will find that the taxes of the whole of that part of British India which is under our rule stood in the last three years at £22,700,000; it then fell to £17,900,000, and is now at that figure. The hon. Gentleman opposite my Predecessor in Office the late Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. E. Stanhope) proposed a Resolution some time ago asking the House to declare its determination that the expenditure in India should be reduced. I proposed an Amendment upon that which the House has not thought fit to carry, although I would rather that my Amendment had been carried. I must confess I am not satisfied that the effect of the Resolution which my hon. Friend opposite proposes would be to the advantage of India, and I simply make my per-

    799
    sonal disclaimer against it. But right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen who sit on this Bench have accepted that Resolution. We have accepted it loyally, mind; and we intend, as far as we can, to carry it out. I have endeavoured to show that in the process of carrying out the expenditure of the first year of Major Baring's authority there has been a diminution of £6,300,000. The gross expenditure in his second year of office resulted in a further diminution of £337,000. This year we are Budgeting for a further reduction of £913,000. This being the case, I think we have something in anticipation of the statement of the hon. Member opposite. But there is one thing which I want the House to do. Next year I want to ask the House very early to give its consent to the appointment of a Special Committee to inquire into the expenditure of India, and report upon the recommendation of the Famine Commission, so far as it refers to the extension of railway communication in India. I do not think that I can enter upon this question now, but I wish before next year that all those who were interested in the subject would take the trouble to read the Reports of the Famine Commission; and if we want to prevent famine, we must not only lay by money to relieve distress when it comes, but we must make railway stations in various parts of India, which will enable us to bring food from the districts where there is abundance to the famine-stricken districts. Those who have the direction of the affairs in chief of India in hand have a very great responsibility to India upon them. I do not wish to shirk that responsibility myself. I am somewhat diffident in urging my opinions upon the House; but I hope that by the appointment of a Committee of this kind next year we may be able to come to some definite conclusions, and that we may be able to prevent that vast number of deaths from accumulating again. I have to thank the House for the patience with which I have been listened to, and I trust that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Guildford will not be accepted.
    MR. BLAKEcontended that the national people of India were the most miserable of all peoples; and he ventured to say that in that opinion he would be corroborated by everyone who had had the same opportunities of see-
    800
    ing the condition of India as he had had; they were ground down to the very utmost, hopeless of the future, and completely at the mercy of the Mother Country to impose any taxation she might think proper. It had been said that English rule had benefited the condition of India; but, so far as the national people of India were concerned, he denied that, and he took for his authority, not his own statement, but those of official authorities, among whom was one whose flame he was sure would be received with very great respect in the House—namely, the late Lord Lawrence. He had said that the national people were so miserably poor that they had barely the means of subsistence, and that it was as much as a man could do to feed his family. Sir James Caird, too, who was sent out to report on the state of the country, also bore him out in his Report. What they had to consider, then, was, what was the cause of this misery; and, in his opinion, it was the large sums of money which this country exacted in taxation. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India had said that the taxation of India was of a very light character; but it amounted upon the ryots to about 6s. a-head. Another cause of the great poverty of the national people was the circumstance of polyandry. ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is wandering from the Question before the House. I must ask him to confine himself to the Amendment.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, he was contending that the people of India wore in such a condition that they were not able to meet further taxation, and that any further taxation would increase their misery to a very great extent; and, therefore, with very great respect, he did not think he was wandering from the Amendment before the House. In many parts of India the people were half starving; their dwellings consisted of miserable roofless huts; and the uttermost farthing was already exacted from them by the landlords, who, in their turn, had to pay tribute to the Crown. The disgraceful and profligate expenditure by the Government of India was a by-word in the country; and, under such circumstances, it would be grossly unjust to place an additional burden on the people.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid people of India were very poor

    801
    when hon. Members compared their returned income of 508. a-head with that of the people of other countries the comparison was misleading, because the conditions of climate and the standard of comfort were very different. He had no hesitation in saying that there were people in England, Scotland, and Ireland who had to contribute to the taxation of the country, and who were just as poor as the people of India. He was glad to find that the Under Secretary of State had promised a Select Committee on the subject; but he hoped that the efforts in the direction of economy would not be limited to that. It had been urged that India ought not to be called on to contribute to the War expenditure in Egypt, because the passage of the Suez Canal was net placed in danger during the recent troubles; but if those hon. Members would take the trouble to read the Parliamentary Papers on the subject, they would find reason for coming to a different conclusion, and they would see therein a fact of great importance which had not yet been quoted. It was contained in a statement by Earl Granville to Lord Lyons, that the Egyptians at one time had three ships in the Canal prepared to destroy it. That statement, made to Lord Lyons, and conveyed by him to the French Government, had never been impugned or contradicted. There was not a man of business in that House at that time who would have guaranteed the safety of a vessel containing his fortune through that Canal at the rate of £5 per ton. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: I would.] He (Mr. Arnold) would not; and he said that against the opinion of the hon. Member for Carlisle. The question arose whether India should make this contribution. It was said that other Dependencies of Great Britain should make a contribution. For himself, he had no doubt that if the Australian Colonies sent a cheque for £500,000 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would receive it thankfully. He thought it proper that they should do so; but this country had no power to exact such a contribution. In his view India was as much interested in the Suez Canal as this country; and the contribution which she was asked to make to the Egyptian War was wise and reasonable. He believed that the government of India—and lie spoke from personal observation—by this country had been fraught with benefits to the
    802
    people of India. He recognized it as a beneficent despotism; but, at the same time, he looked forward to the time when an independent Parliament would be established in India. He regretted, however, that the Under Secretary of State for India had not referred in his speech to the question of military expenditure in India, a question which had been repeatedly brought under the notice of the Government, which ought to engage their serious attention, and in connection with which great economy and saving were to be secured.
    MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend who has just sat down has made what I think a very able argument on the subject of this Motion—an argument with which I entirely coincide. But, nevertheless, I desire to ask the attention of the House for a short time at the present moment, because there is a branch of the subject which he, and almost every preceding speaker, has overlooked, and which naturally might not appear to be one of very great importance, or to be very prominent in a discussion of this kind, but which, to a Member of the Government, may naturally appear to be of very considerable importance indeed. At all events, I venture to anticipate a general assent when I say that it is a portion of the subject which ought not to be wholly and entirely overlooked, but ought to be clearly in the view of Members, and not merely with regard to the speeches which they may make, but with regard to the vote which they give when we come to a Division, as I suppose we shall come, on this subject. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) has chosen to combine together two matters which are perfectly and absolutely distinct. One of them is the expression of an opinion that no charge ought to be made upon the Revenues of India in order to meet the expenses of the Expedition to Egypt. That is one of the propositions; but the other proposition is, the Government having thought differently, that the Government ought to be censured and dismissed from Office for having entertained that different opinion. The hon. Gentleman has adopted a form perfectly well understood in this House—namely, "That this House regrets the decision arrived at by Her Majesty's Government." Now, Sir, in the relations between a Government and the House of Commons,

    803
    it is perfectly well understood, by, I believe, unbroken usage, that when the House reaches a point at which it finds it necessary, by a formal Vote, to record its regret for the conduct of the Government in a particular question, that is a notice to quit to the Government, and that notice to quit is uniformly and promptly obeyed. It has happened to me, in the course of my life, that Motions of different characters have been made which have led to the dismissal of the Government, and that after the Government have resigned in consequence of these Motions, various gentlemen have written to me myself, when I have happened to be in that position, to state that they did not at all understand the character or effect of the Motions, and did not at all take into their view the consequences by which they were to followed. I think it very hard upon gentlemen that they should be placed in that position. Evidently this little expression of regret has escaped the notice of many Members. I wish to set this forth in language that cannot be mistaken, and at the same time in perfectly good-humoured language, free from any tone or feeling of resentment. For, I do not know that to me it would be a matter of personal dissatisfaction if the regret were to be felt; but it is well, at any rate, that the point should be thoroughly well understood. The hon. Member has exercised a right which he was perfectly entitled to use. I make no complaint of his having exercised it, and it is possible that his having exercised that right may, in the eyes of many Members of the House, be an additional recommendation in favour of the Motion; but I repeat that it should be well understood that this Motion is a Vote of Censure, and a Vote which must be followed, if adopted by the House, by the natural consequences. Having said this much—I make no complaint of it whatever, but only endeavour to expound the language of the lion. Member in accordance with Parliamentary usage—I pass on to other portions of the question, for we do not agree with the hon. Member for Guildford upon either part of the question. We do not agree that the Government ought to be dismissed for what it has done, and we do not agree that what has been done is improper. I will go very shortly over the arguments—without repeating what has been so well said by
    804
    my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Indian Department—I will go shortly over the arguments that have peen touched in the course of the present debate by Gentlemen who have given their support to the hon. Member For Guildford. As respects the reference to the Australian Colonies, which appear to be a popular topic with some hon. Members, I am quite content with the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold). Sir, it would be no hardship to the Colonies of this Empire if they did contribute to those Imperial wars in which they have a distinct interest. It might even be said that it is some hardship upon the people of this country to have to bear, without assistance, the whole cost of wars in which the whole of the Empire may have, and in some cases has, an interest. But then we have an understanding with our Colonies according to which we have undertaken to defray the whole cost of these wars; and that being so, although we should be prepared to receive, with a perfectly good conscience, a contribution from the Australian Colonies for the war of last year if it were to arrive, I cannot say I confidently expect it; and I say if we were to make a demand for it, we should be committing something like a breach of faith with the Australian Colonies, according to the understanding by which their relations to the Mother Country have long been regulated and known to be regulated. Well, Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) said—"At any rate, we have got a claim against the English Government—allow this to go as a set-off." Will my hon. Friend allow me to say that it is impossible to put in a more objectionable form upon every economical principle the proposal which he desires to convey? If there is one proposition more clearly established than another for the good financial administration of the country, it is that every transaction shall stand upon its own legs, and shall be settled upon its own merits. But if you come to say—" I have had an indifferent transaction with you yesterday, in which I behaved shabbily to the people of India, but I have another transaction in which I will now, in order to make up for the wrong I inflicted upon you, behave shabbily to the people of England," you not only do not gain

    805
    any conceivable object by that indirect method of proceeding, but you render all responsibility impossible; and I am quite certain that no one acquainted with financial administration would hesitate for a moment to say that none of these transactions ought to be mixed up with any other, but that every one of them should be settled upon its own merits. My hon. Friend said that one of the reasons adduced in support of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) is that the Indian Government never were consulted in this matter. Well, it is admitted that it was impossible that they could be consulted—it was absolutely impossible. It would have been entirely absurd. The military operations in Egypt could not stand or fall according to the assent of the Indian Government; and the moment of those operations would have been lost, and the burden of them greatly aggravated, if the Government at home had done anything so absurd as to divide the responsibility with the Government of India by a previous consultation. But the Indian Government has been consulted after the fact, and has been consulted with the effect of giving very great weight to its representations, for those representations, having been received by us, were weighed by us, and the decision at which we arrived as to the arrangement we should ask the House to make was a decision materially influenced by the advice and the desires of the Indian Government. We have proof of that in the Papers before us. My hon. Friend says that the Indian Government reserve their protest. Sir, that is a matter on which he appears to have more knowledge than we have; but we have no sort of protest from the Indian Government against the arrangement as it now stands. We had a protest from the Indian Government against the arrangement, as originally it was projected in a provisional manner, and subject to future consideration; but as regards the arrangement as it now is, all we have is a telegram from the Viceroy, dated 19th January, 1883, and in these terms—
    "We have received your secret telegram of the 16th, relating to the cost of the Indian Contingent in Egypt. We thank Her Majesty's Government for the consideration given to our representations, and for the important assistance they are willing to afford us."
    806
    That is the communication, and the only communication, we have received in their names; and it is upon the concurrence of the Indian Government in this arrangement that we found a portion of our claim for the approval, and not the disapproval, of the House of Commons in regard to it. The hon. Member has pleaded the poverty of India in support of his Motion. But if the poverty of India is any reason why we should depart from the lines of policy that would, on general grounds, be followed, you cannot possibly stop here. You must go a great deal further. If you want to make up for the whole evil of the poverty of India by putting a charge upon the people of England that they would not otherwise have to bear, it is obvious that you must do a great deal more than this. The fact is, Sir, that the question that you have to ask yourselves is not whether India is a poorer country than this, but whether it is for the benefit of India that she should be attached to this country, and whether we are, or are not, endeavouring conscientiously to govern India for her own benefit. If we are not endeavouring to govern India for her own benefit—if we are endeavouring to make her resources auxiliary only to the greatness of this country, or if we are allowing any regard for the greatness of this country to interfere with the true welfare of India—why, then, we cannot make up for so gross an iniquity as that by any such trumpery proposal, as it would then be, as that of giving £500,000 to India. We ought to walk out of India, and the sooner the better, unless we are prepared to manage the affairs of India for the benefit of the people of India. But that is the very thing that we are trying to do. Only, if we are so trying to act, do not let us think it is a good argument for laying this burden on the shoulders of England, that India is not self-governed. She is not at this moment a self-governing country. Can you make her a self-governing country? Can you at this moment make her a self-governing country? Would it be for her benefit to try? Every one of you would answer "No." Well, then, Sir, if it is not for her benefit that such an effort should be made, it is your business to govern her, and it is your business to govern her on the principles of justice, and to hold the scales evenly between

    807
    the people of England and the people of India. Has India, then, an interest in this question? Had she an interest in the Egyptian operations, or had she not? The hon. Gentleman quoted me—and I daresay he quoted roe accurately—as having stated that our interest in the Suez Canal was not the immediate cause of the war of last year. I believe he was quite accurate in his reference; but what I said—what I wanted to convey—was this—that the warlike operations of last year had assumed a character higher than that of any question of mere interest. It had become a question directly involving the honour and fame of the British Government; and, consequently, there was a justification and a call for those operations, quite irrespective of any interest that we might have in the matter. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State was perfectly correct in saying—at least in my opinion—it may be a matter of opinion—that the interest of this country in the great waterway of the East lay at the root of the whole question; because I must assume that such arrangements as those which we found subsisting in Egypt at the time when we came into Office were arrangements that never could have been adopted, if it had not been for the vast interests of the country and of the Empire in the waterway of the Suez Canal. Well, Sir, is it possible to deny that India has an enormous interest in the question, and if in the question, then in the operations of last year? Not that I expect any support, or countenance, or quarter from Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) on questions of this kind. He condemns the operations root and branch. He lets fly upon them—if I may use the expression—upon every occasion that presents itself. With him any stick is good enough to beat the Government. This, in his view, is a mode of inflicting punishment upon the Government for having committed what he thinks a great wrong. Therefore, I do not expect to get anything from him. I am perfectly contented that he should turn us out to-morrow morning for this monstrous iniquity that he thinks we have committed. It is perfectly consistent in him. I have no doubt he has in view the object I have described. [Sir WIL-
    808
    FRID LAWSON: Hear, hear!] But is it possible for a man to have listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State, and to deny the vast interest that India has in these operations? The Suez Canal has a totally different interest for India from what it has in respect to England. For England the Suez Canal is a most convenient waterway, invaluable for the extension of its commerce, and opening up an easier and shorter road to all parts of the world. But for India the Suez Canal is a connecting link between herself and the centre of power—the centre of the moral, social, and political power of the world. It is a totally different thing to connect England with India, and to connect India with Europe. Then, if I go down to grossly material objects, and to separate items, my hon. Friend, in his excellent speech, has set forth as one item alone that we are now disputing about the question of £500,000 — one-seventh part, I think it is, of the expense of the Egyptian War—which has been laid upon India with the consent of the Indian Government. You are disputing about that; but what is the fact? Why, that my hon. Friend showed you, as regards the Suez Canal, that every year £250,000 is saved by the Suez Canal in respect of Indian military establishments—due to the Suez Canal, and nothing else—so that in two years alone the whole of the subject-matter of this debate and dispute disappears from the simple benefit conferred, not upon England, but upon India, in military expenditure, through the operation of the Suez Canal. If I look again to the general trade of India, and attempt to estimate the relative importance of the Suez Canal to the trade of England, and to the trade of India—I will not enter now into that very interesting and very curious question, by which it has been developed that naturally enough a great deal of trade from India, which used to pass through this country for the supply of Europe, has now been, I may say, lost to this country, and has taken the form of a direct trade between India, and especially the Mediterranean countries—I do not hesitate to say I am extremely glad of that, because any loss we have suffered in respect to that trade is far less than the benefit that India has obtained by the increased facilities

    809
    that she now enjoys from the shorter passage to the markets of the Mediterranean countries. But surely it is impossible to deny the vast pecuniary interest of India, as well as the moral and social interest of India, in the Suez Canal. I will just take two years. I would not trouble the House with a single figure, except to exhibit the relative importance of the Suez Canal to India and to this country in respect to trade. I know it may be said that the foreign trade of India represents a smaller proportion of its aggregate industry in exchange than the foreign trade of England. I have no doubt it does, and some allowance ought to be made on that account; but, at the same time, it is impossible to over-estimate the importance of the foreign trade of England to India. It is not only a matter of trade; but a matter of civilization, and a matter of her relations to the world. Therefore, to reduce to insignificance the foreign trade of India would he to inflict the heaviest blow that could be inflicted upon her. But the imports which we get through the Suez Canal form 8 per cent of our total imports, and the exports which we send through the Suez Canal form 9½- per cent of our total exports. The imports which India gets through the Canal form 75 per cent of her total imports, and her exports-£26,000,000 in value—form 39 per cent of her total exports. Now, Sir, I do hope that it will not be said after this that India has no interest in the Suez Canal, and that no one will attempt to prove that the question of communication does not stand in the most direct relation to the military operations which we reluctantly undertook last year. I see that the hon. Member has resumed his seat. When I commenced these remarks, I pointed out that he has done what he was perfectly entitled to do by proposing his Amendment. But the effect of that Amendment is not merely the expression of opinion as to a certain arrangement; but it forms a Vote of Censure on the Government. That is a matter entirely within his own option and discretion.
    MR. ONSLOW: It is only an expression of regret.
    MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend well knows that if he will look up a Parliamentary dictionary he will find that probably among the various senses
    810
    of the word "regret," the very first would be that which I have ventured to give to it—namely, notice to quit when it is used with regard to the operations of a Government. Against that notice to quit I enter an extremely humble and exceedingly mild, but, at the same time, an intelligible protest. On the merits of the question, what we have done is this—that, with the final consent of the Indian Government, after we had greatly reduced the original proportion, we have charged to India one-seventh of the expenditure. The other six-sevenths are to be paid by the people of this country; and I do say that, unless you are prepared to say that the expenses of every war external to the Frontier of India—however deeply interested India may be—shall be charged exclusively on the people of England, you cannot refuse to acknowledge that there is some reason in the very moderate and limited arrangement which we have made, and which the Indian Government has accepted on the present occasion.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTcommented on the extraordinary action of the Prime Minister in making a question of Want of Confidence of the Amendment; but he supposed the Prime Minister had been informed by the Whip that unless something of the sort was done, many of his own supporters would vote against him. Hitherto, the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues had not shown much delicacy with regard to hostile votes in that House. They had been seriously defeated three times; yet, in a comparatively thin House, the right hon. Gentleman had taken that extraordinary proceeding. For his part, he did not regard the resignation of the Ministry with any very great apprehension. The arguments, both of the right hon. Gentleman and the Under Secretary of State for India, had been founded on two very serious fallacies—on two assumptions which hon. Gentlemen holding the opinion he did would altogether dispute. The first was that the Egyptian War was a necessary or a justifiable war; and the second, that it was net possible to consult the Indian Government upon the policy of that war. He denied that the war was necessary because of our interest of the Suez Canal. The slightest forethought and decision would have averted it. The war was, to use the

    811
    language of the right hon. Gentleman about the Afghan War, "an unjust and wicked war," the responsibility for which entirely rested with the Ministers of the Crown. Instead of maintaining peace, it had destroyed the National Party in Egypt, had thrown the country into a state of anarchy that was a shame and disgrace in the eyes of the world. Another result—at least, it was an indirect result—was that the Government had granted to a French Company the exclusive right over the Canal, if not in perpetuity, at least for 100 years. The Under Secretary of State stated that Major Baring had written his despatch protesting against India being charged for the cost of the Egyptian War in a fit of indignation; but it was signed by the Marquess of Ripon, Mr. Ebert, and all those academical Radicals who were governing India at present. As for the statements that there was no time to communicate with India, it must be borne in mind that for nine or ten months previous to the bombardment of Alexandria, Egypt had been in a very disturbed state, and during that period it would have been easy and practicable to consult with the Indian authorities. He had listened with the deepest interest to the right hon. Gentleman's striking demonstration of the value and growing importance of British and Indian trade through the Suez Canal. It was unfortunate that the Prime Minister had not thought of all these facts before he concluded that portentous Agreement with M. de Lesseps which had just perished of universal ridicule. The telegraph was always available. And then the Under Secretary of State promised a Committee next Session to inquire into certain portions of Indian Finance. But what had that to do with this charge? It was very much like the promise of the Prime Minister, when he went out of Office in 1874, to remit the Income Tax an ineffectual bribe to public opinion; it had nothing to do with the question. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, who in times past used to convulse the country with his passionate advocacy of oppressed nationalities, was the Minister who now came down to the House and, affecting to assume high moral ground, defended this charge upon the people of India, a charge respecting which neither they nor
    812
    Their "despotic rulers"—the phrase was not his, but that of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold)—were consulted. The act was one of extraordinary and unprecedented inconsistency.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he had always understood that Indian questions should not be made Party questions; and it was, therefore, with extreme regret he heard the declaration of the Prime Minister, a few minutes ago, that this was distinctly a Party question.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I did not say so; what I said was, that the Amendment was a Vote of Censure.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONobserved, that he had always thought that Votes of Censure were Party questions. But whether it was a Party question or not, it was a question of the greatest importance that could be brought before the House. He agreed that after the despatch of the Marquess of Ripon, protesting against saddling India with any of the extraordinary expenses of the Egyptian Expedition, there was really nothing more that need be heard on the subject. All their attacks on the proposal of Her Majesty's Government were merely elaborations of that most able State document. The only question they had to trouble themselves with was — Was this expenditure for the good of India, or was it not? What had they done for the people of India in return for this money? Before the debate was adjourned the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, who never spoke about the Egyptian Expedition unless compelled, said that it was desirable this money should be brought from India, because she had benefited by the military operations carried on for the pacification of Egypt, and for the security of the Canal. In the first place, he had to say that there was no disturbance in Egypt till they sent their Fleet there, and began meddling in affairs. They were the amalgamated anarchists who caused disturbances in Egypt. In the second place, he would ask who it was that protected the Suez Canal? Lord Wolseley the other day said that if Arabi had blown up the Canal he would probably have been in Egypt still. Arabi did not infringe upon the Canal rights; but we did when we sent our ships into it. Until the despotic Member for Salford

    813
    (Mr. Arnold) discovered three ships laden with explosives in the Canal somewhere, no one heard of the danger. But probably the three ships were only three black crows. As to the rights of the people, he should have thought they were self-government, and that that would satisfy the Radical Member for Salford.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I said I hoped the time would come when they would be.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Oh, yes. Everybody hoped that; but the time never came. It was always in the future. He believed in self-government now. The fact was, as he had often said before, the war was a bondholders' war, and had been no benefit to the poor Indian people, who were now asked to pay. Those people were so poor that 40,000,000 of them were said to go through life without sufficient food; and yet they talked about the blessings they had conferred upon the people of India. They all remembered what was said by the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett) in regard to burdens which were imposed on the wretched ryots of India; but that was before the right hon. Gentleman degenerated into the Government man that he was now. Where, also, was the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Osborne Morgan) that he was not present to make a speech in support of the Amendment? He wished the Prime Minister would lend him two or three men from the Treasury Bench to discuss this question from the old standpoint. One short afternoon of freedom would be enough. They might go back to slavery on the Government Bench the next day; but, meanwhile, the Postmaster General, the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and one or two others, would make such a debate that it would be impossible for that House to assent to the Government proposal. Having quoted the declarations of the Members referred to on the subject of placing charges on India, the hon. Baronet said he wished to quote a few words of the Prime Minister himself. They were to be found in Hansard, which generally was correct. What did he say?—
    "Can I bring myself to vote that the expenses of this struggle, which is wholly our act, shall be placed upon India P I say 'No;' and I will go freely into any assembly of Englishmen and tell them I say 'No '"
    814
    —[Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!]—
    "and appeal to them whether they will not say 'No' also. Nay, I am persuaded—such is my opinion of their generosity—that when they thoroughly understand the facts of the case they will say distinctly that those who make the war should pay for the war."—(3 Hansard, [243] 904.)
    He thought he had quoted enough. What he maintained was that the Egyptian case was far stronger than the Afghan one, on which the right hon. Gentleman spoke so strongly. Why should they go to the wretched Indians for any of the cost? We had had all the fun, and fame, and folly, and glory of it to ourselves. How delighted the English people were at one great victory! There we were five times as numerous as the Egyptians, and 50 times as strong; and we licked them, like five big bullies licking a little fellow in the street, and everybody was delighted. There were banquets, Peerages, and processions, and addresses; and now, when we had all this intense pleasure and rejoicing over the slaughter of our fellow-creatures, we called upon these wretched Indians to help us to pay the bill. Reason, equity, and justice demanded that the people who made the war should pay for it. It was, in his opinion, to be regretted that the Prime Minister had treated the question in a way to frighten hon. Members from voting according to their conscience. It would be extraordinary if the Government felt themselves called upon to resign because the Representatives of the people of this country agreed to pay the money instead of getting it from another quarter he was not to be frightened by the right hon. Gentleman. Let them be just, and. fear not—not even the Prime Minister. The people of England would give the money. All classes would vote for it; the Nonconformist ministers, who wrote that the war was a policy of righteousness; the Archbishops, who made a prayer thanking God for the slaughter of the Egyptians—["No, no!"]—the middle classes and the working men, whom the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) called upon to support the war. Let them pay for what the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) called a violation of international moral law. Do not let them go to these wretched Indians and make them pay by extracting from them their wretched earnings.

    815
    We ought to pay for our own folly and our own pride.
    MR. GLADSTONE, in explanation, said, he did not at all dispute that at the time of the Afghan War he stated that it would be unjust to lay the charge on the people of India; and so he admitted that the hon. Baronet, who believed the Egyptian operations were unjust, was quite consistent in saying the expenses should not be laid upon the Indian people. But the hon. Baronet appeared to him to be generalizing, and putting upon him in that statement the laying down of a general principle, that because we were the authorities who made the war, therefore we should pay for it. That was not correct.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, the statements which had been made about the poverty of the people of India were much exaggerated. Hon. Gentlemen had sought to excite commiseration by describing the dwellings of the people of India as mud huts with thatched roofs; but in a hot climate no place was so comfortable as a mud hut with a thatched roof. It must be remembered, too, that of the £70,000,000 which constituted the Revenue of the Indian Government, only £20,000,000 was, in the strict sense, taxation, and that was not very exorbitant with a population of 250,000,000. He would have been glad if the whole of the war expenses were charged to the English Exchequer; but, at the same time, he could not, as a matter of principle, support the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 210: Majority 155.—(Div. List, No. 237.)
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (who spoke amid cries of "Oh, oh!")said, as the House wished to proceed to the Business, he would not make all the observations upon the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanhope) which he would have liked to have done; but he could not allow to pass without a protest a Motion which implied a Vote of Censure upon Lord Ripon, a conscientious, faithful Viceroy, who had been doing, was still doing, and would continue to do, all in his power to reduce the Expenditure of India. If this Motion were passed, he, for one, wished to say that it was only a Motion of the same character as the Motion of his hon.
    816
    Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) which had lately been moved with regard to English Expenditure.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary that early steps be taken to reduce the expenditure of India.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.— [BILL 272.]
  (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Solicitor General)
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.— [BILL 272.]

    CONSIDERATION. [FIRST NIGHT.]
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. DODSONmoved, in page 18, after Clause 54, to insert the following Clause—
    (Restriction in respect of improvements.)
    "Subject as in this section mentioned a tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of any improvements, other than manures as defined by this Act, begun by him, if he holds from year to year, within one year before he quits his holding, or at any time after he has given final notice to quit, and, if he holds as a lessee, within one year before the expiration of his lease.
    "A final notice to quit means a notice to quit which has not been waived or withdrawn, but has resulted in the tenant quitting his holding.
    "The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply in the case of any such improvement as aforesaid—

    (1.) Where a tenant from year to year has begun such improvement during the last year of his tenancy, and, in pursuance of a notice to quit thereafter given by the landlord, has quitted his holding at the expiration of that year; and

    (2.) Where a tenant, whether a tenant from year to year or a lessee, previously to beginning any such improvement, has served notice on his landlord of his intention to begin the same, and the landlord has either assented or has failed for a month after the receipt of the notice to object to the making of the improvement."

    New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, the new clause proposed did not carry out the effect of the Amendment he moved in Committee, and which he withdrew on the understanding that the Government would bring up a clause on Report to meet it. He pointed out at the time that the object of his Amendment was twofold; first, that it was obviously fair that a tenant should not be allowed to claim compensation for the expenditure of a large sum of money in improvements

    817
    which had been made at the time when he was going to leave his holding; and, secondly, that it would give the landlord in extreme cases, especially in those in which money was lavishly and unwisely spent, a general control over the execution of improvements. As the clause stood, he did not see any power of the kind given; and, therefore, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had departed from the undertaking that was given—that he would substantially carry out the Amendment he (Mr. Chaplin) moved. If he had known that was the clause to be placed upon the Paper he should have pressed his Amendment, and from the support he got he should have taken a Division upon it. He would now move to add in the fourth line, after the word "given," the words "or received." If this was done it would meet the object he had in view.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the Government could not accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member in Committee, because in the case of a tenant who might have begun and nearly completed an improvement, and who then received notice to quit, the landlord, by giving that notice, might deprive him of all right to compensation. The clause, as drawn, he thought solved the difficulty, and was not open to that objection. It fairly met the hon. Member's object; because if the improvement were begun after the notice to quit by the landlord the tenant would not be entitled to compensation unless he had given notice beforehand to the landlord of his intention to make the improvement, and the landlord had not objected.
    MR. DODSONsaid, the Government were prepared to accept the words moved by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire; and, under those circumstances, he hoped the clause would be accepted.
    Clause read a second time, amended, and added.
    MR. DUCKHAMmoved, in page 15, after Clause 43, to insert the following Clause:—
    (Sum due from landlord may be set off against rent due.)
    "Any sum found to be due from the landlord to the tenant at the expiration of the tenancy as compensation under this Act or otherwise may be set off by the tenant against any rent due to the landlord, and the landlord shall not be entitled to distrain for more than the balance due."
    New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. DODSONsaid, the Government could not accept the clause as it stood, because it provided really that the landlord could not act until after the expiration of the tenancy, which would have the effect of defeating distress altogether he would, however, accept the clause in this form—
    "where the compensation under this Act to a tenant has been ascertained before the landlord distrains for rent due, the amount of such compensation may be set off against the rent due to the landlord, and the landlord shall not be entitled to distrain for more than the balance."
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was sorry to interpose; but, to put himself in Order, he should conclude by moving the adjournment of the debate. They came down to-day under the full impression that they were to discuss one or other of the Agricultural Holdings Bills, if any time should be left; but in the course of the debate on the Indian Question, which lasted longer than was expected, hon. Members began to inquire what subject should be taken. All he could say was that many Members en his side of the House were led to believe that the Scotch Bill would be taken; and, under the full impression that the English Bill would not be taken, they left the House. In the circumstances, he did not think the House was fairly in a position to discuss a good many of the important questions on the Paper. He moved the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Stanhope.)
    MR. DODSONprotested against the interpretation which had been put on the arrangement for Business by the hon. Member. It was distinctly stated over and over again yesterday that, if possible, they would proceed with the English Bill. The only doubt had arisen that afternoon, as the debate on India was prolonged, and the time becoming short he hesitated and intimated to some Members that he thought it would be better to proceed with the Scotch Bill in Committee, because he

    819
    was afraid that they should not complete the other. It was in deference more especially to applications from Member after Member on the other side of the House to the Prime Minister and himself that they decided to go on, though they were late with the English Bill. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would not only withdraw his Motion for Adjournment, but acquit the Government of any unfair motive or intention.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he did not see the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) in his place; but lie had no doubt the noble Lord would confirm what he was about to say. As they were going into the Division Lobby on the Indian Question, unsought by him, the noble Lord was kind enough to say to him, in so many words—"We are going to take the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill immediately after the Division." In consequence of that, the matter having been told to him distinctly, he mentioned it to many of his hon. Friends, particularly to Scotch Members, in the Lobby. He believed the Lord Advocate was under the impression that it was the Scotch Bill that was to be taken. Instead, however, of the Scotch Bill proceeding pari passu with the English Bill, the former was placed unfairly in the background. In the circumstances, he thought his hon. Friend was perfectly justified in moving the adjournment of the debate.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)remarked, that nothing had been said publicly on this question, and the idea was that it was best to proceed with the Scotch Bill. During and immediately after the Division, however, it was suggested that the English Bill should be brought on in deference to entreaties made to them, and as they considered it was the most convenient to the House the English Bill was brought on.
    MR. HENEAGEappealed to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire to withdraw his Motion. In deference to the wishes of a large number of hon. Members, he himself' went to the Prime Minister and asked him to take the English Bill, and he was bound to say that the Government had done their best to consult the desires and convenience of both sides of the House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had no doubt the Government intended to act
    820
    for the best; but the question was whether they had acted for the best? More than one Member of the Government stated to Gentlemen on this side, up to the last moment, that they meant to go on with the Scotch Bill. That being so, he did not see how it was possible to go on with a Bill of this kind now. The right hon. Gentleman said it was taken in deference to many Members sitting on this side of the House; but the difficulty arose from the Government not having made up their minds. There were strong reasons for the House agreeing to the Motion of his hon. Friend.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he hoped the Government would defer to the evident wish of the House, and, delaying the English Bill, proceed at once with the Scotch Bill. Members had no opportunity until that morning of considering the Bill as amended.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, that he also was under the impression that the Scotch Bill would be taken on the conclusion of the Indian discussion, and for that reason left the House after the Division, so that he was not present when the English Bill was again brought up. They were now approaching matters of great controversy in regard to this Bill, and many Members who took a warm interest in the measure were absent in consequence of the misunderstanding that had arisen. The next Amendment, for instance, if adopted, would reverse a decision previously arrived at in Committee; and it would be unfair, therefore, to take it under the circumstances. At the same time, he acquitted the Government of any intention to act unfairly in any way.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, it seemed that a mistake had been accidentally made, and it was the desire of the House and the Government to proceed with the English Bill; and if the Government liked to take a snatch Division upon the Amendment coming on, he would withdraw the Motion for Adjournment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. DUCKHAMasked for leave to withdraw his clause in favour of that of the Government.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause (Mr. Dodson) added.
    MR. DODSONsaid, the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had been kind enough to insinuate that

    821
    the Government wanted to obtain a snatch Division on the Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had not said anything of the kind.
    MR. DODSON, continuing, said, that to avoid any misunderstanding on the subject, and so that there might be no suspicion as to the objects of the Government, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed; "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Dodson.)
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, it was he who used the expression to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. He was now satisfied the Government had no such intention; and he, therefore, hoped they should proceed.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought that since they had settled down to the consideration of a Bill, it would be better to proceed with it.
    Motion agreed to.
    Further Consideration of Bill, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 190.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 190.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 25th July.]
    [SECOND NIGHT.].
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Regulations as to Estimates of Improvements.
    Clause 6 (Set off of benefit to tenant).
    MR. A. J. BALFOURmoved the adjournment of the dedate. The majority of the Scotch Members, he said, were absent; and he appealed to Scotch Gentlemen opposite whether they did not think it was putting Scotland to considerable disrespect to resume the consideration of this Bill in Committee at a quarter past 6 o'clock on a Morning Sitting? Of course, if Scotch Members thought a discussion of such importance should be taken at that hour he had nothing more to say; but he thought if the argument that a good many Members had gone away not knowing what was to come on was a good reason for postponing the further consideration of Amendments on the English Bill, there
    822
    was surely still greater reason for postponing this Bill, which had come on quite unexpectedly. He would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the proper form of the Motion would be that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    MR. A. ELLIOTagreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Hertford. The fact was that a number of Scotch Members had left the House, and he did not think the opportunity a favourable one for discussing the very important matters that were about to be proceeded with. He, therefore, appealed to the Government not to go on with the Bill at present. He had heard it said that they might run through the Bill in half-an-hour; but that could only be done by avoiding discussion on the 6th clause.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYregretted that the hon. Member for Hertford had made this Motion. He thought a sufficient number of Scotch Members were present. They might not be able to get through the Bill by 7 o'clock, but they might at least make some progress; and the Scotch Members were always eager to get on with the work they had in hand.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he did not see why they should not put to the best use they could the part of the Sitting that remained. The practical character of his countrymen was well known; and he thought if they tried they might get through a good deal in the time that remained.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEexpressed a hope that the hon. Member for Hertford would withdraw his Motion. It was not often Scotch Members had the chance of half-an-hour, and he thought they should take advantage of it when they had.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was willing to withdraw his Motion on the condition that the Government would not bring on anything but non-contentious Business.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)replied, that he could not agree to make any such condition.
    MR. J. LOWTHERagreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford

    823
    (Mr. A. J. Balfour) as to the advisability of postponing the discussion of the Bill.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he was not aware that there was anything of a very controversial character to come on. He hoped the Committee would allow them to proceed and go as far as they could in the time that remained.
    MR. MACFARLANEsupported the proposal to proceed with the Bill, observing that unless they did so, it was extremely likely they would have a Morning Sitting to-morrow.
    CAPTAIN MAXWELL - HERONobjected to the Bill being brought on in this way, and said it would be unfair to Members representing Scotch constituencies.
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he hoped they would be allowed to proceed. If the proposal were to run through the Scotch Bill in half-an-hour, it would certainly be objectionable; but it was only intended to go as far as they could. The Motion was made by an excellent Scotchman, though not by a Scotch Member; and the general feeling of the Scotch Members present, undoubtedly, seemed to be that they should take advantage of the portion of the Sitting that remained.
    SIR JOHN HAYrequested his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion. At the same time, he wished to point out the great inconvenience to which the House was put by the vacillation of the Government. Nearly all the Scotch Members on that side of the House had gone away, not knowing what Business was to be taken.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYindicated that he should not propose the Amendment which stood in his name.
    MR. A. ELLIOTmoved to leave out Sub-section (b.), which stood in the following terms:—
    "In the case of compensation for manures the value of the manure that would have been produced by the consumption on the holding of any hay, straw, roots, or green crops sold off the holding within the last two years of the tenancy or other less time for which the tenancy has endured, except in so far as a proper return of manure to the holding has been made in respect of such produce sold off."
    The hon. and learned Member said, this sub-section had excited a good deal of
    824
    hostility among agriculturists generally throughout Scotland; and the view taken of it by the Scotch Chamber of Agriculture was that it would be a source of great injustice to a large number of tenants. He must say he considered that view well-founded. The sub-section might be right and proper when they were dealing with a state of matters such as that which existed in England; but he held that it was not applicable to the conditions under which tenancies were held in Scotland. These matters were regulated in distinct language, and there was no reason whatever why the tenant, when he had not contracted to consume a certain quantity of hay, straw, roots, or green crops on his holding, should be held to do so. [The hon. and learned Member read an extract from an agricultural paper in which it was contended that this sub-section would entail great injustice to farmers in Scotland.] He considered that if the subsection were cut out altogether, full protection would be given to the landlord, in all cases where the landlord desired that protection, by the sub-section immediately following—Sub-section (c.)—because that stipulated that where a tenant made a claim for compensation, the landlord should be able to make a reduction on any contract relevant to the lease. The landlords were thus really protected; and he, for one, thought it perfectly unnecessary that the Committee should protect the landlords when they were perfectly able to protect themselves.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, to leave out Sub-section (b).—(Mr. A. Elliot.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he was afraid he could not assent to this section being entirely omitted. Members of the Committee would observe that he had given Notice of certain important Amendments upon the section as it stood. He quite saw that the section, as it stood, was open to criticism; because it had been pointed out that under the section as it was in the Bill, there might be a claim of deduction in respect of potatoes, and hay, and straw, and other things that in many parts of the country were regarded as sale crops. That would be

    825
    unfair; but he thought the injustice would be obviated by the Amendments he had placed upon the Paper. The question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire was simply this—whether it would be proper for a tenant to sell off everything grown on the farm, and then claim for all the manure he might purchase and apply to the land as an improvement? He did not think to omit this sub-section would be fair; because this Bill throughout was directed to provide for compensation for improvements. It was for something that was done, either in excess of contract or custom, or ordinary and average administration. It was quite plain that unless some such provision were made as that which had been introduced into the Bill, it would be competent for the farmer to sell off everything, and even to sell off manure, and then to make a claim for all the manure he had brought on to the farm, although it was absolutely necessary manure, and not in excess of what would have been produced by the consumption on the farm of the part of the crops usually consumed there.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsupported the Amendment. He confessed that he was not convinced by the argument of the Lord Advocate, though the Amendments which the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to introduce would, no doubt, remove, to a great extent, the injustice that would otherwise arise under the sub-section. He had received strong representations with regard to the injustice of the sub- section, and felt bound to support the Amendment.
    MR. PRESTON BRUCEsaid, he was glad that the Lord Advocate would not accept the Amendment. He thought great injustice might be done under existing leases, which permitted the sale of all those crops, but which had been negotiated on the understanding that the tenants would have to bring on to the farm a considerable quantity of manures if they sold a large part of the produce off the farm. Such tenants would be able to charge the landlord with part of the cost of that manure, which it was absolutely necessary they should bring on to the farm, in order to keep it up to an ordinary state of cultivation. As regarded leases made after the passing of this Act, he did not think the sub-section mattered much, for, of
    826
    course, special stipulations might be made.
    MR. ALBERT GREYsaid, he thought it was desirable that the words in question should be omitted, because, if the sub-section were admitted, it would drive every tenant to make an agreement with his landlord.
    MR. A. ELLIOTasked leave to withdraw his Amendment, as he thought it would be more convenient to take a Division on the clause as amended.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that he had to propose several Amendments, which, he hoped, would obviate the main difficulty which had been felt in regard to the clause. He wished, first, to insert after "holding," in line 14, the words "according to the rules of good husbandry;" secondly, to omit the words "hay, straw, roots, or green;" and, thirdly, after "off," to insert "or removed from." The sub-section would then run as follows:—
    "In the case of compensation for manures, the value of the manure that would have been produced by the consumption on the holding, according to the rules of good husbandry, of any crops sold off, or removed from the holding, within the last two years of the tenancy, or other less time for which the tenancy has endured, except in so far as a proper return of manure to the holding has been made in respect of such manure so sold off or removed therefrom."
    The effect would be this—that without defining the particular descriptions of crops which were usually sold from the farm in fair and ordinary administration, it would be competent to sell such crops, without any obligation, to substitute manure for them in stating the account. On the other hand, 'such crops—and they varied in different parts of the country—as according to the rules of good husbandry, were consumed on the farm, and made manure on the farm, would be taken into account, and the manure which would have been so produced debited to the tenant in making out the account. That would not at all operate against leases of the kind referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot); because if the lease permitted everything to be sold off the farm, still the same necessity would lie upon the tenant, unless his farm was to become barren, of laying

    827
    a fair and reasonable amount of manure on it. While he admitted the propriety of omitting any words which might define, adversely to the tenant, the particular crops which should be acknowledged as sale crops, he maintained that it was proper to provide that a deduction should be made from the tenant's compensation, in respect of such an amount of manure as would in due course be produced and used on the farm.
    Amendments proposed,
    In page 3, line 14, after the word "holding," to insert the words "according to the rules of good husbandry;" line 14, leave out the words "hay, straw, roots, or green;" line 14, after the word. "off," insert the words "or removed from."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he did not think there was much objection to the clause as proposed to be amended by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. But he wished to call the attention of his hon. Friends to this—that the clause did not say that the value of the manure produced was to be deducted from the compensation; it was only in the nature of an instruction to the referees to take into account the manure which would have been produced on the holding had those crops been consumed upon it. He thought it was unnecessary to put in such an instruction, as all referees worth having would take this into account, even if there was no instruction in the Bill. If, however, the Government wished the instruction to be inserted lie had no objection.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDpointed out, as a practical objection, that the subsection applied not only to root or green crops consumed on the holding, but to all crops—as, for instance, wheat and oats.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, it was not according to any rules of good husbandry that he knew of that wheat should be consumed on the holding.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, lie thought the expression "the rules of good husbandry" was utterly unintelligible.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the expression was absolutely familiar in Scotland, and was heard every day.
    MR. BOLTONsaid, that, having an Amendment in his name to this sub-section, he wished to remark that the Lord Advocate had very happily solved the
    828
    great difficulty which this clause would have caused in Scotland. He hoped that the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot) would not persist in his intention of dividing on the clause.
    Amendments agreed to.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)moved, in page 3, line 19, to leave out from "any" to "landlord," in line 30, and insert—
    "The amount of compensation payable to the tenant shall be subject to deduction of any sums duo to the landlord:

    (1.) For rent payable in respect of the holding;

    (2.) For any taxes, rates, or public burdens payable in respect of the holding for which the tenant is liable as between him and the landlord.;

    (3.) For the breach of any stipulation of the lease, or of any contract relative to the lease, committed by the tenant;

    (4.) For any deterioration committed or permitted by the tenant;

    "There shall be added to the tenant's compensation any sum due to the tenant for compensation in respect of a breach of any stipulation of a lease, or other contract relative to a lease, committed by the landlord."
    This, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, was not intended to alter, in substance, the provisions of the clause as it stood before; but it was to express more clearly—and, he ventured to think, more accurately—the intention of the clause. According to the terms of the clause, as it originally ran, it might have been held to express the idea that rent and other liquid claims, such as taxes, were to be taken into account in striking compensation. It was expressed more accurately by saying that they should form deductions from compensation.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he should like some explanation as to what was meant by—
    "Taxes, rates, or public burdens payable in respect of the holding for which the tenant is liable as between him and. the landlord."
    He had had a good deal of experience in these matters, and did not know what was meant by that language.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, there were sometimes agreements by which one of the parties undertook liability for the whole of the taxes, part of which was by law pay-

    829
    able to the Revenue authorities to the other.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. BIGGARmoved, in page 3, line 30, after the word "landlord," to insert—
    "(e.) When the tenant of any holding held by him under a yearly tenancy or on the expiration of a lease is disturbed in his holding by the act of his landlord, he shall be entitled to such compensation as the county court judge of his district, in view of all the circumstances of the case, shall think just, subject to the scale of compensation hereinafter mentioned;
    "When the rent is thirty pounds or under, a sum not exceeding seven years' rent;
    "When the rent is above thirty pounds and not exceeding fifty pounds, a sum not exceeding five years' rent;
    "When the rent is above fifty pounds and not exceeding one hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding four years' rent;
    "When the rent is above one hundred pounds and not exceeding three hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding three years' rent;
    "When the rent is above three hundred pounds and not exceeding five hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding two years' rent;
    "When the rent is above five hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding one year's rent.'
    The hon. Member said, he proposed this clause chiefly in the interest of crofters and the aboriginal inhabitants of the Highlands and Islands. It was notorious that some landlords turned many miles of their estates into deer forests or sheep farms. That system was disastrous and ruinous to the interests of the population, and it was one which the House ought to do its best to make impossible. There was no doubt at all that these unfortunate people were descendants of families who had, in many cases, lived for many generations on these holdings, and who had endured very grievous suffering and wrong. He certainly thought that it was the duty of the Government to agree to his proposal in the interests of the crofter description of tenants.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CALLANsaid, that the Amendment was of a character deserving consideration.
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again this day.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Lord Advocate whether the Bill was to be brought on again at the Evening Sitting?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the Government were very anxious to proceed with the measure, and would do their best to bring it on, but not after half-past 12 o'clock.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.

    EDUCATION ACT, 1870—THE SCHOOL RATE.—RESOLUTION.
    MR. SALT, in rising to move—
    "That the unforeseen and growing amount of the school rate; its unequal pressure upon various districts and various classes of the community; its failure in some cases to meet the requirements of the most necessitous classes; and the circumstance that it involves expenditure not originally anticipated, call for the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government with a view to the relief of the burdens of the ratepayers, while maintaining, in accordance with the original intention of ' The Education Act,1870,' the efficiency of elementary education,"
    observed, that it was a matter of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to express his regret that he should have the trouble of a second discussion upon education. If he could have communicated with him (Mr. Salt) some days ago that he proposed to take the Education Estimates so soon, nothing would have been wanting on his (Mr. Salt's) part to meet his views as far as possible. At the same time, he must observe that it would have been difficult to frame the Resolution so as to be applicable to a Vote in Supply. He trusted, therefore, that, on the whole, the course that had been adopted would not be found inconvenient. In bringing this subject under the notice of the House, he was actuated by no desire to make a Party attack upon the right hon. Gentleman—on the contrary, he believed that the right hon. Gentleman would entirely agree with roost of his observations, although he might object to the conclusions which he drew from the facts

    831
    of the case. He desired, at the outset, to meet two objections that might he raised to his Resolution. In the first place, it might be said that in bringing forward this Resolution he showed that he was no friend to elementary education. It, however, was because he was a real friend to elementary education that he had framed this Notice. In the second place, it might be supposed that he was opposed to the amount of the Parliamentary grant. Had that been the case, he would have raised the discussion upon the Estimates on the previous night. It was not the amount he intended to criticize. Possibly he might criticize its application and use. Of course, if it could be said a very large expenditure of necessity produced an excellent and valuable system of education there would be nothing to do but to look to the grant; but it by no means followed that a grant, growing in amount year by year, was administered in the most economical and efficient manner. Large expenditure did not necessarily imply sound education. If the House gave this money with no ungrudging hand it behoved them to watch carefully that it was expended to the best advantage. In his Motion he had referred to the expectation held out by the Act of 1870, and he would quote two passages from the debates of 1870, often quoted before, but which he should quote in a somewhat different sense. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), speaking on July 5, 1870, said it was not probable that any charge for the purposes of the Bill would exceed 3d. in the pound. Then, on the 7th July, 1870, the Prime Minister said—
    "I only speak of the limit of the permanent burden, and it is reduced by the proposition of my right hon. Friend to 3d. in the pound."
    Now, those statements he could not claim as pledges. No Minister, however powerful, could possibly limit the amount of the rate for the future. Nothing could do that but a clause in the Act itself; but he could not but think that those statements had been incautiously made, and that, proceeding, as they did, from right hen. Gentlemen of such eminence as statesmen, they had greatly misled public opinion. They must remember by whom these expectations were held out. The one was one of the most remarkable statesmen that Europe had produced in this century. The other was not only an eminent statesman, but also, as they
    832
    had been told, an eminent philanthropist. Upon the suggestions made by such persons, compromise was effected, and action was founded. The expectation from the Act of 1870 was that the rate, as a general rule, would not exceed 3d. in the pound; but what was the result 12 years later? The School Board rate of London was 6d., gradually rising to 7d.; and so far from the scale throughout the country being anything like 3d., there were 1,491 School Board districts where the rate was above 3d., and only 252 where the rate was below that. The cost of building school board schools had been enormous, amounting, on the average, to £12 per child; whereas the cost of building voluntary schools only amounted to £57 s. per head. In the Education Report for 1882 one of the Inspectors said the cost to the ratepayers for the erection of 26 permanent board schools built in Southwark was £397,679, and the account was not closed. The average cost of building a school was something like £15,295, and the average cost per child £16. In one large town, a board school had cost £23 148. 8d. per scholar, another £20 9s. 7d., and another at a cost of £53 1s. 9d. per scholar. Contrast with these schools built at Birkenhead for 976 children at a cost of £5 10 s. per head, and a British school to accommodate 761 at a cost of £3,480. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Does that include the site?] He believed it did, but was not quite sure; but he would give the right hon Gentleman the correction if he was mistaken. But he would take other figures, where there would be no difficulty as to sites and small details. It was stated in the Education Report for 1882 that between 1839 and 1881 a stun of £1,766,000 was given from the public funds for the purpose of building elementary schools—Parliamentary grants of that kind had now ceased—for the education of 1,233,000 children, the remainder being made up by voluntary contributions; but under the new board system, from 1870 to 1881, the expenditure in building schools by the money derived from rates had been £13,784,000, and the number of scholars provided for was 1,124, 000 only. Under the old system, the money spent did not take a penny from the pockets of the ratepayers, and it left no debt behind it; but under the second system there was a large burden, a debt of £13,000,000, which would continue for 50 years at least. Certainly

    833
    the Act of 1870 was productive of many blessings. He willingly acknowledged that; but he contended the working of the Act had been most expensive. He would now take another line of figures, which he thought could not be challenged. While the average cost per scholar in attendance before the passing of the Act had been £1 5s. 5d., it was now £1 16 s. 8d. Thus in board schools in 1872 the cost per head of each scholar in attendance was £1 8s. 4d., whereas it was now £2 1s. 6d. throughout the country generally, and £2 17 s. in London. There was, however, one crumb of comfort, and that was that the average cost had remained almost stationary during the last three years. In 1870 it was estimated that the cost per head would rise from £1 5s. per head to 30 s. per head, to be made up of 15 s. from the public funds, 7s. 6d. from the parents, and 7s. 6d. of rate in school board schools, or of subscriptions in voluntary schools. The result showed where the pressure really lay. Thus in 1881 the grant to board schools amounted to 15 s. 10 d. per head, and to voluntary schools to 15 s. 7d., just what it had been anticipated it would be. The ratepayers, however, had been called upon to pay 16 s. 11 d., instead of 7s. 6d., while, in voluntary schools, the parents had had to pay 11 s. per head and the subscribers 7s. 1d. per head. He would observe there were many things which had happened that were not anticipated in 1870 when the Act was introduced. He by no means blamed those who originated the Act, still less did he blame those who from year to year had administered it; but in this year of 1883 they found many things in existence which would have astonished men if they had heard of them in 1870. Amongst others, that the ratepayers were powerless to prevent excessive expenditure; that a different class of persons sent their children to the board schools than it was expected would do so; that such extravagant sums should be spent on buildings; that head masters received £242 a-year instead of £100; that there should be in the Metropolis alone a staff of scores of Inspectors and Visitors; and that ebonized pianos and Turkey carpets should be the necessary furniture of a training ship. He did not mean to say that much of the expenditure that had been incurred was not necessary; but
    834
    what he did say was that there was a state of things that was not contemplated when the Act of 1870 was passed. They had plunged into the stream, and the stream had carried them very much farther than they expected. Another point to which in his Motion he had called particular attention was the varying amount of the rate in different districts. There were 148 places in which it amounted to 1s. and upwards; 214 where it was 9d. to 1s.; 519 from 6d. to 9d.; 610, 3d. to 6d.; 200 from 1d. to 3d.; and 52 where it was below 1d. These latter, as might be expected, were places where there were school boards, but no board schools. That rate, varying in amount from ½d. to 2s. 3d., was purely national in character. The object of the system was the education of the poorest children in the country. He must notice just for one moment the effect of this heavy school rating upon the supporters of voluntary schools. They had made four complaints. They complained, in the first place, that they were compelled to pay rates for board schools and, at the same time, to support their own school. This, in effect, frequently meant that they were paying twice over. Secondly, many supporters of voluntary schools complained very strongly that they were in favour of a definite religious instruction, and that they were compelled to subscribe to board schools, where there was such religious education. Those complaints came from persons worthy of the highest respect, who made great personal sacrifices for the cause they had at heart. The third ground of complaint was that building grants were withdrawn from them—they had to build at their own cost, and could not borrow; whereas school boards had unlimited borrowing powers, with repayment spread over 50 years. The fourth complaint was that the operations of the board schools had so increased their expenses that they found it almost impossible to carry on their own schools. In the Province of Ontario our Colonists had a method of solving that question which, though he did not recommend it for our adoption, possessed merit and ingenuity. Five heads of families were empowered to summon a meeting and appoint three trustees, who, on application to the district school authority, could be constituted a Corporation,

    835
    establish schools and levy rates on the subscribers and on the parents of the children. Persons so contributing were exempt from the general school rate. There was one curious effect which the school board rate had upon a well-deserving class of the community. He referred to the middle class. The middle class shopkeeper in the town in which there was a school rate was in this position—he paid for the education of his own children, and he also paid for the education of the poor people's children. The result of this was that the children of the poor people received an education which enabled them to compete with the tradesman's own sons. Now, the Act of 1870 had done both too little and too much. One of the great objects of the Act was to reach the gutter children. [Mr. MUNDELLA: All children.] In point of fact, there had been a complete failure to reach those children. The right hon. Gentleman himself, speaking at Birmingham on January 15th, 1883, admitted that there was scarcely any change in their criminal statistics, and that they still had to bring the poor Arabs out of the streets. Mr. Wilks, of the London School Board, said that the system had failed to reach the waifs and strays of society. Sir Edmund Currie, speaking of the Tower Hamlets, said there were as many poor children in the streets now as there were eight years ago. Notwithstanding all that, no less than £31,285 was spent in 1882 for the purpose of getting the children to attend the schools. The present system of elementary education had erred in doing too much in two ways. It had imposed too much labour both upon teachers and scholars; and next it had aimed at subjects not suited for mere elementary instruction, children who were scantily fed and scantily clothed, and who could not be expected to exert their brains like the children of parents well-to-do. What he complained of was the wholesale system of treating all children alike, whatever their mental capacities or social circumstances might be. He did not say that every child was overworked; but a great many children suffered from this high pressure of education, and sufficient care was not taken to adapt the instruction to the capacity and strength of the child. He believed the object of the Act of 1870 was to give an education
    836
    suited to the children of persons who were to obtain their living by manual labour; but in many cases the instruction given could only be of use to persons in a far higher position. There was, however, one of the specific subjects that at first sight promised to be practicable and easy; and in regard to that he had made a careful search among the Reports of the Inspectors. He referred to domestic economy, and he would proceed to give the result. One Inspector reported—
    "Only one-third of the girls presented in domestic economy passed; more nonsense has, I believe, been written in answer to questions on this subject than all the rest put together."
    Another wrote in a way to illustrate that opinion—
    "A girl of Standard V., in one of the most favourably-situated schools, when asked to write a short account of soda, replies, 'Soda is an utensil with which we wash ourselves.' Another, in the same Standard, whilst writing very neatly and speaking correctly, in answer to the question, 'What points should be borne in mind in looking for a house?' replies, 'You should always sec if the drains do not smell, and the ventilation are cleaned out; because, if not, perhaps we should catch fever or any other degrees.'"
    These girls would have been better employed in cleaning their mother's house. He would give only two more short quotations. One Inspector said—
    "I am fully persuaded that, unless several hours can be added to a day, and the school staff materially increased, to take up specific subjects is a positive injury to the proper teaching of elementary and extra subjects."
    And another—
    "Physical geography. This has been a favourite subject with teachers, for one obvious reason at least—namely, that more money can be got with less trouble in physical geography than in any other way."
    Complaint had been made, in eloquent terms, by a recent French writer of the effect of excessive pressure in the elementary schools. He compared the present with 10 years ago, and with what might be expected 10 years hence. He showed how great the stride in expenditure and how great the change in teaching had been; and then, looking forward, said that in another 10 years every child would be expected to know many things of which the Senators and Deputies who passed the Education Laws were themselves ignorant. He described the fatigue of an examination.

    837
    Every day beforehand added something to the burden. The child bore it bravely, he staggered along without turning right or left, without thought or care for anything else. At last the day arrived. Breathless and exhausted, he threw down the burden at the feet of the examiner; he felt relief; he stretched; he was at ease again; he emptied himself at once of all this cram, once and for ever, so completely that he forgot it all, and retained neither the will nor the power to study more. The school board system had been making great progress during the last 10 years. It was now a recognized system, though it was originally created to supplement, not to supplant, the voluntary schools. He was not prepared to say that it was right that it should embrace the whole education of the country. In 1872 there were only 82 board schools in England; in 1877 there were 2,089; and in 1881, 3,075. Again, in 1872, the school board rate amounted to £3,254; in 1881 it amounted to £738,737. At the same time, 959 or more voluntary schools had been transferred to school boards. The system was a great and growing system, which, under existing circumstances, must increase and strengthen every day; for the voluntary schools had not sufficient vigour to withstand the great money power that the school boards possessed. The question then arose, was it desirable that the country should be entirely handed over to the school board system? It was very much a system of grind and of work. He did not mean to say that the school boards had not been of great value to the country; but he should be very sorry to see the old-fashioned schools altogether abandoned. He believed it was most desirable for the country that, if possible, the two systems should exist in vigour and thrive side by side together. His desire had been to put forward some ideas and suggestions which he believed to be worthy of consideration. He hardly, at that moment, expected a very definite reply from the Vice President; but he did hope for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he would give serious attention to the points that he (Mr. Salt) had ventured to lay before the House. In the interests of elementary education, in the interest of the poor who were taught, and of the poor who paid, and, he believed he might
    838
    venture to add, for the credit of Parliament and of the Government of the country, he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    MR. W. M. TORRENS, in seconding the Motion, said: The desire I have long felt to see some effectual curb put upon the imposition of school rates, and the excess of school board expenditure, would not have induced me to second this Motion if it were of a Party or sectarian character. Great and grievous discontent prevails among the ratepaying community, especially in London, at the breach of conditions on which the Act of 1870 was passed; and as far as I know there is hardly a subject on which there is more unanimity of feeling. But as one of those who steadily supported that measure, and who did not shrink, when difficulty arose regarding its application in the Metropolis, from lending aid which was frankly accepted by the Government, and from taking my full share of work in bringing the Act into operation, I feel bound to raise my earnest remonstrance against the gradual perversion of the system to purposes that were never avowed, and I hope never intended. We were asked to impose on the occupiers of rateable property, the bulk of whom may be fairly designated as the struggling classes, a charge previously unknown in aid of primary education. Voluntary schools, with the help of grants from the Privy Council, had done a great deal; but confessedly they were unable to reach a poor and helpless outlying mass; and Parliament was asked by the right hon. Member for Bradford and the Prime Minister to set up board schools, not to supplant those existing, but to supplement them, and to gather up the waifs and strays of childhood, that nothing should be lost to the usable strength of the State. As far as that purpose was really meant, and to whatever extent it has been attained, I commend and I am ready to sustain it as cordially as ever. But I regret to be compelled to say that, like other young institutions, that of board schools has wandered frequently and far from the straight path of its duty. The questionable and, I think, Quixotic ambition to obtain control of higher education, for which it is unadapted, and which it has no just means of supporting, diverts continually its thoughts

    839
    and its resources from the proper objects of its care; and causes a yearly augmentation of burdens which ratepayers, already overtaxed, feel to be intolerable. Rates, we are sometimes told, come out of rent; if a man pays so much more rate, he gets au abatement of rent, and so there is no hardship. Put in a rising market for houses this is not true; and when you propose to put on a rate for the first time for primary schools, it was certain enough that the charge would come out of the householder's pocket. I well remember, in a conference at the house of the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), the fitness of rates to bear the newly proposed burden was fully discussed, upon the objection that if primary instruction be a public duty it is a national obligation, and ought to be discharged out of the Ways and Means of the nation at large. The objection was overborne. But, speaking for the largest section of the ratepaying community represented in this House as part of the Metropolitan area, I say, deliberately and distinctly, that if you had not held out the lure already named, and if you had not held out the positive inducement that the rates should never exceed 3d. in the pound, I, for one, would net have agreed to the Act of 1870; and I do not believe that my Metropolitan Colleagues would have been authorized by their constituents to give that measure their support. I am not making any charge of wilful breach of faith; I deprecate language to that effect whenever it is used. Our duty here is to deal with tendencies and results, not with intentions or miscalculations. It is right, however, that the fact should be recalled when we are taking stock of our progress, and seeking to bring back daily practice to the original design. The 3d. maximum rate does not rest upon vague recollection of words spoken in debate, but is capable of absolute proof, as I undertake to show. I hold in my hand the original Elementary Schools Bill, introduced on the 17th of February, 1870, and not finally passed until the end of the Session. The 84th clause of that Bill promised a guarantee that when, in any parish, the 3d. rate did not produce more than £20 a year, the deficiency should be made up, not by an extra rate, but by an extra grant from the Privy Council. In a word,
    840
    the great broad and wholesome principle was professed, and, as we hoped and believed, faithfully laid down, that primary instruction of the needy classes was the duty of the whole Kingdom, and was to be undertaken substantially for the national good. Localities were to pay a limited rate in order to create a check on expenditure; but it never was whispered that localities were to be left to the caprice of temporary and, therefore, irresponsible school boards; or that these were to be used by the Government as a machinery for trying fantastical experiments and empirical theories in the system of over-cram. It never was contemplated seriously by Parliament that, under the misleading pretence of screwing up the general standard of book knowledge, tested by competitive examination, a furtive and insidious means might be found for sapping and mining religious schools. At first, when the legal limit of local rates was exceeded, excuses were made that the excess was only a little; and when all sorts of subjects of higher education were one by one added under the expanding Code, we were told that it did not signify, for it was only this, and only that, and only t' other. A College friend of mine accused his servant once of making free with what did not belong to him; the man protested his innocence often; but, being at last found out, declared he meant no harm, for he never meddled with any but three things, which he really thought were allowable, tea and sugar was one, wine and spirits was two, and coals and candles was three. But public patience is worn out at last, and endurance has reached its limits. The Committee of Council stimulate rather than chock the overstrain, which I believe to be a most pernicious infatuation; and in this and other ways egg on the school board to ever-augmenting expense. In London the rate is more than double what we stipulated for, and new schools on the most expensive pattern are continually erecting, where they are not really wanted, apparently to break the heart of the existing voluntary schools. Within the last month, in the parish of St. Giles's, Bloomsbury, what has occurred? Many years ago a central building was raised at a great expense, capable of accommodating from 900 to 1,000 children, and when the Act of 1870 was passed I can

    841
    bear witness that it was constantly full. A portion of the parish, however, was overcrowded with poor, and the London School Board, of which during the first year I was a member, along with Mr. Samuel Morley, Viscount Landon, and Mr. W. H. Smith, were told that an additional school house was wanted. To provide for the wastrals and the necessitous provision was accordingly made, part out of rates, part out of fees, and part out of grants, no one, as far as I know, complaining. Other board schools were built in adjoining parishes close by, and the general effect on the old establishment in Endell Street, was to drain it of half its scholars. Still we forbore to complain; but what have we now? Within the parish, whose population is greatly diminished in the last decade, the Board supply accommodation already for 2,892 children, though the average attendance is but 2,100; nevertheless, they are going to add 441 additional places, at a cost of £24,470 for site and building, with a probable outlay besides of £4,500 for a new playground; and this while 400 places are actually vacant in the old voluntary school. You will never persuade an intelligent people that this is all needful and right, or that you ought thus egregiously trifle with the means of livelihood of the peaceful and hard toiling community, while one-half the Kingdom is wholly exempt from liability to the burden thus mounting up year after year. Nineteen out of 20 common-sense people you talk to—whether Anglican, Catholic, or Wesleyan—declare that you are rather unfitting than fitting thousands of poor children for honestly earning their bread; and I grieve to add that the suspicion deepens daily among men of various creeds that the rates are misapplied with the unconfessed purpose of steadily reducing all primary instruction to the French dead level of secularism. I do not say that all who are engaged in the operation realize the ultimate purpose; but I say that the experiment thus 'making is unwarrantable and unwise; and now that at last silence on the subject has been broken, I am convinced that Parliament will have no peace until means are taken to bring back the expenditure of school boards within proper bounds. It is quite true that voluntary schools, by the help of earnest and munificent friends,
    842
    are trying to keep their ground; and it is to their infinite credit that in some cases they still succeed in doing so. But everyone who watches steadily what is going on around him, and who candidly tells what lie sees, must own that the high pressure of board school competition daily threatens to squeeze the voluntary schools out of existence. Members of school boards, and all who hold office under the Committee of Education, avow their belief in the course of events; but say it is inevitable. Inevitable is the most good-for-nothing word in the language. Nothing in legislation unjust, inexpedient, or wrong is inevitable, if we only make up our minds to arrest or amend it. If you will not make rates universal instead of partial, and if you will not allow each parent to pay his rates, like the fees of his children, into whatever school he pleases, then there is the other alternative of charging the whole expense between fees, benefactors, and public grants, which I, fer one, believe would be a fairer and wiser plan.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the unforeseen and growing amount of the school rate; its unequal pressure upon various districts and various classes of the community; its failure in some cases to meet the requirements of the most necessitous classes; and the circumstance that it involves expenditure not originally anticipated, call for the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government with a view to the relief of the burdens of the ratepayers, while maintaining, in accordance with the original intention of The Education Act, 1870',' the efficiency of elementary education,"—(Mr. Salt,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that it would have been impossible for anyone holding the views of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) to have expressed those views with greater moderation and fairness to his opponents. The hon. Member urged that the original object of the Education Act was to supplement, and not supplant, the voluntary schools. He had himself, in carrying the Bill through, stated that as its object over and over again. But his hon. Friend was quite mistaken in saying that the result had been otherwise.

    843
    The Act had, in fact, supplemented, and not supplanted, denominational schools. In 1870 in the National schools the average attendance of children was 882,000. Now the number had risen to 1,552,000. As he saw his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Sir Charles Russell) present, he would refer to the Roman Catholic schools. He had no figures for 1870 with regard to them, but in 1873 there was an average attendance of 90,000 children in Catholic schools; but now, greatly to the credit of that religion, the number was 163,000. He thought it was matter for Congratulation that, although the school board system was absolutely necessary, voluntary effort had not been discouraged, but had increased in far greater ratio than the population. He admitted that he had expressed his belief that the rate would not exceed 3d. in the pound, and he was supported in that opinion by those who had the largest experience of educational questions. His hon. Friend seemed to be under the impression that in the original Bill there was a clause limiting the rate to 3d. That was a mistaken idea, as the 84th clause was, in the end, substantially the same as when the Bill was introduced. He had, however, since that time had so much experience of political life that he should not be inclined, on any subject, to venture upon prophecy again. There were several reasons for the mistake into which he had fallen. The first was that a far greater educational destitution existed than anyone imagined, and he could only congratulate the country that adequate efforts had been made to provide for that destitution. His Predecessor (Lord Robert Montagu) had estimated that there were in the country about 350,000 children to be provided for. But the increase in the number of children being educated had risen from 1,700,000 in 1870 to 4,500,000 in 1883, and the average attendance from 1,150,000 to 3,000,000. Then schools had to be built. Then there had been an increase in the cost of educating the children, which had risen from 25 s. 5d. to 36 s. 8½d. a-head. The main cause of that increase was the higher salaries now given to masters and mistresses. The salaries of masters had risen by 26 per cent, and those of mistresses by 28 per cent. He might be charged with want of economy, but he
    844
    could not but rejoice at that result. The increase in salaries had arisen partly from the fact that teachers were formerly underpaid, and partly from the greatly increased demand consequent upon the passing of the Act. They certainly had a much more efficient educational staff for their schools than existed before the passing of the Act. He did not believe that the very poor children were being neglected. There might be some "gutter" children still out, but nothing like so many as there were. Large numbers were being brought in, and these children required more teaching power to be brought to bear on them than children coming from more comfortable homes; and in order to get the work done it was found necessary to have a larger staff of masters and mistresses, and, perhaps, fewer pupil - teachers. Hon. Members who had spoken thought that the special subjects had a good deal to do with the cost, but he was certain they had very little. Almost every special subject was met by the Government grant. The first and most important business was to give a thoroughly good elementary education—reading, writing, and ciphering—and he trusted the day was far distant when there would not be alongside that a Scriptural education. The Act of 1870 had not resulted in a purely secular system; but, as he believed, in a more thoroughly Scriptural and religious teaching than existed before. But he should be sorry to suppose that the country would be satisfied with mere reading, writing, and ciphering. The hon. Member had quoted examples of ridiculous answers. Such instances could be found in any examination in the Kingdom, if anyone chose to amuse himself or the House by seeking for them. A few ridiculous answers were no proof that knowledge was not being taught. The boys now at school would be the voters of the future, and it was not desirable to debar them from a knowledge of the history of their country, or the geography of that Empire with the management of which they would probably have something to do. In no respect had the Vice President shown his absolute fitness for the Office more than by the way in which he had considered both sides of this question—acknowledging that the chief object was to give a really good elementary educa-

    845
    tion, not discouraging special subjects, but not pestering the children with too many subjects. He rather expected that the hon. Member for Stafford would have suggested what changes he thought ought to be made in the mode of raising the money. When the Act passed it was stated that an increase would be given in the Government grant, and that pledge had been thoroughly fulfilled. The average attendance had increased 260 per cent; the Government grant, 320 per cent; voluntary contributions, 70 per cent; and the fees, 210 per cent. Ought they to take a larger proportion out of the taxes than they did at this moment? The Government grant was then 35 per cent of the total income, and was now 40 per cent; and he confessed that he thought it would be a disadvantage to education to give a larger proportion out of the public taxation. He would give, very briefly, one or two reasons why there should not be a larger increase in the taxes. The result of it would be that one set of people would be managing, and another set spending; and that meant extravagance to begin with, and also, in his belief, inefficiency. In his opinion, it was most desirable to keep up the local management, and he was sure that the management would be much less efficient if the money were mainly paid by the State. Then it had been said how much fairer it would be to the subscribers to voluntary schools if the taxes supplied the money; but they would only be taking out of one pocket instead of the other, taking taxes instead of rates. Under the present system if people thought there was extravagance they had the remedy in their own hands, and could vote for Members who held with a policy of "strict economy," which, however, often really meant starving education; and the large majority of the constituents in London, and, he believed, in every large town, had decided against that policy. He had only one other remark to make. Allusion had been made by the hon. Member for Stafford to what he called the "Canada" system. There was a great deal of attraction in the proposal; but he believed that the more it was looked at the more generally those interested in education would come to the conclusion that it was utterly impossible to work it in this country. Practically, there were only two denomina-
    846
    tions in Canada, and the number of denominations alone would make it impossible in England. It was, also, contrary to the very principle of rate management, which was that the ratepayers should choose the persons who were to dispose of the rates. But he was quite sure of this—that a proposal more likely to injure the interests of denominational schools could not be conceived. He did not wish to refer to the old controversies that bad taken place, mere than to say that he was sure that, for the interests of denominational schools, the more they had them separated from the school boards the better it was for them. It was easy to find theoretical faults, but, in so doing, they must set one against another; and he would be prepared, in the interests of education, to uphold the view he held before, and would only state that they must, if they looked at the theoretical unfairness on one side, look at it also on the ether. He might, perhaps, be considered conceited; but he had seen nothing in the working of the Education Act since it was passed to lead him to think that they did not arrive at the best system. At any rate, they might have the comfort that, although there was much yet to do, there had been more done in the last 12 years than any man interested in education could suppose possible to be done.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he hoped the House would allow him to make a personal explanation on behalf of the London School Board, which had been attacked. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) referred three or four times in the course of his speech to the secular education of the London School Board, of which the hen. Member had been a member, and must, therefore, have been familiar with its debates on the question of religious instruction. The London School Board passed a resolution with reference to Scriptural instruction, which became a pattern for all the school boards throughout the country. That resolution was, in substance, that the principles of religion and morality should be taught from the Bible, but that the teachers should be warned against proselytizing; and on that resolution the Board had acted ever since. It was in reference to the Scriptural instruction that the Vice President of the Council, when distri-

    847
    buting prizes to the schools a few days ago, complained that it was, perhaps, a little too ambitious, and went too minutely into the facts of the Bible. He thought, therefore, that the hon. Member for Finsbury must either have been very forgetful or very hasty when he spoke several times during his speech of the dead secular level to which the London School Board were striving to drag down the education of the children of London. With regard, also, to the combined charge of gross extravagance and of malicious unfairness to voluntary schools which the hon. Member brought against the London School Board, he was completely in error in the statements lie made, and in contending that the Board were erecting schools in the neighbourhood of voluntary schools, with the object of driving the voluntary element out of the field. The supporters of the Church schools had no justification for the complaint of the increasing pressure in consequence of the competition of the board schools. In 1870, before board schools were established, their subscriptions amounted to 7s. 6d. per child; in 1883 they paid exactly the same amount. But the general taxpayer paid them an increased sum of 14 s. 9d., instead of 8s. 9d. per child; while the children in average attendance were paying 10 s. 5d., instead of 8s.; and by the utilization of public property, in the shape of old endowments, the miscellaneous contribution to the total cost of £1 14 s. 9d. per child had increased from 1s. 4d. to 2s. The Church schools, by raising their fees, had taken the pick of the pupils, and had sent the unsatisfactory children to the board schools. He would briefly give the history of attendance in the London board schools up to the 1st of July, 1883. In December, 1871, there was an average attendance of 174,000 in all the schools of London; in June, 1883, the number was 430,000. In June, 1883, there were 175,000 in voluntary schools, as against 173,000 at the beginning of the school board system, notwithstanding that many voluntary schools were, in the interval, transferred to the board schools. In the board schools the average attendance was 255,000. With respect to the enforcement of attendances, he would say that the average of attendance had risen to 72 per cent of the whole number on the books throughout
    848
    the United Kingdom. But, in London, the average attendance was 81·3 in the board schools, and 80·2 in the voluntary schools. Thus a comparatively regular attendance had been attained. But even that was not satisfactory. Paris, where compulsion had only been introduced in the last year, had an average attendance of 94 or 95 per cent; and in Holland there was a similar high attendance. As to the cost of school buildings, no doubt that was a very great item; but it must be remembered that the sites were very costly, especially as compulsory powers were exercised. It was also the duty of the School Board to see that the schools were thoroughly well built. Curiously enough, it was the fact that the Education Department required more space and cubic feet of air for board schools than for voluntary schools. In a voluntary school 8 feet of superficial space per child was required, whereas in a board school it was 10 feet per child; and, therefore, the same amount of space in a board school was required for seating 80 children that was sufficient in a voluntary school for seating 100 children. He thought the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) would, therefore, see that the sanitary arrangements in the board schools were so good as to be worth the money spent upon them. He would just say one word upon the complaint of hon. Members as to the injustice of taxing people for the general State education of the country who were maintaining the private education of their own children in accordance with their own religious principles. No doubt, the argument was a popular and an intelligible one; but it led directly to the Disestablishment of a State Church, because if it was unjust for Episcopalians to contribute to the rates for maintaining unsectarian schools, it was an injustice towards Jews and unsectarians to require them to contribute towards a State Establishment from which they derived no benefit and which was repugnant to their feelings. He had other arguments in his quiver whenever the Disestablishment debate came on, which he should be glad to discharge for the benefit of the hon. Members who supported a State Church. He had expected to have heard a little more from the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) as to the injustice of the incidence of taxation. He thought the incidence of taxation in towns was

    849
    pretty nearly fair upon rich and poor alike; but in the rural districts, where the taxation was placed upon the land alone, which formed the capital of the farm, while other forms of property were untaxed, it appeared to be unjust; and when the great question of Rating and County Government, and other cognate topics, came up for discussion, he hoped some method would be devised by which local burdens might be more fairly distributed over various classes of property. It was a large question, however, involving many considerations; and he trusted that some day it would be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. He thought there was one matter in which the State might make a subvention in connection with the burden of school board taxation, and that was in the way of defraying the cost of enforcing the school board by laws in reference to attendance. It was in the nature of a police charge, and not an education charge; and although he did not care to have it put upon Imperial instead of local funds, yet he saw in it no such danger of diminishing the efficiency of the schools as would result from the transferrence of other burdens.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONwished to remind the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) that in that House he sat as a member of Parliament, and not as a Member of the London School Board. He therefore declined to follow his hon. Friend into the wonderful statistics which were exhibited by the management of the London School Board. He prefered to advert for a moment to some of the statements of his right lion. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster,) who had made a confession in regard to the false prophecy lie had made in 1870. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman mended the matter by saying that other people had been false prophets as well as himself. He thought the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had been compelled to declare that he had pressed the Bill upon the House upon false calculations was sufficient to induce the House to support the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) in declaring that the matter did require the serious reconsideration of Her Majesty's Government. He (Mr. Leighton) approached this question not as a Churchman, but as an educationalist, as a philanthropist, and as a taxpayer. He
    850
    impugned the existing system, both as to the manner in which it had been originated and as to the manner in which it had been carried on. He did not say that all the abuses which at present existed were the creation or the fault of the right hon. Gentleman; but the right hon. Gentleman was the representative of the system, and he was never tired of declaring that it was, as nearly as possible, perfection. He thought it was almost unworthy of Parliament, and almost a discredit to the nation, that there should, every year, be a paean sung on the state of education, when, after all, it was open to the gravest criticism. Viscount Sherbrooke, when a Member of the House of Commons, specially warned the House against creating a great Government monopoly of education. But what had they done? They had created a great Government Department, which had under its command 40,000 teachers and 9,700,000 pupils, and this enormous Department—larger than the Army or Navy—was one which must surely exercise a tremendous influence over the people of this country. With regard to the rates, the expectation with which the Act of 1870 was introduced had entirely failed. Of that he would speak later on. As to the quality of the education, it was originally intended to be elementary education. What was elementary education? He would not use his own words, but those of the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright)—
    "That a child should be taught to write so as to be read, and to read so as to be understood, and to cipher without mental effort."
    Yet he found, among the subjects taught in the board schools, Latin, French, botany, chemistry, and elementary science. These were special subjects, but they were subjects paid for out of the rates, and they entered into the elementary education of the country. Then, again, let them test the sincerity of the regard of the Department for the really elementary subjects by the action of their own Inspectors. The other day, in a country school in a remote part of the Kingdom, an Inspector paid a visit of inspection, and the first question he asked the children was to explain the solar system. Of course, the managers and the teachers and everyone else were aghast at that question; but the Inspector declared that he could not satisfy

    851
    his conscience without putting such questions. He was producing no exceptional example of the method and spirit in which rural schools were inspected. What did men like Mr. Francombe, of Redcliffe, say—
    "The number of subjects now being taught in our schools greatly impairs the results in the three Ws, and few boys leave school able to read well or spell correctly."
    The Chairman of the Committee of the National Union of Elementary Teachers, speaking as the representative of that Union, stated that the New Code was distinctly higher now than the Old Code, and the Secretary of the same Society asserted that serious pressure went on under the system. Therefore, whether for good or whether for evil, there had been a departure from the plan laid down in the original Education Act. He would examine the question, not vaguely, but on evidence which would be received in a Court of Law. First, he would call the attention of the House to a Petition lately presented to them. He would only read the words of the Petition, and not in any way use his own. The words of the Petition were so hideous that he thought they would scarcely be credited. These were the words of the Petition, and the Petition itself came from the Bradford School Board—
    "Information has reached the board of the undoubted existence of prostitution amongst the girls of school ago in the borough of Bradford, who are in actual attendance at schools."
    And that experience he believed was borne out by the experience of London as well. Passing from that most shocking result of gathering 300 or 400 girls together, without placing them under moral influences, he would go on to another result, not so shocking, perhaps, but which seemed to him to be still more sad. What did the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Chairman of the Lunacy Commission, say—
    "Insanity generally has diminished; but the proportion of lunatics among the teaching class and children has risen."
    Many people had begun to see that the forcing system in schools, and the burning competition for places among teachers, were producing mental injury. What did other testimony from Scotland prove? It showed that insanity had increased among the teaching class through overpressure in the schools, and there had
    852
    been a large increase in the percentage of deaths among children of school age from brain disease. That was not given as the result of a careless investigation, but as the result of comparing the six years before the Education Act with the last six years. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council received the cheers of the House the other night when he described how many children were gathered together in the schools; but the doctors said that if the system was persisted in, without reforming it, the development of the children must suffer. Was it surprising that mothers said — "You are killing our children?" And was it surprising that the teachers said—"We want our grant, and we must make them pass?" This came of the system of paying by results, without regard to circumstances. They had heard how the system had failed in gathering together the gutter children, and in getting them to enter the schools. To use the words of the Rev. Mr. Cox-head—
    "The poorer class of children is gradually being thrown upon the streets."
    But the very first duty of school boards was to gather in the Arabs of the streets, the children of the poorest of the poor. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) said that, so far from supplanting, he had really supplemented the voluntary system. He (Mr. Stanley Leighton) was sorry that the Charity Commissioners, who ought to know quite as well as the right hon. Gentleman, held an entirely different opinion on the subject. This was what they said in their last Report in describing the competition of the board schools with the higher elementary education—
    "The third grade of endowed schools will be practically emptied and rendered practically useless by a competition such as we have indicated, a contingency which we cannot but regard with anxiety;"
    and then the Commissioners went on to describe the serious mischief that was being done, and the great waste of pecuniary resources which would inevitably follow. If the system was doing good, if the system of pure elementary education was really being promoted, he should have very little to say; but, even in connection with the London School Board itself, Mr. Thomas declared that the result of the administration of

    853
    the London School Board was a failure. The extravagance of the School Board, and their ambition, had greatly increased the rates, and had greatly injured the poor. It was not the fault of the principle of the Act of 1870, but the fault of its administration. He did not think that people fully recognized the enormous increase of the education rates. He would refer to one individual case, the type of hundreds throughout the country—namely, the country parish of Stoken Church, in Oxfordshire, where the school board rate was 2s. 1½d. What did that mean? It meant enhanced house rent. It meant that the cottager had to pay 10 s. a-year more for his cottage. And what did it mean in regard to farmers? A farmer with a ratal of only £500 a-year, paid £50 to the school board rates. If a man had £10,000 a-year, he considered £50 a considerable sum to pay, as a subscription, towards a school; and yet here a farmer whose rental was only £500 a - year, and whose income was probably about £300, had to pay in the parish of Stoken Church upwards of £50 a year in school board rates; the sum came upon him suddenly, without any provision having been made to meet it. He would ask if that was fair towards the ratepayers? He concurred very much with the suggestion which had been made by the Home Secretary when the Education Bill was under discussion in 1870; and he did not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had ever withdrawn his opinion since that time—
    "The education rate should be limited, and the pressure of the residuary charge, whatever it is, should be borne by the Treasury."
    He would put a question to his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this case—we were within a measurable distance of this contingency—what would be the result if the supporters of the voluntary schools withdrew their subscriptions? And he (Mr. Leighton), for one, would certainly be ready to support that step. The result would be that it would throw £2,000,000 on the rates of the country in a single year; and he did not believe that even a Government so strong, so wise, and so self-satisfied as the present Government, could stand a blow like that. £2,000,000 would be thrown on the rates if the support given to volun-
    854
    tary schools by voluntary subscribers was withdrawn and these schools were thrown upon the educational rate. It had been said that no remedy for the existing state of things had been suggested. He could suggest several. First of all, let them limit the rate, and increase the grant; then let them keep elementary separate from secondary education; let them make it easy for the children to pass from one stage to the other—that was to say, from the elementary and State-aided schools to the higher grade schools; let them abolish overtime and home lessons, and let thorn encourage half-time and physical education. These seemed to him to be the methods by which they should endeavour to reform the system of education in this country. It was the dual control—half Governmental and half local—which increased the expenditure, and made it almost impossible to carry on the education of the country properly. The Government, with the generosity which always belonged to Departments of the State, laid all the blame of failures and abuses on the local managers; but, in point of fact, the local managers were helpless. They were at the mercy of a superior task-master in the Department, and were forced to make all they could out of the undeveloped brains of the children, and the result was the physical exhaustion of the children. In the face of, and against the protest of, such men as Mill and Herbert Spencer, who always declared that there should not be a Government monopoly of education, a Government monopoly was being inaugurated. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would not oppose the proposal of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), for all that the Resolution declared was that the matter required the serious consideration of the Government with a view to its amendment.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that, in rising to address a few observations to the House upon this question, he desired to make his attitude in regard to it perfectly clear. He regretted that the Question before the House was not that suggested by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), for a Parliamentary Inquiry into the working of the Act of 1870. That Act had been in operation for some 13

    855
    years, and the school boards had spent a good many millions of money in carrying it out, in addition to having incurred a considerable amount of debt beyond the sum actually raised by taxation. He recognized that, under the operation of the Act, great work had been done; but he thought it was fitting, after 13 years' experience, that they should inquire how far an Act of Parliament, which in its nature was experimental, had worked; whether the large SUMS raised by taxation under it lied been raised in the best way, whether they were applied in the best manner, and whether the State was getting full value for the cost. He (Mr. Charles Russell) was specially interested with reference to its operation upon the voluntary schools, and particularly upon the voluntary schools of, en the whole, the poorest class in the country, — namely, the Catholic community. The House and the country would be generous enough to recollect that those schools stood in an unique position. Catholics could not conscientiously avail themselves, and they did not, of the board schools. They believed that religious should accompany secular teaching. They did not admit that the school board Bible-teaching was religious education, properly so called, although the religious sense of some classes in the community was satisfied by it. But it was clear that, even if it were, it was not the religious education which Catholics desired to give their children. Indeed, was it not also clear that in proportion as the school board teaching did assume a definite religious character, so as to satisfy Protestant requirements, so in proportion must it be unacceptable to Catholics? It was now admitted that the Act of 1870 did not profess to be antagonistic to voluntary schools. By the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) it was again and again stated it was intended to supplement, not to supplant, voluntary schools. The Prime Minister had, further, fully recognized the claims which voluntaryists had upon the consideration of Parliament. It was they, indeed, who had done for education all, or nearly all, that was done before the State had recognized its duty to see that its children did not grow up in ignorance. But what did the Act of 1870 do? Did it, or did it not, contain the germ of a principle
    856
    which, if allowed to grow unchecked, was destructive of the voluntary principle? This was a serious question. The Act of 1870 gave an unlimited power of taxation to school boards, the proceeds of such taxation to be applied solely—although the Bill as brought in provided otherwise—to board schools, and, at the same time, such schools had the right to come pari passû on the Privy Council grant, on the same principle as the voluntary schools. Was it not obvious, therefore, that the board schools, with means practically unlimited at their backs, must, in the long run, in the matter of buildings, higher paid teachers, and so forth, hold out inducements not within the reach of the voluntary schools, with their share of the Privy Council grant, supplemented only by private beneficence, and so supplant the latter? No doubt, some would rejoice at that result; and some, he feared, because they would regard it as the triumph of secularism over denominationalism in education. He (Mr. Charles Russell) declined to discuss the question as a contest between secularism and denominationalism in education. He had no objection to secular education, pure and simple, for those who desired it; but he would not have those volunteer agents unfairly handicapped who desired to see religious attend secular training. He would be glad to see the voluntary principle evoked in regard to each mode of education, and the State supplementing private effort to extend education, whether in a secular or a denominational form—the State paying only for the work of which it received the benefit in secular teaching. Fairly considered, no question of religious difficulty arose. He (Mr. Charles Russell) submitted that so long as the State had efficient guarantees that in the matter of secular education the teaching was sound from the State point of view, and was full value for the money it cost, the State should, in all directions, and on whatever system given, help the work of secular education. They would, in that way, give fresh impulse to that important factor, the voluntary spirit of the people, which, he feared, the Act of 1870 had somewhat checked. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) had said 1,000 Anglican schools had been given up to the school board. [Mr. LYULPH STANLEY: Voluntarily.] He (Mr. Charles

    857
    Russell) so understood; but that meant that in the case of these 1,000 schools the voluntary effort to help the work was relaxed. No Catholic voluntary schools had yet shared that fate, although paying rates for that which, conscientiously, they felt themselves unable to take advantage. The poorest part of the community had strained every nerve to meet the new difficulties and competition which they encountered. He was not sorry there was the competition. It would do good to the voluntary schools; but there was a point beyond which, on existing conditions, the competition could not be maintained. He gratefully recognized the fact that the increased sums received from the Privy Council grant had helped the Catholic body to extend greatly their educational area. In 1870 there were only 666 inspected Catholic schools in Great Britain, with accommodation for 119,599 scholars, and an average attendance of 75,127 scholars. In 1882 the schools wore 1,562, with accommodation for 314,519, and the average attendance 190,540. At the same time, the yearly cost of instruction had risen from £1 0s. 6d. per head on the smaller number in 1870 to £1 10 s. 2½d. per head on the much greater number in 1882. He (Mr. Charles Russell) need not point out that the school board cost was much greater than this, and that went some way to account for the increased cost in Catholic schools in the endeavour to keep pace with the board schools. He was glad also to find that the grant per head earned by Catholic children represented a higher percentage on cost of instruction than in the case of any other class. It would appear, too, that in reading, writing, and arithmetic, the Catholic average was higher than that of the rest of the country—in reading, 90·85, against an average of 89·22; in writing, 82·78, against an average of 81·92; and in arithmetic, 77·83, against an average of 77·22. There was still here room for improvement. He (Mr. Charles Russell) did not believe the House or the country, whatever prejudice might prevail, would wish to see such voluntary efforts as these interfered with. He claimed adequate help for these schools on a principle which he believed to be sound. The State now recognized that it was its duty to give at least secular instruc-
    858
    tion to its children, and particularly to the children of the poor. Amongst those children were the children of the Catholic poor. He claimed that the State should, in fairness, and in sound policy, pay for the secular instruction of these Catholic children according to its value, and upon the same principle that the State paid for similar education in the board schools. In other words, secular education in Catholic schools should not be underpaid, because Catholics desired to see religious teaching attend and follow secular instruction. They asked no help in the work of religious teaching—that must be left purely to voluntary effort.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that his reply to the challenge of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. C. Russell) was, that there was no section of the community which had received such generous consideration as that to which he belonged; and that, speaking for his Predecessors in Office as well as for himself, to the Roman Catholics in England exceptional consideration had been shown. They had been allowed wherever they desired, in spite of all rules, to have their own schools, and to receive the grants. At the same time, there was scarcely a school board in England upon which the Roman Catholics were not represented; and a degree of liberality had been extended to them which he thought deserved recognition. With regard to the speech he had delivered at the Crystal Palace, he would repeat now what he had then said—that, since the passing of the Act of 1870, the religious instruction in England had increased as largely as, and even more largely than, secular instruction, which, he thought, some hon. Gentlemen would regret. From 1,600,000 children on the rolls, the number had risen to something approximating to 3,000,000, and the operation of the Conscience Clause had made religious instruction a reality. There were 3,000,000 children, and 1,200,000 were instructed in the principles of Christianity according to the Gospel; and these children were taught to read and understand the Scriptures; and of the whole of the children 1,300,000 were to be found in the Sunday schools on Sunday. The religious instruction of to-day in England was many-fold better than it was before the Act of 1870; and he hardly knew of anything that could be said in

    859
    answer to that. The hon. Member (Mr. Salt) had not made a speech in support of his Motion, for a great deal that he had said had no bearing upon the Motion. The hon. Member's Motion pointed to the burdens of the ratepayers; but he believed the whole bearing of that speech was to increase rather than reduce those burdens for the benefit of denominational schools. In the interest of those schools, he thought it would have been better if this debate had not taken place. He stood up for the Act of 1870 against all assaults made upon it; and he believed that if the matter were thrown into the crucible the result would not be favourable to those who would oppose that compromise. With respect to the cost of schools, the hon. Member was quite mistaken in putting the cost of building schools at £6 10 s. per head. Then the hon. Member spoke of those supporting voluntary schools not being rated for board schools; but the principle of exemption could not be and was not carried out. With regard to the classes of children that ought to be brought into the schools, there were tens of thousands of children in the schools coming from most miserable families of six and eight and ten children. There were 2,700,000 children of the poorest class brought into the schools since 1870, although he admitted that there were still many thousands of the same class of children still outside the schools. In respect to the question of over-work, he had in his possession statistics to show that from 10 years before to 10 years since the passing of the Act of 1870 the death rate of children between 5 and 15 had diminished by more than 19 per cent. There was nothing more remarkable in the history of the health of our population than the decline in the death rate of the children. This was due to the Factory Act, the Mines Acts, and the Education Act. During the last 20 years the death rate of children from brain disease was so small as not to be more than 0·5 per 1,000 of the population; so that these stories as to over-work were absolutely illusory and without ground. With respect to specific subjects, who introduced them? Viscount Sandon and the late Government, and he thought they deserved credit for having introduced them. He had, however, taken them from the lower Standards, and allowed young children to take them in
    860
    the Fifth Standard; and was it for this that the hon. Member came down and denounced him for murdering the children? He did not know which had been the most striking—the language or the attitude of the hon. Gentleman. As to the cost per child, he maintained that the increased cost per child had not been 1s. 4d. per head. The voluntary subscriptions had increased from £419,000 in 1870 to £723,000 in 1883; and the schools had received from public funds an increase of £1,750,000 a-year. He thought it was not necessary to urge the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion, for nothing would be more unwise than to go to a Division. The Acts were working well, the voluntary schools were most successful; and he would challenge anyone to say they had not been fairly administered by every Vice President of the Council who had been in Office, and he was sure it would be allowed that good results had followed.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARD: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council disbelieves that managers of voluntary schools have a grievance; but he supports his disbelief by disproving a proposition which is not the basis of their complaint. They complain, not that the Government grant as now adjusted aggravates their difficulties, but that it does not mitigate them. The weight of the pressure on voluntary schools was admitted by the Government in 1870, and they promised that it should be alleviated. And now the Vice President of the Council triumphantly declares—"We promised an increase of one-half in the former grant, and we have fulfilled our promise." "True," we answer, "you have enlarged your grant; but you have, at the same time, enlarged your requirements, so that our increased expenditure upon each child permits no mitigation in the amount of voluntary contributions pressing with greater severity, owing to the extension of voluntary schools, and the multiplication of scholars." We are told, indeed, that we have no right to complain of an additional burden of our own creation. But why did we multiply our schools and scholars? Because we were assured that our burden would be lightened, and that an education rate, estimated at 3d. in the pound, would be supplemented by the Government grant. The Government deny that there is any provision to that

    861
    effect in the Education Act. Of course, there is not; if there were such a provision we should make our appeal to the law, and not, as we now confidently do, to the Legislature; for, assuredly, the founders of Church schools would not have spent £6,000,000, except upon the assurances of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) and the Prime Minister. But, even had no such expectations been held out, the claims of voluntary schools would be not the less entitled to satisfaction; for what, in plain terms, is their position? The State decrees a compulsory education; it assigns a provision by rate for board schools, and a subsidy from the Exchequer for board schools and for voluntary schools alike, measured by their results—an arrangement which leaves voluntary schools dependent for their existence upon individual liberality. We do not ask that this burden upon individual liberality be wholly removed; but we do ask that the weight of it, almost unbearable in some cases, shall be lightened. The State demands the production of children instructed in secular knowledge. The voluntary schools present their scholars efficiently instructed. Why should they — producing the article demanded by the State—be at so large a pecuniary disadvantage as compared with board schools? The board school receives for its scholar 14 s. 5½d from the Government grant, and 17 s. 1¼d. from the rates. The Church school receives for its equally instructed scholar 14 s. 10½d. from the Government grant, and nothing from the rates. Why should it be mulct because it adds religious to secular instruction? Churchmen pay now £600,000 in voluntary subscriptions, and they pay as much more in their share of the £800,000 education rate. We ask, as a remedy to this unequal treatment, that the school board expenditure be subjected to a vigilant control, and that the Government grant be enlarged, so as to throw the cost of elementary education more fairly on the wealth of the country, and to diffuse more generally the burden of maintaining voluntary schools, now pressing upon a comparatively few.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 74: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 238.)
    862
    Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.

  STATUTE OF FRAUDS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 204.]
  (Mr. Reid, Mr. Whitley, Mr. Arthur Elliot.)
  STATUTE OF FRAUDS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 204.]

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)
    MR. LEWIS FRYsaid, he should not have attempted to detain the House at that late hour were it not that this important measure had passed the second reading without any discussion whatever. It was an important Bill affecting a large number of contracts relating to the sale of land and mercantile transactions for the sale of goods; and it ought not to pass without evidence that the change in the law which it contemplated was required by mercantile men. In past years it had been denied the support of important organizations representing the mercantile bodies of the country. The question had been discussed by the Associated Chambers of Commerce several times, and there had been great divergence of opinion upon it. When it was last discussed the majority were against any change in the Statute of Frauds; and since 1872—now 11 years ago—the subject had not been brought forward, and this was pretty good evidence that there was no desire for a change in the law. It appeared to him that if the law was to be altered, it should be amended on much broader lines than those upon which the Bill proceeded. They ought to make up their minds whether it would be to the interest of the public that verbal contracts such as were affected by the Bill should be enforced or not. If it was right that they should not, the law should remain as it was at present; but if the House was of opinion that these contracts should be enforced, the Statute of Frauds itself should be amended. His opinion was that this change of the law, if effected at all, should certainly not be brought about by the indirect and roundabout process proposed in the Bill. If it should be thought to be desirable that these contracts should be enforced

    863
    in our Courts of Law, he could not understand why the plaintiff should be confined to the one proof pointed out in this measure—he meant the admission of the person against whom the contract was sought to be enforced. It seemed to him that these contracts should be equally capable of being enforced without the admission of the defendant; as he could conceive cases in which the plaintiff would be in a position to bring satisfactory evidence of the verbal contract having taken place without the admission of the defendant. Conversations might be taken down by persons present when verbal contracts were made, or the terms of a contract might be reduced into writing, and all that might be wanting might be the actual signature of the defendant, and in such a case there would be no doubt whatever as to the real terms of the contract; and yet in these cases no remedy was proposed. Another objection he took to the Bill was that the remedy it proposed would be very partial. In many cases, it would be no remedy whatever to persons seeking to enforce verbal contracts. Large numbers of gentlemen in business in the City of London were represented by agents, and a man who was so represented could not be made a party to an action under the Bill. Therefore, no remedy would be provided for the evils in cases of that description. He also considered that the Bill would tend largely to an increase of perjury. They would be putting an enormous temptation in the way of a defendant against whom a verbal contract was sought to be enforced, to give a simple denial, because that would have the effect of enabling him to escape altogether from the conditions of a verbal contract. In regard to contracts for the purchase and sale of real estate, this Bill would produce bad results. Hon. Members acquainted with the facts relating to the sale and purchase of real estate would know that no cautious person would enter into a written contract without taking legal advice; because, if he entered into an open contract, he would very often render himself liable to grievous mischief, either in the way of abatement of purchase money, if any error had been made, or of being called on at great cost to produce documents of title which might not be
    864
    in his possession, or a longer title than he might be able to produce. A written contract for a sale was necessarily preceded by a verbal bargain, and a man might run great risks if, by an Act of Parliament, they made this antecedent verbal contract legally binding. That was what the Bill would do. He thought the measure would be a trap for incautious vendors, who would find very frequently that, by virtue of its provisions, they had been parties to that which would produce disastrous results. He held in his hand a Report on the Bill which had received the unanimous approval of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society. He would not trouble the House by reading the whole of the Report; but, in effect, it pointed out that, in regard to those contracts, the Bill was most objectionable. In conclusion, he moved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Lewis Fry.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that certain contracts were required to be in writing, otherwise they could not be enforced against either of the persons party to them. In cases where verbal contracts were entered into dishonestly — and roguery was very often displayed by parties who, though admitting the contract, refused to carry it out, because it was not in writing—the object of the Bill was that in such cases as these, where the defendant put up such a defence, the plaintiff might ask him on his oath—"Is it true or not true that you entered into a contract with me?" If he said it was not true, then the plaintiff was defeated, there being no written contract to substantiate the plaintiff's claim; but if the defendant admitted that he had made a verbal contract, he would be liable to the extent of his admission to fulfil that contract. Of course, if a man chose to be a rogue, although he had entered into a contract, he might deny the fact. He did not think many hon. and learned Gentlemen differed from him upon this subject; and the proof of that was to be found in the fact that his Bill had reached its present stage without opposition. What were

    865
    the arguments of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Lewis Fry) against this Bill? He complained that it did not go far enough. But with regard to that complaint, he would undertake to support any proposal his hon. and learned Friend might suggest in order to make it go further. All that the Bill would do would be to prevent persons from dishonestly availing themselves of a technicality in order to evade the performance of what was morally a binding contract.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought the Bill was open to very grave objection. It seemed to him to revive the worst part of the old system of the Court of Chancery in his recollection — namely, the system of interrogatories, which had been called torturing the consciences of defendants. The system was one of setting up equitable contracts, by endeavouring to extract from the defendant admissions in the course of examination. He deprecated any attempt of that kind for the purpose of arriving at information. Under the law, as it at present existed, some written evidence was required of a contract—it might not be a formal agreement, but something to show an agreement. He thought it was but right and just that there should be some evidence of a contract having been entered into between man and man. What was proposed in this Bill? It was this. They might meet a man in the street and ask him if he would sell his corn, or his produce, or whatever he dealt in; and if the man gave them even a negative reply they could administer to him an interrogatory, putting to him—"What did you say?" "Did you not say—?" "How did you say—?" "Did you admit such-and-such a thing?" "Did you not admit such-and-such a thing?" or "Do you deny such-and-such a thing?" They might put these questions to a man in such a way that it would be a very difficult thing for him to get out of the interrogatory to which he was subjected without risk of perjury. It would become a matter of ingenuity on the part of learned gentlemen either to constitute a contract by means of interrogatories, or to get out of a contract entered into by means of interrogatories — learned gentlemen might set themselves to work to prove or disprove facts by means of the power contained in this Bill. He had seen
    866
    that kind of thing done very frequently in his Chancery practice, and he himself earnestly deprecated anything which would tend to revive that system. He believed that to be the result of the present Bill, and on those grounds he strenuously opposed its adoption.
    MR. WILLISsaid, he opposed the third reading of the Bill on two grounds —first, because he was satisfied it would bring no relief to those persons whose contracts the hon. and learned Member desired to enforce; and, secondly, because he thought it would bring about that result which it was the object of the Statute of Frauds to prevent—namely, an increase of perjury. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Reid) said that if a contract was admitted, why should it not be enforced? He agreed with that; but his lion. and learned Friend knew perfectly well that if he interrogated a dishonest man be would deny that there had been any binding arrangement, and would say that the contract had been merely a matter of negotiation, and that it was never intended that it should be binding until reduced into writing. He did not believe that in one case out of ten they would ever get an admission to suit the plaintiff who brought the action. The Statute of Frauds was passed for the purpose of preventing perjury being committed in cases of this kind. Cases of the evil effects of administering these interrogatories might be multiplied indefinitely. In Common Law cases, for instance, he had rarely been engaged in a case in which a verdict was given for the plaintiff where he did not find that interrogatories had been administered, and answered in the negative that which the jury answered in the affirmative. In many cases they found contracts in writing with the exception of the name, and the Statute worked an injustice. In his opinion, it would be better to repeal the 4th and 17th sections of the Act. He felt strongly, however, that if this Bill passed it would only bring about increased disorder and largely increase the crime of perjury, which, as things at present existed, was by no means decreasing at the present moment.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he was sorry to be obliged to disagree with his hon. and learned Friends. He was certain that the Bill would not bring relief. It would be the simplest thing in the world

    867
    to get out of it, because, as an hon. and learned Member had said, it would only apply to cases where people did not want to get out of contracts. If a man did not wish it to apply he would say—"I did not enter into a contract." He might admit that there had been some negotiation, and might even say that the terms of a contract had been put down in writing, but that he had not actually made a contract. He (Mr. Grantham) hoped the House would not accept the Bill. It was a matter for consideration whether a change should be made in the Statute of Frauds; but he could not recommend this Bill, which, he thought, would increase perjury tenfold. In nearly every case where the Statute of Frauds was set up, to his mind there would be direct perjury under this Bill.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)owned he could not altogether share the views expressed by several hon. and learned Members in regard to the terrible results which would follow the passing of a Bill of this kind. Many of the fears to which hon. and learned Gentlemen had given expression were the kind of fears which were always heard from some lawyers whenever a change in the law was passed. When they had spoken about some change in the method of examining witnesses, it was said—"You should not do that—it will tend to develop perjury." The matter seemed to him an extremely simply one, and he could not agree with his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken that the man who would set up a defence on the Statute of Frauds would be prepared to commit perjury. As a rule, if a man were asked whether or not he had entered into a verbal contract, if he had done so he would not deny it. He (the Solicitor General) did not think the Bill would produce any great results; but the question was this—what was the object of the Statute of Frauds? It was this—that a man who made certain bargains should not be bound by them unless they were in writing, signed by himself and the other contracting party. This was passed because of the fallibility of memory, and differences of opinion as to what were the terms agreed upon, and many other difficulties of that kind, rendering it uncertain whether a contract had been entered into or not. But where was the hardship in binding
    868
    a man to a contract he admitted, whether it was in writing or not? That was all this Bill sought to do—to ask a man who set up the Statute of Frauds as a defence—"Did you make a contract?" If he replied "No," there would be an end of the thing; but if he admitted that he had made a contract, that admission could be enforced against him. He (the Solicitor General) would leave the matter in the hands of the House; but he had thought it his duty to point out, as clearly as he could, the nature of the measure.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he did not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General with regard to the object of the Bill. To his mind it went further than simply putting it to the defendant whether or not he had entered into any contract; because he found that, according to Clause 2, a plaintiff could interrogate an officer of any Corporation, and his answer, whatever it might be, would be binding on the Corporation. An agreement might have been negotiated between a plaintiff and the Directors of a Company; and yet, if the Secretary of that Company, on being questioned, said that a contract had been made, that admission would be binding on the Directors. Was that an alteration in the law which the House should sanction? Any officer of a Company or Corporation, who might overhear part of a conversation between his Directors and the plaintiff, might say "yes" when an interrogatory was proposed, and so seriously and unfairly prejudice the interests of his employers. He (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), as he had stated, could not agree with what had been said as to the object of the Statute of Frauds. The Preamble of that measure stated that its object was to prevent perjury. If the present law was to be altered, it should be done in a way different to that laid down in the present Bill.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he should like to ask one of the lawyers what was the law in Ireland on this matter—he did not pretend to know it himself. To the best of his belief, in Ireland, if a man came to buy a number of head of cattle, they did not let him have the cattle unless he paid the money for them. If this Bill were te pass, a rogue might come up to a dealer, buy some cattle, and refuse to pay for them until they

    869
    were delivered. He might say—"You have not fulfilled your contract until you have delivered the cattle." So far as he (Colonel Nolan) understood the Bill, it would bear that construction, and such a thing as that would very materially interfere with ordinary business arrangements. It would be very objectionable to change old customs in this way. If his doubts on this matter were removed, it would be satisfactory.
    Question put.
    The House divided: — Ayes 43; Noes 47: Majority 4.—(Div. List, No. 239.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Third Reading put off for three months.

  PAROCHIAL CHARITIES (LONDON) (recommitted) BILL.— [BILL 215.]
  (Mr. Bryce, Mr. Pell, Sir Henry Peek, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Cohen, Sir. Horace Davey.)
  PAROCHIAL CHARITIES (LONDON) (recommitted) BILL.— [BILL 215.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 26th July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Appointment of additional Charity Commissioners).
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he wished to move an Amendment. The power to ascertain whether the charities were for ordinary or for ecclesiastical purposes was vested in the Charity Commissioners, who had this power for three years. If they had any bias, it would be seen that they possessed very great powers in regard to determining the character of the Act.. If the Commissioners were adherents of the Church of England, what security was there as to their decision upon a charity of a doubtful character? The time had gone when an appeal ought to be made to the fairness of any body of men; and, seeing that this Bill required every Commissioner to be a member of the Church of England, he should propose to introduce a provision that they should not be adherents of the Church of England. The number of Commissioners was to be increased from six to eight; and if this Amendment was agreed to there would be some security that the character of
    870
    the charities should not be determined by men of one religious community. Why should the question of religious denomination be introduced into this matter at all? He had raised this question scores of times, for his object was to was to destroy the one-sided character of these public Bodies, and to insist that, if we could not rely upon the individuals, there should be protection against religious injustice being done. The great mass of the people desired to have this security, and it would be a great advantage if the Committee would accept his proposal. If that was done the matter would not rest here; but some further steps would be taken with regard to such Bodies as the Endowed Schools Commission, and a crowd of others, and a new and better state of things would be commenced.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 31, after the word "two," to insert the words "not being adherents of the Church of England." — (Mr. worth.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. BRYCEsympathized very much with the view of the hon. Member; and he hoped that, on the next vacancy, the Government would see their way to gratifying the Nonconformists by appointing one of their members. But he could not say that he thought this a happy Amendment, because it would very much hamper Her Majesty's choice. He did not think there was any likelihood of any question arising under this Bill, which would make it necessary to bring again to the front those denominational questions which would seem to make this Proviso requisite.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he could recall cases in which it was proposed to exclude the masses from dealing with matters in which public property was concerned; and he had uniformly voted against such proposals. His object was that all classes of Her Majesty's subjects should be provided for. The hon. Member (Mr. Bryce) expressed a hope that the Nonconformists would be considered by those with whom the matter rested, but the same hope had been entertained for generations; and it was because nothing had been done that it was necessary to take such action as this, in order to prevent one-sided arrange-

    871
    ments. He stood upon the high ground of fairness and justice.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he scarcely thought the hon. Member was serious, for his proposal would introduce into the statute a disqualification of a very peculiar character; and it would be the first time that any such words had been put into any statute.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was a very curious thing that Ministers always seemed to think it was a sufficient answer to say that it was the first time such a thing had been proposed. They must understand that we were an aggressive nation. In matters of religion he had no sort of confidence in Her Majesty's Government. There were already six Commissioners; but how many of these were Dissenters? [An hon. MEMBER: Not one.] Not one. How many members of the Church of England? Six. It would, no doubt, be said that they happened to be the best men; but unless a protest was made now, and this Amendment was distinctly inserted in the Bill, it was certain that the two new Commissioners would be Church of England men, just as the present six were.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:— Ayes 26; Noes 57: Majority 31. — (Div. List, No. 240.)
    MR. HEALYproposed at the same place to insert "of whom one shall be a Roman Catholic." He did so, he said, on the ground that most of these charities had come from Roman Catholic foundations. The pious donors in most of the cases were Roman Catholics; and when there was so much bigotry displayed, he thought one Roman Catholic Commissioner should be insisted upon. He hoped to see in the Lobby in support of that view those Gentlemen who had objected to all the Commissioners being members of the Church of England.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 31, after the word "two," to insert the words "of whom one shall be a Roman Catholic."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had walked out of the House on the last Division, as he did not like to be a particeps criminis
    872
    in the sham vote of the Nonconformist English Radical humbugs.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not apply such terms to hon. Members of this House.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he would withdraw "humbugs," and substitute for it "sham Liberals." he hoped the Conservative Party in the House would support this Amendment; and he should be anxious to see whether the Amendment would have the support of the enlightened and chivalrous Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), who always supported Liberalism in profession, but the very opposite by his votes.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) would not persist in his Amendment, particularly as a Great many poor Catholics would be benefited by the Bill. The best service the hon. Member could render his co-religionists in the City would be to support the measure.
    MR. ILLING WORTHsaid, there was no difference between this proposal and that which had been made previously. There was already a Charity Commission in existence, the whole of the Members of which were confined to one religious body; and the object of his Amendment had been to enable Her Majesty to make selections front the whole range of Her Majesty's subjects—that was to say, she should be free to accept other than members of the Church of England. There was no partiality or injustice implied in his Amendment; and he should not like to at all narrow the choice of selection in any way. He should, therefore, feel himself bound to go against the proposal of the hon. Member, which was by no means as liberal as that which he had himself proposed.
    MR. WILLISsaid, he should support the Amendment. [Laughter.] Hon. Members around him might laugh; but he was serious in what he was saying. He should endeavour, as far as in him lay, to break down the exclusive character of the appointments that were made upon this Commission and upon other Bodies. No Dissenter ever found his way to any responsible position, members of the Church of England being always appointed; and as he could not get the wider proposition of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) accepted, he would support the narrower one, and would show his genuineness

    873
    in the Lobby by voting with the hon. Member for Monaghan.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there were a large number of Catholics in the Metropolis who were interested in these charities; and he should like to know why, if that were so, they should net have a Representative on the Commission? he had voted for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), whose proposal he should have very much preferred to this one. It seemed to him that, logically, they could not avoid voting for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). It was regarded as a preposterous thing, even amongst Gentlemen who took extreme views as to religion, that out of eight Commissioners there should not be one Catholic. He should like to see a Catholic on the Commission; but he had no doubt that unless this Amendment were passed such a thing would never happen. Just as he had voted for the hon. Member for Bradford because he had exceedingly little, he might almost say no confidence in the application of religious principles by Her Majesty's Government, so he should vote for this Amendment.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)wished to point out one thing that might increase the confidence of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) in Her Majesty's Government upon these matters. He would remind the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government had only recently placed a Roman Catholic on the Bench.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, with regard to the observation which had just fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, he was sorry to be obliged to say that some of the very worst appointments the Government had ever made had been appointments of Catholics. If the hon. and learned Member had anything to do with the patronage of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland, particularly with regard to the Bench, he (Mr. O'Connor) should be very much obliged to him if, on all occasions in the future, he would select Protestants for those appointments and not Catholics. He must say he had been very much astonished to hear the First Commissioner of Works say that a Motion of the kind proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for
    874
    Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) similar to that of his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) was unprecedented in its character. Was it not a fact that there were several offices confined to members of the State Church? The Office of Representative of Her Majesty in Ireland was still expressly excluded from being bestowed upon a nobleman who might happen to be of the same religion as the majority of the Irish people. He could not understand the objection of the hon. Member for Bradford to this Amendment, taking it side by side with the objection of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce). He (Mr. O'Conner) maintained that the claim of Roman Catholics to have a Representative on the Commission was stronger than that of any other body, and that for two reasons. First, because a great deal of the money which came from these charities was Catholic money; and, secondly, because a great many of the poor, for whose benefit the charities were intended, were Catholic poor. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets admitted that a certain section of persons for whom this Bill was intended would be Catholics. He (Mr. O'Connor) ventured to say that nearly half the poor of London who would have a right to make a claim under this Bill were of the Catholic religion; and, therefore, they had a right to have a Member upon the Commission. His hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) did not, he was sure, view this Amendment in the same light in which the hon. Member for Bradford viewed his. They meant to stick to this Amendment, and to carry it if they could; and if they succeeded in their object they intended to force the Government to grant further reforms.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he wished to point out to a limited number of Members the consequence of the vote they might give upon this question. The question was as to whether there should be a Catholic on the Commission or not; and he would draw the attention of the hon. Member for Stalybridge (Mr. Summers), and other Members from Lancashire districts who professed Radical principles—[Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Do not go into that.] The hon. Member for Galway asked him not to go into this matter; but the hon. Member had been a Radical himself at one time. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR.: And so were

    875
    you.] It was true he had been a Radical, and he hoped the hon. Member was as sorry for his old profession as he was. He regretted ever having given support to the Liberal Party. He would call upon hon. Members opposite, who represented constituencies largely composed of Catholics, to vote for this Amendment. He would ask those hon. Gentlemen to remember, and he would ask the Catholics of Lancashire to remember, that the Solicitor General gave as the Government objection to the Amendment that the Government had already appointed a Catholic Judge on the Bench. Mr. Justice Mathew and Mr. Justice Day had won their promotion in spite of their religion, and net because of it. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad to hear that cheer from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that those gentlemen had won their promotion despite their religion; and now, forsooth, the hon. and learned Gentleman threw this fact in the face of Catholic Members when they were asked to put a Catholic on the Charity Commission. He would ask who put the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General on the Front Opposition Bench opposite—what votes had placed him on the Treasury Bench but the Irish Catholic votes of Durham? Therefore, what presumption it was for him to come and throw in their teeth that a Catholic had been placed upon the Bench. He trusted that the Irish electors and the Catholic electors, not alone of Lancashire but of Durham, would remember this at the next election. He trusted that the vote the Government gave to-night upon this question would be remembered against Liberal Members who seemed to be anti-Irish and anti-Catholic.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 14; Noes 61: Majority 47. — (Div. List, No. 241.)
    Clause agreed to.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is that Clauses 4, 5, and 6—
    MR. CALLAN: I want to know, Mr. Chairman, whether you are not in error in dealing in this way with a Bill which is seriously contested? ["Order, order!"] I am in Order in asking whe-
    876
    ther it is right to put these clauses en bloc?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The course is perfectly in Order, as there are no Amendments to these clauses. Each clause is named separately and slowly, so as to give any hon. Member who chose an opportunity of proposing an Amendment. The Question is, that Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 be added to the Bill.
    Clauses agreed to.
    Clause 14 (Provisions to be inserted in schemes relating to parishes in Second Schedule to this Act).
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment in page 6, line 28, leave out all after "thereto" to end of line 38, and insert—
    "With the consent of the trustees to declare by a scheme under this Act that it is desirable to apply for the advancement of education the whole or any part of such property, and thereupon the same shall be deemed to be an educational endowment, and may be dealt with by the same scheme accordingly."
    The effect of the Amendment would be this. In the City, besides the ecclesiastical endowments, which had a certain amount of utility, and which could be applied within the parishes for which they were established, there was also a large amount of surplus or useless ecclesiastical funds — money left, for instance, for the preaching of a sermon annually on the defeat of the Spanish Armada, on the discovery of the Guy Fawkes conspiracy, and for the purchase of fagots for burning heretics, all of which had become obsolete; and there were others which, though they were not obsolete, applied to areas which had so shrunk as to render it impossible to apply the money. Everyone knew that the City was full of small parishes, which had endowments which had become entirely obsolete. In the Endowed Schools Act of 1869 this clause he was now proposing had been in principle adopted. It was provided in that Act that if any fund became obsolete for the purpose for which it was originally granted, or if the parish had become so large that the money could not be usefully applied to it, power was taken, with the consent of the trustees, to apply the funds to education. His proposal was that where charities of this kind existed in the City, and there were surplus funds which could not possibly be applied within the

    877
    parishes, the principle adopted in the Endowed Schools Act should operate, and the money should be devoted to unsectarian education. The answer might be given to him that the contrary principle of applying ecclesiastical endowments over the area of greater London which were intended for the City had been adopted in the case of the City churches. In that case, however, the endowments were a portion of the general ecclesiastical establishment of the Church of England as by law established. They were part of then general ecclesiastical property of the Church, just like the property of the Deans and Chapters. But these charities were not part of the ecclesiastical property of the Church of England, and in many cases it was quite accidental that there were Church bequests.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 28, to leave out all the words after the word "thereto," to end of line 38, in order to insert the words "with the consent of the trustees to declare by a scheme under this Act that it is desirable to apply for the advancement of education the whole or any part of such property, and thereupon the same shall be deemed to be an educational endowment, and may be dealt with by the same scheme accordingly."—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that these funds, which were left for the purpose of burning heretics and things of that kind, were to be inherited by the Church of England; but what right had the Church of England to them? Surely such funds ought to be devoted to the purposes of education, so that the people might be instructed how wrong it was to burn heretics or anybody else. There was no reason in the world why the Church of England, which already owned vast millions of property which belonged to the nation, should be endowed with further powers and emoluments. He would infinitely rather vote these funds to the Catholic Church, or the Quakers, or any single section in the world than to the Church of England; because the Church of England was the one sect that held, and insisted on retaining, property which belonged to the whole nation. It was all very well to bring on Bills of this importance in the small hours of the morning, when the
    878
    reporters were not present, or, at any rate, were not reporting the proceedings of the House; but they ought, he thought, to seriously consider whether they should allow, either now or at any other time, such abominable proposals as were contained in this Bill to become law? He had no doubt that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had put these proposals in the Bill in the hope that he would acquire votes by so doing; but, at any rate, the hon. Member, by this course, had not succeeded in acquiring his (Mr. Labouchere's) vote. He thought the whole subject should be discussed more seriously than it had been up to the present. He protested against the Church of England holding the money bags which belonged to the nation; and so long as he had the honour of a seat in the House, whenever he heard of an attempt, direct or indirect, to give the Church of England one single farthing more than it had a right to possess, he should do his best to oppose the proposal. And when he heard any proposal in that House to deprive the Church of England of that which it at present possessed, he should always do his best to support it.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, there was a clause in the Bill which directed the Commissioners to ascertain what was ecclesiastical and what was not. It was not proposed to give to the Church of England anything which it did not now possess.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he was afraid the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had not had much experience of the claims made by the Church of England.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 30: Majority 17. — (Div. List, No. 242.)
    MR. FIRTHproposed, in page 6, line 30, to leave out all after "applied to," to "generally to," in line 34, inclusive. The Committee having decided that these funds should not be brought under the same provisions as those which were contemplated in the Endowed Schools Act, he supposed the funds were now to be applied for the purpose of the Church of England. His Amendment provided that there should not be constituted new vested interests which might require to be compensated. If the time should come when the Church was disendowed it

    879
    would be necessary to compensate the interests it was by this Bill proposed to create.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 30, to leave out all the words after the words "applied to" to the words "generally to," in line 34, inclusive.—(Mr. Firth.)
    Question proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment, in favour of which he voted in the Select Committee. He was obliged, however, to stand by the Bill as it now appeared; and he was bound to say it seemed to him to represent all that could be carried.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he hoped the Committee would decide in favour of this Amendment. It was a great mistake to suppose that the Amendment had anything to do with the Disestablishment of the Church of England. The Amendment would simply prevent the building of new churches, and the establishment of poverty-stricken ministers, in districts where they were not required. In point of fact, this was a question of the exercise of common sense in the application of the funds.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he thought they might very fairly and wisely leave it to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to say how the money should be spent.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 32: Majority 6. — (Div. List, No. 243.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 15 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 19 (Commissioners need not specify in scheme the precise objects to which general charity property shall be applied).
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, this clause provided that Commissioners should not specify in the scheme they drew up the precise objects to which the charity should be applied. It seemed to him such a provision as that was one of the most mischievous which could possibly be inserted in a Bill of this description. They knew perfectly well that most of these charities, because "ill
    880
    gotten, go ill." If this clause were passed unamended it might reasonably be concluded that the door would be opened to fraud and misapplication of charity funds. He, therefore, proposed to omit the word "not," in line 42, so that the clause should provide that the Commissioners should be bound to specify in every scheme the precise objects to which the charities were to be applied.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better negative the whole clause, for the omission of the word "not" would really negative the clause.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the clause read as follows:—"Shall not be bound to specify." His hon. Friend merely proposed to omit the word "not."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, his object was to insist upon the Commissioners doing what the clause now said they should not do.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he would put the Question as the hon. Gentleman wished.
    Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 42, to leave out the word "not."—(Mr. Arthur O' Connor.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'not' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the omission of the word "not" would make the clause nonsense.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether it would not be competent, in case the Amendment were carried, to propose consequential Amendments upon it when they came to a later part of the clause?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, it would be competent for the hon. Gentleman to move consequential Amendments.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. A. O'Connor) would, on further consideration, see that the clause was not open to the objection he raised. The form of the clause was common to Bills of this kind, and the object was to prevent the Commissioners being obliged to specify everything with great exactness. The clause was not intended to admit of laxity.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that if it were feared they would, by omitting the word "not," be laying down for the Commissioners too hard-and-fast a line, it would be better to omit the clause altogether. The clause, as it stood, would

    881
    allow the Commissioners to play ducks and drakes with the funds at their disposal. Although all the Commissioners might be members of the Church of England they ought not to have such power.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 20 to 45, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 46 (Schemes to contain no preference for any religious denomination).
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, the Amendment he had now to propose was one which be believed would be accepted by his hon. Friend (Mr. Bryce). It was to leave out, in page 16, line 2, "to the members," and insert, "by the deed of foundation to the spiritual purposes."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, line 2, to leave out the words "to the members," and insert the words "by the deed of foundation to the spiritual purposes."—(Mr. Illingworth.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. BRYCEassented to the Amendment.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Bryce) to consider whether this was not a departure from the arrangement arrived at. He had understood that the Bill was to be carried through the House in the same form in which, after serious discussion, it came from the Select Committee. This Amendment would effect a substantial change, because it proposed to divert the charities which were, by their foundation, expressly devoted to the temporal relief of members of the Church of England, or, indeed, of any other denomination. He could not understand why the appropriation of charities should not be respected as much in temporal as in spiritual matters.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. J. G. Talbot) would not divide upon this Amendment. The Amendment proposed really expressed the intention of' the Select Committee. The hon. Member would remember that he (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) had a clause on the Paper to prevent the attaching of any denominational character to any of
    882
    the schemes. It was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) and others that it was quite possible there might be a Quaker or Jewish foundation; and if his clause were carried it might compel the Commissioners to take those foundations and throw them into the hotch-potch, and thereupon the clause as it stood was drafted on the spur of the minute; but the Amendment was needed to make the intention of the Committee clear.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 47 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Preamble to the Bill."
    MR. O'SHEAsaid, he had no wish to oppose the passing of the Bill; but he desired to give some Member of the Government an opportunity to state that no further legislation would be attempted after this Bill, and for that purpose he would move that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O' Shea.)
    MR. HEALYsaid, the hon. Member for Clare had usually supported the Government, and yet the Government did not think it necessary to give him a civil answer to a civil question. On the previous night, at about half-past 1 o'clock, the Irish Members had made a proposal to the Government as to the necessity fer reporting Progress on the Estimates, in order that some understanding might be come to upon some other matters. They got an understanding from the Government that they would not proceed with any important Bill at that hour; and if it was too late then to proceed, how much stronger reason was there against proceeding now? The Irish Members had assisted in a considerable amount of legislation on the part of English Members; and he thought it was only right that English Members should show the same consideration to them. Any attempt to pro-

    883
    teed further with legislation to-night would only lead to a prolonged wrangle.
    MR. COURTNEYpointed out that the adoption of the Motion to report Progress would lead to the consideration at once of the next Motion.
    MR. HEALYprotested against this method of treating the House, and said he thought a Division should be taken. He did not wish to put the Committee to inconvenience; but was it worth while to keep up this humbug under the New Rules
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, there was no Member of the Government present, and he thought it would be only respectful to the Committee that some Member of the Government should be present. Hon. Members having assisted the Government, they were entitled to have a definite answer from the Government, or else they should refuse to allow Business to go on.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he was no advocate of this Bill; but he wished to point out that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had conducted it through the House with great courtesy. All the Amendments had been got through; the Bill had been before the House for a long time, and he thought it would be better to dispose of it to-night.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) would not persist in his Motion. The only question was, whether the Preamble of the Bill should be agreed to? Several hours had been spent on the Bill; and as soon as the Bill was through the Government would state what course they would take.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that, if this sort of conduct on the part of the Government was to be allowed, the procedure of the House would no longer be creditable.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, who had now used improper and disorderly language, was the very Gentleman who shortly before had declined to make any statement as to the Business of the House, because it would be contrary to the Now Rules.
    THE CHAIRMAN: No words reached me which I considered out of Order. The Question is, that I now report Progress.
    Motion, by leave withdrawn.
    884
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  MOTIONS.
    CONSTABULARY AND POLICE ADMINISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.

      MOTION FOR LEAVE.
      COLONEL NOLANmoved the adjournment of the House, on the ground that such an important Bill as this should not be taken at this hour, especially as the Government Bench was deserted.
      COLONEL ALEXANDERsupported the Motion, observing that the House had now been sitting over 14 hours.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Colonel Nolan.)
      MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Motion he had to propose was for leave to introduce this Bill, and that was a Motion which was usually made at any hour, and which was generally allowed to be made as a matter of courtesy. He appealed to hon. Members to allow him to do what he had always endeavoured to allow them to do—namely, to lay their Bills before the House.
      MR. HEALYsaid, it was quite true that the Government had given facilities to private Members for the introduction of Bills which did not excite general interest; but he could not give approval to the right hon. Gentleman on that account. This Bill was one of enormous public importance to Ireland, and one upon which the fate of Ireland for a century would depend. He wished to let a little light in upon this matter. About 1 o'clock yesterday morning, Irish Members agreed to let the Government have a little money, so far as Ireland was concerned, on the understanding that this Bill would not be brought in. But what happened? Lord Spencer was angry, and he told the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland on no account to let this morning pass without bringing in this Bill. That was the state of the facts.
      MR. TREVELYANsaid, the story was utterly untrue, and he could not believe that the hon. Member credited it.
      MR. J. G. TALBOTasked whether it was competent for the hon. Member

      885
      to discuss these matters on the Question now before the House?
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is bound to speak to the Question before the House.
      MR. HEALYsaid, he would speak to the point of Order, which he had been going to speak to when interrupted by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford. He would ask the Speaker whether he had not, on a previous occasion, ruled that the statement that an assertion of an hon. Member was utterly untrue was out of Order? He could refresh the right hon. Gentleman's memory.
      MR. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman has attributed want of truth to an hon. Member he is out of Order.
      MR. HEALYsaid, as to the point raised by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, he wished to say that in any remarks he had been making he had only followed the statement so far as he could of the right hon. Gentleman. As the right hon. Gentleman said that Earl Spencer did not make this remark to him, he would withdraw the suggestion. But if it were as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, why were the Government anxious to introduce the Bill to-night? Why would not Monday afternoon be good enough? When a Motion was made on Friday night, as hon. Members would remember, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself had stated that 12 o'clock at night was quite late enough for Gentlemen to be out of bed; and, surely, therefore, Monday night would be early enough for them to introduce this Bill. The debate on Monday could be adjourned at midnight, or at I o'clock on Tuesday morning, and then the right hon. Gentleman would have his opportunity. It was not reasonable to introduce the Bill at an hour when not a single word of the debate could be reported in the newspapers. It was not reasonable to ask the House to sit up beyond the present hour to hear a statement on the question. He would ask English hon. Gentlemen how they would like to be treated in this way if they were in a minority, and the Irish Members were in a majority in that House? Would they not think that the Irish Members were tyrannical and hardhearted if, under such circumstances, they did not give English Members the
      886
      opportunity Irish Members were now asking for? English Members did not understand the feeling of the Irish people on this matter, otherwise they would not insist upon sitting up to any hour in the morning to have the Bill introduced. If the right hon. Gentleman insisted, of course, as the Irish Members were a mere fractional part of the House, he would be able to ignore their wishes; but, at the same time, such action would lead to very regrettable scenes. If the Bill were a desirable one the right hon. Gentleman would have a fair opportunity of showing it to the country on Monday, for the papers would be able to report it.
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought that at 4 o'clock in the morning it was generally understood that no contentious matter should be taken. He would not enter into the question as to whether the Bill should be discussed or not at this hour. Hon. Members from Ireland thought the measure most important, and unquestionably they intended to discuss the first reading. Should they, therefore, be called upon to do so when there were no reporters present, or when the reporters were not exercising their ordinary functions, at 4 o'clock in the morning? The right hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, himself admit that of late Irish Business had gone off most satisfactorily, and this was not likely to be the case if the course the Government were at present adopting were persisted in. They knew how action of this kind would be resisted by English Members if this were an English instead of an Irish Bill of great importance.
      MR. O'BRIENsaid, they had been about four hours over the Parochial Charities Bill. No doubt there were some very important points in that measure, and hon. Members did not begrudge the time which had been devoted to them; but they certainly thought that the liberties of the people of Ireland were at least as important as the provisions of that Bill. He must protest against this system of dealing with the liberties of the people of Ireland in this nocturnal way at 4 o'clock in the morning. [Laughter.] He meant at 4 o'clock in the morning. They had had a forecast to-day of a Scotch Saturday. If Her Majesty's Government were not able to do their Business at reason-

      887
      able hours, let them give them an Irish Saturday.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he felt compelled to say a word or two, as some of the language of the Chief Secretary for Ireland partook of the character almost of personal reference to him.
      MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had not been referring to the hon. Member's Bill, but to two other Bills—the Sea Fisheries (Ireland), and the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Act (1874) Amendment Bills.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman would have been justified in saying that he had also facilitated a third Bill—namely, the Labourers' (Ireland) Bill, of which he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had happened to be in charge. So far as the right hon. Gentleman claimed credit to having allowed the introduction of these Irish Bills, as a matter of courtesy they gave him every credit for that. He had co-operated with Irish Members with regard to these Bills; but he did it on two conditions on his side and theirs, the condition on his side being that lie approved of the principles of the Bills he facilitated. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to say that he had facilitated by one hour the passage of Bills the principle of which he objected to. Irish Members, on their part, had accepted the facilities the right hon. Gentleman had given to them on the understanding that they had liberty of action as to Bills they did not agree with. They were not to be supposed to be willing to barter away their rights and their liberties as to their action on Bills they strongly opposed. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a matter of courtesy to allow Members, whether private or official, to take the first stage of a Bill; but that was not the question here. The question was, whether a Member should be allowed to take the first stage of a Bill, which was to be stoutly contested, at five minutes to 4 o'clock in the morning? He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to give a single instance of the first stage of a Bill to which strong objection was taken being allowed, by courtesy or otherwise, at five minutes to 4 in the morning. The question really was, whether the first reading of a strongly-opposed Bill should be permitted at this hour? He would put it to hon. Members on the
      888
      other side of the House—to Liberal Members—whether they would permit the Government to tyrannize over the Irish Members on this question? Hon. Members on those Benches would surely give credit to the Irish Members who had sat up for three hours attempting to improve the Parochial Charities Bill. He would express his astonishment and surprise at the way in which hon. Members on that (the Conservative) side of the House, whatever their interests might be, joined in what, if it were not effected on the floor of the House, might be described as intrigues and conspiracies to assist the Government whenever the liberties of Ireland were affected.
      MR. SPEAKER: I must request the hon. Member to confine himself to the Question before the House, which is the adjournment of the House.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would tell the Chief Secretary that the Bill lie was now endeavouring to smuggle through the House at this hour was a measure to which the Irish Members were determined to offer most strenuous opposition at every stage. There was another argument in favour of the adjournment of the House. They were informed, by an important Government functionary, that the Leadership of the House was in commission. That was a statement made within the hearing of the House, and within the last 20 or 25 minutes; and, in order to prove the accuracy of the statement, an hon. Member on the Treasury Bench had indulged in an exhibition of temper—he would call it that rather than an aberration of judgment.
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now referring to what took place in Committee; and he is, therefore, irregular.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was referring to a statement which had been made in Committee; but it was one relating to the Business of the House at that moment; and, à fortiori, he should think it would apply to the discussion of the Business 20 or 25 minutes from that period. He did not think a question of this kind should be brought forward when they had no Cabinet Minister present. How did they know but that the Prime Minister, if he were in his place, would not throw over his subordinate and agree to an adjournment? He certainly thought the right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) would lose nothing

      889
      by postponing the introduction of this Bill.
      MR. O'SHEAsaid, he did not think the Chief Secretary could accuse him for having endeavoured to prevent him from endeavouring to bring in this Bill; on the contrary, he had put Question after Question in the House for weeks past, endeavouring to urge on the right hon. Gentleman to introduce the measure, so that Irish Members might have an opportunity of seeing what it contained. He had taken great interest in this matter, and was anxious to see the Bill introduced; but the reason he supported the adjournment was because he did not think that the Bill could go before the country if introduced at such a late hour. The Dublin papers were now being published; and if the Bill were proceeded with now, the result would be that they would be transacting Business which would be materially affecting the Constabulary Force in Ireland, in which the people of Ireland, rightly or wrongly—he could not say which—took the most intense interest. He was perfectly certain that neither he himself, nor any Irish Member in the House, wished to prevent the Bill being brought in and discussed if it were introduced at a reasonable hour. They were perfectly willing to listen to any interesting statement of the right hon. Gentleman, if he would only make it at an hour when not only Members of Parliament could have the benefit of the information the right hon. Gentleman gave them, but when the country could have the benefit of it as well. No doubt a second edition of the Dublin papers would be published with some account of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but the report would not be a full and fair one; and, under all these circumstances, considering what had been done here to-night and the Business that had been transacted, and considering also the hour, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see that the request he made to him was a reasonable one, and that he would defer the introduction of the Bill until such day as he could bring it on at a reasonable hour.
      MR. DAWSONsaid, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would see that, in addition to the reasons brought forward by other hon. Members, he might be allowed to adduce some others as taking
      890
      great interest in the City of Dublin, whose Police Force was to be reformed by this Bill. To his mind it would be deplorable if a Bill of such vital importance were introduced at a moment when it was impossible for the people of Ireland to be placed in possession of the details of the proposed legislation. He did not think it was consonant with the ordinary courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman to insist upon going on with the Bill now; and he (Mr. Dawson) called upon him to accede to the very moderate and reasonable request of hon. Members to put off the introduction of his measure to such an hour when they would be able to discuss it as it deserved, and when the discussion could be reported to the country. If the right hon. Gentleman persisted in his present course, he would very largely undo a great deal that he had done in Ireland, and in his Office, to make himself agreeable to the people. It would be a very serious matter if he should, by any kind of force, endeavour to push this Bill forward. He was sure that it was only necessary to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, under the circumstances, to accede to the adjournment of the debate.
      MR. R. POWERsaid, the present was a most extraordinary way of dealing with Business of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman had always professed his anxiety to conciliate Irish Members upon Irish questions, and on a great many occasions, no doubt, he had done so. On the present occasion, however, they had come to a Bill of the very greatest importance to the people of Ireland, for it was on a subject in which they had taken a great deal of interest. They had come to a Bill which concerned the Police Force of Ireland, and what did the right hon. Gentleman do? Why, notwithstanding that he found every Irish Member of the House in favour of an adjournment, notwithstanding that he had failed to get support from any single Irish Member, and notwithstanding that he had declared his anxiety to govern Ireland according to Irish ideas, and that he was urged to postpone the Bill until Monday, at a time when their speeches could be fully reported, he got up and said he was going to insist upon having the Bill read a first time. Although he had heard many appeals made to Chief Secretaries without avail, and although he

      891
      knew it was almost useless attempting to move any of those right hon. Gentlemen by appeal, yet the matter was so serious on this occasion that he would make an appeal, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to making an exception to the ordinary rule in yielding to it.
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had asked that the Bill should be brought on at a reasonable hour on some other night; but the hon. Gentleman must know that Notices of Motion always came after the Orders of the Day; and, therefore, to whatever day this Bill was put off, it would be very questionable whether the Government would be able to bring it on at an early period of the evening.
      COLONEL NOLAN: Could they not bring it on on Tuesday?
      MR. COURTNEY: No. The hon. and gallant Member forgets that the House has determined that for the rest of the Session Orders of the Day have precedence on Tuesdays also. He would, however, throw out this suggestion, which, if adopted, might succeed in bringing the measure on before 1 o'clock. Of course, he could not fix any particular hour for the resumption of the debate; but he would make this proposal. If the hon. and gallant Member would withdraw his Motion, and permit the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to move for leave to introduce his Bill, and then, after that Motion had been put, without explanation let them adjourn the discussion, the adjournment would make the question an Order of the Day, and the debate could then be resumed at a reasonable hour.
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, that he should be very glad to accept this proposal, and would, therefore, withdraw his Motion.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the administration of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police; and for other purposes connected with the said forces."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "'That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Arthur O' Connor.)
      Motion agreed to.
      Debate adjourned till Monday next.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    BANKRUPTCY [SALARIES].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of sums, by way of remuneration, to Clerks of the Crown and Peace in Ireland, for additional duties which may be imposed upon them under the provisions of any Act of the Present Session to amend and consolidate the Law of Bankruptcy.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE [FUNDS, &C.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the liability of the Consolidated Fund to make good to the suitors of the Court, the moneys and securities transferred to the account of the Paymaster General, on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, which may be incurred under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for Consolidating the Accounting Departments of the Supreme Court of Judicature.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

    REVENUE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES [ADVANCES BY NATIONAL DEBT COMMISSIONERS.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (in the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the National Debt Commissioners to make advances for the redemption of Annuities payable for charitable purposes in England and Wales, which are now charged on the Consolidated Fund, or moneys to be provided by Parliament, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to the Customs and Inland Revenue, and to reduce the interest payable on investments of Friendly Societies, and to make other provision respecting charges payable out of the Public Revenue. Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Four o'clock in the morning till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) * (157); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) * (158); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) * (159); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7)* (160); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9)* (161); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 10) * (162); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 11)* (163).
Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 4) *.
Committee—Report—Prison Service (Ireland) * (145).
Report—Companies Acts Amendment* (148).
Third Reading—Sea Fisheries (Ireland)* (146), and passed.

LONDON COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERS (VENTILATION OF RAILWAYS) BILL AND METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (DISTRICT RAILWAY) BILL.

  MOTION FOR INSTRUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Motion of the Lord Wemyss; viz.—
  "That in view of the fact that many millions of the working classes of London are compelled habitually to travel on the Metropolitan District Railway, and that their health and convenience is greatly dependent upon the improved means of ventilation recently provided by the railway company under powers granted by Parliament after full inquiry before Committees of both Houses, it be an instruction to
  688
  the Committee to whom the said Bills are referred to allow the attendance before them and take the evidence of the representatives of the London Trades Council, and such other associated bodies as the Committee may desire, in order that the case of the working men may be fully heard, provided a petition from such council or other associated bodies be presented to the House;"
  read.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in moving to discharge the Order for the Adjourned Debate, said, he had received a letter from Mr. Shipton, the Secretary of the London Trades Council, announcing that an arrangement had been made to enable that body to be heard before the Committee, and thanking their Lordships for their grateful recognition and generous reception of the proposition made on their behalf in this matter.
  Moved, "That the said Order be discharged."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  On Question? Resolved in the affirmative.
  Order discharged.

PUBLIC HEALTH — PRECAUTIONS AGAINST CHOLERA.—QUESTION.
EARL DE LA WARRasked the Representative of the Local Government Board, Whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps, by imposing quarantine or otherwise, to guard against the introduction of cholera into this country? The noble Lord could, perhaps, state whether the sanitary authorities of any port had the power of imposing quarantine; also, as regards restrictions upon the importation of rags from Eastern ports, by which the infection might be introduced; also, if there was any truth in the report that a fatal case of cholera had occurred in Wales, and one also at the London Docks?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with regard to the first Question of the noble Earl, I think I had better read to the House the opinion of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council, Mr. Simons. Mr. Simons, in 1879, pointed out that—
"A quarantine which is ineffective is a mere irrational derangement of commerce, and a quarantine of the kind which insures success is more easily imagined than realized … Quarantine purporting to be effectual cannot rest satisfied with excluding from entry such persons as are obviously sick, but indispensably for its purpose must also refuse to admit the healthy till they shall have passed in perfectly

689
non-infectious circumstances at least as many days of probation as the disease can have days of incubation or latency …. In 1832–3, when some sort of quarantine against cholera was adopted here, the results gave no encouragement to a repetition …. The thought of quarantine in England became more and more obsolete, and the possibility of enforcing it, if ever so much desired, fell more and more towards nothingness. …. I dare say that quarantine in England was never otherwise than very lax. At all events, for many years past it has, in a medical sense, been abolished. … England, which long ago abandoned the system as of any avail against cholera, has now the consent of most European nations (as expressed by their Delegates to the Vienna Conference of 1874), in preferring for the defence of her ports another system which, under the name of ' medical inspection,' aims at obtaining the seclusion of actually infected persons, and the disinfection of ships and of articles that may have received infection from the sick."
Under these circumstances, I think I may say that the Government has no intention of returning to the quarantine system. With regard to the latter part of the noble Earl's Question, I may say that there is nothing in the record of deaths from aggravated cases of diarrhœa to cause any uneasiness. Three cases since the disease has appeared in Egypt have been specially reported. The first was that of a man employed to clean sewers at Shoeburyness on July 8; the second, a stableman, at Kensington, on July 17; the third, a fatal case in Wales, on the 25th of July. There is no reason whatever for supposing that the cholera of the nature that attacked Egypt is present in London.

EGYPT—CHOLERA AMONGST BRITISH TROOPS.—QUESTION.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHasked whether the Government had any further information to communicate to the House in reference to the number of British soldiers attacked with cholera in Egypt?
THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I am sorry to say that the information the noble Lord desires had not arrived when I left the War Office; but I will read to the House the latest telegram on the subject—
"From the General Officer commanding in Egypt, to the Secretary of State for War. Dated Cairo, July 27. (Received 27th of July.) Health of Cornwall Regiment improving. Total admissions for cholera — two officers and 34 men. Deaths—two officers and 23 men. Deaths since yesterday's telegram—Lieutenant Croft, R.A., and eight men, whose names and numbers will be given."

PARLIAMENT — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER — HOUSE OF LORDS — THE PEERS' ROBING ROOM.

  OBSERVATIONS.,
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, the Robing Room was the only part of the Westminster Palace in which the wall paintings were left in a fragmentary and lop-sided condition, urgently requiring completion. The subjects to be illustrated in this apartment were Law and Judgment; the Law given on Mount Sinai; the Beatitudes delivered on the Mount; the Judgment of Daniel and of Solomon; only half were on the walls. Although Mr. Herbert had no legal claim, he was the proper person to receive the commission, as long as his powers of execution continued. He had devoted many years of anxious and laborious study to the designs of the remaining pictures, and to the accumulation of appropriate materials. His "Moses" had impressed multitudes, and had commanded the admiration of the most competent authorities; and it would not be easy to fix upon anyone to whom the commission could so safely be intrusted.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he thought that Mr. Herbert had been very badly treated in this matter. On the understanding that he was to execute the whole of the paintings for the Peers' Robing Room, Mr. Herbert had de, voted much time to the study of the subjects for those pictures. He had, moreover, refused some very good offers of commissions from the Colonies, and also from Berlin; and now it appeared that after all his studies and preparations the agreement entered into with Mr. Herbert was not to be carried out.
  LORD THURLOW, in reply, said, he feared he should be compelled to enter into some details in order that their Lordships might be able to form a correct judgment on the matter. The circumstances of the case, so far as they could be gathered from the Correspondence in the Office of Works, were as follows:—The Fine Arts Commissioners in 1850 entered into au agreement with Mr. Herbert, whereby he was to paint a series of nine pictures at a cost of £9,000. The time for completion was to be not less than 10 years. The estimated proportional cost of these pictures varied. The large one of "Moses com-

  691
  ing down from the Mount" was put at £2,000. The "Judgment of Daniel" at £1,800. The "Judgment of Solomon" at £1,800, and "Daniel in the Lions' Den" at £566. Mr. Herbert was to paint these pictures in the Peers' Robing Room; but it was not until 1858—that was to say, eight years after the agreement was signed—that the room was completed in its interior decoration and ready for his occupancy. In 1863 the Fine Arts Commission dissolved, and it then devolved upon the Office of Works to carry on the arrangements in this matter. In 1864 Mr. Herbert, who had completed the great picture of "Moses coming down from Mount Sinai," asked for a reconsideration of the remuneration he ought to receive by reason of his having to adopt instead of fresco painting, which had proved a failure, the newly-discovered process of water glass painting, which would lead to an indefinite prolongation of the time, labour, and necessary cost of completing the work. The matter was referred to the Treasury, which ordered an inquiry into the arrangements made between Mr. Herbert and the Fine Arts Commissioners. This inquiry resulted in a sum of £3,000 being given to Mr. Herbert, in addition to the £2,000 already paid to him for the Moses picture; and a further agreement was made in the early part of 1866 for the completion of the "Judgment of Daniel." By this agreement it was stipulated that £4,000 in all was to be paid for that picture, and it was to be completed within three and a-half years from that date. The original agreement for the series of nine paintings was then cancelled by a Treasury letter, and Mr. Herbert gave a distinct assurance that he would make no further claim unless the other pictures were proceeded with under a fresh contract. Although, under the agreement of 1866, the "Judgment of Daniel" was to be completed in 1869, it was not until 1880, and after considerable pressure had been brought to bear upon Mr. Herbert from various quarters, that the picture was finally completed and handed over to the First Commissioner of Works. Under these circumstances, and inasmuch as the water glass process, which had been adopted, not only proved very much more costly in execution than the previous fresco painting that had been contracted for, but also caused an in-
  692
  definite amount of delay, he regretted that it was not in his power to hold out to the noble Lord any assurance, or, indeed, any hope that the Office of Works would now call on Mr. Herbert to execute the original designs.
  LORD EMLYsaid, he deeply regretted the course taken by the Office of Works. The work that had been already executed by Mr. Herbert was a credit to him and also to the country; and it was a great pity that for the sake of some further small sum of money they should not take advantage of Mr. Herbert's great ability and of the studies which he had made. He thought it a disgrace to leave the Robing Room in its present unfinished state. No doubt, Mr. Herbert had no legal claim upon the Government for the completion of the work; but he thought he ought to be dealt with generously, considering he had refused other orders so that he might undertake this work, including an order from the Colony of Victoria worth £11,000. For the sake of Art, for the sake of the dignity of that House, and on account of the moral claim which Mr. Herbert had, he deeply regretted the answer given by the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he agreed with the observations of the noble Lord who had just sat down. He trusted the Government would reconsider this question, and not adopt a view which would be singularly ungenerous to Mr. Herbert, and inexpedient in a public point of view. On the noble Lord's own showing, the delays in the completion of the pictures were mainly due to the adoption of the new process in painting, which was urged upon Mr. Herbert by the late Prince Consort; which Mr. Herbert undertook at great expense, and which led him to repaint the Moses picture. When the question of Mr. Herbert's remuneration came before the House of Commons, the feeling was so strong in favour of the work that both Parties urged an increase of price; and he believed Mr. Bright himself pressed upon the Government the desirability of increasing the price of the work. Both on the grounds of fairness to Mr. Herbert, and of public expediency, he thought it would be a great misfortune if the pictures were not completed. He believed that the principle upon which the agreements with Mr. Herbert were entered into was

  693
  that he should be the person to complete the work; and he thought Mr. Herbert had a strong claim upon the ground of the time and labour employed, and of the devotion with which he had undertaken the work. Those who knew Mr. Herbert were aware that he had thrown himself heart and soul into that work, and had, indeed, sacrificed private interests to it. He himself knew of instances in which Mr. Herbert had declined lucrative commissions in order that he might be able to devote himself to this work. He desired to make the following suggestion. The walls of the Robing Room were divided into four large panels and three or four smaller ones. Two of the large panels had been filled in, one with "Moses on Mount Sinai," and the other with the "Judgment of Daniel." Two remained to be completed, and successive Governments had paid Mr. Herbert a slight instalment of his remuneration for the work. He would propose that one, if not two, of these great panels should be completed. Lately they had had different kinds of pictorial ornamentation, some good, some bad, and some indifferent; but the general consensus of opinion was that Mr. Herbert had a style essentially his own, which qualified him to rank with the greatest painters of the time of Henry VIII.; and no other hand than his ought to be allowed to interfere with the work which he had begun. His work was acknowledged to be very good, and it would be a thousand pities if it should be allowed to fall into ruin in order to save a little expenditure. The Chairman of Committees was accustomed to sit in their Lordships' Robing Room, and the work which he transacted there was a remarkable contrast in its dryness to the pictures on the walls. The same contrast existed in the great Council Chambers of Italy, where, in former times, politicians and merchants transacted their business. Mighty Governments had passed away, and the merchants had gone to dust; but on the walls the great pictures of Saints and Angels remained, to delight the present generation. In the same way the pictures in their Lordships' House wore designed to exist for a long time; and he, therefore, strongly urged that they should be completed and maintained in their harmonious integrity, unharmed and unspoiled by the inconsistencies of any other band.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he thought it would be only fair to Mr. Herbert to allow him to execute, at least, one other picture on the wall opposite to the "Judgment of Daniel."

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD, in rising to call attention to the evidence taken by the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the working of recent legislation in reference to land in Ireland; and to move—
  "That there be laid before this House, Returns, giving in each case decided by the Sub. Commission Courts, the old rent, the judicial rent, the poor law valuation, the landlord's valuation, the tenant's valuation, and, in cases heard on appeal, adding the appeal rent and the court valuer's valuation,"
  said, that the evidence on this question had been in the course of collection since the month of March in last year, and was of a most varied character, teeming throughout with extraordinary and interesting matter. He felt how impossible it was for him to deal with every point that had been brought before their Lordships' Committee in anything like a reasonable time; and he should, therefore, only attempt to draw attention to the main points of the evidence. The Land Act of 1881 had undoubtedly been a new departure, not only as regarded the tenure of land, but also as regarded the manner in which the so-called Courts of Law were to deal with a novel law in an entirely novel manner. From the evidence given before their Lordships' Committee, one would almost be led to suppose that the Act not only instituted a new law, but also introduced a new arrangement as to the manner in which legal tribunals were to deal with the subjects brought before them, which, up to the present, had been considered the giving of impartial justice to all litigants. The first point he had to call attention to in this connection was the evidence tendered about the Chief Commissioners themselves. Within the last day or so those gentlemen had published an answer to the fourth Report of their Lordships' Committee, in which they had attempted to explain some of the statements which had been made, and to give a denial to others. The Report had been framed on the evidence which their

  695
  Lordships' Committee had gathered from the Sub-Commissioners, who acted under the Chief Commissioners, and also, to a large extent, from the counsel who practised in the Courts. The Chief Commissioners had merely attempted, in their answer, to explain or deny the statements which were contained in the Report, without producing a tittle of evidence to contradict the testimony which had been placed before, the Committee. That being the case, he could hardly think that that answer would be deemed satisfactory to a series of charges which would not have been entertained by the Committee if there had not been proof positive obtained from the gentlemen who had given evidence, and who over and over again had cited different occurrences and named the occasions on which they had taken place. The answer of the Chief Commissioners had entirely glossed over that fact, and had not attempted to disprove any one of the statements. If their Lordships read the answer of the Commissioners, they would, perhaps, agree with him that they had adopted the wisest course in not asking to be examined, because had they done so it would have been necessary for them to explain the circumstances, which had been put in clear language before the Committee. In their answer the Commissioners had found fault with the Committee for not having called more officials; but it had only been on account of the repeated objections of the Chief Commissioners themselves that more officials had not been called. They had also said that the fourth Report had been framed on hostile evidence; but when he looked over the list of witnesses examined between the third and fourth Reports, he found that out of the nine gentlemen examined, four were directly connected with the administration of the Land Act, three of them being Sub-Commissioners, and one an ex-valuer. He thought their Lordships were originally under the impression that the Chief Commissioners were bound to lay down rules and certain principles for the guidance of the Sub-Commissioners' Courts. It appeared, however, from the evidence that no principles of any kind had been laid down. Mr. Litton, in his evidence, said that the Chief Commissioners bad had a conversation with the first Sub-Commissioners appointed, and that "if preposterous propositions
  696
  were made as to the fixing of a fair rent, I the Chief Commissioners rather smiled or laughed at them." That statement would be found in Answer 3,449. The Chief Commissioners had never attempted to correct the "preposterous propositions" which they had heard from Professor Baldwin were made, and had only sought to derive amusement from that which, to the landlords of Ireland at all events, was net a laughing matter. Mr. Litton had said that the Chief Commissioners had given no directions; but stated that if the Sub-Commissioners went wrong, they could be corrected on appeal. When, however, their Lordships came presently to hear how the appeals were heard, he scarcely thought they would believe that by that means there was much chance of correcting what took place. These Courts of Appeal proceeded in an entirely different manner from that adopted in the Sub-Commissioners' Courts. They did not visit the farms, but sent their valuer to do so, who arrived at a valuation without the slightest evidence before him, except what lie happened to gather from hearsay or from the tenants. They refused to have their valuer cross-examined, they refused to re-open the evidence, and they did not allow the Report of the valuer to be placed before the counsel engaged in the case; but if his estimate happened to agree with the judicial rent which was appealed against, then the Court actually tried to check appeals by reading out the evidence of the valuer without stating the Report to the counsel engaged, and asked in open Court whether, under those circumstances, they dared or were inclined to go on. Mr. Hill Smith showed, in his evidence, that by terrorizing—he could not apply to it any other word — the counsel engaged in this matter, 27 appeal cases which landlords had been put to great expense to bring up were heard in five minutes. And what did he call it? A very excellent name—a solemn judicial farce—and he ventured to say that it could not be called a re-hearing by anybody, and not even by his noble Friend opposite (Lord Carlingford). There were certain principles which ought certainly to have been laid down, in order that there should be some equality in the decisions given. But the Chief Commissioner refused to give Professor Baldwin the information he

  697
  demanded, and without which he did not think it was possible that the different Sub-Commissions could arrive at equal decisions; and Professor Baldwin went on to say — in Answer 1,015—that he thought it a frightful thing "to lot us loose on the property of landlords and tenants without instructions," and that he would have resigned if it had not been for the fact that he had already given up an appointment to become a Sub-Commissioner, so horrified had he been at the course pursued. Mr. Holmes and Mr. Hill Smith stated, in their evidence, that they found the Court most reluctant to state a ease for the High Court, and that it threw every obstacle in the way of doing so. They did not seem, by the evidence, to consider the time during which rent had been paid, the prices obtained for produce, the price at which the tenants' interest could be sold, or the facilities of railway communication; and by checking appeals and stopping them in the high-handed manner he had described, and which seemed to cause so much amusement to his noble Friend opposite (Lord Carlingford)—though he was afraid, if he had had to come before the Court, it would not have caused him much amusement—the landlords had been mulcted in heavy costs, and decisions were upheld which differed widely as to the reductions on exactly the same class of property. An extraordinary piece of evidence was put in by Mr. Hill Smith. He said that the first Sub-Commission came down to his estate and reduced the rents 4 per cent. The tenants appealed, and the reductions were confirmed, Mr. Justice O'Hagan having stated in open Court that if the landlord had applied to have his rents raised it would have been done. Here was a Court which they were told was instituted to settle fair rents, and yet the Chief of that Court would not do so unless the landlord applied. But the most curious part of this evidence was this. After that statement a second Commission came to this same estate—the farms lying exactly side by side of each other—and, with identically the same evidence before them, reduced the rents from 23 to 27 per cent. And what happened before the Court of Appeal? The landlord appealed; but this case was confirmed by Mr. Justice O'Hagan and the Court of Appeal, with costs against the landlord, although Mr.
  698
  Justice O'Hagan stated in the first case that there should be no further reduction. He could quite understand his noble Friend (Lord Carlingford) not believing it, because it seemed almost incredible—at the same time he was only stating facts. This was all the evidence he proposed to bring before them with regard to the Chief Commissioner, although there was plenty of the same class. He now came to the legal Sub-Commissioners. Very much stress had been laid upon the fact that upon each Sub-Commission a lawyer of high position was placed who would take care that the Land Act was administered according to the legal construction. Their Lordships would see from the evidence of Mr. Reeve how far that was done. Though he (the Marquess of Waterford) disapproved of the Act himself, yet he believed if it had been administered in a fair and impartial manner, as described by his noble Friend (Lord Carlingford), and the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, that not much of the hardship which had been experienced would have been caused by it to the large majority of landlords, for they had been acquitted by Mr. Gladstone, by the Bessborough Commission, and by the two noble Lords of whom he had spoken, who said that the Bill was to put clown rack-renters only. But had it done so? Were all the landlords of Ireland rack-renters? If the Act had been fairly administered the rack-renters would have been the only persons who would have suffered. Though Mr. Reeve believed that the Act ought to be administered in the way he had stated, it would be found that nothing of the kind was done, at any rate in the other Courts; and there was strong evidence that Mr. Reeve was unable to carry out those principles even in his own Court. It was a curious thing that it should have been proved by a Sub-Commissioner that the legal Sub-Commissioner was a cipher in his own Court. Did his noble Friend think that was satisfactory?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): Who says so?
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: Both Mr. Foley and Mr. Reeve. They both declared that these Commissioners were perfect ciphers in determining the rents; and Mr. Reeve stated that they depended largely upon the lay Sub-

  699
  Commissioners for the valuation, which he was unable to alter. If that was so, what was the use of the legal Sub-Commissioner? Mr. Foley said, in his evidence, that he could not tell whether the principles laid down in "Adams v. Dunseath" were carried out or not. Therefore, he must be a cipher in his own Court if he could not tell. But there was another reason, perhaps, for this. Mr. Foley said that Mr. Forster, who appointed him, told him he had nothing whatever to do with the valuation of the land. But it was on the valuation of the land that these Sub-Commissioners had to decide; and yet, if the lay Sub-Commissioners agreed as to the value, the legal Sub-Commissioners could not interfere. Mr. Foley went on to say that it was only in case of disagreement and of the evidence being all one way that he was able to remonstrate. Was that being anything more than a cipher? The most extraordinary answer given by Mr. Foley was the following—
  "I disposed my tribunal," he said, "in this way—I endeavoured to have on either side of me a gentleman whose proclivities were in favour of property."
  Fancy a Court of Law constituted by gentlemen whose proclivities were not in favour of property! He further said—
  "I have one gentleman who is in favour of the tenant."
  This was a Court of Justice! Mr. Foley further said he had to write to the Chief Commissioners to say that there was no representative of property on his Commission. He was happy to observe that Mr. Foley could add his representations were at once attended to. He could go on reading Mr. Foley's answers for a week, so interesting were they; but he should quote only one more, and it was most extraordinary—
  "Whenever I got a case in which the whole of the trustworthy evidence was in one direction, as I frequently did at Armagh, I used to say over and over again—'Are you sure you are doing right in this case?' The reduction seems to me, as a lawyer, to be very large; and," added Mr. Foley, "I could do no more."
  This was a Court of Justice! The lay Colleagues of Mr. Foley constantly gave decisions against the whole weight of evidence—a thing most extraordinary in a Court of Law. These statements had been confirmed and intensified by
  700
  the weight of evidence before the Committee; and in such circumstances he would like to ask their Lordships, and especially the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, whether Courts conducted upon those principles were likely to add much to the respect in which the legal tribunals of this country had been held by all classes; and whether there was anything more calculated to destroy or imperil the opinion which prevailed as to the impartial administration of the law than the statements he had read? The reason why questions of law did not arise was that the Sub-Commissioners merely fixed the rent without stating to the counsel engaged, or to their own legal Colleagues, the mode by which they arrived at it. As no principles were laid down, the result was that the Sub-Commissioners dealt with improvements on a perfectly different plan and scale; and, therefore, the most unequal rents were fixed on exactly the same quality of land. Professor Baldwin and Mr. Hill Smith said that these variations had produced and were producing great demoralization and dissatisfaction among the tenantry, were preventing agreements out of Court, and would inevitably lead to a fresh agitation. The Chief Commissioners, whose answers were published yesterday, admitted that uniformity of decision could not be expected under the Act. That was a curious thing to admit about Courts of Law. Mr. Chambré, an experienced land agent, stated that four different Sub-Commissioners came down to value land on the same property. The land was all of one class, and the evidence was the same in all four cases; but one Commissioner fixed the rent at 17 s. 6d. per acre, another at 11 s. per acre, another at 13 s. per acre, and the fourth at 15 s. per acre; and the most curious point of Mr. Chambré's evidence was that the land the rent of which was fixed at 178. 6d. was the worst land in the lot. By Answer No. 1,828 it was proved that a tenant who had five holdings claimed a reduction in respect of drainage. As a matter of fact, there was no drainage on his farm; and although no evidence was given as to any other improvements, the man's rent was reduced. Very extraordinary and conflicting statements were made with regard to reclamation. It was stated in Answer No. 1,768 that the rent of bog

  701
  land worth 16 s. to 17 s. an acre was reduced to 5s. 6d. an acre, although it had been let 17 years ago at 10 s. an acre for the purposes of reclamation. Mr. Holmes and Mr. Hill Smith proved that reductions were made for tenant right as well as for improvements, although the tenant right was supposed to cover all improvements. Mr. Foley said his late Colleagues did not take tenant right into consideration. That was a satisfactory statement; but Mr. Foley went on to say—"But they never lose sight of the fact that they are the tenant-right holders." Among the numerous rights granted by the Act, perhaps the most curious was the occupation right.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): No, no.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: Well, he did not mean to say that there really was such a right; but a great deal of money had been taken out of the landlords' pockets in consequence of such a believed right. Mr. Gray, who had acted as a valuer, proved that he was obliged to knock off 15 per cent for the occupation value.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): Did knock off—not "was obliged to" knock off.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: Well, Mr. Gray certainly had found himself obliged to knock it off. The Chief Commissioners treated this matter by laughing at it, and by stating that there was no reference to it in Mr. Gray's Report; but it was easily seen that this was done not by that gentleman only, but by the Sub-Commissioners who acted with him. For, after having knocked off 15 per cent for the occupation value, Mr. Gray arrived at 5 per cent higher than the judicial rent fixed by the Sub-Commissioners; and if they did not follow the same process, how did they arrive at their figures at all? The explanation of this he would leave to his noble Friend. Mr. Foley had said that a tenant right was often created by these reductions; and he thought that the evidence of a large sum having been paid was often taken as against the landlord, instead of in his favour, as it ought to be. They had evidence also that deterioration of land' by the tenant was over and over again taken into consideration, and that the tenant reaped the advantage of his own deterioration. Evidence of this
  702
  was constantly found. Professor Baldwin himself said that he valued the farms as he found them, and that it would be impossible for him to do otherwise. Therefore, a tenant who had reaped the advantage of his own deterioration of land would get another 15 per cent reduction at the end of 15 years, and probably in time he would get his rent reduced to a minus quantity. The Land Act was passed to punish rack-renters; but they were placed on a pinnacle, and the men were punished whom it was not intended to punish. The rents of the rack-renter were fixed at what would be fair rents; while the fair rents of the landlord, who had treated his tenants fairly, were reduced far below what a solvent tenant would undertake to pay. Everyone who came before the Committee admitted that the tenant's evidence was perfectly unreliable. Yet it was accepted, while that of the landlord was almost entirely disregarded. But, of all the extraordinary statements he had made, none was so extraordinary as the one he was about to bring before their Lordships. He referred to the disclosures which had been made, to the effect that the fair rent was being fixed by arithmetical calculation. The Sub-Commissioners appeared to ignore the landlords' interest. They placed on one side all such considerations as the price of produce, the position of the holding, and the amount obtainable for tenants' interest; and the answers of Mr. Hill Smith and Mr. Gray showed clearly that these Sub-Commissioners arrived at the judicial rents sometimes by taking the landlords' and the tenants' valuation, adding them together, and dividing them by two; and sometimes by taking those two valuations, plus the Poor Law valuation, and dividing them by three. That might seem incredible, but he would prove it. The figures he should quote were taken from an analysis of all the cases proved in evidence which appeared in the Appendix of the Report. And he had no doubt, from what he had heard, that if the Returns which he was moving for were granted by the Government, they would find that this system of arriving at judicial rents by an average formula had been adopted by many of the Sub-Commissions in Ireland. The first cases he would refer to occurred on four estates — the Cope, Echlin, Lord Gosford's, and the Clarke estates—and

  703
  all the decisions were given in 1882 before two different Commissions — one composed of Messrs. Fitzgerald, Cullen, and Mahony; the other, Messrs. Wylie, Cunningham, and Ellis. There were 42 cases; the gross Poor Law valuation. £727 5s.; landlord's valuation, £749 14 s. 7d.; tenant's valuation, £503 7s. 4d. Adding these three together, and dividing by three, the result brought out £660 2s. 3½d., and the judicial rent fixed was £667 3s. 6d., making a difference between the average formula in 42 cases of £7 1s. 2½d., and 19 s. 8d. must be deducted from this result for three cases in which the old rent was not altered. Therefore, the real difference in these cases was £6 1s. 6½d. In the second lot of figures the formula was arrived at by taking only two factors—the landlord's and tenant's valuations respectively. There were five estates. Lord Gosford, Messrs. Jervis, Kennedy, Williamson, and Riddle were the landlords; and there were four different Sub-Commissions, as, although Mr. Foley acted upon three of them, in each of the three cases he was assisted by two different lay Sub-Commissioners — Messrs. Davidson and Meek on one, on another Messrs. Ellis and Byers, and on a third Messrs. Montgomery and Simpson. And the fourth Sub-Commission was composed of Messrs. Wylie, Smith, and Ferguson. There were 59 cases adjudicated on, in each of which the judicial rent differed but slightly from the arithmetical mean. The landlord's valuation was £1,214 11 s. 10 d.; the tenant's valuation £828 4s. 3d. Adding those two together, and dividing by two, brought out a total of £1,021 8s.; and the judicial rents in these 59 cases were fixed at £1,021 9s. 6d. Therefore, the difference between this and the mean of the two valuations was only 1s. 6d. Was it not astounding that the decisions of Courts of Justice should be arrived at in such a manner? And was there any other proof needed of the unfairness of these Courts, which had been nominated by the Government, and kept under their control by the terms of their appointment for political purposes alone? He did not propose to deal with the important question of the Purchase Clauses, as the subject had been already dealt with this Session by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne), who he was sorry not to see in his place. On this question they had the evidence
  704
  of The O'Conor Don, just at the end of the Committee's labours, in which he told of the difficulties he experienced in attempting to sell £3,000 worth of his property to his tenants, which showed the absolute necessity there was that something should he done to improve those Purchase Clauses, else it would be perfectly impossible to establish any peasant proprietors in the country. In what he had said he had dealt with the administration of the Land Act, and he did not attempt to deal with the Land Act itself. Their Lordships were well aware that, though he opposed the Act, he had, with the exception of the necessary amendment of the Purchase Clauses, accepted it as a final settlement of the Land Question in Ireland. But great changes for the better might be made in its administration; and he would now proceed shortly to point out how some of those changes could be effected, so as to insure that justice might be done to landlord and tenant alike, without interfering with, but rather carrying out, the principles laid down in that measure. In the first place, he believed it was absolutely necessary that a Code of Instructions should be carefully drawn up by the Chief Commissioners, and they should lay down the principles upon which judicial rents should be ascertained. That he thought necessary in order to produce uniformity amongst the decisions of the numerous Sub-Commissioners throughout all parts of Ireland. Secondly, he thought that the reasons for the alteration of the existing rent should be clearly stated in Court by the legal Sub-Commissioners in each case decided, so that the legal Sub-Commissioner might show that he was doing his duty, and was not the mere cipher that he (the Marquess of Waterford) had shown him to be; and that also the same thing should be done at the rehearing before the Chief Commissioners' Court. In the third place, the originating notice should have affixed to it a Schedule of the improvements claimed by the tenants; and the Ordnance map of the holding should be handed in at the same time, so that the boundaries might be known accurately. The Chief Commissioners said, in their answer, that the cost of compelling 40 tenants to give the landlord particulars of their improvements need not excel £2. He was, however, informed by solicitors in large

  705
  practice that this estimate was totally absurd, and that at present the costs of the landlord would be at least 10 times that amount. In the fourth place, he believed that the value attached to each improvement, and the amount of the reduction made in consequence, should be recorded with the decisions in order to prevent the same improvements being claimed for again in 15 years, which he believed would be the case under the present procedure of the Land Act. Fifthly, notice should be given to the head landlord or to the mortgagee before any rent was fixed, or any agreement was sanctioned, in order to prevent the possibility of their interests in either case being confiscated either by collusion between the tenants and the head landlord, or the tenants and the mortgagee. Then, sixthly, the Commissioners should have power, on the application of the landlord, to abolish the system in Ireland known as "Rundale," by which a tenant held a field here, there, and everywhere over a property, and to consolidate the divided holdings, if the landlord should apply to them to do so. In the seventh place, if the tenant neglected to keep the drains or outfalls on his farm open, or neglected to carry out an order of the Commissioners to build a labourer's cottage, his failure to do so should be treated as a breach of the statutory conditions. In the eighth place, the Purchase Clauses should be I made workable, and that should be done at once. To carry out these clauses the management of the sales should be transferred to the Encumbered Estates Court, which had now little to do owing to the fact that land in Ireland was unsaleable. That Court was far more competent to deal with the subject of purchase than the Chief Commissioners, who were already overcrowded with work, and who had a direct interest not in selling the properties, but in reducing the rents. He was satisfied that the Purchase Clauses, which the noble Lords opposite agreed ought to be developed—although he did not agree with them as to the manner in which it ought to be done—he was satisfied that the Purchase Clauses were the only possible solution of the Irish difficulty. The Land Act had placed the land of the country in such a condition that unless they got it out of it again by encouraging purchase, he did not know what would be
  706
  the result. The future looked so black, he really did not know what to say. There were, no doubt, other points in which the administration of the Land Act might be reformed; but if the eight suggestions he had made were adopted, it would produce uniformity in the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners, and uniformity was a most important thing if they wanted to prevent fresh agitation; and they would also make the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners respected by all classes, landlord and tenant alike, instead of having them, as at the present moment, giving satisfaction to actually no one. He had now placed the main points in the evidence before their Lordships. He had endeavoured to show how the administration of the Land Act might be improved, and he thought what he had stated was an ample proof that a Committee of Inquiry was absolutely necessary. None of the suggestions he had made would interfere in any way with the spirit of the Land Act. But he believed that the Act as worked—and he appealed to the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack—was a contradiction of the anticipation of its framers, and to the pleadings given by noble Lords opposite in this House and by the Government in "another place," and that injustices were being perpetrated in the name of Justice which were sufficient to cast a shadow over the whole administration of the judicial tribunals of these realms. He begged now to move for the Returns which stood in his name, and which, if granted, would show whether his statements were correct or not, and whether the Sub-Commissioners did not arrive at their decisions by arithmetical principles.
  Moved, "That there be laid before this House, Returns giving in each case decided by the Sub-Commission Courts the old rent, the judicial rent, the poor law valuation, the landlord's valuation, the tenant's valuation, and, in cases heard on appeal, adding the appeal rent and the court valuer's valuation."—(The Marquess of Waterford.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, his noble Friend had raised so many points contained in the evidence taken before the Committee, that he was under some difficulty to know which to take and which to pass by. He, like his noble Friend, was anxious to call attention to the evidence taken by the Committee,

  707
  and especially as regarded the class and character of the witnesses examined. The witnesses examined in the first Report were three officials of the Land Commission and the Registrar of the Landed Estates Court; but their evidence was not referred to in the Report. Then there were the three Chief Commissioners, whose evidence was mainly directed to the subject of purchase and questions of procedure, and, with one single exception, their evidence was not referred to in the last Report. Neither was it once referred to by the noble Marquess. He did not once, in the course of his address, mention the evidence given by Mr. Fottrell and Mr. Godley. From his noble Friend's speech, therefore, and from this Report of the Committee, it would appear that the evidence to be obtained from the Land Commission had been treated as a matter of very slight importance indeed—their evidence and their existence appeared to be entirely forgotten. Then came the evidence of one small landlord, three land agents, and one landlord's solicitor—he meant a solicitor who invariably represented landlords before the Land Courts. In the second Report the witnesses consisted of 10 landlords, most of whom were small owners, four barristers or solicitors practising in the Land Courts, of whom one had acted for tenants, eight land agents, some of whom were landowners, one valuer, and Mr. Vere Foster and Mr. Take, whose evidence had nothing to do with the matter now before the House. The witnesses in the third and fourth Reports were three Sub - Commissioners, three barristers, who invariably acted for landlords, one landlord, one agent, and one so-called Court valuer. The result of this enumeration was, as their Lordships would see, that, with one single exception, no witness of any kind was examined on the tenants' side of the question. Such being the exclusive class and character of the witnesses, what was the Report? It was an impeachment of the Land Act itself, of its administration in almost every possible respect, and of all the public servants administering it. According to the Report, so far as his noble Friend went, everything the Land Judges did, or omitted to do, was wrong. They had been accused, not only of incompetence, but of an unanimous departure from
  708
  the spirit and intentions of the Act they administered. And, more than that, they were accused of deliberate, calculated, and artful violation of their judicial duty. Such were the accusations brought against the Land Commissioners, high and low, on such evidence he had described. No doubt, the witnesses were respectable gentlemen; but they were absolutely and ludicrously one-sided, entirely unchecked by any question put by any noble Lord on that Committee, or by any of the evidence which could so easily have been obtained to represent the other side of the case. Among the long list of charges made there were two or three which he would notice as having been prominently put forward. He would take, for instance, the charge that the Chief Commissioners had not instructed the Assistant Commissioners as to the rules and principles on which they should fix fair rents. That was supposed to be a heavy accusation against the Chief Commissioners. This absence of what was called the principles of valuation had been commented on a great many times before in their Lordships' House within the last two years, but, he must say, without any light being thrown upon the means of remedying the defect, if it was one, or upon the principles which could possibly have been laid down by the Chief Commissioners; and he was bound to say that the evidence brought before the Committee left them in exactly the same state of perplexity they were in before. The Commissioners denied—he thought with great justice—that they were entitled to give any instruction to the Assistant Commissioners beyond the terms of the Land Act, by which they were bound; and in making that denial they asked a very pertinent question. They said—"Should we have been entitled to instruct the Judges of the County Courts in Ireland as to the rules they should adopt?" This was a question of the intention of the Land Act, and that Act placed the County Courts and the Sub-Commissioners upon a perfect equality. The Commissioners, therefore, asked why they should instruct the Assistant Commissioners as to the principles on which they were to administer the Act, when it was obvious that they could not instruct the County Court Judges? That appeared to him a very difficult question to answer. But,

  709
  further, when they came to look for the principles which, in the opinion of the Committee, ought to have been laid down by the Commissioners, there was little or nothing to be gathered from the Report. The Report rested largely upon the evidence of Professor Baldwin, which was warmly adopted by the Committee, and was used, to a great extent, as a foundation for the Report. Professor Baldwin was a clever man, and he could not help remembering that, for a long time, he was the great bugbear of the opponents of the Land Act, who had accused him of cutting down rents in a ruthless way, and of uttering dangerous sentiments. But it had since been discovered that Professor Baldwin was, after all, a friend in disguise, and he was now used as a lever to upset the Land Commission, and an authority for the Report of their Lordships' Committee. When Professor Baldwin talked of this question to the Committee his memory must have been a very short one, for it was quite impossible that he should have been in the same state of mind at the time when he declared himself satisfied with the working of the law, when he had settled the principles of valuation in his own mind, and announced that he and his colleagues had never departed from them by a hair's breadth. And what did the Professor tell the Committee upon this subject? He said—
  "I have two principles—one is my long experience of the real value of land, and the other is my long experience in agricultural operations connected with the land."
  Those were the so - called principles which Professor Baldwin himself supplied when he was questioned by the Committee. But neither he nor the other witnesses made a single suggestion as to what special and particular rules for ascertaining a fair rent could have been adopted beyond the obvious and familiar mode that was understood by everyone in Ireland, and by which any experienced man and any competent arbitrator would settle a fair rent between landlord and tenant. One would have thought that the Committee would have desired to obtain the opinion on such a subject as this of so highly competent and eminent a gentleman as Mr. Charles Grey, the chief valuer of the Land Commission. He had before him a statement by Mr. Grey, which was worth read-
  710
  ing, as a specimen of the kind of evidence the Committee might have had if they had chosen, which they did not. This was written last January—
  "We take what we consider the fair letting value of the farm, on the assumption that the farm is now to let, as our valuation of what we think should be fixed as a fair rent. We take the value of the land as we find it, without regard as to whether the improvements belong to the landlord or to the tenant. We consider what would be the rent that we should be willing to pay if we wished to take such a farm and wanted to cultivate it under ordinary conditions, and then we consider whether it is such a rent as we would like if we were a landlord, or an agent desirous of letting the farm to a desirable tenant, but not of obtaining the highest possible rent that could be got. When we find a farm in high condition, we try not to be deceived by first appearances, and when we find a farm in a poor condition, we try to ascertain the reason for it. We also inquire what are the improvements the tenant has made, and we report to the Commissioners how much value remains to the tenant of such improvements."
  As to the perplexity and mystery which was supposed to surround the fair rent, and the value of the tenant's improvements, as ascertained by the Land Courts, he (Lord Carlingford) was entirely incredulous. The main reasons for a reduction of rent were generally well understood by all who knew anything about the particular holding and district in question. The witnesses before the Committee were landlords or landlords' agents, or landlords' solicitors, who, having been subject to adverse decisions of the Land Court, attacked the impartiality of the Commissioners. Hence had arisen this monstrous and ridiculous fiction of which his noble Friend had made so much — namely, that the Land Commissioners were in the habit of arriving at a fair rent by a mere arithmetical juggle. The credit of the discovery of the so-called "arithmetical formula" belonged to one single gentleman, Mr. Hill Smith, who had practised largely before the Land Courts on the part of the landlords, and who was very proud of the invention, which depended almost entirely upon him. Professor Baldwin did not give any support worth having to the notion, for he denied that he himself, or any Assistant Commissioner with whom he ever acted, had done anything of the kind, though he seemed to fancy that he had detected it in some other cases.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: He says he has heard of such a thing.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he was sorry that Professor Baldwin appeared to make an insinuation in one of his answers, attributing this gross judicial crime, as, of course, it would be, to the Chief Commissioners themselves. However, he would not accuse Professor Baldwin of making such an insinuation. That gentleman was very hard pressed by his questioners through several folios of the evidence to give the desired answers; but the answers were not entirely satisfactory. Although Professor Baldwin was evidently anxious to be agreeable to those with whom he was conversing, and showed that amiable tendency throughout his evidence, yet he often corrected himself, and said many very true things which made no appearance in the Report. As to this particular matter, Professor Baldwin merely said that he supposed the Chief Commissioners must have some formula, because they did not go themselves upon the lands to inspect them, which he considered essential. But, in expressing that view, Professor Baldwin spoke in a sense quite contrary to all the opinions which they used to hear in that House, according to which the only way of fixing a fair rent was, not that the Commissioners should go themselves upon the land, which, indeed, was impossible in the case of the Court of Appeal, but that they should hear all the evidence, and employ competent valuers, and then decide upon their reports. When pressed upon the point, Professor Baldwin refused to join in the accusation that had been made, and said distinctly that it would be monstrous to suppose the Chief Commissioners capable of such conduct; but, in spite of his opinion, such conduct was attributed to them in the Report of the Committee by way of insinuation, and directly by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford), if he understood him right. Professor Baldwin said, further, that there was some approach to coincidence between the average of the reductions and the arithmetical result suggested; but, of course, all figures could be reduced to averages. Professor Baldwin admitted that very much the same result might be made out of his own figures, and the amusing part of the matter was that be himself was one of the parties ac-
  712
  cused. Mr. Hill Smith also accused Mr. Foley in his Sub-Commission of the same thing; but neither of these gentlemen was ever informed of the fact by the Committee, nor ever asked to answer the charges levelled against them by Mr. Hill Smith. He (Lord Carlingford) had letters with him from every one of the accused Assistant Commissioners, denying, with the natural indignation of honest men, that they had ever performed such a dishonest arithmetical juggle as had been imputed to them in the Report, and by the noble Marquess. One of those letters was from Mr. Foley. He (Lord Carlingford) would not read Mr. Foley's letter, because the language used in it was not altogether Parliamentary; but it was thoroughly well justified by the gross charge brought against his integrity and judicial honour. If it were possible, under these circumstances, that their Lordships should believe the accusation of Mr. Hill Smith, in the face of all the probabilities of the case, and in spite of the character of the gentlemen accused, who all denied the truth of the charges brought against them, it would be vain to try by other arguments to influence their Lordships. He felt certain, however, that the character of these judicial gentlemen would not be damaged by the accusations of Mr. Hill Smith, although those accusations bad been adopted by the Committee. He would now refer briefly to the position of the legal Assistant Commissioners. His noble Friend had been convinced, as usual, on utterly insufficient and partial evidence, that the legal Commissioner was a nonentity or cipher, as Professor Baldwin had said; but he did not suppose that Professor Baldwin really meant to use the expression in its ordinary sense. It must have been used rhetorically. The only evidence in support of this assertion was the evidence of Mr. Foley. He (Lord Carlingford) had carefully studied the evidence of Mr. Reid, who did not for a moment support that view of the case. Indeed, all that Mr. Reid said—and it was a mere matter of course—was, that the legal Commissioner did not possess, and could not be expected to possess, except by accident, any skill or experience in judging the value of the soil. That was all that he could suppose Professor Baldwin to have meant in terming the legal Commis-

  713
  sioner a cypher, though, of course, there was no reason for applying so disrespectful an epithet to him. Mr. Foley, no doubt, was a rather exceptional man, and he (Lord Carlingford) was convinced that some of the language which he used, in describing his own position, would not be accepted by any other legal Commissioner in Ireland. Indeed, the language was so vague and confused that, possibly, Mr. Foley did not mean what he said, or what the Committee got out of him. But there was ample room and duty for the legal Commissioner beyond the mere valuing of the land. The valuing of the land was not the business of the legal Commissioner. It was his business to look after the evidence, to weigh the evidence, to see that the evidence in all matters of law was properly applied, and to guide the whole progress of the case. Mr. Kane, one of the legal Commissioners, referring to this matter, in a letter to one of the Chief Commissioners, said—
  "This statement, in my opinion, accuses the legal Assistant Commissioners of a very gross dereliction of duty, and I wish to state to you, as my chief, that a more unfounded statement, at least, as regards the practice of this and of the two former Sub-Commissions, of which I have been chairman, was never made. I have uniformly considered it my duty to take as full a part as my lay colleagues in the settling of the judicial rents, to make myself acquainted with the principles on which the valuation of the land has been conducted by my colleagues, and of ascertaining how they apply the law to the facts of each case, and that they have applied it correctly. In matters of mere valuation, I, not having the technical knowledge, am guided by my colleagues, as in matters of pure law I expect them to be guided by me … Professor Baldwin may consider me a cipher; but I do not think that any other of my present colleagues do, or that any of my former col. leagues did, and I certainly try not to be one, but to do my best in each case by weighing the evidence, by availing myself of the special knowledge of my colleagues, by helping them with my special knowledge."
  That seemed to be a very satisfactory statement, and he (Lord Carlingford) had not the least doubt, whatever Professor Baldwin might say, that that was the way in which the legal Assistant Commissioners, who were extremely competent and able men, had acted. He wished now to say a few words upon a point which was one of the most prominent in the Report, but as to which he was surprised to find that his noble Friend did not say much. It was a general charge against the Land Com-
  714
  missioners of violation of the intentions of the Land Act. The charge was one that was somewhat difficult to understand; but it appeared to be this—that whereas the Act was intended only to apply to exceptional cases of excessive rack-renting, the Land Commissioners had applied it generally, unscrupulously, and arbitrarily, without regard to the character of the particular estate or holding, and with very little regard indeed to the excessive or the moderate character of the rent. A graver charge against such tribunals it was impossible to imagine. It was a charge of absolute judicial incompetence, or of want of judicial integrity. What did the charge mean? Was it supposed that the Land Courts could select the cases with which they should deal? That when they came to a large, well-managed estate, they were to make their bow, and pass it by? The Land Courts acted upon applications; and when a tenant on an estate, having a high reputation, came before the Commissioners to have his rent fixed, they could not say—"No; you belong to the estate of Sir Richard Wallace, or to the estate of the Duke of Devonshire, and yours is, therefore, a case with which we cannot deal." Such a proceeding would, of course, be a gross violation of the Commissioners' duty. That, therefore, could not be what was meant by this charge. Its meaning, then, must be that if any rents were reduced upon the large estates, such reductions must, of necessity, be improper and unjust. But that was not a conclusion which it was possible to adopt. The Government contended, and were thoroughly convinced, that the Land Commission did their duty in the cases which he had just described just as they did it in others. When they found here and there on large, well-managed, and generally low-rented estates a case of high rent, they rightly reduced it. There was some interesting evidence, which found no place in the Report, as to the question of over-renting. The Commissioners stated that they found a greater amount of rack-renting than they expected before they began to hear the land cases. Mr. Justice O'Hagan said—
  "I own before I began to adminster the Act I did not expect to find so many cases of high rent as have come before us."
  And Mr. Vernon gave similar testimony. The most serious charge brought against

  715
  the Commissioners was that they made no difference between rack rents and moderate rents. He begged to call their Lorships' special attention to this point, because it essentially affected the duty and the honour of those Judges. Lord Brabourne asked Mr. Vernon—
  "Is it true, as stated to us by several witnesses, that whether a man has been rack-renting his tenants, or whether he has been giving them a fair rent, the reductions in a great many instances have been very much the same?" &c.
  Mr. Vernon's answer was—
  "I cannot say that I think that. I do not think that we should be fit to sit as a Court of Appeal if we were open to such criticism as that."
  Professor Baldwin said—
  "I quite agree with the view of the Chief Commissioners that the number of rack-renting cases is larger than was expected. …. On two estates (Mr. Kavanagh's and Lord Courtown's) we made large reductions, and I believe they were all justified by the Act. I know they were on my uniform principle, but in those cases the land had been held by middlemen. …. In every county rents are very unequal. This has come out very strongly before us. The other day we found in County Louth three properties adjoining, and the difference between the rents of two of them was 60 per cent."
  Professor Baldwin added—
  "In justice to the Sub-Commissioners this much may be said—that I think the cases on the large estates that have come in are bad cases. I know the estates of several members of the Committee. I am in a position to tell your Lordships from actual experience that the cases from those estates which we disposed of by no means represent the average rental of the estates."
  The fact was, that in many cases upon large estates the rent paid to middlemen had been either unaltered or insufficiently reduced when the leases fell in; in other cases there had been reclamations by the tenants, upon which high rents had been charged; and in others there had been some industry, such as weaving, which formerly enabled the tenant to pay a large rent. Were they to be told that the enormous difference of 60 per cent mentioned by Professor Baldwin was to be ignored by the Land Commissioners? It was wonderful that the Committee should have been led away, as they had been, by the one-sided evidence which they took to adopt such a Report as they had produced. Their Lordships had only to look to the Irish newspapers, with their daily accounts of the proceedings of the Land Courts, and they would find information
  716
  as to the operation of those Courts far more useful and impartial than that which was to be derived from the Committee's Report. As to the question of deterioration, upon which his noble Friend laid so much stress, he believed that the Report either asserted or implied—because it dealt more in implication than assertion—that the tenant was allowed by the Land Courts to profit by his own abuse of his farm. He did not know upon what evidence that insinuation was founded. Three Assistant Commissioners were examined, one of whom was Mr. Foley, and the evidence of the other two was very strongly in the opposite direction. Mr. Reeve said that his wish in a bad case would be to dismiss the application of the tenant, and to deprive him of the advantage of the Act. Professor Baldwin said that to put rent on worn-out land according to its existing value would be a monstrous thing; that he and those who acted with him never did such a thing; that they fixed the rent assuming the land to be in a fair average condition; and that any other course would be robbing the landlord. The Chief Commissioners had, over and over again, laid down that as the proper course to be taken. He had himself seen it laid down by the Sub-Commissions in hundreds of cases; and yet the representatives of landlords, agents, and others said that this deterioration was made no account of, and the Committee said or implied that such was the constant practice of the Land Courts. Then, as to the charge that the Assistant Commissioners were removed from county to county, if they were found unpopular with the tenants, and did not reduce the rents sufficiently, the Chief Commissioners absolutely denied that such was the case; and if the Committee had chosen to ask them a single question on the subject, which they never did, they would have received a reply to that charge, as, indeed, they would to all the charges of their last Report, had they chosen to invite the Chief Commissioners to come before them again. But all these grave accusations were accepted and embodied in the Report without an attempt to hear what the accused Judges had to say. Mr. Greer, for instance, who bad several times been attacked in that House, was prepared to give the most absolute denial to the charges against him.

  717
  Again, how easy it would have been to hear what the official valuers of the Land Commission had to say as to the fixing of rent. Not one of those official valuers was asked to give evidence, and the only substitute for such evidence was that of a certain Mr. Gray, who was for a short time employed by the Sub-Commissioners, and was apparently chosen as a witness simply because he was hostile to his employers. Upon the whole question no issue had been raised by his noble Friend. As to the Returns moved for, he was anxious to give them as far as possible. They could be given to a great degree; but the Chief Commissioners informed him that to produce the landlords' and tenants' valuation throughout Ireland from the first sitting of the Land Courts would be practically impossible, and that to do so it would be necessary to stop the sitting of the Courts. With respect to the landlords' and tenants' valuations in the appeal cases the Chief Commissioners would endeavour to furnish them. As he had already said, his noble Friend raised no issue by this Motion for the decision of the House; but the Report of the Committee did raise a serious issue before public opinion. The noble Lord and those who voted with him placed themselves before the court of appeal of public opinion. So did he (Lord Carlingford). he submitted, as the Land Commissioners themselves had done in the document upon the Table of the House, that the partial evidence which he had described and attempted in some measure to analyze, and this still more partial Report, were not to be taken as of any worth for the condemnation of the Land Act, or of its administration.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, his noble Friend who had just sat down had delivered, as he always did, a speech most moderate and conciliatory, both in tone and argument, and he was not prepared to address the House in confutation of any statements the noble Lord had made. That was not his object in addressing their Lordships. Since the passing of the Irish Land Act, he had maintained a scrupulous silence on the subject. He took no part in the vote of the House by which a Committee of Inquiry was appointed, and he respectfully declined to be a Member of that Committee. He did so upon several
  718
  grounds. In the first place, he thought that his serving on that Committee in the position he then occupied might easily have been misunderstood. In the second place, he thought at the time, and he thought now, that the Government had some reason, or at least some cause, to be jealous and fearful, if he might use the expression, of one House of Parliament appointing an inquiry so soon after the Act had been passed; and he thought that they had some reason to fear that the popular impression which might be produced in Ireland would be that this House wished to retrace its steps with regard to the passing of that Act. For these reasons he declined to act upon the Committee; but, at the same time, he had watched very closely the proceedings of that Committee, and the evidence which had been adduced before it. He regretted very much that the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns), the Chairman of that Committee, was not present to-night to answer for himself and for the Committee the accusations and assertions which had been brought by the noble Lord who had just sat down. But he did not want to enter into that. He would only say that he thought that his noble Friend (Lord Carlingford) had been as much one-sided as the Committee were when he gave what he called a careful analysis of the witnesses examined by the Committee. When he (the Duke of Argyll) said that the Committee examined all the three Chief Commissioners and several of the most prominent Sub - Commissioners, he thought he had said enough to show, if it were one-sided, its Report afforded most important and valuable information for the public judgment in this matter. One point referred to by his noble Friend was of considerable importance, because it was referred to in the Report of the Committee. It was that the three Chief Commissioners were examined by their Lordships almost exclusively upon the questions of Emigration and the Purchase Clauses. He begged entirely to differ from his noble Friend. He had made a very careful analysis of their evidence, and he thought he should be able to show on a future occasion—not in this Session of Parliament—that they had given most valuable and important information upon the question of the principles by which they were guided in the valuation of

  719
  rents. He had not had time to examine very carefully the reply of the Commissioners to the Report of the Select Committee; but he observed that the Commissioners took this ground—"We are judicial persons; you have no right to inquire into our decisions in our judicial capacity." That was not an argument, which, in his opinion, ought to be employed. Let their Lordships recollect what Parliament had done. They had committed to three gentlemen absolute and uncontrolled power over the whole agricultural property of the Irish people. These gentlemen had not a single principle to guide them; but were vested with absolute discretion to re-distribute property in Ireland as they pleased. He said respectfully that the Land Court was not a Court of Law, but it was a legal Court. It was a Court which administered by the will of Parliament the absolute discretion of three individual men. Under these circumstances, their Lordships had a right, and the public had the right, to inquire into the principles upon which the Commissioners were acting. There must be some Members of the House now present who might recollect the great speech delivered to that House by one of the greatest speakers who ever shook its walls—he meant Lord Lyndhurst—on an occasion on which he condemned the conduct of a Government of which he (the Duke of Argyll) happened to be a Member, in taking what he thought an unconstitutional and illegal step against the received and acknowledged practice of the Constitution. Lord Lyndhurst said, in his most solemn manner, and in his most solemn tone—
  "My Lords,—Jealousy is the spirit of our Constitution; jealousy, not envy; not envy of every one and every thing that is above us, which is one of the meanest feelings of mankind, but jealousy in the highest sense in which it is used in the Old Testament, when Jehovah said, 'I am a jealous God.'"
  The glory of nations was law, the administration of law; law based on no unsettled principles and guarded by the Judges of the Law, surrounded by ermine and removed from all popular passions and prejudices; but when Parliament appointed three men, two of whom were laymen, and one of whom only had a judicial character, and when Parliament gave those men absolute power over the property of other men, not on any known
  720
  principle, either of Statute or Common Law— when Parliament gave them absolute and free discretion to do what they pleased, with no Court of Appeal, but with every Court of Appeal specifically excluded by Act of Parliament, he (the Duke of Argyll) maintained, Parliament had committed an act which, in principle, amounted to a barbarous piece of legislation, and they were bound to keep the public eye and their own eye jealously upon the operation of such a Court. That was what he wished to say in answer to the accusations of those gentlemen, that this House was acting unconstitutionally—for that was the expression they used—in venturing to inquire upon what principles they had proceeded. This doctrine had not been accepted by any one of the parties who were interested in the Irish Land Act. Look at the candidates who, in the interest of the Government, went to their supporters and said—"Look at the great boon in the shape of a reduction of rent we have got for you; we will get more." What did Mr. Parnell say? He said—"By my influence with the Government I have got the power to appoint these men; you have got a reduction of 25 per cent; go on, and you will get 75 per cent." Such was the language used, and until their Lordships knew the principle on which property was disposed of there was at least room for accusations against the Act. He maintained that Parliament was perfectly right in inquiring into the administration of this tremendous and barbarous power, which, he would venture to say, had never been given before by any civilized Government. The only excuse the Government offered was that the Act was necessary to meet the special circumstances of Ireland. What were the special circumstances? Well, they knew that Ireland was on the eve of insurrection. There was no doubt the symptoms of agrarian revolution were one of the most serious and formidable dangers with which any Government could deal. he could excuse the Government in going a long way in exceptional legislation for the purpose of meeting extraordinary circumstances; but all he said was this—having committed such powers to a few men, they were bound to watch its operation if they meant to retain their position among the civilized Governments of the

  721
  world. The Commissioners in their Report said, as a matter of reasoning, that there was no principle by which land could be valued. In one sense that was perfectly true; but he wanted to point out the egregious fallacy involved in the arguments of these Judges. He had often asked skilled valuers of land—"What is the principle upon which you proceed? What is the amount, for instance, of gross produce which you give to the landlord, and what to the tenant?" They had always said to him—"We cannot tell you that —that is not the way we proceed." "Well," he had often said, "will you give me any sort of abstract principle on which you proceed?" "No," they had said, "we have no other abstract principle than this—that we know what men will give for the land. That is the principle of our valuation, 'What is the market value? '—what will men in the public market give for this land?" Well, the Commissioners were perfectly right in saying that they stood upon that principle, and that they had no other; but, unfortunately for Ireland, that principle had been banished thence to Jupiter and Saturn; and what he wanted to know was—what principle had been substituted for the market value? Parliament shirked its duty—let him say so distinctly; he would never cease to say so—Parliament shirked its most solemn duty when it refused to give these men some indication of the principle on which it intended them to proceed. It was, no doubt, very convenient to the majority of the time, in the face of the temper of the Irish people; but it was an act of the gravest dereliction of duty. Nothing could have been more simple than to apply to each individual case such a process as this—to take first the market value, and then to deduct what was thought to be fair for the exclusive property of the tenant in his improvements. It was perfectly competent for the Commissioners to make out a rule for the instruction of their Sub-Commissioners; there was no difficulty in the matter. However, he would not go to-night into the details of this question. He could not do so for many reasons; but he hoped, if health and strength were spared to him for another Session of Parliament, he should be able to direct the attention of the House to the consequences of the Land Act when a few
  722
  more of those consequences had been developed. He was sure this was a matter deserving the serious attention, not only of this Parliament, but of all the civilized Legislatures in the world. They had made a tremendous experiment, and they were bound to watch it with the most careful and jealous vigilance. Let him say one word more as to the reason which induced him to remain silent so long on the question. So far as the Administration of the Executive Government was concerned, he was anxious to avoid saying one word which could possibly embarrass his noble Friend (Earl Spencer) who was in charge of the Executive Government in Ireland. The first duty of Government was an executive duty, and it appeared to him (the Duke of Argyll), and he thought it had appeared to most men, that so far as the executive duty of the Government was concerned, it was performed by the noble Earl with eminent wisdom, firmness, and skill. He remembered the great public service rendered to Ireland and to this country when his noble Friend consented to take upon himself a most onerous and, what was generally, a most unthankful duty. He believed that his noble Friend would, in the eminent success which had attended his labours, and in the generous recognition given to him by men of all Parties, receive an ample reward for his great and courageous act of public duty.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he looked upon it as one of the most valuable provinces of the House that it should supervise, net only the administration of the Land Act, but also the administration of all law throughout the United Kingdom. He considered that supervision to be one of the greatest safeguards of the Constitution. He would refer to the Bill proposed by Mr. Sharman Crawford to give security to tenants for their improvements. On the discussion of that Bill so much interest had been excited that the Government of the day had found it necessary to issue a Commission of Inquiry. The result of that Commission had been to stir the conscience of England, and excite the surprise of the civilized world, when it was shown that, in many cases, all the improvements were made by the tenants as distinguished from the custom in England, where the improvements were made by the landlords. Let them

  723
  trace the efforts that were made after the Report of the Devon Commission to settle the Land Question in Ireland. Lord Stanley curiously enough proposed that the scheme set forth in his Bill should be administered by a Central Commission in Dublin and Sub-Commissions throughout the country. Though passed by the House of Commons, the Bill was denounced in this House as confiscation, and it was dropped. Seven years elapsed, during which Mr. Sharman Crawford put forth all his efforts on behalf of the tenantry. A further Bill was then introduced during the Ministry of Lord Derby; but it was also denounced as confiscation. Mr. Napier at that time described the state of Ireland as one emerging from the grave. This Bill was also dropped. After that 18 years passed, and though various attempts were made no steps were taken to give the occupiers of the soil any security until the Bill of 1870, followed by the Act of 1881. These matters of history taught the lesson that Irish reform, persistently denied, always led to extreme and violent discussion. He would, however, pass to the Question now before the House; and what were the facts? The Land Act had not been in operation four months before the Committee assembled in a spirit of hostility to it. He did not deny that there had been many cases of distress and ruin arising out of the Act; but a Committee of that kind should conduct its proceedings in accordance with judicial rules, and with impartiality and justice. He felt extreme surprise on one occasion, when the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Brabourne), who was a Member of the Committee, came down to the House, and, while the proceedings before the Committee were still pending, delivered a remarkable speech in which he assailed the Land Commission, its members and administrators, and the character of the Sub-Commissioners. Then the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns), whom he was sorry not to see in his place, also came down, and, under the guise of an artless Question, delivered a hostile speech suggesting political corruption, even in the change of the Sub-Commissioners from place to place; and he was ably supported by a speech by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury). The proceedings of the Committee were characterized by hostility against the
  724
  Act, its administrators and administration, and culminated in a Report, which, he ventured to say, was one of the most extraordinary documents ever laid upon the Table of their Lordships' House. He did not dispute the right of their Lordships to inquire into the administration of the Act; but he did dispute their right to charge a number of gentlemen with political, personal, and judicial corruption, and that charge not withdrawn or substantiated. It was plain from the Report that the Committee intended to judge them by conveying an imputation, not alone upon the Sub-Commissioners, but upon the Commissioners themselves, which, if well-founded, in place of being made in an ambiguous paragraph in the Report, ought to form the subject of an Address to the Crown praying for the removal of Mr. Justice O'Hagan, and of a Motion for the dismissal of Lord Monck, Mr. Litton, and Mr. Vernon. Mr. Justice O'Hagan was in the position of a Judge of the Supreme Court, and could only be removed by an Addres to the Crown, voted by both Houses of Parliament. The Report accused the Sub-Commissioners of the same misconduct and the same degradation which the 17th paragraph cast upon the Chief Commissioners. He felt warmly upon this subject, because it involved considerations in which they were all interested—the probity and independence of those who exercised judicial functions. He asked the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), when he came to speak in this debate, to say whether he believed the charges and imputations to be true. If he did not believe them to be true, he should never have put his hand to the Report. If he did believe them to be true, the course of action adopted by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford), which would lead to so tame and impotent a conclusion, was much to be deplored. What did the noble Marquis propose? He proposed to ask their Lordships to agree to certain Resolutions, one of which condemned and incriminated the Commissioners. But the noble Lord did not go on to propose that these Commissioners should be removed. They were to be damaged in character and in public estimation, and yet allowed to continue to administer the Act in the face of this Report. Against such a proposal and principle as

  725
  that he had the strongest possible objection. Now, reference had been made to the evidence of Mr. Hill Smith, in which he stated a certain Sub-Commission, dealing with the estate of Mr. Cope in Armagh, came to their decision by an arithmetical process—that was adding together the tenant's valuation and the landlord's valuation, and dividing the total by two. Now, he had the authority of the gentlemen who composed the Sub-Commission to give the statement a flat contradiction. In the 20 cases referred to by Mr. Smith, two valuers, Mr. Murphy and Mr. M'Bride, were examined for the landlord, and both gentlemen admitted that reductions should be made, though they varied in their opinions as to the amount of the reductions. What did Mr. Hill Smith do? Why, when Mr. Murphy's figures suited his calculation, he adopted Mr. Murphy, and threw over Mr. M'Bride, and when Mr. M'Bride's figures suited him, he threw over Mr. Murphy; and yet this was the gentleman on whose evidence the reputation of a Sub-Commission was to be tarnished. He would follow the history of this Sub-Commission. On the estate of the Duke of Abercorn 10 cases were brought before them, and only in four were reductions made, and in these the noble Duke's valuer admitted that reductions should be made. In six of the cases they decided that the farms were already held at a fair rent, and so left the rent untouched; and in only one instance had they to make a substantial reduction. Again, there were a few large estates in the county of Kilkenny—those of Lord Ormonde, Mr. Tighe, the Earl of Bessborough, and Sir John Power. On these estates they had not to make a single reduction. In one case in the same county the Commissioners reduced the rent to £200, which was £2 in excess of the fair rent fixed by the landlord's own valuator. He would only add, in conclusion, that, in his opinion, there was much difficulty in defining the words "fair rent" more closely than they were already defined; but it was upon security of tenure, as given to a certain extent by the Act of 1881, coupled with a firm administration of law, that he fixed his hopes for the future tranquillity and prosperity of the country. When the Report of this Committee should have been entirely forgotten, and when the squabbles about rents which
  726
  would be 15 years hence raised upon the improved condition of the country should have ceased, history would record the return of peace and prosperity to Ireland, and the establishment of a body of occupiers who would be the firmest supporters of our invaluable institutions.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, with respect to the Resolutions he had placed on the Paper, though he had withdrawn them, he had not in the slightest degree altered his opinion in their regard. After the important inquiry which had been held by their Lordships, it was disappointing that the result should be merely a Motion for certain Returns. And here he must observe that he felt great regret at the absence of the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns), the Chairman of the Committee, whose presence would be so useful on that occasion. The evils complained of in the Report were going on every day, and they must now continue for the next six months, probably for nine, and possibly for 12 months. The proper course would have been to take from the Report of the Committee certain suggestions and reduce them to such a form that they could properly be brought to the attention of the Commissioners. For instance, if the Report was examined, it would be found to contain these four suggestions—That the Chief Commissioners should lay down rules for the Sub-Commissioners to act upon; that the improvements in respect of which reductions of rent had been made should bestated on the register; that the official valuers should in all cases be examined as to the grounds on which they made their valuation; and that the Commissioners, in giving judgment, should state the reasons for their decision. If the Commissioners gave the reasons for their decision, it would be useful in enabling landlords to come to a settlement with their tenants out of Court. He was himself most anxious to settle with his tenants out of Court if he only knew the principles upon which the Court proceeded. In the case of one of his tenants, the rent had been reduced from £500 to £450, and the tenant right fixed at £1,000. Why, he would ask, was this tenant to have his tenant right fixed at £1,000, and to be put into possession of a farm as good as any in England, with a house as good as he himself would wish to live in, though the tenant could show no improvements that he had

  727
  made, the principal part of the farm being in grass, and though the Commissioners stated that it was very difficult to say whether the case should have been entertained at all? It was most important, and absolutely necessary, that the improvements relied upon by the tenant as entitling him to a reduction of rent should be specified and registered, since at present there was nothing whatever to prevent those improvements being claimed over and over again. He had protested against the Act at the time it was before the House, and he should continue to protest against it to the end of his life. He only regretted that the peculiar considerations of the moment had precluded him from moving its rejection at the stage of second reading.
  THE EARL OF KINTOREsaid, there could be no doubt that the Land Act was brought in as a sop to sedition in Ireland, and as a set-off against the strongest measure of coercion under which that country had ever laboured. It was not introduced, or even thought of, until it was forced on Her Majesty's Government by crimes and assassinations, the atrocity of which had seldom been equalled in the history of Ireland. He called it not a measure of agricultural reform, but a measure of agrarian revolution. The Government, at the time of its introduction, must have been conscious of what would be the revolutionary effect of the measure, for their apologies were continuous during its passage through Parliament. The only thing that had worked effectively in the Land Act had been the reduction of rent. Not rack rents only had been reduced, but there had been a universal reduction of 161/4 per cent throughout the country. The conclusions at which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford) had arrived were perfectly irresistible on this point to everybody who studied the evidence given before the Committee. The important provisions relating to the reclamation of waste lands and the purchase of holdings by the tenants were entirely unworkable; and the Act, as a whole, was a complete failure. Indeed, of all the failures which had been apparent in the policy of the Government at home and abroad, none had been so disastrous or conspicuous as that involved in the passing of the Land Act of 1881.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I do not propose to discuss this question at great length, or to enter into details concerning the evidence on which the Report of your Lordships' Committee is founded. That has been amply and ably done by the noble Marquess who introduced the subject; but I want to make a few remarks of a general character concerning an Act which, in regard to the way in which it is administered, and judged by the effect which it has produced, I look upon as one of the worst pieces of modern legislation. The Act has now been in operation some two years. It has embraced a considerable area of country, and a large number of people have, for good or evil, been affected by it. Many reliable witnesses have been examined by the Committee, among them the three Chief Commissioners, some of the Sub-Commissioners, the Superintendent of the Purchase Clauses, the Registrar of the Landed Estates Court; and a great mass of evidence—and, I venture to think, in spite of what the Lord President has said, a great mass of valuable evidence—has been collected. We are, therefore, in a position to form an opinion as to whether the results of the Act are in accordance with the intentions of the Legislature, and whether it is administered in a manner in accordance with the anticipations of Parliament. The objects of the Act were to relieve certain congested districts by emigration, to bring about a considerable though gradual transfer of property from owners to occupiers by means of purchase, to effect such a change of tenure as would guard against the bad effects of undue competition for land, to inquire into rents, and, by re-adjustment in a very few cases, to bring about harmony among all classes engaged in agriculture. Such were the objects aimed at. As for the reasons for the Act, and the way in which they were to be obtained, Her Majesty's Government told us that one of the main reasons for legislation was that, owing to the conduct of a few landlords acting strictly within their legal rights, but harshly, an agrarian agitation was set on foot in Ireland; that, under these circumstances, it was difficult for the Executive to enforce the law, as real injustice and hardship occasionally resulted, and that if rents were revised and altered in a

  729
  few isolated cases, the Government could, with a clearer conscience and a stronger arm, insist upon legal obligations being carried out. We were told that reductions of rent might occur in a few cases; but that in no case would there be any real money loss whatever, because property would increase in value. But, instead of inquiring into rent in a few cases, we find that a revaluation of the whole of Ireland is going on, a valuation based on no principle, and conducted with the minimum of intelligence and the maximum of expense. We see, besides, that a general reduction of incomes has taken place, and that loss of property is universal, the property of landowners having become almost unsaleable. We find, moreover, that, owing to the fact that the re-valuation is conducted on no known principle, on no understood method, the attitude of the tenant farmers is one of great dissatisfaction with the settlement. We know, as a matter of certainty, that by reason of the manner in which they were overlooked in the Act, the whole of the labouring classes are discontented. We are further aware that, instead of having a good effect in checking undue competition for land, the effect of the Act has been rather to increase it, for, although the landlord's interest in land is almost unsaleable, the tenant's interest fetches preposterously high prices. These results are exactly the opposite of what Parliament anticipated; but we cannot wonder at the results arising if we consider the way in which the Act has been carried out. Your Lordships will remember the discussion that took place on the point of defining a fair rent. As the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) pointed out, Parliament, with a moral cowardice of which it ought to be ashamed, left that difficult question unsettled, and handed it over to the Chief Commissioners to decide. Parliament supposed that men of that position and experience would have little difficulty in laying down the principle upon which a fair rent was to be arrived at. Did the Chief Commissioners accept the responsibility? Not at all. They, in their turn, hand it over to the Sub-Commissioners, now numbering 85. Let us consider what these persons have to do. They are supposed to settle the most difficult and intricate questions which it is possible to ask any man,
  730
  or any body of men to, settle. Nothing can be more difficult than to decide arbitrarily, and, at the same time, justly as to what is fair rent in a large number of cases. If any fixed principle is laid down, such, for instance, as that the competition value of the land is to be taken into consideration, and then certain allowances based on fixed rules are to be made for the value of the tenant's improvements, it may, perhaps, be done; but without any fixed principle it is impossible. The value of any commodity, land included, to any person, the value of any particular piece of land to any particular person, the whole business transactions of man with man in the matter of letting, hiring, or buying, or selling any article are of so intricate a nature, that if we attempt to settle them arbitrarily, then the whole experience of all civilzed communities goes to prove that less injustice and hardship occur if such matters are left to be settled privately by the individuals interested. The State in its legislative capacity can frame rules to form a basis upon which property rests, and in its executive capacity the State can enforce the carrying out of contracts legally entered into. There its functions ought to cease. It cannot usefully interfere in the everyday business affairs of life. Suddenly, however, these most difficult and intricate questions are handed over to those 85 gentlemen to decide. I have not a word to say against the character of the Sub-Commissioners. I daresay they do their duty according to the best of their ability, and as far as the circumstances in which they are placed will permit them. But I do say that they are not in a sufficiently independent position, that they have not sufficient knowledge and technical training and experience, and, in some cases, have not sufficient natural capacity to enable them competently to decide the very delicate questions handed over to them. These Sub-Commissioners appear to have been shaken out over Ireland without any particular method or rhyme or reason. We see men accustomed to Ulster sent to the South of Ireland, and men acquainted with the South sent to the North, and we know that Ulster is as different from the rest of Ireland as are countries inhabited by different races and separated by thousands of miles of sea. The Sub-Commissioners do not

  731
  appear to have been selected on account of local knowledge, and are not allowed to remain long enough in a district to obtain the necessary local knowledge. Their position is not sufficiently independent. No instance exists, in modern times at any rate, in which matters of so intricate a nature, cases affecting not only the property but the character of thousands of men, have been intrusted to persons who are merely ten ants-at-will of a Government whose reputation depends entirely on the effect on the body of the people produced by the Act which these tenants-at-will have to administer. I do not say that the Sub-Commissioners are knowingly affected by these considerations, but it is not possible that men so placed should not be unwittingly influenced. Certain facts must have intruded themselves with overwhelming force upon the minds of the Sub-Commissioners. They must have known perfectly well, as soon as they saw that the greater part of Ireland was coming before them, that to prevent the Land Act from resulting in a ridiculous breakdown it was necessary for them to run through the cases with great rapidity. They knew very well that the reputation of their employers, the Government, depended upon the people of Ireland being pacified by the administration of the Land Act, and, not being idiots themselves, it is probable that they saw no reason to suppose that Irishmen in general would be pacified by being put to great expense in order to be told that their rents were perfectly fair. It is not strange that, under these circumstances, large and inconsistent reductions of rent have taken place. But these reductions, seeing that they have been made without any particular reason, and have not followed from the application of any known principle, are unsatisfactory to the persons for whose benefit they were made. Consider for a moment how the Sub-Commissioners act. A Sub-Commission consists now of five members, one legal and four lay members. The lay members are divided into two parties of two each, who alternately sit in Court with the legal Commissioner and go out and examine the holdings. It might happen, and according to the evidence given before the Committee it does happen, that one section of a Sub-Commission visits a farm and makes a
  732
  reduction of from 20 to 30 per cent, and that the other section of the Sub-Commission examines the farm next to it—a farm consisting of precisely similar soil, held under like circumstances, and subject to a similar state of things—and they make a reduction of only, perhaps, 10 or 15 per cent. This is not likely to lead to satisfaction. The man who receives the smallest reduction is dissatisfied because he had the bad luck to come under the wrong pair of Sub-Commissioners, and the man who gets the largest reduction is discontented, because he thinks that if he had come under some other Sub-Commission his reduction would have been still larger. It is the fact that reductions are made apparently at the sweet will of the different Sub-Commissioners, and are not made according to any recognized rule or method. That has destroyed whatever good effect the Land Act might otherwise have had. It is the utter want of principle that causes such universal dissatisfaction with the Act. It may be said that, after all, there is an appeal from the Sub-Commissioners. That is so; but what a Court of Appeal it is! It was pointed out in evidence that, practically, the Court of Appeal is of no value whatever. Whoever heard of a Court of Appeal proceeding on a method entirely different from that pursued in the Courts of First Instance? And yet that is the case as regards those Land Courts. The Sub-Commission Courts hear evidence on oath and examine the land. Their method is to check evidence by personal inspection. The Court of Appeal, it is true, sends occasionally a valuer to report upon the land, subject to appeal; but he hears no evidence of any kind, on oath or otherwise. The Chief Commissioners made some remarks, in their observations on the Report of your Lordships' Committee, upon the difference in the method pursued in the Upper and Lower Courts; and what they say practically amounts to this—that, owing to the immense number of cases, it is physically impossible for the Court of Appeal to pursue the same method as that used in the Courts of First Instance. That is exactly my contention. I have nothing to say against the Courts, or against the character of the persons composing the Courts; but what I do say is that, owing to the fact that the

  733
  business coming before the Courts is infinitely greater than was expected in Parliament, and that the Courts have to deal with a state of things which was not anticipated, it is physically impossible for justice to be done. The machinery invented by Parliament is not fitted for the work which it is expected to do. I cannot but think that there is a considerable amount of truth in the words of one witness, who said that the Court of Appeal was "a solemn farce.' The Chief Commissioners made several observations as to the conclusions drawn by your Lordships' Committee. These observations are very peculiar, and, in some cases, most unfair to the Committee. They consist, to a great extent, of sheer denial of facts, as to the truth of which a great amount of evidence was produced, and they show an intense desire to make out that your Lordships' Committee were actuated by hostile feeling against members composing the Courts. They talk about the Committee in its Report making an attack on the honour and integrity of the members of the Courts. I venture to assert that your Lordships' Committee were actuated by no hostile motives, and made no attack on the honour and integrity of anybody. They did what they were told by this House to do. They examined into the working of the Act, received evidence, digested it, and embodied it in a Report, according to the best of their ability. The Commissioners complain that the Committee did not receive rebutting evidence, and that they gave no opportunity for such evidence to be sent in. About a month elapsed between the time when the evidence was in the hands of the Chief Commissioners and all other parties interested, and the laying of the Report upon the Table of the House. There was ample time, therefore, for rebutting evidence to be sent in; but the Commissioners did not avail themselves of the opportunity. The Commissioners endeavoured to show that a great Constitutional principle has been violated by the Committee by inquiring into judicial decisions; but I would remind your Lordships that the Committee have given no opinion as to particular individual cases. They merely inquired into the whole working of the Act; and to say that an Act such as this, which is entirely novel in this
  734
  country, and which is without precedent or parallel in any country in the world, should not be diligently and carefully inquired into, seems to me a most preposterous proposition to advance. The Chief Commissioners seem to think that your Committee in commenting upon the Act are thereby attributing evil motives to them. For instance, the Report says that it would be advisable for the Sub-Commission Courts to sit in a greater number of places; upon which the Commissioners remark, that they could not possibly have any motive in their regulations other than a desire to administer the Act truly and properly. Nobody ever attributed any bad motive to them whatever in the matter. The Committee merely suggested that the Sub-Commissioners should sit in a greater number of localities. There is a French proverb, "That he who excuses accuses himself," which I might apply, only I have not the slightest idea that the Commissioners are actuated by any but the best motives. The Commissioners make some observations as to the absence of principle. In Paragraph 6, they state that it had been their intention to adjudicate themselves upon the first batch of cases that came up, as they expected that they would be test cases; and they thought that their decisions in those cases would govern many others. But they added that the test cases did not come forward because Mr. Forster shut up Mr. Parnell, and put an end to the Land League. It seems as if the Commissioners thought that the suppression of the Land League was indirectly the cause of there being no principle for the settlement of rent in the Land Act. I do not think, however, that even if the Chief Commissioners had decided the first lot of test cases, that the good results they anticipated would have followed. How could a line be given for the decision of future cases, if the Commissioners pursued the course that has been followed since, and gave no reasons for their decisions? All that the public and the Sub-Commissioners would have known was that the rents were reduced to a certain extent in a certain number of cases; but, unless the reasons for the decisions were given, and people understood why the rents were so reduced, it is difficult to see how any principle to guide them could have been arrived at. In Paragraph 22, they state that—

  735
  "When any question of principle is involved, it is the practice of both tribunals that a judgment should be delivered stating the reasons for the decision. But upon the mere question of determining, in ordinary cases, the amount of the judicial rent, it is not … required … that the reasons for the decisions should be set forth."
  They speak of the mere question of settling of rent as if that was not the one important matter in the whole Act. The settling of a fair rent is the pivot upon which the whole Act turns. That is the one question on which it was of paramount importance that a definite principle should be laid down. This entire absence of principle has been productive of the greatest evil, in that it has caused almost universal dissatisfaction with the Act. It has produced minor evils also. One result, undoubtedly, is that, the worst landlords and the worst tenants have come off best under the Act. Landlords who had rack-rented their properties have not suffered so much as those whose properties have been let low. The occupiers who, through bad husbandry, have let their lands run out have been leniently treated in consequence. This is met in Paragraph 17 by a simple denial on the part of the Chief Commissioners. It is all very well to deny the fact, but it is supported by a great deal of evidence; and I must say that, as far as my experience of the South of Ireland goes, I entirely agree with the evidence that was produced before the Committee. I am perfectly certain that it is true that those tenants who have farmed negligently have received the greatest benefit. It is a matter of universal regret on the part of tenants that their land was examined when it was looking well. We know that they have used all kinds of endeavours to make their farms look in as bad a condition as possible. Anyone who examines the reductions that have been made on different properties can see for themselves that the reductions are very much the same on high-rented and on low-rented properties. If so much dissatisfaction and confusion exists now, how much greater will it be in the future when these cases come to be heard over again? No maps exist. Specifications of improvements are imperfectly kept. No data are kept whereby the present condition of a holding can be ascertained. People do not know what to be at now. They do
  736
  not know what evidence to bring forward, or what effect their evidence produces. They will be in a still worse condition in the future. Nobody will know what was allowed for improvements, or what was added for deterioration, or whether the improvements claimed were made before or after the present inquisition. It will not even be possible for a Judge to be certain whether he is re-valuing the right lands, or whether the lands are the lands they claim to be. This is a pretty mess to get a country into. You have invented, with the utmost ingenuity I must allow, a scheme for keeping the country in a state of constant discontent and litigation. You have got the country into a most extraordinary mess, and the mess has not even the merit of being a cheap one. The Act costs something like £500,000 a-year. It will take an enormous sum to put the country through this extraordinary mill you have invented, and by the time one end of it is through the other end will be coming in again to be re-ground by your machinery, so that the expense is continuous. The last Poor Law valuation for the whole of Ireland cost between £300,000 and £400,000. For less than £400,000 a valuation of the whole country, carefully conducted and supervised, based en known sound scientific and commercial principles, was made. For less than the yearly cost of the Land Act, you might have made a complete valuation of the whole country, which, if made for rent instead of for the purposes of taxation, would undoubtedly have afforded a very excellent basis on which landlords and tenants could have mutually and fairly agreed as to rent. The administration of the Act has, I believe, done great harm to the country at large, and has had effects in the country which Parliament did not foresee. The effect on one class—that of the landowners—is certainly different from what was anticipated by Parliament. Your Lordships must recollect that the Sub-Commissioners, in settling rents, have not only dealt with the property of landowners, but they have had, consequentially, to deal with their characters also. They have had, practically, to give an opinion as to the way in which the whole body of landowners have dealt with their tenants. The effect on the land-owning class is quite different from what Par-

  737
  liament was led to expect on the assurances of Her Majesty's Government. On introducing the Act of 1881 Her Majesty's Government had to devour nearly all the words they used, and disavow all the rules they laid down for the regulation of property 10 years before; and, in the same manner, within the last two years they have had to swallow and digest, as best they could, all the anticipatory statements which they made when the Act was being discussed in Parliament. Your Lordships well remember the general tone of the speeches which ushered in the Bill. The Government gave certain assurances, or, if they were not assurances, they were, at any rate, opinions, advanced with a degree of authority that made them practically of the nature of assurances, and they were so considered by Parliament. In substituting the extraordinary tenure involved in the Act of 1881 for the system imposed upon Ireland by Parliament in the Act of 1860, which stated that land was to be held under the expressed or implied contract of the parties, and not by tenure or service, there was this danger to be feared. There was a risk that either loss would be occasioned, in which case compensation would be due, or Parliament would be committing a theft. This difficulty was met by assurances that there would be no loss. Ministers declared that the Bill would cause landlords no money loss whatever, and that, therefore, there could be no claim for compensation. Rents would remain as they were in nine cases out of ten, according to Mr. Bright, when he was a Member of the Cabinet; and any slight reductions would be counterbalanced by the enhanced value of landed property. The noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack, upon the second reading of the Bill, announced his intention of endeavouring to imagine himself in the position of an Irish landlord, and declared that, having done so, he would be able conscientiously to state that he would not feel himself aggrieved by the Bill. I do not know whether the noble and learned Earl succeeded in performing his mentally acrobatic feat; but, if he did, I cannot help thinking that he must have seen reason to modify his opinions as to the effect of the measure, because he went on, in the same speech, to say that the Bill would not—
  738
  "Diminish in any degree whatever the rights of the landlord or the value of the interest which he possesses."—(3 Hansard, [264] 532.)
  But the noble and learned Earl knows very well that the interest of the landlord has been diminished to such an extent that the Judges of the Landed Estates Court will not allow sales to take place, the prices offered being ridiculously insufficient. Then the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council said that the—
  "Provisions of this Bill will cause the landlords no money loss whatever. I believe that it will inflict upon them no loss of income, except in those cases in which a certain number of landlords may have imposed upon their tenants excessive and inequitable rents."—(Ibid., 252.)
  What has happened? Rents have been reduced universally everywhere. What I want to know is, have all the landlords in all these cases that have been tried been imposing excessive and inequitable rents; or have the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners been inequitable, and their reductions excessive; or has the Act been intrepreted and administered in a way that Parliament did not intend or anticipate? I should like much to know what is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on these points? Mr. Litton, one of the Commissioners, also said—
  "A just and fair landlord had nothing to fear [from the Bill]; and, in that case, things would go on just as if the Bill had never passed."
  But we see that all landlords had cause to fear—that in all cases they have been interfered with. Does that show the Act to have been administered differently to what was intended, or are we to adopt the horrible alternative of believing there is no such thing as a just and fair landlord in all Ireland? I could multiply instances; but I do not wish to weary the House with extracts. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for India spoke in a similar tone.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: What was maintained by me?
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: The general harmlessness of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: What did I say?
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: If the noble Earl wishes to know exactly what he said, he said this—
  "He was in a position of never having given any assurance whatever; but that as regarded

  739
  the assurance of his noble Friend, he should be inclined to take the same view, and express his belief that upon the whole the landlords in Ireland had not over-rented their estates, and that those who had treated their tenants fairly would not suffer any money loss, because their properties would be made more secure."
  Well, but we have seen that money loss has been almost universally sustained. Are we to suppose that the Act is administered in a different spirit from what was intended, or are we to suppose that no Irish landlords have treated their tenants fairly? I will not multiply instances. The same idea that the majority of landlords were just in their dealings, that rents were not excessive, and that, consequently, the Bill would be harmless, the same assertions that property would not be deteriorated or interfered with, was set forth in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne, were embodied by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies in an article in The Nineteenth Century, were put forward by many other authorities, and especially by the Prime Minister, who, among other utterances, stated that he did not wish in the least to convey an impression that, as a rule, land was too highly let in Ireland. I think I have advanced sufficient to prove that the general contention of Her Majesty's Government was that there would be no deterioration in property, and that there would be no loss of income to landowners, except in a few isolated cases, and that, even in these cases, there would be no real loss, because the value of property would be greatly enhanced by the additional security given to it. How completely have results falsified these anticipations! What has happened? Incomes are reduced on all properties, large and small, rack-rented and low-rented. A great number of landowners are reduced to the extreme of necessity, and a very much larger number are seriously embarrassed. They cannot maintain themselves and their families, or maintain and develop their properties, and they can do nothing to help themselves. They cannot realize their properties, for the landlord's interest is practically unsaleable. And that is the outcome of an Act under which it was said that in nine cases out of ten rents would remain as they were, and that there could not possibly be any money loss whatever to anyone. The characters and equity of
  740
  the whole body of landlords are involved in this matter. I want to know the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on this point. Was the Prime Minister right when he said of Irish landlords—
  "As a rule, they have stood their trial, and they have, as a rule, been acquitted."
  And, again—
  "The greatest credit is due to Irish landlords for not exacting all that they are entitled by law to exact."
  And—
  "There are, no doubt, a number—and not an insignificant number—of landlords who are content to take a less rent than the law would give them."
  Is the general attitude of landowners as a class towards their tenants best described by those words, or by the words of another Cabinet Minister, when he said that the landlords had been extorting unjust rents? The latter appears to be the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. It has been put forward by more than one Member of the Government; and, as far as I know, has not been disavowed by anyone. Mr. Chamberlain, speaking at a large public meeting at Birmingham, and commenting on a speech of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, said—
  "He (the Marquess of Salisbury) can express sympathy … for Irish landlords who had to submit to a reduction of 25 per cent in their rents; but I can find nowhere any expression of sympathy for the poor tenants, who for years, under the threat of eviction and the pressure of starvation, have paid the unjust rents levied on their own improvements, and extorted from their desperate toil and hopeless poverty."
  To anyone who knows anything at all about the real state of the case in Ireland, and knows that evictions were unknown on the majority of estates, such a statement would be merely ridiculous in its utter ignorance, if it were not also mischievous. But the worst of it is that it appears to be borne out by the action of the Sub-Commissioners. The noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) put the case with his usual clearness and conciseness. Speaking on the same occasion, and also commenting on a speech of the noble Marquess, he said that the noble Marquess had placed himself in this dilemma—
  "Either the Sub-Commissioners are dishonest and fraudulent men—but that is a subject I will not discuss, because I do not think it will be fair to men of high character to discuss such a

  741
  question, or else, for many years past, the landlords of Ireland have been extracting 25 per cent over a fair rent from their tenants."
  The noble Earl objected even to discuss the possibility of the Sub-Commissioners being unjust and fraudulent, and had no hesitation in allowing it to go forth that the whole body of Irish landlords were unjust and fraudulent. That is a heavy charge to make against a great body of one's countrymen. It is the first time in the history of this or any other country that an assize or inquiry into alleged damage, on account of private property being taken up for the public benefit by the State, the moral character of the claimants is to be taken into consideration. If this is carried out in the future, it will produce some curious results, and will necessitate a new board of arbitrators in ethics and official court valuers in morals. I would suggest, however, to the noble Earl that his dilemma, though clearly, was not quite accurately expressed. It is quite conceivable that the Sub - Commissioners, though not fraudulent and dishonest men, are yet, by the insecurity of their position, through lack of technical knowledge, and for many other reasons, unable to arrive at just and fair conclusions as to rent. It is said that the landlords of Ireland have been extracting unjust rents, rents which I would remind the House were punctually and cheerfully paid until, for purely political purposes, an agitation was set on foot against them, and was forced upon the people by every argument that could appeal to their cupidity, by every argument that could appeal to their national sentiment, and by every horror and atrocity that could fill their minds with terror. Irish landlords have been charged with extracting unjust rents because those rents have been reduced by your Sub-Commissioners. I deny that those Sub-Commissioners are capable or competent to decide those cases. I utterly deny that they are competent, in any way, to adjudicate upon matters affecting the character and honour of a great body of their countrymen. And what has been the sin of these men? According to your indictment, a few—a very few—of the landlords insisted on their legal rights with harshness. That was the indictment. But their real crime—and they know it—was that they stuck, at all hazards, to
  742
  the connection between the two countries as it now exists, and, with a degree of folly which is not likely to possess them again, trusted to the justness of Parliament and of their countrymen to see that they suffered no loss thereby. Such has been the effect of the Act upon this class. It has ruined many, impoverished more, and blackened the characters of all; and these sacrifices have been made absolutely for nothing. The Act has done no good. It has not checked the effect of undue competition for land. It has done nothing to promote emigration. The Purchase Clauses are inoperative. The scandalous way in which the labourers have been left out in the cold has created discontent in that class; and the fact that no principle has been laid down for the fixing of rents, and that no method whatever is observed, has created almost universal dissatisfaction among the class of tenant farmers. They see no justice in the Act. They see no signs of finality in it. The attitude of the country is one of expectation of further agrarian legislation in the immediate future. You might have made a complete change in the whole system of tenure and ownership, giving compensation when it was due; you might have laid down a fair principle for the adjustment of rents; you might have made a complete and reliable valuation of the whole country. You did none of these things. You attempted a compromise, and the compromise has broken down. You have imposed a system upon the country under which neither Ireland nor any other country can thrive. You have got the country into a difficulty, out of which, owing to the unfortunate failure of the Purchase Clauses, we can see no visible way of escape.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was not surprised that many men who were, no doubt, smarting under a sense of what they deemed injustice should feel strongly and denounce unsparingly the Act under which they suffered. But he could not help saying now, what he had said before, that nothing filled him with so much despair for the future of Ireland as this universal habit on the part of Irishmen, whether on the one side or the other, of violent and indiscriminate denunciation. They had Mr. Parnell and his followers in the other House; they had his noble

  743
  Friend in that House. He knew his noble Friend to be as loyal a man as could be, and he did not confound his opinions with those of the men to whom he had referred; but there was in him no calm deliberation, no power of appreciating both sides of a question. The violence which was exemplified, as much in the debates in that House as well as in the debates elsewhere, must make them see how immense was the difficulty of dealing with a country like Ireland, and that difficulty would be as great if the Party opposite was in Office as it was now. His noble Friend spoke with astonishment of the universal reduction of rent in Ireland. There were a vast number of cases yet to be tried; and, therefore, he did not think it could be said with truth that there had been a universal reduction of rents. What, however, their Lordships were asked to consider was what, in point of fact, had been the operation of the Act, and what had been the proceedings of the Commissioners? He considered the Committee were quite as much on their trial as the Commissioners; and the verdict, though, perhaps, not in this House, was quite as likely to go against the Committee as against the Commissioners. The indictment against the Committee was that from first to last they proceeded in a partizan spirit. They carefully called witnesses to prove the case which they determined beforehand to prove, and they had drawn up a Report which formed a violent attack upon the Commissioners and the Act. What it appeared to him the Committee ought to have done, when they received evidence incriminating the Commissioners, was not to wait until the Commissioners presented themselves; but to have sent them the evidence upon which they intended to found the accusations against them, and to have asked them whether they desired to come before the Committee for the purpose of giving rebutting evidence if they could. He did not doubt the right of the House to appoint a Committee of Inquiry into the operation of an Act of this remarkable character; but the head and front of the mistake was the action of the House in insisting upon an inquiry before the Act had fairly got to work. Had a longer time been allowed to elapse, some valuable results might have been attained by the inquiry; as it was, the investi-
  744
  gations had resulted in nothing more than a violent indictment against the Commissioners, founded upon evidence of a one-sided character. Several noble Lords had reflected very severely upon the conduct of the Government and of Parliament in not having in the Act inserted a definition of fair rent, so as to guide the Commissioners in their action. That, no doubt, was deliberately done by Parliament. It was not an act of cowardice, as his noble Friend (the Earl of Dunraven) seemed to imagine; it was the act of men who were not able to frame a satisfactory definition. The most analogous case he could remember was the case of the Act under which very important operations took place in the country—the Act under which all the assessments for local rates were fixed throughout the country. What was the definition which Parliament inserted in that Act? Why, that the property was to be assessed at the rent which it might reasonably be expected to fetch from year to year. That was neither more nor less than a fair rent, and that was exactly rent which the Commissioners in Ireland were instructed to fix. If Parliament had failed in its duty by not inserting a definition in the Act, was that a ground of complaint against the Commissioners? The Commissioners would have gone beyond their duty if they had attempted such a definition; and they would have been enacting, without any legislative power, an addition to the Act of Parliament. A great deal had been said about the Sub-Commissioners, and his noble Friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Dunraven) had expressed surprise that no persons possessing local authority had been appointed to conduct the measure. It was well known that when men were called upon to perform public duties in their own locality they were always open to the charge of partiality. His noble Friend (the Earl of Dunraven) brought a general accusation against the whole Act; he had said it had already failed. Nothing was better than the relations of landlord and tenant before the Act, and there was no necessity for the Act. He (the Earl of Kimberley) supposed that his noble Friend was of opinion that landlords and tenants could have settled their grievances without such an Act, that landlords would have received their rents, and that the tenants would have

  745
  settled down into that quiet and tranquillity for which people had so long wished.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he did net say there was no necessity for legislation; but that there was no necessity for the Act.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked whether his noble Friend did not know that agitators could not do anything unless there was stuff on which they could work? It was because there was a widespread distrust between landlords and tenants, because there was an absence of that good feeling which they all wished to see prevailing, because there was in Ireland a distrust of the Government itself — he did not mean the Government of Mr. Gladstone, but, unfortunately, the Government of this country—it was because of the state of things that he had described, that the Government were compelled to have recourse to an Act which had not been unfairly described as a domestic revolution. The state of things required a violent remedy. His noble Friend knew that landlords were not getting their rents except with the help of English bayonets. Were the Government to supply that force, and not supply the remedy? Whoever it was who was at fault, there was an agrarian agitation in Ireland for which there was no alternative but to have recourse to a strong and drastic measure, such as the Land Act. It was impossible that a measure of this kind could be carried into effect without some cases of individual hardship, and even of injustice. The Commissioners were accused of meeting the statements made against them with a simple denial. He could not see how, under the circumstances, they could have done otherwise. These Commissioners were fallible, like other men; and he should not be at all surprised to learn that in some cases they had acted in a manner which the House would not approve. Very probably they had done a good many things open to criticism; but he believed, at the same time, they had endeavoured to carry out the Act to the best of their ability. When men were intrusted with grave duties, nothing was more discouraging than to find they were not supported by the opinion of the respectable classes in the country. Why, the very hostility they excited in Ireland would make them doubly careful
  746
  not to exceed the bounds of fairness and moderation. They had incurred much odium, it was true; but that was because they endeavoured to give the Act fair play, and did not proceed in a spirit of hostility to it. The Act, he believed, had had a largely beneficial effect, though, perhaps, some believed that the improved condition of the country was due to the measures of severe coercion they had adopted. That, however, was not his opinion. Severe measures might cope effectually with conspiracy, or even with secret societies; but they were powerless in the face of an agrarian movement, a general refusal to pay rent, and, in such cases, nothing but a change of system would avail. That change of system, combined with the severe measures, he believed, would have a good effect; but such a change required a generation to show its full influence on the social system; and, although he believed the Government had laid the foundations of a better land tenure in Ireland, still he should not be surprised even if many further changes intervened before the new system showed its full results, and Ireland became a peaceful and contented country.
  LORD BRABOURNE: My Lords, as a Member of the Committee which has been referred to by the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) as being upon its trial, and as having been myself pointedly alluded to during this debate, I humbly crave your Lordships' indulgence for a short time. No man can have lived a long Parliamentary life without having experienced from time to time great surprises; but I confess that I never experienced a greater surprise than at the tone and the manner of the Lord President of the Council (Lord Carlingford) in his reply to the noble Marquess who introduced this subject to-night. The noble Lord taunted your Lordships' Committee with not having called witnesses on both sides of the question; and he justified those observations of the Commissioners to which I shall presently have to refer. But to enable your Lordships adequately to appreciate the extraordinary reply of the noble Lord, I must ask you to recall, for a few moments, what passed at and since the appointment of this Committee. I was always at a loss to comprehend why Her Majesty's Government should have so vehemently opposed its appointment. It is quite

  747
  true that in ordinary cases there is some inconvenience in inquiring into the working of a law which has only been for a few months in operation. But, in the first place, this was no ordinary case; and, in the next place, it was one far above and beyond any mere question of convenience. Courts had been established in Ireland of a nature and character unknown in the previous history of this country; the law was being administered in a manner which I say distinctly had never been contemplated by the Parliament which passed it; grave complaints of its administration were brought daily before us; and we owed it to ourselves and to the public, alike of Great Britain and of Ireland, that to those complaints we should not turn an indifferent ear. My Lords, if Her Majesty's Government had been able to recognize the position; if they had encouraged, instead of opposing, the inquiry, and had placed upon the Committee some of those who had supported the measure in its passage through this House, and were favourable to what I will call its principles, they would have done much to lift this question, as it ought to have been lifted, out of the region of Party controversy, and would have added immensely to the probability of the early and satisfactory solution of some of the difficulties which beset it. Unhappily, the Government took an entirely different course. From first to last they did their utmost to discredit your Lordships' Committee; in the other House of Parliament they wasted valuable time in an unseemly criticism of your Lordships' proceedings, which was as utterly unconstitutional as it was entirely futile. Your Lordships' Committee meanwhile went on, quietly doing its duty, endeavouring to discover where and wherefore the Act was defective, and investigating the complaints which were made against it. And now, forsooth, the Government having, in a fit of temper at their defeat upon the question of its appointment, refused to aid the inquiry, and discouraged their friends from giving evidence before the Committee, turn round and accuse us of having neglected the duty which it was their own part to have discharged, and find fault with us for not having discovered and summoned before us the evidence which they could themselves have produced if they had wished to aid
  748
  in an impartial inquiry. My Lords, what were the complaints which we had to investigate? They were such as must be admitted by every impartial mind to have been only natural. They came from men who found themselves suddenly and unexpectedly made the victims of a system for which simple truth and common honesty can have no other term than legal confiscation. They were the complaints of landowners who found among those who were appointed to be the arbiters of the rents of the future, men fresh from the platforms on which they had denounced the rents of the past and of the present, and had accompanied those denunciations with speeches in which respect for the rights of property had formed no conspicuous element. And those who complained had a right to expect that their complaints would receive attention, not only from your Lordships' House, but from Her Majesty's Government, for Her Majesty's Government had obtained the passing of this Act by assurances, again and again repeated, which I do not doubt for a moment that they implicitly believed in when they made them, but which, in the result, have turned out to be utterly valueless. Your Lordships' House—aye, and the other House of Parliament—were assured that rack rents alone were to be dealt with under this Act, and that rack-renting was the exception, and not the rule, in Ireland. If you had believed that rents which had been paid duly and without a murmur for 10, 20, 50, nay, 100 years, and which had formed the basis of family settlements and family arrangements for generations, were to be rudely interfered with and materially reduced under this Act, I venture to say that you would never have given your sanction to the measure. Yet such has been the case. The Courts which were to have been Courts of amicable arbitration between landlord and tenant, have been converted into Courts for the re-valuation of the land of Ireland by men who can only make a cursory and imperfect survey of the lands they value, who are guided by no principle, and left to value how they please; and, in fact, the measure has been practically converted into a penal enactment against that particular class of Irishmen who have committed the heinous offence of loyalty to the British Crown and attachment to the

  749
  British connection. My Lords, in so far as our Report deals with Emigration and the Purchase Clauses, I do not propose to say more than a word or two. Of Emigration your Lordships will hear plenty in the future; and of the Purchase Clauses I have but one thing to remark. The Purchase Clauses have failed, because the Act has placed the Irish tenant in a position in which he practically enjoys all the rights of ownership without its responsibilities, so long as he remains where he is; whilst, if he desires to quit his holding, he has that free competition which enables him to obtain a high price for his interest, often, indeed, higher than the unfortunate landlord can obtain for the fee simple of his land. True, the incoming tenant has to pay that high price; and as, in all probability, he will have to borrow the money at a rate of interest which will represent a larger annual payment than the rent, he will be in a worse position than his predecessor. But then it must be remembered, as a peculiarity of this marvellous Act, that its authors have only attempted to secure and satisfy the present tenant farmers of Ireland, and do not appear to have ever thought of another generation. My Lords, upon the subject of judicial rents I must ask your Lordships' indulgence. It is just a year ago that I brought this matter forward, to which allusion has been made tonight by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Fitzgerald). I did so at the request of those who were deeply interested in Irish land, and I spoke under a grave sense of responsibility. Your Lordships may, perhaps, recollect the severe attack which I brought upon myself from the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack. The noble and learned Earl, indeed, restrained his impetuous ardour during the evening upon which I introduced the subject; but, upon an early occasion afterwards, he felt it his duty to descend—I may almost say to leap—into the arena, and, with a vehemence of gesture and violence of language greatly at variance with the usual courteous and gentle demeanour which your Lordships admire in the noble and learned Earl, he declared that I had made imputations which were "odious," "unworthy," and "indefensible," that I had "impeached the integrity of the Sub-Commissioners," and he wound up the
  750
  climax of his fervid oratory by denouncing me as a Member of the Tory Party. Well, my Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Earl is a better judge than I am of what constitutes a Member of the Tory Party, having been one himself, off and on, during part of his political life, and being even now, I observe, described in books of reference as a "Liberal-Conservative," whilst at the same time a Member of a Government one of whose Members boasts that it is more Radical than even the Radical House of Commons. But I do not presume to detain your Lordships upon such a topic. What I wish to notice is the graver charge brought against me by the noble and learned Earl. My Lords, I impeached no man's integrity. The noble and learned Earl said that I had raked up the political antecedents of the Sub-Commissioners. That is not the case. I have had a justification of what I said furnished in the speech just delivered by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India (the Earl of Kimberley). What did he say? He declared that the noble Earl near me (the Earl of Dunraven) could not have administered the Irish Land Act fairly, because his mind was entirely biassed on the side of the landlords. That is precisely what I said with regard to some of the Sub-Commissioners, who had expressed violent tenant-right sentiments before their appointment. I said that when you were about to establish Courts for the trial of cases between two classes of litigants, you ought not to appoint as Judges in such Courts men who had expressed themselves strongly and decidedly in favour of the particular views of one of those two classes, and that if you did so you could not expect that your Courts would give satisfaction or command public confidence. My answer to the strictures of the noble and learned Earl, and of others who have blamed me for bringing the subject forward last year, is a plain and simple answer. The evils complained of were not only great and serious, but they wore daily going on, fresh evidence and fresh complaints came constantly before me, and I felt bound to bring the matter before your Lordships. My Lords, I pressed five points upon your consideration. First, that rents were being largely and unjustly reduced; secondly, that these

  751
  reductions were being made upon old rents, and not only upon estates of which the rents had been lately raised; thirdly, that there was an inequality and want of uniformity in the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners which was likely to be mischievous; fourthly, that they were apparently guided by no such principle as, being made known to the litigating parties, would promote inexpensive settlements out-of-doors; and, fifthly, that the examinations of holdings were hasty and imperfect, the evidence of tenants unreliable, and no information given as to the value of improvements which were allowed. My Lords, I appeal fearlessly to your Lordships whether every word of my allegations has not been proved up to the hilt; and I refer you to the evidence, which fully sustains them, and to the Report in which they have been endorsed. My Lords, the hardest part of the task of speaking upon these matters is caused by the extraordinary attitude of the Government. They are so determined that their measure must have succeeded that they meet every proof to the contrary with a stolid indifference which would be amusing if the matter were not so serious. My noble Friend the Lord President of the Council is entirely hardened against proof, and cannot endure that anyone should disbelieve in the success of his Act. At the beginning of the present Session the noble Duke upon the Front Opposition Bench (the Duke of Abercorn), and the noble Marquess who introduced this subject to-night, made speeches in entire corroboration of all that I had stated last year, and condemnatory of the working of this Act. What was the Lord President's reply? He simply declared that the speeches of those two noble Lords were so full of passion and prejudice as to have no practical result! But he treated the noble Earl near me (the Earl of Dunraven) even worse. My noble Friend, in the course of a speech upon Irish affairs, incidentally declared that the rate of reductions of rent was as great or greater now than it had been at the first sittings of the Sub-Commissioners' Courts. The Lord President politely informed him that he had stated that of which the truth was notoriously the reverse, and that the rate of reduction had been considerably
  752
  lower during the last few months. My Lords, I have referred carefully to the Official Reports for the months of September to February inclusive; and I find that at the moment at which the Lord President was speaking—on the 6th March—there had been an uniform average reduction of about 20 per cent during all these six months, or, to be more exact, the average had been about 18 per cent in the Province of Leinster, something under 20 per cent in Connaught and Munster, and 211/4 per cent in Ulster. And yet, with the knowledge of these Returns which the noble Lord ought to have possessed, he informed us that the rate of reduction during these months had been "considerably lower." My Lords, not being a Lord Chancellor, I cannot use bad language; but I must say of the Lord President's statement that it was not characterized by that accuracy which we had a right to expect from so high an official. My Lords, I had intended to refer more in detail to the evidence which has been the foundation of our Report; but this has been rendered unnecessary by the references already made by previous speakers. I will, therefore, come at once to those observations upon the Report which have emanated from the Irish Land Commissioners. The noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) told us just now that our Report was an extraordinary document; but, to my mind, the Paper which contains these observations is one of a far more extraordinary character. The Commissioners tell us that they have been censured in their absence without any notice or opportunity of defending themselves. Let us get at the real facts of the case. My Lords, this Committee was appointed early in March last year. The bulk of the Evidence upon which the Report was founded was reported and printed at the end of the last Session of Parliament. The Commissioners, therefore, had all the winter months in which to digest the Evidence and consider whether it should be rebutted. Furthermore, in the debate of last July, to which I have already referred, the charges—if charges they are to be called—were specified and stereotyped in the statement which I made in this House, so that the attention of the Commissioners and of the public was emphatically directed to them. Then the Committee was re-appointed in March of the present year.

  753
  Upon the 8th of May—that is, two months before the Report was issued—the Evidence taken up to that time was printed and published; and let it be observed that of the evidence of the only two witnesses who were called after that date, the Commissioners themselves say in this document that it would have made no change in their observations. They had, therefore, two full months in which to consider whether they should bring any evidence to rebut any of the allegations of the witnesses who had been examined, and they deliberately forebore to do so. Be it observed that these allegations did not spring up suddenly, at a late period of the Sittings of the Committee; but they run from first to last all through the Evidence. If the Commissioners had been pleased to bring counter-evidence, the Committee would have been most ready to receive it. But they were not so pleased, and for a very good reason. Had they brought such evidence, it would have been exposed to the keen cross-examination of the noble and learned Earl who presided over the Committee, and of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. It was better policy to wait until the opportunity of cross-examination had passed by, and then to pose before the public in the character of injured men, who been condemned unheard in their absence. And then these Gentlemen, who could not find time in two months to furnish rebutting evidence which could be sifted by cross-examination, found themselves perfectly able, within four days—that is, between the receipt of the Report upon the 14th of July and the 19th—to draw up the elaborate observations which bear the date of the latter day, and which go carefully though every paragraph of the Report. It must be borne in mind, moreover, that from first to last the Commissioners had shown the greatest disinclination to allow the Sub-Commissioners to be examined; and your Lordships' Committee had actually to come to this House to obtain an order for one of them to appear. The Commissioners say in this precious document that—
  "The question assumed a new phase when accusations such as those to which the Committee have given their sanction were made against them."
  But they do not tell your Lordships when this new phase commenced; the
  754
  accusations, if so they are to be called, were made throughout the inquiry from beginning to end; and in the present Session the Commissioners showed the same disinclination to allow the Sub-Commissioners to come over and give evidence, and they never afforded to the Committee the slightest indication that this new phase had in any degree caused them to alter their views upon the question. The conduct of the Government in discrediting the inquiry had caused great reluctance to be examined among witnesses who might have been favourable to the measure, and for this reluctance the Government and the Commissioners now wish to make the Committee responsible, although they did actually examine a number of officials and counsel, of whom I am informed that one had acted solely for tenants in the Courts, and that most of the others had acted for tenants as well as landlords. If the Commissioners felt aggrieved at the evidence they had only to ask in order to be re-examined, and it is preposterous to charge their neglect to do so upon the Committee as a fault committed by them. My Lords, I take this paper of observations in my hand, and neither as a literary document or an argumentative treatise can I call it creditable to the Commissioners. The greater part of it consists in a simple denial of facts proved in evidence, a denial which loses three-fourths of its value because it might have been, but was not, made when that value could have been tested by questions before the Committee. Then the Commissioners complain that a mass of Evidence hostile to the Act has been collected. Well, I suppose that those who had fault to find with the Act came to say so; and your Lordships' Committee can hardly be blamed if those who held different views chose to stay away. But the Commissioners declare that "charges of the grossest character have been recklessly made against them" in the Report. One of these alleged charges is with respect to the arithmetical calculation. I say at once that I throw aside this idea as far as I am personally concerned, because this is a kind of' thing which cannot be proved one way or the other. All, however, that the Committee say in their Report upon this head, so far as the Chief Commissioners are concerned, is simply that if they had given any explanation of the

  755
  principle upon which judicial rents were to be settled they would have avoided the suggestion of this arithmetical process which had been made. The suggestion certainly was made, but the Committee do not endorse it in this paragraph, and certainly I had no notion, nor do I suppose had others any notion, of impeaching the honour and integrity of the Commissioners. The second charge of which they complain is that with respect to the Court valuer. It is said that when his valuation approximates to the judicial rent, the Commissioners invariably confirm that rent; but when his valuation is much higher than the judicial rent they give a very small increase of rent. In this statement—which was given in evidence on the 25th and 26th of April, so that there was ample time to contradict it—your Lordships' Committee simply speak of facts and figures proved before them, which the Commissioners might have disproved if they were able to so. There are the figures; and the only reason we have heard for a non-raising of the judicial rent, when the Court valuers' valuation is above it, is the allegation that in this valuation the tenant's improvements have not been deducted. This however, can hardly be correct, because, if it were so, it would follow that in the other case the rent would be fixed below the judicial rent, instead of the latter being merely confirmed. Then the Commissioners make a most extraordinary confession as to test cases. They allow that it would have been a useful thing to have tried test cases by way of guidance to the Sub-Commissioners, because they say that they were actually prepared to do so when Mr. Parnell and the Land League had decided to submit such cases for trial. But as soon as the Land League was declared illegal, and Mr. Parnell thrown into prison, they abandoned the idea. Well, if it was desirable that test cases should be tried, I cannot see why it should have been less so because they were not furnished by Mr. Parnell. Was the matter to depend upon the Land League, or had not the Commissioners the good sense and ability to select cases as test cases, by the trying of which they might have rendered valuable service to the administration of the Act? Then, my Lords, comes the strange declaration of the Commissioners, that
  756
  it was impossible for them to have laid down any principle for the guidance of their Sub-Commissioners. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for India (the Earl of Kimberley) appeared entirely to endorse that opinion to-night; and he pointed to the English Assessment Act, and said that the only principle of valuation therein laid down was that a farm should be valued at what it might be "reasonably expected to let for from year to year." My Lords, it so happens that at the time of the last English Assessment Act I was living in the country, and I went on an Assessment Committee, and, in company with practical farmers, valued a great number of farms. The noble Earl is quite correct as to the principle; but he entirely forgets that we had to guide us in our English valuations the market price of land ascertainable by free and fair competition, and our knowledge of the rents paid for land under that competition. But this fair competition has been destroyed in Ireland by this Land Act. It is the very essence of Liberal principles; but Liberal principles have been declared inapplicable to Ireland. Then, having done away with this, the best, if not the only test by which value can be ascertained, it was mere than ever necessary that some principles of action should be laid down for the guidance of those who were about to settle the Irish rents of the future. And it was all the more necessary, because of the opinions of those who had to be guided. We know that at the celebrated meeting between the Chief Commissioners and their subordinates, two of the latter expressed views upon this subject so strange as to elicit laughter from their superior officers. We know, moreover, that at least one Sub-Commissioner—Mr. William Gray—entertained views of a somewhat extravagant character. His views, as published in the newspapers, and uncontradicted so far as I know, were that you should take Griffith's valuation, deduct the taxes, halve the remainder, and give one-half as rent to the landlord. This, he said, would be plenty for the landlord to live on, and it might have to be still further reduced if American competition increased. These were the kind of men with whom the Commissioners had to deal — men ignorant of law, and imperfectly acquainted with their duties. Surely it was the duty of the

  757
  Commissioners to have explained to them the Act, and given them, at least, suggestions as to their course of procedure. Instead of this, they preferred, in Professor Baldwin's words, to turn them loose upon the property of landlords and tenants without any instructions whatever, sooner than run the risk of themselves making any possible mistake in their directions, which might afterwards have been reversed by a Superior Court. Such simple instructions might certainly have been given; and as to the impossibility of stating any principle, unless my ears deceived me, there was some statement very much of the character of the principle of valuation in the Paper which the Lord President read to-night, as coming from Mr. Grey, of Dilston, which I asked him to lay upon the Table of the House, considering the inconvenience of quoting from a Paper which has not been so laid. The Commissioners, however, gave no directions or instructions, and the consequence has been that want of uniformity and that confusion in the administration of the law of which such deep complaint is made. My Lords, I have been asked by one or two friends—"Well, after all, what is the use of your Committee and of your Report?" I answer, my Lords, that I think we have been of some use, if only in that we have been able to point out some of the defects in the working of this Act, which have actually been remedied at our suggestion. We have done something more, if, by exposing the inherent viciousness of the system which has been established in Ireland, we may have prevented still further legislative mischief upon the same lines. For your Lordships will probably be of opinion that, after the experiences of the years 1870 and 1881, and the enactment in the latter year of provisions specially denounced and condemned as impracticable by the Prime Minister in the former year, there is no conceivable extravagance in land legislation which may not at any moment be brought within the range of practical politics by those who obtained the present Land Act as a concession to their agitation. I know well enough that the Government deny that this measure can be fairly so described. I do not forget that, at the commencement of the present Session, the Lord President declared, in somewhat grandiloquent language,
  758
  that this was not a concession, but a reform. But such language deceives nobody. Let any noble Lord gauge its value by asking himself—if there had been no agitation, would there have been any such Land Acts? Least of all, does it deceive the people of Ireland? The noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) told us just now that agitators could do nothing unless there was stuff on which they could work. That is true, indeed; and it is because they know the squeezable stuff of which the Government is made that the agitators continue their trade, and encourage the tenant farmers to expect still further benefits from land legislation. I imagine that when the Government introduced this Land Act they had two main objects in view—one, which I make no doubt was their first and greatest object, to pacify Ireland and content her people. But their second object I take to have been to build up and consolidate a Party of grateful supporters for the Minister who had given to the Irish tenant farmers so great a boon at the expense of their landlords. It is to be hoped that the Government have not so egregiously failed in the first object as they undoubtedly seem to have done in the second. At the last General Election a compact body of Liberals were returned from the North of Ireland to support Mr. Gladstone's Government. Where are your Ulster Liberals now? If you go among Irish Representatives now and see one with a countenance more than usually melancholy, the chances are that he is an Ulster Liberal. Their doom is fixed; their sentence is passed. They were made use of by the Party—falsely called the Nationalist Party in Ireland, since they do their best to destroy her as a nation—to turn out the Tory Government; and they are beginning to find that they have only escaped the Scylla of Beaconsfield to be overwhelmed in the Charybdis of Parnell. Has the Monaghan Election taught us no lesson? Have you any evidence to show that your Land Act has been accepted as anything but as an instalment of demands to which, at present, you have no idea of making any concession? Do you really imagine that you have pacified Ireland by this remedial measure? You point, indeed, to a more tranquil Ireland than you could have done last year, and you refer with pride

  759
  to the vigour and energy which has been shown by the noble Earl who holds the Office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Earl Spencer). I, for one, never doubted that the noble Earl would show vigour and energy in any public position which he might hold. But how have you enabled him to employ these qualities with effect? By throwing to the winds all those maxims which you preached during your first year of Office, and falling back upon those measures of coercion and repression which you professed to have finally abandoned. Have you really gained strength, either for yourselves or your country, by this legislation? What is the language now held by the Leaders of the Nationalist Party? There is no question with them of Whig or Tory. After the Monaghan Election I see that Mr. Parnell declared that "no English Party" could henceforward hold up its head in Ireland; and, again, after the Wexford Election, another of these Leaders declared that "Wexford had struck a blow at the vile Foreign Ruler." And yet these are the men through whom you recently sought to govern Ireland. These are the men who beast that from Kilmainham Gaol they dictated every word and every line of your Arrears Bill; and, although this may not be true, there is little doubt that a great many people in Ireland will believe it. To please such men you have turned loose valuers to value the land of Ireland without a principle, and to reduce the rents far and wide. You have committed an error, the worst part of which is that it is stereotyped in legislation, and cannot be undone. You cannot drop it, as if it were a Suez Canal negotiation, as soon as your blunder has been condemned by public opinion—the Act must continue to work, and I fear that its work can hardly be satisfactory. I wish I could think otherwise; but it is because I fear that the evils of this Act will increase rather than diminish, and because I have no unkindly feeling either towards Ireland or towards Her Majesty's Government, that at this moment I regard both the one and the other with profound commiseration.
  THE EARL OF HOWTHsaid, that his experience of the Land Commission was not very extensive; but he felt bound to say that that experience led him to believe that the Commissioners were
  760
  largely guided by the circumstances of the tenantry, and, though they had not laid down any rigid principles, were performing their duties conscientiously. He had even known instances in which they had raised the rents. Having some knowledge of the condition of agriculture in Warwickshire and other English counties, and of the reduction of rent which they felt it necessary to make, he would much sooner, as a landlord, be under the Irish Land Act, as administered by the Land Commissioners.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he believed that the tenants of Ulster would remain loyal to their tenant right, and set their faces resolutely against the inroads of agitation in that portion of Ireland, despite the results of the Monaghan Election. Farmers had told him they would sooner vote for a Conservative than hand over their county to anarchy.
  LORD EMLYsaid, that it struck him as astonishing that a Committee, presided over by a noble and learned Earl who had occupied the highest legal position in this country, should have made such a charge as was disclosed in the Report against men of high character, one of whom was a Member of their Lordships' House, and another of whom was one of Her Majesty's Judges. In his opinion, the fact that such a charge had been made must result in discredit attaching to some among those who had published it. The matter, however, could not be left as it now stood. The mistake made by noble Lords opposite was that they did not take into consideration the position in which the Commissioners were placed. They were not responsible for the Act. It was their Lordships who were responsible. The time was one of unexampled depression. Everyone knew how landlords in Great Britain suffered in respect of rent. A noble Friend of his told him that 2,000 acres of arable land, for which he had been receiving 30 s. an acre, were thrown on his hands, and that he would be most willing to let them for 10 s. an acre. And Sir George Jessel, who, from his position, had great knowledge on the subject, described to him the unexampled fall in all manner of rents. Besides, that was the time of the American competition, which acted so injuriously on the farmer. It was under these circumstances that the Commissioners had to fix the rent of land, not for two or three

  761
  years, but for 15. He was in a measure behind the scenes, for there were many friends of his Sub-Commissioners, and they were as honourable men as any of their Lordships. They assured him that the system they adopted was wise, and calculated to ascertain the true value of the land. One of the charges against the Commissioners was that they had not laid down any rules for the guidance of the Sub-Commissioners. He could state, from the highest legal authority, that they could not have done so. Parliament deliberately framed the clauses upon which they were to proceed; and it would have been entirely illegal for the Commissioners to substitute any other rules. It should also be recollected that the Commissioners had to proceed on an entirely new system. The ordinary rules by which the value of land was determined—contract and competition—were, it might be said, abolished in Ireland. It was, as the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had said, "a tremendous remedy for a tremendous disease." Their Lordships had heard of injustice to the landlords. In an island off the coast of Ireland the rent, when the property was bought by the present owner, was £800 a-year. By the labours of the tenants, without any assistance from the landlords, the land was improved, and the rent was raised to £3,000 a-year. Could their Lordships wonder that in such a case the rents had been reduced 58 and 75 per cent? Was that not a case in which some remedy was required for so cruel an injustice? Why, the principle of the Land Act was recommended by the Duke of Richmond's Commission. ["No!"] They recommended that there should be some tribunal for revising rents; and Mr. Arthur Kavanagh, one of the leading men among the landlords of Ireland, in the strongest way advocated such a tribunal. He trusted that the Government would persevere with the scheme of emigration, which last year worked so well. Some time ago their Lordships were told that an offer had been made by responsible persons in Canada, in pursuance of which emigration could be carried out on a great scale; and the House had reason to believe that the proposal would be accepted by the Government. He hoped whoever spoke on behalf of the Government would assure him that the admirable scheme of emigration started last year
  762
  would not be allowed to fall through. He agreed with some of the noble Lords who preceded him, that an amendment of the law was necessary with regard to the sale of land to the tenants. He was satisfied that until the number of persons interested in the preservation of property in Ireland was increased there never would be peace and prosperity in that country.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate, and many striking speeches. I should not have risen to add to the case of our side, which has been presented with such remarkable force, except to repel one or two misapprehensions which have occurred in the debate, and which, I think, it is undesirable should remain on record uncontradicted. The noble Lord who has just sat down stated that the Duke of Richmond and Gordon's Commission had recommended a measure such as the Irish Land Act.
  LORD EMLY: I think my expression was that the Duke of Richmond and Gordon's Commission had recommended that there should be some measure introduced giving those tenants who considered their rents excessive some means of redress.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I heard the noble Lord rightly he used the word "tribunal."
  LORD EMLY: Tribunal—yes.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Such a statement has been frequently made. It has been made by the Prime Minister himself, and I know none of the commonplaces of politics that are more utterly untrustworthy. I have the exact words of the Duke of Richmond and Gordon's Commission before me, and I think the noble Lord will see that there is nothing which refers to the establishment of any tribunal of the kind, or authorizes any interference with existing rents. They say that the demand for
  "Legislative interference to protect the tenant from an arbitrary increase of rent does not seem unnatural; and we are inclined to think that, by the majority of landowners, legislation framed to accomplish this object will not be objected to."
  There is not a word about reducing existing rents. There is not a word about the gross barbarism of tearing up existing contracts. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald) stated

  763
  that if there were any defects in the Irish Land Act, if there was a want of definition with respect to fair rent, and if the Sub-Commissioners had been led into error in consequence, this House ought to take its share of the blame, because it did not attempt to guide them. I think the noble and learned Lord forgets the circumstances under which this House accepted the Land Act. I remember them very well. Personally, I was anxious to make an effort to introduce a definition of fair rent into the Act; but I was always strongly discouraged by the unanimous voice of those Irish landowners whom I consulted. They said—"The Government have promised us, they have assured us, that this Bill will make no change in the great mass of rents in Ireland; that it will only interfere with those rack-renters whom we do not desire to protect; and, therefore, we think that it would be very unfortunate if any words were introduced which would have the effect of distorting a measure which they assure us will leave us harmless." The noble Lord the President of the Council told us to-night that there had always been a great deal of rack-renting. There were several Members of the Cabinet who believed that at the time; but they all kept silence. Mr. Forster, speaking after the Bill had passed, candidly told us so. The only Members of the Government who were allowed to speak were those who believed that there would be no extensive reductions of rent. The Lord President, the Lord Chancellor, and Mr. Bright told us in various tones substantially the same thing—that in nine cases out of ten rents would remain very much as they were. But the strangest of all the silent Members at the time the Act was passing through Parliament was Lord Hartington. Speaking in Lancashire this year, Lord Hartington said—
  "We caused inquiry to be made"—that was before the passing of the Act—"and we found that, not in the opinion of one Party alone, not in the opinion alone of one section of Irish society, but in the opinion of an overwhelming majority of the Irish nation, that the rents which were being demanded from Irish tenants were in a great number of cases such as it was impossible for them to pay and live."
  That is what the Cabinet thought when they introduced the Bill. This is what the Cabinet, speaking through Mr. Bright's mouth, said—
  764
  "My view of the operation of that particular clause is that the rents of Ireland will, in nine cases out of ten, be fixed as they are now."
  Is it possible to reconcile these two statements? What I wish to point out is that you cannot affix to the House of Lords any moral responsibility for having accepted this disastrous clause of the Irish Land Act, when they were led into a false and deluded idea as to the effects of that Act by the assurances of the Government itself. With respect to the matter of this Report, the noble Lord has declared it to be a violent and extravagant document. I do not think the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) is likely to have put his hand to a document of that kind. In the next plnce, I do not admit that the Commissioners have any grounds of complaint whatever because they were not heard in answer to the allegations of the witnesses we summoned. It must be remembered that on the 6th May all the Evidence of which complaint is made was laid upon the Table. On the 31st May it was printed and circulated, and it must have been perfectly within the knowledge of the Commissioners. The Report was not agreed to until the 5th July. A single letter addressed to the Chairman of the Committee would have secured their being heard in rebuttal of the evidence I if they so desired. But they maintained an absolute silence for the space of five weeks, and immediately the Report is out the Commissioners find their tongues, and complain that they have not been heard. My Lords, I do not believe that public opinion will attach the slightest importance to that complaint. I maintain, further, that there is no charge in the portion of the Report in which it is alleged that there is a charge against the Commissioners. There is no expression of an opinion with respect to their being exposed to the suggestions to which reference has been made, but rather against the fatal system of secrecy which they thought fit to adopt. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald) told us that the cases which had been alluded to were mere coincidences, and were due to the law of average. I-hope nobody will take that statement for granted without carefully reading the Report and examining the figures. They are the most remarkable figures I ever saw. We have hero the decisions of

  765
  the Sub-Commissioners in November, 1882, on one single estate. There were only 40 cases, and of these, as regards 16, this rule is good that if you add together the valuation given to the tenant and that given to the landlord it will in each case, within odd shillings, produce the judicial rent. Do not tell me that this is a mere coincidence, or to be put aside by an appeal to the doctrine of averages. We have had nothing in defence of this case but two arguments — one that it is all coincidence, and the other an appeal to the character of the Commissioners. These are two favourite modes of defence. We have simply to appeal to our countrymen to judge whether these mysterious figures can be fairly disposed of by such arguments as these. In this, as in other cases, you will find strange coincidences; but the vital question is, can you get the jury to believe it? I cannot say that the whole of the Sub-Commissioners are subject to this charge, because we have no figures to prove it; but I think we should be wanting in our duty if we did not call their attention to the inferences to which these figures inevitably lead. We do not venture to state that the inference is correct. We only point to their grave character, and invite attention to them. As to the matter of principle, that has been sufficiently discussed, and I shall not enter into it; but in answer to those who say that we have not sufficiently examined witnesses, I would say that the burden of the Evidence is the complaint that there is no principle underlying the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners. If there is to be any system which shall not create a lasting jealousy between one estate and another we must have a principle which can be used by all Courts uniformly. I do not wish at this hour to continue this discussion. I think it will cause our countrymen to reflect very deeply on the value of this Irish Land Act, of which so much has been said. The noble and learned Lord, who has spoken opposite, has had recourse to prophecy to get rid of the inconvenience of existing facts; and he has told us he foresees some distant period at which the security of tenure will cause the Irish people to forget the present disaster. I myself indulge in no such beautiful dream. There is something more precious than security of tenure, and that is security of property; and
  766
  security of property has been very greatly shaken by this Act. The Government found in existence rights which had lasted unquestioned four centuries; they have taken away those rights; they have reduced the rents that were being paid; and they have insured the tenants enjoyment of what they possessed, even though they broke the terms on which they held it. Various names may be attached to acts of this nature. The word "confiscation" is objected to; but we will not quarrel about words. You may apply any term or euphemism that you please; but whether you call the process confiscating or conveying, the practical result is the same. Men do not believe in exceptional legislation, and they see that the effect has been to deprive them of their property—that legislation has been adopted in answer to agitation, and they look with dread upon a future which may produce new agitation with similar results. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for India has told us, with an engaging frankness, which, no doubt, Irish landlords will greatly appreciate, that we cannot deal by force with a general resistance to rent; but that, when such a thing happens, we have nothing to do but to find some legislation which shall conciliate the people. This is an important statement. It reveals the real motives which, in spite of all protestations, have guided the policy of Her Majesty's Government. But it is important more with reference to the future than with reference to the past. It is an indication of what the principles are which, in view of new difficulties and dangers, will guide Her Majesty's Government. It is an indication of what any classes possessing property in Ireland have to fear when the next agitation arises, when the next Liberal Government is in power, and when the question is again placed before them, whether they shall sustain the laws of property or keep together their Parliamentary majority. I do not anticipate that this measure will be looked back upon in the future as a great effort in the pacification of Ireland. I trust its failure will prevent any repetition; but it will be looked back to in distant times as a proof of the evil to which an exaggeration of our Parliamentary system and the degradation of our Party Government will lead yielding and unscrupulous politicians.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not shrink from repeating the substance of the opinions which I expressed at the time the Act was passed. The noble Marquess and those who sit behind him did not resist the second reading; and, therefore, they shared the responsibility of the Government, and the course they adopted was highly honourable to them, for they looked upon it as an unavoidable political necessity; and the only point upon which they may be open to reproach is that their present conduct has not been consistent with that course. I would repeat what I said before, that the landlords of Ireland are, at the present moment, in a far better position than they would have been if the Act had not been passed. It is very true that some Members of the Government expressed the expectation that on the greater part of the estates in Ireland no reduction, or no material reduction, of rent would take place. But that they could give assurances, or that anybody acted on the faith of those assurances, I totally deny. The opinion, honestly entertained by those who expressed it, was based upon information which was public to the whole world. I admit that to a greater extent than I, for one, expected rents have been reduced, even upon some of the more considerable and better - managed estates. That they have been universally reduced is not a fact. There are not inconsiderable estates in the South of Ireland on which there have been either no reductions, or reductions very far less in magnitude than the average reduction. If you compare the experience of England during these years of depression, and the rate of reductions of rent to which landlords have had to submit, and the distress of those who have been unable to get any rent at all because their farms have been thrown on their hands—if you compare these things with the present condition of landlords in Ireland, even after the reductions which have been made, it appears to me that the condition of landlords in Ireland, as regards both the amount and the receipt of their rents, is better at this moment than that of landlords in some very large districts in England. Although we might have hoped that the reductions would be less, we ought not to be astonished, considering all
  768
  the circumstances, that those reductions should be as great as they are. The position of Irish landlords, who are now almost universally receiving their rents, is very different indeed from their position when the Land Bill was introduced, and very different from the position in which they would be now if that Bill had not become law. If the Lord Lieutenant—who has been congratulated on all sides upon the ability, firmness, and great patriotism which he has displayed in the administration of Irish affairs—were asked whether he believes that the present state of comparative peace, and order, and tranquillity would have been seen without such a remedial measure as the Land Act, I feel confident that my noble Friend would say that he does not believe it. Therefore, though some expectations may not have been fulfilled, others have not been disappointed. One expectation which I had has, certainly, not been fulfilled. When this House passed the Bill, and conducted it through Committee without any serious manifestations of hostility, I did expect that the subsequent conduct of noble Lords would be such as to make it impossible for anyone to say that such drawbacks as there might be on the success of the measure were clue in any manner to a want of co-operation on their part. I did think that the course taken by noble Lords from Ireland, and. by others, interested like them in the ownership of Irish land, would be in harmony, after the passing of the measure, with the course which they took when the Bill was passing through the House. What happened? The Commissioners had scarcely done a stroke of work, when large and important meetings were held in Dublin and elsewhere, at which speeches were made by influential persons denouncing the Bill almost before it had come into operation, calling it by many hard names, almost as hard. as those suggested by the noble Marquess—I am not sure whether "plunder" was not one, whether "spoliation" was not another. With what hopes of success was the measure launched into life and action, when one of the two classes bound up with it, and whose interest it was to make it work for the best, declared itself in a spirit of hostility against it, and of distrust towards those who were to administer it? And now I come to this unhappy Committee. On

  769
  the 17th of February, 1882, your Lordships passed that vote, deprecated with all the force that we were able on the part of the Government. We felt that if any step could be taken more likely than another to prevent the measure from becoming a final settlement, more likely to keep open wounds not yet closed, and to inflame them still more, it was the appointment of that Committee. We felt that so strongly that, as a Government, we declined to take any responsibility for the labours of that Committee. We left the whole responsibility to others. We thought it not conducive to the peace of Ireland, or to the contentment of the class either of landlords or tenants. I felt at the time very strongly what was coming, and thought it my duty to warn the House of what would take place. All that I then said has come true. After that, a letter was written by my noble and learned Friend the Chairman of the Committee, whose absence this evening we all regret. He wrote a very civil letter, inviting Mr. Forster to attend before the Committee, and in that letter he said that the Committee did not consider it within the scope of the Reference made to them by the House to inquire into the correctness of any decision which the Land Commissioners or the Sub-Commissioners, in the exercise of their judicial functions, might arrive at. It was not thought right that Mr. Forster should attend. I do not know whether his declining to do so may have cancelled the statement contained in that letter; but this I do know—that from the beginning to the end of the inquiries of the Committee there have been constant references to the decisions as to this estate and that. The books are full of them; and although the Committee may not have sat technically as a Court of Appeal, or under any of the conditions or safeguards indispensable for that purpose, they have, nevertheless, sat in judgment by wholesale upon the decisions of the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners, and in detail upon the decisions in a great many cases. I must do justice to the noble Lords by admitting at once that they were placed in a position of much difficulty by the course which the Government, not out of temper, but from their sense of public duty, had taken. No doubt, the noble Lords who supported the appointment
  770
  of that Committee had not the assistance which, in ordinary circumstances, they might have had from those who differed from them. The responsibility was left upon them to determine, under those circumstances, whether they would proceed or not, and to determine, if they did proceed, how they would constitute and how they would conduct their Committee. My Lords, the Committee was constituted of a number of noble Lords, as honourable men as any in this House. I do not, however, know whether it was necessary—if it was, it was an unfortunate necessity—that six Irish proprietors of land—some of them either actually or probably in the future interested in what the Commissioners might do, and who bad taken, as they justly might, an active part, and who were likely afterwards to take an active part, in all the debates on the subject in this House—should be among the Members of that Committee. As has been already stated, the witnesses examined by that Committee may be divided into three classes—official persons, including the Commissioners and three of the Sub-Commissioners; one gentleman, who had acted frequently as counsel for tenants; and 32 gentlemen, who were either landlords, agents for landlords, or solicitors or counsel who had acted, on the whole, for landlords. The one gentleman who had acted for tenants said nothing tending in any way whatever to impeach any part of the conduct of the Commissioners. Well, I cannot but say that I think that was a very unfortunate necessity which the Committee were under, if it was necessary to have such one-sided evidence. If it was not a necessity, then it was a very unfortunate error of judgment. It is still more to be regretted that, without taking any notice whatever of the statements and explanations of the Commissioners, they have adopted in their Report all the adverse suggestions made by that class of witnesses which represented the interest of the landlords. They examined, and, in their first Report, reported the evidence of all the three Commissioners and the Secretary to the Commission. In their third Report they reported the evidence of three Sub-Commissioners—Mr. Reeve, Mr. Foley, and Mr. Baldwin. I have read with care the evidence of the three Commissioners; and I venture to think that evidence more creditable to them,

  771
  more straightforward and open, more satisfactory, more worthy of credit from the Committee could not be imagined; but in the Report no credit appears to be given to any part of it. On the contrary, one would think from reading the Report, as far as its findings are concerned, that no such evidence had been given. The Commissioners fully explained the reason why they took the course which has been throughout mainly objected to as wrong, the course of not laying down rules or entering into explanations of the principles on which fair rents were to be ascertained. I hope presently to give your Lordships a statement of the effect of their reasons, which, to my mind, are not only satisfactory, but absolutely conclusive. Mr. Foley's evidence in substance confirmed the Commissioners', and so did Mr. Reeve's. Mr. Baldwin, it is true, was more critical of other persons, if not of the Commissioners themselves. I do not believe that Mr. Baldwin intended to throw discredit upon the Commissioners, or upon his own Colleagues. But he seems to have placed little confidence in any man's knowledge or judgment except his own; and, in the impartiality of his criticism, he did not spare the landlords, of whom he said—
  "In dealing with the administration of the Act, I have not seen much wisdom on the part of those who represent the landlords."
  The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) has insisted that if there is anything criminatory in this Report of the proceedings of the Commissioners, it is the Commissioners' own fault, because they did not come forward when they were invited to do so to rebut the charges against them. But the Committee were well aware that the Government did not think it convenient that the work of the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners should be interrupted by their attendance at this inquiry, nor did they think it would conduce to a successful discharge of their duties that they should come up and be examined more than was necessary. Under those circumstances, was it reasonable to suppose they would volunteer to do so? The Committee had reported in two thick Blue Books a mass of Evidence, in which there was nothing that has been, or that could be, made the foundation of any charges affecting the honour and integrity of the Commis-
  772
  sioners or Sub-Commissioners in the discharge of their duties. Any fair man who reads the third and the final Report will, I think, say that the Committee ought to have adopted one of two modes of proceeding; they might either have placed in their third Report some words which would have amounted to an invitation to the Commissioners to come in and contradict the evidence then reported if they chose; or they might have given notice to them that there was matter there which, in their view, required a reply, and to which, therefore, the Commissioners and Sub - Commissioners should have had ample opportunity of replying. It was usual to take some such course as this, whenever, in the course of a public inquiry, high public functionaries were thought to be prejudicially affected by any statements made; but, in this case, nothing of the kind was done. It was no excuse to say, as was said in the final Report, that the Evidence contained in the third Report was issued a month or two beforehand, in order that those concerned might have their attention directed to it, and answer it if they could. Why was it not so stated in the third Report itself? Why was the explanation of that motive or purpose reserved for the final Report, when, before the Committee at all events, no answer could be given? The noble Marquess has now adopted and reiterated the imputations against the Sub-Commissioners, although he does not, in express words, apply them to the Commissioners-in-Chief. There are different ways of doing things, and the more indirect is not always the better way. It seems to me that the insinuation in the final Report of the Committee conveys a charge quite as offensive against the Commissioners as if it were put more directly. As to the charge itself, I was sorry to hear the noble Marquess re-affirm it. The Lord President has told us that every one of the Commissioners has denied it in fact; and although Mr. Foley and Mr. Baldwin, the persons directly charged by the evidence of Mr. Smith, were afterwards examined by the Committee, no question was put to them in regard to those arithmetical coincidences on which so much stress has been laid. Mr. Baldwin, though not told that such a charge lead been made against him, spontaneously denied it, as relating to himself. Mr. Foley knew nothing

  773
  about it, and the course of his examination did not suggest anything of the kind. It seems to me that there is a very obvious explanation in the fact that, when impartial persons have to judge between different valuations, all of which may, from different points of view, be honestly made, the results arrived at by a fair and independent judgment are often such as nearly to coincide with those which might be obtained by splitting the difference. It has been said that the Commissioners should have laid down rules. The Act of Parliament laid down rules, and the Commissioners would have been acting improperly and against the law had they laid down other rules, at variance with, or in addition to, those rules. If an attempt had been made to frame definitions they would have knocked their heads against a wall on one side or the other. Their definitions would certainly have been accused of being too beneficial either to the landlords or to the tenants. Professor Baldwin, who is quoted as complaining that the Commissioners ought to have given some directions for which he asked, and which it would really have been most improper for them to give, professed himself to have acted on definite principles; but, when asked what they were, they turned out to be only his own knowledge, and skill, and experience, and such information as might be obtained from any ordinary books on land valuation. Witnesses who attended-before the Committee said that any attempt to lay down definitions would have led to interminable litigation. It is said that it is the common Practice of Courts of Justice to give reasons for their judgments. So it is upon matters of law, and upon matters of law it has been the practice of these Courts. But it has never been the practice in this country to give reasons for verdicts or awards, in trials turning upon matters of fact, which are the subject of reference to arbitrators, juries, or Judges discharging the duties of jurors. In conclusion, I have to say that I am myself entirely satisfied with the answers now given by the Commissioners to the charges brought against them.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he must protest against the attempt which had been made to discredit the evidence taken by the Commissioners, by the assertion that the witnesses exa-
  774
  mined were all on one side. The Committee had done their utmost to procure the best available evidence.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SCOTLAND—THE ORKNEY ISLANDS—THE "HEN AND CHICKENS" ROCK.

  QUESTION.
  LORD WAVENEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Lords Commissioners, in order to obtain prompt and effectual security for shipping in the neighbourhood of the "Hen and Chickens" Rock, coast of Orkney, will order the erection of a perch on the reef by the district surveying officer, as was done in the Easdaile Channel, August 1848?
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK, in reply, said, that it was a matter rather for the Commissioners of Northern Lights or the Board of Trade than for the Admiralty.
  House adjourned at One o'clock, A.M. to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.