Sitting of 3 August 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Forestry [No. 246].
PRIVATE BILL by [Order)—Second Reading—Channel Tunnel (Experimental Works), put off.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Tramways (War Department) [246], debate adjourned; Stannaries Act (1869) Amendment (re-comm.)'*[342]—R.F.
Committee—Report—Irish Land Law [308–355]; Public Parks and Works (Metropolis] (re-comm.) * [136].
Withdrawn—Arbitration of Poor Law Questions (Scotland) *[2].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  CHANNEL TUNNEL (EXPERIMENTAL WORKS) BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR EDWARD WATKLN: I very much, regret that someone more accustomed to address the House has not taken my place in order to expound what I believe to be a great national question. I can assure the House that I rise to perform the duty I have undertaken with considerable hesitation. This Bill has been postponed from time to time to meet the exigencies of the Business of the House, and also in compliance with the wishes of Her Majesty's Government. I see by The Times of today that those who are promoting tills Bill are accused of having selfish interests. Now, I assert, on the contrary, that those who have been engaged in promoting the tunnel have shown every possible desire to treat this matter patriotically in a national, and not in a money-making, spirit. The board of directors is an honorary board, the secretary is an honorary secretary, the engineers are honorary engineers, and,
    1038
    strange to say, the solicitors are honorary solicitors also. In addition to that fact, I may mention that my own view, as well as the view of a great many of those who have promoted the Bill, has been that a high road under the sea to connect the Continent of Europe with England ought to be an International work, and ought not to be entrusted to private enterprise. It was only when we found from more than one Government that they were not disposed to make it a national enterprise, but were prepared to assist it as a private undertaking, that exertions were made with a view to raise the capital for experimental works connected with it. I think it may save the time of the House if I were to road a letter from the late President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), in reply to a very earnest appeal from mo that he would advise the Cabinet to allow the work to be conducted jointly by England and France, and not make it a joint-stock enterprise at all. The letter I received in reply is dated on board the Galatea, Barrow, 16th September, 1881—
    "MR DEAR SIR,—Your further letter of 14th instant has been forwarded to me here Until the Cabinet meets again I cannot give you an authoritative answer from the Government as a whole, though I really have no doubt in my own mind as to what that answer will be. But I will at once state the opinion of the Board of Trade on the questions you raise. We do not think that the project is one which should be any exception to the general rule by which, in this country, such enterprises are left in private hands. We shall not, therefore, recommend either that the Government should undertake the work, or that it should give State assistance in any form to the realization of this idea. At the same time, we are anxious that no officialism or red tape should he allowed to prevent, or even to delay, the undertaking, if private individuals are willing to go on with it. We have no preferences, or prejudices in reference to the different schemes which have been suggested. We have to satisfy ourselves—first, that no national interest is endangered by such a work as is proposed; and assuming that tills is satisfactorily established, then we have to consider the conditions which it may be necessary to impose, and to see that the position selected is the most suitable for any requirements which may have to be insisted on. We are also of opinion that the tunnel, if made, cannot be allowed to afford a monopoly of communication to any one Company. The maps and papers sent by you shall be laid before the Committee of Inquiry, who will proceed as quickly as the circumstances will permit."

    1039
    That letter, which is signed by Mr. J. Chamberlain, gives generally the view of the Government of that day; and it is under these circumstances that the work has been carried on as a private enterprize, and is not the work of the Nation. Now, Sir, the last Division which took place on this question was in 1885, when 99 Members of the then House of Commons voted for the second reading of the Bill then brought forward. Since then the two Companies which then existed for making the tunnel have amalgamated, and there is now only one Tunnel Company working and taking an interest in the matter, and they are now in negotiation with the French Tunnel Company, with a view to joint action. Consequently, when Parliament and the Government remove the difficulties in our way there will be no difficulty in carrying out the work. Since then there has been a far more important change than that. We have now got what may be called a Democratic Parliament, and it remains to be seen whether the idea of peace and fraternity between nations permeates the mind of the new democracy and their Representatives, or whether they will consider a policy of isolation and exclusion is the best policy for the British Empire. The present Bill has been considerably altered from the Bill of 1885, and it is now simply a Bill to enable further experiments to be made, not at the cost of the country, but at the cost of individuals. And then it proceeds to provide powers of agreement with reference to the experimental works with the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company in the event of the Lords of the Treasury sanctioning the carrying out of experimental works; it further provides that the works of the Channel Tunnel, when made, may be transferred to the country if required by the Lords of the Treasury. The Bill also contains power to raise an additional sum of money, to amend the existing Act of 1874, and to apply certain clauses of the Railway and Land Clauses Act of 1855 to the present Bill. Consequently, what the Bill amounts to is a request by private individuals, who are incorporated into a Company, to raise some more capital of their own in order to enable them finally to complete the experimental works, and to give the Government of the day—which means the House of Commons—the absolute power
    1040
    of saying whether, if the experiments are sanctioned and the tunnel made, the works shall be handed over to the Government in the interests of the nation. For my own part, I cannot imagine a more modest proposal than that, although I am aware that our proposals are threatened with opposition by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Secretary to the Board of Trade. Surely, knowing that the Government have refused to make these experiments in the interests of the country at their own cost, and seeing that while they still refuse to carry out the works they are to be endowed with power to decide the whole of this great and important question, it is too much to ask the House to reject the Bill. What is it that the House is asked to do? In the modest request contained in the Bill all the House is asked to do is to grant the usual inquiry before a Select Committee. That Committee, after hearing evidence and after sifting the evidence by means of cross-examination on the part of counsel, would have to decide whether the main provisions of the Bill are admissible. Should it be found that they are inadmissible the scheme would go no further. All the promoters ask, therefore, is that an inquiry before a Select Committee shall be conceded. I challenge the production of any precedent to show that the House, under similar circumstances, has refused an application of this kind when it has granted the prayer of a Petition and has allowed the Bill to be read a first time. No doubt it is true that we have had four inquiries already. We had an inquiry on the part of the Board of Trade, the Admiralty, and the War Office, which was of a preliminary character. I am speaking now of the more recent history of this great question. We have had, also, a military inquiry; we have had, in addition, an inquiry which I think was partly military and partly not; and, finally, we had an inquiry before a Committee of nine, of which you, Sir, were a a member. That Committee failed to agree upon a Report; but having had those four inquiries, I should like to point out to the House that the House itself, by the mode in which the question has been dealt with, has been prevented from having an inquiry under its own direction and by its own methods. These inquiries have been rather Commissions than Committees, and one essential con-

    1041
    dition of thoroughly sifting the evidence laid before the tribunals which have already made an investigation has been wanting—namely, the presence of counsel who could cross-examine the witnesses. If we could have had counsel to cross-examine the witnesses, will anybody tell me that it would have remained on record that so great an authority as Lord Wolseley would have laid it down at this time of day, without contradiction, that an invading army might reach the door of Dover Castle, find the sentry asleep with his gun unloaded, and be able to take Dover Castle by a ridiculous coup de main? On the other hand, it remains on record that the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief has said that if this tunnel were made it would be necessary to make Dover Castle a first-class fortress at a cost of £3,000,000, and that in addition to that it would also be essential to make use of what he is in the habit of calling "the conscription," and to arm, as it were, every man in the nation. Now, we want to get hold of these fallacies, and the only way to get hold of them is by appointing a Committee of this House to conduct an inquiry where there will be counsel employed to sift the evidence of the witnesses. In that case we pledge ourselves to disabuse the mind of the country as to the outrageous fallacies which have been put into the mind of the nation. No doubt it is technically the fact that this Tunnel Bill is a Private Bill, but it is one which raises, I admit, and I am glad to admit, the gravest and most important issues—issues affecting the whole commerce and industry of the country. The tunnel affects that great commercial intercommunication on which the commercial life of the country depends. While Europe is becoming more and more one country only by the piercing of mountains, the bridging over of rivers, and the breaking down of old - fashioned ideas of exclusion; while the most magnificent ports are being constructed by foreign countries, while that is the case in regard to the Continent of Europe, we, in England, on the other hand, are becoming more and more isolated. The House will remember that one-third of the food consumed, and nearly the whole of the textile materials used in our manufactures, with the exception of a little flax from Ireland, and some homo grown wool, we
    1042
    are dependent entirely upon the sea. If for a week or a fortnight we were to lose command of the sea, we should have to capitulate, perhaps, to some minor power. In such a contingency we should have no second line of supply, and those who advocate the making of this tunnel desire to provide that second line of supply and communication. Indeed, we say that the very safety of our trade is every day becoming more and more dependent upon such a second line of supply. I know it may be said that one single tunnel will not do the whole work of Europe; but the geological conditions under which the Channel Tunnel can be made are such that if required we can make as many tunnels, side by side, as are wanted. The formation through which the tunnel will be made is that wonderful material which in England is called the old grey chalk, consisting of about one-third clay and two-thirds chalk, and forming a sort of natural puddle. This seam is 300 feet thick. I sent up a piece of it for the inspection of the House; I do not know what became of it, but I may say that after having been filled with water for a fortnight not a single drop had exuded from it. I do not wish to say anything that the most captious might construe into irreverence; but I may say that the late Archbishop of Canterbury, after I had explained the geological facts to him, said he believed that Providence had placed that wonderful material between the coasts of England and France with a view to ultimate intercommunication. Then, again, the Bill affects another matter, which will receive, I hope, the serious attention of the House. It affects the relations between this country and Franco, and also between this country and Europe. If the House will favour me with its attention for a moment or two, and I propose to be as short as I can, I will show how Governments of both Parties have sanctioned the principle of a tunnel, and have done everything they could in past times to support it. I shall have to ask the hon. Member opposite (Baron Henry De Worms), when he rises to reply to me, and to move the rejection of the Bill, to explain what is the reason of the change of opinion which has been brought about, so far as the Conservative Party are concerned? Among the supporters of the Bill have been such

    1043
    distinguished Members of the Conservative Party as the late Lord Derby, Mr. Disraeli, the present Lord Derby, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I shall quote from official letters showing the views they distinctly entertained only a few years ago, and I shall show also that the Channel Tunnel scheme has been supported by the late Prince Consort, Lord Granville, Lord Clarendon, Mr. Cobden, and the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). At present the French Tunnel Company have pierced an experimental gallery one and a-quarter miles long under the sea on the French side, and the English Channel Company have done the same on the English side. The English Tunnel Company holds and possesses three miles of a coast-line between Shakspeare Cliff and Dover. They are not only the lords of the soil, but they have purchased the manorial and other rights, which have been held in undisputed possession ever since the inquiry as to the lands of the great church of Canterbury and other ecclesiastical bodies in the reign of Elizabeth. What is being done, therefore, is done upon their own property—their own freehold—and within their actual rights. It is quite true that in past days with a view, as we thought, of inducing them to go with us, we communicated to the Board of Trade, and the Government generally, every step that we took, and we obeyed their injunctions whether reasonable or unreasonable. That is the present position of the matter. One objection which has often been raised against the tunnel has reference to the question of ventilation. I may say that experiments have been made upon that matter; an engine has been invented and constructed which is worked by compressed air, and as far as the experiment has gone it has worked admirably. No doubt it is more costly than steam produced by the combustion of coal; but we believe that it will ventilate the tunnel and propel the train conveying goods and passengers without smoke or nuisance of any kind. This tunnel owes its origination very largely to the suggestions which wore made by a distinguished Frenchman, M. Thomé de Gomond, and on this side of the Channel to Mr. Low, Mr. Brunlees, and Sir John Hawkshaw, and since then by Sir Frederick Bram well and Mr. Brady,
    1044
    who are the consulting engineers, and who have continued the operations. M. Thomé de Gomond, at the time of the French Exhibition, mentioned an interview which took place between himself and his colleagues with the late Prince Consort, and if I did not desire to shorten my remarks I would venture to read his account of what took place. It proves unmistakably that Prince Albert was a warm advocate of the tunnel, on the ground that it would prevent the isolation of which I have spoken. M. Thomé de Gomond goes on to say that Mr. Cobden, whose Treaty with France has done so much to preserve peace between that country and England, described the tunnel as the true link of union between England and France. I only propose to read a few words from the voluminous Correspondence to which those proposals led, in order to show the grounds upon which I found the remarks I shall have to make. Here is an extract from a Despatch of Lord Granville to Lord Lyons in Paris, in which he says—
    "It now remains for me to request your Excellency to make known to the French Government the present application from the Tunnel Company to Her Majesty's Government, to communicate to them the foregoing observations with respect to the undertaking in question, and to state that, subject to those observations which Her Majesty's Government have considered it their duty to make, they see no objection, in principle, to the proposed tunnel between France and England."
    That is one of the main points. The next letter is a very important one, and I ask the kind attention of the House to it, and to the postscript which accompanies it. It is a letter signed "T. H. Fairer," and is dated from Whitehall Gardens, July 15, 1873. It is as follows:—
    "With reference to your letter of the 28th June, 1872, relative to the proposed Channel Tunnel scheme, I am directed by the Board of Trade to request that you will state to Earl Granville that, subject to the observations contained in my letter of the 23rd December, 1871, they would gladly see any improvement in the communication between this country and the Continent, and they would, therefore, be well satisfied to hear that the British railway system was likely to be connected with the European railway system by means of a tunnel between France and England. They presume that, while firmly opposed to any monopoly, Her Majesty's Government would not be inclined to offer objections to a concession being granted to the promoters of the Channel Tunnel Company upon the usual terms granted to a public Company in France,

    1045
    provided that either by fixing reasonable limits as to time, or reasonable conditions as to purchase of the undertaking by the respective Governments, or in any other way, the concession were prevented from operating hereafter as a monopoly injurious to the public. Should any such concession be contemplated, it would, no doubt, be submitted to Her Majesty's Government, who are, no less than the Government of France, interested in its details."
    There was a remarkable note appended to this document by the late Lord Frederick Cavendish, It was to this effect—
    "The draft letter mentioned above was in exact accordance with Mr. Gladstone's wishes."
    The next letter from which I propose to read a passage is one from Lord Granville, in July, 1873, to the British Ambassador at Paris (Lord Lyons), in which Lord Granville says—
    "I have to state to your Lordship that Her Majesty's Government adopt the views of the Board of Trade, and your Lordship may consider them as now communicated to you for your guidance in any representation which may be made to you on the subject."
    There is another letter, which is perhaps more important still, from its official character—a letter from the present Lord Derby, in December, 1874, to Comte de Jarnac, who was at that time the French Ambassador to this country, which states—
    "Of the utility of the work in question, if successfully carried out, there appears to be no reason for any doubt, and Her Majesty's Government would therefore offer no opposition to it, provided they are not asked for any gift or loan, or guarantee in connection therewith."
    It then goes on to say—
    "Her Majesty's Government have no objection to offer to the proposed grant to the promoters of a monopoly for 30 years after the final completion of and opening of the tunnel, nor to the concession itself extending to a period of 99 years from the same date, the question being reserved of some limitation being imposed as to the date of the final completion."
    As far as the correspondence went up to this point, everything appears to have been satisfactory. Her Majesty's Government, in the next place, appointed an able Member of this House—Sir Henry Tyler, who was then of the Board of Trade; Mr. Horace Watson, Solicitor to the Department of Woods and Forests; and Mr. C. M. Kennedy, of the Foreign Office—to negotiate a Convention with Commissioners appointed by the French Government, and the negotiations extended over many months. In May, 1876, two of the Chan-
    1046
    nel Tunnel Commissioners—Sir Henry Tyler and Mr. Kennedy—sent the following letter to the Secretary to the Treasury:—
    "Foreign Office, May 31, 1876.
    "SIR,—We have the honour to transmit herewith a Report, signed by ourselves and the French Commissioners, enclosing a Memorandum which the Joint Commission recommends should be adopted as the basis of the proposed Treaty between Great Britain and France with regard to the Channel Tunnel and Railway; and we should be obliged by your submitting the same to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury.—We have, &c,
    (Signed)
    "H. W. TYLER AND C. M. KEKNEDY."
    From the Report and draft convention which accompanied this letter, it will be found that the question, not only how the tunnel was to be dealt with in a time of peace, but how it was to be dealt with in a time of war, was most carefully and laboriously considered; and I find further letters from Members of the Government, thanking Captain Tyler, as he was then, and the other Members of the Commission, for the great services they had rendered. This may be called the past or ancient history of the question. The objections which have been raised in regard to the tunnel have been almost entirely military objections, although I believe there is one gentleman who has given testimony against the project, and has supplied the hon. Baronet opposite today with information, who is a civilian, and he may have therefore given strong military reasons against it. Apart from that, all the objections which have entered at all into the mind of the public have been military objections. It has been said that Members of both political Parties composing different Governments may have sanctioned the principle and agreed to the details of the project; but that there was no military inquiry into the matter. Now, Sir, with very great trouble and difficulty, I moved for and obtained a Return of a Memorandum, which may be called a missing link in this story. It is a copy of a Memorundum which was submitted to the Surveyor General of the Ordnance by Sir W. Drummond Jervois, Deputy Director of Works, on March 3, 1875, Sir F. Chapman being at the time Inspector General of Fortifications. That document was presented to the House in a Return from the War Office, dated

    1047
    August 9, 1883. The Memorandum says—
    "There appears to be no objection to the proposed tunnel provided due precautions are adopted. Should this country, in alliance with France, be at war with another Continental Power, the existence of the tunnel might be advantageous. Should this country be at war with France, the proposed tunnel could, no doubt, be readily closed. Having regard, however, to the possibility of the tunnel being unnecessarily injured under the influence of panic, and to the probable cost of repairing such injury, it is desirable to obviate, as far as possible, the necessity for adopting extreme measures, and with this object to pay due regard to defensive considerations in the construction of the tunnel. Moreover, unless proper military precautions be taken, it might, under some circumstances, happen that France might be able, in anticipation of a declaration of war, to send a body of troops through the tunnel, and to thus obtain an important military advantage. Such a body of troops could readily entrench themselves, and could be rapidly reinforced. If, however, suitable defensive arrangements are made, such an undertaking would be impracticable, and even in case of war being imminent, no fears need be entertained which might lead to the partial destruction of this costly work."
    Now, Sir, will anybody tell me that the important official Memorandum which those distinguished officers were required to prepare on the subject was not submitted to the War Office, and placed under the eyes of the Commander-in-Chief? It is impossible to conceive otherwise, and I am told, as a matter of fact, that it was. Therefore, before 1883, it is clear that the War Office were perfectly alive to what these two distinguished officers had reported, and it was to be supposed that they agreed with the Report which was made. In dealing with military men it is sometimes assumed that the soldiers of this country are unanimous on this question. Why, Sir, it is nothing of the kind. I know of many distinguished soldiers who, if they dared, would speak as to the ridiculous character of the objections put forward on the matter by our two most eminent military men—the Commander-in-Chief and Lord Wolseley. I am going to quote a very few words from the opinion of Sir John Adye, a distinguished military man, who has, perhaps, seen more service than any other half-a-dozen Generals you could put together. And this is what Sir John Adye says. I am sorry to weary the House with extracts, but the question is so important that I am sure the House will give me its indulgence. Sir John Adye says—
    1048
    "The tunnel may be a foolish venture. It may never be completed, it may, even if completed, be financially a failure; it may not realize any of the objects intended. On all these points I do not care to give an opinion, but as to its dangers in a military sense, and with the most ordinary precautions, I am unable to perceive them. The invention of steam as a motive power for ships, and the creation of large harbours on the French coast, are more serious matters for us in a military point of view than any amount of tunnels are likely to be. But I must go farther. Even supposing that a certain amount of danger were caused to this country by the construction of a submarine tunnel from France, I do not think that circumstance in itself would be a sufficient argument against its construction. The advantages of increased means of intercourse between the two countries, and the facilities for commerce, &c, may be so great as to overbalance the possible disadvantages; and, in that case, it would be our business to take such military precautions as would, whilst leaving it free in peace, enable us to provide against the possible dangers of a state of war. It surely is not a sound argument that, because a certain course may lead to a possible danger in war, we are, therefore, peremptorily to put a veto on it, and thus to deprive ourselves of the advantages which would accrue in peace. Bear in mind I give no opinion as to the tunnel itself—that is, whether it is likely to be completed, or to be a success, or whether its construction will pay commercially. I am assuming that these points have been considered and determined affirmatively, and if so, our duty then will be to take such military precautions as will prevent its use adversely to our interests in war. On this point I would observe that the tunnels under the Alps are being made apparently with the same general view as the submarine tunnel under the Channel, namely, for improvement of intercourse and facilities of commerce; and in their case the dangers would appear to be far more real than any which can be ascribed to the Channel Tunnel. But the nations at each end, no doubt, feel confident that they can prevent their adverse use in war. And, again, I would point out that all the great Continental Powers of Europe are united, as it were, by a network of railways, roads, and river communications, all of which afford ready means for invasion in case of war—dangers far and away greater than any we can incur by one long tunnel from one country necessarily terminating at a fixed point or exit in the other. The Continental Powers, however, do not dream of interdicting or blocking these international highways in peace time, because they feel, and rightly so, that the remedy would be far worse than the disease. To destroy or to prevent the means of external communication would, in fact, be intolerable. Consequently, whilst alive to the possible dangers, they confine themselves to minimizing them in time of war by obvious military precautions. This is exactly what we shall have to do when the tunnel is completed, but the precautions lo be taken by us are fortunately of a very simple character as compared to those entailed on the Continental Powers."
    Let me quote another letter from Sir Andrew Clarke, a distinguished man,

    1049
    who has served his country in various parts of the world—
    "Of course, in its effect upon the commerce of the two countries, as I have hinted, in case of war with Germany or Russia, or, say, with the United States, the tunnel would be a great source of security. With France as a friendly ally, or even taking up a neutral position, our goods would go under the ocean to France, and the Continent generally, and we should be under no anxiety as to the cruisers of the enemy seizing them. With Germany rapidly acquiring a foremost place as a naval power, this is a matter to which some significance should be attached. I will, however, pass to the consideration of the actual facility for attack which it is said the tunnel would afford. On this point I would say that I think the importance of the protection which 'the silver streak' gives has itself been somewhat magnified at the expense of the tunnel scheme. Assuming that a Commander-in-Chief on the French side were charged with the responsibility of conducting operations, and had full control given to him so that he could effect his object in the best possible way, it is extremely probable that, rather than make use of the tunnel, he would fall back upon steam transports, so as to make his crossing and attempt at a landing. Difficult as the task under any circumstances would be, he would by such means at least have the advantage of knowing to a certainty how he could land the various forces at his disposal; and then, in the presence of an enemy, he would be better able to judge of how he should distribute his troops. But it is said that what we have to guard against is a surprise. It is theoretically suggested that a number of troops, some 2,000, might be got through the tunnel and secure the entrance on this side. Such a surprise, however, would be a simple impossibility. Are these troops to come without arms and without uniforms, so that their passage and arrival may not be suspected? The sudden movement of such a body could not elude suspicion, for we cannot suppose that all this movement could go on without the railway subordinates, the military, or the public getting some hint of it. And even if the suppositious 2,000 men could be secretly convoyed, it is not to be forgotten that their passage would have to be preceded by the massing of an immense force of troops on the other side, which force, it is supposed, might be brought over after the tunnel was secured. Such a massing of troops would, of course, not be the matter of an hour, and is would, if anything, be as difficult to keep secret at the passage of the 2,000. Granting that the tunnel was seized and the 2,000 troops were for a time unmolested, the difficulty of passing the main body with the necessary horses and material through the narrow tunnel with sufficient despatch would be simply insuperable, and it is hardly to be doubted that, with all allowances made for the advantage of a surprise, a force which could only issue from the end of a caterpillar-like structure in driblets would soon find itself disseminated. In a general way, however, and apart from this, I am not inclined to attach much importance to the value of railways for the advance of an army in force, and still less should I do so when that railway was worked in a tunnel. However such railways may be auxiliary to the move-
    1050
    ment of troops, I am not aware of any instance in which they have served to advance an entire army, and nothing could have shown the difficulty in this respect better than the modern continental wars have done. Indeed, no one who witnessed what was experienced when we ourselves sent a comparative handful of troops into Afghanistan could fail to appreciate the difficulties which are to be met with when dependence has to be placed on communication by railway alone. Not, however, further to argue the points involved in the mere movement of troops through a tunnel such as that which it is proposed to construct, it would be absurd to suppose that the art of the military engineer is so exhausted that the tunnel itself could not be secured."
    The words which follow are excessively important, and are as much the words of a statesman as of a soldier. Sir Andrew Clarke goes on to say—
    "On all grounds, therefore, I think that the objections against the tunnel being made are not capable of being sustained, and this only I will add—if the industrial and social progress of our country, and the larger interests of humanity can be promoted by a work of this kind, it is not the rôle of the soldier to check the aspirations of his countrymen. Nay, rather, ignoring the imputations that may be made as to the promoters and capitalists being guilty of merely ignoble and sordid motives, let him exercise his service and his art for the removal and not the creation of obstacles to enterprise."
    Let me state a fact which is, I believe, very well known both at the Board of Trade and the War Office in regard to an eminent strategist—Count von Moltke. Count von Moltke has deliberately said that it would be about as possible to invade England through the Channel Tunnel as it would be to invade England through his library door. I think that the opinion of Count von Moltke is worth considering. We have had scares in this country before. I remember when the Manchester and Liverpool Railway was projected it was said that the French might land at Liverpool and sack Manchester, and the Duke of Wellington expressed doubts whether it was desirable to make a railway at Southampton, because, in the event of invasion, it would render access to London more easy than it would otherwise be to an enemy. Then there is the case of the great Exhibition of 1851. Hon. Members will remember the absurd fears entertained in regard to the Exhibition which are so graphically described in Sir Theodore Martin's Life of the late Prince Consort, from which I will only read a single quotation. Writing to Baron Stockmar on the subject, the Prince Consort said—

    1051
    "The Exhibition is now attacked furiously by The Times, and House of Commons is going to drive us out of the Park. There is immense excitement on the subject. If we are driven out of the park the work is done for."
    And, again—
    "The opponents of the Exhibition work with might and main to throw all the old women hero into a panic, and to drive myself crazy. The strangers, they give out, are certain to commence a thorough revolution here, to murder Victoria and myself, and to proclaim the red republic in England: the plague is certain to ensue from the confluence of such vast multitudes, and to swallow up those whom the increased price of everything has not already swept away. For all this I am to be responsible, and against all this I have to make efficient provision."
    I think that statement is quite as absurd as anything the military gentlemen may have got up. There is, however, a remarkable passage in the Report of the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1862. They say, referring to 1851—
    "Public opinion, in its surly moods, accused the Exhibition promoters of giving up their country into the hands of invited savages. The memorable May-day of 1851 was looked forward to with dread by many honest people, who regarded it as the turning point in England's fate. They expected that London would be ravaged at will, and planted with many varieties of new diseases. The tomahawk was looked for in Hyde Park—the stilletto in Cheapside, and dirt, strange costumes and stranger manners everywhere. Unmanageable crowds were pictured assembling in the chief thoroughfares to make the Exhibition a stalking horse for riot and plunder. Wild fears produced over-caution in the laying out of plans, and the police and army were concentrated as if for an internal war."
    These are the words of the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1862 about giving up the country into the hands of an invading army in the event of actual war. And it is a Report not from enthusiastic people, but a deliberate Report made by the Commissioners of 1862, many of whom were Members of this House; and that was the state of things apprehended at that time. I have very little more with which to trouble the House, but I must say that a great deal more is made than ought to be made of what is called "The silver streak." How was it that this House at the behest of Lord Palmerston voted £40,000,000 for fortifications? What was the reason of it? It was because Lord Palmerston contended that the introduction of steam, accompanied by the increased means of transport which it gave, had deprived us of the great advantage—if it was an advantage
    1052
    —of our insular position. However, what we propose to do is not to abolish or to interfere with "The silver streak" at all, but rather to create a golden band of peace between two great nations by promoting this larger intercourse between them which will be brought about by increased means of intercommunication, which will tend not only to produce a large trade, but those ideas of security and peace which must frequently be wanting between the nations of the Continent. I do not know whore all the opposition comes from. We see what the military opposition is, and we see what opinion a soldier of soldiers entertains. Is it possible that there may be some idea that by bringing about a closer relationship and a state of greater friendship and cordiality between England and France, we may displease Prince Bismarck and Germany? On one occasion I took a distinguished German to see the works, and when he came back he said—
    "I see the works can be done. They can be done easily; they can be done cheaply and rapidly but when they are completed England and France must become more and more one country,"
    I said, "That is really what we want," and the reply was—
    "That may be very benevolent, but I do not think it would be good for Germany."
    I hope there is no German idea at the bottom of this opposition, and that that is not the state of things we shall have to deal with. As we have now, to some extent a working men's Parliament, I should like to quote a working man's opinion. This is the opinion of Mr. Battersby, a man well known to many of the working men Members of this House, who belonged at the time it was expressed to the Scottish Typographical Association. Mr. Battersby said, in reply to a request to join an influential deputation of representatives of the working classes of the country upon a question relating to labour, in allusion to the proposed Channel Tunnel—
    "I am in receipt of yours of 30th, and regret to say that it would be highly injudicious for me to attempt a journey to Paris next month, for travelling knocks me up. I would like to have seen some of our French friends, and been able to express to them my entire concurrence in the great engineering scheme by which our respective countries are to be connected and made closer to one another."
    [A laugh.] Probably hon. Gentlemen

    1053
    will not laugh if they will allow me to continue—
    "The opposition to it may triumph for a time, but I am quite sanguine the work will be completed yet. I have never attached much importance to the opinions of military men upon the means which are best adapted for drawing nations together, or to spread the arts and studies of peace. They have all been despotic and tyrannical, and are likely to remain so. We want more liberty, light, and peace, among the nations of Europe; and less war and national jealousy among them. If wars depended upon the voices of the people in France, England, Germany, &c., they would be like angel's visits—few and far between. Express to our French friends my warmest approval of the projected Tunnel, and the success of every movement by which the prosperity of both nations may be increased."
    Some time ago a deputation of the working men of this country waited upon President Grévy. President Grévy is a man of great thoughtfulness and great foresight. He was then, as now, President of the French Republic, and in reply to an address presented to him by these English working men he said—
    "He regarded the Tunnel as a magnificent enterprise, and one involving the happiest effects. It was not therefore on that side of the Channel that any objection would be raised. France did not anticipate or fear an invasion. But it was not for him to judge the preoccupations of eminent Englishmen. It was in England that the opposition existed. They had addressed themselves to the French workmen, who were certainly in harmony with them, but what influence could they exercise over public opinion in England. It was for Englishmen to reflect and decide. If England thought isolation and separation the best for her, she was the best judge. This was the only reply he could give so far as the Tunnel was concerned. No objections would be raised against it in France, It was purely an English question."
    Now, I want to know whether anybody on the other side of the House—whether the Leader of the Government or any other important public Minister in dealing with France is in favour of a policy of isolation and separation? There can be no doubt that any man of business; anybody connected with shipping; anybody who knows anything about business, who will take the trouble to read the excellent paper prepared by Colonel Hozier, the Secretary of Lloyds, will see how greatly our trade is being drawn away from us to ports and places on the Continent because we will not carry out the great works that are necessary for unbroken communication. It will be found that the means of landing and transport in our great ports are greatly excelled in almost every nation of Europe. Take
    1054
    the case of Antwerp. That port is becoming rapidly what it was 200 or 300 years ago before it was destroyed by the Spaniards. It is now the great port of the North of Europe, and a very large business is now being done at Antwerp in connection with our Colonies, because they can get accommodation there which they cannot got in England. Moreover, they get through rates to every part of Europe in the same waggon or carriage—a thing which they find it impossible to get in England. In a very few years the shipping of Antwerp had increased from 2,300,000 tons to 3,300,000 tons annually. These figures prove my contention that we are getting from day to day more isolated, while Europe, on the contrary, is becoming more united. I have very few more words to say, and I think the quotation I am about to make will be far bettor than anything I can say. It is contained in the concluding words of a. Report prepared by yourself, Sir, the present Governor General of Canada, Lord Lansdowne, by Lord Aberdare, and by the Right Hon. W. E. Baxter, formerly a distinguished Member of this House, who represented Dundee. That report says—
    "We have now, however, imperfectly, reviewed the chief arguments to which we have had the advantage of listening in regard to the military aspects of this question. We have, in the earlier part of our Report, expressed our conviction that the commercial advantages likely to result from the opening of a Tunnel under the Channel are likely to be very considerable, and may probably far exceed the most sanguine expectations formed with regard to them. We are of opinion that a great industrial enterprise, offering a prospect so encouraging, should not be arrested except for conclusive reasons. We have given our reasons for believing that in the case of this enterprise the reasons urged for arresting it are not conclusive. In order to show sufficient cause for interference on the part of the State under such circumstances, it is, in our opinion, not enough to prove that circumstances can be conceived under which the existence of a Channel Tunnel might involve a more or less remote risk to the country, or that it is impracticable to devise precautions upon which absolute reliance might be placed 'in every imaginable contingency.' This is, however, all that has been done in the present instance by the opponents of the Tunnel project. They have, with much ingenuity, assumed the presence of every condition favourable to the view which they entertain, and the absence of every condition unfavourable to it, but they have not been able to show that there is the slightest prospect of a simultaneous presence of the whole of those favourable conditions, and unless this be assumed the whole argument founded upon them falls to the ground.

    1055
    "Holding those opinions, we have no course open to us except to recommend that this enterprise should net be prohibited on merely political grounds, and that it be allowed to proceed, subject to the ordinary Parliamentary examination by Committees."
    I have now nothing further to do than to thank the House for the generous attention it has given to one of the humblest of its Members, whose only justification is that he does not often trouble the House. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
    MR. PULESTON: I beg to second the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, '' That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Edward Watkin.)
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I think that in view of the arrangement which was arrived at last night between the Loader of the House and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, I should not he acting in accordance with that agreement if I were to intervene at any great length on this question, and so prevent the discussion of what is considered to be a far more important question—namely, the Irish Land Law Bill. I should have been loth to arrive at this decision if the hon. Baronet had advanced any real, new, cogent, or important argument which necessitated a long reply. If I may be allowed to say so, in the history of the Channel Tunnel Scheme which the hon. Baronet has given to the House, he seems to have forgotten that since the letter which he quoted, and which expressed undoubtedly the individual opinion of a man who is eminent as a statesman, a Committee of this House and of the House of Lords has dealt with the matter at very great length, and has carefully inquired into the whole question of the Channel Tunnel. And here, Sir, I must be allowed to say, and I say it with all respect to the hon. Baronet, that I do not think that the pamphlet from which he has quoted, and which has been widely circulated among Members of this House, very accurately, or, perhaps, very fairly, represents the views adopted by the Committee of 1884. The pamphlet gives the expression of the opinion of the Chairman of that Committee. As a matter of fact, it was a minority Report which
    1056
    was never received and never adopted. The fact that five other Reports were made and not adopted has been scrupulously concealed from the knowledge of the public. The hon. Baronet has relied to a great extent upon what has been printed in that Report; but if he wanted to give the House a strictly accurate and fair Report, he ought to have referred to the views expressed by other Members of the Committee in the proportion of six to four. The hon. Baronet has informed us that this scheme is purely a national and philanthropic one, having for its sole aim the development of more cordial feelings between France and England; that it is of a benevolent and charitable nature; that there is nothing Utopian in it, and that it is not in the slightest degree connected with profit and gain. This may be very interesting news to the House of Commons; but there may be some hon. Members who, like myself, do net consider that the promoters of the scheme are so thoroughly disinterested and have no eye to gain. The hon. Baronet has told us that the object of the scheme is to do away with the isolation of England. Now, I must say that I never in my life heard a more astounding proposition. The isolation of England is to be prevented—how? By uniting England with a Foreign Power! I have always understood that the insularity of England is England's strength, and in that sense isolation and insularity are synonymous. The hon. Member, however, thinks that in order to strengthen this country it is necessary to unite it to Franco, and he asks the House of Commons to give that power to a Joint Stock Company, with a limited liability, forgetting that the Government which is to give it has unlimited liability. I do not think that if the hon. Gentleman had weighed his words he would have used them, or that he would have considered them in any way a cogent argument in support of the scheme he proposes. But the hon. Gentleman tells us that this is a purely experimental scheme; but, so far as the experiment has gone, it has proved to be very successful from an experimental and engineering point of view. What, then, does the hon. Gentleman want? He wants the sanction of the Government to the continuance of the scheme, and not to the experimental scheme,
    SIR. EDWARD WATKIN: No; I confine it to that. As I have stated already, the whole of the tunnel question in future is to be left in the hands of the Government of the day—winch means Parliament.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: The experimental scheme has been tried by the House, and by a majority of 281 to 99 the House declared that it would have none of it. I am, therefore, at a loss to understand why, in face of a scheme purely experimental, we should recommence operations of which the House has expressed a decided condemnation. The lion. Baronet told us that it was absurd to be guided by the opinion of military authorities, and in the same breath he quoted the opinion of a working man, who thinks it is entirely to the advantage of this country that the tunnel should be made, and that it would not be fraught with any military danger whatever. Then he went on to say that opinions had been expressed by the late Lord Derby and other illustrious statesmen in favour of the scheme. I will not trespass upon the patience of the House by reading the opinions of an enormous number of eminent men who are opposed to the scheme. I may, however, inform the House that there is scarcely an organ of public opinion, from one end of the land to the other, which has not expressed an adverse opinion on the proposal. Of course, that goes for nothing at all in the view of the hon. Baronet, who maintains that the isolated state of Great Britain necessitates its connection with Franca by means of a Channel Tunnel. The hon. Gentleman ridicules the ideas expressed by eminent military authorities like Lord Wolseley and others. Although I should be willing to adopt the practical views of the hon. Baronet on all questions of railway policy or joint stock enterprize, I confess that I much prefer the opinions of Lord Wolseley and those who think with him on military matters. Lord Wolseley has distinctly stated—and he has not been contradicted—that if this tunnel is constructed we should increase, to a great extent, not only the danger to this country, but should involve it in the enormous expense that would be necessary to maintain a large Standing Army. I ask the hon. Baronet whether he does not agree that the security of this country
    1058
    is mainly due to the fact that we have not a military frontier? But by this scheme we are going to create an artificial frontier. The reason why the countries on the Continent maintain large Standing Armies is simply and solely because they have a large military frontier to defend. Are hon. Members opposite, who are continually preaching economy, going to create an artificial frontier, to protect which the country will have to pay heavily, or, failing to do so, they would not do their duty to the country? The hon. Baronet has also said, more than once, that surprise from an enemy is an absurdity. [Cries of "Hear, hear !"] Other hon. Members, in addition to the hon. Baronet, seem also to say so. The hon. Baronet gave as a reason that wars are always proclaimed, and that people are perfectly aware of what is going to take place. But I would remind the hon. Baronet that history proves that such is not the case, and an incident which was only reported yesterday shows the facilities whith which a strategical surprise may be effected. It was related in the House that our own Fleet had been sent round the coast with the avowed object of taking one of our ports. The ports were warned of that fact, and of the approach of the Fleet, and yet we have received the news that in broad daylight Falmouth has been taken. I, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman to apply that argument to the Channel Tunnel, and to say whether, in the event of war between France and this country, we might not find ourselves exposed to attack and surprise similar to that which I have just mentioned. One word more. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not a question of two nations being at war. There is an intermediate condition besides that of actual war. Within the present Reign the relations between France and England have been most strained, and dangerously so. I ask the hon. Baronet to carry his mind back to the periods of 1844 and 1846, when the relations of the Government of Louis Philippe and those of the Government of the Queen were critical. To come to a later period, does the hon. Member recollect the incident of the French Colonels, in 1858? That incident was a threat of invasion which necessitated the creation of the Volunteer Force.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Because there had been actual assassination perpetrated.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: If a similar scare occurred at the present day I would ask the hon. Baronet to consider whether it would not be necessary to destroy all these wonderful tunnel works which are to prove a boon to the country and to humanity, which are to unite the two countries, which are to do so much commercially for us, and which at any time it might be necessary to destroy. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I do not think, it necessary, nor do I think it right, that I should take up the time of the House. I can see nothing in the question that requires investigation at the hands of a Select Committee; and I will, therefore, conclude by moving the rejection of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Baron Henry De Worms.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): I rise, Sir, for the purpose of deprecating, if possible, any continuation of this discussion. Hon. Members are aware of the important Business to be transacted before 6 o'clock. The Business can be done in four and a-half hours; but if the discussion continues I cannot say what may happen. I therefore ask those who support, the Bill and those who are opposed to it to take the Division at once. I make this request with a freer mind, because I am a decided partizan of the undertaking. The speech to which we have just listened—the very clever speech of the Secretary to the Board of Trade—perhaps a more clover than judicious speech was—to my mind, rather a mixture of what I may call, without disrespect, "bogeyism and fogeyism." The hon. Baronet made an admirable speech in moving the second reading of the Bill; we have had a reply from the Representative of the Government, and I think we may now proceed to a Division.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I wish to add my appeal to the House to follow the advice which
    1060
    has been given by the Chairman of Committees. I am exceedingly sorry to stand between the House and the hon. Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), who appears to be desirous of speaking upon the question, or of any other hon. Gentleman, whether he may sit on this side of the House or the other; but I fully recognize the force of the appeal which has been made by the Chairman of Committees, and I think it is patent to every hon. Member that it is desirable we should come to an immediate decision upon the Bill, as to the nature of which we are fully informed.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I would venture cordially to support the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I am very sorry to stand in the way of my hon. Friend behind me (Sir Wilfrid Lawson); but everyone must agree that the Irish Land Bill is of far more immediate and pressing importance than any issue that can be raised in a Private Bill, and therefore I hope the House will accept the advice which has been given to it.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I must protest, with all my power, against the doctrine which has been laid down by the three right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken. Is it to be expected that the House of Commons is never to discuss any English question at all, but that its whole time is to be devoted to Irish matters? That is evidently what is meant. Do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen suppose that the Irish Land Bill can be discussed and finished before 6 o'clock? My experience of Irish debates is very different from that of right hon. Gentlemen if they suppose that the Committee on the Land Bill can be finished before 6 o'clock. This question of the Channel Tunnel involves a much greater question than hon. Gentlemen seem to think. It is not only a British question, but an international question—a question relating to the peace and goodwill of nations; and I maintain, therefore, that it ought to be followed up and freely discussed in this House. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade, who spoke a short time ago, took up a good deal of time, although it would appear that he does not want anybody to reply to him. He told us that the House decided the

    1061
    question long ago. The House of Commons did, but not this House. It never has been discussed in this House, and my hon. Friend who has brought it forward has a perfect right to lay it before the House, and get a full and free opinion upon it. I am sure there are many hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House who will agree with what I say, and be prepared to support the free discussion of the matter. Surely the onus probandi is on the other side. It is universally admitted that free communication between different parts of the country which are concerned in the interchange of commodities and passengers is a very good thing. [Cries of "Oh !" and "Divide !"] The right hon. Gentleman on the other side may put a stop to the discussion by moving "That the Question be now put." He has a majority, and can do so; but let hon. Members opposite put the closure in a legitimate way, and not by giving utterance to inarticulate shouts. I say that this is an age of tunnels and bridges, and that free communication between peoples is a good thing. Yet, when we come to France, it is said that we ought not to have that froe interchange and communication that is desirable with all other countries. We have carried a tunnel across the Mersey, and another across the Severn; but now we come to the French Coast, although for three-quarters of a century we have never had a quarrel with France, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade gets up and talks of our strained relations. Now, we have never had a rupture for a good many years, and there is no reason why we should have one. I was astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman say that our insularity was the source of our strength. I have heard that argument used against us—we who talk of peace are accused of wishing to isolate this country—and now we are told that insularity is the only thing that can protect us. The course taken in opposing this measure is one of the most extraordinary things of the present day. We have a Blue Book here published in the 19th century full of protests signed by Colonels, Archbishops, Bishops, Majors, poets, and painters, against the Channel Tunnel scheme; but I certainly was astonished to see among them the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt). His name, however, is the only
    1062
    one in the whole lot which may be said to represent the popular feeling of the country, because it is an expression of opinion on behalf of the working man. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to get up and explain how he can justify his opposition to this project on behalf of the working man? Why should he oppose a thorough interchange of commodities between the two countries? The only argument that can be used against it is that if we make this tunnel it may increase the chances of scare and panic, from which we are always suffering in this country. But surely my hon. Friend must have arrived at the conclusion that people will not always be as silly as they are now. Surely the nations will get wiser as time goes on. At any rate, it is our duty to teach them the folly of their ways. No doubt, the idea of military men is to oppose the scheme. They tell us that they would be unable to defend the country if this tunnel is made. Surely there are plenty of them, to do that. I received a very interesting pamphlet the other day, and on the cover of it was written—" With Lord Randolph Churchill's compliments," It states that in the Regular Army there are about 140,000 men, and in the Militia about 190,000, making nearly 250,000 of Regular troops to defend us. Including the Volunteers and Army Reserves, I find that there are from 400,000 to 500,000 men altogether in this country; and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) states that this Force, with the Navy, costs us about £30,000,000 a-year. Notwithstanding all this, hon. Members come down to the House and say that they would be totally unable to keep the French Army from coming through a hole 20 feet square. [A laugh.] Hon. Members are inclined to laugh at that; but I maintain that it is an exact, correct, and literal statement of the case. I am not a military man, and therefore it may, perhaps, be thought that I ought not to speak on this subject; but, still, I think I know enough about the Army to say that the very best place in which to keep an invading enemy would be a hole 20 feet square, seven fathoms below the sea. What are we trying to do every day; what are every hon. and right hon. Gentleman trying to do every night in this House? Why, to put right hon.

    1063
    Gentlemen on the other side in a hole. It is considered that when you get a man in a hole you will be able to keep him down. [Cries of "Divide !"] I am only trying to answer the arguments of the Secretary to the Board of Trade. If hon. Gentlemen will study the Reports which have been so much alluded to in the course of the discussion, they will find that there could not be the slightest difficulty in dealing with an Army if it were coming through this tunnel. I find it stated and admitted by military men that it would be the easiest thing possible to pump water into it, or send in explosives or noxious gases, or to fill it up with shingle. Therefore, you have the means of filling up the tunnel with fire, water, earth, and noxious gases; and yet you say that with the French Army in a hole of that kind it would not be possible to overcome a French invasion. That is the most extraordinary statement I ever heard made on any subject. Ah, Sir; what an extraordinary thing it is that whenever a French invasion is mentioned we tremble ! Is it that "Conscience makes cowards of us all?" France is not afraid of our invading them, and yet we are an invading people. Witness the course we have pursued in regard to the Zulus, the Soudanese, and the Afghans; but we take care only to invade those who are not strong enough to defend themselves. But why we should be afraid of France, and make use of this cowardly argument whenever the possibility of a French invasion is mentioned, and why we should imagine that any danger can arise as long as the end of the tunnel is in our possession I cannot imagine. How long would it take to march a French Army through the tunnel? Let hon. Members consider how long it took this country to land 25,000 men in the Crimea. In perfectly calm weather it took us two days. There would be no greater difficulty in landing an Army if the tunnel were made than there is now; and if an Army is once landed, and gets possession of our forts, which I am told it easily could do, it would be all up with us, whether there was a tunnel or not. The whole argument of the opposition is based upon surprise. The theory is that the French may surprise us without declaring war; and the whole French nation is thus pictured to us as a nation of brigands ready to rush on us at any
    1064
    moment, and thirsting for our blood, even if they are compelled to get at us through a hole 20 feet square. But what would all the people in this country be doing? What are our statesmen for; what are our diplomatists kept abroad for, at great expense, but to tell us all about those things? What are our engineers for, but to provide aids and appliances to stop such actions on the part of the enemy—[Cries of "Divide !"]—and what are our soldiers for except to resist, and not sit in this House and cry "Divide, divide? "I may admit for a moment the argument that the French people are all brigands thirsting for our blood, and I will make the opponents a present of the argument of surprise; but I am not prepared to vote against the measure—to declare that our statesmen are idiots; that our diplomatists are ignoramuses; that our engineers are impostors; and that our soldiers are incompetent and cowards. I will not, therefore, by voting against the Bill, pass a vote of censure upon the common sense and common manliness of this country.
    SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I cannot resist the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the Chairman of Committees; and therefore I am quite ready, as far as I am personally concerned, to go to a Division. At the same time, I scarcely think that such a course is just to the merits of the question. I am, however, entirely in the hands of the House.
    Question put.
    The House divided;—Ayes 107; Noes 153: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No, 348.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for three mouths.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  IRISH LAND LAW BILL [Lords.]
  [BILL 308.]
  (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  COMMITTEE, [Progress 2nd August.]
  [EIGHT NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  New Clause—
  (Temporary adjustment of rents.)
  "The following enactments shall take effect with respect to judicial rents fixed before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six:—
  "As soon as possible after the passing of this Act, the Land Commission, having regard to the difference in prices in counties, Poor Law Unions, or other areas, between the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven, and each of the years one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, and one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five, shall without application determine with reference to such counties, unions, or other areas what alteration, if any, ought equitably to be made in the judicial rents to become payable in such counties, unions, or areas, in respect of the year commencing from the gale day next before the passing of this Act, according as such judicial rents were fixed in one or other of the years before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, respectively, and the judicial rents payable in respect of the year aforesaid in such counties, unions, or areas shall be varied to the extent so determined by the Land Commission:
  "In the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, and in one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine, the Land Commission shall in like manner determine what alteration, if any, ought equitably to be made in the judicial rents payable for the year commencing from the first gale day in each of the said years respectively, and such rents shall be varied to the extent determined by the Laud Commission.
  "The Land Commission shall proceed by counties, Poor Law Unions, or other areas as they think fit, in reference to such alterations of judicial rents, and may cause to be made such inspections and reports as may be necessary, and may ascertain averages, and may proceed in all other respects in such manner as may appear to them to be necessary for carrying out the objects aforesaid.
  "The Land Commission shall publish the orders made by them under this section in such manner for giving information to all persons interested as they think most convenient."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. RATHBONE: I have to move an Amendment on the clause, and, in doing so, I will promise not to detain the Committee very long. I hope, in the course of a few minutes, to be able to state clearly what I propose to do by this Amendment, and my reasons for proposing it. I am very glad that the Government have accepted the principle which I advocated on the second reading, of fixed rents on a scale of prices for temporary abatements. I find, on going into the question with legal advisers, that materials seem to
  1066
  exist for removing most of the objections which have been made to a scale of rents fixed exclusively with reference to prices, and I would really urge upon the Government whether they cannot improve upon their proposed new clause, even with a view to its temporary operation. I would further point out that it is most desirable, if possible, for them to put things on such a footing that it might, if necessary, be adopted as a permanent basis for the settlement of judicial rents. That is surely the most important object to be carried out, both in the interests of the landlord and of the tenant, for nothing could be more pernicious to the welfare of a country as unsettlement and disorder recurring with every bad crop or fall in prices. I will state shortly what I propose, and my grounds for proposing it. I think everybody will admit, considering what the causes are which enable a tenant to pay his rent, that there are three great factors which determine that power, and which ought to be taken into consideration by the Land Commission in any attempt to fix judicial rents fairly, so that the separate rents of farms in each district would become self-adjusting. These three factors are, first, the acreage in a county or district under cultivation with varying crops or used for the maintenance of stock, as this is necessary to enable the Commission to decide in what proportion the yield of crops or the prices of different articles of agricultural produce should influence the rents of a district; secondly, the average yield per acre of the several articles fixed upon, and the number of stock available for sale in the district; and, thirdly, the prices of these various articles of agricultural produce. Now, on all these subjects it will be found that we have very interesting statistics. We have had Parliamentary Returns issued year by year. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR dissented.] I see that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but there are three sets of agricultural statistics with regard to Ireland which profess to give all the details. Of course, I know there is no such thing as absolute accuracy or justice in such matters; and these three factors will surely, with such inquiries as the Commission might make, form a far better basis for varying judicial rents than the arbitrary decisions of a number of Commissioners acting independently and without any

  1067
  fixed rules to guide them. Neither in the Amendment which I first put on the Paper, nor in the clause proposed by the Government, is any account taken of the second of these factors—namely, the amount of production; and yet it is one which occasionally produces as great, if not greater, disturbance as any other. I am, of course, aware that the Government contend that this Bill contains only temporary provisions to prepare the way for a grand scheme of purchase; but I would venture to point out that even for such a scheme of purchase we should have a much better basis to go upon if rents are fairly fixed on certain tangible rules than if they are unfair and unsettled. I know the Government say that it is by the revaluation of farms that rents are to be fixed. But it is inevitable that the valuers could not help being biassed and influenced by the rent fixed, as the Land Courts have been notoriously influenced by the actual rents and by Griffith's valuation, But we must go further than that, and I venture to urge that the Government would be guilty of the same blunder which has constantly led us into difficulty with regard to Ireland if they risk finding themselves, during or at the end of the three years which they allow for the creation and action of their land purchase scheme, face to face with similar difficulties in regard to failure of crops or a fall in prices, which upset the operation of the Land Act of 1881, and which they have now to deal with. What we have done invariably is what we did under the Encumbered Estates Act, what we did under the Land Act of 1870, and under the Land Act of 1881; we just deal with the present difficulty in Ireland, and we leave a place through which the waters of trouble may again flow in. I do not wish to detain the Committee at great length; but I point out that we acted then as we are acting now, and that the result will be the same hereafter if we do not take into account the seasons. The Government have relied exclusively on the Land Purchase Bill for settling this difficulty, but it will be some time before it can be worked. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Northampton in saying that this country never would and ought not on any account to incur any liability in order to facilitate a Land Purchase Act as applied to part of the and of Ireland. I consider that our
  1068
  failures and neglect in times past do make us partners in the conditions which exist in Ireland, and that we ought to take a limited share of the liability; but I am satisfied that this country will never submit to an enormous scheme which would render it, liable for the purchase of the whole of the land in Ireland, and that if it did it would do great injury to Ireland as well as involve itself in inextricable difficulties. There is the greatest possible difference between the conditions of land in the various parts of Ireland. We must deal with that part of the land of Ireland which, being poor land let in small holdings—say of under £10—affords little, if any, margin for economical rent, and which would cover in number the greater part of the Irish tenancies and those parts of the country which were the seed-beds of famine, of disorder, and of outrage. But if the Government attempted to deal with those larger farms of rich land in which there was room for considerable economical rent beyond the profits of the farmer, they would produce a state of things infinitely worse than that which now existed. The landlords concerned in Ireland have a better property than the landlords in England; and if you attempt to abolish dual ownership, you will substitute for landlords like the Duke of Devonshire and the Duke of Leinster small, hard landlords, who will convert their farms into property and live upon the profit. Therefore, you must not rely solely upon your Purchase Bill. We must try to make this Bill such as that it will, as far as possible, operate justly, and, where there is dual ownership, make the action between the landlord and tenant rest upon certain real and sound foundations which both can understand, and which, when rules are laid down for an area, will he applicable to the individual tenants. I think I see in the countenance of my right hon. Friend opposite this difficulty—that it would be absolutely impossible to deal with the case of each tenant. If you are to attempt to fix the rent on the produce of each farm you will get oven into a worse difficulty than you are now in. I strongly urge upon the Government to adopt the proposal embodied in the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper, and whether for temporary, or, still bettor, for permanent purposes, to make the clause as just and complete as they can. I will only add that it should

  1069
  be observed that this proposal gives the Land Commission definite rules and directions to guide them, and that when once they have given their decision for an area it will be self-acting over that area. I hope that the Chief Secretary for Ireland will favourably consider the points I have laid before the Committee, and accept the Amendment which I now beg to move.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed new Clause,
  In line 2, leave out from "fixed," to "The Land Commission," in line 32, and insert "under 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' before or after the passing of this Act—
  "(1.) The Land Commission, having regard, as hereinafter provided, to the principal articles of agricultural produce in any area, and to their relative importance, and to variations in the average prices and annual value of such produce, shall in every year by order determine what variation (if any) ought equitably to be made in the judicial rents fixed in any preceding year or years, for holdings in such area; and the judicial rents payable for the said holdings shall from time to time, on and after the gale day next succeeding the date of any such order, be varied to the extent so determined by the Land Commission:
  "(2.) For the purpose of varying, as required by this section, the judicial rents, of holdings in any area, the Land Commission shall from time to time proceed upon the following principles, that is to say:—
  "(a.) They shall, having regard to the acreage of land under the principal crops, and to the amount of the other principal articles of agricultural produce, and to the value of such crops and produce in the said area, determine what crops and other articles of produce are to be taken as standard commodities for regulating the said rents, and what proportion of those rents is to be regulated by each standard commodity;
  "(b.) So much of the rents as is regulated by any agricultural crop shall be varied in accordance with any annual rise or fall in the average value per acre of that crop, as appearing from the published tables of the average produce per acre, and the average prices in the said area;
  "(c.) So much of the rents as is regulated by any other standard commodity shall be varied in accordance with any annual rise or fall in the average price thereof, as appearing from the published tables of the average prices of that commodity in the said area, and the Land Commission may also take into account any particular circumstances which in any year have affected the yield of any such commodity in the said area:
  "(3.) The Land Commission, within two months after the passing of this Act, and also in the month of January in the next and every succeeding year, shall consider what variation per cent (if any) ought, in accordance with
  1070
  the foregoing principles to be made in the judicial rents of holdings in any area, as fixed by the court or varied in pursuance of this Act in any preceding year, and shall make an order accordingly:
  "(4.) The area for which the Land Commission may make any such order shall be any county or group of counties or other area, according as they think expedient having regard to the principles aforesaid; and the published tables to be used by the Land Commission shall be the tables from time to time prepared by the Registrar General and laid before Parliament, or any other published tables which the Land Commission think reasonably accurate; and the Land Commission may themselves cause to be prepared and may publish any tables for the purposes of this section:
  "(5.) Where, according to the ordinary course of dealing between the landlord and tenant of a holding, the payment of the rent has been allowed to be deferred until the gale day next succeeding that on which such rent legally became due, such succeeding gale day shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be the gale day on which the rent is payable."—(Mr. Rathbone.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed New Clause."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. Balfour): My hon. Friend who has just sat down has moved a very elaborate Amendment to the scheme of the Government; and I will at once admit that the scheme proposed by the Government is a rough and ready scheme, and one which has never been suggested to the Committee in any other sense. I also admit that the scheme of my hon. Friend is not only more elaborate, but more theoretically perfect than that of the Government. Having made those admissions, I hope that my hon. Friend will make me some admissions in return. I hope he will admit that his scheme, although elaborate, is not elaborate enough to make a complete and perfect system of the sliding scale. My hon. Friend takes into account the special yield of the district and the prices in the district, and he has fixed those two quantities in rather a more elaborate fashion than we do. These are not, however, the only things to be taken into account in making a perfect automatic system of rent settlement. You have not only to take into account the variation of prices and yield, but you have also to take into account the variation of profit. At a time when profits in all industries are lower than they have been before the farmers can-

  1071
  not expect to make the same profits as at other periods, and the House ought not to attempt by legislation to keep up the profits of farmers under such circumstances. Yon ought to find out what are the profits in other industries before settling a perfect system of the sliding scale; and you ought to take into account the variation in the cost of production, the variation in the price of labour, and in the price of those articles which the farmer consumes, as well as the variation of such things as clothing, the necessaries of life and even those luxuries of life in which the farmer is in the habit of indulging; and, further, if you want a perfect system you must take into account how much of the produce of the farm is consumed on the farm. Take the case of two farms, one worked by an ordinary farmer and another by a peasant farmer. In the latter case there is hardly anything which is sold off the farm, with the exception, perhaps, of a little oats; the tenant probably consumes all the bacon produce and the greater part of the oats. In that case the variation in the price of the article which he consumes does not or ought not to enter into the calculation. On the ether hand, there is the case of the farmer who sells practically everything and pockets a certain sum as profit; in his case the variations of price are far more necessary to be taken into account. My hon. Friend appears to think he has laid before the House a perfect scheme free from all difficulty which might arise in the working of the Irish land system hereafter.
  MR. RATHBONE: No. I think I said distinctly that there was no such thing as attaining perfection, but that the Government ought to set about eliminating one of the great elements of disturbance which exists. I admit that a perfect scheme is an impossibility.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. Friend will see that he has adopted a scheme which, however much it excels our scheme, must necessarily fall very far short of perfection. My hon. Friend says that the present state of the Land Question in Ireland is due to difficulties which we might have foreseen, and for which we failed to provide a remedy, and that our failure is likely to be destructive of any good effects resulting from this legislation. The hon. Gentleman's scheme falls far short of one which
  1072
  would meet all objections. No doubt, difficulties may fall in the way of the scheme of the Government; but what we ought really to take into consideration are those evils which we can foresee and which can be dealt with in passing a Bill through this House. We have attempted to deal with one particular difficulty which has arisen in the course of the last few years. It is the difficulty which produced the Cowper Commission; it is the difficulty into which the Cowper Commission were asked to look; it is the difficulty to meet which the Commission made certain suggestions; it is the difficulty which the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) attempted to meet by his Bill last year, and which hon. Gentlemen opposite have tried to meet by their schemes of remission; and, further, it is the difficulty with which the Government, in a much humbler spirit and on a more moderato scale, have attempted to cope in the clause under discussion. We do not consider that this or any other scheme which the wit of man can devise, or the wisdom of Parliament can enact, is likely to meet all the evils that have arisen, or are likely to arise, in the future; but we think that we can suggest nothing more likely to pass, or that will be more adequate to the situation, than the clause we have laid upon the Table. For these reasons I would ask my hon. Friend to be satisfied with a discussion, which I admit has been instructive, and not press his elaborate Amendment further on the attention of the Committee.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I thoroughly appreciate the motives which have made the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) place this Amendment on the Paper. It is certainly a very elaborate scheme, but I am afraid, to some degree, it is open to the objection which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has urged against it. I join with the hon. Gentleman in the belief that it is impossible to devise any scheme by which you can have, theoretically or otherwise, even an approach to perfection in the annual adjustment of rents. We have tried that in Scotland; it has been gradually given up. It seems to me that the proposal of the Government goes in the right direction, and, perhaps, all the more so because it is somewhat vague and leaves much lati-

  1073
  tude to the Land Commission; indeed, it seems to me in one sense to go too far, although in another it does not seem to go far enough. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman does not contain many words, but it seems to be a plan to settle rents annually for each of the next three years. It seems to me the Government would have done better if they had followed that course recommended by the Commissioners. I never could understand the system under which schemes of this kind are settled in some room of a back office in London, without persons experienced in matters of this kind being consulted, and which schemes appear to be evolved out of the inner consciousness of officials. I think the right hon. Gentleman would have done better if he had taken the opinion of experienced men who have devoted themselves to this subject. I do not think the Government are bound to accept the whole of the Report of the Commissioners; but I do think that the Commissioners are more likely to be right than a few gentlemen consulting together in the way I have described in order to concoct a clause of this kind. I think the Government might have derived great advantage if they had taken into consideration the experience furnished from India. That country is a long way off; but it is in many respects like Ireland, and I am struck by seeing how absolutely identical the conditions of the two countries are in the matter of land. This is a problem we have been attempting to grapple with in India for 100 years; after 100 years of debate we seem to have arrived at some appreciation of the question, and it is probable that about the year of our Lord 1900 we shall have come to some settlement of it. If the Irish Government deal with the matter from the beginning, they may arrive at the same point about the year 2000. But it is necessary that, we should now deal with the subject by a plan that will come immediately into operation, and I believe that the scheme of the Government is in the right direction; although I think it will be very difficult to adjust the whole of the rents in Ireland, year by year, for the next three years. There is the extreme difficulty of fixing the areas, and again I cannot imagine any areas to which it will be possible to apply any uniform scheme. Then how various
  1074
  are the factors in each area with which you have to deal; you are to have two sets of varying factors; almost every farm will differ from other farms in the matter, quality, and produce of the land, and altogether I say you will have throughout the country an enormous amount of complication. I think, also, the proposal of the Government does not go far enough in another sense. Why should you limit the rents to the year 1886 and the preceding years, and not go to 1889? It is not unlikely that you may have as much variation of rent in 1890 as in the years which you have suggested. I must say I think it would have been very much better if the Government had followed in this matter the advice of their own Land Commission; if they had confined their action to cases where the tenant was unable to pay; if they had drafted Clause 22 in a modified form, and adopted the plan of five years' adjustment of rents. That I think would have been a better plan. It may, perhaps, shorten the discussion if I allude for a moment to an Amendment of my own upon this subject, which is an alternative Amendment to that of the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone). I would point out that my Amendment embodies the most recent experience in India upon this subject—it embodies in a compact form the law of India with regard to the land. My Amendment deals with the re-adjustment of rents and the variation in prices, and so far it coincides with the proposal of the Government. My proposal is, that a term of five years should be substituted for the statutory term of 15 years provided by the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881; that when the fair rent of any holding has been fixed for the statutory term under the provisions of that Act, then in any subsequent proceedings for the fixing of a fair rent, the rent previously fixed shall be deemed to have been and to be a fair rent until the contrary is shown by either party; that in any such proceedings, unless the previous rent is shown to have been unfair when it was first judicially fixed, by reason of error or otherwise, the Court shall not increase or decrease the rent on any ground other than that either the value of the produce or the productive powers of the land have been increased or decreased otherwise than by

  1075
  the agency or at the expense of the tenant or by his default. Practically what I propose is, that every five years there should be an adjustment as prices vary, the Commission having regard to that factor mainly and that factor only. This plan has been found on the experience of 100 years in India to be most workable; it prevails now in India; it is recommended by the Commission, and I think the Government will find it a much better and easier system than that which they have brought forward, which provides for a three years' adjustment, but which does not take into account the variation there may be in the years 1890 or 1900. It seems to me, having regard to the great uncertainty as to prices in this country and all over the world, that it would be most desirable that, instead of attempting to fix the rent each year for three years only, you should fix it for five years by the same kind of machinery as is already in working order in India. I think if you had a system of that kind it would not be at all difficult to re-adjust rents in Ireland on the limited grounds to which I have alluded every five years, and that we might have come to an adjustment, not by actually automatic, but what I may call a quasi or semi-automatic process. You may possibly have prices rising considerably, and I think it would be very hard on the landlord if when prices were down you should reduce his rent, and not increase it when they are up again. You must remember that you have to deal with two classes of tenants, the one solvent and the other insolvent. With regard to those that are solvent the worst that can happen to them is that for the last two years they might be paying a little more rent, and that they might lose something in the aggregate. But with regard to those who are insolvent, unless hon. Members are prepared to accept the insolvency clause suggested by the Government you cannot go into their case. I again say that it is my impression that it would have been better if the Government had confined the annual adjustment to a much narrower limit, and adopted the plan of the Commission for a general adjustment every five years.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I do not wish to detain the Committee more than two minutes, but I desire to address one word by way of
  1076
  warning to the Government. Their scheme appears to me to be open to the objection which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) has urged against it. As I read the clause the Land Commission will only be entitled to consider the question of price, and will have no right to regard any other point whatever. Let me suppose the case of bad harvests through the three years; the prices will then rise, and the rent will be increased, although the produce may be less than the average, and the tenants less able to pay their rents than they were in ordinary years. I remember the Report of the Commission in which it was pointed out that there were hundreds and thousands of small tenants who would be totally unable to pay any part of their rent if there should be a failure of crops. It seems to me that in laying down a rule upon which for three years rents are to be determined, you ought to take this matter into consideration. At the present moment the difficulty arises in connection with the fall in prices; but it is quite possible that in the next three years there may be an alteration, and I do think it would be wise, without going to the length of adopting the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone), if some attempt were made to deal with this point. I shall be glad, for my part, if the Government would put in words to give greater latitude to the Land Commission, so as to enable them to take into account not only the question of price, but also that of the produce of the area.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I sympathize with the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland when he says that the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) ought to be contented with the discussion which has taken place upon this Amendment without dividing the Committee. I do not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) with regard to what may happen in the year 2000—I simply rise to make what I believe to be a practical suggestion. I do not share the views either of the Government or of those hon. Members on this side of the House who say because this is a temporary measure we ought

  1077
  not to make it a perfect measure so far as we can under the circumstances. At the same time, I may be allowed to say, on behalf of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman, that I believe the solution of this question does lie in the abolition of dual ownership. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no fair balancing of rent as a share in the produce of the soil. There is a certain share of profit required for the working of the soil, a certain share required for the capital of the tenant, and a certain share out of which the tenant must live. Now, I suggest that the Land Commission or valuators should settle the productive power of the land. Supposing that the land is occupied, and producing five quarters per acre, and supposing that the Commission should settle the proportion belonging to the landlord and the proportion belonging to the tenant; then having settled that you must fix the rent; if the production of the land is regulated by low prices, the rent will be correspondingly lower, and if by high prices it will be correspondingly higher. I admit that the tenant and landlord must take even chances of good and bad years; but I think there ought to be a premium on good farming, and a fine on bad farming. I think the tenant ought to be made to strain his utmost efforts to make the land as productive as possible. Both on principles of political economy and in the interest of the tenant, I think the landlord ought not to desire to take more than his fair share, because the tenant happens to be an enterprizing man. There would be this encouragement to the tenant—that if he could make the land produce five or six quarters, one quarter would be his own as the produce of his skilled farming; if he were a careless or indolent farmer, and allowed the farm to fall below a fair standard, he would be fined to the extent of 20 per cent as the result of his own carelessness. It can, of course, be said that this plan is subject to many contingencies. You may ask, how is it possible to regulate the prices on a farm where the product is so very varying? My contention is that the general productiveness of the farm is confined to two or three articles produced in the district; and that if you have two or three main products to regulate the rent, you will not go far wrong in the amount of general pro-
  1078
  ductiveness of the land and the general profit of the farmer. This is the conclusion at which I have arrived, after much thought, on a subject which has come forward lately in connection with the crofters in the Bill of last year, and which will undoubtedly be brought forward again. I think any Government that may be in power will do well to take this matter into consideration as a basis on which there is a possibility of settling this much-vexed question. I hope, after all the endeavours that have been made, there will be a unanimous attempt on this side of the House to settle the present strained relationship between the landlords and tenants, which is becoming more strained every day, on a basis which will be at once fair to the men whose capital is invested in the soil, and fair to the agriculturist, who is passing through a time of great trial. If the Government can so alter their Amendment as to bring the principle I advocate into working operation, I think it will relieve them of great difficulty, and bring about a better settlement than their proposal, or the Amendment moved to it, is likely to effect.
  MR. CHAPLIN: It appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) and the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) have this object in view—they seek to provide for certain contingencies which have not yet arisen; whereas the object of the Bill is to meet and cope with an acknowledged evil—namely, the fall in prices since the fixing of judicial rents. It seems to me that if we are to adopt the advice of these hon. Gentlemen, we had better at once repeal the Act of 1881, because it would be importing into those proceedings an entire departure from the principle adopted in that Act. I am no admirer of the Act of 1881, of which I recollect that in bygone days I prophesied the complete failure on this particular point. But in existing circumstances it is impossible to put anything in place of that Act. I wish to remind the Committee that the two matters which the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member desire to be taken into consideration—namely, the amount of produce, and the effect and character of the seasons—were taken into account, once

  1079
  for all, by the Land Commission when the judicial rents were fixed. The Commissioners gauged at that time the quality of the land; and I presume they calculated for an average series of seasons. Now, it has not been alleged that the character of the seasons has changed in any material degree; and as regards the amount of produce, the largeness or smallness of the crops depends far more upon the industry and skill of the farmer than upon anything else as a general rule. I maintain that unquestionably the productiveness of the farm depends more on these qualities in the farmer than upon any other cause. The right hon. Gentleman opposite pointed out the possibility of bad yields during the next few years, and the effect of them on the prices of produce. That plea would have been perfectly valid some years ago, but it is not a good plea at the present time. The price of corn, for example, is regulated, not by the quantity produced in this country, but by the amount of foreign competition; it is regulated by the imports from America on the one hand and from India on the other, I have been loth to interfere with the judicial rents fixed under the Act of 1881 at all. What that Act did, and what the State said, in effect, at that time was this—" In reference to that Act, on grounds of high policy we are going to make a tremendous alteration in what have hitherto been held to be the rights of property in land; we are not going to allow you to fix the rents in future; we are going to fix them ourselves; we shall, practically, select your tenants for you, and when selected we are going to give them something like perpetuity of tenure." In fact, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) said on one occasion—" We are going to put the landlords in a position in which they will be mere rent-chargers on the land." This was an extraordinary interference with the rights of property; but in lieu of all this, and as some compensation for it, I suppose, the Government of the day promised the landlord two things: one was that whatever happened, as far as the State was concerned, there should be no further interference with their rents, and that if for any reason those rents wore not paid their land should be restored. Now, I have always held that to be a valid and
  1080
  binding contract, a distinctly honourable obligation between the State on one hand and the landlords of Ireland on the other; and it is one to the setting aside of which I will never be a consenting party, unless either the consent of the landlords is obtained or something in the nature of an equivalent is given him instead. But there are two things which the Irish landlords and the Government should remember—first, that however much rents in Ireland have been lowered, in all probability rents in England have been lowered to a much greater extent; and, secondly, that the Government, from no fault of their own, are confronted with a situation from which there is no escape except with the greatest difficulty. I regard this clause not merely as a provision for the reduction of rent; there is this also to be borne in mind—that if from any unforeseen circumstance prices, happily, should rise again in future, then, as the hon. Member opposite says—for I understand him to agree with me—undoubtedly rents will rise also. The Government have, in fact, adopted a modified form of the sliding scale system; and as I consider that to that extent it does give something in the nature of an equivalent to the landlord I intend to support the clause, and I hope it will be carried in its present form.
  MR. RATHBONE: It is evident that the Government do not see their way to the acceptance of my Amendment, and I will, therefore, ask leave to withdraw it. But I would urge on the right hon. Gentleman to consider between this and Report whether he cannot insert words in the clause which would enable the Committee, in case there should be such a great failure of crops as there was in 1847 and 1879, to prevent a difficulty arising similar to that we have now to deal with.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, in line 5, after the word "prices," insert the words "affecting agricultural."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, in line 7, after the word "eighty." to leave out the word "seven," in order to substitute the word "six."—(Mr. Mahony.)
  Question proposed, "That that word be there substituted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand the matter, the Commissioners are to take into account the prices at the date of application as compared with former prices. I am of opinion that this is the best plan, and venture to hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to point out that the rents that will be payable on the next gale clay before the passing of the Act are those accruing from November to May last, and that these were earned on the prices of 1886—not those of 1887. It is notorious that it is not until the end of the year that you can calculate the prices which have prevailed in the year. It will, therefore, be impossible for the Land Commission to say what are the prices for 1887 for the purpose of the clause.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonol KING-HARMAN): I cannot quite agree that the Commissioners would not be able to get at the prices of 1887. But I should like to point out that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman rather tells against the object he has in view, the prices this year being decidedly lower than they wore last year.
  MR. T. C, HARRINGTON: Everybody knows that the prices may be affected by circumstances which cannot be controlled; and it is exceedingly dangerous to judge of land on prices which may vary from day to day. To make a correct estimate you must have the average prices. We propose a standard that cannot be altered. Thus, in judging the rent on a gale day of 1886, you should consider the prices of 1886; and, in the same way, when you are judging the rent on on a gale day of 1887, you should consider the prices of 1887. I consider that our proposal is much more rational than that of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: According to the proposal of the hon. Member, it does not matter how low the prices may be this year; the tenant will have to pay on the higher prices of the preceding year. Practically, however, it is well known that if the Irish tenant pays his rent it is out of the profits of the year
  1082
  in which he pays it, and therefore I do not think we can take the prices from another year.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think the right hon. Gentleman is shutting his eyes to the fact that this clause is intended to affect rents becoming due on the 29th September; and, consequently, if the landlord is to be in a position to recover that rent on the 30th of September it will be absolutely necessary that the Land Commissioners should make their decision before that date. Our position is that the alteration in the rent must be made before the 29th of September; and, that being so, it will be impossible for the Commissioners to take into account the prices of produce. The prices will not have been fixed, because the farmer will not have sold his crops. To proceed on the plan proposed by the Government would amount to absolute injustice to the tenant, and hence we propose to them an Amendment which is necessary to make the clause work. As the clause at present stands, it will be absolutely impossible for the Commissioners to discharge their duties properly, because they must give their decision before the 29th of September.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am perfectly aware of what is necessary to be done by the Commissioners under this clause, and the necessary preparations are being made to carry out what is intended. I do not think there will be any difficulty of the kind suggested.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. MAHONY: I regard the next Amendment as being extremely important, and it is one which I trust my hon. Friends will press very strongly on the Government. My Amendment is intended to deal with a fallacy which the Government have introduced into this clause. The Government have proceeded on the idea that judicial rents in each year were fixed on the prices of that year. That is a most absurd contention on their part. If it is necessary, I can give the Committee numbers of instances in which the Commissioners testified before the Cowper Commission that they had fixed rents on the basis of the average price of a series of years. I have no desire to occupy the time of the Committee reading the evidence if it can be avoided. I merely

  1083
  make the statement that the average of a series of years was taken by the Commissioners; and I defy hon. Gentlemen opposite to point to a case in which a Commissioner said he was guided by the prices of any single year. It is, as I have said, the rents were fixed on the basis of the average price of a series of years. And that series carried the Commissioners back into some of the good years which came before 1879. Now, if you take the prices of the individual years on which the rents were fixed, and compare them with the prices at present, you do the tenants a gross injustice; because the rents were fixed on a series of much higher prices than that of the year in which they were fixed. With regard to the rents fixed in 1885, you will do the tenants the greatest injustice, because, although the prices then were very low, that fact made no impression whatever on the minds of the Land Commissioners. Up to August, 1885, the average reductions were 19 per cent; in the following three months they were about the same or slightly under that percentage. That clearly shows that the judicial rents fixed in 1885 were not fixed on a lower scale in consequence of the fall in prices. It is also perfectly clear, if you compare the judicial rent with the Government valuation, you will find that the change in the rents did not commence until 1886; and it is quite natural that it should be so, because the Land Commissioners, with a great pressure of work upon them, are unable to take into account the varying prices from time to time. But yet the Government propose to take it for granted that the rents fixed in January, 1885, were fixed on the prices of that year. That leads me to consider another absurdity on the part of the Government. Rents are fixed in January, February, and March of a given year, and yet the Government choose to lay it down that they are fixed on the basis of the prices of that year—that is to say, on the prices of the nine months following, which could not be the case. Now, the Amendment I am about to move proposes to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Land Commissioners. If those Commissioners are fit to be entrusted with the responsibility of fixing the amount of rent, surely they ought to be trusted with the responsibility of finding out the basis on which
  1084
  those rents are to be fixed. My Amendment does no more than throw upon the Land Commissioners the onus of discovering that basis. I trust, therefore, it will be agreed to by the Government; and, in the other event, I shall be under the necessity of going at some length into the evidence given before the Cowper Commission in order to show that the position of the Government in this matter is utterly untenable.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause,
  In line 7, after the word "and," insert the words "the average prices for the respective series of years on which, after inquiry, they shall ascertain the judicial rents to have been based, in."—(Mr. Mahony.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I certainly object strongly to the plan of the hon. Gentleman, which seeks to make a comparison between a single year on one side and an aggregate of years on the other. The Commissioners may, by the clause, compare the prices of 1887 with each of the years from 1881, and the hon. Gentleman wants to have that altered in the way described. If the hon. Member is going to substitute for 1882 another average year, it is clear that he ought to substitute another average year for 1887. I believe the Land Commission will not find themselves bound down in the manner supposed by the hon. Gentleman, seeing that the clause leaves them an equitable jurisdiction.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I agree that, instead of varying from year to year, you ought to take an average, say, of five years at one end and an average of five years at the other end. But the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to do that; he proposes to vary the rent from year to year up to 1889. That being so, I really think the Committee might well accept this Amendment, unless they see some practical difficulty in doing so, which I confess I do not.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) has answered the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in a most unanswerable way. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has treated this proposal as if it were one permanently varying the judicial rents. The excuse for the

  1085
  clause is that it is a temporary clause, and that the rents which the Land Commission fixed will be rents respecting 1886, 1887, 1888, and 1889. The principle the Government have is this—to adjust the prices in this year, next year, or hereafter, as the case may be, to the average of prices on which the judicial rents were fixed. That being so, you can only take into account the individual year, and it would be monstrously unjust to take anything else. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I think I am quite right in saying that the Land Commission will have no such latitude under this clause as he says. The clause leaves the Land Commission no option; when they are dealing with rents fixed in 1881, they are bound to assume that the rents were fixed on the prices of 1881. There is no other mode of construing this clause; the clause is too plain and obvious. The clause says that the Land Commission is to—
  "Determine with reference to such counties unions, or other areas, what alteration, if any, ought equitably to be made in the judicial rents to become payable in such counties, unions, or areas, in respect of the year commencing from the gale day next before the passing of this Act, according as such judicial rents were fixed in one or other of the years before the first day of January, 1886," &c.
  That being so, it appears to me the Land Commission will have no option in this matter; they are bound to assume the rents fixed in 1881 wore fixed on the 1881 prices, that the rents fixed in 1882 were on the 1882 prices, and so on. The right hon. Gentleman admits that that is unjust, having regard to the notorious fact, which has been proved, if anything has been proved, by the Cowper Commission, that rents were fixed in 1881, not on the prices of 1881, but on an average of prices of the 15 years before. That being so, are we to shut our eyes to the notorious facts, to the unanimous evidence of the Sub-Commissioners as to the principle on which they fixed the rents, and to assume that they fixed the rents on a totally different principle? I think the Government ought to deal with the real facts of the case. What is the good of introducing a clause which deals with the existing facts as if those facts did not exist? It is absurd to say you can settle this matter by assuming that the Sub-Commission has fixed rents on a basis on
  1086
  which they themselves declare they did not. I think the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Mahony) is an Amendment of most enormous importance; without some such Amendment the clause of the Government will become to a large extent a nullity. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who seems to take a fair view of the matter, who seems to desire that this clause shall deal with the difficulty which has arisen in an equitable manner, to reconsider his position, and reconsider this Amendment, which really goes to the root of the whole clause.
  MR. DILLON: I do not intend to occupy the time of the Committee more than a moment. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was almost willing to give way to our proposal. He recognized that it was a fair one, and he attached a great deal of importance to it. Surely the only difficulty existing in his mind is absolutely removed by the fact that this is not a reduction of judicial rent, but only a temporary abatement.
  MR. CHANCE: It is perfectly evident that the Commission will be bound to consider the rent of one year alone, and I ask on what assumption this clause is drafted? It is perfectly obvious that no one proposes to lay down that the judicial rents fixed in 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884, or 1885, was necessarily a perfectly just and equitable rent for that year alone. The Commission never proposed to make the rent a perfectly just and equitable rent for one year. They did not propose the rent for one year. What they did say was this—
  "In arriving at this rent we have considered the average prices for a period of about 15 years; there are some high years and some low years; and we do so because the judicial rent will run for 15 years, and we assume that in the 15 years to come there will be high and low years."
  That is the only intelligible basis on which we can assume they have fixed the rent. We find that Sub-Commissioner after Sub-Commissioner came before the Cowper Commission and stated, most conclusively, that was the basis on which the rents were fixed. What are we doing now? We have discovered there are certain very bad years; that exceptionally bad years have intervened; and we have, at least temporarily, to abandon the principle of fixing rents once

  1087
  and for all for a number of years. We have now to fix the rent, and quite another set of considerations come up. What are those considerations? Of course, a very natural consideration is the inability of the tenant to pay the rent, and there is an artificial consideration to ho taken into account, and that is the rent fixed at any time. All rents ought to be fixed upon a comparison of prices. What you ought to compare is the prices on which the rent was fixed in 1881 and subsequent years with present prices. When you absolutely direct the Commission to compare the rent and revise it in reference to the prices in one year, 1881–2, and the price's in 1887–8, you direct them to proceed on an absolutely false basis. I do believe the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary desires that this revision should be a satisfactory revision; but lot me point out to him, and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), that the question of average does not apply to the rent we are now fixing. We are fixing the rent for one year only, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to direct the Commission by this clause to proceed upon the lines of the Amendment of my hon. Friend. If this basis of settlement be refused, it is perfectly obvious that the abatement which will be given in some cases will be too small, and in others it may be too large, and you will have heart-burning and trouble and difficulty on the part of the tenants, and the whole object of this clause will be frustrated. We desire to make this clause effective. We do not ask the Government to depart from the real principle they laid down; and, therefore, I trust that they will see their way to yield to us on this point.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: We shall be perfectly satisfied if the right lion. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will carry out what he himself desire. I listened very attentively to what he said, and I understood him to say he thought the Commissioners were directed under the clause, as it stood, to do the very thing which is proposed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Mahony). I do not know whether I rightly interpret the right hon. Gentleman's words; but I must say that if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the
  1088
  Commissioners ought to do what my hon. Friend proposes they should do, surely there is no harm in his acceptance of the words which We think are necessary for directing the Commissioners to do this. I venture to differ very respectfully from the right hon. Gentleman when he says that these words give no such direction to the Land Commissioners as We desire. The words of the clause, as they stand, direct the Commissioners to make a comparison of prices between one year now and the year in which the rent was fixed. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman if that is fair? Is it fair to compare the prices of a single year now and of the single year in which the rent was fixed? I do not think anybody will say that is fair. Mr. Robert Reeves, giving evidence before the Land Commissioners, said, in answer to Sir James Caird—
  "The Sub-Commission in fixing the rent take into consideration the average of prices for 12 or 14 years back."
  Anybody can see, therefore, that the rents of 1882 were not fixed on the prices of 1881, or those of 1881 fixed on the prices of 1880, or the rents of 1880 fixed on the prices of 1879; but that they were fixed on an average struck 12 or 14 years back. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the prices were high or low, is it a logical or a just way of considering prices to make your comparison between a single year now and a rent fixed in 1881 on an average of the prices of 12 or 15 years previous? I wish also to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he has opposed an Amendment recently proposed on the ground that the object of this clause was to give content and satisfaction to Ireland, and to produce tranquillity. I quite admit that is the object of the right hon. Gentleman, and I want him to carry out his object. But I ask him how can he hope to carry out his object when the basis of comparison is most unjust, and most inequitable to the tenant? The right hon. Gentleman knows very well what is the history of prices. The years from 1870 to 1878 were years of what would be now considered rather good prices. The fall began in 1879, and there has since been revolutionary fall in prices. It began in 1885. Your basis of comparison is started with the idea of giving tenants fair rents now; but your basis of com-

  1089
  parison is between the prices now and the prices fixed on an average of years when prices were rather good. I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman means to be unfair; but his language is perfectly clear and unmistakable. He does not object to the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Mahony), except on the ground which, I think, has since been removed by the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). He only objected to the proposal of my hon. Friend because, in his opinion, it was unnecessary. We say it is absolutely necessary; we say the words of the clause do not carry out what the right hon. Gentleman desires, and that there can be no argument against the insertion of words to make more clear the meaning of the clause.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid the imperfections in the relief scheme we have presented are not such as can be removed by an Amendment of this kind. The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that some of the Land Commissioners took the prices of 15 years preceding when they fixed the rents. I presume that they took more than that into account; they must have taken into account not only the prices, but the yield and other circumstances. They were not limited to a, consideration of prices; but they took into account a vast number of other circumstances, and for that reason alone it is not proper to simply take out of the calculation a certain number of considerations. But there is another point which ought to be taken into account. What is the argument on which hon. Gentlemen have relied over and over again to induce us to take so gigantic a stop—namely, that of interfering or remodelling, even to the smallest extent, the judicial rents of 1881? They say there has been a fall in prices amounting, I think, to 20 per cent. If hon. Members are going to take the prices of 15 years, the comparison will be between 15 years ending with 1883 and 15 years ending with the year 1885. But the large number of years in those two periods are years common to both; therefore, without trying to work it out in arithmetical detail, it is obvious the fall between the two periods cannot be so great as between the individual years of 1882 and
  1090
  1885, when hon. Gentlemen tell us the fall in prices was so great.
  MR. R. T. REID&c.): If the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is final, there is hardly any use in saying more; but I should like to say a few words upon this matter. The right hon. Gentleman must feel that as the clause stands it is not likely to work properly. For example, three farms may lie together, and be identical in condition to which the rent was fixed in 1882, 1883, and 1884 respectively. According to his clause, it may well be that the abatement will be different in respect to each of these farms; not because there is any difference in the condition at the present time, but because there is a difference in the prices now and in the year in which the rents were fixed. I recollect that when the original Land Act of 1881 was proposed, it was intended that when a fair rent was to be fixed the Commissioners should have regard to particular considerations certified. Mr. Macnaghten—now Lord Macnaghten—suggested that it would be better to leave the Commissioners to decide what was a fair rent under all circumstances; and he pointed out that to fetter the discretion of the Commissioners by an arbitrary and hard-and-fast rule would tend to produce injustice. I cannot help thinking the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has endeavoured in his clause—the good intentions of which I fully recognize—to be too precise in framing the particular standard by which the Commissioners shall act in making the abatement. If he is not willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Meath (Mr. Mahony), I suggest that, if possible, it may be competent for the Government to leave the matter to the discretion of the Commissioners—to say that the Commissioners shall have power to say what abatement ought equitably to be made, having regard to the differences in prices. That would get rid of the arbitrary and inconvenient standard by which the right hon. Gentleman, in endeavouring to be too precise, has imperilled the utility of the clause.
  MR. MAHONY: I did not intend to introduce into this debate the element of produce; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has dragged it in.

  1091
  The right hon. Gentleman says that this is not a perfect system of remodelling rent, because the element of produce was taken into consideration on the first occasion. Let me refer to the words of the Cowper Commission. They say that the fall in prices during the last two years was intensified in its effect by the gradual deterioration which has been going on in the quality of the produce of the soil; so that if we take into account the element of produce the tenant ought to get a greater reduction than we are asking for. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has said nothing whatever in answer to my statement that under the clause, as it at present stands, the unfortunate tenants who had their rents fixed in 1885 will get no reduction at all. As a matter of fact, the tenants in some districts may have their rents slightly increased. It must be perfectly clear to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary himself—though, unfortunately, he does not appear to know much about Irish matters—that the rent fixed in the first half of the year 1885 cannot possibly have been based on the prices of 1885, because those prices were not known; and yet in spite of that the right hon. Gentleman wants us to accept the clause which, I maintain, will have the effect in some districts of actually raising the rent fixed in 1885. The fall in prices began in 1885, and it did not affect the Commissioners in any way in fixing the rents of that year. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee in, arguing this point over again; but it must be plain to every man who studies the question that the moment we get into 1886 we find a very substantial change. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would be valid if we were proposing to alter the judicial term, if he were going to substitute the judicial term of five years as the Cowper Commission recommended. But, in place af adopting the recommendation of the Commission, he proposes to deal with this matter as a temporary difficulty. Now, I suggest, as a compromise, that the right hon. Gentleman should not tie the Commissioners down to the prices of any individual year, but should simply say the prices of 1879, 1888, and 1889, as compared with the scale of prices on which the judicial rents mentioned were based, and
  1092
  leave it to the Commissioners to ascertain, as far as they can, what that scale of prices was. I do not want to drive the Chief Commissioner into a corner; but I believe, as a matter of fact, the real reason which actuates the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is that he has been in correspondence with the Chief Commissioner, who has told me that it is not possible to ascertain the scale of prices on which the rents were fixed. I dare say there will be difficulty in ascertaining the scale on which the judicial rents were fixed. I am quite aware, judging from the evidence in the Blue Books, that various Commissioners appear to have adopted a different series of years—that some went back further than others. Mr. Robert Reeves went back 13 years, and that may account for the extraordinary judicial rents fixed at Bodyke. Other Commissioners, perhaps, took into account a similar series f years. Let the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary ascertain, as far as he can, what each Commission did. I suggest that the Chief Secretary should consider this matter carefully and bring forward some Amendment, substituting the prices of a series of years for the prices of each individual year. I ask him to consider this matter, otherwise we must carry on the debate, because, as the clause stands, the tenants who had their rents fixed in 1885 will get no relief whatever.
  COLONEL WARING: There is one difficulty which presents itself to my mind. By what means will you ascertain the series of years on which the reductions were fixed by the landlords who voluntarily agreed with their tenants and had their claims registered in Court?
  MR. DILLON: I do not think there is any force in the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because the landlords who agreed with their tenants were guided by what happened in Court.
  COLONEL WARING: That is not so, because I, for instance, was guided by my sense of justice.
  MR. DILLON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is an exception to the rule. To come to the point at issue, let me say it is really one of most earnest and vital importance. It affects the entire question of how this clause is going to work in Ireland. What will be the result if the

  1093
  clause is passed in its present shape; how will it work? There cannot be a shadow of doubt in the mind of any person who reads the Blue Books that whatever was the guiding principle of the Commissioners from the years 1881 to 1885 it was an unfair one. Now, take the case of a number of farms. Some got their rents fixed in 1881, some in 1882, some in 1883, some in 1884, and some in 1885. Judicial rents were fixed; whatever the scale proceeded upon was, it was the same scale in all these years. Suppose a man got his rent fixed in 1882, he will get 20 per cent reduction; but a man who got his rent fixed in 1885 will get nothing at all off his rent; indeed, it is possible his rent will be slightly increased. Is there any kind of justice in that? We are strongly of opinion that this clause will work in such a way as to do most grotesque injustice to the people of Ireland. The Irish Land Commissioners must have had in their view some equality of prices; that scale of prices was plainly unaltered during all the years from 1881 to 1885. Let us ascertain what that scale of prices was, and when you make this temporary abatement, order that scale to be the comparison of the scale on which the Commissioners acted with the scale of the present year. No other system will prevent grotesque injustice being done to the various classes. My hon. Friends are quite willing to remove all the words from the Amendment which will fetter the clause. Let us leave it to the Commissioners to say what was the scale of prices upon which the Commissioners acted in 1881 and 1885, and in fixing this temporary abatement to compare that scale of prices which was intolerable with the prices of the present year. If this is done, this clause, whatever amount of relief it gives, will give it equally and fairly.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am unwilling to prolong this debate; but if hon. Gentlemen want to have a comparison, they ought to make it between the scale of prices which obtained during the 15 years ending 1882 and the 15 years ending 1887. If you make such a comparison, I believe it will be far less favourable to the tenant than what is now proposed to be done. I think that to take the isolated year 1887 and compare it with a series of years would be grossly un-
  1094
  fair. If hon. Gentlemen prefer the other system, I will consider before Report whether it can be adopted in view of the applications which would arise. At all events, there will not be inherent injustice in comparing the series, 1882, 1883, and 1884, with the series of 15 years ending 1887.
  MR. CHANCE: The assumption upon which the series of years was taken in fixing the judicial rent was that the judicial rent was to run for 15 years. If we were now making a permanent revision it would be clearly just to take as the basis of that permanent revision prices for a series of years ending 1888 and 1889, &c. That is not what we are doing at all; we are merely dealing with a reduction for one year. It is found that the tenants cannot stand a series of bad years in the hope of a series of good years. We feel that the rents of 1882 were fixed on a series of years which included some good years. The average of prices for that series of years was considerably greater than the average of prices in the year 1882 alone. The farmer cannot pay the rent with a small reduction now, in the hope of being called upon to pay with a large reduction afterwards. You must give him the full benefit of the reduction in prices and the full benefit of agricultural depression.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has somewhat changed his line of argument. When he first rose to reply to this Amendment he told us we were mistaken in our facts; he told us we were mistaken in thinking that the Land Commissioners would be bound to take the basis of 1882 as the basis of comparison. In his subsequent speeches, however, he has changed his argument. The offer he has made is perfectly illusory, and I would prefer the clause as it stands to any alteration in the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman says he is prepared to consider it. I take this view for the reason which was very conclusively stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) earlier in the discussion. What you want to do is not to find a rent which shall be a fair rent for a series of years, but a fair rent which will be a fair rent for one year. That being so, any consideration of averages is entirely out of the ques-

  1095
  tion. You must consider the question of averages when you are dealing with the rents of 1881 or 1882, because those rents were fixed on an average; it is only because they were fixed on an average that the question of average comes in. If you were now fixing a rent for a period of 15 years, it would be a fair thing to insist that if you take an average in one case you must take it in another case. We have arrived at the year 1886, and, having regard to the change in prices, we have to find what proportion a fair rent for 1886 would bear to the judicial rents fixed in 1882. To find that, Sir, it is necessary to ascertain on what principle the rent for 1882 was fixed. The real way to test this question is to ascertain how it would operate, say, in the case of the rents fixed in 1885. I maintain that if the right hon. Gentleman persists in this clause, as it is at present framed, we shall be compelled to exclude the rents fixed in the year 1885 from its operation; because, although the rents fixed in 1885 were not affected by the fall in prices, the fall in prices will affect their re-adjustment. There has been no change in prices between 1885 and the present time; and, consequently, the result of bringing the rents fixed in 1885 under the operation of this clause would be that the tenant who got his rent fixed in 1885 would get no benefit from, this clause, although his rent, when fixed, was not fixed with reference to the prices of 1885 at all. This being so, if the right hon. Gentleman persists in the line he has taken up, it will be necessary for us to consider whether we ought not to exclude the rents of 1885 from the operation of the clause.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I wish to appeal to hon. Gentlemen. They have stated their case clearly and repeatedly; and I venture to say that the Committee ought now to come to a decision upon this clause. I do not wish to stand in the way of legitimate discussion; but it is evident that too much attention may be given to one subject and too little to another.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: In answer to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, let me say we certainly are most desirous to conclude the present stage of this Bill, and several of us showed this
  1096
  desire by abstaining from speaking upon the question which engaged the attention of the House at the commencement. The reason we have dilated upon this; Amendment is that, in our opinion, this is a capital Amendment—one affecting the working of this Bill and this clause for good or evil. Under circumstances like these, I think we are justified in appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to try and meet us, so as to remove the difficulty which we think stands in the way of that success of the clause which, I have no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman wishes it to achieve. Unless some Amendment is accepted by the Government to meet our views in this matter, we believe that the clause for the reduction of the rents will be nugatory, and, in some cases, oven prejudicial. Under circumstances like these, I think the right hon. Gentleman the first Lord of the Treasury will fairly recognize we are justified in pressing for attention upon this clause. I do not want to repeat our arguments. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary should have shifted his position as often as he has spoken, and, in place of making progress, has rather gone backwards. Nothing can be fairer than his first speech, which was practically an acceptance of our Amendment, followed by an expression of opinion that the Amendment was unnecessary, because the clause carried out our intentions. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be true to his first position, and to make the clause carry out the object which he admits to be beneficent. We are strongly of opinion that unless the clause is amended in some such way as we propose, the rents of 1885, instead of being reduced, will, in some cases, be subjected to an increase, inflicting injustice upon the tenants. I trust the Government will meet our views in this matter. We are anxious to see this stage of the Bill brought to a conclusion; and I assure the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that the amount of attention which has been bestowed upon this Amendment has been solely caused by the enormous amount of importance attaching to this Amendment.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I have hitherto abstained from taking part in this discussion. My sympathies

  1097
  are entirely with the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Meath (Mr. Mahony); and I only rise now for the purpose of asking the Government if they could not get rid of this stage of the Bill to-day by consenting to reconsider the whole position on Report?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURI have no objection to reconsider the matter on Report; but let me add that, in my opinion, there is no answer to the arguments I have laid before the Committee. While I am prepared to reconsider the matter, I do not think it probable that the reconsideration will lead to any favourable result.
  MR. MAHONY: I have no intention to go again through the arguments the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary thinks he has answered fully; and I merely rise for the purpose of making a definite offer of compromise, which I think, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own theories, he would consider to be fair. He considers it necessary to compare one individual year with another; and the offer I make is that the rent should be influenced by the prices of the previous year—that is to say, the rents of 1881 should betaken on the fixed prices of 1880, the rents of 1882 on the prices of 1881, the rents of 1883 on the prices of 1882, the rents of 1884 on the prices of 1883, and the rents of 1885on the prices of 1884. That will be comparing one year with another year. I am bound to say I do not at all like the compromise. I think it will do injustice; and I only make the suggestion because the Government have been so obdurate.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman press his Amendment?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I think the Government ought to make some answer to the observations recently addressed to the Committee.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I think it is desirable we should have some reply from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He seems to have made up his mind to hold fast by the terms of his proposal; and though he said himself that the arguments he put forward are unanswerable, I contend that he has answered all his arguments himself, because he has changed his ground so often. If there was anything plainly established by the evidence given before the Cowper Commission, it is this
  1098
  —that the rents fixed in 1881 were not fixed upon the prices of 1881; and the Commissioners themselves have said in their evidence that when they know there was a fall in prices they regarded it as of a temporary character, and they fixed the rents with a view to there being an increase in prices in a short time. The compromise suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. Mahony) is not one with which I am very much in love; but, at the same time, it is something of an advantage, because it would, at all events, relieve us of the difficulty of the case of men whoso rents were fixed in the year 1885 being able to get no concession or relief at all. Undoubtedly, whatever the standard on which the Commissioners proceeded was, it was the same for 1881 as for 1885. If you are going to tie a man down, who got his rent fixed in 1885, at the standard you suggest, if you are to have him judged by the prices in 1885, there is no chance for him of any relief under this Bill. We propose to give him some chance of relief by throwing the comparison of the prices back one year. By doing that, we, at least, give some opportunity to a man whose rent was fixed in 1885 to get a temporary abatement.
  MR. DILLON: If the Government do not see their way to meet us in this matter, which We consider vital, it will be necessary for us to divide the Committee.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 178: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 349.) [4.20 P.M.]
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to move to omit the words, "ought equitably to be made," in line 12, and insert, "is necessary to make." I move this Amendment for the purpose of raising a- very important point. The Government have made what appears to me a very grave change in the form of this clause since it was first put down upon the Paper. Originally, the clause directed the Land Commissioners to ascertain what alterations it was necessary to make in order to make the judicial rents fixed in the year 1882 equitably equivalent to what ought to be the judicial rents if they were fixed now. In the altered form of the clause, instead of laying down a plain rule of that kind for the guidance of the Land Commissioners, the Government merely give

  1099
  the Land Commissioners general directions. In my view, the original framing of the clause was the better one, because the Land Commissioners were directed to find out the prices, and then make such changes in the rents as were necessary. I desire to put the clause back into the form in which the Government originally drew it. If my present Amendment is accepted, it will be necessary for me to move the consequential Amendment carrying out this Amendment, and bringing back the clause to its original form.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, in line 12, to leave out the words "ought equitably to be made," and insert the words "is necessary to be made."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed New Clause."
  THE ATTOENEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I confess I think the present form of the clause does enable the Commissioners to exercise their powers with greater freedom than the clause did as originally drawn. The words were—
  "What alteration having regard to the fall in prices is necessary to make the rents equitably equivalent."
  That appears to be a much narrower expression than the expression now on the Paper—
  "Having regard to the difference in prices … what alteration, if any, ought equitably to be made."
  I think the present form of drafting is much wider and a great deal more elastic than the former phraseology.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: No doubt the alteration has been made with the best intentions; but, in my opinion, the change will have an injurious effect. I quite admit that the clause, as it is at present drawn, is more elastic; but I deny that that is an advantage. In point of principle, it is a great deal better that this elasticity should not exist. As the clause was originally drawn, the Land Commissioners were directed to make a mathematical calculation, and to give the tenants the benefit of that calculation. That was the result of the clause as originally drawn, and that is the form the clause ought to take. My view is that the result of
  1100
  elasticity, which the right hon. Gentleman thinks is such an advantage, will be that it will be open to the Land Commissioners not to give the tenant all the benefit which they would get if that was left a mere matter of calculation. It will be open for the Land Commissioners to say—" In our opinion, having regard to the fact that this change in prices is only a temporary change, and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, we do not think it would be equitable to cut down the rent to the full extent." If this elasticity will hurt the tenant in this way I do not think it is an advantage. The change in the clause can do the tenant no good. That is perfectly clear. The elasticity is not an elasticity which can be exercised in the tenant's favour, because under the clause as drawn the tenant cannot possibly get a bit more than be could have got under the clause as originally drawn; but the elasticity is an elasticity which may be exercised in the landlord's favour, because it is possible the effect of the change in the clause may be that the Land Commissioners will say—" We will not give the tenant the full benefit of the changes in prices, because we are of opinion it will not be equitable so to do." I trust the Government will revert to the original form of the clause, which to me appears better calculated to carry out the objects the Government profess to have in view.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. MAHONY: The two Amendments which stand in my name are intended to put back the date. The reason why I move these Amendments is this. We originally anticipated that Clause 22 would be solely modelled as to deal with the question of unjust arrears. In that expectation we have been bitterly disappointed. I propose that in cases where the Land Commissioners actually reduced the rent so as to show they have been too high the reduction should date back. There is one thing I wish to point out to the Committee, and it is that, apart altogether from the application of the hanging gale, it is the usual practice for rents to be paid three, four, five, and six months after they are due, so this Amendment will not have the effect of dating back so far as it appears at first. The clause, as it stands, will only affect rents legally payable on the 29th of

  1101
  September next, and which, according to common practice in Ireland, will not become payable until next spring. The tenants, as a rule, are now being called upon to pay rents due last spring. This clause will not affect these rents at all. Under this clause they will, after this House rises, have to pay rents which the Land Commissioners have declared to be unjust and excessive. Then there is another reason why I am anxious to press this Amendment. If the Government had taken the advice of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), if they had paid attention to his speech in which ho brought this matter under the consideration of the House last autumn, these rents would have been reduced. Practically, the effect of this Amendment will be to include those people who would have been relieved had this House paid attention to the recommendations of the hon. Member for Cork. They then argued against his assertion, but his assertion has since been abundantly proved.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, in line 14, after the word "the," insert the word "first."—(Mr. Mahony.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'first' be there inserted."
  MR. GIBSON: The rent payable on the 29th of September next will be the first rent which will be actually payable in the three years during which this process of abatement will run, will commence on the 25th of March, 1887, and expire on the 25th of March, 1890. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman is to antedate the process by exactly one year, and make the three years run from the 25th March, 1886, to the 25th March, 1889. That is a proposal we are not in a position to accept. I think we have gone as far as it is possible for any Government to go, and I think the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with having brought the matter before the notice of the Committee.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I should like to ask the hon. Member for North Meath (Mr. Mahony) how his proposal will affect those who have paid their rents?
  MR. DILLON: Anyone can see the force of that argument, and I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment. I trust, however, that the Go-
  1102
  vernment will consider the question of the hanging gale. Over great portions of the South and West of Ireland the rents, which accrue due in respect of the half-year, are payable in September. I believe that practically it will make very little difference with regard to law and order whether the Government consent to consider the matter or not. As soon as you get your Commissioners out, where will you get the tenants to pay on the old scale? There will be a universal federation in Ireland not to pay on the old scale. I. suggest that by the introduction of some slight amendment dealing with the hanging gale, by the introduction, say, of the words "ordinarily payable," you might avoid what will otherwise be brought about by a general confederation.
  MR. MAHONY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment; but, at the same time, I desire to ask the Government whether they cannot consent to go six months further back, so as to include the rents ordinarily payable in Ireland now.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MARUM: The final words of the second paragraph of the clause of the right hon. Gentleman are—
  "And the judicial rents payable in respect of the year aforesaid in such counties, unions, or areas shall be varied to the extent so determined by the Land Commission."
  These words are manifestly crude and imperfect. They simply show that the rents shall be varied, but the words do not go on to discharge the rent in any way. The rent must be discharged, and I have put upon the Paper a proposition to add after the word "Commission," in line 19, the words—
  "And, upon the publication of the orders hereinafter mentioned, shall be deemed to be so varied as and from the said gale days respectively, and to be payable in full discharge and satisfaction of the judicial rents theretofore fixed for such gale days, and all rights, remedies, and incidents existing in reference to such judicial rents, both as to landlord and tenant, shall thenceforth attach to such varied rents accordingly."
  I thought if the rent was discharged in that form, it would be equitable to give to the landlord the same remedies for the substituted rent as the previous rent. But, however, since I put my Amendment on the Paper, I find that two Amendments have been suggested by the hon. and learned Serjeant the

  1103
  Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Serjeant Madden) dealing with the matter. I shall not move my Amendment if the hon. and learned Serjeant intends to move his. I have no desire to prevent the landlord having the right of proper redress. I should like to hear the views of the Government upon this matter; and, therefore, I will, pro formâ, move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause,
  In line 19, after the word "Commission," insert the words "and upon the publication of the order hereinafter mentioned, shall be, deemed to be so varied as and from the said gale days respectively; and to be payable in full discharge and satisfaction of the judicial rents theretofore fixed for such gale days, and all rights, remedies, and incidents existing in reference to such judicial rents, both as to landlord and tenant, shall thenceforth attach to such varied rents accordingly."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)(who was inaudible)was understood to object to the Amendment.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: It is not at all clear to me that difficulties might not arise on the clause, as it is drawn, as to the proof of the publication. Suppose that an order has been made by the Commission, and the landlord sues for the full rent. If the cause is to be tried in Dublin, it would be very simple to bring over the original order of the Commission; but in the ordinary case, where a man is sued for rent, he could not put on record at once the receipt of this order of the Land Commissioners, and he would have to incur great expense in going to Dublin. If I were advising a tenant as to his proofs in such an action, I should be found to include that order amongst them. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he could not agree that these orders should be published in The Dublin Gazette, and that such publication should be evidence of the order? I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given his attention to this matter. This seems to me to be a very necessary precaution in the matter—that is to say, to provide for the publication in The Dublin Gazette, and to make that publication evidence of the
  1104
  order. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do that?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I did not put the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, because I did not understand that he wished to move it
  MR. MARUM: I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SERJEANT MADDEN: The object of the first of the Amendments that stand in my name is to add to the first paragraph of the new clause the words—
  "As regards any gale of such rents which shall be paid within thirty days of the time at which the same is ordinarily payable, but not further or otherwise."
  The object of this Amendment is to place the compulsory abatements of rent under the clause in the same position as abatements given ordinarily by landlords or by Judges, which, in my experience, always contain some provision for reasonably punctual payment. We have been told over and over again that this clause is not a clause for the reduction, but for the temporary adjustment or abatement of rent. Now, I give the Government credit for this—that when they use that expression they mean to follow it out fairly and consistently, and do not hold it out to the Irish landlord as a mere phrase. What is the essential difference, having regard to my proposal, between the reduction of rent and the temporary adjustment or abatement of it? If you reduce rent you reduce it to all intents and purposes, a new rent being substituted for the old one. It is recoverable in the same way; it is accepted in the same way, and is payable at the same time. But if you abate the rent temporarily in consequence of a fall in prices, it is certainly usual to make provision for the payment of the abated rent within a reasonable time. I am not wedded to the words of this Amendment, nor to the exact period of time within which the rent should be paid; but I do press upon the Government, and I do hope, even if they are not in a position to accept the Amendment in its present form, that they will, between now and the Report stage, consider whether there cannot be some security given to the landlord that this abated rent should be paid, not perhaps years afterwards, but within a reason-

  1105
  able time. We have been told that clauses like this are intended to make bad landlords do compulsorily what good landlords do voluntarily. Well, what does a good landlord do when he acts voluntarily in this matter? Usually, when ho gives an abatement, he takes care that the tenant pays Ins rent within a given time. There is no hardship in that—there will be no hardship under this section; because what you are doing is this—you are fixing the rent at a sum the tenant can pay. Why should be, then, not pay within a reasonable time? If you make a compulsory abatement, it holds good with regard to all landlords. You put the good landlord in a position he was never in before, because you deprive him of any power of making terms as regards punctual payment. I looked at the Bill introduced last year by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and I find that in that measure there was a possibility of a pro vision of this kind being introduced, and that in this point of view—and I call the attention of the Government particularly to this—if they adopt this Bill in its present form there will be found in it an infirmity which the measure of the hon. Member for Cork did not contain. I will tell the Committee what I moan. The mode in which the abatement was given by the hon. Member for Cork was this—certain conditions being provided, it was laid down that the Court might make an order for such abatement of rent as might seem to them just and expedient. Therefore the Land Commission would have had it in its own hands, when making abatements, to provide as to the time within which the rent so abated should be paid; and I may add that the learned Judges, the Judges of the Chancery Division, who, during the past few years, have been constantly in the habit of making temporary abatements of rent, always, as a part of their order, define the time at which, the rent should be paid. Now, the Land Commission, acting under the Bill of the hon. Member for Cork of last year, if it had become law, would have made, as part of their orders, a definition of the time at which the rent should be paid. But what I want to call particular attention to—I do not say in the interests of the landlord, but in the interests of fair play—is that you are adopting a different system in your Bill. You have adopted the
  1106
  system of an automatic abatement apart from any judicial action at all. There is no power in any Court to say—"This abatement shall not hold good unless the rent is paid within a reasonable time." Unless you adopt my proposal you will make an automatic hard-and-fast abatement, and whether the rents are paid in a reasonable time or not for two or three years it operates in just the same manner. I hope the Government will consider this matter very carefully between this time and Report. You, by depriving this abatement of its voluntary character, take away from it the grace of a concession. You deprive the good landlord of all claim for gratitude or regard. That, however, is a necessary consequence of legislative interference between landlord and tenant. But I would ask the Government not to carry their interference further, and not to introduce an additional element of hardship—I would ask them to provide that, if an abatement is given, the usual provision for punctual payment, which is excluded by the hard-and-fast automatic operation of this clause, shall, in some way or other, be introduced into the measure.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause,
  In line 19, after the word "Commission,' insert the words" as regards any gale of such rents as shall be paid within thirty days of the time at which the same is ordinarily payable, but not farther or otherwise."—(Mr. Serjeant Madden.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): No doubt, my hon. and learned Friend has made out a very good case for his Amendment on the Paper: at any rate, he laid before us very strong reasons in justification of his having put that Amendment down. There is, however, one objection to it which I think has already been urged with regard to previous Amendments by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland—namely, that those words will he held as an ambiguity in the particular provision to which my hon. and learned Friend draws attention.
  An hon. MEMBER: If his Proviso were adopted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On this occasion I would ask my hon. and learned Friend not to press the Amendment, for which, no doubt, there is a great deal to be said. We are very anxious to make progress, and the Amendment is one which would meet with strenuous opposition from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have been compelled to resist certain Amendments which those hon. Members have moved in the interests of the tenants, and I should be unwilling to prolong the proceedings by consenting to such an Amendment as this in the interests of the other side.
  MR. SERJEANT MADDEN: I do not think the Government can complain of the amount of time which has been consumed in the discussion of proposals brought forward, I will not say in the interests of the landlords, but for the purpose of protecting their just rights. But having regard to the state of Public Business, and the opposition which this Amendment is likely to encounter from the other side, and also to the impossibility of carrying it without the assistance of Her Majesty's Government, I do not think I should be justified in occupying further the time of the Committee by pressing it forward. I will, therefore, withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MAHONY: I beg to move the second Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause,
  In line 34,at end, insert "The Land Commission, in ascertaining the average price of butter in a year, shall, as far as practicable, take into account the amount produced during each month, as well as the price during each month of that year, so as not to give undue effect to the price or any particular month."—(Mr. Mahony.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): It would be impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment, as it would lead to great embarrassment if we were to give the Land Commission instructions such as this.
  MR. MAHONY: I withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SERJEANT MADDEN: I have, Sir, an Amendment, not on the Paper, at the conclusion of the Now Clause.
  MR. MAHONY: I have one before that. My original Amendment was as follows:—In line 36, after "section," to insert—
  "And shall also publish the respective average prices, and the respective series of years on which they have ascertained the judicial rents to hive been respectively based in each of the years one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, and one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five in the respective districts, together with the average prices in each district on which the alteration, if any, in the judicial rents has been calculated."
  This Amendment, I know, is not admissible, but I will move this part of it—" On which the alteration, if any in the judicial rents has been calculated." I think many will sympathize with the object of this Amendment. That object is that the public will be given to understand the principles and bases upon which the Land Commissioners act. Under this Amendment, we shall be given to understand on what principle the Commissioners are arriving at their decisions—we shall know whether they are directed to arrive at their decisions by certain average prices of different years. It is desirable that we should know more about these bases. They must know themselves the bases upon which they act, for they have them written out before them. I would ask that they should have these principles printed and made public.
  Amendment proposed, to the proposed New Clause, in line 33, after the word "section" to insert "on which the alteration, if any, in the judicial rents has been calculated."—(Mr. Mahony.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I think it would be very undesirable to accept such an Amendment as this, requiring the Commissioners to declare the considerations by which they are guided, looking at the nature of the work in which they will be engaged. It seems to me that it would be very embarrassing to them to have to publish the nature of the plan upon which they

  1109
  proceeded in each district. It would be highly inconvenient. With regard to what fell from the hon. Member opposite as to the publication of the orders of the Commission, those orders of the Land Commission, of course, would deal with large districts and large areas—with counties, baronies, and Poor Law Unions, or whatever district it might be thought desirable to decide upon. Well, such forms as are considered calculated to give information will be published, although the expenses of so doing must be very great. I do not say that the publication will be in The Dublin Gazette only. The Land Commission must have a wide discretion in the matter, and we must trust to their great knowledge with regard to such things. When they publish the orders in the prescribed manner that will be evidence of them.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I think that a copy of the order should be lodged with the Clerk of the Peace in all cases. It will then always be before the Court.
  MR. GIBSON: I think there is no doubt that that will be attended to.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Do I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he will move an Amendment to that effect on Report, or that he will move one now?
  MR. GIBSON: I think it will be better to move it on Report.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for North Meath withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. MAHONY: No, Sir. Hon. Gentlemen opposite during the past few years have been crying out that they do not know on what bases or principle the Land Commissioners are making their decisions. They have been complaining bitterly of lack of information. They have declared that the Land Commissioners arrive at rents by different processes in different years and different places, and they have risen to ask over and over again that those processes should be made known, and over and over again they have been told that it would be inconvenient to give any statement upon these matters. If those hon. Gentlemen now oppose my Amendment, if they choose to put themselves in such an inconsistent position, it is their own affair, and not mine—at any rate, I will be no party to the coures
  1110
  they seem anxious to adopt, and I must refuse to withdraw my Amendment.
  MR. CHANNING: Everyone who has read and considered the very important evidence given before the Select Committee appointed by the House of Lords to inquire into the working of the Land Act of 1881 must be aware that very strong objection was taken by the witnesses examined by that Committee to there being no means of ascertaining the principle upon which the Commissioners arrived at their decisions. It was very generally alleged that there was no evidence that the Commissioners took account of the state of prices, and that they decided on the rents by an arbitrary process or rule of thumb. And this complaint came from representatives of both sides. Well, I think it would tend to promote harmony and a more settled feeling in Ireland, if it could be clearly known on what tables of prices the rents are to be now revised. I hope the Government may be able to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Meath. If they cannot accept it in its present form, I think they ought to endeavour to meet the object aimed at by some other method. I think the point should be met in some way or other.
  MR. GIBSON: Objection was taken to the general action of the Commissioners, and it was urged that the House was entitled to ask them to declare the factors in their general decisions. It is not general judicial proceedings which are involved at the present moment. The parties will not be entitled to be hoard in this case, and I think it would give rise to a great deal of heartburning if this Amendment were adopted; especially if it were found that one set of parties were not treated upon the same principle as another, and the different circumstances of different districts may, of course, render it impossible for similar treatment to be universally adopted. I think it would be much better to leave the Land Commissioners to deal with this matter in a broad spirit, and in a way they conceive to be equitable and fair. It would lead to considerable difficulty to have such facts as the hon. Member seems anxious to secure published.
  MR. CHANCE: When the Court acts generally—that is to say, when it gives decisions upon general principles—those decisions are given pub-

  1111
  licly, and are before the whole country; but in this ease the tribunal will act differently, and it therefore appears to me all the more necessary that means should be taken to check the action of the tribunal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite seems to think that it would lead to great heartburning if the Commissioners published the bases upon which they arrived at their decisions. I admit that it would lead to heartburning, and would be extremely inconvenient in one case—namely, where they act improperly. We ask that the people of Ireland shall be placed in the position of knowing whether they are treated fairly or not. We ask that the Committee shall relieve the Sub-Commissioners from the imputation which will rightly or wrongly be cast upon them of being influenced in favour of the landlords by the hole-and-corner methods, the wire-pulling and the means of "getting at" which the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) knows that the friends of this class possess, and are not ashamed of exercising. I can perfectly understand that hon. Members would be brought trooping from the Smoking Room and elsewhere, knowing nothing about the question at issue, to vote us down, if this question were put to a Division. I warn them, however, that they will not assist this Act by casting a cloak around the proceedings which, in the case of such men as Colonel O'Callaghan, are adopted to avoid the cutting down of the rents on the plea—" If his rents are cut down, the poor man will have nothing to live on." the Government had better consider their position before they lay down the law with such extreme vigour and determination, and bring hon. Members in from the Smoking Room to vote us down.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. SERJEANT MADDEN: I beg to propose an Amendment to the effect that the powers under this Act—the powers conferred on the Land Commissioners—shall not be delegated by them to a Sub-Commission. Under the Act of 1881, to which this Bill is an amending measure—under the 43rd section of the Act of 1881—the Land Commission have power to delegate their powers to a Sub-Commission. Well, so far as this Bill is concerned,
  1112
  nothing but confusion would arise under that provision—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think I heard the hon. and learned Member use the words "powers conferred by this Act."
  MR. SERJEANT MADDEN: That was so.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Then his Amendment will not be appropriate to this section. He must bring it forward in the form of a new clause. If the Amendment contained the words "this section" it could be moved upon this clause.
  MR. SERJEANT MADDEN: Probably my purpose may be effected by calling the attention of the Government to the matter on the Report. I will not, therefore, go on with the proposal.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  MR. DILLON: The new clause which I now move I have good reason for believing the Government will accept—
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): There is a clause of mine next but one on the Paper, which I think I am entitled now to move.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for East Mayo is moving a new clause, which was not put upon the Paper before last night. It was only printed to day.
  MR. DILLON: This clause differs from the clauses we have up to now been considering, as it is one to enable the Land Commissioners to make advances of money in payment of sums borrowed by tenants from private lenders to purchase their holdings. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that I have all along, in making my demands, based my claim on right. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely misinformed as to what I said. I based no claim upon right. I simply said that it was a question which should be considered as a matter of generosity and fairness, and that, inasmuch as anyone might suppose that the State would go as far as it was safe to the taxpayer in relieving these people, I undertook to show that there would be nothing unjust to the taxpayer in what I proposed. I based no claim at all for this provision on the question of right. Now, what is the proposal I make on this clause? It will be in the memory of all hon. Members who look

  1113
  into this matter that in all these Acts providing for the purchase of their holdings by the Irish tenants, the tenants were required to advance a considerable portion of the purchase money. The glebe tenants were required to advance one-third, and the tenants under the Act of 1870, and under the Act of 1881, were required to advance one-fourth. There is a provision to this effect in all previous Land Acts. The Irish Party were always opposed to these provisions. We always held that if you were going to give State assistance to purchase the land, the only safe and right way to do it was that all the purchase money should be advanced by the State. We, at least, are convinced—and I hope I may succeed in convincing the Committee—that there is in the Irish tenants' interest in the land, beyond the interest of the landlord, that which would serve the State as ample security for any advance it might make. The principle on which I base this claim on behalf of these tenants is this—that this legislation with regard to the purchase of Irish land must be looked at as a continuous whole. You have been groping your way in the dark to reach a principle of legislation that can be carried out successfully. In the Act of 1885, you reached very near to the right principle of carrying it out. Is it, I ask, unreasonable that I should request that tenants under previous Acts should be placed under the same conditions as those under the Act of 1885? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be seriously alarmed lest this claim should interfere with the permanence of the arrangement that is necessary in future to carry on land purchase in Ireland; but I cannot see that there is much in that argument, because the character of this claim is simply this—that those who purchased under previous Acts may be admitted to the benefits that have been conferred by the whole body of the tenantry of Ireland, who did not purchase under those Acts. Until they fixed the principle in the Act of 1885 that the whole of the money was to be advanced we made no claim for these tenants; but we say it is hard on these tenants who bought under previous Acts that they should see men who bought under the Act of 1885 allowed benefits from which they are deprived. We ask that those
  1114
  tenants shall not be penalized for having bought previous to the Act of 1885, being satisfied that the Treasury does not incur any additional risk; you should say to those men not that they are to be made a present of anything at the cost of the taxpayers, or of the State, but that they should be placed in precisely the same position as if they had purchased their farms under Lord Ashbourne's Act. That is the whole principle of my Amendment. Having explained the principle of the Amendment, I would impress upon the Committee that it is a proposal of vital importance. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) said yesterday that many of the tenants who purchased under former Acts are in arrears. I know that many of them are in a desperate condition. If they are not in arrears, it is true that they are in debt to the merchants for goods which have been advanced. I am afraid, from communications which have been sent to me, that purchasers under the Act of 1870, and under the Glebe Loans Act, cannot sometimes redeem themselves unless they have such relief as is given under Lord Ashbourne's Act. The greatest evil that occurs most continuously in the case of those people is that of debts that they may contract to the money-lender or the banks. They are weighed down by liabilities they have been compelled to contract in this way, which liabilities the bad times have rendered it impossible for them to pay off as they expected to do when they contracted them. They thought that by a succession of good years, that in the course of some 30 years time, when they had paid off their indebtedness to the State, they then would be able to pay off their debts to the money-lender and the banks. No doubt they would have been able to do that if they had had good times. But, as everyone knows, they have had to face the worst of times, and as a result they now find themselves in a hopeless condition. That is the position of purchasers under the Act of 1870. I should now like to say a word as to purchasers under the Act of 1881. So far as I know, they number 2,000 or 3,000, and it seems to me to be simply grotesque and ludicrous that the men who bought under that Act should be denied the advantages allowed to those who purchased

  1115
  under the Act of 1885. I know that a great number of those purchasers who purchased in 1883 borrowed large sums from the bank, and purchased under threat of eviction; and what was the result? Why, that between the instalments they have to pay to the State under the Act of 1881 and the instalments they are obliged to pay to the bank their rents are now, in some instances, higher than ever they were. I think it is well worthy the attention of the Committee to consider whether they cannot see their way to putting these charges under the Act of 1881 on the same footing as the charges under the Act of 1885. The question at stake is simply one of the ruin or salvation of these people. They cannot continue to pay the banks and to pay the Government. They will be sold out, and the farms will be left vacant, and the Government will then be placed in what must be to them a very disagreeable position—namely, in a position of being obliged to realize by sale in order to pay themselves. If this were a case of dishonest claim on the part of the tenantry I should be the last man to stand up on behalf of these people. These people have consulted rue on many occasions, and whenever they have done so I have always advised thorn to pay the Government on the day their instalments were due, and I could prove that, if necessary, by reference to numerous letters. But there is no doubt in the world that the men who bought under the Act of 1881 are placed in a most cruel position. They are debarred from the benefits of the great reductions of rent which are allowed to ordinary tenants: they are debarred from the benefits of the Act of 1885; and they are now, in many cases, called upon to pay a higher rent than ever they were called on to pay in good years. The system under which they live cannot be defended. I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether he cannot accept the Amendment; whether he cannot extend the Act of 1885 to all those classes of tenants I refer to, in the way I suggest, as I have not the slightest doubt that they will honestly and regularly pay their liabilities. I beg to move the clause which stands in my name, as follows:—
  '(1.) If, on the application of any suck lessee or tenant as is referred to in the twenty-third Section of 'The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act
  1116
  1885,' or person deriving title from him, it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Land Commission that in the case of any parcel of land purchased in manner as in the said Section mentioned, and which is or has been subject to any such simple mortgage or instalment mortgage as is therein referred to, any portion of the purchase money paid in respect of such purchase was so paid with moneys borrowed for the purpose, and that the whole or any portion of the moneys so borrowed is still owing and unpaid, the Land Commission may, if it is proved that the applicant is unable to pay same, and that such inability does not arise from his own conduct, act, or default, and if satisfied with the security, advance to such purchaser or person for the purpose of paying off same, the amount so ascertained to be owing and unpaid, together with any interest found to be duo in respect thereof.
  "(2.) If, on the application of the purchaser or person deriving title to him of any holding purchased pursuant to the provisions of Part II. or Part III. of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' or of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1872,' or of Part V. of The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' or of Part II. of' The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883,' and charged by virtue of same or of this Act with an annuity payable to the Commissioners of Works or to the Land Commission, as the case may be, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Land Commission that any portion of the purchase money paid in respect of such purchase was so paid with moneys borrowed otherwise than from the Commissioners of Works or the Land Commission, and that the whole or any portion of the moneys so borrowed is still owing, and unpaid, the Land Commission may, if it is proved that the applicant is unable to pay same, and that such inability does not arise from his own conduct, act, or default, and if satisfied with the security, advance to such purchaser or person, for the purpose of paying off same, the amount so ascertained to be owing or unpaid, together with any interest found to be due in respect thereof.
  "(3.) An advance made pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be seemed to the Land Commission by deed, and shall be repaid by an annuity charged on the parcel of land or holding, in favour of the Land Commission, for forty-nine years of £4 for every £100 of such advance, and so in proportion for any less sum. The provisions of the 48th, 58th, and 51st sections of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' shall apply to any such annuity in all respects as if same were such an annuity as is in the said sections referred to: Provided that the reference in the said 51st section to the Schedule therein referred to shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be a reference to the Schedule annexed to 'The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885.'
  "(4.) The provisions of the 30th section of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' shall apply in the case of any such advance as if same were such an advance as is therein referred to, and the conditions imposed thereby on any holding, subject to any charge in respect of such an annuity as is therein mentioned, shall also apply to, and are hereby imposed on, any parcel of land or holding subject to any charge in respect of an annuity by virtue of the provisions of this section.

  1117
  "(5.) The money required for the purpose of advances under this section shall be part of the liabilities of the Land Commission, and shall be a charge on the Irish Church Temporalities Fund—that is to say, the fund under the control of the Land Commission under the provisions of 'The Irish Church Act Amendment Act, 1881.'
  "(6.) This section shall not apply in the case of any purchaser or person deriving title through him, of any residue of an estate, or any portion thereof, purchased pursuant to the provisions of the 47th section of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' or the 27th section of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' or the 14th section of 'The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883,' or the 7th section of 'The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885.' "
  New Clause (48 & 49 Vic. c. 73—Land Commission may make advances for payment of sums borrowed by tenants from private lenders to purchase their holdings,)—(Mr. Dillon)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The hon. Member who has just sat down said that it seems to him grotesque and ludicrous that the tenants who bought under the terms of the Act of 1881 should be in a worse position than those who bought under the Act of 1885. That reminds me of the discussion upon which we were engaged last night, and of many other discussions. The demand put forward by the Amendment is an illustration of the fact that the moment a concession is made it is said that it is necessary, in the interests of justice, that it should be made retrospective, Now, the hon. Member says that the conditions of the Act of 1885 should be applied to those tenants to whom he has referred—to those who bought under the Acts of 1870, 1872, and 1881. But the hon. Member must bear in mind that, under the Act of 1885, one-fifth of the purchase money was obtained from the vendor, a condition which cannot apply to the cases mentioned by the hon. I Member. In that way, the Act of 1885 limited the risk of the State to four-fifths of the purchase money, whereas the hon. Member now asks that the State should take the whole risk by stopping into the shoes of the tenants who purchased under the former Acts. The hon. Member wishes the State to assume the position of the other creditors at a time
  1118
  when he himself admits that it is especially difficult, and almost impossible, to for them to fulfil their obligations. The very words of the Amendment are to the effect that if it is proved that the applicant is unable to pay the instalment, and such inability does not arise from his own conduct, the Land Commission may, if satisfied with the security, advance to the applicant the amount ascertained to be owing and unpaid, together with any interest found to be due in respect thereof. Now, on behalf of the State, I really must protest that it is impossible to give advances to tenants under such circumstances. It is impossible for us to run these further risks. I think I may say that the Government have shown that they have gone as far as they possibly can, and are absolutely unable to sanction this proposal. Looking at the position in which the tenants now find themselves, it would be absolutely impossible for the Government to put themselves into that position.
  MR. SHEEHY: The purchasers under the Act of 1881 have more than paid the one-fifth that it was arranged was to come from the vendor; consequently, if the Government were to give to the purchasers under the Act of 1881 the advantages given to the purchasers under the Act of 1885, they would have better security than they would have from the purchasers under the Act of 1885, for the purchasers under the Act of 1881 have already paid in their instalments. The hon. Member for East Mayo recommends that the burden which the tenants who purchased under the Act of 1881—the burden of the debt to the banks of which it is now impossible for them to relieve themselves—should be taken over by the Government at the State interest. The bank interest is a heavy interest for the tenant to bear. It is greater than the instalment that is paid to the Government, and I would press on the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the security to the State in regard to those who purchased under the Act of 1881 would be greater in consequence of the sums the tenants have already paid than in the case of persons who purchased under the Act of 1885.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It does not follow that those who purchased under the Act of 1881 purchased in the year 1881.

  1119
  They may have purchased in 1882, 1883, 1884, or at any time before the passing of the Act of 1885, so that in many cases they may not have paid five years' instalments. As a matter of fact, these tenants may have paid very few instalments, and we must bear in mind that the prices in 1881 were higher than in 1885. The security of the State would therefore be much diminished if the price that a tenancy was worth in 1881 was considerably reduced in 1887. The margin which would be secured by the payment of two instalments would be more than covered by the fall in value.
  MR. SHEEHY: I would point out that the clause omits that point.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 179: Majority 66.—(Div. List, No. 350.) [5.20 P.M.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I now wish to make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen who have new clauses on the Paper for consideration at this stage. We have arrived at a period when there is hardly time for the consideration of any Amendment proposed except those of considerable importance; and hon. Members opposite know very well that if they refrain from moving their clauses in Committee, and put them on the Paper for Report, as new clauses they will be taken first after any new clauses of the Government, and that they will then obtain whatever consideration they may require. I only throw out that suggestion for the consideration of lion. Members. It will not be possible to take the Bill until after Supply, if it is taken at all, assuming that we do not pass the Committee stage to-day. Delay may have very serious consequences; therefore I would urge hon. Members to allow the Committee stage to be completed this evening.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman appears to me to be a very reasonable one. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury if he proposes to give two days for the consideration of the Bill on Report?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If the Committee believe that two days are necessary, certainly two days will be given. It is, however, proposed that the Report
  1120
  shall be taken on Friday, and we hope that it will be concluded on that day.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Will the Bill be reprinted?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is already reprinted as far as the Committee has settled it.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Will it be delivered to-morrow?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope it will be.
  MR. DILLON: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, might I be allowed to say that I shall be willing to enter into his views, or to recommend my hon. Friends to reserve all their clauses until the Report; but if they do that, I would ask him to give us Friday and Monday for the Bill—I do not like a Saturday Sitting.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sorry to say that the exigencies of Supply are such that the Government cannot give Friday and Monday for the Bill.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Can you not take Supply on Saturday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No; it is impossible to postpone it beyond to-morrow; besides, a delay of 48 hours with respect to this Bill may have serious results in Ireland. We wish to avoid unnecessary delay.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I ask is it not possible to take Supply on Saturday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I shall be extremely glad were it possible to meet the convenience of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. I shall be glad to meet their convenience as far as possible; but the two days delay in disposing of the Report stage of this Bill which he suggests is a delay which we consider would have serious results in Ireland.
  MR. DILLON: So far as I am concerned, I see no objection to adopting the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. I will withdraw the clauses of which I have given Notice, and will bring them up on Report.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I also will withdraw the clauses which stand in my name, and will bring them up again on Report.
  On the Motion of Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, the following Amendments made:—In Schedule:—Page 24, line 17, leave out

  1121
  "the landlord of the said lands," and insert "A. B. [landlord's name], at—,or G. H. [agent's name] at—;" page 24, line 19, at end, insert,—The particulars of the rent and costs are as follows:—[set them out, as in the judgment or decree]."
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 355.]

  PUBLIC PARKS AND WORKS (METROPOLIS) (re-committed) BILL.
  (Mr. David Plunket, Mr. Jackson.)

  [BILL 136.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET)said, he must appeal to the House to go into Committee on the Bill, which would give relief to the taxpayers. The only Amendments to be made were Amendments by consent.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Plunket.)
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, that any relief to the taxpayers would be thrown upon the ratepayers of London. He thought it very unfair that while there was no Municipal Body for London, the maintenance of these Parks should be placed on the shoulders of the ratepayers. He did not wish to give any effective opposition to the Motion to go into Committee; but he desired to enter his protest against the Bill as unjust and unfair.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  On the Motion of Mr. PLUNKET, the following Amendments made:—In Clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out "bridge and;" after "embankment," insert "and bridge;" line 13, after "mentioned," insert "and in this Act referred to as the Parks and Works;" line 18, leave out "Westminster Bridge;" line 21, leave out "(in this Act referred to as 'the Parks and Works'); "line 22, after "signed," insert "in duplicate;" page 2, line 1, leave out "in duplicate;" line 3, after works," insert—
  "And Westminster Bridge, with the foundations, structures, and materials thereof and
  1122
  thereon, and the approaches thereto on either side, so far as such approaches are coloured on a plan and signed and deposited as aforesaid;"
  page 2, line 20, after "public," insert—
  "With the same liability and to the same extent as the same are at the date of transfer kept open and managed, maintained and repaired by the Commissioners of Works;"
  lines 25 and 26, leave out "and otherwise in connection with this Act;" line 29, after "cost," insert—
  "And the Board may defray expenses incurred by them with respect to permanent improvements or alterations in the Parks and Works, and not by this Act otherwise expressly provided for in like manner, as if such expenses were expenses incurred by the Board in carrying into execution the purposes of 'The Metropolis Management Act, 1885,' and the Acts amending the same; "
  and in Clause 6, page 4, line 20, leave out from "Board" to end of paragraph, and insert—
  "Provided that there shall be repaid to the Board, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, so much of such pension as is payable in respect of the person's service, before the date of his transfer under this Act, regard being had to the amount of salary then paid, but, without taking into account any number of years added to his service on account of abolition of office."
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow,

  TRAMWAYS (WAR DEPARTMENT) BILL.— [BILL 216.]
  (Mr. Northcote, Mr. Edward Stanhope, Mr. Brodrick.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE), in moving that the House go into Committee on the Bill, said, it was one of a purely formal nature.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Northcote.)
  MR. BIGGARobjected to the Motion.
  It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.