Sitting of 29 April 1884

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Contagious Diseases (Animals) [120]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Fisheries (Ireland)* [27].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY BILL.

    INSTRUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE.
    MR. MAYNErose to move an Instruction to the Select Committee to which this Bill had been referred.
    MR. FINDLATERrose to a point of Order. He wished to know whether it was competent for the hon. Member, being a member of the Corporation of Dublin, who had petitioned against the Bill, and whose locus slandi had been established, to move an Instruction to the Committee to protect the rights and interests of the Corporation of Dublin? He also wished to know whether it was competent for the hon. Member to move that a power should be conferred upon a Committee which they already possessed?
    MR. SPEAKER: As I understand the question of Order put to me by the hon. Member, it divides itself into two parts—namely, whether the hon. Member for Tipperary, being a member of the Corporation of Dublin, is entitled to take the step he has now taken in regard to this Bill. Upon that point my opinion is clear—namely, that the fact of his being a member of the Corporation of Dublin does not prevent him from taking the action he is now taking. As to the Instruction to the Committee being in the nature of the reference of a point they have already power to deal with, I draw a distinction between a Committee on a Private Bill and Committees of this House. The Instruction to the Select Committee now about to be moved by the hon. Member is a mandatory and compulsory Instruction, and differs from an ordinary Instruction to Committees of the House, which is only permissive. Therefore, in regard to
    876
    those two points, I am of opinion that the hon. Member for Tipperary is perfectly in Order.
    MR. MAYNE MR. MAYNE moved—
    "That it he an Instruction to the Committee to inquire and report to the House whether the proposed Railway will injuriously affect one of the few open spaces in the City of Dublin, viz.: the open space known as Beresford Place, situate on the north and west sides of the Custom House; and needlessly disfigure the said City; and that they have power to call Witnesses and receive evidence upon the subject."
    The hon. Member said, the Bill in question contained provisions which were both extraordinary and novel. If the railway were constructed as proposed in the present Bill, it would run for nearly one-half of its entire length through or over public thoroughfares in the City of Dublin, and would involve, even by the admission of the promoters themselves, a serious disfigurement of this part of the City. He thought the House would agree with him, under the circumstances, that something more than the ordinary reference to a Committee was necessary; and he therefore begged to move that the Motion standing in his name on the Paper be adopted.
    MR. R. POWERseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire and report to the House whether the proposed Railway will injuriously affect one of the few open spaces in the City of Dublin, viz.: the open space known as Beresford Place, situate on the north and west sides of the Custom House; and needlessly disfigure the said City; and that they have power to call Witnesses and receive evidence upon the subject."—(Mr. Mayne.)
    MR. M. BROOKSsaid, it so happened that the proposed railway would run adjacent to, and would seriously affect, property of great value belonging to a Company of which he had the honour to be Chairman; and as he was also interested in the Corporation, no matter upon which side he voted—whether with the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne), or the promoters of the Bill—he was open to the imputation of being actuated by motives of personal consideration. He thought, however, that he ought to do his duty without fear or affection, and he ought to follow what he believed to be the general interests of the citizens of Dublin in the matter. Without any desire to be offensive to his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary, he was bound

    877
    to say that he thought the Motion was one of a most insidious character, and that if it were carried it would have the effect of killing the Bill. It would, practically, kill the Bill, because there would not be sufficient time to construct any alternative line. There were no limits of deviation which would enable the Company to construct the line. There could be no doubt as to the desirability of constructing this railway. He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General present in his place, because the right hon. Gentleman had, both in the House and elsewhere, pointed out the necessity for connecting the railways which now arrived and terminated in Dublin, but which were now without any central station, such as this Bill made provision for. And there could be no doubt that this railway, if constructed, would, more or less, disfigure the City. He was not aware that any railway was ever constructed in a large town which was not, more or less, a disfigurement. But he was bound to say that the disfigurement, of which the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne) complained, would be a much smaller evil, and only a minor matter of importance, compared with the success of a Motion which would prevent the construction of this railway at all. He should, therefore, feel bound to vote against the proposal of the hon. Member, repeating, that if the Committee should employ its time in doing that which the hon. Member desired, and which they had already full power to do if they were satisfied of its necessity, they would effectually kill the Bill. Under these circumstances, he should vote against the proposal of the hon. Member.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that he was not open to the imputation of being personally interested in this railway in any way whatever; and it was simply upon the ground of public convenience that he should vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Tipperary. He quite agreed that the construction of the railway through the proposed route to Beresford Place would be, to a certain extent, a disfigurement of the City, and that it would block up one of the finest views from Carlisle Bridge; but the communication between Westland Row and Amiens Street was of the utmost importance, so far as the
    878
    convenience of the mails was concerned. At the present moment great and vexatious delay was occasioned, and there was a considerable amount of obstruction in the thoroughfares, in consequence of the present mode of proceeding. He, therefore, could not conceive how anyone who had no idea of the importance of securing the rapid transit of the mails should oppose this Bill in the manner in which the hon. Member for Tipperary proposed to do. The hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Mr. Brooks) said the opposition to the Bill would kill it in its present stage, because it was impossible to deviate the line as laid down in the deposited plans. He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General present. He was quite satisfied, from the attention the right hon. Gentleman had given to the subject, that he would be able to give the House his views as to the importance of making this communication.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, he could conceive no other object the Motion could have than to prejudice the views of the Committee with regard to the Bill when it came before them. The hon. Member proposed that the House should do a most undesirable thing—namely, that it should instruct the Committee to take certain matters into consideration. He thought the House would require something more than the statement made by the hon. Member before they consented to accept his Motion. The hon. Member proposed—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire and report to the House whether the proposed Railway will injuriously effect one of the few open spaces in the City of Dublin, viz.: the open space known as Beresford Place, situate on the north and west sides of the Custom House; and needlessly disfigure the said City."
    He (Mr. Findlater) had been for 40 years a citizen of Dublin; and he thought any person who was acquainted with the piece of ground in question would say that it was anything but an open space of a beautiful nature. There was not a particle of grass upon it, nor a tree; and during the whole time he had passed in Dublin he had never, in his life, seen a child playing upon it. This open space was attached to the Custom House; it was surrounded by stone posts which were connected together by iron chains; the space was

    879
    entirely gravelled; and it really formed a most unsightly object. He might say, further, that the action of the Corporation in the matter was not generally approved of by the citizens of Dublin. He had heard a great many expressions of opinion with regard to the question; and he trusted the House would not consent to grant a mandatory Instruction to the Committee, when it was open to them in their discretion to hear evidence with regard to the whole matter. In the words of the Petitioners' own prayer the locus standi of the Corporation of Dublin was established; and they prayed that in case the Bill was allowed to pass into law certain clauses and other provisions would be necessary for the protection of the Corporation and citizens of Dublin. It was, therefore, perfectly clear that it would be open to the Committee to hear evidence which the House itself could not hear. The House must rely wholly upon, ex parte statements, and he thought that was an extremely objectionable thing. There could be doubt whatever that this was one of the most important lines which had been proposed for some time. Great interest was taken by Irish Members, of all classes and sections, in the carrying out of the object of the Bill—namely, the acceleration of the Irish mails; and it would be too bad, when they were on the point of reaching the goal, that their efforts were to be frustrated by a sentimental objection with regard to the beauty of the view from Carlisle Bridge. There was a railway bridge in the neighbourhood of the House of Commons; but no one could say that the bridge at Charing Cross disfigured the approaches of the House, or very much interfered with the view. He understood that it was impossible to carry the tunnel under the bed of the Liffey; and the Harbour and Dock Board, who had charge of the river, would not allow any bridge to be constructed eastward of the Custom House, so that nothing further could be done if this railway were not allowed to go on, and the connection between the Dublin and Wexford Railway and the Northern Railway for the acceleration of the mails would be frustrated altogether. Personally, he had no interest in the matter beyond that of a citizen of Dublin who was anxious to see this communication established. It was
    880
    upon that ground that he opposed the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) must be very hard driven for an argument when he compared the case of Hungerford Bridge with the proposed railway, seeing that Hungerford Bridge was more than a quarter of a mile from the Houses of Parliament; whereas the structure proposed to be erected under this Bill was only 54 feet from, the Custom House at Dublin. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that an open space was of no value unless it had grass upon it. Now, the City of Dublin had very few open spaces. Those spaces possessed great value, whether they had grass upon them or not; and, so far as the Custom House was concerned, it was one of the most beautiful buildings in Europe. If this mass of masonry were allowed to be built close beside it the building would be completely disfigured, and the beauty of it would be entirely lost. The hon. Member for Monaghan said he had been for 40 years a citizen of Dublin. With all respect to the position, and experience of the hon. Member, he thought the Corporation of Dublin, who had passed, by a considerable majority, the vote which the hon. Member now objected to, were quite as good judges of the interests of the City of Dublin as the hon. Member. The hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Mr. Brooks) asserted that the passing of this Instruction would kill the Bill. Considering the early period of the Session, it could not be said that the inquiry which the passing of this Instruction would involve would kill the Bill. It must be a very bad Bill, indeed, if an inquiry of this kind would kill it in the month of April. He invited the House to notice that the only matter his hon. Friend desired the Committee to inquire into was, whether the proposed railway would not injuriously affect one of the few open spaces in the said City? Surely no harm could be done to any interest by an intelligent and rational inquiry; and he ventured to hope that the House would have regard to the opinion of the Corporation, and assent to the Motion of his hon. Friend without supporting the opposition of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Brooks), whose interest in this particular case was not that of the Corporation of Dublin. He trusted the House would have regard to

    881
    the opinion of the Governing Body of the City. Certainly, if the Corporation of an English town made such an appeal the House would have no hesitation in granting all that was asked for.
    MR. P. MARTINdesired to make a remark in reference to the statement just made by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). It must not be assumed that the members of the Corporation of Dublin were unanimously of opinion that the Bill should be rejected. Indeed, the Resolution in favour of petitioning against the Bill was not even passed by a considerable majority of the Corporation of Dublin. On the contrary, the Petition against it was adopted by the Corporation, after considerable discussion in a small House of 30, by a majority of only two. It would, therefore, be seen that a divided opinion existed with regard to the measure itself even among the Corporation of Dublin. There was another matter which the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) had correctly put before the House. The House was now called on, without having the advantage of the evidence of the promoters, to adopt a Resolution of a most exceptional and unusual character, which would abrogate the discretion given to the Committee, and prejudge one of the matters for their decision. It must be borne in mind that the object of this Bill was one of great importance to the entire of Ireland. It had been promoted not only by influential merchants and citizens resident in Dublin, but also at the instance of the Cities of Cork and Belfast, which desired to have a line which should connect all the different railways in Dublin, and enable a passenger to go on from London without change of carriage when he arrived at Kingstown. If this Bill should be passed, a passenger would be transferred direct to Cork or Belfast; but if a mandatory Instruction was to be given to the Committee upon an unusual matter of this kind, it would simply amount to a refusal to allow the Committee to enter into the consideration of the real question. He respectfully submitted to the House whether it was desirable to make a change in the Bill in this summary manner when they had the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Mr. Brooks), and the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-
    882
    Harman) both of them anxious that the Bill should go before a Committee like any other ordinary Bill to be inquired into upon its merits? If there were any defects in the engineering details of the measure, or anything which would destroy this open space, all the circumstances could be fully inquired into, and a decision of the Committee obtained upon every point. He, therefore, did not see why the House should now consent to prejudice the decision of the Committee by doing that which would practically amount to a reversal of the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he was disposed to controvert the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin). The hon. and learned Member said that if the Motion of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne) were carried the result would be to kill the Bill. He did not think it would do anything of the sort; but he understood the Motion simply to ask the Committee to direct their attention to a particular branch of the subject. It did no more than that. The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that there was only a majority of two in the Town Council of Dublin who were in favour of this proposition. He (Mr. Biggar) was told by his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary that that majority of two was only on a minor side issue; and that when the question whether or not a Petition should be presented to give protection against injury to this open space was put, a majority in favour of the Petition was nearly three-fourths against one-fourth. So that a large majority were in favour of the present Motion, and they might be fairly assumed to represent the opinions of the citizens of Dublin. At the same time, he must say for himself that if he had had the slightest idea that this Motion would be likely to injure the possibility of the Bill being passed into law he would be very sorry to vote for it. He thought it a most desirable Bill; but that it should be carried out in the best way. It was most desirable that there should be a connection between all the railways in Dublin established for the purpose of facilitating the conveyance of the mails, not, perhaps, after all, that it would be of so much benefit to Dublin itself as it would be to other parts of Ireland. No one would deny that it

    883
    would be of the utmost benefit to other parts of Ireland to facilitate the transit of the mails; and he would, therefore, not be disposed to throw any obstacle in the way of the passage of the Bill, although, at the same time, he thought the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary was a very reasonable one. He had no doubt that Beresford Place was very beautiful; and if any means could be adopted for preventing the disfigurement of the Custom House on that open space it should be adopted. One special reason in favour of the Bill was that it would have a tendency to kill a rival scheme. He believed that most of his hon. Friends who supported this Instruction to the Committee would not be prepared to vote for it if they thought it was likely to interfere with the success of the Bill; but, on the whole, considering all the circumstances of the case, he thought the House would not be doing wrong to give this Instruction to the Committee.
    MR. GIBSONwished to say a word before the Motion was put. He thought the proposal had been temperately and reasonably discussed. No doubt there was some difference of opinion in reference to the matter, and all questions where there was a difference of opinion had to be decided on the balance. As far as he could find out, the general public opinion in Ireland against that of the Corporation of Dublin was a large and substantial one. The feeling in support of the Motion was not certainly very large even in the Corporation; and unquestionably the great preponderance of opinion, not only in Dublin, but in Ireland generally, was in favour of the Bill. It was said that if the Motion of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne) were carried it would have the effect of killing the Bill. He was sure that was not the desire of the hon. Member, nor did he think it was a desire of any Member for Ireland who had considered the question. He therefore thought, under all the circumstances of the case, that it would be wiser, and, on the whole, more calculated to work out a good result for all the Irish interests, not to pass the Motion of the hon. Member.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 145: Majority 119.—(Div. List, No. 76.)

QUESTIONS.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—CASE OF MR. ROBERT BARKLIE.
  MR. EWARTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Robert Barklie, having been suspended for some irregularities in 1866, had his case subsequently investigated by the National Board of Education, through their head district Inspectors; and, whether, as a result of that investigation, and the consideration of further evidence, the National Board came to the conclusion that Mr. Barklie should be recognized as a teacher of the York Street National School, Belfast, and that his salary should be paid from date of his taking charge thereof?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the facts are as stated in the Question.
  MR. BIGGARasked whether the following quotations from the Report of the District National School Inspector did not apply to Mr. Barklie, about whom the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Ewart) asked this Question:—
  "Not only have the candidates copied, but in many cases they have been aided and abetted by the teachers, who sent to the examination-room answers to the questions on the paper to be copied by the pupils, and from one to the other;"
  and, also, whether the same Inspector did not characterize this as an "extensive and organized system of fraud;" and, is so, whether the gentleman was still considered fitted for a position of trust under the National Board?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I merely said that the facts were as stated. I gave no opinion on the matter; and if the hon. Member gives Notice of his Question I will answer it in two or three days.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND)—WATER SUPPLY OF SWINEFORD UNION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the late sanitary authority of the Swineford Union, county Mayo, refused to provide a proper supply of water for about ten families in the town-land of Urlaur, in said union, although requested to do so by memorial signed

  885
  by the most influential persons in the dispensary district of Kilkelly; whether he is aware that the sanitary officer's report stated that—
  "Water was inconvenient, some half dozen families requiring to go about eleven hundred yards for water;"
  whether the memorialists wished to have the dispensary district the "contributory" place, and whether a few ratepayers from Urlaur opposed it on the ground that the expense should not be placed solely upon the electoral division of Urlaur; whether the Local Government Board, when requested to investigate the matter—
  "Declined to interfere with the discretion of the sanitary board;"
  and, whether the Local Government Board are now prepared, upon ascertaining the veracity of these statements, to give a provisional order to the new sanitary board to provide a proper supply of water at said place?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board inform me that a Memorial was received from certain persons in the townland named, praying that a pump might be constructed for the purpose of giving them a water supply, and that a counter Memorial was received representing that no necessity existed for such a proceeding. The Medical Officer of Health represented that the water available was pure, but inconvenient for some of the inhabitants. The Board of Guardians and Dispensary Committee both consider it unnecessary to incur expense in the matter; and the Local Government Board have not thought it necessary to interfere with the discretion of the Sanitary Authority.

  POST OFFICE—CIVIL SERVICE PRAYER UNION.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Is it the fact that Mr. Blackwood, Secretary of the Post Office, has established an organization called the "Civil Service Prayer Union;" that Catholic officials who could not conscientiously join the Union, nor assist at its prayers or bible-reading, have been pressed to do so by their chiefs; whether he is aware that one of the objects of the Union, as declared by a printed document circulated through the Civil Service, is—
  "To make intercession for the unconverted members of our own Departments;"
  886
  that canvassing for membership is done during official hours, and that those who refuse to join are regarded as "unconverted;" that at Liverpool the meetings are held on Government premises, viz. a room in the Custom House; and, whether he will prevent these proceedings being carried on during official hours, and by the official superiors of the person who is asked to join?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the three Questions of the hon. Member, I have to inform the House that I have received from Mr. Blackwood the following statement:—That he did not establish the organization to which the first Question refers, which has been in existence for many years, but that he is at present its President; that he has never pressed any Roman Catholic official to join it, and that he thinks such pressure most improbable; that canvassing in the sense of such pressure is not, so far as he knows, resorted to, though it is probable that conversation may take place on that subject as on any other of common interest; that, so far as he is concerned, those who do not join the Association are not therefore considered unconverted; that at Liverpool a quarterly meeting is held, not during the Office hours, nor in the Custom House Office, but in the dining room over the Office, which is used for other meetings, such as the Widows' and Orphans' Fund, and other unofficial business. I see no reason why the Treasury should interfere in the matter. No complaint on the subject has reached me, and the first I heard of the Union was from the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. O'BRIEN: What does the right hon. Gentleman think a higher official of the Department means by asking for intercession for the unconverted members of that Department?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): It is not my duty to explain language of that kind. I have heard of persons of many religions speak of other persons as "unconverted."

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION— GRANTS OF PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION.
  MR. SEXTON (for Mr. HEALY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that,

  887
  since the passing of the Land Act of 1881, there has been a remarkable increase in the grants of probate and administration all over Ireland; whether, in view of the refusal of the Land Commissioners and the growing reluctance of landlords to recognise as tenants persons who have not taken out administration, the Government will remove the restrictions which prevent section 33 of "The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881," being more generally availed of, so that the sons and widows of deceased tenants may cheaply obtain administration direct from the local Inland Revenue officers, without having to visit the city where the supervisor resides; and, will the Government, in view of the beneficent effect of section 33, and the great saving of legal expenses which poor persons may effect by its provisions where the personal estate is under £300, take steps to render them more widely known to persons of the farming class, whom the expense of a legal process now frequently hinders from taking out administration, and thus prevents the recognition of their status as tenants?
  MR. COURTNEY: There has been since 1882 a considerable increase in the number of grants of probate and administration, apparently due to the working of the Land Act. I am informed that the practice of the Land Commission has always been to allow any person beneficially interested in a tenancy to avail himself of the benefit of the Land Act as applicant, though no administration had been taken out, but to suspend the issuing of the order until the grant is produced. The only exception to this rule is where it is believed there is a desire to evade, from some improper motive, the taking out of a grant. It is the desire of the Inland Revenue Department to give every facility for the working of the 33rd section of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881. Inland Revenue officers not necessarily supervisors have been appointed to work it in every town where any necessity appeared. The Chairman of the Board will be glad to receive any suggestions which may be made to him by the hon. Member, or any other person, as to any mode of making more widely known to persons of the farming class the facilities that now exist for the taking of grants.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882 (PROCLAMATIONS)—MEETING AT KNOCKMAGREE.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the Knockmagree (county Cork) meeting, to be held on April 20, was suppressed; whether it is a fact that nobody living in Knockmagree was served with personal notice of the suppression, that the proclamations were only posted through the district upon the eve of the day fixed for the meeting, and that, in consequence, thousands of persons, who received no notice of the intention of the Government, came into the village and were hustled about by the police; why was not the proclamation published earlier; and, whether care will be taken in future to notify the intention of the Government at the earliest possible moment, so as to avoid the risk of bringing large bodies of people, without warning, into dangerous proximity, and possible collision, with the armed forces of the Law?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The meeting was suppressed because it was feared that if held it would result in danger to persons who occupy farms from which the former tenants were evicted for nonpayment of rent. Copies of the Proclamation were not served upon any persons residing at Knockmagree, because it was not known that any such persons were promoters of the meeting. The Proclamation was posted at Kanturk on the previous day, which was market day, and copies were served on the promoters, who, nevertheless, attended at the place of meeting and desired to address the people. It is not the case that thousands of persons assembled. I am informed that no more than about the number of persons usually in the village on a Sunday were present (about 600), and it is not the case that any persons were hustled about by the police. The people were not in any way interfered with by the police. In the case of prohibited meetings, the authorities will endeavour, as far as possible, to give such notice as will prevent people from coming together. So far as the reports before me show, this object appears to have been secured in this case.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state why, after attention

  889
  has been over and over again called to the matter, he has not given the public an earlier notice of the suppression of a meeting? To my own knowledge this meeting was called a month previously.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I think the Proclamation ought to be published as soon as possible; but if it were published as soon as the meeting was announced, there is danger that some persons may advertise a great number of meetings for the purpose of having them proclaimed. ["Oh!"] That might be done, and I fear that in certain cases it would be done.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Then the action of the Government is a trap to prevent the promoters of meetings—["Order!"]

  DOMINION OF CANADA-IRISH EMIGRANTS AT TORONTO.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that a number of persons who emigrated to Canada, assisted by the boards of guardians or by Mr. Tuke's Committee, are at present living on charity in Toronto, and are supplied chiefly by money collected for them every Sunday at the doors of the Catholic Churches in that city; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will take any steps to relieve those people, and to assist them to return to their own Country?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I believe it is the case that a number of Irish immigrants were in distress at Toronto in the month of February; but only a portion of them had been State-aided, and none of them, I believe, were sent out by Mr. Tuke's Committee. The Government have no information as to any of these persons having been supported by collections at church doors; and as the winter is now over, and spring work has commenced, there is every reason to believe that employment may now be obtained. I may state that the Government are now taking steps with the view of securing that arrangements may, if possible, be made that no one shall be sent out who has not previously been approved of by a representative of the Canadian authorities.
  MR. LEAMYasked whether it was really true that the Government had no information whatever about these people—whether they had got employment or
  890
  not? Would the Government try and ascertain what had become of them? He would repeat the Question on Thursday.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—PETTY SESSIONS CLERK FOR GRANGE, CO. SLIGO.
  MR. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Charles Jones Henry has been appointed petty sessions clerk for the district of Grange, county Sligo; whether he is the same person who some time since reported to the Police that he had been assaulted at night on his way home from a fair, and robbed of £81 county cess which he had collected; whether his statement was discredited by the magistrate who investigated the case; whether the appointment of Mr. Henry as petty sessions clerk has been made in the absence of two of the justices who usually attend the Grange Petty Sessions Court; and, whether the appointment will be confirmed?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentlemen will answer my Question at the same time, Whether it is a fact that the Government were recommended to offer a reward for the apprehension of the prisoner who last year attacked and injured Mr. Charles Jones Henry in the county of Sligo; whether this recommendation was made by magistrates who had the best means of ascertaining the circumstances relative to the said assault; whether the character of Mr. Charles Jones Henry is such as to fully qualify him for the position of petty sessions clerk, or of any other position in which integrity and good conduct are necessary qualifications; and, whether the Constabulary and the local authorities are satisfied with his appointment?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The facts are as stated in the first, second, and fourth paragraphs of the Question of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Lynch). The circumstances as to the reported outrage on Mr. Henry were never satisfactorily cleared up, and the case is one as to which there was some variance of opinion amongst those who were engaged in investigating it. The election of Mr. Henry to the office of Petty Sessions Clerk has not yet been submitted to the Lord Lieutenant for confirmation, and I

  891
  am unable to anticipate His Excellency's decision. A private reward for information in this case was offered, but without result; and it was not considered that any advantage would be obtained by the offer of a public reward, as was recommended by the magistrates of the district. As the hon. and gallant Member's (Colonel King - Harman's) Question only appeared on the Paper today, I have had no opportunity of ascertaining what is the feeling of the Constabulary or "local authorities" as to the appointment; nor do I know that it would be their duty to express an opinion on the subject unless confidentially for the information of the Government.
  COLONEL KING - HARMANcomplained that his Question on this subject had been altered by the Clerk at the Table.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether it was not a fact that of the four Justices on the Bench two were for Mr. Henry and two for another; and that the way in which Mr. Henry got elected was by his supporters going to the Bench and voting for him behind the backs of the two others?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would not express any opinion on the matter, as it was now before the Lord Lieutenant.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—KILMEEN ELECTORAL DIVISION, KANTURK UNION.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the successful National candidate for the Kilmeen Division of the Kanturk Union, at the recent Poor Law election, has received a letter from Mrs. Smith, of Blossomfort, stating that she was obliged to break her promise to vote for him in consequence of receiving two letters from her landlord, Mr. Richard Longfield, Justice of the Peace and Deputy Lieutenant, directing her to vote for his opponent, a rent-warner on a neighbouring estate, who himself presented to her the second letter from Mr. Longfield; whether he is aware that a Mr. Horgan, who remained neutral in the same contest, notwithstanding a letter from Mr. Longfield directing him to support his candidate, was afterwards requested by Mr. Long-field to return his letter, and, on his
  892
  replying that he had mislaid it, was informed that his services as gamekeeper in Mr. Longfield's service were dispensed with until the letter should be returned; whether there is any legal remedy for intimidation of this description; and, whether Mr. Longfield's conduct will he brought to the attention of the Lord Chancellor?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This Question was referred on Saturday to Dublin. It is presumed that local inquiry in the county of Cork was necessary to enable the Local Government Board to report upon it, as their Report has not yet been received.

  WEST INDIES (BARBADOES)—POLICE ESPIONAGE.
  MR. SMALLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the authorities at the Colonial Office are aware that upon the landing in Barbadoes of Mr. James Murphy, in the month of February last, his goods and luggage were subjected to a thorough search, when nothing whatever of a suspicious character was found; and that, nevertheless, Mr. Murphy has been constantly watched by police and detectives, who follow him everywhere, seat themselves in his place of business, and take notes of all the sales he makes; that, a few days after his arrival, a large and riotous crowd, attracted by the presence of police, assembled at Mr. Murphy's residence, the members of which crowd made use of violent language to him in the presence of several policemen, who did not attempt to control them; whether the authorities here will direct the officials at Barbadoes to discontinue to watch him, and to afford Mr. Murphy protection against any violence with which he may be threatened?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir; it is a fact that Mr. Murphy's boxes were examined at Barbadoes, and that nothing suspicious was found. The Government of Barbadoes have, for good reasons, caused Mr. Murphy's movements to be watched. We have not heard of such noisy or threatening acts as those referred to in the Question; and there is no doubt that protection, if necessary, will be given to Mr. Murphy.
  MR. SMALL: Would the hon. Gentleman state "the very good reasons?"
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: No, Sir.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE DERRY MAGISTRATES (MESSRS. ARCHDALE, DOWLING, AND ROCHE).
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the issue of the correspondence between the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and certain magistrates of Derry; when the correspondence will be laid upon the Table; and, what decision has been arrived at by the Lord Chancellor in the other cases considered by him, of complaints against Irish magistrates?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Lord Chancellor informs me that his decision with regard to the Derry magistrates will, in all probability, be made known during the present week. The hon. Member has not asked me whether the Correspondence is to be laid on the Table. It will be laid as soon as it is closed. In the case of Mr. Archdale, his Lordship, after receiving letters of explanation, has determined that it is not one in which he ought to remove him from the Commission of the Peace; but he has reprimanded Mr. Archdale, pointing out to him that he must be more cautious in future. The Correspondence in the other cases—namely, those of Mr. Thomas Dowling and Mr. Thomas Roche—has not yet closed.
  MR. O'BRIENasked what is being done in the case of Mr. M'Clintock, magistrate and Orange County Grand Master, who signed a Proclamation calling a counter demonstration to attack the Nationalists on St. Patrick's Day?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I was under the impression that Mr. M'Clintock's case was included in the Derry case. I did not think that there was any supplementary motion.
  MR. O'BRIEN: The occasion was quite different.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—DISQUALIFICATION OF DISPENSARY MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many workhouse or dispensary medical officers in Ireland have been appointed to act in the Commission of the Peace since the rule was made excluding such officers from the Commission; how many of the medical officers so appointed are Protestants; whether, with refer-
  894
  ence to the case of Dr. Flannery, of Tubbercurry, county Sligo, it is the fact that Mr. Reynolds, of Tubbercurry, was appointed to the Commission of the Peace, although, as manager of the bank acting as treasurer to the local union, he was disqualified from acting as an ex-officio guardian; and, whether, having regard to the provision which prevents a Poor Law medical officer from acting as an ex-officio guardian, and the fact that many such officers actually hold the Commission of the Peace, the rule excluding them from the Commission will now be reconsidered?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that there are 10 gentlemen who have been appointed to the Commission of the Peace since 1872, the time when the rule in question was made, who are now dispensary doctors; but with regard to eight of them, the records of the Hanaper Office do not show whether or not they were dispensary doctors when appointed to the Commission of the Peace. Two of them were appointed by the late Lord Chancellor, knowing that they were dispensary doctors, but before the rule had been brought to his knowledge. The official records do not show the religious profession of any of these gentlemen. Previous to the case of Dr. Flannery of Tubbercurry, the present Lord Chancellor, acting on the rule of 1872, declined to appoint several gentlemen who were dispensary doctors, and he believes that the rule is a wise one, and ought to be maintained. With regard to Mr. Reynolds, named in the Question, there is no record in the Lord Chancellor's Office to show whether in 1878, when he was appointed to the Commission of the Peace, he was manager of a Bank acting as Treasurer of a local Union; but I am informed that such fact, even if it was so, was no disqualification to his being appointed a magistrate.

  JAMAICA (FINANCE, &c.)—THE ESTIMATES.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether information has been received at the Colonial Office that the Legislative Council of Jamaica, consisting, at present, of official members only, have passed the Estimates and a Vote of Credit for the second half-year of the current financial year, notwithstanding

  895
  the express instructions of Lord Derby's second Despatch, of the 1st December 1883, paragraph 6, directing the Governor
  "To reserve the Estimates for the remainder of the year now current for the consideration of the full Council;"
  if so, will he explain why and by what authority this deviation from Lord Derby's instructions has taken place?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: At the time when the Secretary of State directed the Governor to reserve the Estimates for the consideration of the new Council, it was hoped and believed that the Order in Council constituting the new form of representation would have been passed in time for the elections to be held under it early enough to have a Council duly constituted before more than half of the financial year had elapsed. But, owing to the unavoidable delays caused by inquiries held by Commissioners appointed on the spot, and by the consideration of their Report at home, the Order in Council, though now settled, has not yet been sent out to the Colony. The registration and elections must take some time, so that it would virtually be impossible to summon the new Council before June or July next. By that time more than two-thirds of the financial year, ending September 30, will have expired, and, therefore, more than two-thirds of the expenditure incurred. It was therefore decided, after much consideration, that it would be both more straightforward, more satisfactory, and more fair to the new Members themselves to substitute for a second Vote of Credit a Vote passing the Estimates as they stood for the previous year, without any increase and without any alteration beyond absolutely inevitable modifications in details.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—THE 60TH RIFLES AT SUAKIN.
  MR. GUY DAWNAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph in a telegram sent by the Cairo correspondent of The Standard, and published in-the issue of April 28th—
  "I have heard indirectly that the state of the 60th Rifles at Suakim calls for serious consideration. Insufficient camping ground and want of water are reducing that gallant regiment to a condition anything but creditable to the authorities, or accordant to the deserts of the men;"
  896
  and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the truth of such statement?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The only information which we have on this subject is contained in a telegram, received from the General Officer commanding in Egypt, dated the 27th of this month, in which he recommends the departure of the battalion from Suakin, on the ground of health and the absence of suitable shelter. I am in communication with the Admiralty on the subject. In reference to the statement contained in The Standard, as to the insufficient camping ground and want of water, although I have no recent information on the subject, the statement appears to be inconsistent with the Report which we have received as to the condition of the larger force under General Graham at Suakin, in which the camping-ground and the health of the troops are represented as being satisfactory in every respect.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked whether the Marines, who were to relieve the battalions at Suakin, would be landed under precisely the same conditions as they were now; or whether the Admiralty would make arrangements for their accommodation?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I believe the Admiralty will make arrangements for a floating barrack for the Marines. A portion, at all events, of the Marines will always be afloat, the number ashore being regulated according to the necessities of the case.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked whether the water supply to the troops under General Graham was not distilled water from the ships; and whether those appliances did not still remain for the service of the troops?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There are still ships at Suakin, I believe; but the statement I made had special reference to the camping ground, which, was found satisfactory.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the question of the water supply to our troops was so important, especially considering that the thermometer was 117 degrees in the shade at Suakin now, that he hoped the noble Marquess would cause some inquiries to be made.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Certainly inquiry would be made, if it were at all probable that any measures

  897
  could be taken before the departure of the troops; but, as I have stated, it is probable that the battalions now at Suakin will return in the transport which is taking the Marines.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Will there be any extra water supply for the Marines?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have already stated that the Marines, to a great extent, would be accommodated on board ship, where there would be no difficulty as to water supply.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: The noble Marquess must remember there are some Egyptian troops with English officers also at Suakin in camping ground, who will also require water.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is the date of the last despatch or message received from General Gordon; and, whether the Governor of Berber has telegraphed that it is impossible to send any more messages to Khartoum? The hon. Member also asked whether there was any truth in the report, contained in The Standard, that a considerable number of Bashi-Bazouks and soldiers under General Gordon had gone over to the enemy?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In answer to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that the last message received from General Gordon was dated the 9th of April. General Gordon's agent at Berber has telegraphed to Mr. Egerton that he cannot get messengers from Berber to Khartoum. With reference to the other Question, I have also received private Notice from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that he was going to ask me a Question similar to that which the hon. Member has just asked me; but I think it would be better that I should answer it at once. The last telegram we received was dated the 27th of April, from Mr. Egerton to Lord Granville, to the effect that four brigades of Sanjaks or Shageeyah Bedouins from Khartoum and 500 soldiers had joined the rebels. On those actual words it might, no doubt, be thought that they were troops actually
  898
  at Khartoum; but the words are susceptible of the other interpretation—namely, that they were troops at Berber; and if hon. Members will refer to The Daily News telegram they will see that the latter interpretation is the correct one. The Daily News telegram is to the effect that—
  "Four Sanjaks of Scingkea have joined the rebels with 500 soldiers. The Sanjaks came from Khartoum."
  It is, therefore, quite clear that the telegram received by Lord Granville alludes to Sanjaks at Berber who had come from Khartoum.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Are we to understand that the telegrams in The Daily News are official?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No; but I quoted the one which appears this morning, because it contains information elucidating our short telegram, and also because I know the great and painful interest that telegrams on this subject excite among the friends of General Gordon.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Have the Government no telegrams of their own from Cairo on this subject?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have stated that Lord Granville received a telegram from Mr. Egerton, and I read it to the House.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Would it not be possible to instruct the authorities in Egypt to send a fuller telegram on this subject?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: May I ask whether there is any information from Berber with regard to the evacuation of that town; if it is true that the inhabitants have fled northwards; and, whether all telegraphic communication with General Gordon is not at an end?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government one Question—Whether, in view of this recent information which it appears the Government have received, they are still of opinion that the position of General Gordon is one of security at Khartoum?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Eye, no actual information has been received of the withdrawal of the Governor from Berber. I have nothing to add to what fell from the Prime Minister on this point yesterday. With respect to telegraphic communication

  899
  with Khartoum, no doubt the withdrawal of the garrison of Berber would cause Dongola to be the nearest place in that direction to which there would be telegraphic communication from Cairo; but I cannot at this moment positively state that that is so.
  MR. GIBSON: The noble Lord says that the date of the last message received from General Gordon was the 9th of April. Would he tell the House what is the date of the last message the Government sent to General Gordon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have not all the telegrams here, and therefore I cannot state on the spur of the moment. I should prefer to answer the Question on Notice.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I wish to press the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War for an answer to my Question—namely, whether, in view of recent information, the Government are still of opinion that General Gordon's position a Khartoum is one of security?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I did not know the hon. Member addressed the Question to me; but I think the House will not expect me to answer it without Notice.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to give Notice that I will ask the Question to-morrow.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I was glad to hear the reply of my noble Friend. I understand the Government have reason to believe that these telegrams relate to the desertion of troops from Berber, and not from Khartoum; and yet in the telegram I alluded to the words are, "leaving Khartoum helpless." I suppose I may understand my noble Friend to believe that the 500 soldiers are soldiers at Berber, and not at Khartoum?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes; that is my decided impression.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Might I ask another Question? Is the French Consul still at Khartoum; and do the Government know what number of English officers or English officials there were at Berber when the evacuation began?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I believe a French Acting Consul is still at Khartoum. With regard to how many officials there were at Berber, I do not think I could give accurate information without Notice.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Will the noble Lord telegraph to Cairo at once,
  900
  and ask whether the construction put upon the desertion of these troops by the last Daily News telegram is a true version or not?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I am not; sure whether the Secretary of State has given instructions; but I shall have no objection to informing him that this Question has been asked by the noble Lord.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am inclined to hope that the noble Lord's interpretation of the telegram is a correct one. The matter is of vital interest; and I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he would take steps to telegraph immediately to Mr. Egerton to inquire if it is correct or not?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have already stated, in reply to the noble Lord opposite, that I will bring the matter before the Secretary of State at once.

  VENEZUELA—COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the negotiations with Venezuela have yet resulted in the abandonment of the 30 per cent, differential duty imposed on British Colonial goods, in violation of the Treaty of 1825; if he is aware, that the Trinidad newspapers have a rumour that Her Majesty's Government, in place of insisting on the fulfilment of the Treaty obligations, is now trying to buy their fulfilment by handing over to Venezuela the small British Island of Patos, and if he can give a contradiction to the rumour; and, if any redress has been got by the owners or imprisoned crew of the vessel sunk in the Maturin River?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: With regard to the differential duty, Her Majesty's Minister at Caracas has been instructed to submit to the Venezuelan Government certain proposals which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, offer a reasonable and satisfactory solution of the question, and they have every reason to hope that they will be accepted by the Government of Venezuela. With regard to the third paragraph of my hon. Friend's Question, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave him on the 6th of March. Her Majesty's Government are still awaiting for the Report of the Governor of Trini-

  901
  dad. I have seen the statement in the Trinidad papers to which, the hon. Member refers. It is true that Her Majesty's Government informed the Venezuelan Government that, if the questions at issue between the two Governments are satisfactorily settled, their wishes in regard to the cession of the Island of Patos, which is a small and barren rock nearer to the Venezuelan coast than to Trinidad, will be favourably considered.
  MR. MAC IVER: In consequence of the statement of the noble Lord, I shall move, at the earliest opportunity, a Resolution congratulating the Foreign Office upon the brilliant success which has attended their negotiations with the Government of Venezuela, and upon the marvellous progress of Free Trade principles throughout the world.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL PROPOSALS—PROPOSED RESTORATION OF THE GOLD COINAGE.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there had been any Correspondence between his Department or the Treasury and the Governor of the Bank of England on the subject of the proposed changes in the coinage?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): There has been a great deal of personal communication between myself and others, and the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England; but no official Correspondence. I do not think that it is usual to state to Parliament the purport of personal communications.
  In reply to Mr. STAVELEY HILL,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that a Treasury Minute would be laid on the Table containing information as to the estimated quantity of light gold in circulation. For this information we are in the main indebted to inquiries by bankers.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 120.]
  (Mr. Dodson.)
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 120.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 22nd April.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Privy Council to prohibit landing of foreign animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease).
    MR. DODSONsaid, he need not detain the Committee with any lengthened statement in moving the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name—namely, in page 1, line 14, after "Foreign Country," to leave out to "therein," in line 17, inclusive, and insert—
    "Or any specified part thereof, that, having regard to the sanitary condition of the animals therein, or imported therefrom, to the Laws made by such Country for the regulation of the importation and exportation of animals, and for the prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease, and to the administration of such Laws, the circumstances."
    As he had stated on Friday, when he gave Notice of the Amendment, the Government, after the decision arrived at on Tuesday last, had considered very carefully by what means they could proceed with the Bill, and they had come to the conclusion to propose this alteration. It would put the clause, not in the form in which they had wished to see it, but in a form which they thought would enable them fairly to administer the Act as between the different interests concerned, and in a form which they hoped would be agreed to by, at all events, many of those who had differed from them on Tuesday. Under this form, if the Committee would agree to it, the Government would consent to accept the responsibility of the clause. He would, therefore, now move the Amendment in the words of which he had given Notice of it, and which appeared to him to be clear and intelligible.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 14, to leave out the words "that the laws thereof relating to the importation and exportation of animals, and to the prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease, and the general sanitary condition of animals therein," in order to insert the words "or any specified part thereof, that, having regard to the sanitary condition of the animals therein, or imported therefrom, to the Laws made by such Country for the regulation of the importation and exportation of animals, and for the prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease, and to the administration of such, Laws, the circumstances."—(Mr. Dodson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was heartily glad to find that the consideration which

    903
    the right hon. Gentleman had given to this question had enabled him to devise means to proceed with the Bill, although, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, the clause as it would be passed would not be in precisely the form in which the Government desired to see it adopted. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed a hope that his Amendment would meet the wishes of hon. Members on the Opposition, side of the House, and hon. Members who sat behind him. He (Mr. Chaplin) could say for himself and many other hon. Gentlemen that, on the whole, the clause amended as proposed would fairly meet the views he and his Friends had all along contended for. What they had been contending for all along was a principle, and that principle consisted in this—that the presumption on the part of Her Majesty's Government in regard to foreign animals should be that they were dangerous—so far as the spreading of foot-and-mouth disease was concerned—unless the Government were satisfied they were safe. That presumption remained in the clause precisely as he had contended for it all along; and he was, therefore, glad to accept the clause as it was now proposed. They had never asked for more than this; and he believed the clause might be taken as generally satisfactory—as calculated to meet the demand which had been so generally made in this matter.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the great object was to arrive at such a practical result as would not interfere unnecessarily with the food supply of the country—as would not press unduly on the consumer, and yet would give reasonable security to the producer. He did not conceal his opinion that there was an unreasonable call for legislation on the subject. He should have preferred, in the first place, that there had been no Bill at all; and, in the next place, that the original words should have been retained. However, they were all governed by majorities in the House of Commons; and a majority, in this matter, had decided against the view which he entertained. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson), in the very brief remarks he had made, had stated that he thought the Amendment he proposed would enable the Government to administer the Act as between all parties interested, and also that it had been framed so as
    904
    to meet the views of those who were opposed to him. Well, much depended on the exact reading of that last statement. Amongst those opposed to the Government on this question there had been two views. One was—to put it shortly—that the importation of animals from countries where there was any foot-and-mouth disease whatever should be put a stop to; and that would, practically, amount to stopping the importation from almost every country. He should be very sorry, indeed, to see Her Majesty's Government accept any such view as that. There was, then, the other expression of opinion, that it was possible, with care taken by the Government, to prevent the importation of disease; and, in fact, that if the measures adopted by the Privy Council during the past few months—some of which were very stringent—were generally put in force, immunity from disease would be secured. Hon. Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House had taken that view pretty generally; but he was prepared to admit that the Government were hardly to be expected to adopt it without being required to do so by a majority of the Committee. So far as he was concerned, he should be willing to consent to the change now proposed, on the understanding that although the presumption was not, as he thought it ought to be, in favour of admitting, rather than of excluding, the clause should not be taken as implying that there should be immediate prohibition of all the animals coming from the scheduled countries; but the Government should be able to feel that it would be competent for them to exercise their power in much the same way as they had been exercising it of late. He need not remind the Committee that the course of stopping the importation of live animals from France had been adopted some months ago for the protection of the agricultural interest; and he supposed the Government had now found a form of words which would enable them to continue that policy, if necessary. On that ground he did not oppose this Amendment, although he did not conceal the fact that it was not one to which he gave by any means a cordial support.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDwished to make a few observations upon the Amendment. The difference between

    905
    the Bill as it stood and the Bill as it would stand with the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) seemed to him to be limited to this point—that the Amendment would give somewhat greater facilities for the exercise of power on the part of the Privy Council for the exclusion of live animals from "any specified part" of any foreign country. Although there was somewhat greater emphasis placed on the power of exclusion from a "specified part" of a foreign country, he was bound to admit that there was, substantially, no difference between the Amendment and the Bill as it came from the House of Lords. It must be known to hon. Members in every part of the House that there had not arisen during the present Session a single complaint of the administration of the existing law by the Privy Council, especially in reference to the putting in force of powers they possessed with regard to any particular country. If the Bill passed into law it would not give the Privy Council a single power which they did not already possess. With reference to the prohibition of the importation of live cattle from a foreign country on account of foot-and-mouth disease, such a prohibition had been exercised in the case of France; and in regard to a "specified part" of a foreign country, they had prohibited importation from the 27th of February to some time in March in the present year, on account of the disease from Portland in the United States. He felt the utmost confidence in the administration of the proposed new law by Lord Carlingford and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson); but, whilst he said that, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that they needed no further legislation. The Bill was not a temporary one—it was to be permanent. In the Amendment they had travelled a long distance in the direction of giving an invitation to the authorities to prohibit the importation of animals required for the food of the people. The change which had been effected was this. In one week they had travelled from the obligation to prohibit, where a case was proved of the existence of the infection of foot-and-mouth disease, to the obligation to prohibit, unless a case for admission from a particular country was established. That was the journey
    906
    the Committee had made in a week; and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) recognized the fact that that was the original form of the Bill of 1878—that it was the demand of the Duke of Richmond and the others who urged the Bill through Parliament. It was through the instrumentality of the Liberal Party that that provision was expunged from the Bill of 1878; and it was now sought by those who interpreted the present measure in the sense in which the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire interpreted it, to re-import that principle into legislation governing the Privy Council. It was advocated by those who supported the Bill in its present form that the Privy Council should prohibit whenever such a cock-and-bull story as that told by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire the other day was submitted to them—he referred to the statement of the hon. Gentleman that the foot-and-mouth disease had been discovered to have broken out in Kansas, United States. Hon. Gentlemen desired, in such cases as that, that the Privy Council should prohibit first and inquire afterwards. He was sorry not to see the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) in his place, for, no doubt, he and those Conservative Members who had professed the other day such anxiety for the urban population would have acted with him (Mr. Arthur Arnold) in strengthening the hands of the Government in opposing such prohibition. It was urged by those who supported the Lords' Amendment that slaughter at the port of landing afforded no security; and it was their undisguised object that there should, without the least possible delay, be an end put to that policy. He could not shut his eyes to the fact that the Lord President of the Council (Lord Carlingford) had urged them, by every means in their power, to object to the Amendment which had been introduced into the Bill by the House of Lords. The noble Lord had told them that the Amendment which was introduced in the House of Lords—and which had been accepted by the Government after an expression of the will of the House—would be mischievous to the consumer. These were words which those who had any regard for the interests of the consumer ought not to forget. He sincerely

    907
    regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had been obliged to accept a policy of which he did not approve; but the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had done that need not coerce Liberal Members into that course. By opposing the proposed Amendment they would be maintaining the interests of the great body of the people of the country.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was not going to say a word to embitter this controversy, because the Government had acted very fairly by virtually accepting the judgment of the House. They had slightly altered the words of the Amendment, but had conceded the point which had been contended for all along. As to the construction of the Amendment, he wished to point out to some of his hon. Friends on the other side that it was essential that the present form should be adopted, for the reason that if they had struck out the word "not," and taken the alternative proposition, it would have been open to the construction that the Privy Council were bound to satisfy themselves of every one of three or four things before they acted. Now, however, under the proposed Amendment, they would be protected, and the Privy Council would not have to consider all these things with regard to foot-and-mouth disease. The Government might have had to satisfy themselves as to the position of the law, the condition of the animals, and the local regulations; and he was inclined to think, therefore, as a mere matter of construction, that the Amendment was an improvement. It was better for them to have a stringent law if they were to criticize the laws of foreign countries. They would be able to say to them—"We have a strict law ourselves, and you cannot, therefore, blame us if we insist on strict laws in you. It seemed to him—to descend to a very small point—that when Amendments were inserted the words should be made as much as possible, for the sake of uniformity with the rest of the Bill, to flow in the order in which they had done before. If hon. Members would refer to line 12, and the beginning and end of the Amendment, they would see what he meant.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he thought the Bill had proceeded too far on its own dangerous and disastrous course, or too long without comment or notice from
    908
    that (the Radical) part of the House. If they wanted to measure the importance of the concession now made by the Government they had only to witness the lamb-like reception it had met with from the opposite side of the House—from those hon. Members who had been loudest in their demands for the taxation of the food of the people. ["Oh, oh!" and cries of "No!"] Yes; he should maintain his assertion that this was a direct attempt—and not only an attempt, but, if the Amendment was to go on as it now stood, a successful attempt—to still further lessen the supply of food, which was at present too meagre for the great body of the people of the country. When the Bill was first introduced with its limitation of two years, he, for one, was not prepared to enter into the arena of debate on the question of cattle disease; but the landed interest with their horse-leech policy, which they enforced on this as on all occasions, were not satisfied with the measure as it was introduced; and when they got it in the House of Lords, where no interest but theirs was represented, they laid it out according to their own intentions and desires. The Liberal and Radical Members had committed the unpardonable mistake of ever allowing the measure to get into Committee in this House, because it was always in Committee that the landed interest made its most successful efforts to mould a Bill to suit its original purposes. He had said that this Bill was a direct attempt to tax the food of the people. If it was not, wherein lay the basis of the demand of the landed interest? Was it not their case that they wished to prevent the importation of live stock into the country. ["No!"] Then, if that was not so, why this Bill? But, of course, that was so, and that was the direct and ill-concealed object of the whole scheme now under debate. What was their object in wishing to limit the importation of fat live meat—was it to benefit the farmers? The farmers were making no outcries for the Bill. ["Oh!"] Well, in his own presence last week, in the City of London, a farmer made the declaration, which was reported in the London Press, that in his experience amongst his neighbours and fellow-agriculturists, neither in private gossip nor at their ordinary dinners was there ever heard a word of

    909
    complaint about the cattle disease. He knew very well that exception was made when itinerant representatives of the landed interest attended the farmers' dinners, and excited them to discontent, and into making demands for the protection of their interests. He did not think the country could be misled in the object aimed at in the Bill. It was very well known that the source of income of the landed proprietors had been considerably shaken during recent years. They well advertized their philanthropic offers—which had been accepted—to reduce their rents. They knew there were rents still owing; and they, therefore, made this insidious attempt to make those rents goods by the taxation of commerce and the sacrifice of labour. This was unmistakable and plain to everyone who had watched the fortunes of the Bill during the past week, and had watched the policy of the landed interest with regard to it. He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) in his place; and he would appeal to him whether the great outcry which they were hearing from the opposite Benches against over-education was not rather caused by want of food than want of brain power on the part of the children? Was it not the fact that in nearly every case where a child had broken down in its attempt to get through its lessons, on investigation these children had been found to have barely sufficient food to keep body and soul together? If hon. Members took a walk through the school board districts and visited these thousands of half-starved children, all doubt as to what was the great question of the hour would disappear. It was, assuredly, how to secure a better supply of food to the poor. Members of the House of Commons, who knew no difficulty as to the supply and sufficiency of food, were, however, now merrily and light-heartedly engaged in passing a measure which meant fasting from flesh meat to thousands and thousands of the families of the country. ["No, no !"] He heard his hon. Friend the Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham) joining in the cries which reached him from the opposite side of the House. He should like to say to that hon. Gentleman, and to other hon. Members who sat for county constituencies on that (the Minis-
    910
    terial) side of the House, who had been led against their better sense into joining in the cry for protection of the landed interest, knowing perfectly well that the farmer himself would reap no advantage whatever; but that whatever found its way into the farmer's pocket through the taxation which was now being levied on meat would, assuredly, rapidly jump from his pocket, with interest, into the pockets of those who sat on the opposite side of the House; he would like to say to them—"Do you think you are going to conciliate the Conservative farmers by voting for measures of this kind?" If they did think so, they would find it would be nothing of the sort. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) was down in Bedfordshire a short time ago; and though the hon. Member for that county (Mr. J. Howard) had been one of the most foremost and constant supporters of the Bill, he was roundly denounced for his betrayal of the farmer's interest. He would tell the hon. Gentleman that it was no use his entering into competition for Protection with the Conservative county Members—he would always be beaten. It would be far better for him, and other county Members on the Government side of the House, to maintain their old principles, and tell the farmers that a present of this kind could do them no good, but might do them a great deal of harm. He (Mr. Broadhurst) had now had the great honour of a seat in the House for three or four years; and during the whole time he had sat there he had never witnessed a clearer and more flagrant case of self-interest against the nation than had been exhibited in connection with this Bill. If he had the opportunity of arranging the Business of the House, he would require the Chaplain to habitually read out a prayer, asking that Members might dismiss from their minds self-interest. They talked of the attempt of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) the other day to promote and obtain support for a Bill in which he was personally interested. Some hon. Members on the other side of the House regarded the proceedings of that hon. Member with holy horror. Well, he should think the proper thing for every hon. Member opposite, who argued for this great measure of Protection, to do was what the hon. Member for Stockton had done—namely,

    911
    make an bumble apology to the House and to the nation, and ask the Government to withdraw a Bill, which it was so well-known was a vicious and self-interested measure of the landowners of the country. He was glad the bon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) had at least taken a firm stand on this question; and he sincerely hoped the hon. Member would use every Form the House permitted him to use to prevent this abominable Bill from becoming law, and in that way working ruin, privation, and misery to millions of their fellow-citizens.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENapologized to the bon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard)—who had risen with himself—for attempting to speak on a question on which the hon. Member was a much greater authority than he was; but, as a matter of fact, he had had considerable difficulty in restraining his patience whilst listening to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst). He represented as strong a body of the working class as the hon. Member for Stoke; and he was as fully informed of the requirements of that class as was the hon. Member, and yet he supported this Bill. He supported it in the interest of the very class that the hon. Member for Stoke contended were interested in its defeat. He never felt more assured of anything in his life than he did of the fact that the Bill was calculated to serve the consumer. The hon. Member for Stoke bad used very harsh words against hon. Gentlemen opposite; and he (Mr. Cowen) did not see that there was any reason for doing that. There was no justification for it; because bon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, who were just as earnest in their Liberal professions as was the hon. Member himself, also supported this Bill. The point at issue was simply this. The farmers contended—and, he thought, contended justly—that the Bill would save them from the importation of the foot-and-mouth disease; and that, when their cattle were safe, they would be able to raise a larger amount of stock, prices would come down, and the people would be benefited. The farmers thought that they would he served, the landed interest would be served, and the country would be benefited. That was the point on which the supporters of this Bill hung all their arguments, and he was satisfied that events were in their
    912
    favour. He did not wish to put his personal opinion in contrast with that of the hon. Member for Stoke; but he might state that he had been for three years on the Agricultural Commission, and had had an opportunity of testing the evidence on the subject. He was candid enough to say that before he had heard that evidence he did not entertain the opinions he did now. But, having heard that evidence, he could not, as an honest man, resist the conclusion which was forced on his mind—namely, that the case the farmer was contending for was justified by events and by facts. This attempt to get up a cry against the Bill of Protection was all clap-trap. Everyone in this country knew that Protection, so far as any class of the community was concerned, was dead and buried. It could not be re-established. The farmers were not in favour of it; but they did wish—and justly so—to be free from the disease. It was unfair and unjust to cause farmers to be subject to the most stringent examination whilst the law remained unamended. The hon. Member for Stoke complained about restrictions of this kind; but they were only such as he had himself given Notice of when he had intimated that it was his intention to move for, or to take some action for the purpose of getting, restrictions imposed on manufacturers by increasing the number of trade Inspectors. If the House was to watch the interests of working men in factories, was it not fair that the farmers should have their interests watched as well? They had a much stronger interest in this matter than the hon. Member for Stoke had in the question he was proposing to go into. The proposal before the Committee was a reasonable one as a compromise, and he was glad it was accepted on both sides. He was satisfied that when the people thoroughly understood the question they would see there were none more directly interested than themselves. There was no place in the country, he believed, where a larger number of live cattle was imported than Newcastle. There was no place where the Corporation had spent a larger amount in making warehouses, quays, and so forth, on the improvement of the facilities for the trade. He had heard that in consequence of the action taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire and others the

    913
    people of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden—what he might call the clean countries—had taken special care to keep away the foot-and-mouth disease. In consequence of the laws that they knew, or thought, were about to be enacted in this country, they took care that the disease was not introduced amongst them. The Bill was already beginning to have an effect; and he was astonished that any man of ordinary intelligence should suppose that if they stopped the importation of disease they would not increase the number of cattle. But there was another question. This was not merely a question of raising meat-there was the question of milk and cheese as well. Anyone acquainted with working men knew that there was no greater want amongst working men in large towns than milk, and butter, and cheese; but they could not expect farmers to produce these things in sufficient quantities when the fear of disease was so much abroad. He apologized for having taken up the time of the House, but was bound to say that the observations of the hon. Member for Stoke had been entirely uncalled for.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was delighted to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen), and he could not pass them over without remarking that that hon. Member, at all events, knew what were the wants and requirements of the large masses of the people of the country. He was also delighted to hear the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), because he had dealt with the question in that practical spirit which he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) recognized so fully as guiding his action in the course of his proceedings in that House. At the same time, he must say he was exceedingly astonished to hear the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst). Those remarks were of the sort which were doing more mischief in the country than any others. The hon. Member was one of those who went down into the country and agitated and tried to set class against class. They had been brought up as English Gentlemen, wishing to defer to the opinions and views of the people of the country; and they had not been in the habit—and he hoped they never would be in the habit—of trying to override or
    914
    run down any class of the community. But they had to deal especially at the present moment with attacks of the coarsest kind delivered by Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Stoke. He should not consider himself worthy of a place in that House if he did not rise to repudiate the statements of the hon. Member. He cared not what the hon. Member might think fit to say in that House; but he cared much that he should go amongst the ignorant classes of the community, and endeavour to poison their minds with regard to another class who were endeavouring, honestly and faithfully, to discharge their duty in the position which they occupied. He believed the Committee would excuse him when he said that the words used by the hon. Member had been absolutely refuted by a passage in the Financial Statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman called attention in that speech to three classes of the community who had suffered from the recent depression, saying that the labourers and artizans had suffered far less than the landlords or their tenants; and yet the hon. Member for Stoke came down to the House, and said the landlords were anxious to rob that class, for whom, in reality, they had made so many sacrifices. ["No, no !"] Some hon. Members dissented from that; but it was a fact that the labourers' wages had not been reduced, and that they had been paid punctually. He defied the hon. Member to get up and show that the labouring classes in this respect would not bear favourable comparison with any other class in the country. His surprise at the charges made by the hon. Member was the greater, because he had always thought better things of him; he had believed him to be an honest Representative of the working classes of the country. His illusion, however, was dispelled by the statements of that day; and he hoped there were not many persons to be found who would come forward and state that the interests of the labourers and artizans of the country were opposed by a class who had done more than any other to maintain them in their position. And now, turning to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, he would say that the restrictions now in force in this country would be willingly submitted to, provided disease

    915
    was kept out from abroad. He should have preferred the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) having brought in an Amendment, which recognized the feeling of the majority in the House, he was prepared to accept it. He was surprised at what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold), seeing that the hon. Member knew nothing about the practical part of the question. It mattered not what was the subject of debate, the hon. Member was sure to intervene, and was ready at all times to lay down the law upon it. But he ventured to say that the hon. Member was, in this instance, mistaken with regard to the feelings of his fellow-countrymen; because it was an undoubted fact that the great majority of them believed this measure to be absolutely necessary; and if the hon. Member took the trouble to go into the question he would find the Bill, as amended as was now proposed, to be not only in the interest of the producer in this country, but also in the interest of the consumer.
    MR. PHILIPSsaid, he believed the farmers in the Midland districts were, generally speaking, very much opposed to all these restrictions that were placed on the cattle trade. Foot-and-mouth disease had existed in the country, more or less, for 200 or 300 years. [Laughter.] He might be laughed at for making that statement; but for all that he had good reason to believe it was correct. The question was this—Were they legislating for the benefit of the tenant farmer? He believed they were doing nothing of the kind. If they were legislating for the benefit of any class at all it was for that of the landlords; and he had that opinion of the landlords of England, which enabled him to say that they were not the men to wish to obtain, anything from the pockets of their poorer brethren by promoting legislation which would tend to raise the price of meat throughout the country. He believed such a course was not for their interest; and, speaking as a landlord, he, for one, hoped that no such measure as this would be passed.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he did not see his way to improve on the reply to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) which had been made by
    916
    the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen), who had disposed of his statements with his usual eloquence, and far more effectively than he (Mr. J. Howard) could have dealt with them. He was always pleased to hear the hon. Member for Stoke when speaking upon practical subjects which he understood; but he was bound to say that the hon. Member had that day entered upon a field of which it was clear that he knew nothing whatever. He was as much opposed to Protection as the hon. Member for Stoke, or any Member in that House; but he drew a very wide distinction between the exclusion of disease and the exclusion of animals that were not diseased. So far from this being, as asserted, a landlords' question, the Bill was the outcome of a legitimate demand on the part of the tenant farmers of the Kingdom for protection to the flocks and herds of the country; and instead of raising the price of meat, as had been asserted, he maintained, with great confidence, that if the Bill became law, and was followed by other legislation dealing with internal regulations, within the next two or three years the price of meat would fall considerably. He, therefore, cheerfully accepted the Amendment of the Government; indeed, he would have been content with the words in the original Bill, provided the Privy Council were made responsible for carrying them into effect. So long as the Privy Council satisfied themselves as to the safety of admission from any country the working of the Act would be approved.
    MR. KENNYsaid, the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), which had evidently been delivered for the purpose of re-opening the discussion on the principle of the Bill, had not met with the same response from the House which had been accorded to his former remarks upon the subject. He wished to know whether the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) intended to take a Division on the Amendment, because if he did not it was difficult to see the utility of prolonging the discussion. There was a remarkable feature in the speeches which had been delivered in the opposite quarter of the House—namely, the ignorance of the whole subject displayed by hon. Members, and especially by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst). There was the astounding statement of the hon. Member

    917
    for Bury (Mr. Philips) that the foot-and-mouth disease had been known in the country for 200 or 300 years. He thought the disease had been known here about 35 years, which was a very different thing. Why, the basis of the contention of those who supported the Bill was that the foot-and-mouth disease, not having yet been acclimatized in the country, was a disease which might be stamped out. Then there was the contention of the hon. Member for Stoke, that the supporters of the Bill were endeavouring to tax the food of the people. But that had been very properly called a mere outcry; the objects of the Bill being simply to prevent disease. If the hon. Member had understood the question, he believed he would have been amongst the supporters of the Bill, as furnishing the means of putting a stop to diseased importations. Of the total quantity of meat imported into the country, 25 per cent was brought in at the expense of millions of money which was lost to English and Irish farmers, whose stock became infected with foot-and-mouth disease. He trusted the Committee would be allowed speedily to come to a Division on the Amendment of the Government, which, he believed, was cheerfully accepted by all reasonable Members of the House.
    MR. WIGGINsaid, if he thought the Bill would increase the cost of meat by one farthing he should vote against it; but, as he believed it would have a contrary effect, he felt it his duty to give the measure his support. He resided on the borders of three counties; and he could inform the Committee that in his capacity he had been inundated with applications for orders for the removal of cattle; and he was quite sure that if the hon. Member for Stoke had spent only a short time with him during last winter, he would have altered the opinion he had formed on the merits of the Bill. For his own part, he had no doubt that in the course of a few years, so far from adding to the cost of food, there would be a large increase in the flocks and herds of the country, which would tend to keep down the price of meat. One word with regard to the remark of the hon. Member for Stoke, as to the necessity of providing children with wholesome food. The most wholesome food for children was good milk, and the Bill would undoubtedly tend towards
    918
    providing a larger supply of it. Not only was much disease in general traceable to bad milk, but, in his opinion, to unwholesome and adulterated milk were due many of the diseases especially prevalent amongst children. In the interest, therefore, of the whole country they were bound, as a Legislative Body, to do all that lay in their power to stamp out a disease which gave rise to so many evils.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he wished to separate himself from the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst). He was quite sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had spoken with perfect sincerity when he stated that he and other Members who supported the Bill were desirous of providing securities against disease, and that the effect of those securities would be to increase the home supply of cattle. He did not dispute that, nor was he inclined to dispute the views, expressed with so much vigour, by his hon. Friend who had just spoken; and he wished to tell him that he and his hon. Friends thought it most important that the foot-and-mouth disease should be got rid of. They believed hon. Members had a common interest in doing that; but they said—and to this he would beg the attention of all hon. Members—that the Privy Council had already sufficient powers to do everything necessary for the protection of stock in the country. ["No!"] Hon. Gentlemen said "No;" but they had not proved that the Privy Council had failed to take the steps that were just and right to prevent the importation of disease from abroad; they said—"We want to give the Privy Council not only more power, but we want to take away from them the discretion of using it." But when such a proposal as that was made, he said that the onus probandi rested with those who made it. The Privy Council stated that they did not think the Bill was necessary, and that they had brought down the importation of disease to a minimum, and the Government had simply accepted the Bill because it was forced upon them by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). The Government had sought to modify the Bill, so as to prevent it being forced through Parliament with the Amendments made in the House of Lords; but they were

    919
    defeated; and he was bound to say that he did not think the Government could have done much more than they had done. If the effect of the Amendment was to compel the Privy Council to put serious restrictions on the import of live stock, he believed that it would create a very large amount of discontent throughout the country, and interfere, to a great extent, with the industrial occupations of the people, while it would also raise the price of food. If that was believed to be the effect of the Bill, he said they were justified in using all the Forms of the House in resisting it. His hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) refused to join in accepting the Amendment; and if he went to a Division he should feel it his duty to vote with him, as a protest against this compromise, which he said would be understood by the country in this way—that the Representatives of the landed interest on both sides of the House had compelled the Government, contrary to their own judgment, to adopt a course about which they were in doubt. He ventured to say that if there had been fewer county magnates and Members representing the landed interest in that House, and a greater number of Representatives of the industrial classes and the industrial interests of the country, the Government would not have been driven into a corner and compelled to accept an Amendment of which they did not approve. He very much regretted that there should have been any legislation on this matter at all. It appeared to him to be quite unnecessary; and he believed that even with the greatest care—if every foreign animal were kept out of the country—foot-and-mouth disease might spring up. Hon. Gentlemen would not deny that 39 years ago, when the importation of live animals was absolutely prohibited from all parts of the world, and when there could be no possibility of infection, this disease arose. One of his hon. Friends (Mr. Philips' had stated that foot-and-mouth disease had been known in the country for generations; and, notwithstanding the cries of "No, no !" from some hon. Gentlemen, he was much inclined to believe in the accuracy of his hon. Friend's statement. At all events, it was certain that there was foot-and-mouth disease when live animals from all parts of the world were prohibited; and therefore he
    920
    was justified in saying that no amount of prohibition would prevent it now.
    MR. GILESsaid, he regretted to be at variance with any of his hon. Friends on that side of the House; but having learnt that the Government had offered to compromise the matter in dispute in a way which his hon. Friend approved, he should be only too glad to vote for the Amendment. He would say, in reference to the point raised by Members on the opposite Benches, that, in his opinion, the fears of the agricultural interest were much exaggerated as to the introduction of disease into the country. When it was considered that the country could no longer supply her population with meat, it was a serious thing to increase the restrictions upon imported cattle, and thereby shut out 400,000 or 500,000 animals. It was proved that the largest number of cattle that we could supply was under 2,000,000; and, therefore, by the proposed restrictions, they might prevent 22 per cent of the supply coming into the market. Then with regard to the question of the milk supply. The statements upon that appeared to him also of an exaggerated kind. In dealing with the question of cattle, the stock was placed under three heads—cattle fit for the butcher; cattle under two years old; and milch cows and heifers. It appeared that more than one-third of the cattle in the country were milch cows and heifers; and as only one in 27 of all classes were attacked, it followed that the number of milch cows attacked could only be one in 80, a proportion quite insufficient to justify the exclusion of foreign supplies.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, if his hon. Friend went to a Division he should be obliged to take the course, which he seldom adopted, of not voting upon the question at all. He could not vote for the Amendment, because he did not wish to make himself responsible for the Bill; and he could not vote against it, because it was a decided improvement upon the Bill as it stood at that moment, inasmuch as it would enable the Government to work the Act much better than they could otherwise have done. The time for a protest, as had been pointed out by an hon. Friend, was on the insertion of the clause, and not when an improvement was being made in it.
    MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, he represented a constituency (Manchester)

    921
    numbering many thousands of people. He could state to the Committee that amongst them there was an almost unanimous disapproval of this Bill; and were his hon. Colleague (Mr. Houldsworth), who sat on the opposite side of the House, present, he would appeal to him as to the correctness of that statement. They believed that the increased restrictions asked for were based upon a delusion which strongly possessed the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen), who thought if there were no foreign cattle imported into the country the flocks and herds would be free from disease. Why, it would be just as reasonable, with a similar object, to shut out men and women. It was Lancashire and London that were chiefly interested in this legislation. But he was quite aware that they had little influence in that House; because although their population was large they had a very small representation. The hon. Member for Newcastle had spoken of the feeling of the people there; but he (Mr. Jacob Bright) believed that the people of that town were more fortunate than those in Lancashire in respect of the cattle imported, which in the former case were Scandinavian. He hoped the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) would take a Division on this question by way of protest, in which case he believed he would have a very respectable following.
    MR. PUGHsaid, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) had taken credit for having practically restricted the importation of diseased cattle last year. It followed that during the last year there was a sufficient restriction with regard to disease. Why, then, were further restrictions asked for? What would be the effect of restrictions other than those which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had already in his power to exercise? Had the restrictive powers which he possessed resulted in raising the price of meat, or had they not? Because, if the latter were the case, it was difficult to understand how hon. Gentlemen near him could argue against the Bill. If anyone would take the trouble to refer to a file of The Times, it would be found that between the last Monday in April, 1883, and the last Monday in April of the present year, the price of meat in the London Market had gone down ½d. per pound, and in the country 1d. per
    922
    pound, so that the restriction already imposed upon the importation of cattle had been to lower the price of meat; and he was satisfied that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster followed up the principle upon which he had already acted, and took the same care under this Bill, that there would result a still further reduction in the price of meat throughout the country.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had been pleased with the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright), when he drew attention to the fact that he represented a large constituency having but a small representation. He (Mr. Anderson) represented a similar constituency very inadequately able to give expression to its opinions in that House. They disliked this Bill altogether. Although they were willing to accept it as a compromise in the form in which it was originally introduced by the Government, they considered it better to have no Bill at all than the Bill altered in the manner now proposed. They did not approve the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, because they did not see that it constituted any Amendment at all. It did not appear to him to make any real difference in the meaning of the clause; and he was of opinion that if the Bill were passed in the form proposed, it would, without doubt, raise the price of meat most injuriously to large communities. Now, he thought it very likely that the Amendment before the Committee, so long as it was worked by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Department, would be worked in the way which he designed it to work; but hon. Members must consider that the position of the right hon. Gentleman was not necessarily a permanent one; it was quite possible that a Government composed of Gentlemen from the other side of the House might have the working of the Bill. He observed that the Amendment, which would have had the effect of limiting the operation of the Act to two years, had been withdrawn from the Paper, so that now the Bill, when it passed into law, would be permanent. What would be the effect of that? If its effect should be to raise the price of meat they could not get quit of that grievance until they had passed a new Act for the purpose; and it was well

    923
    known what the difficulty of passing that new Act would be. He was not quite sure that the wording of the Amendment might not load to some difficulty, although he knew, or believed that he knew, the meaning which the right hon. Gentleman intended it to have—namely, that he should not be obliged, merely because one part of a country had unsatisfactory regulations with regard to cattle, to exclude importation from the whole of that country. But suppose a Government in power of which the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) was a Member. That hon. Gentleman might read the words in another way, and say that they meant that if any part of a country were infected, and had unsatisfactory regulations, importations from the whole of that country should be stopped. Therefore, he asked his right hon. Friend to study the words of the Amendment, and see if it were not possible to take either the one or the other meaning out of them; because the meaning he had last put upon it would be disastrous to the constituency which he had the honour to represent (Glasgow). To him it appeared that the slight concession made was cloaked in such doubtful language as to be of very little value. If he thought it of real use he would not be disposed to vote against it; but he could not see that, on the whole, the Amendment would do very much good. It would seem that in this matter, as was too often the case, the Government had been too careful to conciliate their enemies, and too little careful to reckon with their friends. Had they done otherwise, he thought they would have been disposed rather to abandon the Bill when the other House refused to accept the compromise offered to them.
    MR. EWARTsaid, hon. Members opposite had spoken of the Bill as only supported by county Members; but he represented a large urban and manufacturing constituency (Belfast), and he gave the Bill his most cordial support, in the interest not only of the farmers, but of manufacturers and others living in towns. The farmers were under the belief—mistaken as some people considered them to be, though he believed their statement—that they were injured by the importation of the cattle disease from abroad. They were prevented by
    924
    this belief from increasing their herds, and were in every way discouraged; the immediate effect of which was to raise the price of home-grown meat. He had listened with great regret to the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), who had departed from his usual moderate and conciliatory tone, in order to indulge in language which could have no other effect than of setting class against class—that was to say, the farmers against the traders—and of raising again the question of Protection. He (Mr. Ewart) had not the slightest desire to return to Protection if it were possible to do so. The English farmers were, under the existing system, being fairly driven out of the trade; and the great hope of the country was in the production of wheat, butter, and cheese abroad. The importation of butter alone was represented by £12,000,000 annually; and anything which interfered with the production of butter in this country would be very detrimental to the people at large. The dead meat trade gave them the greatest hope for the future; they might get live cattle from the North of Europe and America; but they could not get them from Australia and the River Plate, from which countries an unlimited supply could be obtained.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he rose to protest against the proposed Amendment. He did not accuse hon. Members opposite, or Gentlemen on that side of the House, of any sinister motives in supporting it; but he submitted that they had not shown that the chief evil which was apprehended would be cured by the Bill; far more, in his opinion, would be effected in that direction by internal restrictions than by cutting off foreign supplies. London had only 22 Members in that House to represent a population of 4,000,000; and he doubted whether, if the Metropolis were properly represented, the Bill would be permitted to pass. The House was simply imposing a very serious burden upon the poorest class of the population; because there could really be no doubt that the effect of the Bill would be to raise the price of meat. The House, in order to meet the unreasonable fears of a Party within those walls, were going to incur a certain evil for a mere possibility of good—an evil which would be inflicted on that poorest class of the

    925
    community whose welfare should be an object of especial care on the floor of the House.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he would ask hon. Members on that side of the House, who had expressed their intention to vote against the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to consider what would be the effect of its rejection. It would be to maintain the more restrictive words introduced into the Bill in the House of Lords. [Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD: With a view to future amendment?] Yes; but what prospect was there of carrying any Amendments that gave larger discretion to the Privy Council than would be given by the words before the Committee? He agreed with his right hon. Friend in thinking that there was no real necessity for the Bill; but that was not the opinion of the House. And it was by that opinion they must be governed. He did not wish to enter into any argument on the question; but he would point out that the Amendment placed on the Paper by his right hon. Friend had been accepted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that it was an Amendment which enlarged the discretion of the Privy Council, as compared with the Bill which came down from the House of Lords. He regretted that the Bill should be passed even with that Amendment; but his regret was very much modified, because he believed that the Amendment left to the common sense of the Privy Council a large measure of discretion, while he hoped that the effect of the Bill would not prove as injurious as some of his hon. Friends had foreshadowed. But if the Act should produce the effect which so many attributed to it, he said it was impossible for any Government, whether Liberal or Conservative, to maintain it in operation. He believed his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) represented the views which a large proportion of the working classes entertained with regard to the Bill. For his own part, he would support the Amendment, and should vote for it; and he hoped that his hon. Friends on that side of the House would think twice before they voted against it; because he believed that under it they would be able to effect the maximum amount of restriction in the interest of the farmer, and the mini-
    926
    mum amount of restriction against the consumer.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had said that these restrictions were not required; but he would ask him how he could reconcile that opinion with the conduct of the local authorities in Scotland, who, during several months of last winter, had entirely prohibited the importation into Scotland of Irish cattle? It appeared to him that if those gentlemen held the views which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, the importation of Irish cattle would not have been prohibited. Seeing that such restrictions had been agreed to by the local representatives in many parts of the Kingdom, he did not think that any valid argument had been offered against the Bill.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 357; Noes 48: Majority 309.—(Div. List, No. 77.)
    MR. DODSONmoved, in page 1, line 18, to leave out "afflicted," and insert "affected."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether you are aware that after the first Division was called, and many Members had left the House, the doors were thrown open between the time the bell rang and the second Division; and those Members who, like myself, were in the Lobby and went to the doors to find what the second Division was about, found that the doors had been locked, notwithstanding the fact that no bell had been rung? They were, therefore, unaware that a Division was about to take place; and I want to know, under the circumstances, whether the Division was regular?
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I was one of those hon. Members who were thus misled. I was prepared to vote when the House was cleared the first

    927
    time; but seeing that no Division was to take place I left the House, and I have not the slightest idea upon what point the second Division was taken. The bell was never rung at all, and I wish to know if there is any way in which I can record my vote?
    THE CHAIRMAN: There is no doubt that there was some little confusion, and that the doors were not opened as soon as they ought to have been. I think the doors were thrown open as soon as the Clerk could get a messenger to go there; and I do not think that any hon. Member was prevented, in consequence of what occurred, from recording his vote.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no bell was rung?
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: With all respect to you, Sir, the point you have mentioned is not the one to which I desire to call your attention. The bell did ring for the first Division; but when the Division was called, no Division took place. The door was then open, and some Members left the House. They were not aware that a second Division was taking place, because the bell never rang.
    THE CHAIRMAN: No doubt it is customary for the bell to ring whenever there is about to be a Division, and I gave general directions accordingly. I very much regret that those directions were not carried out; but they were certainly given.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the next Amendment upon the Paper stood in his name, and the object of it was to strike out the clause. After the decided opinion which the Committee had expressed in the last Division, he did not propose to take another Division; but he would be quite ready to support by his vote the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), or any other hon. Member who desired to divide upon the clause. He begged, therefore, to move the rejection of the clause.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 343; Noes 50: Majority 293.—(Div. List No. 78.)
    Clause 2 (Extension of provisions relating to quarantine).
    MR. KENNY MR. KENNY moved, in page 1, line 22, after the word "from," to insert "foreign." The object of the Amend-
    928
    ment was to provide that the prohibition should apply to foreign countries only. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had already expressed his willingness to accept this Amendment. As the clause stood, and if this word were not inserted, it might give rise to misinterpretation, and the prohibition might be applied to Ireland. The clause itself referred to the Act of 1878, which related to animals generally; and if this word were not inserted there was a possibility that the clause would be applied to Ireland. It was to prevent this result hat he proposed the insertion of the word "foreign;" and it was not necessary that he should detain the Committee any further in explaining the purport of the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 22, after the word "from," to insert the word "foreign."—(Mr. Kenny.)
    MR. DODSONsaid, he was quite willing to agree to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. JAMES HOWARD MR. JAMES HOWARD moved the rejection of the clause. For the information of the Committee, he might state that under Schedule 5, Part 2, provision was made for the admission of animals from the scheduled countries for exhibition and other exceptional circumstances. The Schedule provided that these foreign animals should be landed at a particular part of the several wharves, and kept at what were called quarantine stations. The Privy Council had power to issue Orders in Council prohibiting the exportation of animals suffering from other diseases than rinderpest. The Privy Council had already exercised this power in respect of foot-and-mouth disease in eight countries in Europe. The object of the clause was to allow the importation, from prohibited countries, of animals for exhibition and other exceptional circumstances; but, considering the difficulty of extirpating foot-and-mouth disease when it once gained a footing in. the country, it appeared to him that the proposal contained in the clause was highly dangerous. The only reason for the introduction of the question in "another place" was that there had been some difficulty under the Act of 1878 in

    929
    allowing of importation in peculiar cases. That argument was used in reference to the importation of certain performing bulls; he believed this clause to be totally unnecessary and higlily dangerous. As far back as 1840 the late Professor Youatt traced the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease to the importation, in 1839, of certain animals of the bovine species for the Zoological Society. He, therefore, begged to move its omission.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the Clause.—(Mr. James Howard.)
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. DODSONsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Motion. He thought he should be able to satisfy the Committee that the hon. Member was mistaken in regard to the object of the clause. He had explained it on the second reading of the Bill. It gave the Privy Council the same power of admission for exceptional purposes from prohibited countries as they possessed in regard to countries scheduled for slaughter. If it was struck out of the Bill, there would be no dispensing power in favour of the pet regimental goat, and the learned pig, the performing bull, and other animals which contributed to popular entertainments, would be excluded. He appealed to all Members who were friends of education to allow the clause to stand. It would certainly do no hurt to admit a learned pig from a country in which there was no cattle plague, while at present England might be deprived of the display of its abilities and the opportunity of deriving instruction from it. Of course, no animals would be allowed to be admitted except under conditions which precluded the danger of infection.
    MR. CHAPLINconfessed that he had come down to the House prepared to oppose this clause; but, after hearing the explanation which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman, he would only say that it did not appear to him to be unreasonable, and, under the circumstances, he would not oppose it.
    SIR JOSEPH BAILEYsaid, he should support the proposal of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard). These animals were constantly travelling all over every foreign country, exhibiting almost daily in different localities; and nothing could be
    930
    more dangerous than to allow animals coming from a country in which infection existed to carry disease to localities hitherto free from it. It would be far safer to omit the clause; and it must be remembered that these animals were connected with exhibitions all over Europe.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he would remind the hon. Member that they were subject to quarantine.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDwished to know whether the clause was intended to apply to cattle plague countries? Would the right hon. Gentleman explain what the countries were to which it was applied?
    MR. DODSONsaid, it would apply to the prohibited countries; but was subject to stringent rules. The cattle plague countries were not the only prohibited countries at the present moment. France, for instance, was prohibited, not on account of cattle plague, but on account of foot-and-mouth disease.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, it appeared to him that the clause, even on the statement of the Chancellor of the Duchy, was totally unnecessary; and he thought it would be highly imprudent, and even mischievous, to allow this importation of animals from prohibited countries. He thought the Amendment they had passed, and which had been added to Clause 1, was quite enough to cover anything objectionable proposed to be dealt with tinder Clause 2 He did not wish to give a silent vote, because the county in which his constituency was planed, more than any other in England, knew the terrible nature of the cattle plague, seeing that that county (Cheshire) had lost a considerable portion of its cattle from that disease. It was, to this very day, contributing towards a cattle plague rate; and it had substantial reasons for dreading any further importation of disease. Believing the clause to be wholly unnecessary, and even mischievous, he would cordially support the Amendment.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Amendment of Part Four of Schedule V. of the principal Act).
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved, in page 1, line 29, after the word "to," to insert the words "the route by which the animals are conveyed to this Country

    931
    or to." The hon. Gentleman said, that a large part of his constituency had a great desire to import store cattle from the United States of America, and they did not think that, if proper regulations were observed, there was any risk of importing any contagious disease. The object of the Amendment was to give the Privy Council complete power to direct the route by which store cattle could be imported into the country. He intended to propose later on that, in addition to the powers conferred on the Privy Council by the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878, they should be able to make such Orders as they thought fit for prohibiting the conveyance of animals by any vessel to or from, any part of the United Kingdon for such time as they might consider expedient.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 29, after the word "to," to insert the words "the route by which the animals are conveyed to this Country or to."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DODSONhad no objection to insert these words, though he thought they were covered by other words.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDproposed to omit the words "or otherwise," in page 1, line 29; first, because he did not understand their effect; and, secondly, because they were not sufficiently precise for an Act of Parliament. He hoped to hear what their intention was.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 29, to leave out the words "or otherwise."—(Mr. James Howard.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out and stand part of the Clause."
    MR. DODSONsaid, these words were calculated to be very needful; because under this provision not only the route by which the animals came might be required, but other particulars, such as a certificate of origin, the conditions and regulations on railways, &c.; and these words were intended to give the Department power to make any requirements of that kind which might appear to be necessary. These were words with which he should be very sorry to part.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman
    932
    was, no doubt, that which was in his own mind; but he thought that, if they looked to the fourth part of the 5th Schedule of the original Act, they would find that these words enabled the Privy Council to admit animals under any conditions whatever, because in the 4th section there was this provision—
    "Shall allow animals, or any specified animals, to be landed without being subject under the provisions of this Schedule to slaughter or quarantine."
    Therefore, to leave the words as was now proposed would be to make it competent to the Privy Council to admit animals for store purposes without any precautions or restrictions whatever. It was easy to see, that being so, that animals intended for store might bring in foot-and-mouth disease, just as well as animals brought in for meat.
    MR. PUGHsaid, he did not think the Committee would accept the view of the noble Viscount that where animals were admitted under this section the Privy Council would be able to make no regulations except with reference to quarantine.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, that as it appeared that the retention of these words would impose greater power on the Privy Council, he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. DUCKHAMproposed the omission of the 3rd clause. The Committee had heard from the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) that it was desirable to have in that county for pasture cattle from the United States. They knew that in the United States there was a considerable amount of pleuro-pneumonia, and that Texan fever prevailed in Texas. According to the Buff Book, only last year, during August, September, October, and November, 28 cargoes, consisting of 17,000 cattle, were sent to Liverpool; but 276 animals were thrown overboard on the voyage, 19 were landed dead, and 2,364 were found to be suffering from Texan fever on their arrival in port. If Texan cattle were to be admitted without quarantine, it would seriously prejudice, not only the interests of stockowners, but also of consumers. The cattle plague prevailed

    933
    in 1865–6, again in 1872, and again in 1877; and, in 1878, the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act was passed, with the object of keeping cattle plague out, of stamping out pleuro-pneumonia, and, as far as possible, guarding their flocks and herds from foot-and-mouth disease. Now, what was the nature of Texan fever? It was as fatal as the cattle plague, but it took considerably more time to develop; and animals might arrive here for store purposes in a state of incubation; no inspection was of value until the disease had developed itself. Besides, Texan cattle, themselves apparently healthy, were capable of conveying to other animals the germs of the disease. So treacherous a disease as that could not be too strictly guarded against and prevented from entering this country. During the last four years great efforts had been made to free the nation from pleuro-pneumonia, and now Ireland, Scotland, and England were very nearly free from it. But if animals affected by that disease were brought into this country for store purposes, they could never preserve their stocks from it. The time of incubation varied from two weeks to four months, and no examination could tell whether the disease was latent within the animal or not before it developed itself; and it was known that for 12 months after an animal had recovered from the disease, which was of rare occurrence, it was capable of conveying it to healthy animals. With this state of things before them, the Committee ought to hesitate very much before passing a measure that was calculated to create so much disaster to agriculture. It had been said that the agriculturists of the country wanted this measure for their protection; but as to protection, that was not so at all. He believed that, if they were polled, a large majority would vote against any measure of protection; they well knew that no measure calculated to enhance the price of food for the people would ever be allowed to pass. He maintained that by preserving the health of their flocks and herds they would reduce, and not increase, the price of food. Last year, owing to the severe losses in this country caused by foot-and-mouth disease, the price of meat rose far above the average of the past few years; and not only so, but £6,500,000 were sent abroad to obtain more meat than had
    934
    been imported the previous year; and this, although there were more cattle and sheep and pigs in Great Britain and Ireland last year than there were in the preceding year, and a superabundance of food for the stock. With such startling facts as those before them, the Committee ought to see the necessity for guarding, in the strongest possible manner, against the introduction and spread of diseases. Anyone who would look through the statistics for the last 20 years would see that when the country was free from disease meat was reduced in price, and that the reverse was the case when disease prevailed. On these facts he moved the rejection of the clause.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the Clause.—(Mr. Duckham.)
    MR. DODSONsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman, could not have fully comprehended the effect of this clause. When he had, he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn. The clause provided that if part of a foreign country was free from disease, and complied with the conditions of the fourth part of the 5th Schedule of the Act of 1878, then we might, subject to quarantine and any further regulations we thought requisite, receive cattle from that part for store purposes.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he was not satisfied with, the right hon. Gentleman's statement. It was quite possible for one State in the American Union to be perfectly free from disease, and yet for there to be no certainty that cattle shipped from that State would not come through an affected State. It was not certain that the cattle would have an all-through transit, passing only through States that were free from disease. The clause, as it stood, was, he thought, calculated to increase the facilities for bringing in cattle from diseased States; and seeing that very stringent measures were to be taken against bringing in animals, even though they were to be slaughtered at the port of debarkation, there should be no lessening of the restrictions as to store cattle, which might scatter disease all over the country.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, that after the concession made by the Government several Gentlemen on the Opposition side were anxious to meet them as far as possible; but he wished to ask for some explanation from the right hon.

    935
    Gentleman. He apprehended that this clause was not intended to apply chiefly to the United States. Undoubtedly, there Were some parts of the United States that were perfectly free from disease, although other parts were not. He wished to know whether the Government had any information as to whether cattle disease had or had not been in existence all along the Atlantic sea-board for some time, as he believed it had been? Suppose there were some States—say the Western States—where the Government were satisfied there was no disease, and whence, therefore, it might be desirable to import cattle, how were they to be brought into this country? What route would the Government consider satisfactory? And suppose they were brought from those States, and it was desired to export them at the Eastern ports, would the Government consider it right that that should be done?
    MR. DODSONexplained that under the 4th Schedule the Privy Council must be satisfied that the laws relating to the importation and exportation of cattle, the laws for the prevention of the introduction and spread of disease, and the general sanitary condition of the animals in a country, were such as to afford reasonable security against the importation of diseased animals. The danger in regard to the United States was this—there was pleuro-pneumonia in the States along the sea-board, there was none in the Western States; but up to the present time there had been no law in the Western States to prevent the free entry of animals from the Eastern States. If, however, the Western States passed such laws as would prevent the introduction of animals from the Eastern States, then there would be little danger to the Western States, and less risk as to importation from them.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he quite understood that the clause gave the Government discretion to a certain extent; but there was to be discretion as to admitting animals into this country from a specified port of America which might be perfectly free from disease, but with regard to which the animals, in order to arrive in this country, must go to another port which was not free, especially a port on the Atlantic sea-board, where he understood the right hon. Gentleman to admit there was pleuro-pneumonia at the present time.
    MR. DODSONreplied, that in that case the animals would come to this country not from a sound but from an unsound State.
    MR. DUCKHAMasked what guarantee there would be that animals would not be allowed to come from an unsafe State; and also, whether this restriction was to apply to Germany, where rinderpest and pleuro-pneumonia existed to a large extent?
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, the powers which the Privy Council would have under the 5th Schedule were only to be exercised with respect to a whole country; but the object of this clause was this—that in the case of, say, Schleswig-Holstein, if the cattle were in a healthy condition, and those of other parts of Germany diseased, the Privy Council could exercise these powers in favour of Schleswig-Holstein; whereas Clause 3 would exclude the whole of Germany. That he understood was the object of the clause.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he still thought the clause ought not to be agreed to. Suppose the State of New York was free, but an intervening State was not, how could the authorities here tell what route the cattle would take—whether they would come direct from a free State or through a State that was not free? In his view, no change should be made in the restrictions already existing; but this clause, instead of increasing the safety of cattle in this country, would increase, in a marked degree, the risk of our cattle being infected through foreign cattle.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he thought a Division might be taken, even if there was no chance of the clause being struck out, because of the great risk there was as to the practical workability of this clause. It was an extraordinary statement that had been made, that out of 17,000 cattle imported into Liverpool, 2,364 were suffering from Texan fever. What guarantee should they have that animals sent to Liverpool in future might not be suffering from this disease, although it might not have made itself apparent? He thought there should be some provision imposing quarantine for seven days, in order to secure this country from the risk of being infected by Texan fever.
    MR. DODSONrepeated that this clause was required.
    MR. BULWERwished for some information as to the probable effects of this clause. He understood that without this clause, supposing, for instance, there was disease in one of the Departments of France, as the law now stood the Privy Council would be bound to prohibit the importation of cattle from the whole of France. If there was disease in the Department of the Seine or the Loire, this clause, as he understood it, would enable the Privy Council to admit cattle from other French Departments which were free from disease. He did not know whether his idea was correct; but the answer of the right hon. Gentleman would very much influence his Vote.
    MR. DODSONreplied, that the Schedule of the Act of 1878, upon which this clause was founded, required the Privy Council to admit freely from countries when satisfied of the fulfilment of certain specified conditions which were clearly enumerated in the Schedule. This clause enabled them to admit from a specified part of a country, if that part complied with the conditions of the Schedule, but subject to quarantine and any other regulations judged requisite for safety.
    MR. R. H. PAGETfailed to see that the clause would provide what the right hon. Gentleman stated, and he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman had fallen into an error. The Schedule referred to admitted animals without quarantine, and this clause would do the same. He contended that there was no quarantine in the clause.
    MR. DODSONsaid, that was not what the Government understood or intended. The 4th Schedule compelled the Privy Council to admit freely, without quarantine; but this clause provided for the requirements of quarantine.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake that if this clause, as drawn, did not give effect entirely to the principle he had enunciated, he would amend it on Report, he should be satisfied.
    MR. DODSONreplied, that if the clause did not give effect to what he had stated to be the intention of the Privy Council, he would amend it so that it should do so.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, this was a very important question, which he thought ought not to be settled off-hand. One
    938
    of the great evils of Business in that House was haste and hurry to pass new clauses without proper consideration. What had occurred with regard to this clause? It was perfectly obvious that the Government could impose quarantine if they chose, and the right hon. Gentleman had said that he intended to use that power in a particular way; but the right hon. Gentleman's Successor might not know what his opinions and intentions had been, and some right hon. Gentleman who knew nothing about this matter might have the administration of a very mischievous Act. Another important consideration was as to the part of the country. According to the Bill as it stood a single parish, if it complied with the Act of 1878, might be able to sell cattle to the public, although every one of the surrounding parishes might be ravaged by foot-and-mouth disease or Texan fever.
    MR. KENNYwished again to call attention to this clause, because in its present shape he believed it would be entirely inoperative. The Chancellor of the Duchy had stated what his interpretation of the clause was; but that interpretation only stood good for the right hon. Gentleman, and for nobody else. The clause would be liable to a variety of interpretations; and, that being so, the danger remained of disease being brought into this country by dishonest people, who might endeavour to evade the specified ports in England, and smuggle diseased animals into other ports. The Privy Council were empowered to exact certain conditions, and to make certain Orders, but they might refuse to do so.
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again this day.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONasked when this Bill would be put down again?
    MR. DODSONreplied, that he would put the Bill down for Thursday next, with a view not to proceeding with it on that day, but to fixing a day when it should be taken.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    This house resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

MOTIONS.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. BRODRICK, in rising to call attention to the position of Elementary School Teachers appointed in 1846–51, and the great disadvantage to the cause of education resulting therefrom, and to move—
    "That the position of School Teachers in public Elementary Schools, appointed 1846–51, in respect of pensions, is detrimental to the host interests of education, and requires the further consideration of Her Majesty's Government,"
    said, that the Motion which he had to make that evening related to a subject which was not unfamiliar to the House. On a previous occasion the Vice President of the Council had promised that he would take the subject into consideration; but, despite any consideration that might have been given to it up to that time, no action had been taken upon the subject. The interest which was felt on that subject was enormous, and he had received a very large amount of correspondence about it—more, indeed, than he had been able even to acknowledge. To those unconnected with the Teaching Profession it might not be an interesting subject; but it was one which had to be dealt with upon its prosaic details. A certain number of school teachers had been appointed in 1846, when the state of public education had been a matter of very serious consideration to Parliament, and when there had been a considerable difficulty in obtaining adequate teachers. Parliament had then put the matter on a definite footing; and it had been resolved that it was expedient to make provision by retiring pensions for those teachers who were disabled by age or illness. This had been followed by another Resolution, by which authority was taken to grant the required pension, but under certain qualifications to be possessed by the teacher. He thought that if they took the case of any other service where a retiring pension might be granted on certain terms, it was understood that when the man had fulfilled those provisions the pension would be given accordingly; but this was not the view taken by the Committee of Council, before whom the matter arose again
    940
    in 1851. The Committee of Council appeared to have been frightened at what it had done; and it had been resolved that, the object having been to secure competent teachers, and that object having been obtained, the sum of £6,500 should be voted annually as a retiring pension, although the number induced to join had already reached 700 or 800 persons. It must be obvious to the House that during these five years, from 1846 to 1851, a number of teachers had taken office in the belief that no such limitation existed. Ten years later the matter had again come under the consideration of the Council. At that time Mr. Lowe was Vice President of the Council, and seemed to have been seized with the same violent desire for economy by which he had afterwards so distinguished himself, as he had deliberately declared that the pensions were no longer to be granted under any circumstances. After all the promises made, these very limited pensions were taken away, and no pensions given at all. It would hardly be possible to imagine a grosser breach of public faith, and it even seemed as if the moment chosen was specially selected to emphasize this view, for until 1861 no teacher appointed in 1846 would have completed the service necessary for a pension; so that the pensions were taken away by Mr. Lowe at the very moment when the State might be called on to pay them. Of course, the Council might shelter themselves under the words which made it permissive and not compulsory on them to grant pensions. The Vice President of the Council might say he was making an appeal ad misericordiam; but, even if the teachers had been under a mistake, they still had grievances of which to complain. Coming to the Committee of 1872, he would not admit that the Report of that Committee was in any way conclusive. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) would admit the accuracy of what he was saying. The Committee had met late in 1872; they had held a few meetings and examined a few persons. At the end of the Session they had issued a short draft Report, and asked leave to be reappointed in the subsequent Session. That reappointment had never been made, and that draft Report was the one upon which reliance had been

    941
    placed by those who opposed these claims. The Committee had not taken a tithe of the evidence which could enable it to judge on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had confessed that the Committee ought to have been reappointed for the consideration of these affairs. Many Members of the House had spoken on the subject under great misconceptions, owing to the incomplete nature of the Report; for before 1872 there was no organization of the teachers to secure a proper statement of their views, and no evidence was given before the Committee of the views held by statesmen at the time of the Minute of 1846 as to the interpretation which they put on the undertaking given by the Government. He would, with the permission of the House, read one or two extracts, to show the view taken of this obligation by statesmen of that day. The Marquess of Lansdowne said—
    "I do think that any extension of the system of education in this country will be imperfect, which does not, to a considerable extent, ameliorate the condition of this class, and excite the hopes of reward. It is therefore proposed that a provision, small, undoubtedly, at first, but still which will be considered a very great object as a provision, however small, for old age, shall be made for well-conducted schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, who shall be reported as having for 15 years conducted unexceptionally schools of a certain size.… This, no doubt, will prove a very useful stimulus."
    Lord John Russell, who was then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons, on April 19, 1847, said—
    "I ask the House with confidence, whether it be not most important that the schoolmasters, to whom we intrust a task which it is so necessary they should discharge efficiently, should be able to look forward to some reward and emolument, not perhaps commensurate—for nothing can be commensurate in such cases—but more so than their reward is now, to the great and responsible duties they have to perform, and the importance of the situation they hold in life? With a view to these considerations, there is a proposition—on account of which no money will be required in the present year, but on account of which, in future years, if the grant should be continued, some may be called for—to provide retiring pensions for schoolmasters who may work themselves out in the service, and who, after performing the important duties I have referred to, might find themselves at an advanced age with no provision for the future, and with scarcely bread to eat."—(Ibid., [91] 959.)
    Mr. T. Duncombe, in moving an Amend-
    942
    ment to the Motion of Lord John Russell, said—
    "He begged the House for a moment to pause and consider the amount of patronage that had already been created.…Then look at the pensions and gratuities that would be at the disposal of Government and the Privy Council among the schoolmasters and schoolmistresses under the scheme. He wanted to know what necessity there was for schoolmasters, at the end of 15 years' service, having any pensions at all? There were many poor curates who had worked from 20 to 30 years, who had no pensions; and yet a schoolmaster, who should enter as a teacher at an age of 20 or 25, was not only to get gratuities during his service, but a retiring allowance at the end of 15 years.…What he wanted was that this unconstitutional body (Committee of Council on Education) should not have the power of granting gratuities and pensions to the extent of some £2,000,000 of the public taxes."—(Ibid., 995–6.)
    Therefore, Mr. Duncombe had argued against the imposing of millions on the public taxes for teachers; whereas the actual sum to which the generosity of the Government had extended was £6,500 annually for a limited period. He thought it must be apparent to the House that, since the Committee of 1872 had not received evidence on this subject, the House had not been in a position to give a decision upon it. That was not all. He had evidence from these teachers to show that the Committee of Council in 1847 issued a broad-sheet to be hung up in the schools containing a statement that the Committee would grant pensions to schoolmasters if they would fulfil certain conditions. He had made a great effort to get hold of one of these sheets. The distance of time, however, was so great, that he had not been able to do so, but the Committee would take it that the fact was beyond a doubt. He desired, however, to pass to the reasons why this matter, having been reconsidered in 1875, should now be reconsidered again. In 1875 the noble Viscount (Viscount Sandon) said that after the debates of 1846 it was felt that the teachers had a moral claim which it would be unwise for any Government to disregard; and Lord Advocate Gordon declared, as to its legal aspect, that he should be sorry to be obliged to argue against it. If the teachers had a moral claim, that claim could not be discharged by granting a small portion of it only. A small sum—£6,500—was put aside for that purpose, and no doubt when the grant was made

    943
    it was thought that it would meet the demands of the case—the teachers then had not been so long in the service, and consequently retirements were not so numerous. How were their claims met now by the sum voted in 1875? He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman had no more unpleasant task to fulfil than to select two or three cases in every 100 deserving applicants for pensions. On the last occasion there were 70 applicants, and out of these the right hon. Gentleman was only able to grant two pensions of £30 to men who were taught at the beginning of their career to expect that they would receive two-thirds of their salary. The very fact that Lord Sandon, in granting £6,500, also relaxed the conditions under which the pensions were granted, showed that he could not have contemplated such a condition of things. He had evidently hoped to pension all those affected, or he would have increased rather than relaxed the stringency of the rules. It was necessary also clearly to state that these men had had no opportunity of saving, for there was too much belief in these days that persons appointed early in life at very small salaries, on getting the advantage of the grant of 1870 or 1872, would be able to save something. It was very desirable that provision should be made by persons saving something from their incomes rather than by looking forward to pensions; but that was no reason why the Council should not carry out the promises they had made, and meet their legal claims. How did the case stand? These teachers, on first appointment, 35 years ago, were receiving from £40 to £60 a-year, the wage of an agricultural labourer; and how was it possible for any man to keep up the position of a schoolmaster, especially if he was married and had a family, and to save anything? That brought them to the gigantic evils they had now to face. His Motion was in the interests of education at large. People who had joined an honourable profession, after 40 years, had to choose between the charity of friends and the workhouse. If they had saved nothing, the workhouse was their only resource; and if, by great self-denial, they had been able to put by a small sum, they were absolutely in a worse position than those who had not been so provident, for their chance of obtaining a pension
    944
    was diminished by that fact. The right hon. Gentleman would admit that any pension in his power went to the most needy, and not to the most deserving. Almost all these men when they were married had large families, like the clergy; no doubt for the same reasons, as they married early, and brought up their families as best they could. None of those who communicated with him had less than five, and some of them as many as 15 children. Many of them in their old age were afflicted with bodily infirmities—loss of sight, of hearing, and so forth—and they were perfectly ashamed to continue in their situations; but, as he had said, they had nothing to choose except to remain or to go to the workhouse. His request was not an indefinite or vague one; it was this. From the years 1862 to 1875 the grant, small in itself, but admitted by the Committee of 1851, and again in 1875, was withheld; if that grant had been given through that period, they would not have reached their present position, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to restore the grant for that period of 13 years. These men had been 40 years in the service; and although he knew that when a man obtained a pension he always lived a long time, still, if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to make the allowance, it would have a very considerable effect—at all events, it would mitigate the hardship for the present, and if a sum of £13,000 in all were given annually for 13 years, seeing the age of those concerned, there would be no difficulty afterwards in returning to the present grant. He did not by any means desire to increase the present charges of taxpayers any more than of the local ratepayers; he felt as bitterly as anyone the enormous amount of rates which the school boards and education in general demanded; but he would be prepared to get up in any assembly in the country, even of ratepayers, and if the case was fairly stated to them, he believed they would feel that this was a bitter grievance, and a violation of public faith, and in that sense he submitted his Motion to the House.
    MR. C. T. D. ACLANDseconded the Motion, which, he said, would not require many words from him after what had fallen from the hon. Member. The request of the teachers was very definite

    945
    and precise. They did not ask for a general scheme of pensions; their request was limited to persons whose claim had already accrued, or must very shortly accrue. They asked that pensions should be granted to persons who were appointed teachers between 1846 and 1851. The total number of such teachers could be easily ascertained, and it was diminishing every year. He believed that the total number originally was 1,362, of whom 893 were males and 469 females, but that they afterwards decreased to 378, of whom 268 were males and 110 females. During the last 12 years these numbers must have fallen off still further; but he had been unable to ascertain the numbers. No doubt, the Education Department could easily give them; but he found that in 1872 only two pensioners had died out of 48, and nine other pensions had lapsed. If the right hon. Gentleman urged that what had been done was the work of Parliament, he replied by saying that the Minutes of 1846 and 1851 had just as much Parliamentary sanction and force as the Revised Code of 1861 itself. It might be said that those school teachers were not public servants in the ordinary sense; but he maintained that they were practically, to all intents and purposes, servants of the State, because, although they were employed by the managers, they were placed by the State under regulations so minute and precise that their position hardly differed, except technically, from that of servants of the State. Those who had studied the terms of the Minute and the evidence of Mr. Lingen, who drew up the Circular letter which explained and enforced the Minute, would see that the Privy Council, when it issued the Minutes of 1846 and 1851, was inspired in the first place, and mainly, by a desire for the good of the schools, and that the second consideration was the claim of the teachers on the public. The Minute of August 6, 1851, spoke of the removal of the teachers being effected in a manner consistent "with their claims on the public." So in each case their claims on the public were recognized. It might be alleged that the whole sum of £6,500, which was contemplated in the Circular of 1851, was not granted in any one year up to 1861. But, on the other hand, it should be recollected that the original offer made in the Mi-
    946
    nute of 1846 was one which contemplated pensions being given to those deserving teachers who should earn them by long and meritorious service, and whose claims could not accrue until the cessation of that service; and it was now that those claims were coming upon the public. Whether or not they were to have the £6,500 a-year for the 13 years during which the money was not paid, he thought the House might at least be asked to join in pressing for such au extension of the limited sum of £6,500 as would enable the Privy Council to meet the just claims of the teachers who entered the service during the five years between 1846 and 1851. The original grievance complained of rested entirely on the Committee of Council's interpretation of expressions used by themselves in previous years. The documents indicated a sort of feeling on the part of the Department that it was necessary to hedge—to use a colloquial phrase—as it had committed itself a little further than it was able to go, because it was said that their Lordships took powers, but did not pledge themselves that any pension should be granted as a right. The House would be able to read between the lines, and would perceive that their Lordships felt that in an unguarded moment they had not sufficiently limited the offer held out in 1846. The teachers had been induced by the offer then made either to enter the service or to remain in it on lower terms than, they would have done if they had not had a right to expect a pension. Successive Vice Presidents of the Council had recognized the justice of the appeal now being made, and he believed that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) felt it strongly. He hoped that it would be admitted that the small amount of the previous Votes of the House did not afford any criterion of what ought to be the amount under the altered circumstances and the accruing claims of the present time. Considering the high moral character of those whose case he was pleading, their self-sacrificing labours, and their well-deserved influence with the rising generation, he thought the matter might be safely left in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the position of School Teachers in public Elementary Schools, appointed 1846–51, in respect of pensions, is detrimental to the

    947
    best interests of education, and requires the further consideration of Her Majesty's Government."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that he would only intervene for a very few minutes between the House and the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), than whom no one was more competent to give an opinion upon the case now before the House; but he desired to say a few words in explanation, or addition, to what he had said in July of last year, when it fell to his lot, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick), to press the claims of these teachers upon the House. But, in the first place, he must congratulate that hon. Member for having had an opportunity, of which he had most ably availed himself, of stating this case fully to the House. When he (Sir Henry Holland) addressed the House last year it was late at night, and many other important educational points were pressed upon the Vice President at the same time, which naturally weakened the effect of the cause for which he then pleaded. After the full statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. Brodrick'), he would not, of course, go into any details; but he desired to point out how, in one respect, he had not last year done full justice to the views of the teachers. He had then frankly stated that, as regarded the strictly legal view of the case, he was not quite prepared to agree with the teachers. The language of the Minute of 1846 was, no doubt, misleading; but he was of opinion that the Committee of 1872 had placed the right construction upon it, and that there was no absolute pledge in terms on the part of the Education Department to pay pensions to all teachers who fulfilled certain conditions. He had then stated that he was not surprised at the construction which they put upon the Minute; and he now desired to state that he thought, after reading the speeches made by certain Noblemen and Members of Parliament in 1847, which had not then been brought to his notice, that they were most amply justified in the view they had taken, even though it was not strictly legal. His hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) had cited some of these speeches; but he desired to refer to a speech which had not been cited, but which appeared to him the strongest
    948
    of all. In February, 1847, Lord Lansdowne—then, he believed, President of the Council, but, at all events, the person of all others most qualified to explain and interpret the Minute of 1846—after pointing out that there
    "Was no class of men better entitled to the attention and favour of Parliament than the great mass of the schoolmasters of England,"
    said, with reference to this very Minute—
    "It is therefore proposed that a provision, small, undoubtedly, at first, but still which will be considered a very great object as a provision, however small, for old age, shall be made for well-conducted schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, who shall be reported as having for 15 years conducted unexceptionally schools of a certain size."
    It would be observed that this was an unconditional statement, except as to length of service and conduct; and that it was eminently calculated to induce teachers, and did doubtless, in fact, induce teachers, to enter the service upon the sure reliance of having pensions secured to them. Putting aside, then, the legal aspect of the case, these speeches gave the teachers an overwhelming moral and equitable claim to pensions. The Committee of 1872 evidently felt the strong nature of this claim, although these speeches were not, as far as he could make out, brought under their notice. That this feeling existed was shown by two facts. First, that an Amendment in favour of the teachers was only lost by a majority of two; and, secondly, that the Committee suggested their reappointment, with a view to their being enabled to consider and report upon various schemes of superannuation in favour of the teachers, which had been brought before them, but which they had not time to deal with. When replying to his (Sir Henry Holland's) speech last year, the Vice president of the Council promised "to make an appeal to the Treasury;" and he felt sure that the Vice President had acted up to that promise, and had made a bonâ fide appeal to the Treasury. He was afraid, however, that that appeal must have failed, otherwise this debate would not have been allowed to take place, and the successful result of that appeal would have been stated. If such were the case, he and others who supported the claim of the teachers must now apply direct to the Secretary to the

    949
    Treasury, whose absence he regretted, and they must endeavour by constant dropping to soften his stony heart. He would urge upon him that though Parliament was jealous, and very justly jealous, of any increase of expenditure, and especially, perhaps, of any increase in respect of the Education Department, still that Parliament would be ready to recognize any good grounds for such increase; and that there were, in this case, good grounds, public and private, for an increase to meet these pensions. The moral claim of the teachers constituted the private ground; and the public ground—namely, the promotion of education—was equally strong; for no one could doubt but that the cause of education suffered from the fact that these teachers were obliged to keep on, although incapacitated from health or age from doing the good service which, until so incapacitated, they had honestly performed. Although the schools over which they presided must necessarily to a certain extent suffer, these teachers could not retire, because, without pensions, they would have to drift into the workhouse. It was most painful to read the list of cases of teachers—some 133 in number—who were applying for annuities to the Church Benevolent Institution, on the ground of old age and ill-health. He was satisfied that the country would not grudge well-earned pensions to such teachers; and he, therefore, heartily supported the Motion now before the House.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was true that the Report of the Committee appointed in 1872 could not be construed in favour of the Motion. In 1875, however, when Mr. Whitwell brought the matter forward again, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) said that since the time of the Committee fresh evidence had come out, and that strong speeches had been made in both Houses, which it was impossible to read without admitting that the teachers had a great claim. He was quite prepared still to adhere to that statement. The original Minute on the subject said, "A pension may be granted" under certain circumstances. The question was whether "may" meant "must;" and, in the opinion of the Committee, it did not do so. When, however, he read the speeches that were delivered at the time when it was first proposed to grant pensions, the case seemed
    950
    to him to assume a very different aspect. The words of Lord Lansdowne, who at the time spoke with more authority on matters of education than belonged to anyone else, excepting, perhaps, the then Prime Minister, could only be interpreted as a promise that pensions would be given to schoolmasters. An appeal was now made to the feelings of hon. Members; and it was said that it was undesirable that men and women should be compelled to continue working as schoolmasters and schoolmistresses when they arrived at an age at which they ought to retire, and that it was a great disappointment to them not to obtain the pension upon which they had counted. These were very good grounds for an appeal ad misericordiam; but there was also room for an appeal on the ground of public faith. The question was, what was the temptation that was held out to men and women to become masters and mistresses? He thought there could be very little doubt that a pension was part of the temptation. There was a much more important matter than the expenditure of public money to be considered, and that was the keeping of good faith. There was, in his opinion, an actual, positive claim on the part of masters and mistresses to whom the Motion referred to a pension under the conditions on which it was offered; and that was the reason why he spoke so strongly in 1875, and why he ventured to speak so strongly now. If they meant to keep good faith, the only question they had to consider was whether that Minute of Viscount Sandon's of £6,500 was sufficient; and he thought his hon. Friend who had brought the Motion forward had shown that it was not sufficient. He was sure all of them would feel, and that the State and their constituents—much as they might dislike the expenditure of public money—would feel, that the servants of the country ought not to be worse treated than the servants of any respectable business firm. For these reasons he most strongly supported the Motion.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that at the end of last year, and at the end of a very long night's debate, he made a promise that he would renew his appeal to the Treasury in favour of some additional aid for the purposes of pensions for teachers. The Mover of the Motion before the House had said that although

    951
    he (Mr. Mundella) had made the promise, no action had been taken upon it. But the promise was made during last year, and immediately after the Recess he had communicated with the Secretary of the National Union of Elementary Teachers, and asked him to place before him a full statement of the claims of the teachers, and the arguments offered in support of them, and that statement was not sent in until the 14th of November. Since that time there had been no allotment of pensions, though the time for allotment was now at hand. There had, therefore, been no laches on his part, and no one had suffered up to now. He could assure the House that the allotment of these pensions was a very painful duty to him, as no doubt it had been to his Predecessors; whilst the number of pensions to give did not increase, the number of applicants was largely increasing. He might say that there were, in fact, no pensions to give except those created by the death of previous holders of them. At the last half-yearly allotment he had but two at his disposal, and there were over 70 applicants, all meritorious, all deserving oases. He had made his appeal to the Treasury, and had submitted the facts to his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, who, he was glad to say, had not met him in any haggling way. His hon. Friend, however, was unable to admit that the teachers had any legal claim to a pension, and that view was also supported by the evidence of Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth, Sir Ralph Lingen, and Sir Francis Stanford before the Committee in 1872. Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth had said every teacher had the same sort of claim to a pension, as every barrister had a hope of becoming Lord Chancellor. The Minute of 1846 was in itself so ambiguous as to be misleading, and although one thing might be in the minds of the framers of the Minute, another thing was in the minds of the teachers who read it; and he was bound to say he thought the latter were justified in forming a conclusion that every teacher who fulfilled the conditions of Minute had a fair claim. There certainly was every thing to justify the teachers in their claim. Between 1846 and 1851 a number of teachers were attracted into the profession by the pension which was then promised; and it was not until 1851 that the Lord President of the
    952
    Council became frightened at the amount which these pensions would reach, and placed the limit of £6,500 a-year on the pensions to be given. Up to the year 1851 there was, in the mind of the teachers at any rate, no limit on the amount of pensions to be paid. The Secretary to the Treasury had given this matter a good deal of consideration, and he (Mr. Mundella) was thankful to find himself in the position of being able to accede to the case laid before the House by the hon. Member. No man in the House, or out of it, would enjoy more than he the change he was about to announce, for hitherto almost every Member in the House had applied to him, and brought before him, the claims of different teachers to pensions. He had submitted to the Treasury a proposal that they should make a grant for the purpose of these pensions; but the Secretary to the Treasury replied that this claim was either a sound and fair one, or it was not. Between 1846 and 1851 there was a great influx of teachers, and any definite grant that might be made might not be sufficient to meet all the cases. Of course, he only referred to the cases of those teachers who entered the profession between 1846 and 1851. Those who came in after 1851 came in on distinct terms, and they knew that the pensions were limited to £6,500 a-year. In 1861 pensions were abolished, and there was no claim, for pensions in respect of teachers who joined since that year. Their position was altogether altered. But in respect of those teachers who joined between 1846 and 1851, with the distinct understanding that they would have pensions, the Treasury would find the money to give them the pensions to which they were entitled. The teacher at the present time was not in the position of a civil servant with a fixed salary. He had a position of independence, and could make his own bargain, with the school managers. His pay was greatly increased, and the prizes of the profession were far more numerous than before. He hoped that these prizes would go on increasing in number, and this they would do in proportion as the English idea of education was raised. The improvement in the salaries of teachers even in very recent years was very remarkable. Thus, in 1874 the number of teachers whose salaries were under £100 a-year was 4,300, and in

    953
    1883 the number was 5,900. In 1874 the number whose salaries were above £100 and under £200 was 3,885, and in 1883 it was 7,740. In 1874 the number whose salaries were between £200 and £300 was 251, and in 1883 it was 994. The number whose salaries in 1874 were over £300 a-year was 18, and in 1883 the number was 191. Similarly, in 1874 there were only 492 schoolmistresses whose salaries were over £100; in 1883 the number was 3,095. The position of the teachers had been a rapid and steady advance since the passing of the Education Act. It was most important that it should be so; and he hoped that teachers would, by a combination of intelligence and association, make for themselves ample provision, and would not have to come to Parliament for any assistance in their old age.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTcongratulated his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey on the satisfactory result of his Motion. He wished, however, before the debate closed to understand exactly what the right hon. Gentleman had given to the teachers. He understood the concession amounted to this—that the teachers who entered between 1846 and 1851, and between 1851 and 1862, were to receive pensions, but in differing ratios. With regard to the first class, they were to have the whole of the pensions to which they were entitled—namely, two-thirds of their salaries.
    MR. MUNDELLA: Oh, no, no; in accordance with the Minute of 1846.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTbelieved that was one of the terms of the Minute of 1846.
    MR. MUNDELLA: That was the maximum allowance.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: Then were the teachers who entered between 1846 and 1851 to receive pensions equal to two-thirds of the emoluments they received?
    MR. MUNDELLA: No.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, then he did not think the teachers had got what in the course of the debate hon. Members had been led to expect they would get, or that the teachers ought to get. Were they, then, to receive a pension the amount of which was to be determined by the right hon. Gentleman himself or his Successor in Office, and according to the circumstances of each particular case? It might be one-
    954
    third or one-sixth, but in no case could it exceed two-thirds.
    MR. MUNDELLA: There is a fair guide as to the rate of the pension by the 200 pensions fixed in 1851. It is impossible to give a larger pension than that given to teachers in the past.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: Were they, then, to understand that the teachers in the first class—those appointed between 1846 and 1851—who had a strong Parliamentary and official claim, if they had not an absolute legal claim—were to be raised to the footing to which he now understood the remainder of that class was to be raised? The House would observe that up to this time there were a considerable number of teachers surviving who were appointed between 1846 and 1851, and very few of those teachers had received any pension at all up to this time.
    MR. MUNDELLA: The hon. Gentleman forgets that there are 270 pensions running now, and those teachers have their full share.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: But of the total number a very small proportion had received that pension. He understood, however, that the whole number appointed between 1846 and 1851 were to receive a pension if they fulfilled the conditions required of them, and that the amount was to depend upon the opinion which the Vice President or his Successor formed of their services in each particular case. What was to happen, then, to the teachers appointed between 1851 and 1861? They had not so strong a claim as the former class, but they had a strong claim on the Government for pensions in their turn; and he wished to know how much they might expect to receive of the amount obtained by the right hon. Gentleman from the Treasury? What were the real facts of the case with regard to the class of pensions referred to in the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Brodrick)? Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth in 1846 made a statement on the subject, which was worthy the attention of the House. In 1846 a pamphlet was published entitled The School in its relation to the State, issued as "an explanation of the Minutes of the Committee of Council on Education, in August and December, 1846." It was generally admitted that this pamphlet was written by Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth, who was at that time Secretary

    955
    of the Committee of Council. In that pamphlet he said—
    "Their Lordships desired to render the profession of schoolmaster honourable by raising its character, by giving it the public recognition of impartially awarding certificates or diplomas, and by securing to well-trained or otherwise efficient masters a position of comfort during the period of their arduous labour, and the means of retirement on a pension awarded by the Government."
    There was no mention here of pensions which they themselves had subscribed for. The pamphlet goes on—
    "Their Lordships have, therefore, rendered superannuation pensions accessible to masters distinguished by long and efficient services, and who, by age or by any disabling infirmity, are compelled to retire. It cannot be doubted that such arrangements will raise this profession in public estimation by increasing its efficiency and respectability."
    He would quote one more piece of evidence which was admitted to be written by Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth. In a letter dated March 11th, 1847, addressed to Mr. E. Salter, Secretary of the Manchester British Schoolmasters' Association, he said—
    "I had yesterday to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, in which you inquired whether masters of the elementary schools who have not been trained in a Normal school under the inspection of the Committee of Council are admissible to the advantages offered by their Lordships' Minutes of August and December last, provided that upon the Report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools my Lords find such masters to be efficient and deserving.…I informed you also that my Lords, being desirous to offer the strongest inducements to schoolmasters and schoolmistresses to render long and efficient services to the public, had opened the prospect of a retiring pension to this class of teachers."
    He thought, if they were to haggle about the meaning of words, and to ask whether the claim was a legal or a moral one, they were pursuing a course of conduct very unworthy the House of Commons. [Mr. MUNDELLA: All that is admitted.] It was not admitted a few months ago; and if it was now admitted he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was quite candid when he quoted against his opponents the evidence of Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth before the Committee of 1872. This was not a Party question, however, and he was sorry that during a portion of the time that this iniquitous state of things had been going on—he said it with shame—a Conservative Government had been in
    956
    Office. He trusted that the manner in which those teachers had been treated during those 13 years would never again be imitated in the Public Service of this country.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he thought the Treasury and the Government had acted in a fair spirit in regard to the claims of the teachers appointed before 1851. He presumed that the pensions awarded would be something like those in the Code—namely, pensions of £20, £25, or £30. He thought the Department should give pensions on the more liberal scale of £30 a-year to those teachers of old standing who entered the profession before 1851. He hoped that the Department would not, for the sake of a small annual sum, disappoint the expectations of those teachers who joined between 1851 and 1862, during which period the Vote of £ 6,500 was suspended.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he understood that the teachers appointed before 1851 would receive pensions; but if that consumed the £6,500, he understood the teachers between 1851 and 1862 would receive no pension. What he wished to know was, how the Government proposed to deal with the teachers between 1851 and 1862? Supposing the pensions to the other teachers consumed the £6,500, were they to have pensions or not?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman proposed that pensions should be given up to the amount of £6,500 in each year, but that if after that allotment had been made any of the teachers appointed between 1846 and 1851 had not got a pension, then they would have a pension irrespective of the £6,500. [Mr. MUNDELLA: That is so.] He hoped the concession would be carried a little further, and that the Secretary to the Treasury would consider the claims of the teachers appointed between 1851 and 1861.
    MR. COURTNEYexplained that the Government were not going to make any concession which might countenance a general claim to pensions. As he understood, all were agreed in repudiating a general system of pensions. The action of the Government had reference strictly to the Minutes that had been quoted. The teacher who came in between 1846 and 1851 was entitled to appeal to the Minute of 1846, and to say—"I came in with the expectation that in certain con-

    957
    ditions I should receive a certain pension; but subsequently the amount to be allotted to pensions was diminished, and after that for a time suspended altogether; that was in derogation of the expectation I had a right to look forward to, and so far you have wronged my moral expectation." The Government met that position by saying—"Whatever you had a moral right to look forward to shall be conceded, whatever burden maybe thrown upon the Treasury." The teacher between 1851 and 1862 had the right to look forward to the chance of a succession to a pension in certain conditions, provided the total allotted to pensions did not exceed £6,500 a-year. The appeal of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) might be good as an appeal ad misericordiam, but the Government rejected it; they were only conceding those which were moral claims; and the moral claim between 1851 and 1862 was to a contingent share in £6,500. The Government restricted themselves to the full satisfaction of the moral claims. They all renounced the idea that pensions should be conceded to teachers as a class, and the Government were giving them only to those who entered the service on the faith of the Minutes; and to that extent they gave all that was demanded.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, he must express his acknowledgments to the House and the Government for the spirit in which his Resolution had been met, and before withdrawing it he would only ask for a further explanation as to the way in which the pensions would be distributed. When the total exceeded £6,500, would teachers appointed after 1851 have to wait till it fell again to that level, or would they compete on even terms with the teachers appointed in 1846 to 1851 for any vacant pensions in the original sum? If not, the teachers appointed in 1851 to 1862 would be in a worse position by his Motion.
    MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, that to the earlier class of teachers—1846 to 1851—pensions would be given in meritorious cases without regard to the total.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the pensions would be on the same scale as under the present Minute.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwished to make a protest against the theory that there was no hope in the future
    958
    for a general system of pensions for teachers. There seemed to him no serious difficulty about devising a scheme of regular insurance under State supervision, by which a fixed percentage of each annual salary should be put by. After a sufficient period of service the teacher might retire upon an annuity thus provided for, with the addition of a bonus from the State proportionate to the length of service, and perhaps to his past efficiency in the profession. This would be similar to the State assurance proposed by Prince Bismarck for Germany.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE-CONVENTION BETWEEN SPAIN AND THE UNITED STATES.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. TOMLINSONrose to call attention to the Correspondence respecting the Commercial Convention concluded between Spain and the United States relative to the West India Trade (Commercial, No. 10, 1884), and to move—
  "That, in view of the increasing difficulties placed by foreign Governments in the way of the due development of the Home and Colonial trade and commerce of the British Empire, by differential duties and bounties, it is incumbent on Her Majesty's Government to use every means for securing the adoption of the most-favoured nation principle as the basis of the commercial relations between the whole of the British Empire and foreign nations."
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Duke of Marlborough, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Cruelty to Animals Acts Amendment* (74).
Second Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Provisional Order* (61); Married Women's Property Act (1882) Amendment (60).

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.

  (No. 60.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to amend the Act of 1882, in which Sections 12 and 16, in reference to criminal proceedings, and the making of husband or wife a witness in a case against either, were contradictory. The Bill would remove the ambiguity, and would make it competent to a husband to give evidence against his wife.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD BRAMWELLsuggested that the Bill should not merely make a husband capable of giving evidence against his wife, but for her, as there might be a prosecution against her, and the husband, capable of giving material evidence in her favour, might keep himself out of the witness-box. He would point out that a witness did not give evidence for or against one side or the other, but in the case, and this Bill should make both husband and wife competent to give evidence in the case.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that no doubt the noble Marquess would pay attention to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord. He would ask that the Committee on the Bill should not be appointed for an early day, as he was not at all sure that it might not be expedient to take advantage of this Bill to introduce one or two other Amendments of the existing Act.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Bramwell) to put his clause on the Paper, and said he would fix the Committee for that day fortnight.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 13 th of May next.

MALTA (CONSTITUTION AND ADMINISTRATION)-CIVIL AND MILITARY GOVERNORSHIP.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can give any information with regard to the appointment of the Chief Secretary at Malta as Lieutenant Governor, and to what extent the administration of civil affairs will be in future under his direction; also, what portion of the salaries of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor will, in future, be paid by the Maltese Government? said, that their Lordships were probably aware that the question of the appointment of a Civil Governor of Malta was a matter of great interest to the Maltese people, and he might say had been so since they placed themselves under the protection of the British Crown and became British subjects. The noble Earl opposite, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, said in that House last Session that he would give a careful consideration to this subject. He had, therefore, felt that he might now ask the noble Earl to what extent the proposed arrangement would place the administration of the civil affairs of Malta and its Dependencies, as distinct from the military, under the direction of a civilian?
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that, in answer to the Question of his noble Friend, he had to state that the matter of the Civil and Military Governorship of Malta had for a long time been under discussion. It had been most properly brought forward on behalf of the interests of the Maltese population, and it had been most carefully considered last year. After weighing all the arguments pro and con he had come to the decided conclusion that, under the peculiar circumstances of Malta, it would not be desirable to comply to the full extent with their demands. Malta was a very small Island, and it was also an Imperial fortress; and he thought that to put into such a narrow area two authorities, each supreme in his own sphere, would be to produce a state of things which might very possibly end in collision between them, and at any rate would not lead to that unity of action which was desirable. He felt himself, therefore, bound to negative that proposition; but he had considered how far it was possible,

  841
  without injury to the interests of good administration, to meet the wishes of the Maltese people. He understood that the main cause of complaint was that the people supposed, whether rightly or wrongly, that a military officer, having control of the garrison and looking upon his office as in the nature of a military command, was not likely to give as much attention as they would desire to the civil affairs of the Colony. He had endeavoured to meet that objection by giving to the officer who at present held the position of Colonial Secretary the higher rank of Lieutenant Governor, together with an increase of salary, thereby raising his position and placing in the main the administration of civil affairs in his hands. It was not possible—he did not think it would be desirable if it were possible—to endeavour to define precisely beforehand the duties which would be performed by the Lieutenant Governor and those performed by the Governor. It was not intended that there should be any conflict of authority, but that the Governor should be supreme in all matters, whether civil or military. But, practically, the Lieutenant Governor would be placed in that position in which he would be able to relieve the Governor of a very large part of the duty of civil administration. They should not attempt to define their relative positions or duties with any precise accuracy at the present time, because they believed it was a matter which would be better settled when they had some practical experience upon the subject. With regard to the financial part of the question, the House was aware that some years ago a Commission was appointed to inquire into the finances of Malta, and among the other recommendations of that Commission there was one that the salary of the Governor should be reduced from £5,000 to £3,000 a-year. It was contended that the sum of £5,000 was a larger sum than the Maltese could fairly be called upon to pay; and that if they wanted an officer of high position, and one who expected a higher salary, it was rather for the Imperial Government than for the Colony to pay the additional expense. Under these circumstances, he felt it was impossible to maintain the obligation of the Colony to contribute to the Governor's salary at the higher rate. The amount of salary
  842
  remained unchanged; but, by an arrangement with the War Office, £2,000 out of the £5,000 would be charged upon Imperial funds. There was a reduction, therefore, of the charge upon the Colony to the extent of £2,000, which sum would, however, be diminished by the increase of salary to the Lieutenant Governor. That increase would be £600, and the net decrease to the Colony would therefore be £1,400. He would lay on the Table all the Papers, and their Lordships would see how it was proposed to pay the salaries of both the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that it would be convenient to see the Papers; but he would at once say that he took great exception to the principle of the change which had been made. He should like to know what effect the change would have upon the relations between the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor? He very much, doubted the wisdom of the alteration in the duties of the Lieutenant Governor. Malta had a military as well as a commercial population, and it had a Council composed of 10 elected and 10 nominated Members, and there the question of the relations of the civil duties of the Lieutenant Governor and his relations with the Governor would be fought out; and he feared there would be much antagonism—anyhow, there would be much friction between the parties in the administration of the affairs of the Island.
  THE EARL OF DERBYexplained that the Governor would, as now, be supreme in all matters; but the Lieutenant Governor would relieve him of some part of his duties in regard to the civil administration.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHremarked, that things in Malta were just now in a very divided state, there being actually no Council. He doubted, therefore, whether this was the right time for making the proposed change.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDobserved, that, having resided for some time in Malta, he could not conceive any arrangement more ingeniously devised for producing disagreement than that now proposed. Moreover, Malta particularly objected to be described as a "Colony."

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE PURCHASE CLAUSES—ADVANCES TO OWNERS.—RESOLUTION
LORD CASTLETOWN: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name, I must beg that indulgence and kindness which this House always accords to those who address it for the first time. The urgency and moment of the question I desire to raise must be my best excuse for trespassing upon you; and though my weak words must be unequal to the task I have undertaken, still, if I succeed in placing before your Lordships the hardship and loss that have overtaken those whose cause I advocate, I shall feel I have not spoken in vain. Some time ago it became apparent that there was a general desire amongst all classes in Ireland to see some amendment of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act of 1881. As early, indeed, as March, 1882, letters appeared in The Times, signed "R. O'H.," urging that some greater facilities, in the way of cheap money, to induce sales to the tenants, should be arranged; but it was not until the middle of 1883 that men began to realize that there existed what is now called a "financial deadlock in the land market." This block, and the difficulties and hardships which attend it, are increasing weekly. Receivers are being appointed by the score, increasing enormously the expenses connected with the collection of rents; penal rates of interest are being demanded on mortgages; and in many instances mortgages are being hurriedly called in, sure presage of destruction to the incumbered owner; while the Landed Estates Court Judges, standing, so to speak, in the gap, refuse to sell, thereby averting for a time—but for a time only—the ruin which is impending. Now, my Lords, what is the reason for all this? Not bad seasons. Ireland has had bad seasons before, and bad times have been tided over—I mean the Famine times of 1848. In many parts of Ireland prices and times have been better than in many parts of England. It has not been want of money amongst the farming classes except in remote parts of the West and South, where poverty is perpetual. That money is plentiful is attested by the statistical Returns of the savings banks and the fabulous prices given for tenants' interests—7,
844
10, 15, and 20 years' purchase being common, while they have gone as high as 29 years' purchase—nay, more, there are instances where a tenant has given 29 years' purchase, although he has refused to buy the fee-simple from his landlord for 17 years' purchase. All this proves that some outside and indirect reason must exist, or have been started into being, to account for the depreciated value of the owners' property and this financial deadlock. That reason is not far to seek. First comes, as part of it, the want of confidence engendered by the introduction of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881. Secondly, the operations under that Act, in reducing indiscriminately, and in many instances extinguishing, the margin on which the late owners of Irish property had existed, the margin on the security of which family charges had been agreed upon, and mortgages arranged for. In one of those letters to which I have referred, written by "R. O'H.," a gentleman who, as I take it, is well known to many of your Lordships, and one distinguished alike by his knowledge of Ireland and desire to serve her best interests, he separates an incumbered property into two portions in a very simple and clear manner. He speaks of one portion as "the pledged income," and the other as "the free income," or, as I have called it, "the margin." This margin I shall, therefore, allude to as "the free income." Now, I do not intend to carp at or inquire into the working of the Land Act. I am glad to say a noble Duke has already given Notice of his intention to call your Lordships' attention to its operations, and it is no part of my business to-day to advert to this wide and most important subject. It will merely be my duty to-day to state what I believe to be the result of its working up to now. Her Majesty's Ministers have stated it to be their intention to make known their views on the Purchase Clauses within a few days. I shall not detain your Lordships by referring to the desirability and necessity of amending the Purchase Clauses. I think every section of Irishmen is in favour of such amendment. However, I think I am justified in pointing out that whatever is done must be done boldly, comprehensively, and on a very liberal scale. Petty measures will not do. The whole of the legal costs of conveyancing must

845
be minimized, and the tenant must be able to buy his farm with a good title to it as easily as he would a cow or a cupboard. At the present moment it is almost beyond a poor man's means to buy owing to legal costs and delays; while the Land Commission, hampered as it is by too much work, and, I regret to say it, red-tapeism, naturally seeks to throw obstacles in the way of bargains being arrived at between the landlord who may wish to sell and the tenant who may desire to buy. To illustrate this I will quote the words of the Chief Secretary in answering Colonel King-Harman some time ago in reference to the Costello estate. He informed the House that the tenants had agreed to buy at 15 years' purchase, and that the Irish Bank, considering the security ample, had agreed to advance one-fourth of the purchase money as a second charge puisne to the three-fourths to be advanced by the Land Commission. This estate was subsequently valued by the Land Commission, and the result was that the Commissioners considered the estate, including the possessory rights of the tenant, was only security for an advance of three-fourths of the purchase money, calculated at 12 years' purchase. Can we wonder, therefore, that there is a deadlock in the land market when sales are fettered and hampered in this manner? I understood that when the Land Commission took up their functions freedom of contract was to return as soon as possible, and that the Land Commission were not to be valuers of the selling value of land, but brokers only. There have been many plans suggested to remove these difficulties, and to facilitate the transfer of land; but none of them appear to me so workable as that of "R. O'H.," a plan which Her Majesty's Ministers have seen, and which, at the risk of detaining the House for a short time, I should wish to advert to rapidly, pointing out the most salient and valuable parts of it. By his scheme, which appeared in a letter to The Times of the 12th of this month, "R. O'H." converts into the owner of his holding, without detriment to the State, and with ample security to the interests of the taxpayer, any tenant who is willing to purchase from his landlord on fair terms, and is prepared to put down 4 per cent of the purchase money, the landlord putting
846
down 6 per cent, and the land bank, through whose medium the transaction would be completed, also 6 per cent of the purchase money. These amounts are to be held collectively in trust at 3 per cent, and returned to the parties who had put them down, at stated periods, during the time the terminable annuity has to run. By means of this most able and ingenious device he obtains a handsome percentage for his bank; while he practically takes nothing out of the pocket of the seller or the purchaser, except for a stated time. His proposal enables a tenant, without putting down the quarter demanded at present, to reap the same, if not greater, advantages. He will pay a rent to the bank no higher than his present rent—a rent which may, perhaps, be less, and which is terminable in a given time, say 47 years. The landlord receives the major part of his purchase money, and has security for receiving the lesser portion also at a given time; while the State and the taxpayer are assured against loss by the deposits of the tenant and landlord. In fact, all three of them are parties to a transaction which it becomes every day more to their profit to see completed. Take the case of a £10 holding selling for 23 years' purchase, £230. The tenant has only to put down £9 4s., practically less than one year's rent. The landlord leaves out of his £230, £13 16 s., receiving the balance, £216 4s. The bank puts down £13 16 s.; and this sum, left out on trust at 3 per cent, produces for the bank 8 per cent on this invested 6 per cent, with a good margin for expenses and profit. Now, my Lords, I have touched, perhaps, at undue length on this idea, having regard, as it has apparently, only to the sale and purchase of holdings; but it may be equally well and as successfully applied to giving that indirect compensation, which, I maintain, is due to the landlords of Ireland. You have merely to substitute the word "mortgagor" for "landlord," "mortgagee" for "tenant," and leave the bank in its original position, and the suggestions that I have made in my Motion will be carried out. That is necessary because, whatever is done in facilitating the purchase of their holdings by tenants, a deadlock will always exist at some point where compensation must step in to clear the ground and relieve

847
the position. It is on this point I lay the most stress; and having drawn, I hope, particular attention to the simplicity and comprehensiveness of this particular plan, I am prepared to await the introduction of something, if possible, better, by Her Majesty's Government. I stated in the earlier part of my speech that in many instances the "margin" or free income had been completely cut away by the action of the Land Act of 1881, while the "pledged income" was impaired, or if not impaired much imperilled; so much so that if the mortgagees called in their loans the estates would have to be sold at all hazards. This will shortly take place. I do not think that the Judges of the Landed Estates Court will be able to refrain much longer from accepting any price they can get; for though the amendment of the Purchase Clauses may lessen the loss in the sale of estates, as the tenants getting fairer terms from Government may be inclined thereby to give fairer prices, still the prices obtained will in no way be equal to the actual value of the estates. If this loss were caused by act of Providence, or decrease in the letting value of the land, or by circumstances outside human prevision, I should have no locus standi for urging that compensation is due; but I maintain, and will produce evidence to corroborate my assertion, that this loss has been occasioned by the effect and action, of the Land Act. If I can do this—if I can prove this—I will only quote the words of the Prime Minister regarding compensation, when he said during the progress of the Land Law Bill, 1881—
"I do not hesitate to say that if it can he shown on clear and definite experience at the present time that there is a probability, or if after experience should prove that, in fact, ruin and heavy loss is likely to be, or has been, brought on any class in Ireland by the direct effect of this legislation—that is a question we ought to look directly in the face."
We have now had two years' experience of this Land Act, and "ruin and heavy loss" has been brought on the landowning class, and the question has to be looked directly in the face. I will take, in proof of this, a few cafes out of the many which have been sent to me; and when I submit these instances I will leave your Lordships to decide what loss has been sustained by these unfortunate and innocent people. In
848
the selection of these cases I found a great difficulty facing me—not a difficulty in regard to the obtaining of instances, but rather in the selection of the few cases which I shall trouble your Lordships with detailing. Unfortunately, the number of illustrations of the effects of the disastrous working of the Land Act is but far too large. From North, South, East, and West the same story comes, telling of disaster and ruin, in many cases already fallen, in hundreds impending. At the outset let me quote some facts in regard to estates which have been inherited—estates which have descended in the line of succession to the present owners, against whom, let it be noted, no charge of "land jobbery" can be made—I mean no charge of purchasing land as a mere speculation, with a view to raising the rents and thereby making money. Let me take first the case of an estate situate in the County Mayo, the facts connected with which are, indeed, of a very sad character. The present owner, an Anglo-Indian merchant, suceeded to the property, at the death of his brother, some few years ago. At his brother's death this gentleman came from India to enter into possession of the property, bringing with him a sum of about £4,000, the proceeds of many years' industry. An investigation into the state of the deceased man's affairs, however, soon showed that there were liabilities, amounting to almost this figure—£4,000—due to pressing creditors. It was absolutely necessary to pay off these pressing debts at once, and thus was the £4,000—the product of many years of hard life in India—suddenly swept away. The rental of the estate at the time—this was prior to the passing of the Land Act—was £1,600; but only a sum of £424 remained out of it when family charges, mortgage interest, &c., were paid. With the operation of the Land Act, however, came a reduction of 26⅔per cent in the rental, and the small margin left heretofore, after the payment of the charges, was now completely cut off. The unfortunate man, who, in the ordinary course of events, came into the possession of an estate which promised him some little income for the remainder of his days, and which tempted him to pay out his all in the hopes of making the future more secure, is now absolutely penniless. The an-

849
nuitants refuse to give him a farthing, although they have been always paid regularly—they had to be paid, no matter what happened to the unfortunate owner. The law has interfered again, and a receiver has been appointed now for two years. Penal interest has had to be paid to the mortgagee for a debt contracted before the present owner came into possession; and as the result of all this the property has now been put up in the Encumbered Estates Court, with little prospect of advantageous or even justly-priced sale. Such are the facts of one of the saddest cases which have come under my notice. The second I shall quote is that of a property situate in the County Tyrone, held by a gentleman in trust for his three nieces—three young ladies dependent, to a great extent, on the rents of their estate for their sustenance. The property is not a very large one. The yearly rental, prior to the passing of the Land Act, was £615. The outgoings in the way of charges, &c., amounted to £503, leaving a balance of £112. The action of the Land Court, however, reduced the yearly rental by 18 per cent, and now the margin remaining after the payments—for there is no escape from them—is the miserable sum of £8. On this estate, I may mention in passing, the rents had not been raised for 21 years. The next case I shall refer to is that of the estate of a magistrate in the County Cavan. Like that of which I have just spoken, this, too, is a small estate; but all the more so has the operation of the Act proved disastrous to the impoverished owner. After the passing of the Act the rental was reduced 18 per cent, bringing down the margin which remained, after the annual payments, from £168 to £57. The estate was mortgaged, and penal interest has since been exacted. A receiver was appointed two years ago, and for this period not 1d. of rent has been received, whilst the expenses of this officer have been added to the already heavily-itemed charge list. The owner cannot see any light in the darkness of his position, unless aid be given him such as I suggest. I have the details of another estate situated in the County Limerick, which are equally worthy of attention, and with the owner of which great sympathy cannot but be felt. The rental up to 1881 was £1,116, but has since been reduced to £752—something
850
like a reduction of 33 per cent. The head rent, annuities, &c., amounted annually to £346—which left a margin in the owner's hands, prior to the reduction, of £770. The interest on a mortgage of £9,000, however, further reduced this to £365. When, through the operation of the Land Act, the rental was brought down from £1,116 to £752, the payments of family charges, head rents, &c., left but a few shillings—16 s. I believe—over the sum which would be required to pay the mortgage interest. Now, to pay this interest would have been to leave the owner penniless, and for two years and a-half no interest has been paid. Penal interest, at the rate of 5½ per cent, is now due, amounting to £1,732. Completely ruined, and with no chance of being able to do anything to obtain the fair value of his property, the owner has had to go to the Cape, and to send his wife to reside with her father. I could quote other cases of a kindred kind, equally painful; but I shall only trouble your Lordships with another case under this branch. This is the case of a clergyman living in England possessed of a small property in the County Clare. Up to 1881 this clergyman enjoyed an income of something like 25 per cent of his rental after payment of mortgage interest, charges, &c., which were rather heavy. The operation of the Land Act, however, only left him with a little over 2 per cent out of the 25 per cent. The principal grievance, however, in this case is in regard to the head rent. The property is held under a Bishop's lease on the Disendowment of the Irish Church. The owner was compelled to purchase perpetuity at a cost of £2,000. He was requested to send in the then rental, and on this basis the head rent was fixed. Now, although the rental has been reduced 22 per cent, the head rent remains at the original figure. What wonder is it that he should complain bitterly at such action as this? Coming now to what I shall term the second branch of this portion of my subject—the question of estates purchased through the Landed Estates Court under the titles I have spoken of—I shall very rapidly and very shortly adduce evidence in support of my statements. Let me first take the case of an estate situated in the County Cork. This property consisted of Church lands, formerly held from the Ecclesiastical

851
Commissioners, and now held by sub-grant in perpetuity under the Crown, subject to the yearly rent of £140, and tithe rent-charge of £29. The circumstances of the case are a little peculiar. The property had been in the present owner's family for five generations when it was sold in the Landed Estates Court on the petition of an incumbrancer, and bought by the present owner. To complete the purchase a mortgage of £2,000 had to be arranged for to make up the full amount of £7,240. The property sold high, it being known that the rents had not been altered for generations, and the Landed Estates Court rental bearing on the face of it a statement that "the tenants held at very moderate rents." The purchaser, believing he had an absolute title to the rents as they stood, a schedule of which was set forth in his conveyance, was satisfied with his income—a bare 4 per cent on the £5,240 laid out—and never attempted to raise the rents. The tenants, however, were yearly ones, and they went into the Land Court. What happened? It was proved that the rents had been the same for the last 50 years; and although the Chairman of the Sub-Commissioners confessed that—
"The management of the estate had given great satisfaction to the tenants,"
and although "allowances had been made for improvements, &c.," still, when considering the question of a "fair rent," they—
"Could come to no other conclusion than that the tenants on this liberally-managed property had been paying too much."
Accordingly, they reduced the rents. Now, if I were discussing the Motion which the noble Duke is about to bring on, I would express my opinion rather strongly on this mode of procedure; but I shall not now delay here. The former rental was £543, and this was reduced to £426. The charges in all amounted to £334, which left a margin of £208 on the former rental, but only £91 on the reduced rental. Now, the owner had purchased this estate on the faith of the most solemn of covenants; he is a tenant to the Crown, and holds a Parliamentary title to at least £200, yet the action of the Crown has reduced this to £91. Leaving your Lordships to appreciate the significance of these facts, I shall pass on to another case. The
852
property I this time refer to is situated in the County Kerry, and was bought under an "indefeasible" title from the same Court; £33,000 was the amount of the purchase money, of which £19,000 had to be borrowed at over 4 per cent. The Land Act followed the purchase, and the rents in some cases were reduced 25 per cent—and this on an estate with an "indefeasible title." The tenants will not now pay The operation of the Land Act has seriously impaired the owner's income. The mortgagee, frightened for his loan, has served notice to call in the mortgage, and for money borrowed, on what I may describe as the strength of the Crown security, the owner is likely to suffer terrible loss. One other instance and I shall have done these quotations. This last case is that of an estate situate in County Mayo, bought nine years ago in the Landed Estates Court. Like as in the previous case, money had to be borrowed to make up the amount of the purchase money. After the purchase the rents were reduced 11½ per cent, and with an unlocked for loss of £34 per year the present owner had been unable to pay off the mortgage. The mortgagee, knowing no money was to be had, has raised the interest to 6 per cent, and the owner states if 8 per cent were asked, he could do nothing but pay it. These cases need very little, if any, comment. They bear upon the face of each of them a palpable injustice. I could give your Lordships the particulars of many others; but instances accumulate, and in the multiplicity of examples the main facts might be lost. One other sentence, and I resume my general remarks. I have stated that the Land Commission do not facilitate, but rather impede, sales. In support of this I shall simply refer to a case in point where an owner communicated with the Commission in reference to selling his property. The Land Commission Secretary, in reply, raised a question as to the head rent, and placed such obstacles in the way of any forwarding arrangement whatever, that the owner at last dropped the correspondence, and nothing ever came of the matter. Now, my Lords, I think these cases prove that the loss is heavy and severe, and has been directly brought about by the legislation which the Prime Minister was referring to when using

853
the words I have just quoted. I may, perhaps, be asked how do I propose to compensate these ruined incumbered owners? I reply, in the words of my Motion, by giving them "facilities for raising money to pay off mortgages and charges." It would be for the Government to determine the details, and it would be for the tribunal which would have the carriage of sale and such kindred matters to arrange the terms, &c., connected with such work. Such a tribunal you have in the Landed Estates Court, possessing, as it does, most able officers, and all necessary adjuncts, but now powerless to act owing to the "deadlock" I have before referred to. Perhaps, my Lords, you will say that this is too wide a statement, and I may be told I have produced evidence of loss and ruin; but I have made no clear, direct, or detailed suggestion how to remedy that loss, and the words of my Motion may be considered to be too comprehensive. At the risk, therefore, of detaining your Lordships a little longer, I will go more into details. Let us consider the position of the landlords of Ireland before the passing of the Land Act of 1881 and subsequently. Now, in this consideration, you cannot omit the charges to which their estates were and are subjected, and the persons entitled to these charges. These charges were all created at a time when freedom of contract existed between landlord and tenant. Many of them were created on the faith of "indefeasible" titles given by law—as solemn a contract as any we know of. They were created before the landlords were made subject to the control of a Court in the management of their estates and the fixing of their rents. The owners of these charges were, together with the landlord, owners of a partnership concern, of which he was manager. This management has now been taken from the landlord, and he alone is made to bear the loss, while his partner's position and rights remain unchanged. Surely, as in any business transaction or concern, loss should be borne rateably by all partners, who should be compelled to abate, when by action other than that of the manager, and beyond his control, the returns from the business are diminished. The effect, intentional or unintentional, of the Land Act has been directly or indirectly to reduce the rentals and incomes of pro-
854
prietors at least 20 per cent. Now, these reductions having been effected, the proprietors continue charged with the same amount as they were previously. The Land Act, if conceived in a just spirit, should not have reduced the income of the landlord only. It should have reduced the annual payments charged upon that income rateably, that is to say—Firstly, tithe rent; secondly, quit rent; thirdly, land improvement charges; fourthly, head rents; fifthly, jointures and annuities; and, sixthly, interest moneys on any mortgages that might be on the estate—all should have been reduced at the same rate. The parties entitled to these amounts, the State and the owners of the free and pledged income, should have been made parties to the results produced by this legislation. It may not now be possible to deal with the fourth and fifth of these—head rents, jointures and annuities—as any diminution there might cause more ruin than at present. I will therefore omit them from consideration just now. The sixth, however—interest moneys—can be dealt with; and as this charge is intimately bound up with the sale and purchase of estates, I maintain this is the proper moment for estimating the feasibility of dealing with it. Government state their intention of amending the Purchase Clauses and thereby inducing more sales to tenants. Suppose they do, and that a general desire is manifested both by landlord and tenant to divest themselves of the dual ownership, and that agreements for sale are entered into, we must remember there are other parties to the bargain, especially in the case of an encumbered estate. I allude, of course, to the case of mortgagees and those who have a lien upon the estate. Take a case in point. A landowner may desire to sell to his tenant a particular holding more favourably circumstanced for sale than any other on his estate. But this holding being subject, with other holdings on the same estate, to a mortgage, the owner may be met with a refusal on the part of the mortgagee to join in the conveyance and take the purchase money in part payment of his charge. Or, again. Suppose the estate subject to three or four different mortgages, one puisne to the other, and that the landlords and tenants mutually agree to sell on that estate, it is more than probable that the

855
last two mortgagees, fearing they may not receive the full amount of their loan, may use means to render the sale abortive and of no value, and thereby prohibit the very thing that is calculated, above all things, to have a tranquillizing and valuable effect on Ireland—namely, an increase in the number of proprietors. The necessity and advisability of creating these proprietors is, to my mind, more pressing now than ever; but in attempting to transform the occupier into the owner the historic words of Mr. Bright should be borne in mind and amplified. He said at Birmingham, in January, 1880, when advocating the creation of a yeomanry proprietary—
"This should be done by a process which shall be just, not to the tenant only, but to the landlord."
Mr. Bright here forgot, apparently, the other parties to the transaction—perhaps not anticipating then the operations of the Land Act of 1881—the State, which might interfere and render the sale of the land to the tenant absolutely unjust to the landlord by vitiating the value of the saleable commodity, and the mortgagees, on the other hand, who might refuse to permit the sale, and thereby cause injustice to both owner and occupier, anxious as they might be to come to terms. The owner of an encumbered estate in Ireland—and most of them are more or less encumbered—has now but two courses open to him, supposing his "free income" to have been seriously impaired by, the operation of the Act. First, to pay the penal interest, and that will surely be exacted by the frightened mortgagees, and thereby further reducing his income; or, on the other hand, to attempt to sell his land to the tenant, who will naturally not give too large a price for what may daily be depreciated in value. In the first instance, he is very nearly ruined, and is obliged to exact the uttermost farthing from his tenants, while the enforced residence of a genteel pauper can be of no benefit to the district. In the second case, the ruin is sharp and decisive. Or take a worse case. Perhaps, in the first instance, a receiver is appointed, and the remains of his income are frittered away in law costs; while, if the second line be pursued, and the estate sold at an unfair price, as it almost undoubtedly would be, the annuitants and mortgagees would take good care to get all they
856
could out of the purchase money, and perhaps leave the unfortunate owner penniless, as in one of the cases I dealt with. There is but one way out of the difficulty—State interference on just lines to all parties. When this is done, and not till then, we may expect finality in the Land Question. The difficulty has arisen entirely through State interference; and I maintain if, without detriment to the State or the Treasury as representing the taxpayer's interest, such justice can be meted out as is due to those aggrieved and interested, it is the duty of the State to take action. In the words of my Motion—
"That having regard to the announced intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure to secure greater facilities to tenants in Ireland for the purchase of their holdings, this House is of opinion that any such measure as is proposed by Her Majesty's Government should be so framed as to afford to those landowners of Ireland who have suffered pecuniary loss by the operation of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, facilities for raising money to pay off charges affecting their estates on as easy terms as would by the said measure be secured to purchasing tenants, or compensation in respect of such pecuniary loss in any way that may be deemed advisable."
I have been told that if this were done the effect would be to bolster up insolvent owners, giving them, so to speak, a new free income on which to borrow. I am entirely opposed to any attempt to maintain a pauper gentry—a class most detrimental to a country's welfare. Surely, loans of State money could be allowed only to those who had offered to sell their estates to their tenantry at fair prices, and were prepared to sell, but prevented by the action of the mortgagees, or by the determination of the would-be purchasers to exact a one-sided bargain. In the case of encumbered estates put up for sale, let the State offer the land to the tenants through the landlord for, say, 20 years' purchase. If the tenants refuse to avail themselves of the offer, let the State then advance to the landlord sufficient money to clear him of his encumbrances or a certain portion of them. Again, I am met by the statement that the expenditure of State money for such a purpose would be on too lavish a scale. I distinctly deny that statement, and for two valid reasons—first, in a most able prelude to a work on Sales of Land in Ireland, Mr. Fotterell, a gentleman of great experience, points out that during 10 years

857
of most active work in the Landed Estates Court—from 1865 to 1875—when there was a mania for buying land in Ireland, £9,237,000 was the gross amount of all kinds of property sold in that Court—less than £1,000,000 a-year. Supposing even those facilities were given to which I have referred—namely, that plenary powers were given to the Land Commission to sell, and the methods of procedure were simplified, it is not unfair to surmise that not much more than £2,000,000 worth of property could by any possibility pass through that Court in the year. My second reason is that as soon as it would become known that Government could and would come to the rescue if necessary, confidence would be restored, and those who had lent, and trembled for their loans, would feel secure against panic. Then, again, I am told—and, indeed, was asked by one of our leading statesmen—"What right had poor Ireland to ask rich England for advances for such purposes?" I answered then, as I answer now—"Ireland as long as she remains an integral portion of the United Kingdom, is entitled to claim from the National Exchequer money that may be safely used for the benefit of her people of any class." But, perhaps, I may be met with the question of safety or security for the advance, whatever that may be. I say at once, utilize some financial scheme, such as "R. O'H." has worked out, and the security to the State is guaranteed. You can advance by his plan money to the landlords to pay off their charges with equal safety as to tenants to purchase their holdings. You need only convert "tenant" to "landlord," "landlord" to "mortgagee," and leave "bank" in its normal position. The percentages they would leave in pledge would be the same as when the question of purchase was being settled, and, as in the previous case, the effect would be to benefit all. Every year as it passes away increases the benefit of the loan to the recipient, it being a terminable annuity; while, at the same time, it diminishes the liability of the bank and augments as well the value of the security to the State. Now, my Lords, I come to the first, second, and third of the charges which I have enumerated—these portions of the pledged income which I called tithe and quit rents and
858
land improvement charges. I shall not refer at great length to these matters, but shall speak of them as points where the compensation alluded to in the second part of my Motion may be indirectly given. I take them as instances of what compensation can be given to owners of unencumbered estates as opposed to owners of encumbered estates who may have suffered equally. The State, my Lords, having brought about this legislation, and being the party affected under these three heads, and having control over its own legislation, should now try to remedy the inequalities caused by the legislation, and in. remedying these should so adjust the three charges I speak of as to make them stand at 20 per cent less then they are at present, more especially when the reduction can be effected without loss by lengthening the periods during which the lesser amounts would be payable. Take the case of the tithe rent-charge. This is a rent-charge having priority over all other charges. The occupier, who originally paid it, was relieved of it, and it was placed on the shoulders of the owner, the State finding it difficult to collect. These owners were given as a bribe a quarter of it for its collection, but were empowered to add the expense of the collection to their rental; or, in other words, to raise their rental to cover the cost of collection. It was computed on the value of the land, in those days when wheat was at a very high price, and when freedom of contract prevailed. Septennial valuations were to be made, and payments estimated accordingly. These valuations were never taken, and the tithe rent is the same as it was in 1869, when it was sequestrated from the uses for which it was originally intended—that is, the sustentation of the Irish Church—and was applied by the State to lay purposes of all kinds. The quit rent and land improvement charges practically represent the interest which the State receives on some originally estimated capital value of the land. The State by its own action has lessened that value 20 per cent, or handed that amount of value over to other persons than the original owner. It should, therefore, in all justice and equity, reduce the interest it receives by 20 per cent, that being the amount it has depreciated the capital value. The question of land

859
improvement charges I will not go into fully. It can be dealt with more fitly when the Motion of the noble Duke comes on, when I think I shall be prepared to show that drainage charges are now still extracted from the the unfortunate owner, when the value of the rental of the land on which the charges are allocated has been seriously diminished by the action of the Court. My Lords, I fear I have detained you at great length. I have, however, I trust, proved that heavy loss has been caused to owners of Irish land by the operation of the Land Act, and that compensation may be claimed with all fairness. I hope I have proved to your Lordships that the question, which the Prime Minister was prepared to look in the face, is now before you, and must be met. The amendment of the Purchase Clauses, and compensation to the ruined owners, should run hand in hand, and give that finality to the Land Question which the noble Marquess now governing in Canada (the Marquess of Lansdowne) so prophetically warned this House the present Land Act would never give. Even the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) argued upon this question from, the same standpoint, when he said, referring to the Purchase Clauses, on the 27th of April, 1881—
"We believe that it is in that direction alone that permant improvement in the condition of Ireland can be obtained."
That the Prime Minister himself contemplated some such demand I gather from his speech on the Motion of Mr. W. H. Smith in the other House respecting the Purchase Clauses, when he said, in reference to the scheme propounded by Mr. Smith—
"Upon the scheme itself, I can give no opinion now, except this—that it may be possible to frame a plan which may take the form of an Irish Fund, and, at the same time, not be permanently disassociated from the Consolidated Fund."
Now is the moment for the introduction of some such scheme. You have the expressed desire on all sides to see more proprietors created in Ireland. You have tested, by experience, the hardship and ruin brought about by the action of the Land Act; and you have a financial deadlock existing in Ireland which, unless the State interferes, will bring inevitable ruin, on many thousands of your
860
fellow-countrymen. These men—these owners of property—were acquitted by the Prime Minister when he introduced the Land Act. Why are they mulcted in 20 per cent of their incomes if they have committed no crime? I abjure Her Majesty's Ministers to look this great question boldly and squarely in the face. It is no Party cry; it is no question of creed or class. The impoverished owner in Ireland has suffered equally, whether Protestant or Catholic, Peer or peasant proprietor. The trader who has converted his hard-earned money into fee-simple estate, bought in the Landed Estates Court, and held under the Crown—under as solemn a declaration as man can make—stands on the same footing, and has suffered equally as bad, as the squire whose property has descended to him through long generations. All have fared alike. The results which I complain of were, I assume, unanticipated. If they were, it is the duty of the State to meet them, now that they have arisen. If I cannot say that they were unanticipated, I am obliged to say that they were unprovided for. If this be so, provision should now, and can, be made to alleviate the position of those rent-owners—not guilty, yet sentenced; acquitted, yet condemned.
Moved, "That having regard to the announced intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure to secure greater facilities to tenants in Ireland for the purchase of their holdings, this House is of opinion that any such measure as is proposed by Her Majesty's Government should be so framed as to afford to those landowners of Ireland who have suffered pecuniary loss by the operation of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, facilities for raising money to pay off charges affecting their estates on as easy terms as would by the said measure be secured to purchasing tenants, or compensation in respect of such pecuniary loss in any way that may be deemed advisable."—(The Lord Castletown.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he very much regretted that, his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council (Lord Carlingford), who was better acquainted with that question than he was, being unavoidably absent, it devolved on him to give such an answer as he could to the speech of the noble Lord. And, in the first place, so far from complaining in any way of that speech, he had listened with the greatest pleasure, as he was sure the whole House had done, to the perfectly calm, temperate, and, at the same time, ad-

861
mirably clear manner in which the noble Lord had treated a difficult and somewhat thorny subject. With regard to the statement contained in the Motion as to the Government having announced their intention to introduce a measure for the amendment of the Purchase Clauses of the Irish Land Act, he could only say that the Government had pledged themselves to bring forward a measure on that subject; and it would be obvious to the noble Lord and the House that he could not now enter into details in reference to that question. He would only remark, in regard to one particular point on which the noble Lord laid stress—namely, the importance of reducing the intricacy of conveyancing and the costs of obtaining the sale of estates—that the Irish Government were fully sensible of the importance which all must feel of that being done, and, whatever measure was adopted, he did not hesitate to say that ought to form one branch of it. He now came to the more immediate subject of the Motion, which was to the effect that in conjunction with the facilities to be offered for the sale and purchase of estates some compensation should be secured to landlords who had suffered direct loss from the operation of the Land Act. The noble Lord had quoted a variety of cases in which they must, no doubt, all feel great sympathy with those who had suffered by the reduction of rent; but, with respect to particular cases, no general inference could be safely deduced from them. No doubt there had been a considerable reduction of rent in Ireland. That reduction, he believed, amounted to an average of 19 per cent. With reference to the manner in which that loss had been caused, the noble Lord had laid great stress on the hardship thus involved to those landlords who had obtained an indefeasible Parliamentary title to their estates. That indefeasible title, however, did not refer to the rent, but to the possession of the land against adverse claimants. The Government gave no guarantee, and could give no guarantee, that the rents should remain at a particular amount; but gave the buyers an indefeasible and complete title to the land. Then he was not prepared to admit that that average loss of 19 per cent on rents in Ireland had been caused by the Land Act. If the Go-
862
vernment had stepped in for some reason of policy of its own, and without there being any difficulty on the part of the landlords in obtaining their rents, and had simply said—"We think it necessary to pass an Act that will have the effect of reducing rent," and if in that case there had been no compensation given for such reduction, that would have been confiscation. But the actual case, as he looked on it, was something entirely different from that. There arose a state of things in Ireland—it was not now his duty, nor was it necessary, to inquire through whose fault—of the most dangerous description. An agrarian movement prevailed of so serious a character that not only were the landlords unable to get their rents punctually paid, but there was a very serious possibility that they would get no rent at all. In that position of affairs the Government of this country went to Parliament, and proposed that there should be a new law with regard to landed estates in Ireland, by which the rent should be fixed by a tribunal, instead of being left to be fixed simply by the landlords and tenants together; and they entertained the hope that in that manner they would be able to restore to the landlords the powers they had lost of obtaining anything like reasonable rents for their property, and able at the same time to restore, to some extent, tranquillity to Ireland. He maintained that the objects which the Government had in view, which were not injurious but beneficial to the landlords, had to a large extent been attained. He was assured that at present rents were very fairly paid in Ireland generally; and through the operation, largely, no doubt, of the strong measures of repression which it was the duty of the Government to take, but partly, also, he hoped, through the new arrangement with regard to the position of tenants, Ireland was in a state of very much greater tranquillity. He could not admit that the Government of this country had inflicted a loss on the Irish landlords for which it was bound to compensate them with money taken from the taxpayers of this country. He said, on the contrary, that the Government had stepped in and saved the landlords from ruin. The noble Lord on the Cross Bench said the landlords had been ruined by the action of the Government. He challenged and

863
contradicted that assertion, maintaining that the Government had saved them, from ruin; and, therefore, that the Government were not called upon in any way, upon any grounds of morality or fair dealing, to compensate the landlords for a loss which was not caused by the Government, but caused by other reasons, and which the Government had sought, as far as it was in its power, to mitigate. The noble Lord laid down the principle which had at first sight the appearance of fairness—namely, that there ought to have been a pro ratá reduction of all charges on the land; but that principle had never been acted upon, as far as he knew, in any of their dealings with land. In England there had been a reduction of rent owing partly to the same causes which had operated in Ireland, because in Ireland also the effects of bad harvests had been felt. The reduction of rent in his own part of England had, in many instances, far exceeded 20 per cent; and he was sorry to say that the landowners there had not the least prospect of being able to look to the Government, or to any other authority, to help them in their difficulties. It would be a most direct and absolute interference with all the rights of property to say, when a man had advanced money on the distinct condition that he was to receive the first portion that was available, and was not to be brought in as a common creditor with the landlord, that he should be treated as a common creditor with the landlord, and that they should pro ratá reduce that which he had the first claim upon. His position, then, in regard to that matter was this—that that loss which had been undoubtedly suffered by the landlords of Ireland was made up of different elements. A portion of it was, no doubt, due to the general depression of agriculture; and another portion was due to the unfortunate and disturbed condition of the country, to the utter want of confidence between different classes, and to an agrarian movement of a serious character. But it could not be argued that any portion of this loss had been caused by the Act in the sense that if it had not passed the landlords would not have suffered this loss. His belief was that if the Act had not been passed the landlords would have suffered a much greater loss; and, although he sympathized with them, yet when they came to treat this as a great
864
State matter, in which it was argued that the State should come forward to relieve a whole class by State money, he felt himself unable to admit the main proposition on which the noble Lord had rested his case. He had no doubt the landlords were perfectly sincere in their complaints of the Land Commissioners; but it was a fact that the tenants also were of opinion that the Commissioners acted against them and in favour of the landlords. When both sides complained, it might reasonably be concluded that the Commissioners were impartial. Ha thought, with reference to the special cases mentioned by the noble Lord, that a tribunal should have the power of saying whether the security offered for the purchase was sufficient. He really had nothing more to say in answer to what the noble Lord had brought forward, except to repeat that the Government wore exceedingly sensible of the necessity of bringing forward a Bill to amend the Purchase Clauses, and that they would do so with a double object—first, to increase the number of freeholders in Ireland for the sake of the peace and happiness of the country; and, secondly, to offer such facilities for the purchase of land as to enable landlords who desired to dispose of their estates to dispose of them on fair terms. To that extent the Government agreed with the noble Lord; but they could hold out no hope that they would go to the extent the noble Lord desired in relieving landlords of the mortgages which pressed upon their estates. He should, therefore, be unable to assent to the noble Lord's Resolution.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that what was at the back of the noble Earl's argument, and at the back of the arguments of the supporters of the Irish Land Act, was that it was not in any way an exceptional Act. He must take exception to that view. His noble Friend (Lord Castletown) would never have come to their Lordships' House with the principle he had advocated unless he was prepared to prove that the Irish Land Act was an exceptional Act, not only in its conception, but in its operation. Indeed, that was acknowledged on all hands. It was acknowledged by the Prime Minister, who said at the time that the measure could only be justified by exceptional circumstances. Surely, then, his noble Friend was per-

865
fectly justified in taking this ground—that this was an exceptional case, and one for which an exceptional remedy ought to be provided. The noble Earl thought that much of the state of Ireland was due to bad seasons; but he (the Earl of Donoughmore) was not satisfied that that was so, as the last four or five years in Ireland had been good. In England the seasons were against the farmers, and there had been a reduction of rents to about 10 per cent, which would probably be paid when the seasons were better. The reduction in Ireland was not according to the same ratio, and rents there would never be raised. His contention was that the reduction in Ireland was due to the disturbed state of the country, combined with the effect the Land Act had upon the tenants. With regard to the question of a peasant proprietary, he was not sure that it would be an unmixed blessing to Ireland, or to any country; but he was convinced that any attempt to create a peasant proprietary in Ireland ought to be made by the most careful and capable means. In the present state of Ireland the project seemed to him to be practicably impossible. The existing land block in Ireland reacted upon every industry in the country. That block in the land market was caused by the fact that the tenants either knew, or were persuaded, that some day or other the land would have to be sold for next to nothing. All that was asked of their Lordships in the Motion was that by some such machinery as suggested, the landlords might be able to go into the market and deal with their tenants on fair terms. He failed to see what particular good the Land Act bad done—it had certainly not improved the position of the landlords, and it had as yet done very little for the tenants, because he thought they would in future be hampered by the enormous tenant right which the Act created. All that was now asked was that the Government should look at this matter in a fair and impartial spirit.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: I have listened with great attention to the speech of my noble Friend on the Cross Benches (Lord Castletown), and I think he has made out an excellent and unanswerable case for compensation in some form or other for the Irish landlords. There is not the slightest doubt
866
that they have suffered most acutely from the effects of the Act of 1881; that in cases where they have been living upon margins the reduction, which should have been distributed over the whole estate, has fallen upon the margin, in many instances sweeping the whole of it away. It is unnecessary for me now to quote from the speeches of Ministers, who, at the time of the passing of the Land Act, prophesied to us the good effects of that measure upon the landlord's interest in his estate, and assured us that if confiscation could be proved compensation should be given. My Lords, confiscation has been proved over and over again. It has been proved to-day in the able speech of my noble Friend, and it is now high time that the Government took some steps to redeem the pledges which they have made. I shall not attempt to bring forward a proposal as to how this compensation could be awarded, or, in other words, how those landlords, who have been reduced almost to ruin in the manner I have described, are to be saved by the Government. There have been numerous plans suggested as to how loans at a cheap rate of interest might be raised; and perhaps the Government may see their way to adopt some one of these proposals, and tide those unfortunate landlords over their present difficulties. The Motion of my noble Friend refers also to the very much larger question of purchase; and whatever may be done to relieve the unfortunate landlords I have referred to, the Purchase Clauses must be made workable before there is any chance of success. We are informed that a Bill dealing with this subject is to be introduced by the Government very shortly; and I sincerely trust that this may not only be a real measure of relief for those landlords whose properties must be sold, and who are unable to find a purchaser at present, but that it may also be a long step in the direction of solving the whole Irish difficulty. At the time the Land Act was passing through your Lordships' House, I ventured to point out that there were certain clauses in the measure which had been put into it for the purpose of ornament; that they might look very well, and at the same time be sufficiently plausible to catch the votes of those who had hobbies on the subjects contained in them; but that, by anyone who knew the true

867
position of affairs in Ireland, by anyone who could with any success calculate the effects of the Act upon the agricultural population of that country, they would be looked upon as perfectly unworkable. My Lords, I was taken to task by noble Lords opposite, and by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, for this statement; and it was also pointed out by the Marquess of Hartington that the Fair Rent Clauses of the Act itself were merely a modus Vivendi to enable those other clauses to come into operation; but I think it has been proved beyond any manner of doubt that, notwithstanding the statements of noble Lords opposite and the prophecies of the Marquess of Hartington, what I then foretold has actually come to pass; and the clauses relating to emigration, the reclamation of waste lands, and the establishment of a peasant proprietary are, in their present form, entirely inoperative. We have been over and over again informed by the Government that they are in favour of establishing a peasant proprietary; but they are in favour of doing it in as cheap and as nasty a manner as is possible. The fact that they are about to introduce a Bill for the Improvement of the Purchase Clauses proves that they admit failure; but now the question is, whether they are thoroughly aware of the reasons why the Purchase Clauses are now entirely unworkable? We all have heard of the argument that the present condition of an Irish tenant is very much against his being prepared to pay more money in the shape of an annual instalment for a certain number of years than he has been accustomed to pay for rent. We also know that the agitators never at any time had more the ear of the people than at present, and that they have been encouraging the tenants of Ireland to believe that they will get their land for nothing. I would remind the noble Earl that he stated that the tenants were equally dissatisfied with the decision of the Courts as well as the landlords; but I would point out that the tenants are dissatisfied simply because they expected to get their land for nothing. They found that the present Government were squeezable; and it is evident that they intend to squeeze them still further with a view to obtaining their land for nothing. These facts have operated against the working of the
868
Purchase Clauses. But there are other reasons existing, which, perhaps, the Government may not be aware of, that are calculated to render their scheme entirely abortive; and among them is the fact that the Land Commission has, in addition to its other duties, the sale of land to tenants placed in its charge. There is every reason why the Land Commission should be the very worst medium between landlord and tenant for the purpose of bringing about sales. In the first place, I would like to point out that it cannot give a title without going to a great deal of unnecessary expense, and after that expense has been incurred, the title which can thus be obtained from the Land Commission Court is not nearly as good as the Parliamentary title, which can be obtained from the Landed Estates Court at less cost. Then, again, there is nobody in Ireland who can believe that the Land Commission Court is an absolutely impartial tribunal in regard to the sale of land. Its duties prove that it is not so. It acts for the tenant. Its duty is to buy land for the tenant out and out, to dispose of it to him again without making any profit, or to see that the number of years' purchase given, three-fourths of which will be advanced by the Treasury, should be as small as possible, so as to leave a very large margin for the security of the Government loan. It is acting for the Government and for the tenant, but not for the landlord. It has to buy as cheaply as possible from the landlord for the other two parties, and in either case acts in the direction of depreciating the landlord's interests. It has such enormous powers at its command that it can practically force any landlord who is obliged by his creditors to sell to part with his property almost at its own price. In the first place, it may have cut down the rents, thereby reducing the purchase money; and even then, if the landlord and tenant should have agreed upon a certain number of years' purchase, it may refuse to sanction the advance of three-fourths of the price agreed on—though the sale is boná fide—if it thinks the tenant might have got the holding cheaper, although the Government will have the additional security of the tenant's interest in his holding. The result is that if the landlord be obliged by his mortgagees to sell his estate the

869
Land Commission, in its double capacity acting for the Government and for the tenant, can whittle down the purchase money to something far below the true market price. There are many instances which prove beyond contradiction that this is actually taking place—notably, for example, on the estate of Mr. John Bury, and also on the Costello Estate. Therefore, as long as the Land Commission has the carriage of sales, in every case where a landlord or mortgagee can hold on by any possible means, he will not hand his property over to be sacrificed at something far less than the market value. I hear on all sides in Ireland that the Land Commission is one of the chief causes of the dead-lock in the sale of estates, and is acting in a manner entirely opposed to the spirit of the Act which it was embodied to carry out. It is curious, when one hears so much said by the supporters of the present Government as to the necessity of encouraging the transfer of land, that, in Ireland, where of all countries that encouragement is most needed, the Government officials should be doing all in their power to prevent the sale and purchase of estates. Then, again, the Land Commission have no power to apportion head rents in a country where head rents are the rule, which of itself is sufficient, without any other reason, to prevent the Purchase Clauses being worked. Last year, in calling your Lordships' attention to the Report and Evidence taken before the Committee appointed to investigate the working of the Land Act, I took the liberty of suggesting that, as there was already a Court in Ireland charged with the exclusive duty of the sale of land, and also had all the machinery at its command, with extraordinary legal powers of carrying out sales in the cheapest, most expeditious, and most satisfactory manner, without bias one way or the other, and at the present moment deprived of its legitimate work by the effects of the dead-lock produced by the Land Act, that it should be made use of for the purpose of rendering the Purchase Clauses workable. The Landed Estates Court has far better opportunities of assessing the true value of estates, and so preventing frauds being committed on the Government, than any other Court in Ireland, because upon all sales the value of the property must be fully gone
870
into, and all parties interested come before it. It is accustomed, too, in declarations of title, to ascertain the value of the property, and, in addition, all previous transactions and dealings with the estate are in its possession for reference. It alone has power to give a title which will stand against all comers. It alone can apportion head rents; to it alone must incumbrancers come in the first instance to have their securities realized; and if a sale to tenants is now effected by the Land Commission, having been obliged to purchase the property in the Landed Estates Court, two distinct sets of law costs are incurred, two distinct sets of officials are called into action, when the matter might far more easily and economically have been arranged without the intervention of a second tribunal. Then, again, I may also mention that the Land Commission cannot buy direct from the landlord unless all the incumbrancers are parties to the conveyance, and even then difficulties may arise as to the apportionment of the purchase money among the mortgagees; whereas the Landed Estates Court does not require the consent of the incumbrancers, but sells to the highest bidder, holding the purchase money; then calls on the incumbrancers to substantiate their claims to it. I cannot understand why this Court is passed over; why you are not making use of it. It is doing absolutely nothing at this moment. It has a most excellent Judge—one of the most efficient in Ireland—at the head of it, and it has a staff of most able officials. The duty of carrying out the Purchase Clauses could be satisfactorily performed by this Court, and at very little expense; and I do not understand why it should be intrusted to a Court which is most unfitted for it, and which has few of the powers absolutely indispensable for its proper discharge. In a Bill before the other House it is proposed to give these powers to a solicitor which are now exercised by a Judge of high standing in Ireland, and which are really very dangerous powers for the granting of titles to land, unless the matter is well gone into and sifted by a person in whom the greatest confidence can be placed, and likely to be productive of very serious difficulties. Why should you bring a third party into the business? The Land Commission Court has not the power; but the

871
Landed Estates Court has. The lower Commission Court is already overburdened with work, and the other day a Supplementary Estimate was required to meet its expenses. The cost might be enormously reduced if only the work were transferred from a tribunal which has proved its incapacity to a tribunal which has every chance of carrying it out with success. Speaking of expenses, I should like to ask whether there is any chance of the expenses of the Land Court being reduced? It is most undesirable to have a number of Sub-Commissioners holding office at the discretion of the Party in power. That produces an injurious effect upon the action of the tribunal; and I think it is a matter of importance that the Sub-Commissioners should have the same status as the Judges of the land. They have most important duties imposed upon them, and there is no appeal from them except to the Chief Commissioners. I heard rumours in Dublin yesterday of the sort of Bill we are likely to have. I have been told that the Bill will propose to exact a local guarantee, and I believe from Boards of Guardians or from the Local Government Board. The defects which the Land Commission has for carrying out sales will be increased if the local guarantee is admitted, because you will be merely substituting a Board of Purchasers for the present tribunals. The faults of the Land Commissioners are that they are acting solely for the tenant, and that through defects of construction they are not able to do what they ought to bring about—sales. The Boards of Guardians are composed of the tenant farmers, and the Local Boards are similarly composed. They will be the purchasers. I should like to ask the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) whether he would like to have the number of years' purchase of his property assessed by the persons who are going to buy it? A local guarantee is asked for; that is exactly what the Bill will do; but it will turn out even much worse than before. I would prefer the Land Commission to carry out the sales rather than that the number of years' purchase should be fixed by the very men who are going to buy my estate. I sincerely hope something will be done for the unfortunate Irish landlord, who has been so pathetically alluded to by my noble Friend on the Cross Benches; and as a means to
872
that end I hope the Purchase Clauses in the Bill will be dealt with in a truly liberal manner. The acknowledged blots ought to be swept away, and the recommendations of the Committee of last year as to the advances to tenants and as to the length of time for the repayment carried out. I believe that you can do little permanent good whatever scheme you adopt, whether it is my noble Friend's scheme or any other. You will do little permanent good to the Irish landlords unless you make the Purchase Clauses workable, and so remove the existing dead-lock. Looking deeper into the Irish question, I do not think we shall see a true solution of the Irish difficulty unless you take some means to largely increase the number of occupying owners in Ireland.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, it appeared to him that the suggestion of his noble Friend on the Cross Bench (Lord Castletown), as far as he understood it, did not involve the consequences which were anticipated by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India (the Earl of Kimberley). The noble Earl objected to an appeal being made to the British taxpayer to assist the landowners of Ireland; but, as he understood his noble Friend, he did not desire that any appeal should be made to the British taxpayer. All that his noble Friend suggested was that facilities should be given by the Government for money to be obtained to carry out the various schemes which he had laid before the House. That appeared to him to be a very different thing, and not to be open to the objections that had been urged by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India. As was generally done in these debates, the noble Earl had again alluded to the fact that rents had been, reduced in England also. They all knew that perfectly well. But, surely, everyone in that House, and outside it, must recognize the complete difference between the reductions which had taken place in England and those which had taken place in Ireland. A great many of their Lordships, who owned property in Ireland, possessed property in England also; but though they were most anxious that assistance should be given to the impoverished landlords in Ireland, and thought that, in justice, they were entitled to have that assistance given to them from the State, yet they

873
would never dream of asking for anything of the kind in reference to England. The cases were totally different. The reductions in England had been made voluntarily, and were due to natural causes, and the necessities arising there from. Then, a landowner in this country might take the land into his own hands and farm it if he liked. In fact, he could do what he liked with regard to his own land. Further, they all knew perfectly well that in many cases it was very difficult to let land—things had been so bad. In Ireland, on the contrary, they found that rents were reduced, although people were competing for it. The noble Earl also appeared to think that, in the case of owners who had received an indefeasible title from the Landed Estates Court, no hardship was involved in their having had their rents reduced. He said that they merely bought the estates, and did not buy them subject to any particular rent. That, of course, was true. They bought them with perfect right to obtain any rent they could get; but the Government introduced and passed an Act which limited their right to obtain what they could. In the cases of England and Ireland, therefore, the reduction of rents which had taken place were so dissimilar that it was quite useless to introduce any parallel. He thought that the landowning class in Ireland deserved great sympathy. They deserved more than that. They deserved, at least, justice. They had their incomes largely reduced by the action of the State. But that was not all. The action of the State unsettled the whole basis of society in the country. It disturbed men's minds; and the only way in which anything like satisfaction could be made would be for the State to show that although it thought fit to interfere and to determine the value of the commodity, yet, if that caused hardship, injustice, and loss it would interfere again to see the loss made good. The question was a larger one than that involved in the position of the landlords themselves. Nothing could be worse to a country than the existence of an impoverished landowning class. They could do no earthly good. They could not manage their property in a way conducive to the advantage or the welfare of the country; and he maintained that it was the duty of the Government in this case to do
874
anything they possibly could in order to ameliorate the condition of the landowners in Ireland, who had been reduced to their present lamentable condition by the action of the State.
LORD CASTLETOWN, in asking leave to withdraw the Motion, stated that he had proposed to make no demand whatever upon the taxpayer. He did not regard the explanation of the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) as satisfactory. He ventured to hope that the Government would reconsider the question in no hostile spirit. He was compelled to say that he should reserve to himself a perfect right to raise this question again, and fight the fight to the bitter end.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— RELIEF OF BERBER.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to the correctness of Reuter's telegram which appeared in yesterday's Observer and in this morning's newspapers, which says, dated—
  "Cairo, April 26, 8 p.m.—The reply of the British Government to the proposal to send an expedition to Berber has been received. It says that such an expedition is impossible at present, and could not, in fact, start for four months hence;"
  and, if correct, whether there is any objection to stating upon what grounds such an expedition is deemed impossible?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, it may be satisfactory to your Lordships to know that the Papers which have been laid upon the Table of the House this evening upon this subject, and which will be in your Lordships' hands early next week, contain the instructions which Her Majesty's Government have, upon their own responsibility, thought it right to send.

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Cruelty to Animals Acts—Was presented by The Lord BALFOUR; read 1a. (No. 74.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock,