Sitting of 25 January 1886

Preamble
Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Public Petitions, appointed and nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS —Ordered —First Reading — Lunacy (Vacating of Seats)* [85]; Sporting Lands Rating (Scotland)* [86]; Merchant Shipping Act (1854) Amendment* [87]; Sale
304
of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday(Cornwall)* [88]; Private Lunatic Asylums (Ireland)* [89]; Access to Mountains (Scotland)* [90].
Withdrawn—Mining Leases* [55].

QUESTIONS.

  THE SUEZ CANAL.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can inform the House what is the present position of the question pending between the Egyptian Government and the Suez Canal Company, as to the consent of Egypt to the widening of the Canal?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE): The Suez Canal Company having applied to the Egyptian Government for their consent to an alteration of their Statutes in connection with the loan of £4,000,000 which they wish to contract for the purposes of the new works of improvement, the Egyptian Government have refused, on the ground that the project involves the widening of the Canal beyond the dimensions authorized by the original concession, and that the consent of the Khedive must be obtained to this feature of the plan. The Company hold that, as the works are to be executed within the limits of the land belonging to them, there is no legal or equitable ground for this contention. Her Majesty's Government has taken the advice of certain legal persons in respect to it, and Papers are now before the Law Officers of the Crown.
  MR. SUTHERLAND: With reference to the reply now made, I would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would state whether he is aware that, so far from the Suez Canal Company requiring additional territory for the purpose of excavating, or rather enlarging, the present channel of the Suez Canal, it is a matter of fact that the Canal at present covers the ground which is now necessary for the purposes of enlargement, and all that is necessary is that a further excavation be made in the space already covered by the water of the Canal?
  MR. BOURKE: In a matter of fact of this kind, raised by my hon. Friend, I should not like to give a definite answer which would be taken as official; but I know my hon. Friend is so very well acquainted officially with everything

  305
  connected with this question, and also with the details of the construction of the Suez Canal, that, in all probability, the assertion he has made is accurate.

  ARMY (DISCIPLINE)—DISORDERS IN BELFAST BARRACKS.
  MR. EWARTasked, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to recent disorders in Belfast Barracks, in which a girl was maltreated, and a man unfortunately lost his life; and, whether any military investigation has taken place, or will be instituted, in respect to the same?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETAEY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. S. NORTHCOTE): Attention has been called to certain disgraceful transactions which took place at Belfast Barracks during the New Year festivities of a Highland battalion. The sergeant who maltreated a girl has been remitted for trial by the Civil power. The assailants of the soldier who lost his life have not yet been identified. A military investigation by the Staff officers sent specially from Dublin has taken place, and the matter is still engaging the most serious attention of the military authorities.

  POST OFFICE—PARCEL POST.
  MR. HEATONasked the Postmaster General, What impediment delays the connection of the English parcel post with the system in operation in France and Italy, in the same manner as has recently been done in Germany and Belgium; and, when there is a possibility of the impediment being overcome?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS): There has been no delay, so far as this Department is concerned, in pursuing the negotiations with the French and Italian Post Offices for the establishment of a parcel post with this country. An agreement on the main points has been arrived at; and I hope to be in a position shortly to put the whole scheme before the Treasury. It is understood that legislative sanction will have to be obtained both in France and Italy to what is proposed.

  FISHERIES(SCOTLAND)—PRIVATE PIERS—PIER DUES.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been called
  306
  to an action brought by Sir John Orde, baronet, before the Sheriffs' Court at Lochgilphead, against a number of fishermen, to recover certain dues for the use of a pier; if he can say under what Act of Parliament, or other sufficient authority, the said quay was erected; if the quay is erected upon public or private property; and, if upon public property, if he will take steps to allow of the free use of it by the fishermen, or cause its removal, so as to leave the foreshore free?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. MACDONALD): The actions which took place some little time ago were not brought to my notice until I saw the Question of the hon. Member on the Paper. Actions were raised for dues at a pier called Kilmorey Pier, which was erected in 1813 by Mr. Campbell, of Kilmorey, who was an ancestor of Sir John Orde. From that time forward dues have been paid for the pier, amounting in the case of fishermen to the sum of 5s. per boat for the use of the pier during the year. The pier, so far as I can ascertain, was not erected under any Act of Parliament. It was erected as a private enterprize, in a similar manner to many such piers in that part of Scotland, It is erected partly on private property belonging to Sir John Orde, and he appears on the valuation roll as the proprietor of the pier, and is rated upon it. The pier cannot be used without the use of private property. I have no power to order its removal. I am satisfied that it is for the convenience of the fishermen, and I am not prepared to take any steps with regard to it.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked if the House was to understand that it was the law of Scotland that the owner of a pier erected partly upon his private property and partly upon public property could levy dues from fishermen and others using it?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. MACDONALD): I believe it to be the law of Scotland that when a pier has existed for so long a period as from 1813 to the present time, without objection on the part of anybody, the proprietor cannot be by the Crown turned off and the pier taken down. Any person is entitled to raise the question of law; but I am satisfied it would not be wise on the part of the Crown to raise any such question.

  SEA AND COAST FISHERIES (IRELAND)—TRAWLING IN GALWAY BAY.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can ascertain, through the Constabulary or otherwise, if the great majority of the fishermen and the inhabitants residing near Galway Bay would desire that trawling should be prohibited in the whole or part of the Bay, as it was formerly in Galway Bay and now is in Dublin Bay; if his attention has been called to the Report of Lord Dalhousie's Trawling Commission of last year, and if he is aware that this Report in general terms coincides with the views of the Galway fishermen, that trawling may be often hurtful in bays to other kinds of fishing; and, if he will endeavour to give effect to the wishes of a great majority of the fishermen, if their opinions are found to agree with the latest and best scientific evidence procurable?
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE (who replied) said: I have no doubt the fact is as stated in the first paragraph of this Question. From a Report which I have received from the Inspectors of Fisheries, I gather that in the course which they adopted, after due inquiry with regard to trawling in Galway Bay, there is nothing inconsistent with the views of the Trawling Commission of last year, as expressed in their Report. The duty of determining such matters is imposed by an Act of Parliament on the Inspectors of Fisheries.

  POST OFFICE — OVERHEAD WIRES — THE RECENT SNOWSTORM.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked, Whether attention has been drawn to the failures of telegraph and telephone wires used overhead in the Metropolis during the recent snowstorm, and to the accidents which have been occasioned thereby; whether a Return of these failures and these accidents will be prepared and presented to the House; and, whether any steps will be taken to prevent this constantly increasing danger to all persons using the streets of the Metropolis?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS): My attention has been drawn to the failure of telegraph wires during the recent snow-
  308
  storm; and I am glad to be able to state, in reply to the Question of the hon. Member, that no case of accident to any human being has been caused by the wires belonging to the Post Office. A large proportion of the overhead wires in the Metropolis do not belong to the Post Office; and the Department has no means, therefore, of furnishing the Return asked for. The policy of the Post Office for many years past has been to substitute underground for overhead wires in London, and also in other large cities, wherever the extra expense involved could be justified; and since my appointment I have given renewed instructions on this point. I may add that the mileage of postal telegraph wires in the Metropolis on the 31st of December was 9,832 miles, of which 9,005 miles, or about 11–12ths, were underground wires. In the Eastern Central and Western Central postal districts, which comprise the half of the Metropolis, there were only 44 miles of overhead wires the property of the Department. As the House is aware, a Select Committee was appointed last Session to consider the law relating to the control over telephone, telegraph, and other wires, and made a Report; but it has not been considered desirable to take action in the direction of the course recommended in that Report.

  IMPROVEMENT OF LANDED PROPERTY (IRELAND)—LEGISLATION.
  MR. MARUMasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce Bills to consolidate and amend the Acts for facilitating the improvement of landed property, and for the drainage and improvement of lands in Ireland, especially in view of the present depressed condition of the labouring classes in Ireland?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): Yes, Sir; it is my intention to move on an early day for leave to introduce Bills for consolidating and amending the Acts referred to.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—MR. R. W. RENTON, PROCURATOR FISCAL OF EAST FIFE.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether Mr. R. W. Renton, Solicitor, of Cupar, has been appointed Pro-

  309
  curator Fiscal of the Eastern Division of Fifeshire; and, if so if he would please state the date of the appointment and the salary attached to the office; and, whether Mr. Kenton's commission contains any provision restricting him from engaging directly or indirectly in private practice?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. MACDONALD): Mr. Renton was appointed by the Sheriff Procurator Fiscal of Fifeshire. That appointment has not yet been confirmed. The salary is £600 a-year, and the Sheriff did not in his nomination debar Mr. Renton from private practice.
  DR. CAMERONgave Notice that if Mr. Renton's appointment was confirmed, he should call attention to the conditions when his salary came before the House in Committee.

  GLEBE LANDS (IRELAND)—PURCHASERS UNDER THE LAND ACT OF 1869.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in view of the distressed condition of the poorer classes of purchasers by right of pre-emption of glebe lands in Ireland, owing to the largeness of the purchase-price, fixed at a time of exceptional prosperity, and owing to the heavy depreciation of every description of stock and farm produce in recent years, arrangements can be made for their relief by enabling them to obtains loans from the State or from the Church Temporalities Commissioners of the fourth part of the purchase-money supplied by themselves (which was in most cases raised from money-lenders at exorbitant rates of interest), on the same reduced terms as to interest that they are now offered under the 23rd subsection of the Land Purchase Act, with respect to the three-fourths advanced by the Commissioners on mortgage; and, whether the benefit of the 23rd section can be extended to purchasers who hold short terminable leases of their holdings, and upon whom the agricultural depression has told with equal severity?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): In reply to the first paragraph of the Question, I have to say that the question how far the terms allowed to purchasers of church lands under the Act of 1869 could be modified was most carefully considered by the Government when the Purchase Act of last Session was under
  310
  discussion; and it was decided that no change in these terms could be justified, except that embodied in the 23rd section of the Act of 1885. The Government see no reason to modify this conclusion, and are not prepared to propose the legislation which would be required to carry out the hon. Member's present suggestion. With regard to the second paragraph, the 23rd section of the Act of 1885 extends to—
  "Any land which is held immediately from or under the Commissioners by virtue of any lease or tenancy,"
  and this would seem to cover such cases as these now referred to.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—BOUNTIES TO ITALIAN SHIPPING.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any information with respect to an Act lately passed by the Parliament of Italy giving a bounty to Italian ships; and, whether they have any objection to lay on the Table a Copy of the Act with a translation?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Yes, Sir; we have received a copy of the Act recently passed in Italy giving bounties to Italian shipping, and if my hon. Friend will move for it a translation of it shall be published. It may probably not be necessary to circulate the Italian version also.

  TARIFF AND CUSTOMS ACT,1876— FORFEITURES.
  MR. KINGasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the fact that Section 179 of "The Tariff and Customs Act, 1876," by providing that—
  "Every person who shall he found to have been on board any ship or boat liable to forfeiture shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one hundred pounds, and may be taken before a justice to be dealt with,"
  by its terms exposes innocent persons to conviction, the Government will consent, at an early day, to repeal or revise that section?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, his attention had been called to that matter by the Question, and he certainly was of opinion that the law as it stood at present could not be defended. He would communi-

  311
  cate with the Commissioners of Customs on the subject, to see what amendment should be made in the law.

  TURKEY — TREATMENT OF CHRISTIANS.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to reports which have recently appeared in the newspapers, of acts of religious oppression practised by the Turkish authorities upon Christian subjects of the Sultan, in violation of the engagements repeatedly contracted by the Sultan's Government for the securing of religious liberty within his dominions; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will inquire into the facts; and, if satisfied of their existence, remonstrate with the Turkish Government upon the subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE): The rumours in question have not escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and are at the present time the subject of inquiry by Her Majesty's Representative at Constantinople, in communication with the branch of the Evangelical Alliance in that city. I may mention that of the 16 persons who were stated by the Evangelical Alliance to have disappeared, and were supposed to have been imprisoned, some have now been discovered to be at largo. When the facts have been thoroughly investigated, Her Majesty's Government will be ready to make representations to the Porte as to any departure by the Turkish officials from the principles of the Hatt-i-Houmayoun of which there may be sufficient evidence.

  ARMY—RICHMOND BARRACKS, DUBLIN.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONasked, Whether attention has been called to the insanitary state of Richmond Barracks, Dublin; and, whether any Special Reports have been made upon the drainage and other circumstances of the Barracks; and, in that case, whether any early steps will be taken to remedy the defects?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. S. NORTHCOTE): The attention of the War Department has been drawn to the insanitary state of Richmond Barracks,
  312
  Dublin; but their unhealthiness is believed to be attributable rather to the condition of the neighbourhood generally than to any special defects in the drainage or ventilation of the barracks themselves. It is under consideration whether any steps can be taken to improve the sanitary condition of Richmond Barracks.

  MADAGASCAR—TREATY WITH FRANCE.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can communicate to the House the terms of the Treaty alleged to have been made between the Queen of Madagascar and the French Republic; and, if he is aware if freedom of worship for the native Christians is secured thereby?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, lie had given Notice of a Question on this subject which the right hon. Gentleman might be able to answer now.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE): We are not in possession of the precise terms of the Treaty. Until the text of the French Treaty has been received, I am unable to state whether its provisions are inconsistent with the Treaty rights of Great Britain. As to the Consul, a new Consul has just been appointed, but has not left for Madagascar. Meanwhile, there is an Acting Consul at Tamatave, a paid Vice Consul at the capital, Antananarivo, and unpaid Vice Consuls at various points on the coast.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A "BOYCOTTED" WOMAN.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked, Whether it is true, as stated on the occasion of a deputation to Lord Salisbury, that a boycotted woman in Ireland was held clown by her neighbours, while a dog gnawed her legs; and, if true, whether any persons have been arrested for the outrage?
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I will answer this Question, at the request of my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith). The statement in question appears to be based upon the following evidence which was given by a "Boycotted" man named Donoghue, in a case of assault upon his wife and child

  313
  by a neighbour named Mrs. Sullivan. The case occurred in the Mill Street district in County Cork—
  "Heard Mrs. Sullivan call the names. I left my spade and came down. Saw my wife down, Mrs. Sullivan's son holding her, and she fisting her with a stone. Saw the dog tearing my wife's legs. The dog ran away. My wife lifeless against the ditch. Went to the police. Had to call in Dr. Leader. He has been attending my wife and son. She has not been able to walk since."
  Mrs. Donoghue swore that "the dog was set at her." The magistrates imposed a sentence of two months' imprisonment on Mrs. Sullivan for each assault.
  MR. HEALY: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as a matter of fact, this case, which was one of assault arising out of a dispute between two women, was not amicably settled out of Court and the sentence of two months' imprisonment withdrawn?
  SIR WILLIAM HAET DYKEsaid, that he must ask the hon. and learned Member to give Notice of his Question.
  MR. HEALYgave Notice that he would repeat his Question on an early day.

  NAVY—SHIPBUILDING ON THE TYNE.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the delay in the building of the naval vessels now in the course of construction on the Tyne; and, whether this delay is in consequence of an attempt, on the part of the firms intrusted with the work, to enforce a reduction of wages to a less rate than that which was paid at the time the estimates were made and the contracts entered into for the building of these vessels?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I am informed that there has been a difference between certain shipbuilders on the Tyne and some of the men whom they employ; but I do not know the exact cause of the dispute. The ships now building on the Tyne for the Admiralty are, so far as their construction is concerned, in advance of the Estimate made last year of their probable progress; and, in all probability, a Supplementary Vote will be required to provide funds for the payments the contractors can claim over the provision made in the Estimates of the present financial year.

  BURMAH—THE BRITISH AUTHERITIES —MILITARY EXECUTIONS—THE PROVOST MARSHAL.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, since the Annexation of Upper Burmah, the control of affairs is under the Chief Commissioner and the Military authorities are amenable to his orders in regard to the treatment of the Burmese; and, whether they exercise any uncontrolled power of life and death under any sort of Martial Law?
  MR. OSBOBNE MORGANasked, whether the prisoners stated to have been shot by order of the Provost Marshal at Mandalay were subjected to any form of trial; and, if so, how and for what offences, and under what law, if any, were they tried?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): I imagine that part of the Question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is of a highly technical and legal nature, and as such he will hardly expect me to answer it without Notice. I can, however, give the House a good deal of information in answer to the Question which the hon. Baronet (Sir George Campbell) has placed upon the Paper, and, perhaps, will also to some extent answer the Questions put to mo the other day by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). With regard to the Question on the Paper, the Viceroy informs mo that the original instructions to General Prendergast, who was at the head of the Expedition, and therefore responsible for everything that was done while the military operations were going on, were to this effect—that he and Mr. Commissioner Bernard wore to establish a Civil jurisdiction as soon as the Military authorities could pacify the disturbed districts. Mr. Bernard has telegraphed to the Viceroy—
  "The present state of affairs with reference to the Civil and Military jurisdiction is as follows:—We have English Civil officers and police officers in command in each of the five districts of Mandalay, Minhla, Ningyan, Pagan, and Myingyan. These officers are supported by troops, and they are working through local Woons and Thagyis."
  Of course, in these districts obviously Civil law prevails—
  "The rest of the country is nominally dominated by the Burmese Supreme Council."

  315
  I cannot pronounce the Native name for that body.
  "At several points, however — Bhamo, Tagaing, Slwebo, Ava, Upper Chindwin, Lower Chindwin, and Myodaung—we have military detachments stationed, with Civil officers in attendance. At present the country is still under military occupation."
  Mr. Bernard goes on to say that—
  "The rebels taken in arms on the field are liable to be shot; no one is to be shot or punished by Civil officers otherwise than after trial. In districts nominally under the Burmese Supreme Council sentences of death cannot be carried out by Native officials otherwise than on the responsibility of, and after trial by, the Civil officers who may be nearest the ground. The prisoners punished under martial law by the Provost Marshal or any of the officers do not come under the Civil officer's cognizance while the country is under military occupation. My hope is that in a few weeks' time I may be in a position to post Civil officers, only backed by troops, in the remaining districts of the country."
  That is all the information I have in my possession with reference to the Question of the hon. Baronet on the Paper. With regard to the Questions asked me on Friday, I am sorry to say that the information in my possession is far from satisfactory. The Viceroy telegraphs to me that it is clear that the Provost Marshal has proceeded in a most unjustifiable manner; at any rate, in one case. That alludes to the case where evidence was sought to be extorted by placing a prisoner apparently under the fire of soldiers. The Viceroy says he has telegraphed to General Prendergast directing that if a primâ facie case is made out against the Provost Marshal on either of the counts mentioned, he and other officers implicated are to be suspended from their functions, and, if proved to be guilty, to be visited with the severest penalty. Mr. Bernard telegraphs from Rangoon to the Viceroy that he is still investigating or asking for information at Mandalay as to the allegations with regard to the Provost Marshal photographing prisoners under execution. With regard to the second point, Mr. Bernard says—
  "It is true that the Provost Marshal did place a man suspected of treasonable correspondence in fear of instant death, in order to induce him to give information which would have criminated two members of the Burmese Durbar. On hearing of this, I pointed out to the Provost Marshal that evidence extorted was valueless, and that it was contrary to all lav"—
  Lord Randolph Churchill
  316
  [Cries of "Oh, oh!" from the Home Rulers and cries of "Order!"]—I am giving the House the best information I can—
  "to extort evidence by moral torture. I requested that similar proceedings might not recur."
  The result of the Viceroy's telegrams would undoubtedly be that the Provost Marshal will be suspended, and the closest and most rigorous investigation will be made into the officer's conduct; and if it should turn out that he had so disgraced the Queen's Army, I make no doubt whatsoever that, in the Viceroy's words, "the most exemplary punishment will be meted out to him."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, whether Burmese resisting the conquest of their country were to be treated as rebels—to be treated as rebels taken in arms; and, further, whether, in case of such a jurisdiction being exercised by the Military authorities, the noble Lord would direct some record of these trials to be kept, so that so-called rebels should not be shot without any record?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I imagine that when King Theebaw and the Burmese Army surrendered it was held by the Military authorities that regular military resistance had come to an end. The Military authorities are occupied now in putting down what is called dacoity, which is another word for brigandage. The dacoits are bands of armed men, who did not attack the British troops, but who attacked the Burmese villagers, burnt their houses, and plundered the towns. As long as the country was in military occupation the dacoits would be tried by Martial Law if taken in the field and red-handed; but in districts where the English Civil officer has troops under his command, then I imagine dacoity will be put down by the Civil officer's Court, according to the form of the English law. Records will, of course, be kept of all proceedings of this kind.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to give Notice that I shall take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to this very important question.
  MR. O'KELLYasked, whether orders had been given to stop the shooting of prisoners taken in arms in Burmah?
  MR. CONYBEARE: The noble Lord, in his first answer, spoke of "rebels," and in his second answer he spoke of

  317
  dacoits. I beg to ask whether dacoits and rebels are synonymous terms?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I believe I did not use the word rebels. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), Mr. Bernard telegraphs to the Viceroy in the following words; —
  "Certain pretender had razed villages and committed other crimes. He was captured by Burmese officers, and sent to Mandalay for trial. The pretender admitted the truth of the charges, hut said he was not aiming at the Throne of Mandalay, but at the Throne of one of the Shan States. The trial was conducted by the Burmese Supreme Court, and the prisoner was sentenced to death; but the British authorities had pointed out that if execution were to take place they must have evidence themselves, as they could not execute on the strength of the decision of the Burmese Supreme Court."
  It was further pointed out that if the facts of the charges were proved, the life of the pretender would be forfeited. Colonel Sladen had agreed to conduct further inquiry personally. I have not heard the result; but I will make further inquiry.
  DR. CAMERONasked, would the noble Lord consider the propriety of laying Papers on the Table on the subject?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I will lay all the information possible on the Table, and as quickly as possible.

  INDIA—THE UNCOVENANTED CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether any steps have been taken to remedy the grievances of the uncovenanted Civil Servants of India, as set forth in the Memorial presented by them to the Indian Government two years ago?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL), in reply, said, he had not seen any Memorial from the Indian police, who, he understood, were the Civil Servants alluded to. If these officers had grievances, they would be included in the Indian Committee, which he wished very much to see appointed.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS— LEGISLATION.
  MR. T. WATSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the Government intend to introduce their measures dealing with the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors and the Licensing system?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, any proposals which Her Majesty's Government have to make for the purpose of dealing with the sale of intoxicating liquors and the licensing system will be, so far as I know, embodied in the County Government Bill. I do not think I can give any further answer than that.

  SEED SUPPLY (IRELAND) ACT— FOURTH INSTALMENT OF RATE — POSTPONEMENT OF PAYMENT.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, in consideration of the difficulties caused by the agricultural depression, he would permit such unions as might apply for more time to defer the payment of the fourth and last instalment of the Seed Rate for another twelve months?
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE (who replied)said, this was more a Question for the Treasury than for the Chief Secretary. He would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to postpone it for a few days.

  INDUSTRIES AND SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND)— THE SELECT COMMITTEES—RE-APPOINTMENT.
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to the recommendation made by the Select Committees on Irish Industries and Irish Salmon Fisheries at the close of the last Parliament, Whether the Government intend to move for the appointment of Select Committees to carry on and conclude the inquiries in question?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, the Government would be prepared to assent to a Motion for the re-appointment of these Committees.

  ENGLAND AND GREECE—COLLECTIVE NOTE OF THE EUROPEAN POWERS.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to put to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have not been able to give him Notice, but which I hope he will be able to answer. It is, Whether the telegrams which appear in this morning's papers to the effect that a communication has been addressed by Sir Horace Rumbold, our Minister at Athens, to the Greek

  319
  Prime Minister, on behalf of Lord Salisbury, in which there is alleged to be contained a threat in regard to the action of the British Fleet, are correct? Perhaps, also, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give to the House the terms of such communication—if any such communication has been made; and, if not, perhaps he will say whether the telegrams are substantially accurate?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE): In answer to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I have to state that, at the instance of Her Majesty's Government, the six Great Powers presented a Collective Note to Greece yesterday, intimating that a naval attack by Greece upon the Ottoman Empire? would not be permitted. No answer to that Collective Note has been received by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. CHAMBEELAIN: I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he has not answered my Question. The telegrams speak of a special communication presented by Sir Horace Rumbold on behalf of England, and not of a Collective Note presented by the six Powers. I wish to know whether any such special communication has been made by the English Minister; and whether, if so, it contains a direct throat that the British Fleet will be sent to Athens to prevent any naval movement on the part of Greece?
  MR. BOURKE: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not give me Notice of this Question. I do not think that, in a matter of this importance, I should be justified in stating more than I have done. What I have stated is perfectly accurate; and it contains all the information I am instructed to lay before the House at the present moment.
  MR. CHAMBEELAIN: I beg to give Notice that I will repeat my Question to-morrow.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—CONDITION OF IRELAND.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: I wish to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate proceeding de die in diem with the consideration of the New Rules of Procedure; or whether they will suspend any such discussions for the production of mea-
  320
  sures dealing with the condition of Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In reply to my noble Friend, I may remind him that when I stated it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ask the House to give special facilities for the discussion of the New Rules of Procedure, I added that it was subject to the intervention of any specially urgent or important Business. Any legislative proposals in regard to Ireland of the nature referred to by me on Thursday last, which Her Majesty's Government might think it their duty to make, could not properly be delayed, as my noble Friend seems to fancy.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I wish to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of which I have given him private Notice, having regard to rumours which have been lately circulated as to the future control of the Police Force in Ireland. I beg to ask, Whether the Government will give an assurance that the Royal Irish. Constabulary will be maintained as at present constituted—an Imperial force?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In reply to my noble Friend, I really cannot understand how any doubt could have arisen as to the attitude or intentions of Her Majesty's Government on this subject. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland, speaking in "another place" a few days ago, denounced in the strongest terms any proposal to hand over the Royal Irish Constabulary to any other control or authority than that which at present exists. He spoke on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and with the full concurrence of his Colleagues.

  PARLIAMENT—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
  MR. RAIKESasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, having regard to the inconvenience that would arise in the conduct of Public Business in the event of the first Resolution respecting Parliamentary Procedure being affirmed, and the second Resolution being subsequently rejected by this House, he would consent to postpone the consideration of the former until the House had arrived at a decision upon the latter proposal?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I should wish to consider any suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman with that care to which it is entitled; but the Government has placed the Rules on the Paper in the order which they thought would be most convenient, and at present I see no reason for departing from that order.
  MR. RAIKES: In the event of these Rules being proposed in the order in which they stand, I beg to give Notice that I shall move the Previous Question in respect to the first Resolution, and that I shall move the rejection of the second.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    ADJOURNED DEBATE. [THIRD NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [21st January.]—[See page 92.]
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.

    BURMAH (MILITARY OPERATIONS) — INCIDENCE OF COST.
    MR. HUNTER, in rising to move, as an Amendment, to add, at the end of the 6th paragraph, the words—
    "But this House humbly expresses to Her Majesty their regret that the Revenues of India have been applied to defray the expenses of the military operations carried on in the Kingdom of Ava, without the consent of Parliament as required by 'The Government of India Act, 1858,'"
    said, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India (Lord Randolph Churchill) made an appeal to the House on Thursday night to close the debate on the Address, and in the course of that appeal addressed a suggestion to him (Mr. Hunter) that he should bring on this subject at a later stage; but the noble Lord spoke under a misapprehension of the scope and terms of the Amendment. The noble Lord seemed to him to speak under the impression that the Amendment was one to challenge the policy of the Government with respect to the war of annexation in Burmah. That was not the object of the Amendment. It related to only one of the questions which arose out of the ac-
    322
    tion of Her Majesty's Government in Burmah; but the question was wider than the Burmese Question, and raised an issue of the most important character with regard to the exorcise of a real and effective control by that House over the foreign policy of the Government of India. What were the circumstances under which this question came before the House? When the last Parliament was prorogued, no indication had been given to the country of any difficulties in connection with King Theebaw, which were to end with the appropriation of his Kingdom; but when the new Parliament met, it was announced that a territory, the exact limits of which it might be difficult for Her Majesty's Government to define, but which was generally supposed to cover an area nearly as large as the whole of France—that that territory had been added to the Empire. He did not discuss at that moment the policy of the annexation. He did not ask whether it was in accordance with these principles of international morality that ought to govern the conduct of every great nation; but there could be no doubt that, whether it was right or wrong, it was one that involved grave and far-reaching consequences. He believed, when a union of two distinct races under one Government was attempted to be formed, that union would meet with the most happy results if it was a union founded upon mutual consent and mutual interest; but they had this remarkable fact—that a great territory had been added to this Empire without the consent of the people of Burmah, and without the consent of the people of England; nor did he think that the transactions which had recently taken place in Burmah were calculated in any remarkable degree to win the affections and love of her people. No doubt, there were expressions in the despatches of military officers, suggesting and indicating that they had the consent of the people; but these statements were not in harmony with the principles of human nature. It might be considered by some persons to show very bad taste on the part of the Burmese people; but the Burmese people, like all other peoples, would, he submitted, rather bear the vices of their Native Rulers than the virtues of foreign officials. This annexation had been carried into effect by a Government with respect to which he

    323
    would not employ any disparaging epithet; but of which it could not be denied that it did not possess, either in this or the last Parliament, that degree or kind of support which was the usual basis of a firm Administration. It was a Government that represented a minority in England, and that had met overwhelming defeat in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. These facts alone, he thought, would justify some objection; but his specific complaint was that this action had been taken in disregard of the very statutory provisions which were intended to secure to Parliament the control over transactions that might compromise the safety and well-being of the Empire. The words of the 55th section of the Act of 1858 were—
    "Except for preventing or repelling actual invasion of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, or under other sudden and urgent necessity, the Revenues of India shall not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any Military operation carried on beyond the external frontiers of such Possessions by Her Majesty's Forces charged upon such Revenues."
    Let him remind the House of the circumstances under which that provision was introduced into law. When, in 1858, the Crown took over the direct Government of India, it was found necessary to permit a departure from Constitutional principles, and to sanction in the Indian Department a separate purse, not under the direct control of the House of Commons. That was a necessary exception, not entirely free from danger. The danger was perceived, and it was met by a proposal emanating from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), and accepted by the late Lord Derby upon the part of the Government of the day, and that proposal was embodied in the section which he had read. The object of the section was thus described by Lord Derby, who said—
    "The same constitutional check, therefore, was imposed upon the Crown with regard to troops serving in India which was imposed with respect to troops serving in every other part of the globe. If the clause were not agreed to, it would be perfectly competent for any unconstitutional Sovereign "—
    and the right hon. Gentleman referred to, commenting on the speech, added, "or unconstitutional Minister"—
    "to employ the whole of the Revenues and troops of India for any purpose which the
    324
    Crown might direct, without the necessity of going to Parliament for the advance of a single shilling."—(3 Hansard, [151] 1697–8.)
    Two great interests were intended to be safeguarded by that provision. There was the interest of the people of England, and there was the interest of the people of India. It was necessary to protect the liberties of this country against what might occur under an unconstitutional Minister. If that provision were not law, there would be nothing to hinder a Minister, of his own choice, without the knowledge or sanction of Parliament, from bringing over an Army of Sepoys, and bringing them, not only to the Mediterranean, but to this country, and also as far as Dublin and Tipperary. It was necessary, also, to protect the Indian Exchequer from the predatory attacks of selfish interests. They learned from the newspapers that the Native Press of India, with almost entire unanimity, condemned the action of Her Majesty's Government in Burmah. There could be little doubt that if the consent of the Indian people were required for the expenditure of their own money, not a single shilling could have been obtained for the purpose of the Burmese War. Was that not an important consideration for the judgment of that House, if it was called upon to sanction such an expenditure? But the money had been spent without giving to that House any opportunity of estimating the justice or wisdom of the course that had been pursued; and by-and-by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, or his Successor, would come down and ask the House to sanction that which had been done, and which could not be undone. The House might possibly, if the question were open to it, hesitate before, in the present unsatisfactory state of the finances of India, it would impose any additional burden upon the Indian people, either for the purpose of a war of annexation, or for the cost of administering a Province which it was now admitted would not pay its way. The Act of 1858, and, in particular, the provision to which he (Mr. Hunter) had alluded, had been the subject of discussion in that House. In the Autumn Session of 1878 his lamented Friend the late Mr. Fawcett moved an Amendment to the Motion to sanction an expenditure from the Revenues of India upon

    325
    the war in Afghanistan; and in the course of that debate several hon. Members took occasion to point out that the Government, in that war, had pursued an illegal course, and it was illegal because it was without the sanction of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian seconded the Amendment, and stated that, in his opinion, the Government had clearly broken the Act of Parliament. That view was supported by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), and generally by the Front Opposition Bench. But they were overpowered by numbers when it came to the vote; for the Government of that day possessed a largo majority in that House. The Government were driven, in order to justify themselves, to maintain the proposition that the consent of Parliament need not be given before the expenditure was incurred, but that it was sufficient if that sanction was given afterwards. However, that contention was thoroughly pulverized in the speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen to whom he had referred. Such a construction took away from the Act all its virtue and effect. It would deprive Parliament of the power of control over the foreign policy of the Indian Government, and would leave them the barren privilege of consenting to an irrevocable act, or the equally barren privilege of dissenting from it. Moreover, the exceptions which were mentioned in the section itself clearly proved that previous consent—the only consent that had any meaning — was intended, because the section specified certain cases where the previous consent might not be required. There were exceptions provided for, such as to prevent or repel an actual invasion of Her Majesty's Dominions, or under other sudden and urgent necessity. When the Indian Empire was in danger the Government were empowered to act promptly, without waiting for the consent of Parliament. Had there been any danger in the present case? He thought not; indeed, it would be impossible to conceive any case where there was less danger to the Empire of India than from the Kingdom of Ava. It was a Kingdom separated from the sea by a
    326
    British Province, and all importations of arms or ammunition must pass through British Custom Houses. The Government of India, very properly, he thought, took advantage of its position, and prevented the importation of arms and ammunition. The consequence was that, in a military sense, for years past the Kingdom of Ava had been entirely at our mercy. With regard to the other exception, had there been any sudden or urgent necessity? The annexation of Burmah was not a new idea. It had not occurred to the minds of our officials in India for the first time since Parliament was prorogued. For many years there had been an Annexation Party, not only among the merchants of Rangoon, but also in the ranks of the Government Service. So far back as 1869 there was a protest addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Burmah, warning him not to pursue such a course of conduct with respect to the King of Ava as would result in annexation. This much was gathered from a letter addressed by Lord Mayo to the Chief Commissioner of Burmah, in which he warned him against aggressive tendencies. The letter was dated the 11th of January, 1869; and in it Lord Mayo said, from certain expressions he had observed in some of the letters of the Chief Commissioner, it occurred to him that it was possible that the views of the officers of the Commission as regarded British policy in Burmah did not altogether agree with these entertained by the Government of India. Lest there should be the slightest misapprehension, Lord Mayo said—
    "I think it my duty to inform you that I am wholly opposed to any interference in the affairs of foreign States that can be by any honourable means avoided. The future annexation of Burmah, or any of its adjacent States, is not an event which I either contemplate or desire. On the contrary, I should view with extreme regret and disapproval any course of action that would impose upon the British Government the necessity of occupation, or of assuming, even in a temporary manner, the government of any of the States lying adjacent to the Provinces now in your charge."
    In 1881 a more determined attempt was made by the Annexationist Party to force the band of the Indian Government in order to bring about an armed intervention. The cry then was that King Theebaw had granted monopolies that were injurious to British trade. It turned out, ultimately, that the only

    327
    monopoly of any importance that was given was in the article of "cutch," and that that monopoly was in the hands of the Bombay-Burmah Trading Corporation, the very same Company which had now supplied the annexationists with that which they desired, in founding a good cry for intervention. The only other matter that was at all new in the position of Burmah was in respect to the controversy between the King of Burmah and this Bombay Corporation. He would not enter into that question, or express any opinion as to which party was right or wrong. But he would ask the House to consider that there was nothing in the transaction that could be construed into any sudden and urgent necessity for military operations. In the first place, suppose it had come to the worst, and that the decree of King Theebaw, of which the Bombay Corporation complained, had been executed, it could only have given rise to a claim for damages, which might probably have been properly pressed by the Indian Government; but that Government did not appear to have been very anxious to settle the difficulty. It was proposed by the British Government to refer this question to arbitration. But to what arbitration? The arbitrator was to be appointed by the Viceroy. That was a new idea of arbritration. He had never before heard of an arbitration in which one of the parties had the right to select the Judge. He could scarcely conceive with what object this form of arbitration was put forward, except with the certainty that it would be refused. If the manner in which King Theebaw had been treated was to be imitated, and the British Government was to act upon the principles which had been applied to Burmah in dealing with other States, they could not be surprised if the Sovereigns of other States took warning, and were chary of bestowing concessions and privileges upon British subjects. But, so far from this controversy coming within the category of a sudden and urgent necessity menacing the British Empire, it appeared that the controversy could have been settled. That was evident from a letter written by Mr. Jones, the agent or representative of the Bombay Company, to the Chief Commissioner of Burmah, dated the 21st of September last year. He
    328
    said he could have settled the question, and it would have been in the interests of the Company, in a pecuniary sense, to have settled it; but, having been assisted in the way they had been by the Government, he was not going to do it.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): The date of that letter, please?
    MR. HUNTER: The 21st September.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Is it in the Blue Book?
    MR. HUNTERsaid, it was a letter published in The Times. It was a letter addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Burmah, and was an official communication. He ventured to say that if an illustration had been desired to point a moral, and to show the necessity for the Constitutional safeguards that were provided by the Act of 1858, a better illustration could not have been found than this annexation. To make a military promenade up to Mandalay was an easy thing. To issue a Proclamation of Annexation was easier still. But that step, once taken, was very hard to retrace. If Parliament was to exercise its judgment on the important and grave issues that were submitted to it, it ought to be able to preserve that judgment unfettered by acts that could not be recalled. There could be no doubt that the presence of an English Administration in Mandalay closed some questions. But it opened other questions, which might, in the long run, prove more serious than these which were closed. No one could study the history of the conquest of Burmah by this country without being forced to this conclusion—that the same influence and forces which had driven the Government to Mandalay would not permit it to rest there; but these same influences and forces would sooner or later bring us into collision with the Chinese Empire. He said nothing with respect to the complications looming in the not distant future with European Powers. Surely a great question, so vitally affecting the interests of this country, ought not to be withdrawn from the consideration of Parliament. It was to secure this that Section 55 of the Act of 1858 was passed. It was a section of great value to the English people; and to the Indian people it was of the greatest importance that that House should exercise a jealous guardianship over their rights

    329
    and interests. The Act of 1858, and the gracious Proclamation of Her Majesty in the same year, were regarded by the people of India as their Magna Charta. The provisions of that Act had been violated. He, therefore, asked the House to adopt the Amendment he now moved, in order to maintain the law and to vindicate its own statutory rights and Constitutional powers.
    MR. CONYBEAREseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the 6th paragraph, to add the words—"But this House humbly expresses to tier Majesty their regret that the Revenues of India have been applied to defray the expenses of the military operations carried on in the Kingdom of Ava, without the consent of Parliament as required by 'The Government of India Act, 1858.'"—(Mr. Hunter.)
    Question proposed, "That these words be there added."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he was sure that hon. Members would be glad to welcome the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) as a participator in their debates. There were many subjects on which the great experience and learning of the hon. and learned Member would be able to assist the House; but he (the Attorney General) must confess he was sorry that it should have fallen to the lot of the hon. and learned Member, as a new Member, to move the present Amendment; because he (the Attorney General) would venture to submit that the hon. and learned Member had somewhat misunderstood the restrictions imposed by the Act of 1858, and that, under existing circumstances, there could not be any substantial ground for the Amendment. He therefore proposed, with the permission of the House, to deal with the legal argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman had advanced, and then to say a word or two upon some of the general considerations by which he had supported his Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen had been arguing before the House as though, by the action of Her Majesty's Government, it had already been decided that the expenses of the operations, the responsibility of which Her Majesty's Government fully recognized, were to be defrayed out of the Revenues of India. He (the Attorney
    330
    General) begged to point out that nothing of the kind had been decided. The question, no doubt, might be raised, as a similar question was raised in 1878 by the Motion of Mr. Fawcett, against charging the Revenues of India with the expenses of the operations in Afghanistan. He thought a few minutes' consideration would show hon. Members, oven if they had not the advantage of the legal training of the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen, that the section to which the hon. and learned Member had referred imposed certain restrictions, not one of which had been in any way neglected by Her Majesty's Government. The hon. and learned Member had argued as though it were unjustifiable in the Government to go to war without the previous consent of Parliament. The same question was raised indirectly in 1878, and the then Attorney General (Sir John Holker) showed that that was by no means a correct construction of the Act of Parliament. The question was involved in the terms of the 54th section of the Act, that section providing that, when an order was sent to India directing the actual commencement of hostilities, the fact of such order being sent should be communicated to both Houses of Parliament within three months, if they were sitting, and, if they were not, within one month after the next meeting of Parliament. He thought he need scarcely point out that two alternatives were contemplated by the section— the commencement of war at a time when the House was sitting, and at a time when the House was not sitting. In the latter contingency, which applied to the present case, the responsibility of these who undertook the operations was to communicate the fact to Parliament one month after the meeting of Parliament. He submitted, therefore, that to anyone who was capable of appreciating the plain language of the section, it could not have been passed without it being in the contemplation of these who were responsible for the enactment that war might be declared without the consent of Parliament, otherwise there would have been no object in saying the fact should be communicated to Parliament within a month after its next meeting. Passing on to Section 55, he submitted that it provided for a state of things not within the purview of the hon. and learned Member's Amend-

    331
    ment. It enacted that, except for preventing or repelling actual invasion of our Indian Possessions, the Revenues of India should not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expense of any military operations carried on beyond the frontiers of such Possessions. The state of circumstances contemplated by the section was the preventing or the repelling of invasion; but what was the case which was to depend on this state of circumstances? It was whether the Revenues of India should or should not be applicable to defray the expense of military operations. The House would see, therefore, that it was not a question of whether war should be undertaken or not. The hon. and learned Member, no doubt, honestly wished to raise a great question; but he (the Attorney General) should like to point out that the question whether war should be, or should not be, commenced, and whether military operations should be undertaken, rested with the Advisers of Her Majesty at the time, and it was not a question of previously obtaining the sanction of Parliament. The hon. and learned Member, in his Amendment, which expressed the regret of the House that the Revenues of India were to be employed in the operations in Burmah, assumed that that question had already been determined which must be submitted to the House; and if he chose, when the debate arose on the question as to how the expenses were to be defrayed, he had the opportunity of raising any objection he thought proper as to the course of action pursued by Her Majesty's Government. But he (the Attorney General) trusted that he had shown the House that the responsibility of beginning the military operations was to be determined by Her Majesty's Advisers, subject to the condition that certain communications were to be made to the Houses of Parliament, with the addition that the question as to how such expenses should be borne should be governed by the decision of Parliament. When he remembered that this question practically formed the subject of a solemn debate in 1878, in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) took part, and when he remembered that the action of Her Majesty's Government on that occasion
    332
    was supported by a majority of 110, and that it did not please the Party opposite to alter the law during the five years they had been in Office, he ventured to think that Her Majesty's present Advisers would have been shirking responsibility if they had hesitated to act under the circumstances, because they were afraid that some such Motion as this would be brought forward. While the hon. and learned Member disclaimed, at the beginning of his speech, any intention to call in question the general policy of the Government, he had thought fit to make certain statements which, if they remained unanswered, might seem to lead to the conclusion that the Government had acted indiscreetly or improperly. It was no part of his (the Attorney General's) duty to argue whether or not there was a sudden or urgent necessity in this case; but no one who would candidly read the contents of the Blue Book, instead of referring to letters in The Times, and other newspapers, which did not appear in it, could doubt that there was a sudden and urgent necessity which justified the action of the Government. The hon. and learned Member had spoken of the Bombay and Burmah Corporation as though it was a body which merely had some claim against the Burmese Government which might be made the subject of arbitration. For 20 years the Bombay and Burmah Corporation had been in intimate relations with the Burmese Authorities. The dispute began by suggestions being made that the Bombay and Burmah Corporation had bribed the present Governor of the Province of Ninghyan, with a very large bribe—namely, six lacs of rupees, in order to cover their frauds. Upon that suggestion being at once challenged the Burmese officials shifted their ground, and alleged that the Bombay and Burmah Corporation had not paid a sufficient amount under the leases of 1880, and that they had defrauded the foresters who had been in their employ. He would undertake to demonstrate to any hon. Member that there was no foundation for either of these charges. When the charges were made, they were only supported by the testimony of a few discharged servants, or of persons acting under the compulsion of the Burmese Government. The Bombay and Burmah Corporation courted, from the be-

    333
    ginning, a thorough investigation of the charges made against them; but they were unable to secure either the substantiation of the charges, or an investigation. But the matter did not, by any means, stop there. The hon. and learned Member had referred to the question as a mere money demand, which might be made the subject of arbitration, or an action for damages; but there were other considerations. In the end of 1882 and the beginning of 1883, a now lease having been arranged, the Corporation paid clown in advance for the right of cutting wood in the forests no loss than four and a half lacs of rupees. He wanted the House to understand that this, which was called by the hon. and learned Member a money claim, was something which was alleged by the Burmese Government as having happened with reference to timber in 1882. Having paid that large amount in advance, this Corporation had other considerations which ought to have influenced, and he trusted did influence, their minds. They had in their employ several thousand persons, of whom no less than 2,000 were British subjects; and instead of the Government of Burmah simply declining to accept the proposals for arbitration, or saying that some other tribunal must be devised, whereby the questions in dispute could be determined, on the 24th September, four days after the hon. and learned Member had told the House the dispute might have been amicably settled, they demanded payment of 23 lacs of rupees from the Corporation in respect of these alleged breaches, On the 24th of September this was the condition of matters, as stated in a telegram from the Bombay and Burmah Corporation—
    "Burmese soldiers insist on stopping the rafts, notwithstanding the orders of the Governor of Ninghyan. He has no power to enforce his orders. Soldiers have fired on several of our rafts. Raftsmen are frightened, have been arrested, and put in the stocks by soldiers."
    There were various degrees of opinion as to the extent to which Governments ought to forbear; but it seemed to him (the Attorney General) that Her Majesty's Government had some duty to perform towards the 2,000 British subjects who wore in the employ of the Bombay and Burmah Corporation. The hon. and learned Member would have a further oppor-
    334
    tunity of criticizing the conduct of the Government; but he (the Attorney General) submitted that that conduct was not to be criticized by a side wind, on a Motion made by way of suggestion that some condition in an Act of Parliament had not been fulfilled before the operations began. He only desired to add that, having given his careful consideration to the matter, and looking at it not only as a lawyer, but also with the object of finding out which side was in the right, so far as he had been able to form an opinion, he had come to the distinct conclusion that there was no foundation whatever for the charges made against the Company, and that these who represented Burmah, knowing they were in the wrong, were at once proceeding to enforce their unrighteous and improper demands by force, which Her Majesty's Government could not allow to pass unnoticed. The general policy of the Government in matters of this kind rested in far wiser hands than his; but it was well known that prompt action in these matters did not, as a rule, lead to prejudicial results. They knew perfectly well that the expenditure of a few hundreds might pro-vent the ultimate loss of thousands, and that the expenditure of a few thousands might prevent the ultimate loss of tens of thousands; and when it was suggested that Her Majesty's Government ought to have stayed their hands before they undertook the responsibility of these operations, he ventured to point out that they were inviting criticism, because the question of how this expenditure was to be met was still open; and, in his opinion, Her Majesty's Government would have been entirely wanting in their duty to the country and the first principles of government if, having made up their minds that there was a case for prompt and energetic action, and in view of the interpretation of the law for which they contended, they had delayed to undertake these operations.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Like the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, I do not feel it necessary to enter at any very great length into the question that has been raised by the hon. and learned Mover of this Amendment. But I must say, in passing, that this being the first opportunity we have had of hearing the hon. and learned

    335
    Mover, I have listened, in two respects, with great pleasure to his speech. I thought the general principles he propounded were eminently sound; and otherwise he appeared to be a Gentleman who, in the course of his speech, proved to us, in the most satisfactory manner, his power to bear a very useful and distinguished part in the discussions of this House. But the hon. and learned Member the Mover of the Amendment is, in this respect, I think, unfortunate—that the Amendment he has moved does not cover the whole breadth of the ground he undoubtedly occupied in his speech. The Amendment only raises the question—one of grave importance, no doubt, but still the comparatively narrow question—of who is to meet the expenses that have been incurred? But a considerable portion of his speech undoubtedly touched what is a deeper matter—namely, the merits of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in this very important matter. I would keep these two questions entirely distinct. The Attorney General, I am bound to say, has kept them entirely distinct. But, before referring to either of them, I must undertake to point out to the Attorney General that there is a palpable error in the proposition with which he concluded his speech, because he contended that the Parliament of 1878 passed a direct judgment upon this question. I, without hesitation, say that this is an entire mistake. I quite agree that the argument was made, and made with great decision, certainly by myself, with regard to the construction of the Act. I quite admit that the whole tone and temper of that Parliament was entirely the opposite to our contentions on that and on other matters which have been since dealt with in a somewhat different way. The issue was not raised on the Motion, and no decision was given by the Parliament, directly or indirectly, upon the construction of the Act. With regard to the second part of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and which touched the same subject-matter as the second portion of the hon. and learned Mover's speech, I agree undoubtedly with the hon. and learned Gentleman to this extent—and it is a very important agreement—that I do not think the House is at this moment in a condition—even if the question had been raised by the Amendment,
    336
    and it has not been—to pronounce that there was no sudden or urgent necessity in the condition of things in Burmah which led to the action of Her Majesty's Government. If there was a sudden and emergent necessity, then, by the confession of all parties, it was open to Her Majesty's Government to proceed without obtaining the prior assent of Parliament to the employment of Indian Forces, or to creating a charge upon Indian Revenues. In other times it has been in this condition—that questions of the most vital importance— questions of war, of conquest, far larger in their character even than this—were decided without the smallest hope or possibility that Parliament would exercise any control over them whatever. In this instance, I think I need only say that, as regards the merits of the question, I keep my mind entirely open. I noticed on a former night a sentence in the Speech from the Throne, not because I thought it conveyed a doctrine in distinct and intelligible terms, but because I thought it somewhat more savoured of a doctrine that this House ought to watch with considerable jealousy and reserve—namely, the doctrine that a civil wrong inflicted on British subjects constitutes a case on account of which we are to go to war. It is a very large and a very grave question. I am far from denying that the right of going to war may arise upon it; but the general proposition that warlike measures ought to be undertaken upon that ground is a proposition which we ought to hesitate, I think, to inscribe among our political axioms. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I may say, on this part of the question, I thought, was open to some exception; because he argued this war as though it had grown entirely out of the relations of the trading Company and the Burmese Government. There is no doubt that much more was involved than the question between the Company and the Burmese Government; and though I do not deny that there is force in the plea that the conditions and interests of the 2,000 persons employed by the Company were matters for consideration, yet I think if there is to be an ultimate defence and justification of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government with respect to making war and the annexation of Burmah—and at present I do not say whether there will or will

    337
    not be such a justification—that it certainly must be drawn from broader and deeper considerations than the mere relations of a Company with the Burmese Government. I do not know the hon. and learned Member's intention; but I doubt whether the House will approach this question satisfactorily by any division on the Amendment now before us. In asking the House to assent to this outlay, the Government will have to make a Motion, which will afford ample and legitimate opportunity for considering the question of the liability of the Indian Revenues; and with respect to the matter which constituted so great a part of the speech of the Mover of the Amendment, and which was not touched by the Amendment itself. I venture to hope that the House will not be called to decide anything by voting upon the Amendment. I must say a few words upon the more legal and professional portion of the speech of the Attorney General. He has stated his views tonight, as he has done during his short experience in this House, with great clearness and force; and he has referred to the argument made use of by the late Sir John Holker when he so honourably tilled the position now occupied by the lion, and learned Gentleman. Though I differed much from Sir John Holker in politics, this I will say—that I appreciated and admired his legal knowledge. I never heard a legal argument from Sir John Holker, whether I agreed with him or not, without great pleasure and admiration for the masterly way in which he handled his subject. Therefore, I do not approach this subject under prejudice. But I must give fair notice to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am prepared to contest to the uttermost his legal doctrine as to the construction of the Act of Parliament. The doctrine was advanced—I do not like to use the word extravagant—but in the most advanced form it was capable of assuming by the Earl of Iddesleigh; and, if I remember his contention, he argued thus:—He said there is nothing in the Act of Parliament to prevent the advance of the money from the Indian Treasury; and if Parliament subsequently determines that these advances shall be repaid, and the charge shall be finally borne by the Consolidated Fund, then the Act of Parliament has been satisfied. That I also understand to be
    338
    the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had sat as long as I have sat in this House during a multitude of Indian wars—during the first Afghan War, during the Scinde War, during the Persian War—[General Sir GEOROE BALFOUR: And the Chinese Wars.] Well, the Chinese wars are a very painful subject. As far as my recollection goes, I do not know that these wars raised this particular question. My recollection rather is that in the case of the greater of these conflicts, in the Chinese War of 1839, we had a perfectly free hand, and were able to pass judgment upon the question, irrespective of any financial embarrassment. But in these eases to which I have referred—and, perhaps, the list of them could be enlarged — what Parliament, and what successive Parliaments, felt was that they wore reduced to a state of absolute impotence. The question came before them simply as a question of censure upon the Government, and in no other practical shape. The clause of the Indian Government Act of 1858 was intended to provide an effectual remedy for that mischief. Not in every case. That clause was much considered—I do not say it was much debated in this House. It was intended to provide a remedy; but not in every case. It was generally felt that where there was actual or meditated invasion, there you must be content to take the risks of compromising the authority of Parliament, and leaving the Indian subject practically without remedy. It was felt that the exception of invasion was not wide enough, but that another exception should be introduced, and that was the case of sudden and urgent necessity. These were words which, in the hands of the Government, might be elastic words; but, nevertheless, it was necessary, undoubtedly, to have a provision of that kind in the Act of Parliament; and so far I admit that it is not possible for us to exercise any previous control. But I affirm, in the boldest and most confident manner, that the purpose of Parliament was, setting aside the case of invasion, and the case of sudden and urgent necessity, to provide a prior control for Parliament in questions of this kind. What is the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman? His contention is that the whole object of the clause was to reserve

    339
    the question, who is to pay? Then, I can only say, most deplorable is the position, not only of the Indian taxpayers, but of the British taxpayers also. Because, according to the lion, and learned Gentleman, how stand the British taxpayers? In respect of wars and like operations conducted in all other parts of the globe, we have a tolerably effective control. I will not go now into the technical question; but, on the whole, it is well known that, although the prerogative of making peace or war is in the hands of Her Majesty, yet the wars made by this country are generally, through the privileges and rights of this House, practically under an effective prior control. But how stand we under the doctrine of the hon. and learned Gentleman in regard to these wars that can be made by the Indian Army? Under that doctrine we have no control whatever in regard to these wars.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): Yes; we have.
    MR. GLADSTONE: What control have we, then? Parliament usually prorogues at the end of July, and meets again six months after. The Indian Forces may be operating to any extent during the whole of that period; and then there is nothing for the House of Commons to do but to say in the subsequent Session whether they will or will not pay the bill. Under these circumstances, I say that we have no Parliamentary control whatever over these wars. We have no power remaining, except to condemn the Government. The hon. and learned Member may say that I have not been complimentary in my remarks to the Parliament of 1878; but he, in his observations, has been most uncomplimentary to the Parliament of 1858, and the Government of 1858, and, I may say, to a series of Parliaments which have groaned under the state of things that previously existed with regard to wars made from India, and by means of the Indian Army. Well, Sir, I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of what were the sensations in this country produced by the first Afghan War. He may remember that such was the belief in the responsibility, in the error, and perhaps almost in the crime, of that war—such was the universal sentiment of public opinion in respect to it, and, at the same time, the sentiment of the perfect helplessness of
    340
    this House and this Government in preventing a repetition of such things, that Mr. Roebuck, in 1843, under the Government of Sir Robert Peel, made a Motion to inflict retrospectively the severe censure of this House upon a Government that had been out of Office for two or three years; and it was only with difficulty that Sir Robert Peel, exercising all the skill and influence he possessed, could restrain the House of Commons, and the large majority that confided in him at that period, from pronouncing that censure. I do not wish to go further at this moment; or to enter into the details of the Act of Parliament; but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman himself will do me the justice to say that if his construction of this Act is right our position is this—Dividing the word geographically into these regions which are accessible to the Indian Army and these regions which are not, Parliament can control the military action of the Advisers of the Crown in the regions which are not accessible to the Indian Army. But with respect to these which are accessible, the Government are under no necessity or occasion whatever to come to this House for prior sanction—they can operate through the Indian Army, and then content themselves with presenting to us the bill after the whole matter is at an end. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposes, by his construction of the Act of Parliament, to convict the Parliament of 1858, and all these who had to do with it then, of the crime of what I should call political idiotcy. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] I was obliged to say as much as this; because the general question involved is one of extreme importance. It is not now legitimately before us in connection with the present state of things. What is the present state of things? The noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) may undoubtedly, three or four weeks hence, if he thinks fit, raise the doctrine of 1878 in its full breadth—namely, that the Act of Parliament does not touch a case in which India pays, provided that she is subsequently repaid. That is the high doctrine on the subject. But whenever that high doctrine is broached, we on this side of the House shall be bound to meet and contest it. Then the noble Lord may have it open to him—and I hope he will take that course—to pass

    341
    by that high doctrine altogether. If there were a sudden urgent necessity, then he would not require that doctrine at all. I know not which plea will be raised; but when the proper time comes undoubtedly we shall see. I leave my mind entirely open and unprejudiced with respect to this case, which involves many considerations of great difficulty and importance. I hold the construction of the Act of Parliament to be not only clear, but to be of vital moment to the preservation of the Privileges of this House. I hope that on the merits of the question we may not be driven to a division at present, especially on a Motion which would but imperfectly express its own purpose, and on which we should vote with very imperfect knowledge.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): I imagine that the House will be inclined to follow the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), and will forbear discussing the general policy involved in the war with Burmah, and the annexation of that territory to the Dominions of the Crown. I imagine, moreover, that that course will be agreeable to hon. Members below the Gangway, and possibly to the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Amendment, as he is now aware that it will be my duty under the Act of Parliament, within a month from the first day of the meeting of Parliament, to place before the House a formal Resolution sanctioning the war by authorizing the payment of the expenses caused by it out of the Revenues of India. A legitimate and a more convenient occasion for debate will then arise. And I am the more confirmed in that opinion from the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself; because I am convinced that if there is one quarter of information to which he has not gone, and to which he ought to go, it is the official Blue Book, and the further record which has been placed before the House by the Government. It is obvious that the hon. and learned Gentleman, for some reason or other, has not been disposed even to consult that Blue Book, or, if he has consulted it, he evidently is not disposed to place the slightest reliance upon it; but I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not studied it. I am not
    342
    surprised at this, because the time that has elapsed since it was laid before the House has been so short. That being so, I shall confine my remarks within a very brief compass, if the House will kindly grant me its indulgence. I wish to support, as far as I can, every word which fell from the Attorney General, and with great respect, but at the same time with perfect conviction, to contest every word which has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I think that I shall be able to show the House that, in support of my assertion, I can call to witness acts of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and very recent acts. The right hon. Gentleman has advised me to avoid basing the action of the Government upon what he calls the high doctrine, that the proper interpretation of the Statute is the one placed upon it by the Attorney General—namely, that the Government, the Crown, and the Ministers of the Crown, have the undoubted right to declare war, to initiate hostile proceedings, without the prior sanction of Parliament, whether by the Indian Army or the Forces of the Crown. That was the doctrine of the Attorney General, and I believe it to be the Constitutional doctrine. In the case of making war by the British Forces in Europe, obviously the power of the House of Commons is very great; because, within almost a few hours of acts which lead to hostilities being done, the Government is bound to come to Parliament for a Vote of Credit, and Parliament has at once the power to arrest proceedings by refusing the credit. Therefore, there is no helplessness whatever of the House of Commons as far as hostilities in Europe by British Forces are concerned. But the right hon. Gentleman said that the House of Commons is perfectly helpless, if our contention of the interpretation of the Statute is right, in the event of war being made by Her Majesty's Indian Forces. In the first place, I venture to deny altogether that the House of Commons is helpless, even if the right hon. Gentleman is right; because the very remarkable illustration which the right hon. Gentleman gave of the action of Mr. Roebuck proves that the House of Commons is not helpless. [An hon. MEMBER: Two years after.] Well, if the House of Commons could, on the Motion of Mr. Roebuck two or three

    343
    years after the occurrence, when another Government was in Office, take hostile action, that would almost have amounted to an impeachment of the servants of the Crown who were responsible for the course pursued; and if it required all the power and influence of Sir Robert Peel to restrain the House of Commons from taking that action, how can the right hon. Gentleman contend that the House of Commons is perfectly helpless with regard to the present Burmese War, either as regards censuring the Government, evacuating the country, or sanctioning the payment of the expenses of the war out of the Revenues of this country? The House of Commons can censure Her Majesty's Government, if it should be of opinion that its action in this matter has been immoral or wicked, and it can evacuate the country and replace King Theebaw on his Throne. The House of Commons can direct that the Revenue of this country should boar the charge, and not the Indian Revenue. There is only one thing which the House of Commons cannot do. It cannot go back upon the action which the Crown, in the exercise of its Prerogative on the responsibility of the Advisors of the Crown, has committed. It cannot prevent the expenditure from having been incurred. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen who laugh do not understand my contention, and I do not think they will laugh so loudly when they find that the very action I am contending for is within the power of the Crown; and the action which, as I am contending, is within the power of the Crown was actually performed by the right hon. Gentleman in the late Government. The contention of the right hon. Gentleman is that it is not enough that Parliament should be able to say afterwards whether Indian Revenue should be expended or not. That, he says, is not the construction of the Statute; the construction of the Statute is, that the Government intending to spend Indian Revenue or British Revenue must obtain the consent of Parliament before a single shilling of Indian Revenue can be expended. Now, as a matter of fact, that construction has never been adopted by any Government, Conservative or Liberal. I take the case of the third China War of 1859; and I am under the impression that at that time the right hon. Gentleman had a seat in the Government. I find that
    344
    the order for Indian troops to take part in that war was issued in September, 1859; and, of course, the cost of the Expedition from India was defrayed out of Indian Revenue. More than that, although certain portions of the extraordinary charge were paid out of Imperial Revenue, the ordinary charge was paid out of Indian Revenue. The expenditure began in September, 1859, when the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government, and no Vote of Credit was taken from the House of Commons till March 16, 1860—five months after the commencement of the war. Now, why do not hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh? However, I am not going to rest on 1859, the evil days before the great Reform Bill, when the majesty of the people was not represented in this House. So I will take another case—that of the Abyssinian War. The order for Indian troops to take part in that war was issued from this country in August, 1867, a Conservative Government being then in Office; and the Resolution authorizing the payment of Indian Revenue towards the expenses of that war was not brought before the House of Commons till November 28, 1867—four months afterwards. Therefore, the Conservative record is a little better than the Liberal record. Then I come to the Afghan War of 1878. An order went for the commencement of hostilities on November 21, 1878, and the Resolution sanctioning the payment of the expenses out of Indian Revenue was brought forward in December,1878—the Government, if I recollect aright, summoning a special Autumn Session of Parliament to sanction that war. Now, Sir, I come to the recent Administration of the right hon. Gentleman. It was the unhappy lot of the right hon. Gentleman to conduct more than one "military operation;" and in one of these "military operations" the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues very properly decided that Indian troops should bear a useful part, and that in the security and independence of Egypt the interests of India were very closely concerned. So Indian troops were ordered to take part in the Egyptian Expedition of 1882. Orders were sent from the India Office on July 21; and here I will admit that the Government acted with immense promptitude, and only the most microscopic criticism

    345
    which ingenuity could devise can be passed upon their conduct; but, nevertheless, they broke the law. [A laugh.] I am not contending that they broke the law; I am contending that the right hon. Gentleman opposite contends that they broke the law. Well, orders had been sent on the 24th of July, preparations for these orders had been going on for some days beforehand, and considerable expenditure had actually been incurred in India; but the sanction of Parliament was not taken till the 27th of July. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] What about the contention of the right hon. Gentleman? How about the helplessness of Parliament? The money had been spent in India, and Parliament was utterly helpless to prevent its being so spent. What, then, is the contention of the right hon. Gentleman? Either it is that the prior sanction of Parliament must be obtained before a single shilling is expended—
    MR. GLADSTONE: "Before a single shilling is expended" are not my words at all. I know too well the uniform practice to which the British Votes and every other Vote is subject.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I understood him to argue totidem verbis from his contention of 1878; and if he will refer to Hansard he will find that he construed the word "defray" as containing and moaning the issue of money; and for the issue of money he contended that the prior sanction of Parliament was necessary. But there I admit that only a very fine-drawn criticism can be brought to bear on the right hon. Gentleman. I should not have thought of making such a criticism had it not been for the tremendously high-flown doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman laid down. It is obvious that the period of time, small as it was—three days—was a fatal flaw in the virtue of the right hon. Gentleman. However, I come to a case far more glaring, which utterly destroys the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. I come to the second Egyptian War—the Suakin Expedition—and there I have been able to ascertain from the India Office exactly the amount of money which was spent before Parliament was asked to vote one shilling. Orders were sent from the India Office for Indian troops to go to Suakin on the 8th of
    346
    February, 1885, and the sanction of Parliament in the form of a Resolution was not demanded until the 5th of March —a whole month nearly. What becomes of the prior sanction of Parliament now? if the right hon. Gentleman would care to know—because, of course, his attention was so taken up with the general conduct of the Government that probably he does not know the details of the expenditure connected with Egypt— £350,000 of Indian money was disbursed before the sanction of Parliament authorized the expenditure. It was expended between the 8th of February and the 5th of March. Now, see to what lengths the Expedition had gone before the sanction of Parliament was obtained. The whole force had been embarked, and was aboard the transport. They could not possibly have prevented that force from being embarked, nor the transport being engaged. A transport had been engaged; troops had been embarked; 9,000 camp followers had been engaged; 5,500 camels had been purchased between the date when the Government was first instructed to prepare for the despatch of a force—namely, the 8th of February—and the date that Parliament was informed; in addition to which large liabilities were incurred by the Government of India for contracts for transports, although the actual payment did not, perhaps, fall to be made on the instant. Now, observe, I doubt very much whether the Burmese War up to the present moment has cost£350,000, well within the margin of the right hon. Gentleman. I ask the House after such habitual practice of Liberal and Conservative Governments with regard to wars in which Indian troops took part—and there is not a single instance on record in which the prior sanction of Parliament has been asked—I ask the House how it could really now be contended that that is the meaning of the Statute, and that the Statute is absolutely worthless, and that, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman, it "must have been drawn by idiots," unless it bears that meaning? Obviously, Sir, the persons who drew the clause in question were under the wing of the right hon. Gentleman himself. I am not saying that in the least degree in a jeering way. I think it is a most valuable clause, one which does bring the Government under the control of Parliament;

    347
    but which, at the same time, does not fetter the initiative of action on which the English Government, and far more the Indian Government, must depend. I contend, therefore, that the true construction of the Statute is this—that the Indian Government, acting under the instruction of the Advisers of the Crown, can undoubtedly declare war, and can use the Indian Revenue for the purpose. The declaration of war, if Indian troops are employed in such war, must be communicated to Parliament within three months, if Parliament is sitting; and if Parliament is not sitting, within a month after it meets. That is undoubtedly within the power of the Indian Government; on that interpretation of the Statute they have invariably acted, and on that they are acting now. As I said before, the object of the Statute is to prevent the Crown using the Indian Revenues without the consent of Parliament for carrying on warlike operations, and that the House of Commons can do. The House of Commons can arrest the whole of the military operations in Burmah. It can order the immediate evacuation of the country and the restoration of King Theebaw; it can order the payment of any indemnity almost that the House of Commons chooses, in case, in its philanthropy, it should determine that that benevolent Monarch has been wronged. That is the power of the House of Commons; and I cannot see how that great power can be reconciled with the expressions of the right hon. Gentleman, who threw his hands up to Heaven and talked about the utter helplessness of the House of Commons. I would not have taken part in this debate, after what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, if it had not been for the extraordinary contention he has raised. I do hold that I have shown to the House that by the reasonable construction of the Statute and by the invariable practice the Government have acted within their legal and just rights. I shall be prepared, when the proper time arrives, to defend the action of the Government upon that subject. But I do believe that in the position which I have the honour to fill I should be utterly false to all that is absolutely essential to the discharge of the duties of my Office, and the immense responsibility that must ultimately repose on the Indian Secretary, if I had not at
    348
    once contested the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman—a doctrine which I venture to say might, in the future, if accepted by the House of Commons, and ratified by Parliament, bring utter ruin on the Indian Government. I will not further detain the House to-night. At the first opportunity which will be most convenient to the House I will be prepared to move the formal Resolution sanctioning the Burmese War and annexation. I have no doubt whatever as to what the verdict of the House of Commons on that issue will be. If I could bring it on to-morrow I would be delighted to do so; because, I will own, I am more than proud to have had the responsibility of recommending to my Colleagues the action which has been taken in regard to Burmah; and I am proud of belonging to a Government which has added to the Dominions of the Crown, and the enterprize of British commerce, and which has added to the area of civilization and of progress so vast and so valuable a possession.
    MR. HUNTERsaid, that in response to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), and considering that the main issues on this question must come up for discussion at another time, he would ask leave of the House to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY, in rising to move, as an Amendment, after the word "Agriculture," in the 11th paragraph, of the words—
    "And humbly to represent the pressing necessity for securing without delay to the cultivators of the soil such conditions of tenure as will aid and encourage them to meet the new and trying circumstances in which the Agriculture of the Country is placed,"
    apologized for introducing the question at this stage on the ground of its urgency and importance, and the small prospect there was of finding an opportunity for some months to come of discussing the subject of agricultural reforms. This question of Land Reform was discussed during the General Election as one of the most urgent questions for the consideration of Parliament. It was true that now Parliamentary exigencies bad brought the Irish Question to the foremost consideration of Parliament; but

    349
    the Government had made no proposition to deal with the question, and meantime he thought the time of the House could not be better employed than in considering whether any measure might be introduced to relieve, so far as legislation could do so, the present condition of the agricultural industry. In discussing the question he would assure the House that he had no hostility to the landlords as a class. Few of them were free to manage their estates as they thought proper, oven if they had the inclination to do so; and lie was pursuaded that if they knew their own interest they would as eagerly support the reforms he intended to urge as the cultivators of the land themselves. No one doubted the existence of agricultural depression. The Government referred to the subject in the Speech from the Throne, and, he was sorry to say, in a very hopeless manner. They did not make any suggestion whatever of any remedy. Unfortunately, the Government confessed themselves as incompetent and impotent to deal with this question as with the Irish difficulty. The agricultural depression was keenly felt by all classes. If it were of a temporary nature they would endeavour to bear it as cheerfully as possible, encouraged by the hope of better times; but, unfortunately, it had assumed a permanent character. In former times, if the crop was deficient in this country, the farmer was to some extent compensated by receiving a higher price for his produce. But for the last seven or eight years, although the seasons had been bad, the price of wheat bad been falling; and within the last 18 months or two years the price of live stock had fallen somewhere about 30 per cent. During the last seven or eight years the development of the railway system had opened up the great wheat-producing centres of India and America; and, at the same time, the cost of transit by sea had been very largely decreased. The competition with the foreign producer had now reached an acute stage; and he was convinced that, under the present conditions on which they held their lands, it would be impossible for the farmers of this country to maintain the competition. He did not wish to go into any elaborate calculation as to the relative cost of producing wheat in India and America and this country; but in America the farmer
    350
    held his land at almost a nominal price. The price of land in the wheat centres was not, perhaps, more than 5s. an acre in fee simple, while nearer the centres of shipment the price would not, perhaps, be more than 50 s. an acre. The farmer worked his land himself; and though the wages of labour might be higher, the cost of producing an acre of wheat was less than in this country. A great advantage enjoyed by the American farmer was that he could cultivate his land as he pleased. On the other hand, the British farmer had to pay for his land a very considerable rent. He could not grow such crops as he pleased, and in many cases he could not dispose of his crops in the most advantageous manner. Then, if he intended to develop the resources of the soil, he had no security for his capital. How, then, was it possible for the competition of the British farmer to go on? Would it be possible for their manufactures to prosper if the manufacturers were obliged to carry on their business under similar conditions to these of the farmers? Of course, he should be referred to the Agricultural Holdings Act passed by the last Government; but that Act, as he had pointed out at the time, had been a delusion and a snare. There had been two or three years' experience of it, and there was a general consensus of opinion in England and Scotland that it failed to meet the necessities of the case. Farmers thought it safer to abstain from making claims under the Act, and to allow matters to go on as before, than to attempt to avail themselves of its provisions. One obstacle to their doing so was the clause which provided that tenants should not be compensated for any improvements that were due to the inherent capabilities of the soil. That was a very elastic phrase, which skilful arbitrators made to cover any improvement. Again, tenants under leases were estopped by heavy penalties, which might quadruple the rent, for varying the rotation of crops. Under the clause which enabled landlords to make counter-claims for compensation, landlords had turned to account unsuspected terms in the leases, and in some cases had succeeded in claiming much more than the tenants. In the face of such facts, it was impossible to regard the Act as meeting the necessities of the case. The great object to be aimed at was to stimulate

    351
    tenants to make improvements by securing to them the advantages derived from them, and the Act altogether failed to do that. With the foreign competition, the decreased cost of transport, and other causes, the natural protection of the British farmer had been reduced by one-half in 20 years. He had no doubt that if the British farmers had fair rents, freedom to make the most out of their land, and security for their capital, they would be able to maintain their position against farmers in any part of the world. The British farmer had, in his proximity to markets, a natural protection equal to not less than 40 s. per acre; and, at the same time, the best markets in the world. He held that they ought to be able to hold their position against farmers in any other country, provided they had fair conditions of tenure. An illustration of what might happen in this country had been furnished by the experience of America. Some 30 years ago, when the wheat fields in the Central States of America were opened up by the railway, and wheat from there was delivered in the Eastern States at a price at which it could not be produced in these latter States, it was supposed that the land in the Eastern States would become practically valueless, and no doubt there was a great amount of depression among the farmers for some time; but in almost every case in the Eastern States the farmers owned their own land, and had free scope. So, in a short time, these farmers turned their attention to dairy farming, to poultry rearing, and the produce of vegetables and fruit; and the consequence was that the State of New York was now yielding from two to three times the value of agricultural produce which it did 20 years ago. British farmers wanted the same freedom that had enabled the farmers of the Eastern States to meet their difficulties. Of dairy produce, poultry, vegetables, and fruit we imported not less than £20,000,000 worth annually. He did not say that all that could be produced in this country; but a very large proportion could, if the farmers had freedom to cultivate as they chose. Moreover, there would be a great development in the consumption of these articles if they were supplied in the large towns at a reasonable price. That was the example they had from the Eastern States
    352
    of America. He did not say that legislation could do everything to relieve the existing agricultural depression. The farmers must do much for themselves; but before they could be called upon to act for themselves they must have freedom of action; they must have security of capital; and they must have the raw material—the land—at a moderate price. He submitted that Parliament ought to secure to the man who cultivated the land a fair rent, and also such freedom and conditions of cultivation as would enable him to make the most of the land. He should, at the same time, have security of capital, so that he might be fully satisfied in his own mind that when he invested his capital in the soil of the country he would have the right to reap the full fruits of his industry, capital, and skill. These were the changes which, in his opinion, were absolutely necessary for any improvement in the condition of the British farmer. With such conditions as these he had enumerated, the farmer would, be encouraged to put capital in the soil; and if his skill and experience were not fettered, as they were now, he could compete successfully with the foreign producer. Referring to the position of the farmers of Scotland under the lease system, he pointed out that Scottish farms were held almost entirely under the system of 19 years' leases. Of late years there had been a great fall in the price of agricultural produce, and the position of these farmers who entered into such leases four or five years ago was a very serious one indeed. They felt it to be impossible to make the rent out of the land, owing to the great reduction in the price of agricultural produce. The farmers of Scotland were very much in the position of a manufacturer who had contracted at a fixed price for his raw material for a period of 19 years, and who found soon after that there was a reduction of 30 or 35 per cent in the price of the manufactured article. The farmers asked either that they should have a re-valuation of their farms by independent and competent authorities, or, if that was denied, that the landlords would allow them to leave their farms. But it was said this would be an interference with contract, and no doubt it would be a great interference; but Parliament had interfered already when the necessity

    353
    was shown, and of the necessity in this case there was no doubt. He hoped, therefore, Her Majesty's Government would express some opinion on this question favourable to the views which he had indicated. He could assure the House that this was a very serious question in Scotland. Pew could look forward with equanimity to ruin such as was steadily approaching the farmers, and which would overwhelm them if the present rents were exacted. Much the same causes were in operation all over Scotland as prevailed in the West Highlands; and if this Constitutional appeal received no response from Parliament, a state of circumstance would arise with which it might be difficult to deal. He knew that many farmers were looking forward with the greatest anxiety to see what Parliament would do in the matter. Of course, he was aware that a great many landlords had given considerable abatements of rent these abatements, however, were unsatisfactory in this respect—that although they might afford temporary relief to the farmer, they did not secure a future reasonable rent, such as was necessary to induce him to make the exertion necessary to life agriculture out of its present depressed condition. Some landlords were having their estates revalued, and if the re-valuation was real and not a sham, it was creditable and wise. Landlords who made an impartial re-valuation had nothing to fear from any proposal of the tenants, and their conduct would not be interfered with by any action of Parliament such as he suggested. What be really asked from Parliament was to do what these wise and prudent landlords were doing for themselves, in order to put their estates in a safe position. In asking for the support of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), be said he was himself in favour of the increase of small holdings; and he should be prepared to ask Parliament, at the proper time, to co-operate in assisting landlords and tenants to break up the larger farms, in order to supply a large proportion of the people with land to cultivate. He contended that an increase of small holdings was very advisable in the interests of the landlords and the larger farmers themselves. He would next refer to the case of the agricultural labourer. If they wore to maintain their position in farm-
    354
    ing a much larger amount of labour must be employed on the soil. In Scotland the married ploughmen with their families composed a most exemplary class. They were sober, industrious, and self-denying, and in bringing up their children they sought to equip them, well for the world; but he was sorry to say that the house accommodation they had was not what it ought to be. For that the landlord was responsible the farmer had not hitherto been in a position to do for the agricultural labourer what he would like to do; but when the farmer was made secure he would find it his interest and his duty to provide the labourer, if not with the "three acres and a cow," of which they had lately heard so much, with at least as much land as he could conveniently cultivate in his spare hours, and in many oases with the cow also. He could tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that the idea of three acres and a cow did not seem quite so impracticable or so absurd to the labourers as it appeared to be to them; and the extension of the system of giving small patches of land to the agricultural labourers by hon. Gentlemen opposite would probably secure more support for Conservatism than the establishment of a Primrose Habitation in every parish throughout the country. The question which he had brought forward was a pressing one. It might be delayed—it could not be evaded; and the longer it was delayed the greater would be the suffering the hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
    GENERAL SIR GEOEGE BALFOURseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    By inserting, after the word "Agriculture," in the 11th paragraph, the words "and humbly to represent the pressing necessity for securing without delay to the cultivators of the soil such conditions of tenure as will aid and encourage them to meet the new and trying circumstance, in which the Agriculture of the Country is placed."—[Mr. Barclay.)
    Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he was not surprised that the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had addressed the House in the manner he had done. He recognized among the various platitudes which the hon. Member had given them some portions of

    355
    those numerous speeches which had been fully recorded in Northern newspapers. He did not think that the hon. Gentleman had adduced any new matter on a very important subject; and while deeply sympathizing with the agricultural interest, he (Mr. Stewart) could not agree with the various remedies the hon. Member proposed. For himself, he expressed the gratification he felt, in common, he was sure, with the whole House, at the sympathy manifested in the gracious Speech from the Throne with the deplorably depressed state of agriculture and trade. There was great distress in every branch of agriculture, and in none was there visible any symptom of revival. The dairying department, which had long striven to meet in some degree the difficulties of the times, was now suffering severely from the recent fall of prices. Representing, as he did, a purely agricultural county, he could state that occupiers of land who had hitherto braved that disastrous period could no longer rely on that system to pay their rent. If agriculture, the greatest industry of the British Isles, suffered, the whole country must suffer with it, and the well-being of vast numbers of people who were totally unfitted for any other employment or vocation in life was at stake. He had not perceived that much commiseration had been shown by hon. Members opposite for the hardships existing among the county constituencies which they were so anxious to represent. Even in the Manifesto and the speeches of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) the unfortunate condition of agriculture was wholly ignored. It was not fair to taunt the landlords with taking as much as they could get; because the tenants had held their farms, as a general rule, during prosperous times, and had made their money out of the land. The hon. Member had alluded to the state of Ireland; but that was not a very happy illustration, for they heard anything but glowing accounts of the working of the Land Act, fixity of tenure, and fair rent. These were matters to be settled, not merely by debates in the House, but by practical observation. It had been suggested that the system of yearly valuation by the Fiars Courts in Scotland j might be extended to the rents of farms; and he might point out that something of the kind already existed in certain parts of the country, rents being in-
    356
    creased or diminished as the price of wheat rose or fell. That gave the tenant a fair chance of paying his rent, even though prices became exceedingly low. The prices of dairy produce, &c, might also be taken into consideration, and in that way some satisfaction was now given by perpetual abatement of rent. Landlords were not, as was sometimes represented, turning a deaf ear to their tenants grievances these who were able were giving very largo abatements of rent. Some were not able to do so. They were themselves in difficulties through no fault of their own. The class was, in his opinion, to be judged by these who had the means, and who were willing to distribute that means. The hon. Member had twitted the Conservatives with believing and propagating the story of three acres and a cow. Well, that was a story which served the Liberal Party a good turn during the early part of the late General Election, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) waited a long time before he repudiated its authorship. So long as it served the purpose for which it was originated, the three acres and the cow doctrine was held to be the pet child of the improvement of the agricultural labourer's social condition. Speaking as a landlord, and as one interested in the management of a large property, he might say it had been his desire and his practice to encourage the growth of small farms, although he knew how much the pocket suffered through the necessity for building suitable steadings. What landlords did not like was that their land should be compulsorily seized at the option of some Local Authority. He might also mention in this connection that he had known many instances where a labourer who had a garden attached to his dwelling allowed a part of it to run wild rather than cultivate it. Members on that (the Conservative) side of the House would be delighted if any way could be shown by which the agricultural labourer could be provided with the necessary capital to buy his cow, and sufficient plant to farm three or four acres of land. He would be the first to encourage in every possible way that spirit of self-dependence which was so much to be desired among the agricultural community. He trusted they would see many small proprietorships take the place of some of the larger farms; but it must be remembered that the forma-

    357
    tion of these largo farms had been caused by the fact that hitherto it had been found impossible to make the small holdings pay. Even the large farmers found it difficult to make a living in these distressful times. It had been suggested that estates should be re-valued, and he had no doubt that it would come to that if these bad times continued. Many landlords who knew the impossibility of getting the present rents would take a reasonable view of the matter, and be satisfied with a thoroughly fair revaluation, although it was no easy matter in the present condition of affairs, and with such largo importations of grain and moat from America, to fix what a fair valuation was. The hon. Member (Mr. Barclay) found fault, to some extent, with the system of 19 years' leases; but although that system had not found much favour in England, it had been popular in Scotland, and had done a great deal of good until these very depressing times sot in. The tenant had practically the entire control of the land for the 19 years; and although the landlord reserved certain conditional powers, he had nover known a case in which they had been exercised. In conclusion, he expressed his disappointment with the working of the Arbitration or Referee Clause of the Agricultural Holdings Act. There was no sort of confidence in it, and it ought to be amended. He hoped the hon. Member would not deem it necessary to move his Amendment to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech.
    GENERAL SIR GEOEGE BALFOURsaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire. The hon. Member who had spoken last had confined himself to deprecating the remedies which the hon. Member for Forfarshire had suggested, and had refrained from giving the House the benefit of his own knowledge and experience, as he might very well have done. It would have been useful, as well as interesting, to have heard the results from the 10,000 cows kept by the Dairy Company of which the hon. Member was Chairman. The remark had been made that there was great difficulty in saying what the causes of the existing depression really were. He would mention one cause. He believed that most of the landlords had the welfare of the farmers
    358
    at heart; but he said distinctly that one of the great causes of the evil was the inability of the farmers to pay their rent. In 1855 the farm rentals of England, Wales, and Scotland amounted to £46,000,000 per annum, and since that time they had gone on increasing till they reached a sum of no less than £58,000,000. In this way £12,000,000 of rental had been added to the farmers' burdens since 1855. That fact pointed to one way by which the farmers could be relieved; if they would bring back the rentals of 1855 they would in some degree enable the farmers to pay rents. It was far from his desire to advocate the ruin or unjust spoliation of landlords, because he well knew that no class could be injured without injuring all classes. His object was to enable landlords, farmers, and labourers to live. But whilst landlords had had high routs, farmers had suffered. He believed that the £400,000,000 of capital necessary for the cultivation of the land by the farmers had been nearly exhausted; but, nevertheless, he had great hopes that if only Parliament would give security to the farmers they would be able to find capital wherewith to carry on advantageously the agriculture of the country. It was essential that the farming should be so improved as to yield more produce to meet the high rents; but if the present system of poor cultivation were continued the tenants would disappear, and the fields already out of heart from insufficient manuring would be still further destroyed. Abatements of rent were only partial remedies, and there must be something more substantial. As to the labourers, he might say that in his part of the country they had shown a surprising degree of intelligence. Their dwellings, however, wore quite insufficient for their comfort; and unless Parliament enabled the farmers to provide the necessary cottages they must look forward to still greater evils in the country. He advocated the conclusions of his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay), and maintained that if no remedy were devised evils might occur the same as in Ireland. He urged that information should be obtained and published as to the value of the produce that was raised on the soil. As to the question of small farms, he had the conviction that small farms would be more successful and would pay better than

    359
    large ones. He strongly urged that the landlords should have more regard for the old farmers. Many farmers had gone away ruined, and their place had been taken by younger men by no means so well qualified to till the land as the old farmers.
    COLONEL BROOKEIELDsaid, he was quite ready to second the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) in advocating any moderate measures for the welfare of agriculture in general; but it was not right that the impression should get abroad that agricultural depression was confined to one part of the Kingdom only. Those who, like himself, represented essentially agricultural constituencies in the South of England were more alive to the facts of the case, and represented more persons directly interested in agriculture than even the hon. and gallant Member. The object of the present debate, he thought, was liable to be lost sight of, especially by new Members. That object was to send a loyal Address to Her Majesty in reply to the Speech from the Throne; and he did not believe that any particular agricultural interest would be advanced by further delaying the adoption of the Address. It was true that affairs had reached a desperate pass; but when the time came for discussing the grievances of agriculturists it would be found that these who were interested in the matter formed a much stronger Party than these who occupied the very sparsely filled Benches that evening. Speaking for the part of the country which he represented, he must say that one of the most essential measures which they looked forward to was the revision of the present system of local taxation. He was glad to hear that the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire avoided the general cant of the day, and admitted that it would be desirable that rents should be as high as in 1855. It was for the interest of all that we should have good rents, good prices, and good wages. There were some who seemed to grudge that their landlords should get good rents; but these gentlemen practically ignored the labourers as well as the landlords, and only thought of the tenants, with whom they happened for the moment to be identified. But the progress of democracy was so rapid —["Hear, hear!"] —that Gentlemen
    360
    who said "Hear, hear!" would probably disappear from the House altogether in the course of time, and it might be the duty of the Speaker to preside over a House of Commons entirely composed of agricultural labourers; but as they advanced in that direction they would sooner or later have to consider whether they would not impose retaliatory tariffs. The tendency of thought in all classes of society was, he observed, moving in that way. Our present commercial policy was more or less suicidal. [Cries of "No!"] Well, he spoke his own opinion, and he believed they must sooner or later cease the custom of giving to foreign countries that which was meant for ourselves. He was unable to support the Amendment; but he cordially agreed with many of the observations that fell from the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay).
    MR. ESSLEMONTsaid, two hon. Members opposite had sneered at the speeches which had been delivered from his side of the House; but he could assure them that these speeches represented the feelings of the agricultural interest in the North, and that they could not be ignored. The hon. and gallant Member who had just resumed his seat had assured them that there was a sentiment of co-operation on the part of hon. Gentlemen representing agriculture on the opposite side towards hon. Members on his side; but he would point out that it was against the omission of that sentiment from Her Majesty's Gracious Speech that they were now protesting. There certainly was an allusion to the depression of trade and agriculture; but he would tell hon. Gentlemen on the other side that more was wanted than sympathy. It had been said that the most practical way of giving evidence of sympathy was by landlords granting such a reduction of rents as would enable the tenant to tide over the prevailing depression until the arrival of better times. He wished hon. Gentlemen opposite to tell the House what were the tenant farmers and crofters to do who did not live under a beneficent landlord who had given a reduction of rent? But he would also ask whether it was fair, or consistent with a proper independence of spirit and of action, that the agricultural interest should be placed in the position of recipients of the mere charity of the land-

    361
    lords; and whether the circumstances were not such as entitled them to more than the charity of these under whom they sat? It appeared to him that nothing would so much depreciate the spirit and enterprize of agriculture as a sense of dependence on the charity and beneficence of proprietors. What the tenant fanners wished was that the regulations under which they hold their farms should be such as to give to the proprietor his fair and equitable rights, and, at the same time, to prevent the possibility of their hard-won earnings being confiscated. The present Land Laws had been made entirely in the interests of the proprietors, and against the interests of the tenants. He did not blame former Parliaments for having passed laws in their own interests; nothing else could have been expected, when the agricultural labourers and the small farmers were unrepresented; but he would ask hon. Members opposite to give their best consideration to the present emergencies and circumstances, and say candidly whether, under the present Land Laws, a remedy may be found for the depression. He had heard with great pleasure from the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) the expression of his opinion that if there were a fair and equitable settlement of the important subject of the Land Laws a fair solution of a great part of the grievances felt in Ireland would be arrived at. As fur as Scotland was concerned, he was quite satisfied that exactly the same feeling and sentiment prevailed there; and that if they were fortunate enough to see such a measure brought forward as would be satisfactory and fair and equitable both to the proprietors and occupiers of the land a large amount of contentment would be produced, and a great stimulus to enterprize and energy among the agricultural population would be afforded. An hon. Member on the opposite side had suggested that rents should be fixed upon fiar; but he stopped short in implying that the Government would give effect to that opinion. He (Mr. Esslemont) believed that if rents were settled on the principle of fiar it would, to a largo extent, meet the pro-sent difficulty. The depression of prices had placed these farmers who were under leases in a position in which they were unable to pay the rents that they
    362
    had promised. It was quite true that farmers in Scotland had encouraged leases; but he would remind the House that leases of 19 years were all very well when land for 50 years was increasing in value at the rate of about 1 per cont per annum. Times were changed now; and it was not reasonable to say that the farmers ought to have foreseen the great factors which had recently come into play. The bringing of food from all parts of the world, by the reduction of the cost of transit was a factor in itself sufficient to have upset all the calculations formed by either landlords or tenants. In the circumstances, he appealed to the Government to meet the emergency by such a remedial measure as would prevent the tenant—if he was obliged to continue his lease—from losing all his capital, and all his enterprize and spirit. They must not expect that the tenant farmers would be put off with a mere sentiment of sympathy. He must earnestly give it as his opinion, formed on long experience, and with an intimate knowledge of agriculture in Scotland, that if remedial measures were not proposed in the present Parliament, a state of things would arise which would be disastrous to the tenant farmers, and inimical to the best interests of the country. The tenant farmers and labourers did not wish any measure which would bring disaster to the landlords. An hon. Member opposite had asked why the landlord should not get a good rent if it was earned, and there was nothing against that; but what the tenant farmers of Scotland objected to was the giving to the landlord of a large rent which he had not earned, and had done nothing to earn, but which the tenant farmers and crofters and labourers had earned by their enterprize and industry. The country had been made rich, not by the landlords, but by the bone and sinew of the labourer and the farmer; and all they wanted was that the proprietor should, by law and justice, share in the depression. Beyond that the farmers and labourers did not want to go. They desired to deal generously and respectfully with the landlords; but they ought not to be asked to yield up the last penny they had earned to these who had, in many cases, contributed nothing—["Oh, oh!" and cheers]—yes; and, in most cases, very little to that

    363
    wealth and progress which had been so marked during the last half-century.
    VISCOUNT GRIMSTON,in opposing the Amendment, said, he wished to call attention to the question of leases. They had had very strong evidence of their inutility in the case of the Sister Isle, where, only a short time ago, a law was passed, which practically gave a 15 years' lease, at what was then considered a low rent, to large numbers of agricultural tenants. But now, from the language of hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House, it appeared that there was hardship in having to pay that rent, on account of the prevailing depression. But it would be a hardship on a landlord to give a reduction of rent on leaseholds, as he got no proportionate increase of rent in prosperous times. Therefore, he thought that leases were not good for agriculturists. Again, he did not approve of legislation as between landlord and tenant; for they all stood upon the same ground—landlord, tenant, and labourer—and must stand or fall together. It was necessary to promote that good understanding and good feeling which alone made a community prosperous and happy; and he was convinced that that great desideratum could only be attained by friendly action between the landlord and the tenant and by their assisting each other. In these hard times landlords had reduced rents, tenants were foregoing a portion of their returns, and oven the poor labourers were receiving a less wage than a few years ago; but he was convinced, if they hoped for prosperity, they must not act one against the other, for they were all in the same beat, and would sink or swim together. The Legislature might take steps to aid these who were concerned in agriculture by relieving the pressure of local burdens, like the education rate and highway rate. He could not understand why the landlords should be the only sufferers from legislative action. If legislation, detrimental to the interests of the landlord, were passed for the benefit of the tenant, the labourer, in his turn, would very soon cry out against the farmer. He did not approve of legislative interference, when satisfactory results might with more facility be arrived at by mutual arrangement. In England, tenants could make almost what terms they pleased with
    364
    landlords, for there were more farms to let now than tenants to take them. He held that the landlord should recognize that his fortune was indissolubly bound up with that of the tenant and the labourer, and maintained that the interests of all parties would be best served by conducting their business as friends.
    ME. JAMES ELLISsaid, he quite agreed with many of the remarks that had fallen from hon. Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House during the course of the debate, and he should support the Amendment because he believed that, at the present time, the agricultural question, as a whole, was the greatest question that could occupy the thoughts of the Government. He thought, moreover, that the matter ought to be given due prominence in the reply to the Speech from the Throne. He would never have been in the House of Commons, and he should never have taken part in politics at all, if it had not been from the wrongs he had suffered as an agricultural tenant. When he was 21 years of age he was silly enough to take a farm on an annual tenancy. Thank goodness he had other things to do besides farming, or he would have been ruined. On that farm he planted trees, made improvements, and, he was sorry to say, built cottages, and what was the result? At the end of 14 years he received six months' notice to quit, and his trees, his improvements, and his property to the value of £800 were taken from him. That was how he had been treated; and from then to the end of his life he had determined that he would fight on the side of the agricultural tenant. This was not his case alone. It was the case of his ancestors, and the case of the people who were living around him, and who had been robbed. His father had taken a farm on an agreement that he should kill these vermin, the rabbits; but a young man came into the property, and when he grew up he was like the Israelites in Egypt, he did not know Joseph. He was eaten out of the farm; for when he attempted to kill the rabbits he was warned off the land. He had no freedom; and until they had free men on the farms, and in their villages, the same thing would happen. His ancestors for ages, on both sides, had been tenant farmers. [Laughter.] Did they think they would stop his speaking by laughing? He told them

    365
    his ancestors for ages were tenant farmers; and although he was not a tenant farmer now himself, he had got still a bit of land that he occupied, and he was sorry to say he lost money by it. Whether the Government or hon. Gentlemen opposite took up this question or not, hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House were determined to do so. The real question at issue was, whether the people who tilled the land were not the people who should own it? He should support the Amendment, although it did not in every particular meet his views.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. MACDONALD)said, he presumed that the Members of the House of Commons would not be led into the belief that the state of the country was that the landlords were combined together for the purpose of oppression and behaving unfairly to their tenants at the present time. He presumed that there was no relation of life in connection with which there were not to be found numerous instances of gross and scandalous injustice; but to bring up for purposes of argument, as fair specimens of the state of things in this country at the present time, those isolated illustrations adduced by the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. James Ellis) was manifestly unfair and misleading, and, in fact, reduced a subject of the most grave and serious importance to the level of the burlesque. He could not help noticing throughout the debate that the whole question had been treated by hon. Members who had spoken on the opposite side as if the whole depression at present oppressing this country related to agriculture alone. All would agree, on the contrary, that it was a time of great depression in all classes and positions of life; and when hon. Gentlemen considered the matter with care, they would come to the certain conclusion that they never could have a long and severe agricultural depression in a country like ours without that depression spreading its wave of misery beyond these who cultivated the soil. They could not possibly impose upon the landlords of this country more than their fair share of the general depression without affecting the interests of a great number of people, who were just as much labourers as these who cultivated the soil. It was quite certain that the landlords of this country did not use the rents they re-
    366
    ceived for the purpose of hoarding them up. They had a large expenditure of money, and many of them employed a large number of people. But it was equally certain that the moment it became necessary to give reductions of rents it at once became imperative to reduce their establishments, and thus, ultimately, the labouring classes would suffer. Therefore, these things could not be considered in a narrow spirit, or in reference to a state of depression applicable to one particular industry alone. Agricultural depression reacted, and must always do so, upon the welfare of the whole community. Now, if that was so, Her Majesty's Government took a proper stop last Session in endeavouring to discover the cause of this depression, not merely in the agricultural interest, but in all other interests in which this country carried on its hitherto prosperous work. This step was wise and deserving of support. He ventured to ask whether, now that this agricultural depression was being pressed on the attention of the now Parliament, it had been wise or unwise of the Government to propose, last July, that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into this subject; and if the right hon. Gentlemen who sat opposite, and whom he was sorry to see represented during this important debate only by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Lord Advocate and his hon. and learned Friend the late Solicitor General for Scotland—if those Gentlemen thought the proposal of the Government a wise one, he asked, if the Opposition deemed it a proper response to make to that effort to find a remedy for a very serious matter to practically "Boycott" it? He hoped before the debate closed to hear from them what practical suggestions they had formed in their own minds for the purpose of meeting this great difficulty; for he presumed they would not be told that the difficulties had arisen since the present Government took Office. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had told them that agricultural depression had existed for a period of about 10 years. If that were so, he (the Lord Advocate) wanted to know who it was who, during that time, had had the best opportunity of studying, and examining, and finding out the causes of that depression? He wanted to know what statistics, what information, the late Go-

    367
    vernment obtained, from the time they were in Office, for the purpose of informing their Successors as to the real state of things? The hon. Member for Forfarshire told them that, in his opinion, the agricultural depression had become of a permanent character. For his own part, he (the Lord Advocate) trusted that was not so, and he felt sure that the hon. Member had stated the case rather too broadly. But his statements indicated the hopeless condition into which many men had fallen in consequence of the agricultural depression having lasted so much longer than any agricultural depression which had taken place during the memory of any Member of that House. If that was so, it was quite plain that it could not be met by any empirical or carelessly thought-out remedies. It was better to wait for the result of the inquiry, than to adopt a hasty remedy which might bring about a worse condition of affairs than that at present prevailing. They had heard speeches on the subject from Gentlemen who were honestly and deeply interested in the subject—from the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Esslemont) and the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour). He (the Lord Advocate) had listened carefully to those hon. Members speeches, and what had been the real and practical remedies proposed by them? He found that the remedy suggested as regarded his own country had been practically the abolition of 19 years' leases. For his own part, he was rather inclined to agree that this was a practical suggestion. But when hon. Members found fault with the 19 years' leases as being the system under which the landlords found a means of oppressing their tenants, if they would only look back to the history of Scotland they would find that it was in the interests and at the desire of the tenants that the 19 years' leases were instituted, and what was more, in the year 1855, which had been referred to, under that system the farmers of Scotland were in a very prosperous condition. The 19 years' leases, however, might have proved, in some respects, to be a failure under the present depression; and he thought landlords and tenants alike were satisfied that a modification of the system was necessary as long as this exceptional and crushing depression existed. But he trusted they
    368
    were all satisfied that it was exceptional —exceptional in its severity and in its length. If it was not exceptional in its severity and in its length, then, to that extent, it was an incurable depression, and no moans they could take would have the effect of restoring agriculture to the state of prosperity in which it once stood. If the present state of things were to continue to exist which now existed, then at all times landlords and tenants must be worse off, and they would only hope that the labourer would not be worse off too. The hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire made a suggestion that money should be found in the form of capital, to enable tenants to carry on their farms and work them better than they could do at the present time, in consequence of their having lost so much and being so depressed in mind. He (the Lord Advocate) thought that was a most practical suggestion; but was it not a suggestion which must be worked out after some inquiry as to how it was to be done, as to the means by which it was to be carried out, and as to the results which might be expected from it? How could that be better done than by means of an inquiry before the Royal Commission, which necessarily must take some time to complete its labours? Was it not wiser to take some time in considering what they were going to do to meet the great and trying crisis than to adopt some empirical remedy, the adoption of which might turn out worse than the original evil, at the suggestion, perhaps, of persons who had not deeply studied the question? Another practical suggestion he had heard was to create market gardens and grow fruit trees. There was no doubt that, wherever a man could got a market for the produce of a market garden, he could not have a better investment for his money; but did any hon. Member suggest that that was really a solid and practical remedy for this agricultural depression which was crushing the whole country at the present moment? It might benefit one man out of 100. So far it was a valuable and useful suggestion; but these who lived near large towns, and so had a market for produce, were surely clever enough to understand their own interests. Was there at present any lack of good, cheap garden produce in their great towns? ["Yes!"] Very well, then, if there was, they would be for appropriat-

    369
    ing a certain amount of land for market gardens. Did any hon. Member suppose that if a landlord thought he could get a reasonable rent out of his land at the present moment by turning it into a market garden he would not turn it into such a garden? Some time ago they had had a practical suggestion from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone)—a man of great experience in life, and no doubt of great experience as regarded agricultural matters. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion was that farmers should take to growing strawberries. He (the Lord Advocate) could not say but that was a very large and increasing industry in Scotland. It so happened that the soil of Aberdeen shire was specially favourable to the growth of that excellent fruit, and a very large trade was done in sending strawberries to London. Indeed, it might be said of Aberdeen that strawberries grown there found a sale in the market later in the season than other fruit produced in more southern districts. But he would again ask whether anybody, even if they took the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian as the best guide they could get on any subject, supposed that the agricultural depression would be materially affected, even to the extent of 1 per cent, by the growth of strawberries? The hon. Member for Forfarshire had spoken of what had happened in Ireland, and said that the agitation had spread itself to the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and was now cropping up also in Wales, and that very soon, if they did not take care, it would occur in Forfarshire and Kincardineshire. He (the Lord Advocate) recollected how they were told, many years ago, that the whole and sole reason for having any such legislation as they had had for Ireland was that Ireland was an entirely exceptional country; and if the Western Highlands of Scotland were not looked upon by the hon. Gentleman who sat opposite him as being entirely exceptional in Scotland, he should like to know why, in the Crofters Bill which the late Government brought in last year, they expressly named only the counties on the West Coast and the Islands of Scotland? Now, however, they were told that the agitation was spreading over the whole of Scotland as well. The hon. Member had reproached him for
    370
    smiling, but had quite misinterpreted his smile. He could not help smiling, when he recollected how Parliament was drawn into legislation for Ireland upon what proved to be the hollow pretence that Ireland was an entirely exceptional country. As he had referred to the subject of Ireland, he must say, judging from the tone of Irish Members who sat below the Gangway, that, whatever the present Government might resolve to do in connection with this matter, he did not think they could find much encouragement from the success of the Irish Land legislation. What was now asked for was that there should be some one on behalf of the Government to value property. That had been done under the Land Act of 1881, following that of 1871. It was supposed at the time that the Irish Land Act of 1881 would be absolutely final, and would remove all discontent in Ireland. Now, however, they found, from the way in which hon. Gentlemen from Ireland expressed themselves, that never at any time were the people so discontented, as an agricultural population, than they were after the heroic legislation of 1871 and 1881. They were told the present was a Government in a minority; and they were called upon by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House to go in for legislation the same as they themselves had gone in for before, which, by the declaration of some Gentlemen who spoke on that side, had, in so far as it had been intended to produce contentment and peace in Ireland, been a total failure. ["No, no!"] He observed that it was not hon. Gentlemen from Ireland who said "No, no!" When up to this time any statement was made with which Irish Members disagreed the House soon heard the voices of these hon. Gentlemen; but they were silent now. For instance, in the course of the debates which had already taken place he had heard cries of great dissent when it was suggested that Ireland was not in the most miserable, degraded, and hold-down condition. But they made no sign of dissent when it was stated that the legislation of 1871 and 1881 had not produced contentment in Ireland. Well, if that was the state of matters, he ventured to say that the Government would be justified, and would have enough to do in the coming Session, whether it were a Ministry in a minority or not, in

    371
    carrying what undoubtedly was the first necessary sequel of the legislation of last Session, for the purpose of giving local beards to the counties. The depression in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales and England was not one bit greater at that moment than it was at any time during the last Session. ["Yes, yes!"] Well, it was greater in this sense, no doubt, that it was still protracted for a greater length of time; but it was only greater in that respect. They knew how long it had prevailed; but he ventured to think that if it had lasted for 10 years they had some reason, when hon. Gentlemen rose up on the other side of the House and asked the Government to cure it in their first Session, to inquire why it was never dealt with before. The present Government had not before them the materials prepared by the late Government for dealing with it; and if they would supply the information which they did collect for the good of the country upon that matter, and show them that the Royal Commission appointed by the Government was unnecessary, then he thought they would have something to say on the question. The first duty of this Parliament was to carry out what necessarily must be the sequel of the legislation of last Session—namely, to confer a measure of local government upon these who lived in the counties. That was absolutely essential as their first duty; for the reason that whatever were the grounds that might be given for the course which was taken last Session, it was undoubtedly, in ordinary language, a putting of the cart before the horse. The natural course was to confer upon dwellers in the counties the management of their own affairs in the counties, as a training for the exercise of that more important franchise which required greater political education to enable them to use it with advantage to the State. In saying that he was only quoting the words of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington), who, in speaking on the question before it was quite settled whether a Franchise Bill was to be brought forward, expressed a decided opinion that, in the first place, the people ought to be trained by the exercise of the local franchise before they received the franchise for the election of Members to Parliament. The result of that course would be that they would have a far better body of public
    372
    opinion bearing upon the great questions which were raised in the Amendment. They would have county councils, who could discuss these matters and bring great light to bear upon them, which would be most useful in any future legislation which might be thought wise. He feared he had detained the House too long on the question of the tenure of land. ["No, no!"] If not, he should like to say a word or two on the establishment of small farms, and on what should be done for the labourers. As regarded small farms, he knew of no landlord who had any objection whatever to the establishment of small farm holdings; but he ventured to say that no one could suggest a time at which it was more difficult to carry out any such excellent scheme than a time when everybody was short of money. They could not possibly establish a largo number of new farms without an immense outlay in enabling the new small farmers to have a roof over their heads within reasonable reach of their farms, and to have proper farm buildings, proper approaches, and everything required to make farm work satisfactory. It was a most difficult thing to determine how that was to be done. Some people, possibly, might propose that a large sum should be given by the State; but the matter was one which required to be considered with the greatest and most earnest care, for fear they should make any mistake in the line they adopted. If they could at once, by the wave of a magician's wand, establish a number of small farms throughout the country, it might be of the greatest possible benefit; but it was a delusion and a snare if it were imagined that by any such means they could make the country carry a great increase of the population of the present time. ["Oh, oh!"] He repeated that it was a delusion and a snare to imagine that they could, by establishing a certain number of small farms, get rid of the difficulty that the population of this country increased so rapidly and so enormously, that the people from the country districts were constantly crowding the towns, and that labour in the towns was thereby made extremely cheap, to the benefit of the manufacturer. When people talked so much about the landlords, he thought it might be remembered also that there were certain things

    373
    which happened in this country which were of the greatest benefit to the manufacturers in the way of getting cheap labour. One word about the labourers. As to them, he knew something himself of the Scottish labourer in counties. He used to spend the summer months in his youth in one of the best-farmed counties in the world, he supposed—the county of Berwick—and he could say that at the time to which allusion had been made—between 1850 and 1860—there was not a more comfortable set of people for their position in life than the hinds of Berwickshire, and, he believed, of the neighbouring counties. They were well off; their houses were clean and well appointed; their families were well cared for; and they themselves were contented, well-fed, and happy. He knew something of them, and did not speak from having merely driven along the roads. These men had no exceptional privileges, except through the farmer for whom they worked. They got their long run of potatoes in a field; they kept their cow; and the farmer gave them the grass for the cow. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members cried "Hear, hear!" but was it not perfectly obvious that that was given them as part of their wages? Do not let them suppose that a thrifty Scottish farmer was going to allow a cow to graze on his farm and not take account of it? The use of the field for the cow was an easier way of paying wages than by giving money, and the labourers also got a good deal in kind, which probably would be objected to now on the ground of being against the Truck Act. What was wanted in the case of labourers was continuous and reasonably-paid work. They never could have that if they had an overgrown population; and if hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would transfer a largo number of starving operatives from Birmingham, Manchester, and other largo towns on to the soil in the counties they would find that a new difficulty would arise again in the course of half a generation. If they would devote all these men to celibacy they might do something with such a scheme; but people always forgot that putting down a certain number more of persons on a particular spot meant an exceptional increase of the population within a certain time, which necessarily must lead to emigration at one time or another before very
    374
    long. It must lead either to emigration into the towns where the workmen would compete one against the other, or to some land where there was loss competition; and he ventured to say they would never get rid of the difficulty about the labouring population of this country as long as people went about pretending to them that they would not really benefit themselves by going abroad. ["Oh, oh!"] They could not possibly sustain surplus population when wages were low; and they could not raise wages until they had got work enough, and just the proper number of people to do it to get good wages. They might fight as they pleased against that law; but that law would defeat them in the end. As regarded emigration, they all in that House belonged to what were called the bettor classes in life, and they went in for emigration. There was scarcely a man with a large family who had not one son either in India, Australia, or America; and when men went about to persuade the population that it was cruelty to induce them to emigrate, they did a grievous harm to the ignorant people whom they deceived. He would conclude by thanking the House for the attention with which they had listened to him; and if he did not now allude to the Crofter question it was because there was an Amendment on the Paper which would give another opportunity of speaking upon that subject.
    MR. DUCKHAMsaid, that in England farmers had the best market in the world in which to sell their produce; and yet on all hands a large area of land was in a sterile state, and much more was going out of cultivation. This must arise from a want of security. For many years tenants wore ruined by the preservation of game; and even in times of comparative prosperity landlords did nothing to improve the homesteads and protect the valuable properties of the manner from being washed away by the rains. Such a system had an inevitable tendency to reduce the number of tenants and the capital of the occupiers. The Lord Advocate had assumed that there was substantially no difference in the depression between last year and this; but since last year the prices of live stock had been reduced by 20 per cent, whilst corn was further reduced in price. No improvement in prices could be expected, with the immense vessels

    375
    that were crossing the Atlantic, bringing American produce that was distributed by our railways at preferential rates, while wages were rising and local taxation increasing. India, too, and even Australia were now sending largo quantities of wheat to this country; in fact, successfully competing with America. Something must be done to enable the occupiers of the soil to compote with foreign producers. True, rents were being reduced; but the merely casual and temporary reduction of rents kept occupiers in a state of uncertainty; they felt that should an unfortunate outbreak of war take place, and prices rose, rents would be raised. Land ought to be let in such a way that the tenant could pay the rent from year to year without having to go hat in hand to the landlord. A sitting tenant now had no security, for he knew that as soon as there was any temporary advance in the value of the produce his rent would be raised, and he would have to pay an increased rent for the very improvements he had made with his own capital. Compensation ought to be paid before rent was raised, the same as it would be had he to quit his holding and an increased rent obtained from his successor. One of the worst clauses in the Agricultural Holdings Act was that prohibiting compensation for what were called the inherent capabilities of the soil. If rents were to be regulated by the price of wheat, as suggested, they would be low indeed. The increase of live stock was hindered by the withholding of compensation for corn consumed on a farm; and restrictions of this kind operated most prejudicially against the adoption of the measures called for by foreign competition. Relief from local taxation would aid a little. The burden of local taxation was felt by the farmers of England more than of Scotland. There half the rates were paid by the landlords. The Scotch tenantry had been shrewd enough, when they saw fresh impositions threatening them to make that arrangement; but in England the farmers had submitted almost without remonstrance until they were weighed down with the burden. It was remarkable that agriculture had been omitted from the reference to the Commission now sitting, for the Report of which the Lord Advocate suggested the House should wait before
    376
    dealing with the question; and he believed that no agricultural authority was asked to sit upon it. The question of valuation for rating purposes must come to the front; and he hoped that before long there would be a good and equitable system propounded. The farmer, further, had also to fight against preferential rates, which was most unjust, and formed one of the numerous questions affecting agriculture demanding earnest consideration.
    MR. LONGsaid, that direct attacks had been made upon landlords as a class, and it had been denied that the remission of rents afforded any security to the tenants. But surely there was nothing better calculated to give a feeling of security to tenants than the fact that in hard times landlords were ready to moot them half way. There was no good to be gained by pointing out an evil unless they could suggest a remedy. It was said that the tenant wanted security; but surely the best security he could have was that he knew the landlord would do almost anything to keep him on his farm. He had great sympathy with the Amendment of the hon. Member, because it expressed to a very large extent his own feelings regarding the matter. He felt that the present state of agriculture demanded a greater attention than it had hitherto received from either Party in the House. The present depressed condition of agriculture was certainly grave enough to justify every word in which the hon. Member for Forfarshire had described it. The condition not only of the tenant farmers of the country, but also of the landlords, was so bad that it demanded the instantaneous and prompt attention of Parliament. But was there anything in the Amendment which would justify them in voting for it, thereby leading the House to believe that if it was passed the condition of agriculture would be improved, or that it would bring about a better state of things to the farmers? His opinion was that the tenant farmers desired to be placed on a fairer footing with these who at present competed with them; they wanted a fair field and no favour, and then they would be able to hold their own. At present the farmers were heavily handicapped with foreign competition; and it was absurd to say that their position would be materially improved if better security of tenure

    377
    were only granted. There were, no doubt, instances in which landlords had lamentably failed to do their duty. The hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Ellis) had detailed circumstances in which he and his ancestors had suffered at the hands of landlords. They could, at all events, congratulate him on the very satisfactory appearance which so distressed a farmer presented at the end of such a long record of unfair treatment. But it seemed to him that he and his ancestors must have walked very easily into a snare which must have been openly laid for them; and, with great respect for the hon. Member, he questioned very much whether the majority of tenant farmers would walk so blindly info a similar snare, or be so proud to talk about it afterwards. Did the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) believe that if tenants were given security of tenure it would induce them to spend more money in the cultivation of their holdings? Did the hon. Member propose a fixed rent and a fixed statutory term during which tenants should enjoy their holdings? How would the hon. Member be able to guarantee that in four or five years' time a similar fall would not take place, and leave the farmers much in the same position as they wore in now? He was certain that if an appeal was made to the tenant-farmers of England as a bedy—he spoke not of Scotland, the circumstances of which he did not know—to state what they desired most they would express a preference to be left to the arrangements which they were able and competent to make with their landlords, rather than that legislation should be passed for them on the lines laid down by the hon. Member for Forfarshire. In many of the speeches which had been delivered that evening a strong feeling had been apparent that the landlords, as a body, were opposed to the well-being and the prosperity of the tenants. Putting on one side the question that the interest of the landlords must be bound up with that of the tenants, he believed, as a rule, it would be found that the landlords and the tenants were as good friends as any two classes in the length and breadth of the country. So far from there being, either in the Conservative ranks or among the landlords of the country generally, any feeling opposed to the real interests of the tenant-
    378
    farmers, he believed that if any hon. Member proposed measures which had a practical chance of clearly benefiting tenant farmers as a class he would find them supported from all quarters of the House, and by landlords as well as by tenant farmers. The hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Cossham) the other day charged the Tory landlords and Tory parsons with having "Boycotted" those in this country who had voted for the Liberals. If that was his honest opinion it showed that his knowledge of the question upon which he spoke was very slight indeed; and if his information with regard to "Boycotting" in Ireland was as accurate as his description of the course he asserted had been taken by the Tory landlords and the Tory parsons in England, his remarks were not calculated to throw much light upon the subject. Above all, his remarks proved conclusively that the hon. Member did not know much about the question. He defied the hon. Member for Bristol to prove that the Tory landlords or the Tory parsons had, as a class, "Boycotted" the tenant farmers or anyone else. No doubt they might at times have done things which they would not like to defend in every particular; but had the Liberals done nothing of which they had reason to be ashamed? It seemed to him idle to make charges of this kind and attaching them to particular classes and to a particular Party. He had no doubt that the question of agriculture called for the immediate attention of the Government, no matter which Party happened to be in power at the time. Unless the Government, whether Tory or Liberal, realized that the agricultural question had reached very serious dimensions — unless they were prepared to put it in the forefront of their programme, and to deal with it not upon Party, but upon national lines—they would fail to do that which the country expected them to do. In this connection, too, the Government might well turn their attention to the subject of railway rates and charges. It seemed to him to be a monstrous state of things that railways in this country should convey homo produce at double the rates which were charged for that coming from foreign countries. It was for the interest of the whole country that something should be at once done to stimulate the great industry of agriculture.

    379
    ME. J. B. BALFOUR observed that, having regard to the course the debate had taken, he did not think his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) owed any apology to the House for having brought this subject under its notice. His hon. Friend had set forth in the forefront of his speech the magnitude and importance of the depression which now affected the agricultural interest; and that depression had been painted in even darker colours by hon. Members who had spoken on the opposite side. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Mark Stewart) had complained, indeed, of the failure of Members on the Opposition Benches duly to appreciate the depression of agriculture, and the tone of the hon. and gallant Member for Eye's (Colonel Brookfield's) remarks had been somewhat similar. That was quite a mistake; but, at the same time, he must observe that if the state of the agricultural interest was so urgent and important, surely it might fairly have been expected that the Government would have indicated in the Speech from the Throne their view whether any remedy for the evil was possible by way of legislation. That was, however, exactly what the Government had not done; and it was on account of their omission to do it that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire was brought forward. His hon. Friend did not desire to commit these who might give a general assent to his Amendment to any of the particular provisions that he had suggested. His hon. Friend had stated his own views, that was all; and he complained that the Government had nothing whatever to suggest. All that Gentlemen on the other side had urged in answer was only a recrimination against these who had declined to serve on the Commission on the Depression of Trade, as if their refusal implied indifference to that question. But all who had followed the course of the discussion on the appointment of that Commission must have been very well satisfied that these who declined to serve on it gave what most of them on that side thought very good and sufficient reasons for not serving. These reasons might be very shortly summarized in two sentences. In the first place, there had been, and was, a very prevalent idea that it was what was commonly called a "Fair
    380
    Trade" Commission ["No!"]; and, secondly, these who justly appreciated the magnitude of the agricultural question felt strongly that a Royal Commission would in this, as in so many other cases, prove a way of postponing or shelving it. The idea that it was a "Fair Trade" Commission derived confirmation from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, who had pointed out that the only remedial matter, after local taxation, related to hostile foreign tariffs. If the Government thought that nothing but an inquiry into the causes of trade depression generally, and all over the world, could be suggested by way of amending the condition of the tenant farmers and labourers of this country, it was well that that fact should be generally known. But surely while there was no doubt a connection between the cardinal industry of agriculture and all other industries and trades, there wore also points relating to the occupancy and tenure of land which could be considered, and on which the judgment of Parliament could be taken quite apart from and independently of the inquiry before the Royal Commission. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Mark Stewart) had spoken of the very slender references made to that matter by Liberal candidates, and particularly by his right hon. Friend. (Mr. Gladstone), at the late Election; but if that hon. Member had read the speech delivered by his right hon. Friend at Dalkeith, he would find that the question of the land had not been overlooked. The question of the land had been put in the forefront by the Liberal Party.
    MR. MARK STEWARTexplained that what he had remarked upon was the almost entire absence from Liberal speeches of any allusion to the depressed state of the agricultural interest.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, if the hon. Member only meant that there were few expressions of barren sympathy with agricultural distress from Liberal candidates, he might be right; because these who aspired to seats in that House hoped to have something more practical to offer than mere commiseration. A great deal had been said about the Agricultural Holdings Acts. Well, no one who had had anything to do with the framing of these Acts considered that they were perfect. They were a very great step at the time; but they could

    381
    not shut their eyes to the experience they had had since the passing of these Acts. There was, by general consent, a variety of defects in them which, he hoped, it would be possible to amend. One of the points to be considered related to security for tenants' improvements. Again, while the case of the farmer was very urgent, that of the labourer, by universal consent, also required to be dealt with at a very early date. Why should they delay the introduction of a measure providing the labourer with an allotment, or a bit of land to cultivate as his own, until the inquiry into the general state of trade was concluded? Nothing like irritation or indignation against a particular class existed on his side of the House. What they desired was, that all the classes interested in the land, and certainly including the landlords, should each be placed on an equitable footing, by which they should all receive a just share in the products of the soil. He, therefore, hoped it would be clearly understood that there was not the least wish to deal unjustly with any class; and he would be sorry if any Government were to do anything that would have that effect. This was not the time or the place for these who were merely expressing regret that a particular matter had been entirely overlooked in the legislative proposals of the Government to table their own schemes. He thought no one who had followed the discussions throughout the electoral campaign could doubt that there were remedies, whether they might meet with the approval of this House or not, that the laws relating to the tenure and occupancy of land were not perfect, and that, not being perfect, and the magnitude and importance of the evil being recognized, it was the incumbent and urgent duty of these who had to frame the Speech for Her Majesty to make some suggestion by way of amendment which might, at all events, mitigate, if it did not entirely remove, those evils.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. CHAPLIN): The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has blamed Her Majesty's Government because while calling attention to the fact of agricultural depression we have not indicated a remedy for it. I admit that it is very difficult, at the present time, to suggest
    382
    a remedy for that depression. The real cause of the depression is to be found in the great depreciation in the price of agricultural produce which has taken place during the last few years. I do not suppose that the right hon. and learned Gentleman anticipated that either the present or any other Government would be prepared to come to Parliament with proposals for any artificial means of raising the price of agricultural produce; and unless such proposals were made it would be very difficult to suggest anything that would be a remedy for that depression. One of the great complaints that have been made by agriculturists for years past is that the land is heavily and unfairly rated. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had taken the trouble to study the Speech from the Throne he would have seen that a measure dealing with County Government will shortly be laid before the House, and that mea-sure will propose to give substantial relief to the land with regard to local burdens. The hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham) has suggested that the burden of the rates might be divided between the landowners and the farmers. That is one of the recommendations which was made by the Royal Commission appointed some few years ago by a Conservative Government; but although the Liberal Party have been in Office, with the exception of the last few months, ever since that recommendation was made they have taken no steps to carry it into effect. The hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Long) has also expressed some anxiety that recommendations should be made for the relief of agricultural depression; but the only suggestion the hon. Member has made himself is one with regard to preferential railway rates, which is a subject that has already engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government. Moreover, Her Majesty's Government had scarcely been 10 days in Office when they thought it was their duty to propose an Address to Her Majesty praying her to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into all the causes of the depression of trade. That Commission is now engaged in investigating the whole question; and it is no doubt considering, among other subjects, the question of preferential railway rates. I entirely agree with the Mover of this Amendment that this is a most important and

    383
    grave question; but I am not surprised that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) in his speech made no reference to it, and suggested no remedy for the evil. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt laboured under the same difficulty that the Government do in proposing any adequate remedy for agricultural depression. One feature is encouraging. All classes throughout the country are becoming alive to the fact that it is a matter of great importance not only to these who are directly connected with agriculture, but to all classes of the community. The only danger I fear is that some of these who are not thoroughly instructed in the subject may be led into wishing to adopt some of these remedies which have been frequently proposed, and, if adopted, would prove to be wholly delusive. Indeed, their only effect would be to aggravate and increase the existing depression. What is the case of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay), who has moved the Amendment on this occasion? I confess I have experienced some difficulty in finding out exactly what he wants. He has contrasted the position of a farmer in England with that of a farmer on the other side of the Atlantic. He talked about the general consensus of opinion on the part of the farmers of the country; but perhaps he will forgive me for saying that I altogether question his right to speak on behalf of the farmers of the country. He told us that, in his opinion, the Agricultural Holdings Act has proved a complete failure altogether. Finally, he said that the three essential requirements are freedom of cultivation, security for capital, and moderate rents. I should be disposed, generally speaking, to answer these three requirements in this way. It cannot be doubted that the farmer, at the present time, is absolutely master of the situation. The difficulty in these days is not for a farmer to get a farm, but for a landlord to find a tenant. In such circumstances, if a farmer fails to make an agreement, which gives him freedom of cultivation, security for capital, and moderate rent, he has nobody to blame but himself. I will give an instance which occurred only a few days ago. I was reading a letter, which was addressed by one of the best farmers in England to a man who was generally considered to
    384
    be an excellent landlord. It was a letter resigning his farm, which was a first-class farm, in admirable order, and thoroughly equipped with every modern requirement, and it was let at what the tenant admitted to be a reasonable rent. Well, what is the purport of that letter? The purport of the letter was, in the first place, to express the writer's grief at finding the time had come when it was absolutely necessary for him to give up his farm. A more kindly or more generous letter was never written by a tenant to a landlord; but what he says is this—
    "I have had such heavy losses for many-years that it is impossible for me to continue in this business. You have granted mo everything I ask; you have made reductions of rent, which have been liberal in the extreme, and for the last few years I have never made a request which was not acceded to by you. If your farm is worth farming at all, it is worth a great deal more than I am paying you at the present time."
    [Opposition laughter.] Hon. Members opposite seem to think that this is a matter for laughter and amusement; but I venture to think that they very much under-estimate the gravity of the position. So grave and serious is that position, that in treating it as a matter of amusement hon. Members are labouring under a great mistake. The writer of this letter winds up in this way—
    "If your farm is worth farming at all, it is worth a great deal more than I am paying you at the present time; but so serious has the agricultural position become, that I must decline any longer to invest capital in anything of the kind."
    The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay), when he contrasted the position of the English farmer with that of the farmer in America, suggested that if there were more freedom of cultivation here, as in America, farmers might embark more largely on dairy business than they do at present. The fact is, that that has already been done in a great many parts of England, with this result—that the competition in that line of industry has already become so great that prices have depreciated, and some farmers have been obliged to give it up. Allow me to say a word or two on the subject of freedom of cultivation. "Freedom of cultivation" has a captivating sound; but there are two parties to be considered in the matter. Although it may be desirable on the one

    385
    hand that farmers should have as much freedom of cultivation as can be allowed, and as is compatible with the interests of the landlord, I do not suppose that even the hon. Member for Forfarshire would desire to allow freedom of cultivation to such an extent that a farmer might hold a farm for three or four years, cultivate it as he liked, rum it irretrievably for a number of years, and then hand it back to the landlord. What security would the landlord have for his own protection and fair treatment? Yet that is the meaning of freedom of cultivation unless precautions are taken for the fair treatment of the landlords; and on that point the hon. Member for Forfarshire had not one word to say. The hon. Member talked a great deal about security of capital. What did he mean by it? For my own part, I was under the impression that when the Agricultural Holdings Bill was brought in a few years ago absolute security was conferred upon the farmer. The general effect was either that the Act would be adopted by landlord and tenant at the same time, or else that whore either landlord or tenant desired it, liberal arrangements would be made on terms mutually agreeable to these who entered into them. Although I have listened attentively to-night to every word that has been said, I cannot say that I heard a single syllable from any hon. Member which leads me to believe that at the present moment there is any real grievance on the part of the farmer, on the ground that he has no security for the capital he invests. The real object of the hon. Member began to crop out towards the close of his speech. The pith of the speech was a plea on the part of the hon. Member, on behalf of the Scotch farmers, for permission to break their leases before tribunals which should establish fair rents over the whole of the country. If there is one moral more than another to be drawn from this debate it is this—that the debate is a severe condemnation of the system of leases which, not many years ago, was exceedingly popular with Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I wish to say a word on the subject of leases in reply to the arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman. Having made this proposition, the hon. Member proceeded to say that it would be de-
    386
    nounced at once as a great interference with the freedom of contract. The hon. Gentleman made a mistake. The proposal of the hon. Member with regard to leases does not involve so much interference with the freedom of contract as a distinct breach of existing contracts. But as that was the position taken up by the hon. Member let me say a word more. I want to ask the hon. Member whether, if the lease is to be broken in the interest of the tenant because times are bad, he will pledge himself to this—that the lease shall be broken in the interest of the landlord when times are good?
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I did not advocate fixed rents.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I am not talking about rents; I am talking about leases; and I ask if the hon. Member will pledge himself to the proposition that when times are good the lease shall be broken in the interest of the landlords?
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I am quite prepared to accept re-valuation from time to time.
    MR. CHAPLIN: From time to time!
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: The Bill which I introduced last year proposed that there should be re-valuation every seven years.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Then the hon. Member, as I understand, proposes that in the interest of the tenant the lease shall be broken at any period when times are bad; but that in the interest of the landlord it shall only be broken every seven years! [Mr. J. W. BARCLAY: No.] Then I should like to know what it is that the hon. Member does mean? I feel the deepest sympathy with tenants in Scotland, who are suffering from the fact that they have entered into a long lease in times of prosperity, and who are now suffering greatly because they hold these leases in depressed times. But I must confess it seems to me that unless hon. Members are prepared to adopt a course which would be manifestly unjust to one of the parties to the contract the only way of dealing with the hardship is to leave it to the generosity and good feeling of the landlords in Scotland to make such arrangements with their tenants as the necessities of the times may require. From all the information which has reached me from time to time, that is being done to a largo extent at the present time, and it

    387
    will continue to be done. The hon. Gentleman also desired to have fair rents; but, to my great surprise, he illustrated his argument in that direction by a reference to Ireland. We all know what has followed from the adoption of that principle in that country. Will any hon. Member on that side of the House tell me that the institution of fair rents in Ireland has been either to the advantage and prosperity of that country, or that it has tended in any way to the development of agriculture in Ireland? All I can say is this—that if the same consequences were to follow from the adoption of the system of fair rents in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions as we witness, to our sorrow, in Ireland at the present time, God forbid that I should live to see the day when the system should be introduced into England! Does the hon. Member, or these who think with him, really believe that much advantage is to be gained by the adoption of that system? If so, I would venture, with great respect, to refer him to some observations made on that subject by the right ton. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) not long after I came into the House, during the passage through Parliament of the Irish Land Act of 1870, in which he absolutely demolished the proposal of fair rent even as applied to Ireland, and proved conclusively, even to demonstration, that the adoption of the principle could only have the result of demoralizing the whole mass of the people in that country. Whether the right hon. Gentleman was right in his forecast or wrong, I will leave it to hon. Gentlemen opposite to decide. For myself, I can see no relief whatever for the present agricultural depression in the institution of fair rents proposed by the hon. Member. Neither do I believe in the further proposition which has been made by the ton. Member that the large farms of the country should be broken up. It seems to me a strange proposal that if men of capital, with the advantage of every appliance of science, have failed to make agriculture pay by breaking up the large farms and putting them in the hands of men who have neither capital nor the same means of turning them to account they will be made to pay. This system has been tried largely for years in the part of the country which I have
    388
    the honour to represent. There, great tracts of country, which formerly were large estates, have been broken up and divided into thousands of small holdings, which are occupied and farmed at the present time. What is the result? If hon. Members will sometimes take the trouble to refer to the Reports of the Royal Commission on Agriculture—and they certainly do contain a great deal of valuable information—I think a very brief study of these Reports will show them that among all the different classes engaged in agricultural pursuits, much as they have suffered, of landlords, tenants, and labourers, all put together, there is not one class whose sufferings can for a moment be compared to these of the freeholders of Lincolnshire farming these small holdings into which the hon. Member desires, in the interests of the country, to see the land generally broken up. I wish with all my heart that it was possible to say something more encouraging in regard to agricultural prospects than I am able to say to-night. There is only one gleam of hope under present circumstances which I continue to cherish, and it is this—that I cannot believe it is possible that foreign countries can continue for any prolonged period to send us, at a profit, their produce at the prices which prevail at the present time. If I am right in that, then, as a matter of course, prices would rise at once; and with a rise of prices for agricultural produce we may be sure that the relief of agricultural depression would commence. It seems to me that there is only one thing we can do at the present time; and that has been alluded to, in touching terms, by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford shire (Viscount Grimston)—namely, that all classes engaged in agriculture must be prepared to make self-sacrifices, and do all within their power to help each other through this terrible and disastrous period of depression. I believe that has been done already to a great extent. We have heard much of landlords, and the rents they receive, and the terms upon which they ought to receive rent; and some hon. Gentlemen appear to think, from the tone of the speeches delivered to-night, that landlords have waited for their lectures before they adopted a course of reducing and remitting largely the rents paid to them by their tenants. It does not follow that because every

    389
    landlord in the country does not think it necessary to advertise the fact whenever he makes a large reduction that he has been slow to take that course. If I were to tell hon. Gentlemen opposite all I know with regard to the enormous reduction of rent that has taken place already, and the enormous reduction of the incomes of hundreds and thousands of landlords throughout England, I think I should tell them something which I suspect would astonish a great many of them. If there is nothing to be condemned on the part of the landlords—and I do not think there is, for I believe they have behaved well and rightly, and have come forward nobly to do their duty in this time of agricultural depression—still less have I one word of complaint against the tenant farmers, who have shown singular patience, pluck, and energy in the most difficult and trying circumstances. Nothing is more remarkable, or does them more credit, than this—when after six or seven years of such bad seasons as were probably never paralleled, when it was impossible to do justice to their farms, and when it pleased Providence, at the end of that weather, to send them fine weather and fine seasons—nothing is more remarkable than the way they buckled to, and did everything in the power of men of business to restore the character of their occupation. Then with regard to the labourers. I should like to say one word on that subject. It is with great regret that I observe that they, too, at last have begun to feel the effects of agricultural depression. For several years they probably suffered less from the prevailing agricultural depression than any other class engaged in agriculture; but I regret to say that the time at last has come when it has begun to bear most heavily and disastrously upon them. Their wages have fallen to a degree which fills me with compassion. I know this—that in my own county, where eight or ten years ago the labourer was receiving wages at the rate of 3s. per day, he is now receiving not more than 2s. per day, and I have been told that even that rate will be reduced during the coming winter. That means much suffering not only to him, but to the family he has to support. I have often thought that it was wonderful how, upon such a miserable pittance as 2s. per day, an agricultural
    390
    labourer should be able to bring up his family and maintain his home so respectably and admirably as many of them do. But that is not all. Not only have wages fallen largely, but great numbers of labourers are out of employment altogether; and I am afraid, before this winter passes, that the number will be largely increased. What is to be the remedy for all this? How am I to be blamed, speaking on the part of the Conservative Government, because I am unable to submit measures, or to put before the House proposals, which are adequate to deal with so grave a position and so serious an emergency as the present is? Has anything fallen from any hon. Gentleman to-night which can be considered, for a single moment, as an effectual remedy for the agricultural distress? If there has been, or if there is anything to be said, I can only join with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Long) in saying that we would rally as one man in doing all that he s within our power, within legitimate bounds, to relieve the depression, and to help these who are suffering to tide over their difficulties until the time may come when we may look forward to happier and brighter times.
    MR. LIONEL COHENsaid, he would ask for that forbearance on the part of the House which was usually accorded to any Member who rose to address it for the first time. There wore, besides, special reasons why he should ask for the forbearance and indulgence of the House in making a few observations upon this question. He was the first now Member who had risen to claim especial sympathy on the ground of his being a "Boycotted" individual, as a humble Member of the Royal Commission on Trade and Agriculture. It might afford some consolation to hon. Gentlemen who sat on his right, below the Ministerial Gangway, when they saw that in his case the process had not been attended with these unfortunate results ascribed to it in the Sister Island. Indeed, he might say that he looked with some degree of hope and confidence to the action of that much-maligned body, the Royal Commission on Trade; and he hoped it would have the effect, through the operations of commerce, of securing without delay these conditions of tenure which alone could fit both tenant farmers and labourers for the new and

    391
    trying circumstances in which they were placed. He thought he was justified in looking to the operations of commerce for a remedy. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), in his address the other night, attributed the difficulties in which his country was placed mainly to agricultural depression. The chain between commerce and agriculture was a close one, and rivetted by many links; and, as a commercial man, representing a commercial and artizan constituency, he had some cause to complain that, notwithstanding the closeness of the links of the chain between commerce and agriculture, the general discussion on the Address had all tended to enlist the sympathy of the House on the side of these engaged in agriculture, whereas these who were engaged in the large pursuits of commerce had neither received notice nor sympathy. What was the cause which brought about all these agricultural difficulties? In the first place, taking a wide range, it was, no doubt, the operation of political mistrust in different parts of the Kingdom. Capital was stagnant to an extent which, in the course of a long business experience, he hardly ever recollected. With that, enter prize became dormant, employment became difficult, and these engaged in commerce were unable to pay the prices formerly paid for agricultural produce. This acted and re-acted all over the world; and the result was shown both in the condition of the tenant farmer and of the labourer. Therefore, he maintained that the conditions were both direct and immediate in the operation of commerce upon the produce of the land. They had been told by the right hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) that it was impossible to do that which was asked for by legislation. In that opinion he ventured humbly to concur; but it was not impossible, by confidence and by encouragement, to free our trade in some degree from the shackles which surrounded it, and to give an impetus to commerce. There were three modes by which the agriculturist and the labourer might be benefited. The first was by enabling better prices to be secured for articles of consumption. The second was by giving the producer better facilities for carrying his produce from one part of the country to another at fair and equitable rates; and the third was by so
    392
    regulating the incidence of taxation that no undue burdens should be laid upon the shoulders of these who were engaged in the cultivation of the land. He ventured to ask the House with confidence whether, if more attention were paid to these three brandies of Economic Science, a speedier result would not be secured for the agricultural interests than by going into Committee or bringing in Bills with complex clauses dealing with a subject so difficult as the tenure of the land? The first way to secure better prices was to encourage traders to send their goods to all parts of the world. In connection with this point he must say that he had heard with apprehension the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) speak of their adventures in Burmah as treading on dangerous ground. That was not the way in which the merchants and traders of foreign countries were spoken of by the statesmen of these countries. It was the duty of the Government, no matter to what Party it belonged, not to present a cold shoulder to mercantile industry — he did not mean to operations that were improperly carried out, or subject justly to fine and penalty in the various countries—but to hold out an encouraging hand to these of their merchants who were engaged in commercial enterprize abroad. To the collapse which had attended some of the commercial enter prizes of the country to a considerable extent the depression of agriculture was due. As a Member of the Royal Commission on Trade, it would not become him to say in what direction their inquiry tended; but he wished to observe that he repelled most emphatically the observations of the right hon. and learned Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) when he said that the Members of the Commission had entered upon their labours with a preconceived bias, and with prepossessions in favour of one set of economical doctrines over another as governing remedial measures. He had yet to learn from any Member of the Commission that he had entered upon the inquiry with any other object than the desire and intention of following it out for the benefit of trade and agriculture free from all prejudices in favour of any of these economic doctrines which some hon. Gentlemen wrongfully attributed to them. He came now to another

    393
    subject—one of the most important questions which could occupy the mind of the Legislature. It was no Party question, and the difficulties attending it were very great, because it had large and powerful interests to struggle against—he referred to the question of the carrying trade for the purposes of homo trade. The hon. Member for the Banbury Division of Oxfordshire (Sir Bernhard Samuelson) had done good service by calling attention in his able pamphlet, which ought to be in the hands of every hon. Member, to the difficulties which the producers of this country were subjected to in the carrying of their goods. Whatever the result of the Commission might be, that was a matter which would need all the attention it could receive from every section of the House, so as to secure to the producer that freedom in removing his goods from one part of the country to another which was enjoyed by producers in foreign countries, and also in their own Colonies. The third branch of the subject—namely, the incidence of taxation, was too large and too difficult a matter for him to venture to obtrude upon the House in a maiden speech at that hour of the evening; but he desired to say that local taxation was, in this country, placed almost entirely upon the shoulders of these who resided in the locality, whereas abroad it was placed, to a great extent, upon the consumer in the shape of octroi duties. The next question was the desirability of securing improvements without delay. There was no royal road to prosperity, as they would find out when they began to turn the corner, as he certainly hoped they would do shortly. Prosperity could not be secured rapidly, but only by the gradual process of time, and by studying these economic questions in no Party spirit. The collapse of the industry of the country was the cause of the low prices of produce, and the low prices of produce were the causes of the depression of agriculture. The whole thing worked round in a continual circle, the effect of depression both in trade and agriculture rebounding on the condition of the agricultural labourer and the tenant farmer. Already the words "too late" had brought grief and sorrow upon the country; and he sincerely hoped that the same words would not be made to apply to the commerce and agriculture of the country.
    394
    He trusted that due care would be taken not to apply the improvements of commerce too late. If they wasted their time in quarrelsome legislation it would be impossible to introduce the improvements that were necessary; and the result would be that commercial enterprize would leave the shores of this country, and trade would be directed into other channels. It was in the hope that this discussion would have a tendency to draw greater attention to the pursuits of commerce than they had already received that he had ventured to obtrude himself on the notice of the House. He had now only to thank the House for the patience with which they had listened to him.
    SIR RICHAED TEMPLErose to address the House, but was received with loud calls for a division. The hon. Baronet said, that if he was in Order he would move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Richard Temple.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF the EXCHEQUER: My hon. Friend behind me is anxious to address a few words to the House on this subject as representing a great agricultural county; but he was received in a way which induced him to think that some Members of the House did not care to listen to him at this hour of the morning. I trust that my hon. Friend will withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate, and that the House will be disposed to receive with favour the remarks he wishes to make.
    SIR EICHAED TEMPLEsaid, he was quite ready to comply with the request of his right hon. Friend; and he would, therefore, withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR RICHAED TEMPLEsaid, that it was all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to cry "Divide;" but it was impossible to divide until the remarks which had been made in the course of the debate had received a complete answer from that side of the House. As the Leader of the House had just observed, he (Sir Richard

    395
    Temple) represented a great agricultural constituency. He was also personally connected with the land, and he had had the management of allotments which had been successful under the arrangements which had endured for many years. He therefore trusted that these who took an interest in the question would be good enough to listen to the remarks he intended to make, seeing that they came from a practical man. He would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were asked to remodel the conditions of tenancy in reference to the cultivation of the soil; but the debate so far had been so inconsequential that he claimed permission to remind the House that the principal class among the cultivators of the soil was composed of the farm labourers. There was in the country plenty of land available for allotments if the labourers would take it; but something more was desired; because the truth of the matter was that when the land was offered to the labourers for allotments they sometimes refused to take it. The fact was that while allotments of limited area, favourable situation, and fertile soil answered well enough, on the other hand allotments of average soil were apt to fail. Instances of such failure were common in the "West of England. Market gardening had been alluded to during the debate; and, no doubt, that was an industry suited to the allotment system. He was himself connected with a constituency which was one of the great centres of market gardening; and he was satisfied that he was only re-echoing the opinion of his constituents when he stated that market gardening might easily be overdone. If it were to be overdone by means of an allotment system artificially introduced, the prices of market gardening produce would be so lowered that the industry would cease to be profitable. Much was said about farms lying waste, and waiting only for labour. The meaning of that was that such farms should be cut up into allotments. But it was forgotten that such a parcelling out required capital—perhaps £500 for each allotment of three or four acres. The agitators who urged this never indicated how this capital was to be raised, or how the allotment holder was to pay the interest. Nor was it fair to compare, as was too often done, the rents of allotments having
    396
    specially good land with the average rent of farms having various sorts of land, good, bad, and indifferent. But, apart from these larger allotments on which the labourer was to subsist without working for wages, he was heartily in favour of small allotments—half-an-acre or so — attached to the cottages of farm labourers, whereby they could supplement their earnings, and whereon they could employ themselves for the good of their families when employment with the farmer might be slack and wages irregular. If this system could be rendered universal the farm labourers could never be the victims of enforced idleness and consequent want. He denied that the rents which were asked for allotments were at all too high.
    SIR AROHIBALD CAMPBELLasked the permission of the House, as the Representative of a constituency largely agricultural as well as commercial, to say a few words. Any person who looked round and saw the condition of agriculture or trade throughout the country must regard it with the very greatest amount of feeling. As far as his experience had gone—and it had been a pretty long one—as to landlords and tenants—at all events as to landlords and tenants in Scotland—it was felt there was great community of interest between the two classes. In Scotland there was a deep feeling that although the agricultural depression might become worse than it was at present, the best way they could get over it was by mutual confidence and concession. He was thankful to think that that confidence had not been misplaced, either by the landlords or by the tenants. The fact of the matter was that the land was only worth what it could produce. If produce came in from foreign countries in larger and larger quantities year by year, continually depreciating the prices of the produce and commodities which the tenants supplied, it was very clear that the profits on both sides must decrease. The landlords were willing to accept that position; but they asked that they should be allowed to make fair bargains, such as were made in all trades — that freedom of bargain and contract between landlord and tenant should be preserved. If they felt confident of that, and then made a bad bargain, they must take the consequences. They hoped and trusted, after

    397
    the experience they had had, that they might be able to hold their own, and that they might be able to make fair arrangements between themselves — between landlords and tenants—to keep up that great system of agriculture—one of the largest and, as had been well said, one of the oldest trades in the country. Landlords felt that their profits might be less; but they were willing to face the altered state of things, if they were only allowed to trust to confidence between man and man. Hon. Members had spoken of the necessity of cultivating a great deal of the land now lying waste. What was the reason that land was now lying waste? Some of this land might appear fair to these who looked upon it; but he was bound to say that when the matter was fully investigated, it would be found that the land would hardly pay the interest on the capital required to break it up. If the money which had been expended by the Duke of Sutherland had been laid out on other improvements, instead of on trying to improve land, the noble Duke and a great many of his people would have been much better off. Costly experiments like the cultivation of waste land could not be carried on without capital; and he asked whether it was likely, with the continual changes and the difficulties which had to be confronted, that capital would be put in the land if landlords did not expect to get some return for it? He knew that 2 per cent was considered very good percentage upon money invested in land. Landlords were willing to take less than that if they could only look for some fruit of their industry. He was perfectly certain that nothing was so mischievous as interference between these who were most interested in the better cultivation of the land—namely, the landlords and tenants. If they were only allowed to fight the battle out themselves, he felt perfectly certain that in his part of the country, at any rate, the good feeling prevailing would enable them to tide over the present depression. At the same time, if any measure could be proposed by which the local taxation could be made more equitable, he should be most happy to co-operate in such a measure. He thanked the House for the kindness with which they had received this, his maiden speech.
    398
    MR. KIMBER said, that a careful reading of the proposed Amendment would show that it involved a dilemma, either horn of which was either a political or a logical absurdity. Hon. Members would notice that the Amendment stated that Her Majesty's Government should have recommended Her Majesty to say that she would propose measures of law for the purpose of securing to one class of individuals—cultivators of the soil—certain favourable conditions of tenure, such as would encourage them to cope with their present adversity. Now, a law "to secure conditions of tenure" meant that the contract between the cultivators of the soil and the persons with whom they would have to make the contract—namely, the owners of the soil — would have to be made either voluntarily or compulsorily. If voluntarily, it was obvious that no law was required, seeing that it was competent for the cultivators and the owners of the soil to make any contract they pleased. To propose, on the other hand, that a measure of law should be passed which should impose a forcible condition on the landlords involved this—that one class of persons in the country, a very important one—the owners of the soil—should not be allowed to make a contract with that freedom with which other classes of Her Majesty's subjects were at liberty to make contracts. If Parliament imposed such a condition, it would, in fact, transgress one of these primary conditions upon which the prosperity of this and of any country which had any prosperity at all was founded—that was, the freedom and inviolability of contract. Whether the law which the Mover of the Amendment suggested was to be imposed compulsorily or not, there was involved that infringement of these commercial laws upon which this country had founded its greatness; and he (Mr. Kimber) asked, if they were to interfere on behalf of one class because of the depression of the time, what was to be said about the other classes who were also suffering from the depression? Let them even take the case of the stockbroker who had bought Stocks at 80, the value of which had now been reduced to 60. Was he to have an alleviating law passed by which he was to have his contract subjected to re-valuation by reason of after events which showed he had

    399
    suffered great loss? What was to be said of the merchant who had bought a shipload of merchandize to arrive, and then found there was no market in which to sell the goods? Was he to be relieved, or to be entitled to relieve himself, at the expense of the other parties to the contract? Where was this relief to end if they were to cancel-the power which now existed, and had existed in this country practically for all time, to buy and sell in a free and open market? The moment they cancelled that power, that moment they would interfere seriously with liberty of action; they would accept a principle which, if carried to its full extent, would deprive the people and commerce of the country of everything that could be called by the name "free." What would be thought of any Englishman or Scotchman—he believed the case of the Sister Island was exceptional—who, having made a bargain, wished to back out of it when he found it working disadvantageously to himself? Was not the fulfilment of a bargain a matter of honour? A man who did not face adversity when it befell him was no longer a man. A man was only a man when he stood by the bargains he had made; and when once there was a general disposition to escape from the ill-effects of bargains it would be found that the prosperity of the country had departed. He did not at all wonder that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) should make a sort of apology for the Mover of the Amendment by telling the House that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) did not mean to propose any particular law of a hard-and-fast character, but that all he complained of was that Her Majesty's Government had not announced in the Queen's Speech their intention of introducing some measure of law to provide for these special conditions of tenure. He would like to know what would have been the result if they had all sat down together, and, as business men, attempted to frame a law such as the hon. Member for Forfarshire seemed to desire? How would they have described such a measure? He was not quite sure whether he would not have been entitled to have appealed to the Speaker whether, as a matter of Order, it was competent for Her Majesty's Government to advise Her Majesty to put a para-
    400
    graph in Her Gracious Speech which involved two such political absurdities as, on the one hand., the making of a law to permit people to do that which they could now do voluntarily, or, on the other hand, the making of a law to compel people to make contracts. In the great speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) made in Leeds in 1881, he described the Land Bill of 1881, which afterwards became law, as a great innovation upon the principles of freedom of contract—one which could only be justified in the ease of Ireland by the most exceptional circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman thought it so great a sacrifice in favour of the exceptional circumstances of Ireland, and an innovation which was not to be treated as a precedent, that in a speech which he delivered after the Land Bill had become law he spoke of the time when the country might be able to revert to the old system of freedom of contract. What were the words he used? The right hon. Gentleman said—["Divide, divide!"] He (Mr. Kimber) begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—[Mr. Kimler,]—put, and negatived.
    Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 183; Noes 211: Majority 28.

    AYES.

    Abraham, W. (Glam.)

    Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

    Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

    Chamberlain, E.

    Chance, P. A.

    Allison, R. A.

    Channing, F. A.

    Arch, J.

    Clancy, J. J.

    Asher, A.

    Clark, G. B.

    Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

    Cobb, H. P.

    Barbour, W. B.

    Cobbold, F. T.

    Beith, G.

    Coleridge, hon. B.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Collings, J.

    Blades, J. H.

    Commins, A.

    Blaine, A.

    Compton, Lord W. G.

    Blake, T.

    Condon, T. J.

    Bolton, J. C.

    Connolly, L.

    Bolton, T. H.

    Conway, M.

    Borlase, W. C.

    Conybeare, C. A. V.

    Brown, A. H.

    Cook, E. E.

    Brunner, J. T.

    Cook, W.

    Burt, T.

    Coote, T.

    Byrne, G.

    Corbet, W. J.

    Cameron, C.

    Cossham, H.

    Cameron, J. M.

    Cox, J. R.

    Campbell, H.

    Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

    Carew, J. L.

    Craven, J.

    401

    Crawford, W.

    Moulton, J. F.

    Cremer, W. R.

    Newnes, G.

    Crilly, D.

    Nolan, Colonel J. P.

    Crompton, C.

    Nolan, J.

    Currie, Sir D.

    O'Brien, J. F. X.

    Dillon, J.

    O'Brien, P. J.

    Duckham, T.

    O'Brien, W.

    Duncan, D.

    O'Connor, A.

    Ellis, J.

    O'Connor, J.

    Esmonde, Sir T.

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Esslemont, P.

    O'Doherty, J. E.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    O'Hea, P.

    Fenwick, C.

    O'Kelly, J.

    Ferguson, J. E. J.

    Parnell, C. S.

    Finlayson, J.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    Finucane, J.

    Picton, J. A.

    Fletcher, B.

    Powell, W. R. H.

    Flower, C.

    Power, P. J.

    Flynn, J. C.

    Pulley, J.

    Foley, P. J.

    Pyne, J. D.

    Forster, Sir C.

    Redmond, J. E.

    Foster, Dr. B.

    Redmond, W. H. K.

    Fox, F.

    Reynolds, W. J.

    Gibb, T. E.

    Richardson, T.

    Gilhooly, J.

    Rigby, J.

    Gill, H. J.

    Roberts, J. (Cnrvn. E.)

    Gill, T. P.

    Roberts, J. (Flnt. Bgs.)

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Roe, T.

    Gourley, E. T.

    Rogers, J. E. T.

    Gray, E. D.

    Russell, E. R.

    Grenfell, W. H.

    Saunders, W.

    Grey, Sir E.

    Sexton, T.

    Haldane, R. B.

    Shaw, T.

    Harker, W.

    Sheehan, J. D.

    Harrington, E.

    Sheehy, D.

    Harris, M.

    Sheil, E.

    Hayden, L. P.

    Small, J. F.

    Hayne, C. Seale-

    Smith, W. B.

    Healy, M.

    Spencer, hon. C. R.

    Healy, T. M.

    Spensley, hon. H.

    Hooper, J.

    Spicer, H.

    Hunter, W. A.

    Stack, J.

    Ince, H. B.

    Stafford, Marquess of

    Jacks, W.

    Stevenson, F. S.

    Jenkins, D. J.

    Stuart, J.

    Johns, J. W.

    Sullivan, D.

    Jordan, J.

    Sullivan, T. D.

    Kelly, B.

    Sutherland, T.

    Kenny, M. J.

    Tanner, C. K.

    Kitching, A. G.

    Thomas, A.

    Labouchere, H.

    Tuite, J.

    Lacaita, C. C.

    Verney, Captain E. H.

    Lalor, R.

    Wason, E.

    Lane, W. J.

    Watson, T.

    Lawson, H. L. W.

    Watt, H.

    Leahy, J.

    Wayman, T.

    Leamy, E.

    West, Colonel W. C.

    Leicester, J.

    Westlake, J.

    Macfarlane, D. H.

    Will, J. S.

    Maclean, F. W.

    Williams, A. J.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Wilson, H. J.

    M'Carthy, J.

    Wilson, J. (Durham)

    M'Carthy, J. H.

    Wilson, J. (Edinbgh.)

    M'Donald, P.

    Winterbotham, A. B.

    M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    Yeo, F.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Marum, E. M.

    Mason, S.

    TELLERS.

    Mayne, T.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    Molloy, B. C.

    Barclay, J. W.

    Montagu, S.

    402

    NOES

    Agg-Gardner, J. T.

    Ellis, Sir J. W.

    Ainslie, W. G.

    Evelyn, W. J.

    Allsopp, G.

    Ewart, W.

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Ewing, A. O.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Feilden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.

    Baden-Powell, G. S.

    Fellowes, W. H.

    Baggallay, E.

    Fergusson, rt. hn. Sir J.

    Baily, L. R.

    Field, Captain E.

    Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

    Finch, G. H.

    Balfour, G. W.

    Finch-Hatton, hon. M. E. G.

    Bartley, G. C. T.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Fisher, W. H.

    Bates, Sir E.

    Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

    Baumann, A. A.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Forwood, A. B.

    Beadel, W. J.

    Fowler, Sir R. N.

    Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

    Fraser, General C. C.

    Gardner, R. Richardson

    Bethell, Commander

    Bigwood, J.

    Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.

    Birkbeck, E.

    Blaine, R. S.

    Gent-Davis, R.

    Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

    Gibson, J. G.

    Bonsor, H. C. O.

    Giles, A.

    Boord, T. W.

    Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

    Bourke, right hon. R.

    Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

    Gorst, Sir J. E.

    Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

    Bristowe, T. L.

    Green, E.

    Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

    Greenall, Sir G.

    Gregory, G. B.

    Brookfield, A. M.

    Grimston, Viscount

    Brooks, J.

    Gunter, Col. R.

    Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B.

    Hall, C.

    Hallett, Colonel F. C. Hughes-

    Burghley, Lord

    Campbell, Sir A.

    Halsey, T. F.

    Campbell, J. A.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J.

    Chaplin, rt. hon. H.

    Hamilton, Lord E.

    Charrington, S.

    Hamilton, Lord F. S.

    Coddington, W.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    Cohen, L. L.

    Commerell, Adml. Sir J.

    Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

    Hanbury, R. W.

    Compton, F.

    Hankey, F. A.

    Cooke, C. W. R.

    Hardcastle, E.

    Coope, O. E.

    Hard castle, F.

    Corbett, A. C.

    Hartington, Marq. of

    Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

    Heaton, J. H.

    Courtney, L. H.

    Heneage, E.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hervey, Lord F.

    Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

    Hickman, A.

    Cross, H. S.

    Hill, Lord A. W.

    Cubitt, right hon. G.

    Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.

    Curzon, Viscount

    Dawson, R.

    Holmes, rt. hon. H.

    De Cobain, E. S. W.

    Hope, right hon. A. J. B. B.

    Denison, E. W.

    Denison, W. B.

    Houldsworth, W. H.

    De Worms, Baron H.

    Howard, J.

    Dimsdale, Baron R.

    Howard, J. M.

    Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

    Hughes, Colonel E.

    Duncan, Colonel F.

    Hunt, F. S.

    Duncombe, A.

    Hunter, Sir G.

    Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

    Hutton, J. F.

    Isaacs, L. H.

    Edwardes-Moss, T. C.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Egerton, hn. A. J. F.

    James, rt. hon. Sir H.

    Egerton, hon. A. de T.

    Jennings, L. J.

    403

    Johnston, W.

    Powell, F. S.

    Jones, P.

    Price, Captain G. E.

    Kay-Shuttleworth, Sir U. J.

    Ritchie, C. T.

    Robertson, J. P. B.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

    Kenyon, hon. G. T.

    Ker, R. W. B.

    Round, J.

    Kimber, H.

    Russell, Sir G.

    King, H. S.

    Sandys, Lieut-Col. T. M.

    Kinnear, J. B.

    Knatchbull-Hugessen, hon. H. T.

    Saunderson, Maj. E. J.

    Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

    Lawrence, Sir T.

    Selwin-Ibbetson, rt. hon. Sir H. J.

    Lawrence, W. F.

    Lethbridge, Sir R.

    Seton-Karr, H.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Sidebottom, W.

    Llewellyn, E. H.

    Sitwell, Sir G. R.

    Lloyd, W.

    Smith, A.

    Long, W. H.

    Smith, D.

    Macartney, J. W. E.

    Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

    Macdonald, rt. hon. J. H. A.

    Stanley, rt. hon. Col. F.

    Stanley, E. J.

    Maclean, J. M.

    Stewart, M.

    M'Calmont, Captain J.

    Sturrock, P.

    Manners, rt. hon. Lord J. J. R.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Temple, Sir R.

    Marriott, rt hn. W. T.

    Tipping, W.

    Marton, Maj. G. B. H.

    Tollemache, H. J.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Mills, C. W.

    Trotter, H. J.

    Morgan, hon. F.

    Tyler, Sir H. W.

    Mount, W. G.

    Valentine, C. J.

    Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

    Vincent, C. E. H.

    Walsh, hon. A. H. J.

    Mulholland, H. L.

    Waring, Colonel T.

    Murdoch, C. T.

    Watson, J.

    Norris, E. S.

    Webster, Sir R. E.

    Northcote, hon. H. S.

    White, J. B.

    Norton, R.

    Whitley, E.

    O'Neill, hon. R. T.

    Winn, hon. R.

    Paget, R. H.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    Pearce, W.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

    Pease, Sir J. W.

    Wroughton, P.

    Pease, A. E.

    Yorke, J. R.

    Pelly, Sir L.

    Young, C. E. B.

    Percy, Lord A. M.

    Pilkington, G. A.

    TELLEES.

    Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Pomfret, W. P.

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    Main Question proposed.
    Debate arising.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Jesse Callings,)—put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed, to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the
  404
  House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the reports of the Committee do set forth the number of signatures to each Petition only in respect to these signatures to which addresses are affixed:—And that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:—And that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Sir CHARLES FORSTER, Mr. WILLIAM LOWTHER, Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, Marquess of STAFFORD, Colonel BRIDGEMAN, Sir CHARLES TEN-NANT, Mr. MULHOLLASD, Viscount LYMINGTON, Sir ARTHUR BASS, Mr. RICHARD POWER, Sir HERBERT MAXWELL, Mr. M'LAGAN, Mr. REGI-NALD YORKE, Mr. HENRY TOLLEMACHE, and Mr. T. B. O'CONNOR.
  Ordered, That Three he the quorum.—(Sir Charles Forster.)

  LUNACY (VACATING OF SEATS) BILL.
  On Motion of Dr. Cameron, Bill to amend the Law in regard to the Vacating of Seats in the House of Commons, ordered to be brought in by Dr. Cameron, Mr. Charles Russell, Mr. Puleston, and Mr. William Corbet.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 85.]

  SPORTING LANDS BATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Dr. Cameron, Bill to amend the Law as to the Rating of Lands occupied for Sporting Purposes in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Dr. Cameron, Marquess of Stafford, Mr. Mackintosh, and Dr. Farquharson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 86.]

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT (1854) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. King, Bill to amend "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854," ordered to he brought in by Mr. King, Mr. Kimber, Mr. Baggallay, and Mr. Fitzgerald.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 87.]

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOES ON SUNDAY (COBNWALL) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Borlase, Bill to prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday in Cornwall, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Borlase, Sir John St. Aubyn, Mr. Courtney, Mr. C. T. Dyke Acland, Mr. Conybeare, Mr. Bickford Smith, and Mr. David Jenkins.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 88.]

  PRIVATE LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. William Corbet, Bill to alter and amend the Law relating to Private Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, and to make other and more suitable provision for paying-patients, ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Dillwyn, Mr. P. J. Power, Dr. Cameron, and Mr. Mayne.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 89.]

  ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Bryce, Bill to secure to the public the right of Access to Mountains and Moorlands in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bryce, Mr. Cheney Belton, Mr. Haldane, Mr. D. Crawford, Sir Henry Roscoe, and Mr. Edward Russell.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 90.]

DOUBLE RETURN.

  SCOTLAND DIVISION OF LIVERPOOL AND BOROUGH OF GALWAY.
  Mr. SPEAKERacquainted the House that he had received a Letter from them as P. O'Connor, esquire, returned as a Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, and for the Borough of Galway, making his election for the Scotland Division of Liverpool; and the said Letter was read as followeth:—
  Jan. 25.
  Sir,
  Having been elected for both the Scotland Division of Liverpool and the Borough of Galway, I beg to inform you that I elect to sit for the Scotland Division of Liverpool.
  Your obedient Servant,
  T.P. O'CONNOR.
  The Right Hon.
  The Speaker.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Land Registry *(7).
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

BURMAH—THE BRITISH AUTHERITIES — MILITARY EXECUTIONS— THE PROVOST MARSHAL—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he had received any answer with regard to certain proceedings alleged to have taken place at Mandalay under the orders of the Provost Marshal?
THE UNDEE SECEETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord HARRIS): My Lords, I am able to inform the noble Marquess on all the points raised the

275
other day except the first, which has reference to the question of the photographing of the men who were about to be executed. The reply received under that head is from the Chief Commissioner at Rangoon, and is as follows:—
"Rangoon, Jan. 23.—First point—namely, photographing prisoners at moment of execution. I am telegraphing to Mandalay for fuller information."
On the point as to a certain prisoner having been asked questions under fear of death, the reply from Mr. Bernard is—
"It is true that Provost Marshal did place a man suspected of treasonable correspondence in fear of instant death in order to induce him to give information which might have criminated two members of Burmese Durbar. On hearing of this, I pointed out to Provost Marshal that evidence extorted was valueless, and that it was contrary to all laws to extort evidence by moral torture, and I requested that similar proceedings might not recur. I believe Provost Marshal had done nothing of the kind on any previous occasion, and will not do anything of the kind again."
Then follows a telegram from the Viceroy—
"It is also clear that Provost Marshal has proceeded in most unjustifiable manner, at all events in one ease. I have telegraphed to Prendergast direct, that if primâ facie case is made out against Provost Marshal on one of the counts mentioned, he and any other officers implicated should be suspended from their functions, and, if proved guilty, visited with the severest penalty."
A telegram from the Viceroy, dated January 24, says—
"We have English Civil officers and Police officers in command in each of the five districts —Mandalay, Minhla, Ningyan, Pagan, and Myingyan. These officers are supported by troops, and they are working through local Woons and Thagyis. Lest of country is nominally dominated by Hlootdaw or Burmese Supreme Council. At several points, Bhamo, Tagaing, Hwebo, Ava, Upper Chindwin, Lower Chindwin, Myodaung, we have military detachments stationed, with Civil officers in attendance. At present country is still under military occupation. Though rebels taken in arms on the field day are liable to be shot, no one is to be shot or punished by Civil officers otherwise than after trial. Then, in districts nominally under Hlootdaw, sentences of death cannot be carried out by Native officials or otherwise than on responsibility of, and after trial by, Civil officer who may be nearest the ground. Prisoners punished under martial law by Provost Marshal or by commanding officers do not come under Civil officers' cognizance, while country is under military occupation. My hope is that within few weeks' time I may be in position to post Civil officers backed by troops in remaining districts of country."
276
The map that the noble Karl (the Earl of Kimberley) alluded to will be placed in the Library; it is not a recent one, as it is dated 1875.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the real point he had in view, in inquiring about the map the other day, was to ascertain the precise territory which had been annexed to Her Majesty's Dominions.

LORD LIEUTENANCY OF IRELAND.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF KILMOREY, in rising to move—
  "That in the opinion of this House the time has now come when the post of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland may be abolished with advantage,"
  said, the gravity of the question which he had the honour to bring before their Lordships at a time when anything connected with Ireland was of unusual interest would, he trusted, be a warrantable excuse for his asking at their Lordships' hands all the indulgence which the difficulties of his position required. He had been painfully conscious of the fact that, amongst the Members of their Lordships' House, there were no less than four past Viceroys of Ireland, two being present; and, no doubt, if the duties of his Excellency the present Lord Lieutenant did not necessitate his presence in Dublin, he also would have been present. It had been his original intention to move this Resolution last Session; but he was told the occasion was inopportune, and was advised to postpone it. At that time there was one more past Viceroy in their Lordships' House; but since then the hand of death had removed from their midst one whose place it would be hard to fill, and whose loss it would be difficult to make up for. It might be said of the late Duke of Abercorn that he had no enemies, for even his political opponents vied with his closest followers in the expression of their admiration and regard for him. Of him it might be said that, having arrived at the highest pinnacle of personal popularity, he never lost the charm which he held over his fellow-countrymen until the grave closed over him. He would miss the friendly criticism of the late Duke of Abercorn with regret, and he would look to others to supply similar criticism, especially to his noble Friend who had twice braved

  277
  the acknowledged dangers of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland (Earl Spencer). He yielded to no one in his admiration of the ability and the indomitable courage with which the noble Earl had served his Party. He not only spoke his own sentiments, but these of the entire loyal population of Ireland—though many of them wore opposed to him in politics, and did not share the admiration of the noble Earl for the great Chief of his Party—when he said that they wore ten times better cared for and ton times better off under the high pressure of that noble Earl's Administration than they were now under that of his amiable and more popular Successor. In this case they preferred the fortiter in re to the suaviter in modo. The subject of his Resolution, as their Lordships were aware, was no new one. The abolition of the Office of Lord Lieutenant had been before Parliament on many occasions. It was an Office which had existed, he believed, for 700 years; but that was no reason why it should exist for ever. Its abolition was moved in 1823, in 1830, in 1811, in 1850, and in 1858; and the opinions of many eminent statesmen, both for and against, were ventilated on these occasions. The history of Ireland repeated itself with the fidelity of a stock-piece at a Provincial theatre—the piece was always the same, and the only change was in the actors. The question had always been and was now a non-Party question; and, therefore, he would look with the more confidence to their Lordships for a fair and impartial hearing. In addition to the debates reported in Hansard, he had sought for information from The Times, He had also found a great deal of interesting information in The Life and Letters of Mr. Croker, and The Memoirs of Mr. Greville; but he would not presume to occupy too much of their Lordships' valuable time, nor to flood the House with a series of long and unnecessary quotations, inasmuch as they were within easy access for their Lordships, and it was more than probable that they were far better acquainted with them than he was. When he looked back to Hansard's Debates he saw that such men as Lord Althorp, Lord Grey, Mr. Sheil, Lord John Russell, Mr. Bernal Osborne, and Mr. Hume had taken part in the discussion. Once, and once only, the question of the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland was mooted in
  278
  their Lordships' House, and that was in June, 1850, the year in which Lord John Russell introduced a Bill on the subject in the House of Commons. The Marquess of Londonderry of that day succeeded in anticipating the introduction of the measure by taking advantage of an opportunity given him of presenting various Petitions from the Lord Mayor of Dublin and others interested in the trade of that City. On that occasion, while all the Members of their Lordships' House admitted the desirability of raising a discussion, they one and all said they considered the occasion inopportune, and yet, with great inconsistency, insisted on debating the matter at considerable length. At the end of the Session of 1850 the Bill lapsed. Since 1858, so far as he could make out, the matter had never been before the attention of Parliament; and there was the fact that although in 1858 a Motion brought forward by Mr. Roebuck was thrown out, the one in 1850 was carried by a large majority. To keep the trade of Dublin going was the only excuse for maintaining the Office. There were other arguments for upholding the Office; but they were all more or less of a sentimental nature, and, therefore, all the less forcible. For instance, one distinguished Irishman, now a Judge, was heard to say in defence of the retention of the Office that it would be hard lines if an Irishman, who was precluded from basking in the sunshine of Royalty, should not have an opportunity occasionally of airing himself in the moonshine of the Viceroy. If that was the strongest argument that a great and distinguished lawyer could raise in that day, he thought there was not much to he said in its favour. The objection as to the difficulty of coming to London to attend a levee was merely a sentimental one. In these days sentimental objections had very little weight. These were days in which only practical objections had any weight. Sir Peter Teazle's views with respect to sentiment were very much like his. He believed they were extremely proper and popular. He did not think the Rules of their Lord ships' House would prevent him giving a quotation from The School for Scandal; but it was unnecessary, since all their Lordships must be acquainted with the expressions made use of by that irascible Baronet. It was amusing to look

  279
  back and find even such a great and eminent statesman as Lord John Russell talking about the facilities of communication as they existed in 1850 in comparison with these which existed in 1805. He believed he was right in stating that Lord John Russell actually quoted from, if he did not lay upon the Table of the House, a copy of Bradshaw's Railway Guide; but if he (the Earl of Kilmorey) wished to quote from any publication to show the enormous strides which had been taken within the last 35 years, he would refer to the records of scientific institutions and papers read at scientific meetings; and, looking at the records of the marvellous inventions of the last 35 years, he found there were no inventions which excited more marvel and admiration than the telephone. What were the facilities of communication in 1850 to these in the present day? As the locomotive had superseded the old stage coach, so the telephone had cast into the shade other marvellous inventions which at one time it was thought impossible to supersede. In the present day it was not impossible for the noble Marquess in Downing Street to hold an animated conversation with the Secretary of State for Ireland in Dublin Castle, nor was it more difficult for His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief to give his order, vivâ voce, to Prince Saxe-Weimar. This disposed of the argument brought forward in their Lordships' House in 1850 by the Duke of Wellington. That objection was that in cases of disturbance, in the absence of the Lord Lieutenant, who could give orders to the troops? He saw no possible difficulty, in the absence of the Lord Lieutenant, of directions being given with regard to the Forces. He maintained that facilities for communicating were now so great that there was nothing to prevent the Lord Lieutenant answering with rapidity any question put to him by the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces. The same facility would enable him to transmit his orders to the Commander-in-Chief, and to take steps to sea them properly carried out. Although science had done much to alleviate their sorrow and to mitigate their distress, it had not yet provided them with the same means of communication between England and Ireland that now existed between Birkenhead and Liverpool. There always had been, and he
  280
  feared there always would be, one great and insuperable difficulty in the way of the realization of all the schemes of reconciling Irishmen to England; and that was the nauseating barrier that existed between the two countries—hinc illœ lacrymœ. It might be that the opening of the Mersey Tunnel the other day might give a fillip to science; and he trusted their Lordships would all live to see a submarine tunnel between England and Ireland constructed. But they had communication by means of some of the finest steamers in the world; and what was the journey from Dublin to London? What would their forefathers have thought of their making complaints of a journey of from 10 to 12 hours' duration, when they wore accustomed to travel on a coach for days and nights together? As to the danger of travelling, altheugh there were occasions on which outrages were committed in railway carriages, they were very few and far between when compared with the dangers which were run on the King's highway in the time of stage-coach travelling. What was the journey from Dublin to London now? Why, it was simply the rapid whirling along of their recumbent bodies, surrounded by every luxury and comfort. He regretted that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was not present. His appearance was well known to their Lordships, and they would readily agree with him that the noble and learned Lord showed no signs of decay, although he was frequently subject to the fearful ordeal of these constant journeys. He was stating a fact when he said it was not unusual for the noble and learned Lord to take his seat in the Four Courts in Dublin on Monday, to run over by the mail to attend a Cabinet Council on the Tuesday afternoon, and to return to the Four Courts on the Wednesday as fresh as if he had not undergone the slightest fatigue. It was an acknowledged fact that science had now minimized the geographical difficulties between the two countries. He took leave to conclude that the position in which the present Lord Lieutenant had lately found himself, harassed and worn by the innumerable difficulties and unavoidable annoyances of Office, strengthened not a little his argument that the administrative and State functions of the Lord Lieutenant should no longer be combined in one man. That unfor-

  281
  tunate combination ought never to have existed. It appeared to him to have been a great mistake in the Act of Union; and, as far as he could judge, it was acknowledged by the statesmen of that day that the combination was a mistake. Lord John Russell, on the introduction of his Bill, on the 17th of May, 1850, said—
  "In fact, the Members of the present Government have for a very long time had in contemplation the measure I have now to propose, and when Lord Clarendon went to Ireland he went there on a distinct understanding with me that the Office of Lord Lieutenant would, if Parliament should concur with us, he totally abolished."—(3 Hansard [III], 171.)
  Later on his Lordship said—
  "It appears, however, at the time of the Union with Ireland the subject of the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy was taken into consideration by the Sovereign who then ruled the destinies of this country."—(Ibid. 173.)
  His Lordship then proceeded to quote from a letter from Mr. Addington; and he (the Earl of Kilmorey), from a general résumé of the speeches of that day, was led to the conclusion that it was an acknowledged difficulty, and that it was handed as a legacy from one Cabinet to another, where it was looked upon with so much distaste that when a memorandum on the subject came to the top it was at once put to the bottom. It was impossible for him to point to a stronger argument in favour of his suggestion than that 50 years after the Union an able statesman like the late Lord John Russell should have proposed to the House a Bill to carry out what he was now advocating, and loft the matter in abeyance solely on the ground that more important matters were engaging attention. It was no secret that he (the Earl of Kilmorey) desired to see the Office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland abolished as at present constituted. He wished to see the administrative functions of the Lord Lieutenant transferred to a Secretary of State for Ireland, whilst these of ceremonial might very well be allowed to slip into oblivion as unnecessary and out of place. It should be remembered that, however vehemently he might attack the evils which arose from the Office of Lord Lieutenant, nothing should fall from his lips in any way to reproach these who had successively held that high Office, and discharged the onerous duties of Lord Lieutetenant. What he
  282
  wanted to see abolished, was not the holder of the high Office, but the system which had imposed on so many Noblemen the thankless combination of political patronage and Viceregal State. He knew that Lord Lieutenants had conducted the social administration of the country with the greatest ability. But faithfully as they had discharged their duties in that respect—right royally as they had spent their money and distributed their favours—why wore they weighed down by politics? He saw no reason whatever why the machinery of administration and the ceremonial of Royalty should be coupled in what was only a mock Court. It was well known that the Sovereign had no politics, and therefore he contended that the Representative of the Sovereign should have no politics. The principle had been broken through from the very commencement so far as Ireland was concerned, and he hoped the words of the late Lord President would be well considered when he said—
  "However high-minded and well-intentioned the Lord Lieutenant might ho, it is impossible for him to he anything else than a Party man."
  Now, these few words struck at the root of the evil of which he complained. He said that the Office, being a political appointment—however kind and humane the Viceroy might be, and however well-intentioned, it was impossible for him to administer the affairs of an unruly people with more than passing success. A new Lord Lieutenant's policy was invariably the reverse of his Predecessor's; and however anxious a Lord Lieutenant might be to strike out a line of his own, and to make a new departure, he inevitably found that his endeavours were hampered and rendered futile by the officialism of Dublin Castle. He believed more influence, more power, and more beneficent results would have accrued from the successive Administrations of Lord Lieutenants since the Act of Union if their number had been fewer and their term of Office longer. But, for his own part, he hoped sincerely he should never see a Lord Lieutenant again. He was not so careless, having regard to the wholesale abolition which he proposed, as to forget to make some suggestions as to what should be substituted for that which was abolished. To discharge some portion of the duties of the Lord Lieutenant, he had sug-

  283
  gested the appointment of a Secretary of State for Ireland, and he would award him such a salary as would enable him to keep up the customary grants of money, and to continue the customary patronage to the charitable institutions of the country; and, in relation to these other duties performed by the Lord Lieutenant, he should have a scheme to submit which he knew would not only meet with the approval of the loyal section of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland, but which was the only one to soothe the savage breast of the Separatist and bring the rebel back to reason and allegiance. It might be said that the Dublin trade had had a great deal to do with this matter in the past, and that it might have a great weight in dealing with the subject in the future. He did not know exactly what Dublin trade consisted of. Some might say it was whisky; some might say it was poplin; but these who took the trade view of the case were really not these who carried on an Irish trade, but they were chiefly dressmakers and others who represented London and Paris firms. If there were a single Irish trade or industry which could be promoted, or which could be better kept alive by the retention of the Office of Lord Lieutenant, he should be the last man in the world to desire to see that Office done away with. But there was not a single trade, so far as he could discover, which would be affected one way or the other by the retention or abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy. "Who would be affected? It would not affect the hotel keepers; it would not cause less traffic on the railways; the tailors would make as many pairs of trousers, the boot makers as many pairs of boots, and the carriage builders would make as many carriages as they did now. The question of the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy, he was aware, could not be raised and passed over in a few words. There was, of course, that large question of the privileges enjoyed by the presence of the Lord Lieutenant, and his advocacy of the claims of the various charitable institutions and hospitals in Ireland generally, and in Dublin in particular, and which had done so much good for the country. He certainly would not think of submitting a scheme which would rob these institutions of any of their privileges. It
  284
  was, as he had said, a scheme which would attach to the Secretary of State to be appointed such a salary as would enable him to meet the claims of charitable institutions in the future as they had been met in the past. He proposed to raise from the ashes of an anomalous Office the Phœnix of a new and more practical post, and to establish it altogether upon a more reasonable and responsible basis. That no injury should accrue to Ireland by the loss of the costly accessories of Viceregal glitter, he suggested that Her Majesty's Ministers should submit to Her Majesty the long-entertained and long-silent but now loudly-expressed complaint of her Irish people, and urge upon her gracious consideration their fervent prayer— namely, that as for many years past in England and Scotland where there were any public duties for Royalty to perform, and the Sovereign was not able to be present, she was officially represented by a Royal Deputy, so should the same course be taken with reference to Irish institutions. They desired that in great public ceremonies the Queen should be represented by Royalty, and not by a mock Court, which was a base imitation of the real thing. The Court in London had been considered sufficient for the extremes of England, Scotland, and Wales; and he thought that it should be quite sufficient for the extreme parts of Ireland. Irish people who were desirous of paying personal respects to Her Majesty would gravitate to the Metropolis if the Lord Lieutenancy were abolished, and would help to swell the rank and file of these who constituted the retinue of the Court. During the recent visit of the Prince and Princess of Wales to Ireland, it was found that the ceremony of being presented to the Lord Lieutenant did not count as a presentation to the Sovereign, which he considered the climax of anomalism. He hoped that in any remarks he had made he had not said anything which would be painful to the feelings of these distinguished Noblemen who had occupied the Viceregal Chair in the past, or to any of their relations. He did not profess to be original; but he could not help making use of epithets such as "mock," after studying this subject in the books and papers which he had recently perused. Whilst on this subject he could not refrain

  285
  from quoting the words of an article in The Times in 1858, which was made to say that in conceding a mock Court to Ireland Englishmen only did so as they would give glass beads to savages. The language of the present day was pretty strong; but he thought that that far exceeded anything that was now written. When, the late Lord John Russell introduced his Bill in the Commons, he held out what in vulgar parlance was called a "sop." He suggested that, to assist in the passing of the Bill, the Irish people should be led to understand that Her Majesty the Queen would pay them a visit not only once, but frequently. That, he thought, was a very unfair thing to have done. He did not know whether the bait took; but, at any rate, the Motion was passed. There was not, however, the slightest chance in 1886 of anything of that sort being placed before the Irish people, because they knew that it would be unreasonable to expect Her Majesty to so severely strain her health and time, neither would they for a moment expect His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, whoso hands were already full, to undertake the duty. Although the Irish people might rejoice to see His Royal Highness, they would not expect to see in him the accepted deputy of their Sovereign; but what people in Ireland bore in mind was, that there was another of Her Majesty's sons, whoso name and title lent themselves not a little to the occasion; and it would give the greatest pleasure all over Ireland, and considerably reduce what was now called disloyal feeling, if an announcement were made semi-officially that a Royal residence was to be purchased for the Duke of Connaught, who should represent Her Majesty. No particular duration of time need be named for the existence of the Office; it would do a great deal of good, and the people would always know that there was living among them one of the Royal Princes whom they could justly call their own. One of the objects he had before him was to impress upon their Lordships that the Act of Union was not complete, and that it was not too late to make it complete by taking these steps in the right direction, and, by assimilating the law of Ireland to that of England, to draw the two nations together. What he
  286
  wished to see was, that Her Majesty's Government should bring in a Bill to abolish the Office of Viceroy, and establish a Secretary of State, who should be an Irishman, if possible; if not, both the Under Secretaries should be taken from the ranks of resident Irishmen. Then a Bill should be introduced giving suitable salaries to these officials. What was even more important was that Dublin Castle should be thoroughly reorganized, placed thoroughly under the complete control of the Secretary of State, and put into proper touch with all boards of official administration throughout the country. At present there was a great complaint that there was not sufficient connection, in feeling or otherwise, between bodies like the Irish Board of Works and Dublin Castle. In the event of the changes he proposed being made, the Secretary ought, of course, to have a seat in the Cabinet; and it was also indispensable that he should have a private residence in Ireland, as well as an official one. It had always been a source of complaint that Ireland had been governed by Englishmen; and the only thing that could be said in its favour was that it was like the doctor who said that he could always prescribe better for his patients when he never saw them. With regard to the changes he had proposed, he was reminded of the saying that if you could not get what you wanted you must put up with what you could get; he hoped, therefore, that the noble Marquess, if he intended to reply, would, at all events, see his way to carry out some of the changes proposed. It was impossible, without possessing the power of prophecy, to conjecture, with the slightest degree of certainty, what the noble Marquess the Prime Minister would say, even if he condescended to notice the speech. Probably the noble Marquess would administer to him a rebuke for having dared to occupy so much of their Lordships' valuable time, and for having struggled to his feet into paths where statesmen feared to tread. If the noble Marquess, however, did administer a rebuke, he hoped it would be a kind one, and that he (the Earl of Kilmorey) should have sufficient spirit left to accept the rebuke with fitting humility, especially when he remembered that it came from such a distinguished statesman as the Prime Minister. But perhaps the noble

  287
  Marquess might say that, although it possessed some defects, there were some points in his scheme worth consideration, and that he might promise to take some action in the matter. If he did not succeed in impressing upon their Lordships' House the advisableness of abolishing the Lord Lieutenancy in favour of a Secretary ship of State, at any rate he would have the consolation of knowing that he had given their Lordships a great subject for their careful and dispassionate consideration.
  Moved, "That in the opinion of this House the time has now come when the post of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland may be abolished with advantage."—(The Earl of Kilmorey.)
  EARL COWPERthought that a great deal was to be said in favour of the Motion which had been brought before them. After the exhaustive manner in which it had been treated he did not intend to make a long speech; but as he had had the honour of holding the Office of Lord Lieutenant he thought that he might be permitted to say a few words. He did not place the same stress as the noble Earl had laid upon the functions of Viceregal hospitality, or upon the effect of the Lord Lieutenant's Court upon the trade of Dublin. The functions of hospitality and the Court held at the Castle were, some time ago, matters of considerable importance; but now, owing to the rapidity of communication between Dublin and London, they were of very little importance. While he filled the Office of Lord Lieutenant he must say that he did so with very mixed feelings. The hospitable part of the duties he looked back to with great pleasure. There was something so essentially kindly, hospitable, and generous in the Irish nature, which made him look back with pleasure on that part of his experience, and made his duties very easy. The people were so generous and hospitable themselves, and so willing to respond cordially to any civility which one might attempt to show, that entertainments were very pleasurable things. At the same time, he could not deny that the people who attended drawing-rooms, balls, and other Castle entertainments were, as a rule, either these who were what might be called "the English garrison"—the people quartered there—a large number of officials and others who came because they thought that as long as a Court
  288
  was held in Dublin, it was their duty to show respect to the Representative of the Queen by attending. Of this last he had an example at the time he was in Ireland. At the beginning of his first Castle season the Government of the day was not at the time very popular with the upper classes in Ireland, and there was a feeling prevalent that there would be a general resolution not to attend his levees. But when the levee was held several gentlemen differing from him in politics made a point of coming to attend. Amongst these latter he might mention the present Lord Chancellor—whom he did not know personally at the time—he came over specially to Ireland, and remained only a few hours in Dublin in order to attend. There was however, nobody who wished to attend a drawing-room or a levée who could not do so by coming over to London. So much for this part of the matter. Of course, there was also the question of the trade of Dublin. In these days, when trade was everywhere very stagnant, one must be sorry that anything in Dublin or elsewhere should have the effect of taking money out of the pockets of the tradesmen. He and others, no doubt, would be very sorry for their sakes that any such thing should take place. But he thought that so far as the encouraging trade was concerned there was really not any serious importance to be attached to the question. There was absolutely nothing in the duty of the Lord Lieutenant which could not be performed by a Secretary of State, who would have power as Lord Spencer had power. He could not see why Lord Spencer should not have been called Secretary of State for Ireland. Mr. Smith had now gone over to Ireland, and he was a Member of the Cabinet; and anyone appointed to the Office of Lord Lieutenant with the Chief Secretary in the Cabinet would find himself in a very unenviable position. It was always disagreeable to have nominal responsibility, and to be the nominal head, when the man who was supposed to be your subordinate had the real power. He thought Her Majesty's Government would have some difficulty in finding anyone to fill the Office under the circumstances. In times of disturbance men were ready to serve the Queen and country; but, however anxious they

  289
  might be, he thought it would be asking too much of them to expect them to occupy that position. If there was a Secretary of State appointed in substitution of the Lord Lieutenant, he would have an Office in London and in Dublin. He would go backwards and forwards. In quiet times—if, indeed, they were ever to have quiet times again—certain advantages would be occasioned by having a great deal of the business concentrated in London. He thought—judging from his former experiences in Ireland—that there was a great deal too much of a disposition to refer everything to the Central Authority of Dublin. Not only what in the ordinary course of business was submitted to the Castle, but everybody who had anything to do with Ireland would acknowledge that there was a tendency on the part of the people, or of a class of them, in that country to trust too little to themselves, and too little to local action, and to come up to the Castle at every little difficulty—in former times he would have said for every little job, though he hoped it did not exist now. Everything that might be wanted caused these people to come up to the Castle, and have it done. If they could transfer the business to London in these days of telegraph, railways, and steamers, this condition of things could be broken down and done away with. The Chief Secretary or Secretary of State could go backwards and forwards, and everything could still be done in Ireland which could not be done in this country. He knew, of course, that the question of abolishing an Office that had existed for 600 years was most important and difficult. It was impossible not to consider it in connection with the existing state of things, or how it should be regarded in connection with the question of Home Rule, which, after all, was the great question of the day, and one which was concerning and occupying the minds of all men, and on which everybody's thoughts were fixed more than on anything else. Now, there was no doubt that the Irish Members—the great bulk of them— were not disposed to have a very close union with England, and they had taken up the question of abolishing the Office of Lord Lieutenant. He could not help thinking that these Members did so at a time when they thought that Home
  290
  Rule was altogether out of the sphere of practical politics. If, however, they really thought there was a chance of getting Home Rule, they would feel that there would be, as in Canada, a Governor or Lord Lieutenant absolutely necessary. He was one of these who considered Home Rule impossible, and that they could never grant a separate Parliament to Ireland. It could not be too soon thoroughly known that it was not the intention of any Party to do this; and feeling that, and as a great deal of the business connected with the Office of Lord Lieutenant could be done in London, the announcement that the Government intended to do away with the Office would be as good as a deliberate statement that they did not intend to do anything to sever the Union. He considered the present a very opportune moment to declare that this last vestige of what was once a separate Constitution should be done away with.
  THE EARL OF HOWTHsaid, that notwithstanding the many objections to the proposal he could not refrain from supporting it. At the same time, he thought that the importance of trade in connection with the Viceregal Office had been somewhat overlooked; and he trusted that if the Lord Lieutenancy was abolished a Representative of Her Majesty would still hold a Court in Dublin. Two Viceroys had lately ruled in Ireland—one with uniform firmness, and the other with uniform kindness, and it remained for history to record which was most successful. He agreed that in reference to the expenditure, immediately the result of the Viceroyalty, the question was a very small one; but it was one which could not be entirely overlooked. His principal objection to the Viceroyalty was based on the fact that it was a political office. If they looked to India, Canada, and the Colonies, the Viceroy or Governor General continued to hold the Office in spite of any change of Ministers. In Ireland if the Office was continued it should be the same. The Office of Viceroy was now in abeyance; and what they desired to know was, how long it would remain so before something was done in connection with that part of the Administration in Ireland? There was a sum of about £20,000 a-year which was granted for the upholding of the Office of Lord Lieutenant; and he strongly maintained

  291
  that although that Office was in abeyance the sum ought to be available for the purpose of defraying the expenses of what might be termed a Royal residence in Ireland. He sincerely trusted that if another Lord Lieutenant was not to be appointed there would be every one or two years a visit paid to Ireland by an illustrious Prince representing Her Majesty; and he believed that these periodical visits would be an effective substitute for what he hoped was the defunct Office of Lord Lieutenant.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that two and a-half years experience in holding the Office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had convinced his father that the maintenance of that Office was not only unnecessary but undesirable. Not only that, but what he (Earl Fortescue) himself saw there during the same time, acting as he was as his father's private Secretary, led him to the conclusion that the Office ought to be abolished. He should support the Motion, believing the time to be very appropriate for carrying out the object at which it aimed. In securing that object they would efface, as far as possible, all reminiscences, and discourage also all hopes, of the revival of a separate Parliament and a separate Administration in Ireland.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that it would be difficult for any Government in future to appoint a new Lord Lieutenant if the House passed a Resolution against the continuance of the Office. He considered it inexpedient in the face of the Resolution that they should bind themselves in this matter before they had a definite proposition before them. It was quite true the noble Earl who had introduced the Motion had made suggestions; but they must fall to the ground, as they were not the suggestions of the Government. Indeed, he did not know whether the Government had any plan upon the subject; but he knew this—that the Motion came by surprise to the whole of Ireland, which country as yet had had no opportunity to express any opinion whatever upon the matter. If they were to affirm the Resolution he saw no way out of it. There were great difficulties in connection with this subject. It was not merely the abolition of an ancient Office that should be considered. There was another question—namely, the substitution of something
  292
  else in its place; and they were now asked to vote in favour of the abolition of the Office of Lord Lieutenant before they knew what was to be given in return for it. If the Office was to be abolished no sentimental views should be allowed to prevent its abolition. There was no law or statute requiring the appointment of a Lord Lieutenant. The government of Ireland might be carried on without one; but it would be exceedingly awkward to have the Office abolished before they knew what scheme the Government had in store in substitution, and before they had had an opportunity of considering and discussing it. When Lord John Russell brought forward this question, it was by Bill, and not by Resolution. The difficulties of the subject were so great that the Bill was abandoned, although it was carried through the Commons by a large majority. It should not be forgotten that if they abolished the Viceregal Office another important Office would fall with it. He referred to the Office of the Lord Chancellor for Ireland. What Dublin precisely wanted was to be let alone. He believed if she had no legislation for many years to come they would find that there would not be a more prosperous or happy city in the United Kingdom. He felt it was very undesirable, and very unadvisable, before the country was in any sense in a contented state, to entertain such a proposal. He believed, moreover, that the country ought to have time to consider the proposal before their Lordships committed themselves to an abstract Resolution which really there had been as yet no opportunity to consider.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he thought it should be laid down as a distinct principle that there was no need for this change; and he ventured to say that the opinion of the country was not favourable to the abolition of the post of Lord Lieutenant. He was aware that, on his side of the House, at all events, it was a tradition of their policy that the Lord Lieutenancy should be abolished. A substitution, however, was so difficult—touching so many tender and subtle webs—that there must be a remedy of some other kind. He believed the remedy for the present state of things would be found in making the Office more or less of a permanent character. The first thing to do, in his opinion, was to lift

  293
  the Lord Lieutenancy above the level of Party politics, and so change the position of the Lord Lieutenant that he should become, in a certain sense, a Constitutional Sovereign, and not merely represent, as he now did, the Imperial Parliament of this country. Thus, for instance, he would appoint him to the post for a term of five years; and, as the Representative of no school of politics, he would be able to vindicate that law which the Irish only required to know was being steadily and persistently enforced to obey.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, my noble Friend at the Table made an able and interesting speech, a speech which I am sure will do much to stimulate opinion and discussion upon the important question to which it relates. If we were merely dealing with a speculative subject from an historical point of view, I confess my sympathy and my assent would be completely at the service of my noble Friend. But my impression is that there is no maxim of polities which has been more generally accepted by statesmen during the last 30 years than that the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland was superfluous; but, on the other hand, there has been no conclusion more usually arrived at than that it was necessary to postpone the practical consideration of the subject. When that course has been followed out by men of different minds and of different opinions in various circumstances, it appears to me that there must have been some very good reason for doing so. Nobody can doubt but that the Lord Lieutenancy is, what is called in these days, only "a survival." It arose in very different times and circumstances. It represented the difficulty of reaching Dublin from London at a time when adverse weather might make the difficulty of communication between the two countries an affair of weeks. At that time it was necessary that there should be a Representative of the Sovereign in Ireland. But that necessity has entirely passed away. My noble Friend went at some length into the scientific facilities which exists for governing Ireland from London. My impression is that he exaggerated them a little. But the thing which ha proposes could no doubt be done if we had no past history, no present feeling, no danger of misconstruction, and no disturbance of the normal condition of
  294
  things to take into account. I will go further. I think that the Lord Lieutenancy is not only anomalous, but in some respect it is inconvenient. The noble Earl, who has been a former Lord Lieutenant, dwelt on this inconvenience in strong language. He spoke of the future; but I understood him to be referring to the past, He said it was very inconvenient for the Chief Secretary to be in the Cabinet and have all the power, and for the Lord Lieutenant to be without power altogether. And he went on to say, in effect, that the position was so degrading that he did not understand how anyone could accept it.
  EABL COWPER: I did not use the word "degrading."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps not. That was my impression. I hope he will forgive me for saying that the observation has not made it more easy for the Government to provide another Lord Lieutenant; and if there is any delay in appointing that useful officer, I hope the person who is impeached will be the noble Earl opposite. Undoubtedly there is a certain anomaly and inconvenience in the fact of the officer who is nominally subordinate to the Lord Lieutenant sitting in the Cabinet and settling the policy which the Lord Lieutenant is to pursue, and the orders he is to obey; and it is possible that a little friction may sometimes arise in these circumstances. And more than that, where the Lord Lieutenant is taken into council, and where he has a share in fixing the policy which his Chief Secretary really directs, you always have the inconvenience of a double Government, and an occasional weakness in the direction of affairs in consequence. Therefore, I quite agree with my noble Friend that if we had to begin again it would not be desirable to have a Lord Lieutenant. But I am afraid I must follow the long course of precedents before me by saying that I do not think this an opportune moment for entertaining this question. After all, except for its inconvenience, the Lord Lieutenancy does not do very much harm. And whom should we please by abolishing it? Is it the Loyalists who are very largely interested in the trade of Dublin? I very much doubt whether that excellent and patriotic body are very anxious for its abolition. Should

  295
  we please the Nationalists? I was exceedingly glad to hear the outspoken language of my noble Friend (Earl Cowper), a former Viceroy, as to the possibilities of Home Rule. I listened to that language with the most hearty sympathy, and I desire to re-echo it; but when he went beyond that and said that the best way to teach the Nationalists that you would not give them Home Rule was to give them a more centralized Government, that was going to the other extreme. I would rather put it in this way—that undoubtedly the substitution of a Chief Secretary, with his offices in London, for a Lord Lieutenant would be to increase, and not to diminish, centralization, and, therefore, would displease the Party known as Nationalist, as well as the Party known as Loyalist. I do not know that to increase the subjects on account of which Ireland is displeased with England would be precisely the wisest course to pursue at the present time. There is another point to which allusion has been made. I think it was my noble Friend at the Table who said that he looked forward to the time when everyone who desired to be presented would come to London for the purpose. Well, but that means a very considerable displacement of the class of persons who under ordinary circumstances, at least, add to the trade of the country and keep money in it, by giving employment to industry and prosperity to trade. Is the present condition of Ireland, especially with regard to trade, one which should be selected for the performance of an operation which would have the effect of diminishing the causes of prosperity and trade? On the contrary, the great evil resulting from past circumstances in the case of Ireland is that money is leaving the country too fast, and that it is very difficult to keep it there; and gratuitously to add to these causes of impoverishment seems to me to be very injudicious in the present state of things. I do not think on either side, on the side of the abolition or on the side of the retention of the Office, that the arguments are of that overwhelming importance that I should apprehend any great disaster either way. But weighing the arguments against each other, not with respect to their importance, but with respect to the time at which the Motion is made, I am com-
  296
  pelled to agree with the noble and learned Lord opposite that the time is not opportune; and that Her Majesty's Government could not, I think, without a derogation from their duty, give any countenance to the Motion of the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he also agreed very much with what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend behind him (Lord FitzGerald). This was by no means an easy question to settle. It could not properly be discussed as an abstract Motion, but only when there was a distinct and well conceived plan laid before the House. There were a great many questions that bad to be dealt with in considering the abolition of the Office of Lord Lieutenant, and they were of such a character that they could only be dealt with by the responsible Government. The noble Earl at the Table suggested that the proposed Secretary of State should permanently reside in Dublin; but, of course, he would have to be in London for a great portion of every year. In that they had before them the real difficulty in the matter, as, undoubtedly, the Chief Secretary, if in the Cabinet, was practically the superior of the Lord Lieutenant. Until all the questions that were involved in this matter wore fully before the House—and before the House on the advice of the Government of the day—he maintained it would be exceedingly imprudent and hasty for the House to come to the conclusion that the Office of Lord Lieutenant should be abolished. It had been said that there was no Statute compelling them to appoint a Lord Lieutenant; but there certainly were Statutes providing that certain things should be done by the Lord Lieutenant; and, for this reason, legislation was absolutely necessary. He agreed with a great deal that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had said; but he could not detach the present proposal from the whole question of policy with regard to Irish affairs. The time might come when it might be expedient to abolish the Office; and as a personal opinion, looking at it from a general point of view, he should be inclined himself, providing that the administration could be satisfactorily arranged for, to take the view that there would be an advantage in abolishing

  297
  the Lord Lieutenancy. There was always a weakness in having a dual office, even although there might be an excellent understanding between the two officers. At the same time, he thought—and he had thought so during the period when he had filled the position of Lord Lieutenant—that there was very considerable disadvantage in not having Irish affairs directly represented in the Cabinet; for without that representation Irish affairs, which, he was sure, were as important as any others, were apt not to get that consideration and full attention which they deserved. He concurred with the noble Marquess that the House should suspend its judgment in regard to this Resolution; although, if brought forward in a practical form, the question of the abolition of the Viceroyalty might be one deserving considerable attention.
  THE EARL OF KILMOREYsaid, that having elicited the expression of opinion which would be useful in the country, and which he thought was not altogether hostile to the principle of his Resolution, he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND—MINISTERIAL POLICY.RESOLUTION.
LORD WAVENEY, in moving—
"That the Ministerial plan for government of Ireland be introduced forthwith, and take precedence of all public business up to report,"
said, he must complain of the prolonged silence of the Government, and declared that the debate on Thursday evening had satisfied no one. This he knew from private communications he had received from Ireland. He had no desire whatever to interfere with the discretion of the Government, nor did he desire to promote a discussion upon this point by any remarks which he might make; but they had now, as it were, come into a new world, and they had a very altered state of affairs to face. It might be asked why he had brought the matter before their Lordships? It was, first, because he desired that in all Constitutional matters the House should reserve, exercise, and vindicate its rights in these Constitutional matters; and, in the second place, because he thought the matter could be dealt with in a calmer tone than "else where." He wished
298
to put the matter plainly in a few sentences; and he assured the Government that people were waiting with great anxiety for their answer, and for the policy which it was intended to introduce. People in England had no conception of the excitable and exasperated state of the people of Ireland. The public mind there was in a condition he never know before. Day by day the tide was rising, which he feared would saturate the country with even greater-dangers than these which even now existed. He said in no exaggerated terms that even in the peaceable districts he knew, where they were desirous of carrying on quietly their homo industries, a sensible alteration had taken place of late. The people were determined to have a reply which would satisfy them that peace and security would be theirs. He hoped the mission of Mr. W. H. Smith would be productive of good results; but he feared otherwise. Mr. Smith had been brought up in the English school of politicians, and he doubted if he would be able to obtain all the information necessary to form a sound judgment. Parliament had already neglected too much, and thought too little of their responsibilities with regard to Ireland. They forgot how great a difference there was not only in the character, but in the free way in which matters were looked at, and in fact had not the same political effect in both countries. For instance, the election to all offices of trust were dependent on public taxes in England. He remembered some years ago how a very powerfully constituted Committee of the House of Commons, sitting on the question of Elective Boards for Counties and its success, had so little evidence that no further proceedings were to be taken. There must be a combination which would mutually aim at the adjustment of the body politic; and he held that an experiment to he a success must be carried through all the adverse circumstances which might arise. The position which the Irish Members of the House of Commons hoped to attain was inconsistent with the maintenance of Imperial power; and he therefore cordially approved the firm words which were read from the Throne when Parliament was opened by Her Majesty. But these words were not enough by themselves. In the fevered and disturbed state of public opinion in Ireland at the present

299
time it was of vital importance that the Government should give the country, without delay, a clear indication of their intended policy. It was the wish of many people in Ireland to subject the classes possessing most intellectual power to the rule of uneducated men, and the strange spectacle was there seen of the persecution of its own members by a particular class. He alluded, of course, to "Boycotting," which had wrought such evil as was difficult to conceive. To show how greatly this form of intimidation had spread it would be sufficient to tell the House that the heads of some of the most powerful banks in the country had hesitated to support resolutions of loyalty because they feared to imperil the money of their shareholders, having the example of the run upon the Bank of Ireland before their eyes. No one could have any conception of the state of things unless it came home to him. The matter was not confined to the banks, for they could not place their cattle on board ship, they could not drive them to market or perform any of the functions of honest industry without running the risk of being ruined or of bringing ruin to these with whom they were dealing. No time should be lost by the Government in putting down such a state of things. They could defy the world in arms; but it was impossible for them to defy the murder and burning which went on throughout the country. Never was there a time more favourable for bringing back the people to a condition in which they would respect the law. He had been perfectly astounded at the rapidity with which the corruption had spread. This was no time for tampering with the solid resistance to law which existed in Ireland. Where an example could be made without harshness let it be made. If a municipality showed that it was determined in its resistance to authority then take from it the charge which it did not deserve to have. With regard to one question which had been brought up—namely, that of a Royal residence in Ireland—he warned them that it would become a centre for all intrigues; but let the Constitutional Sovereign pass through her territories freely, unbidden, and spontaneously, and he was prepared to assert that Her Majesty would meet with a reception as warm and as hearty as any she had ever received in any part of her dominions.
300
He stood by the side of their Royal Highnesses when they visited Ireland, and was able to speak of the absolute sincerity of the reception they received. It appeared to him that the Office of Lord Lieutenant, above all others, should be outside Party politics. No doubt he should be a man in whom both Parties had confidence; but they had no difficulty in this particular in other directions, and would find none with regard to Ireland. In conclusion, he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
Moved, "That the Ministerial plan for government of Ireland he introduced forthwith, and take precedence of all public business up to report."— (The Lord Waveney.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I suppose that the noble Lord does not propose to take the sense of the House upon the Motion which he has made, but rather regards it as the text of the interesting speech to which we have just listened, because the Motion itself is hardly applicable to the state of Business in this House. It asks—
"That the Ministerial plan for government of Ireland be introduced forthwith, and take precedence of all public business up to report."
If the Ministerial plan, as the noble Lord says, is introduced into this House, I do not imagine that there will be anything in the way of our ordinary Business which would make it impossible to go on with it. I think that this Motion rather looks like as if it were intended for the other House, and I am afraid that a Constitutional objection might be taken to it from that point of view. But the matter to which the noble Lord has referred is undoubtedly one of the gravest that can occupy us at any time, and I do not differ very much from many of the criticisms which have fallen from him. It is undoubtedly true that in addition to the positive and actual evils with which we have to deal—and they are very great indeed—we have also to deal with an excited state of public opinion in Ireland, and, perhaps, to some degree in this country, which I hardly need say enormously aggravates the task of these charged with the maintenance of public order and the preservation of peace, and increases tenfold the difficulties that lie before us. If it had not been for the excited state of public feeling I cannot imagine how such an interpretation of, and commentary upon, our intentions, as

301
appears to have affected the minds of the noble Lord and many others, could have come into circulation. We are unfortunately in the condition which was spoken of by a great American President—"We are changing horses at the moment of crossing the stream." We thought it essential that the Minister who would have the conduct of any propositions which we might make to Parliament should satisfy us and himself thoroughly on certain points by conference with the authorities in Ireland before we submitted to Parliament steps which we proposed to take for remedying the great evils upon which the noble Lord has dwelt. But to found upon that necessary act of circumspection the imputation that we had the intention of indefinitely delaying any explanation of our policy, or any action of the kind, is so exaggerated an interpretation that I can only attribute it to this very excited state of public opinion which conjures up dangers greater than these by which the community is actually surrounded. I imagine that there is no necessity for such a hasty Motion as this. I apprehend that we shall be very shortly in a position to make an announcement to Parliament; and I hope we shall be able to explain—it may be in a day or two—the steps which we think, at all events, will do much to remedy this terrible and scandalous state of things. I hope it will not be delayed more than 24 or 48 hours; and I hope, at all events, the noble Lord will acknowledge that in taking steps to perfect what we proposed, and to be fully armed—which, in dealing with Parliament, whore everything is carefully questioned, is not least necessary—with all the facts by which our opinion is supported, we have not out stepped that Constitutional prudence which it behoves every Government to observe in a conjuncture so grave as this, and which is in no way inconsistent with the resolution firmly and promptly to meet the evils which we are responsible for meeting.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I think the noble Marquess has somewhat misunderstood the criticisms which have been passed on the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government. It is not that the proceedings of the Government have been somewhat vague, or that they are to be blamed for the appointment of a new Chief Secretary; but the
302
fault we find with them is that they, having been in Office for some six months, and having had all the opportunities of forming opinions as to the policy which should be pursued, have suffered Parliament to come together, and have informed us that they have not made up their minds as to the course they would pursue. And whilst I am glad to learn from the noble Marquess that a very short time is likely to elapse before they make known their policy, I own I am lost in astonishment at the mode in which that resolution as to policy is approached by the Government; because it appears now that after we have been informed that they have thought it necessary to wait until the Chief Secretary had time fully to examine the state of affairs in Ireland, in point of fact, after 48 hours, or even 24 hours' residence in Ireland, he is to be suddenly endued, by a kind of second sight I suppose, with the moans of giving to the Government that advice which they have not yet been able to obtain, and enable them to announce a policy in what, I agree with the noble Marquess, is one of the gravest conjunctures which this country has found itself in for many years. When that policy is produced, I am sure, such is the keen sense on all sides of the difficulties of the situation, it will be fairly and I hope justly judged; but I cannot say that we shall come to it with an anticipation of a satisfactory policy being announced, so far as we can judge from the singular and most unsatisfactory mode of preparation for that policy which the noble Marquess has just announced.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

IRELAND (ELECTORAL STATISTICS).

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  Moved for Return—

  1. Of the number of registered electors in each county, city, and borough, or division of a county, city, or borough, in Ireland returning members to Parliament;

  2. Of the number of electors who voted in each of the above at the late general election;

  3. Of the number of electors, voting in each of the above at the late general election, who declared themselves illiterate.—(The Earl of Limerick.)

  LORD DE ROSsaid, Returns 1 and 2 could be granted. There would be no difficulty in supplying them; and as to the third, the Sheriffs must be referred

  303
  to; but, no doubt, no difficulty would be met with in obtaining it also.
  Motion agreed to.
  Return ordered to be laid before the House.

  GREECE—COLLECTIVE NOTE OF THE EUROPEAN POWERS.—QUESTION.
  THE EABL OF LIMERICK: Before the House adjourns I wish to put a Question to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is a Question dealing with the reports which have appeared in the evening newspapers as regards Greece. The statement is that some despatch or communication has been made by Her Majesty's Government to that Power. Perhaps the noble Marquess is in a position to state whether there is any truth in the paragraph?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there has been no isolated action on the part of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Greece; but six Powers—Russia, Austria, Germany, Prance, Italy, and England—have, at the instance of Her Majesty's Government, presented a Collective Note to the Greek Government intimating to them that, in the absence of any just cause for war between Greece and Turkey, any naval attack on Turkey will not be permitted.

  LAND REGISTRY BILL.
  A Bill to make temporary provision for the conduct of the business of the office of Land Registry—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in. order to its being dispensed with.(No. 7.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.