Sitting of 11 August 1887

MINUTES.
— NEW WRIT ISSUED —For the County of Carlow, v. John Aloysius Blake, esquire, deceased.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES; CLASS III. — LAW AND JUSTICE, Vote 1.
Postponed Resolution [August 8] further considered, and agreed to.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Trinidad and Tobago * [368]; British Settlements *[369].
Second reading—Labourers' Allotments * [329]; Public Works Loans* [364].
Report of Select Committee—Bankruptcy Courts (Ireland) [No. 278]; Temporary Dwellings [No. 279].
Committee— Report — Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment (No. 3)* [353]; Conveyancing (Scotland) Acts Amendment* [270].
Committee—Report—Third Reading— Lieutenancy Clerks Allowances*[274], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  INLAND REVENUE — OCCASIONAL GAME LICENCES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked Mr. Chancellor of the
  46
  Exchequer, If there is any reason to believe that there is considerable neglect to take out game licences by persons who have only one or two days occasional shooting given them in the course of a season; and, whether, inasmuch as the shortest term for which a licence can now be obtained is for 14 days at a minimum cost of £1, arrangements could be made, with probable advantage to the Revenue, for the issue at post offices of single day or week licences for sums so moderate that the amount could not operate as a temptation to evade the law?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): There is reason to believe that there are a certain number of cases of neglect to take out game licences. It is the fact that the shortest period for which such a licence can be taken out is 14 days, and that the cost is £l. The result of allowing licences to be taken out for a fortnight only has not been very encouraging, the number of such licences being only 5,000, as against some 60,000 for the longer period. This being so, I am not sure that much advantage to the Revenue would arise from issuing licences for even shorter periods at lower sums. But I will consider the matter. In no ease could anything be done with regard to it before the Budget of nest year.

  DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR OFFICERS — REPLIES OF CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If replies have now been received from the Chambers of Commerce and other Commercial Bodies, to whom an invitation was addressed last year to indicate in what way Her Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Officers could best further the interests of British trade abroad; if any new Instructions have, in consequence, been issued; and if, in such case, they can be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The replies of the Chambers of Commerce and other Commercial Bodies, together with the Instructions that were subsequently sent to Her Majesty's Representatives abroad,

  47
  were printed and presented to Parliament in June, 1886, under the title of No. 16, Commercial, 1886, Parts 1 and 2. No fresh Instructions have been issued.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—COURT HOUSES —ACCOMMODATION FOR PRISONERS AWAITING TRIAL.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can inform the House when he expects to lay upon the Table the Memorandum as to the steps taken, or to be taken, by Local Authorities to remedy the existing defects in the accommodation of prisoners awaiting trial?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Active correspondence is still proceeding between the Home Office, the Prison Commissioners, and about 150 Local Authorities, some of whom only assemble quarterly. I am afraid it will not be sufficiently advanced to enable me to lay a Memorandum on the Table of the House this Session; but the hon. Member may rest assured that there will be no unnecessary delay in proceeding with this matter, and I am able to state that in most cases the Local Authorities are prepared to comply with the wishes of the Home Office.

  ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GAR DENS—THE "KEW BULLETIN."
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will take steps to have the "Kew Bulletin" on sale at the gates of Kew Gardens in the same way as catalogues?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET), in reply, said, he had given directions that the bulletin should be on sale at Kew Gardens in the same way as catalogues.

  ADMIRALTY — H.M.SS. "SULTAN" AND "INFLEXIBLE" — SERVICE AMMUNITION.
  CAPTAIN COTTONasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, When the Returns promised on the 27th June last, relative to the supply of ammunition remaining on board Her Majesty's Ships Sultan and Inflexible after the bombardment of Alexandria, will be laid upon the Table?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE), in reply, said, the Returns would be laid on the Table tomorrow.

  INDIA—THE MARRIAGE LAW— INFANT MARRIAGES.
  MR. COZENS-HARDYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government of India have taken any steps with a view to the alteration of the Law as to enforcing cohabitation in the case of infant marriages?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): No communication has been received from the Government of India on the subject; but the Secretary of State has reason to believe that the Government of India has issued a circular letter calling for the opinions of the local Governments.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—BOYCOTTING AT NEWPORT, CO. MAYO.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a Resolution passed at a meeting of the Newport (Mayo) branch of the National League, held in the chapel yard, on Sunday, the 24th July, to Boycott the Protestant shop-keepers of Newport, because they did not join in a general illumination on the occasion of the nuns being installed in their new convent; whether, on the same Sunday evening, a mob assembled in the street, hooting, throwing stones, and smashing windows; and, whether this Boycotting of Protestants, as such, continues?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): My attention has not been called to the particular Resolution mentioned; but there is, unfortunately, no doubt that Protestant shopkeepers at Newport are Boycotted. It is true that on the 24th of July a noisy mob assembled in the town and broke some windows in the house of a Mr. Newcombe; but I do not know that this circumstance had any connection with the Boycotting of Protestants.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— ROCK AT ENTRANCE TO ADRIGOLE, CO. CORK.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade,

  49
  Whether, in view of the fact that the rock at the entrance to the only landing place at Roche, Adrigole, County Cork, endangers the lives of fishermen and others who are compelled to land there, he will take steps to have it removed?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Parliament has not placed at the disposal of the Board of Trade any funds for the purposes referred to by the hon. Member; and they are, therefore, not in a position to act in the manner suggested.

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE — ARREST FOR DRUNKENNESS.
  MR. P. M'DONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any Report in the Department of the Dublin Metropolitan Police regarding the arrest for drunkenness of a youth opposite the Chatham Street Police Station on the evening of the 2nd instant; whether, in such Report, it is stated that the youth, instead of being brought into Chatham Street Police Station, was dragged bleeding all the way through Grafton to College Street Station, and, owing to his resistance, was savagely batoned, and had his arms twisted; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct of the police in this case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the Government would not grant the inquiry sought for, as no unnecessary force was used in the arrest of the prisoner, who resisted violently.

  HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION (IRELAND) — REPORT OF SIR JAMES ALLPORT'S COMMISSION—SLIGO.
  MR. P. M'DONALDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Sir James Allport's Commission have yet reported the result of their inquiry into the harbour accommodation of the Irish ports; and, if so, whether any recommendation has been made in favour of Sligo, considering the strong evidence laid before the Commissioners as to the necessity of better accommodation for those engaged in the fishing industry, and for the general improvement of the harbour; and, whether any portion of
  50
  the £50,000 will be allocated to Sligo, or a loan granted by the Treasury for the very necessary improvement of Sligo Harbour?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works had not yet reported on Irish Harbours. He was informed that the Commissioners were carefully considering the case of Sligo, about which they had received some valuable information, besides having made a personal inspection. No part of the grant alluded to in the Question would be allocated for harbour improvements.

  WAR OFFICE—MILITARY BANDS AT THE MANCHESTER EXHIBITION.
  CAPTAIN COTTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that permission has been given to some military bands to play at the Manchester Exhibition, while similar permission has been refused to the band of the Royal Artillery; and, if so, why?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Permission was given early in the year for the band of the Royal Engineers to play at the Manchester Exhibition, and later the band of the Gloucestershire Regiment, which is stationed in the Northern District, has played there. For military reasons it has recently been found necessary by the Military Authorities to prohibit bands from playing out of their own districts without special sanction from headquarters.
  CAPTAIN COTTON: Was permission given to the band of the 2nd Life Guards?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have no information on the subject; but I will inquire.

  ADMIRALTY-NAVAL MANŒUVRES— SMOKELESS COAL.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he is aware that, in the naval exercises, the whereabouts of the hostile Fleet was ascertained by Commodore Fitzroy in consequence of the dense smoke emitted; what coal is used by the Admiralty for the men-of-war; what reason exists for not using best smokeless Cardiff coal; and, whether that coal

  51
  is not equally efficient for steam purposes?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. FORWOOD)(who replied); said: The best South Wales steam coal is alone supplied at all Home ports and at the principal foreign Naval Stations to the Fleet. Especial care is exercised in selecting only good collieries from which to obtain supplies; and in revising the list this year we were afforded valuable information from the experience of the largest English Mail Steamship Companies. No Report has yet been received that enables us to account for the smoke reported to have been emitted from some vessels taking part in the manœuvres; but it is quite probable it arose from in perfect combustion caused by a vessel lying under a low head of steam suddenly endeavouring to force the fires and charging the furnaces too rapidly with fresh coal.

  WAR OFFICE—STAFF PAYMASTERS— LIEUTENANT COLONELS.
  COLONEL DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has yet decided that the rank of Lieutenant Colonel shall be given to Staff Paymasters after five years' service as Major?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): In accordance with the promise made to my hon. and gallant Friend during the discussion of the Estimates, I have carefully considered this point; and it is now proposed to make Staff Paymasters eligible for the rank of Lieutenant Colonel after seven years' service in the rank, and in consideration of the responsible duties which it is proposed to assign to Chief Paymasters to confer on them the rank of Colonel.

  CUSTOMS DUTIES—"ENTRY TAX"— CORK CUSTOM HOUSE.
  MR. HOOPERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that merchants and traders at Cork, when paying duty through the Custom House there, have to pay for each entry passed a tax of 1s., which is called "Entry Tax;" whether this tax was originally levied in several ports, but was subsequently abrogated as regards all these ports except Cork; whether is any reason why an exceptional
  52
  impost should be continued in the single case of Cork, to the disadvantage of local traders; and, whether he can take any measures for their relief in this matter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I find, on inquiry, that merchants and traders at Cork have to pay 1s. on passing each entry at the Custom House. The duty, however, does not go into the Exchequer, but to the Cork Harbour Commissioners and the Trustees of the Cork Commercial Buildings. It is levied under a local Act of 1814. The Board of Customs are not aware whether any similar duty was originally levied at other ports. In these circumstances, the hon. Member will see that it is for the Local Authorities, and not the Government, to take steps, if thought desirable, for the modification, or abolition, of the duty. I have no means of knowing how far the Local Authorities may have contracted loans on its security.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—THE SHERIFF COURT AT DORNOCH—CASE OF HUGH MATHESON, COTTAR,
  MR. A. SUTHERLANDasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the fact that Hugh Matheson, cottar, Clashmore, Assynt, in the County of Sutherland, who was alleged to have been concerned in the deforcement of a Sheriff officer while serving writs for arrears of rent on 22nd April last, walked to Dornoch, a distance of 70 miles, to be tried at the Sheriff Court there, and at once reported himself to the authorities, expecting to be tried at the next diet of the Court; whether it is the fact that he was not so tried, though the only witness for the prosecution was easily available; whether, in consequence, Matheson had to walk back again the 70 miles; who is responsible for this unnecessary trouble and hardship to the accused; and, whether, seeing that the authorities did not bring Matheson to trial after he had come 70 miles to surrender himself, it is intended to depart from the charge against him?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Hugh Matheson, along with several others, was cited on the Sheriff of the county's warrant to

  53
  answer to a charge of having been active in a mob that deforced an officer of the law, and burned a large number of writs which he had brought with him for service. The citation ordered the accused to appear on May 31. Hugh Matheson, who, I am informed, was specially active in the deforcement, did not appear to answer the citation against him. Had he done so, his case would have been at once disposed of. Another of the accused persons appeared, and was duly tried on that day. A new citation was issued to those who had failed to obey the previous citation; but they again failed to obey, they being thus in contumacy. Instructions were given that if any of them were brought before the Sheriff they should be examined, and the case reported to the Crown Office, that I might judge whether to order their trial by jury or not. Hugh Matheson delivered himself up on August 2, and was, accordingly, examined and committed for trial, but liberated on bail. Any trouble or hardship to which he has been subjected are the result of his disobeying the Sheriff's repeated citations. It is not intended to depart from the charge against him; and he and the others who refused to answer to the citation of Her Majesty's Court will be brought to justice. There is still one man who has not surrendered, and he will also be brought up for examination; and when the proceedings in these examinations are reported to mo, I shall consider whether these men, who have so long refused to submit themselves to the law, can be tried summarily, or whether it will be necessary to have them tried by a jury. I must decline to say what the action of the Government is, to prevent this continued defiance of legal process, as to do so might defeat the ends of justice.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE EVICTIONS AT BODYKE—EXPENSE.
  MR. COXasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the total cost of the military expedition engaged in carrying out the recent evictions at Bodyke?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)in reply, said, that the total cost to the public of the military employed at Bodyke was reported by the military authorities to be £190.
  R. CONYBEAREMay I ask, has the right hon. Gentleman seen by the papers that one of the evicted tenants has gone mad?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  INLAND REVENUE — REMOVAL EXPENSES OF OFFICERS.
  MR. COXasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is a fact that some officers of the Inland Revenue, removed on complaint from one station to another, are allowed their expenses of removal out of the public funds; and, whether other officer of similar rank, and removed under similar circumstances, are refused any expenses; and, if so, why the Commissioners of Inland Revenue make such a difference in the treatment of their officers?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): As a general rule, officers of Inland Revenue, when removed from one station to another on complaint, are not allowed their expenses of removal out of public funds. Each case, however, is dealt with on its own merits; and an exception to the rule is occasionally made in cases where it is considered advisable and in the public interest that an officer should be removed, although not actually guilty of any act calling for censure.

  INDIA —THE MILITARY FUNDS OF MADRAS, BENGAL, AND BOMBAY.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he could obtain, for the information of Parliament and the subscribers, a statement of the present position of the Military Funds of Madras, Bengal, and Bombay, with the result of the operation of these Funds since they were taken over by the Secretary of State, commencing with the assets and liabilities (annuitants, subscribers, & c.) of these several Funds as they were left by the respective managements, and showing the changes therein, as well as the effects of the beneficial arrangements granted by the Secretary of State, with the balance of assets and liabilities, & c. now remaining, and, if possible, an approximate statement of the results when liabilities are calculated to cease?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST), in reply, said, he found, upon inquiry, that since the assets and liabilities of these Funds were taken over by the Secretary of State they had been treated no longer as in existence as separate Funds, but merged in the general Revenues of India. He was told it would now be impossible to give a statement of what would be the position of these hypothetical Funds, if they had continued to exist, without collecting at great cost a mass of information, some of which would have to be obtained, if at all, in India. When the assets were taken over the actual value of each subscriber was ascertained, and full settlement was at the time made.

  ARMS (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— AMBROSE M'SWINEY, FALCARAGH, CO. DONEGAL.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, after the passing of the Arms Act in Ireland in 1881, a gun was taken from a man called M'Swiney, of Carrickshannon House, Falcaragh, County Donegal; whether the gun was duly registered under the provisions of the Arms Act; if he can state where the gun is now; and, if the owner, who has now left Ireland, can have it on application?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the answer to the first part of the Question was "Yes." Ambrose M'Swiney was brought before a magistrate for carrying a gun in a proclaimed district without a licence, and the gun was forfeited. His father had a licence for a gun on his farm. The gun, being forfeited, could not now be returned.
  MR. COX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Ambrose M'Swiney referred to is only a child nine years old?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—PETTY SESSIONS—BALLAGHADERRIN, CO. MAYO—CHARGE OF ASSAULT.
  MR. DILLON: asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at Ballag-
  56
  haderrin, County Mayo, at the Petty Sessions on Monday the 25th July, a prosecution was brought by Patrick Shryane against Thomas Casey and John Brennan for assault; whether the former is a process server who served several ejectments for Lord Dillon, and the latter an employé of Lord Dillon's under agent; whether the only magistrate present was Lord Dillon's agent, Mr. Hussey; whether, in the course of complainant's evidence, Mr. Hussey asked his solicitor if he intended to call any witnesses, and, on being answered in the affirmative, immediately remarked that he should consider their evidence worthless, and without any application ordered all Shryane's witnesses out of Court; whether the assault complained was of a very serious character; whether Shryane's statement was corroborated by two respectable persons, who were witnesses of what took place; whether a doctor's certificate was produced in Court, to the effect that the wounds inflicted upon Shryane were of a very serious character; whether Brennan called no witnesses in his defence, and, notwithstanding this, Mr. Hussey dismissed the case; and, whether, if the above facts be true, he will direct the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the conduct of Mr. Hussey in trying cases in which he is personally interested?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the Irish Government saw no reason why the attention of the Lord Chancellor should be called to the action of Mr. Hussey in the case; and, as the hon. Gentleman was aware, if any person felt aggrieved he could communicate with the Lord Chancellor on the subject.

  JUBILEE THANKSGIVING SERVICE (WESTMINSTER ABBEY) — CHURCHYARD OF ST. MARGARET'S, WESTMINSTER.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the First Commissioner of Works, If his attention has been called to the present condition of the churchyard of St. Margaret's, Westminster, caused by the structures made for Her Majesty's Jubilee; and, when steps will be taken to restore the churchyard to its previous state?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET), in reply, said, his Department had no control over the churchyard of St. Margaret's, which was enclosed on Jubilee Day by order of the Churchwardens. He was glad, however, to see that steps had been taken for restoring the turf to its original condition.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION — SUB-COMMISSIONERS AT WICKLOW.
  MR. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, The cause of the delay of the Sub-Commissioners of the Land Court holding a sitting in the County Wicklow; and, whether they are likely to hold one soon, as any further delay will cause great hardship to a large number of tenants who have been kept so long waiting to have fair rents fixed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that no unusual or unavoidable delay had occurred in the hearing of land cases in Wicklow. The Sub-Commissioners sat in Wicklow in the September of every year since 1884, and would sit there again next September.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS — PLEURO-PNEUMONIA IN DUBLIN.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What steps Her Majesty's Government have taken with a view of stamping oat pleuro-pneumonia and other diseases in cattle in the City of Dublin and the surrounding parishes?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): All cattle in the Dublin District are specially branded for purposes of identification. They may not be exposed in the Dublin market except for slaughter, nor exported to Great Britain, nor to the surrounding districts.

  POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND) — POST OFFICES AND GROCERS' SHOPS, GLASGOW.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Postmaster General, If he is aware that in Glasgow-there are at least 20 post offices in
  58
  licensed grocers' shops; if the custom is general in Scotland; and, if the granting of postal appointments to holders of licences is in accordance with the usual practice of the office?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): There are not more than six post offices in licensed grocers' shops in the town and district of Glasgow together. The holding of such licences is not regarded as a disqualification, provided that liquor cannot be drunk on the premises.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that the Rating of Machinery Bill excites much interest in the manufacturing districts of Lancashire; whether the Government can give any facilities for dealing with it this Session; and, whether they intend, in a subsequent Session, to take up the subject themselves?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I am aware that the Bill excites much interest in Lancashire; but I think my hon. Friend will also admit that it excites much opposition. To say the least of it, there is a great difference of opinion on the subject. Under these circumstances, if the Government had time to spare there would be very little chance of the Bill passing this Session, and the Government have no time to give for such a purpose. With reference to what will be done in a subsequent Session, I am sure my hon. Friend will understand it is not in my power to make any statement.

  MINES REGULATION ACTS—DISMISSAL OF WILLIAM SHAW, TAWD VALE COLLIERY, SKELMERSDALE.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with respect to the case of one William Shaw, who was alleged to have been dismissed without cause from his employment as fireman at the Park Mine, Tawd Vale Colliery, Skelmersdale, Lancashire, to the effect that he had directed the Inspector to make further inquiries into the case, Whether the Home Office have now received any further Report on the case; and, whe-

  59
  ther he can communicate to the House the substance of such Report?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have received a further Report from the Inspector; but it does not add much to my knowledge of the real circumstances of the case. Shaw denies that the erasure of the Report was made with his authority. On the other hand, another fireman declares that he erased the Report at the request of Shaw, three times repeated, Shaw saying that he had made a mistake as to the position of the gas. The Inspector is of opinion that the matter cannot be carried any further, and that no violation of the General or Special Rules has been committed. The examination of the mine reported by Shaw was made on a Sunday, and not before the commencement of any shift, and, therefore, was not required to be made by law. I shall be happy to show the Report to my hon. Friend if he wishes it.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—OF FENDERS AGAINST THE FISHERY LAWS-CLONMEL PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. HOOPER (Cork, S.E.) (for Mr. MAURICE HEALY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at Clonmel, County Tipperary, Rural Petty Sessions, on the 18th day of February, 1887, after hearing a summons at the suit of John H. Jones, Secretary to the Conservators of Fisheries, Waterford District, against John Connolly, William Nagle, Edmond Hackett, and Michael Manning, charged with an offence against the Fishery Laws, the magistrates dismissed the said complaint against all the said defendants, and, by separate orders, ordered that the said complainant should pay to each of the said defendants the sum of £1 for costs; whether, on the magistrates accordingly issuing their warrants to the Constabulary for the levying of the said costs, the Constabulary refused to execute the warrants, although the said complainant is a man of substantial means; whether, in similar cases at the same Petty Sessions, the said complainant, when successful in prosecuting persons for breaches of the Fishery Laws, has been almost invariably awarded costs against said defendants; and whether, in such cases, the warrants have been levied by fine or imprison-
  60
  ment; and, why the police in the present case have refused, or neglected, to levy the amount of the warrant against Mr. Jones?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the facts were substantially as stated in the Question. The warrants were originally issued for the County of Tipperary; but Mr. Jones neither residing nor having any goods in that county, the warrants were submitted to the Inspector General of Constabulary for endorsement in the County of Waterford. The Inspector General felt himself unable to comply with the request, as, in his opinion, the magistrates had clearly exceeded their powers in awarding more than 20 s. costs, seeing that the defendants had been jointly charged, and that costs were, therefore, incurred on only one summons. The magistrates did not re-issue the warrants, having a doubt as to their legality.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CASE OF EX-SERGEANT MICHAEL CRONIN.
  MR. HOOPER (Cork, S.E.) (for Mr. MAURICE HEALY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of ex-Sergeant Michael Cronin, late of the Royal Irish Constabulary; whether Cronin served nearly 28 years in the Force, and was sergeant for 11 years, his record during the whole period being unimpeachable; whether, in July, 1886, he was called on by the Inspector General to retire from the Service, owing to an injury to his wrist sustained while on duty in February, 1886; whether he was recommended to the Treasury for a pension of £60 a-year, a Medical Board of three doctors having certified that the injury to his wrist should be considered in his retiring allowance; whether, acting on the opinion of one doctor who was attending Sergeant Cronin, the Treasury came to the conclusion that his retirement was owing to his general state of health, and not specially to the accident to his wrist, and only granted a pension of £54 12 s., an amount to which he had become entitled by service nearly three years ago; whether his pension would have been £72 a-year after another two years' service; and whether there is any doubt that he could have served a much longer period than this but for the accident;

  61
  whether Sergeant Cronin has since obtained medical certificates from four doctors, showing that, apart from the accident, his health was good and likely to continue so, and has offered to submit himself for examination to any doctor who may be selected; whether, in any case under the Constabulary Acts, his service might, for the purposes of pension, have been computed at 30 years, he having been compulsorily retired; and, whether, having regard to Sergeant Cronin's excellent record, and the fact that he has eight young children dependent upon him, his case will be reconsidered, with a view to having his pension increased to the amount recommended by the Pensions Board?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that the retirement of Sergeant Cronin became necessary owing to his having been reported unfit for public service, because he was suffering from chronic bronchitis in addition to an injury to his right wrist. The pension awarded him was in accordance with the Rules of the Service The Medical Board had Reported that if Cronin were again placed on active service the bronchitis would again appear.

  ADMIRALTY — THE RECENT NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
  MR. WARMINGTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is the intention of the Government to lay upon the Table of the House any official or other Report of the recent Naval Manœuvres; and, whether any Return of the casualties to men and ships will be furnished, together with a statement of the opinion of the Board as to the cause or causes of any such casualties?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): An official Report is being prepared for publication, and will be laid on the Table of the House. In this Report will be included a Return of casualties to men and ships, both of which are few, considering the number of men and ships employed.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) —THE IRISH NATIONAL FORESTERS AT PORTRUSH—FIRING FROM A TRAIN.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu
  62
  tenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that six persons have suffered from the firing from the train by the Irish National Foresters, on Sunday last, along the line between Portrush and Ballymena; whether Archibald Beattie was shot in the thigh by a bullet, and James Campbell wounded in the hand; whether Mr. James Dowds, licentiate of the Ballymena Presbytery, has made the following statement: —
  "The train came dashing along, and, when opposite us, I saw a hand stretched out of a first class carriage window, and immediately there was a loud report of a firearm, simultaneously with the report I felt wounded, and would have fallen to the ground had I not leaned up against the railings. …The bullet has not been extracted, and I have suffered great pain during the night. …We had a full view of the crowd from the moment the train approached…There was not a single stone or missile thrown from it at the passing train;"
  and, whether a revolver was thrown from the train, and is in the possession of the Constabulary?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Four persons are known to have been wounded. The Government have no information as to a revolver having been thrown from the train. The other circumstances, I understand, are as mentioned in the Question.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the circumstances referred to in this Question were subject to the provocation given to the National Foresters at Portrush, which provocation took the form of an attack made by a mob of men who came from Coleraine to Portrush for the purpose of making that attack on the excursionist party: whether this is the substance of the official Report given to the Government; and I would also ask, whether the excursionists gave notice to the police of the time of the excursion with a view to the preservation of the peace, and that no shots were fired from the train until large stones were thrown at the train, and people in the train were wounded?
  MR. JOHNSTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, may I ask if he has received a communication from Mr. Robinson, the magistrate in charge at Portrush, stating that no interference took place with the excursionists on their arrival,

  63
  and that it was only upon their return from Portrush, when shots were fired, that any attack was made; also, that no Orangemen were implicated in the disturbance, which was wholly caused by the conduct of the excursionists?
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the attack on the excursion party, although it did not take place on their arrival at Portrush, did take place on their return to Portrush, where the assailants had assembled in the meantime?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is quite true that shots appear to have been fired from the train on the return of the party. It is not true that there was any provocation which would justify such conduct. The firing from the train preceded the throwing of stones at the train; and altogether the conduct of the Foresters appears to have been a most reckless proceeding.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen a statement to the effect that as the train approached a bridge a large number of women and children were waiting to see the excursionists pass; that a large number of whisky bottles and porter bottles were thrown from the train; that this enraged the people, and that stones were thrown; and that on the passing of the second train about 140 shots were fired from the train?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had explained that the shots were fired from the train before the stones were thrown at the train.
  MR. SEXTONasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that three shots were fired by the mob at the Poresters before they returned the fire at all?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As far as I know no shots were fired at any Foresters in any train.
  MR. SEXTON: There were.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES) — "HARD LABOUR" AT HORFIELD GAOL.
  COLONEL LAURIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has received a Memorial from the Justices of Bath on the subject of the alleged want of appliances for '' hard labour "at Horfield Gaol; and, whether any steps have been taken to
  64
  enable the sentence of "hard labour" to be duly carried out?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir. I have received such a Memorial; and I am informed by the Chairman of the Prison Commissioners that he has instructed an Inspector of Prisons to report to him on the matter. It is not, however, a fact that there are no "cranks" in the prison, for I am informed that there are 19.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—EPPING PETTY SESSIONS— ASSAULTS BY GIPSIES.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of assault by gipsies in Epping Forest on 11th July, for which assault several men were, on 29th July, sentenced by the Bench at the Epping Petty Sessions to various terms of imprisonment; whether he is aware that parts of Epping Forest are infested by gipsies, and that the above is not an isolated case of assault by them; and, what steps he proposes to take to render the Forest safe to visitors?
  MR. PICKERSGILLinquired, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the principal sufferers by these attacks were excursionists and Sunday school children; and that in the case mentioned a small school had incurred an expense of £30 in conducting the prosecution; and, further, as the prosecution was obviously undertaken in the public interest, he would consider the propriety of re-imbursing the necessary costs to the school?
  HE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have received a Report from the Commissioner of Police, who informs me that the scene of the assault in question lies a considerable distance beyond the boundary of the Metropolitan Police District. I have accordingly written to the Chief Constable of Essex, calling his attention to the alleged state of the Forest, and asking him to favour me with a Report on the matter. I have no information as to any assaults other than the one referred to in the Question, on which occasion I understand that 12 out of the 15 gipsies who were summoned

  65
  for the assault were convicted by the Epping Bench. I propose to communicate with the Conservators of Epping Forest, as well as with the County Constabulary, with a view of securing a more effectual protection of visitors. I shall be very happy to give consideration to the question of the prosecutors' costs.

  SCOTLAND—THE FORTH BRIDGE.
  MR. MUNRO-FERGUSONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the frequently recurring accidents at the Forth Bridge have been duly investigated and reported upon by the Procurators Fiscal of the county to the Law Officers of the Crown; and, if so, whether blame attaches to anyone in connection therewith; and, if any criminal or other proceeding are to be taken?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H.A. MACDONALD): All the accidents which have taken place at the Forth Bridge have been investigated at once, either by the Procurator Fiscal of Linlithgowshire or the Procurator Fiscal of Fifeshire, according to the place of the accident. No case has occurred in which there has been any ground for instituting criminal proceedings.

  SOUTHERN PACIFIC—THE HAWAIIAN MINISTRY—REPUDIATION OF DEBT.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the report in The Times of Tuesday, 9th August, that the new Hawaiian Ministry refuse to recognize as valid the loan of £2,000,000 recently contracted by Mr. Gibson's Ministry, and that Her Majesty's Consul at Honolulu has, inconsequence, threatened that he will ask for a naval force to compel the new Ministry to assume the debts of their predecessors; whether this report is substantially correct; and, whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate any action of the kind indicated in this report?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge of such events. I observe that the Hawaiian Consul General, in a letter to The Times yesterday, has contradicted the report which had appeared in that newspaper.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE LXII. —ARMENIA — ABDUCTION OF A CHRISTIAN GIRL.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information confirming the accounts which appeared in the public Press on Thursday 4th August, of a conflict between the Mussulman and the Armenian population of Amasin, arising out of the abduction of a Christian girl by Hassan Bey, the Turkish Governor, and of the danger of further attacks on the Christian population of the city; and, whether, if the facts turn out to be as stated, Her Majesty's Government will, in pursuance of the provisions of Article lxii. of the Treaty of Berlin, address representations to the Ottoman Government on the matter, with a view to the dismissal of Hassan Bey, and the prevention of outrages and conflicts, tending to imperil the peace of the East?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government have as yet no information in regard to the case referred to in my hon. Friend's Question.
  MR. BRYCE: Will Her Majesty's Government inquire into the matter?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I cannot think that it is the duty of the Government to make inquiry into a newspaper telegram from Constantinople, in which mention is made of a rumour. The circumstances described in the hon. Member's Question are stated in the paragraph in the newspapers to be according to one version of the report. I think if Her Majesty's Government, in consequence of such a paragraph in a newspaper, were to address a remonstrance to the Government of Turkey, and possibly ask the dismissal of an officer, it would be a very strong measure indeed.
  MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood my Question. Will he inquire into the facts from the Ambassador—whether there is any foundation for the rumour? I do not ask him to remonstrate until he has ascertained the facts.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: We had better wait at least for the course of post.

  THE QUEEN'S JUBILEE—THE NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been drawn to the statements in The Pall Mall Gazette of the 8th instant, that some of the vessels taking part in the recent Naval Manœuvres were undermanned; whether it is the fact that one of the gunboats of the D Flotilla, named the Mastiff, left Portsmouth Harbour for the manœuvres two stokers, one leading stoker, and one engine room artificer short; and, whether the whole of the engine room staff had, in consequence, to keep watch and watch during the progress of the manœuvres?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I have not seen the statement referred to; but arrangements were made that all the ships should be fully manned according to their complements. For some reason, as to the cause of which I have not yet received the Report, the Mastiff appears to have left Portsmouth three men short of her engine room staff, which necessitated watch and watch being kept during six days, of which period, however, the vessel was only under way for 60 hours, the remaining time being with banked fires. The complement was complete during the actual progress of the manœuvres, and the necessity for watch and watch ceased.

  ADMIRALTY (SHIPBUILDING)—H.M.S. "AUSTRALIA."
  MR. ADDISONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, By what firm of contractors H.M.S. Australia was built, and what was the contract price; whether this is the ship to which reference has been made by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, as showing the superiority of contract to Dockyard work; whether the ship has been sent to Chatham for completion, and what was the estimated cost of such completion; whether, on the examination of the ship for the purpose of the intended alteration, the Admiralty received a Report from their officers at Chatham as to the construction of the ship; what was the nature of such Report; whether an official recommenda
  68
  tion has been made to the Admiralty to return the Australia to the contractors; and, what steps the Admiralty have taken, and intend to take, in reference to the Australia, in consequence of the Reports they have received?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The Australia was built by Messrs. Napier and Sons, of Glasgow, and the contract price for hull was £154,960, and for engines £63,375. I understand that this is the ship referred to by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). She has been sent to Chatham for completion; but the estimated cost for carrying out the work has not yet been received. The Report of Survey, which was received yesterday, states that the ship has been well and carefully built; but that a few of the minor fittings and internal arrangements require alteration. No recommendation has been made to the Admiralty to return the Australia to the contractors. The recommendations contained in the Report are now under consideration.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—COURT OF INQUIRY — GLASSLOUGH, CO. MONAGUAN—CONSTABLE KENNEDY.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a Constabulary Court of Inquiry was held at Glasslough, County Monaghan, on the 12th May, 1886, to investigate a charge made against Constable Kennedy by two brothers named M'Gonnell, for making use of party expressions; whether six witnesses of good character were called for the defence, and only three for the prosecution; and, why, in the face of the preponderance of evidence being in. favour of the accused, the Court found him guilty of the charge preferred against him?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the facts were substantially as stated in the first paragraph of the Question. The Court of Inquiry, after carefully weighing the evidence, considered the case proved; and the Inspector General found it necessary, in the interest of the Public Service, to order the constable's removal to another county.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) —BOARD OF GUARDIANS—ENNISTYMON UNION.
  MR. JORDANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Local Government Board have yet arrived at any decision in relation to the dispute between them and the Board of Guardians of the Ennistymon Union, County Clare, arising out of their appointment to the Protestant Episcopal chaplaincy to the workhouse?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the Local Government Board fixed the salary of the Protestant chaplain to the workhouse at £5 a-year, and the proposal of the Guardians was that he should be paid by fee; but the Local Government Board found that they could not legally sanction such an arrangement.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) — THE CURTIN FAMILY.
  MR. KIMBERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in The Times of Monday, 8th instant, that insults and annoyances to the Curtin family still continue in Kerry; that an outrage of a most daring character was committed only a few nights since; that a respectable farmer named Spring having bought a cow from Mrs. Curtin, the cow was driven off by a number of men in front of Spring's house and stabbed in several places and thrown into a ditch; also, that a cart, recently lent by Mrs. Curtin to Spring to draw turf, was smashed to pieces the same night by a number of men assembled for that purpose; and, whether there is any provision of the Crimes Act which will roach the case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that the Curtin family are not now insulted and annoyed, the number of prosecutions instituted against persons so acting have had a good effect. It is true that Spring has suffered in the manner stated. The police, however, have reason to believe that the acts referred to have no connection with the Boycotting of the Curtin family; but are due to private malice towards himself. There is, at present, no evidence in. these cases against any person.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was not the opinion of the Curtin family themselves that the continual reference to the case in the House for election purposes——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES) — OFFICERS OF YEOMANRY AND CAVALRY.
  MR. GENT-DAVISasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether an officer of the Yeomanry can be transferred to a Cavalry Regiment on passing the requisite examination entitling him to a commission for service therein?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. E. STANHOPE): No, Sir. An officer of Yeomanry is not eligible, as such, for transfer to the Cavalry of the Line by merely passing an examination.

  LAW AND POLICE —THE CASE OF MISS CASS—MR. NEWTON, METRO POLITAN POLICE MAGISTRATE.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will communicate to the House the Lord Chancellor's decision respecting Mr. Newton before the Vote for the Metropolitan Police Magistrates is taken, in order to enable the House to form its own judgment upon the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. MATTHEWS): I will communicate the Lord Chancellor's decision to the House as soon as the Lord Chancellor thinks it possible to do so without prejudice to pending criminal proceedings. There is no Vote for the Metropolitan Police Magistrates, whose salaries are by law charged on the Consolidated Fund.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (EXTENSION TO WOMEN) BILL.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the hon. Member for Hanley, Whether it his intention to proceed to the Parliamentary Franchise (Extension to Women) Bill this Session?
  MR. WOODALL, in reply, said, that he had naturally desired to take the sense of the new Parliament

  71
  upon the question, and had been relying upon the promise, guarded and qualified as it was, of the First Lord of the Treasury to give him an opportunity. He now understood from the right hon. Gentleman that there was little chance of his being able to satisfy that expectation; and, under the circumstances, he thought he should be best consulting the convenience of the House by moving to-morrow that the Order for the second reading be discharged.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES CONVESTION —SEIZURE OF THE SMACK "LADY GODIVA."
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether a foreign cruiser is entitled by German law, not only to board a fishing vessel not engaged in fishing, and belonging to a fleet of smacks, whether within, or outside territorial waters, but also to fire ball cartridge at and run into her, when no offence has been committed; and, whether the German Government have offered any explanation as to the grounds on which the officer in command of the German cruiser took the Grimsby smack, Lady Godiva, into Wilhelmshaven, the captain of the smack in question having been acquitted?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON), (who replied) said: Fishing boats within; territorial waters and in the North Sea, under the Convention of 1882, must heave to at the order of the commander of a cruiser, and if they disobey the; commander may compel them to do so. This provision is plainly implied in; Articles 26, 28, and 29. But the suspicion against the Lady Godiva, was of; fishing in the territorial German waters, on which ground the cruiser was in her right in requiring the smack to heave to. The master of the Lady Godiva was acquitted of the charge of illegal fishing; and the charge of resistance to the German cruiser was apparently not pressed, The full report of the trial has not yet I been received; when it reaches Her Majesty's Government they will carefully consider the facts of the case, and such action as may be proper will then be taken.

  SUPPLY—THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY NEGOTIATIONS.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the sum proposed to be voted on the Supplementary Estimates for allowances and expenses in respect of the Newfoundland Fishery Negotiations includes any claim which the late Government refused to sanction?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY)(who replied) said: The amount paid to Sir Clare Ford is £545 18 s. 4d., which is the sum sanctioned by the late Government, with the addition of travelling expenses, as to which no question has arisen. The amount paid to Mr. Pennell is £3 92 9s. 6d. This is for the expenses of further negotiations conducted by Mr. Pennell during May and June of last year, and the payment is at the rate sanctioned by the late Government.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he was to understand that the decision of the late Government was to be reversed in a Supplementary Estimate?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he was not personally acquainted with the details, and, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman would repeat his Question when the Secretary to the Treasury was present.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT —THE HESSIAN FLY.
  MR. CHAPLINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Government expect to receive the Report of Mr. Whitehead and Mr. Grey with reference to the prevalence of the Hessian fly in various parts of the country; whether it is the fact that Mr. Whtehead submitted a full Report upon this subject to the Agricultural Department so long ago as October of last year; what action has been taken at any time since then by the Government to give effect to the recommendations of that Report; and, when did the Agricultural Department first become aware of the prevalence of that insect in the country during the present season?
  MR. H. GARDNERalso asked, whether the right

  73
  hon. Gentleman was aware that Questions on the subject had been frequently addressed to the Government since August last; and, whether the answer had been invariably made that the Government was fully alive to the importance of the subject; and, how it'. was that at the eleventh hour the Government were about to appoint a Commissioner to inquire into it?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. Member is arguing the point.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Mr. Whitehead's and Mr. Grey's Report is expected immediately. Mr. Whitehead's first Report was received in October, 1886, and was immediately printed and sent to all County Local s Authorities in Great Britain. Copies were laid on the Table of both Houses ' on the meeting of Parliament. Mr. Whitehead reported last February that the pupæ of the Hessian fly had been discovered by farmors in straw of corn just threshed out near Dundee A: Circular was sent to the Local Authorities in March with a notice as to the discovery of pupa cases, and suggestions to prevent their distribution. A copy of Mr. Whitehead's Report was sent during the present month to all the agricultural; papers. Mr. Whitehead is of opinion that all that can be done at present of practicable benefit in the circumstances will be to circulate methods of preventing this attack, and his suggestions are being widely circulated in all the agricultural districts. Copies of all the documents which have been issued on this subject will shortly be laid upon the Table.
  MR. ANDERSONasked, whether the Government or the Commisssioners had communicated with the Agricultural Department of the United States for the purpose of obtaining any Reports or other documents in the possession of the United States Government relating to the Hessian fly and the best method of dealing with it; and whether they would cause any such documents, and other information of value, to be published in a cheap and convenient form for circulation; whether the Government would extend their inquiries as to the presence of the Hessian fly in Scotland, especially the counties of Elgin and Nairn; and
  74
  whether a Commissioner would be appointed to proceed at once and make investigations in these counties?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir. The Reports of all the branches of the Agricultural Department of the United States are received. Some of the Entomologists' Reports refer to the Hessian fly, and it will be considered whether any part of them can be usefully published. As regards the outbreaks in Scotland, Mr. Whitehead originally suggested that Inspectors should be sent to all the infected districts; but subsequently withdrew the suggestion, as unfortunately there is no longer any doubt as to the existence of the Hessian fly in the localities named.
  MR. CHAPLINasked whether the House was to understand that the Government had taken no further action in the matter since the first Report of Mr. Whitehead, and its circulation?
  MR. MATTHEWSreplied that steps had been taken by the Government to forward to every part of the country suggestions as to the best course to be adopted in order to destroy the fly.
  MR. CHAPLINappealed to the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Duchy, for the Agricultural Department, having regard to the pressing—and he might say immediate—importance of the question, whether, if the Government had no sufficient powers to deal with the matter, he would undertake, either in this or the other House of Parliament, to introduce a short and simple measure, I which might be passed in two or three days, giving whatever powers might be necessary to deal with this growing evil, an evil which, if not arrested in time, he believed, might lead to the disaster, and complete the ruin of the corn-growing districts of the country?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I would remind my right hon. Friend that the Reports we have received point to this—that no Act of Parliament and no Bill that we could pass would be effectual for the purpose. All that can be done must be done by individuals themselves by the exercise of the greatest possible vigilance. We are circulating this information to the utmost of our ability. We shall get further Reports; and if we could see a

  75
  way to exterminating this pest we should not lose a single day proposing this measure.
  MR. CHAPLINasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to say that no actual or effective steps could be taken for stamping out that pest precisely as was done in the case of the cattle plague some years ago?
  MR. W, H. SMITHsaid, that they were obliged to proceed upon the scientific information which they received. With regard to adopting effective measures in the case, those who were best capable of advising them upon such matters told them positively that it would be impossible for an Act of Parliament to stamp out that disease.
  MR. H. GARDNERinquired as to the date of the information to which the right hon. Gentleman referred?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was information they had received within the last three days.

  RAILWAYS (ENGLAND AND WALES) — STRIKE OF ENGINE DRIVERS AND FIREMEN' ON THE MIDLAND RAILWAY.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it has come to his knowledge that it has been publicly alleged that the Midland Railway Company are filling up the places of their engine drivers now on strike with men, several of whom were discharged from their own service and the service of other Companies for drunkenness, physical incapacity, and neglect of duty, or in-competency for its proper discharge; and, whether, in the interest of the public safety, he will inquire into these allegations, and, if they are true, address a remonstrance to the Company on these matters?
  MR. CHANNING: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I should like to ask him whether his attention has been called to a statement that, on Sunday last, August 7th, a District Traffic Inspector was in charge of and driving au engine in steam from Nottingham to Peterborough, with a fitter as fireman, and that the Traffic Inspector had never passed an examination as being qualified to take charge of a train in steam; and, whether he will make any representation to the Midland
  76
  Railway Company as to the danger to the public of such a proceeding?
  MR. WEBSTERasked whether, as a matter of fact, many of the men recently employed by the Midland Railway, but discharged, were now rapidly asking to be taken back on the old terms?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): In reference to the Question on the Paper, I can only repeat the answer which I gave the other day, that the Board of Trade have no power to interfere in questions between Railway Companies and their servants; and for the same reason I am unable to make the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member. With regard to the second Question, I can only say that if the hon. Gentleman is good enough to hand me any information bearing out the remarks he has made, I will cause investigation to be made; but for the reason I have given, I have no power to interfere between the Directors and their servants, and the Board of Trade have no power in the matter.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked if the hon. Gentleman was able to ascertain the truth of the statement that engines had been burned—that was to say, that their tubes, &c, had been destroyed?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I can only say that the Midland Railway Company has not made any communication to me on the subject, and I am not empowered to ask.

  THE SUGAR TRADE—REPORT OF PROGRESS.
  MR. KIMBERasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he will call for a Further Report on the Progress of the Sugar Trade, in continuation of that made to the Board in July, 1884, and will consent to a Return thereof, and of any further Papers which can be usefully laid before the House?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Board of Trade have no objection to present a continuation of the Tables of production and trade in sugar given in the Report for 1884, if the hon. Member will move for them; but the Board are unable to furnish information such as

  77
  that given in the latter part of the Return.

  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT— "RECORDED CAUTION."
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has received a letter from Mr. Herbert Burrows, of the Inland Revenue Department, in which he states that a "recorded caution" has been recognized by the Board for very many years as one of the Departmental forms of official punishment; and, whether he can now give the House any further information on the matter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I have received a letter from Mr. Herbert Burrows, and have informed him that I cannot engage in a correspondence with him on the subject. "A recorded caution" has, I understand, never been recognized by the Board of Inland Revenue as a punishment. It entails no loss of pay, privileges, or prospects.' It is true that three successive "recorded cautions" are equivalent to an "admonition," which is a punishment, inasmuch as it prevents the promotion of an officer within 12 months, and stops his increment of salary over the same period. But a single "recorded caution" entails no loss whatever to the person cautioned. It may have—and is, of course, intended to have— an effect upon his mind. But it does not, of itself, impair his position and prospects.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)— CHARGE AGAINST MR. H. INWOOD OF ASSAULT.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the following extract from the evidence of Mr. J. S. Hepworth, solicitor, given at the hearing on Tuesday last, at the Marylebone Police Court, of a charge against Mr. Harry Inwood of assaulting Police constable James M'Cawley:—
  "The prisoner implored someone to go and fetch a policeman, and when one arrived the prisoner asked him to take the prosecutor into custody, and I told him that M'Cawley was the one who should be charged, as I had seen it all;"
  78
  and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the conduct of this policeman in arresting Mr. Inwood instead of Constable M'Cawley?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, he understood that the case had been dealt with at the Marylebone Police Court that day, and the Report of the Chief Commissioner of Police would be made to him.

  POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND) — MAIL STEAMERS — MAIL SERVICE BETWEEN STROME AND DINGWALL.
  DR. CLARKasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is the case that the mail steamers from Portree and Stornoway generally arrive at Strome about 9.30 a.m.; that the mail train leaves at 11 o'clock, arriving at Dingwall 40 minutes after the north mail has left, and hence the mails are detained at Dingwall for nearly 24 hours; that the mail train from Strome to Dingwall is a very slow train, taking two hours and 30 minutes for a distance of 53 miles; and, whether he will either arrange for the train to start earlier, or to increase the speed of the train?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I beg to state that the facts are substantially as set forth in his Question, except, perhaps, that the steamer from Stornoway frequently arrives at Strome Ferry before 9.30 a.m. But I am advised that any earlier departure than 11 a.m. of the mail train from Strome Ferry would, probably, give rise to public inconvenience in the working of the Steam Boat Service, and is therefore undesirable. An acceleration of the train from Strome Ferry would, as I have already stated to the House, involve expense which circumstances do not appear to warrant, there being no reason to believe that the Railway Company would effect an earlier arrival of the train at Dingwall, except for an. additional payment, which the amount of correspondence to be benefited would not justify.

  ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDEN'S—WINDSOR FOREST.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps, if any,

  79
  Her Majesty's Government intend taking with a view of throwing open Windsor Forest to the public, and abolishing the locked gates which at present encompass a considerable portion of the Forest?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Windsor Forest is already practically open to foot passengers, and also to the carriages of residents in the neighbourhood, who under certain Regulations are able to obtain keys of the gates. Looking to the fact that there are deer in Windsor Park, it would be impossible, without great expense in the way of gatekeepers and lodges, to abolish the locked gates as proposed, and this extra expense the Government are not prepared to incur.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: Will the Government take steps to abolish the deer?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir.

  DUCHY OF CORNWALL—"PERPETUAL PENSIONS."
  MR. CALEB WRIGHTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the sum of £630 14 s. 2d., named in the Report of the Select Committee on Perpetual Pensions as annual rents paid to the Duchy of Cornwall, is provided for in this year's Consolidated Fund; and, whether he can inform the House who is responsible for disregarding the Treasury Minute of 1839, which directed this payment to cease on the 15th of April, 1841?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I do not find the post groats payment is mentioned in the Report of the Perpetual Pensions Committee. The sum of £630 14 s. 2d. is paid as it falls due out of the Cosolidated Fund, in accordance with 1 & 2) Vict. c. 12O. The Board of Treasury are responsible for neglecting to observe what I must contend were the illegal directions of their Predecessors.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that, by Treasury Minute, payment of the sum was expressly directed to cease in April, 1841, and whether Sir Reginald Welby had not stated before the Committee on Perpetual Pensions that the Treasury had
  80
  no authority to pay the sum since that date.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes, Sir; that is accurate. If I may say so, the Minute was passed without legal authority, and the Act of Parliament is absolutely binding. That is a contention as to which I believe there is no doubt whatever.
  MR. BRADLAUGHgave Notice that he would call attention to the whole subject early next Session.

  TITHE COMMUTATION AND REDEMPTION—A ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. H. GARDNERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the Commutation and Redemption of Tithe, with a view to future legislation on the subject?
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONalso inquired, what course the Government proposed to take with regard to the Tithe Rent Charge Recovery Bill, which had already passed the House of Lords?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I shall state that on Monday. The proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. H. Gardner) involves very large and serious questions with regard to numerous and wide-spreading interests, upon -which Her Majesty's Government could not come to a definite conclusion without much consideration.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I shall repeat the Question on Monday.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I shall not be able to give an answer on Monday.
  In reply to Mr. KENYON (Denbigh, &c),
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, the Report of Mr. Bridge, the Commissioner who inquired into the Welsh tithe disturbances was expected daily.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—CONVEYANCING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Government propose, in view of the unanimous wish of

  81
  the Scotch Members, to proceed with the Conveyancing Acts Amendment (Scotland) Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am not yet in a position to say when this Bill will be taken.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK AND GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL — CLAUSE 1—POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS AND TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  VISCOCNT GRIMSTON(for Mr. DIXON-HARTLAND) (Middlesex, Uxbridge) asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, after the strong representations made to him on the subject, the limit of £50 will be altered to £30 in Clause 1 of the Post Office Savings Banks and Government Annuities Bill?
  MR. WHITLEYalso asked, Whether, in the event of the Post Office Savings Banks Bill passing, the Government will extend to the Trustee Savings Banks the same facilities which they propose to give to the Post Office Savings Banks?
  MR. HOWELLBefore this Question is answered, I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that in addition to the old debt incurred and being paid out of Revenue, amounting to £83,672 annually, there is a further loss to the National Exchequer, in connection with Trustee Banks, of over £9,000 yearly, for cost of management and excess of interest allowed by the National Debt Commissioners to such banks, over the amount produced by the sums deposited with them by the Trustees, he considers it safe to "extend to the Trustee Savings Banks the same facilities which they propose to give to Post Office Savings Banks," seeing that any such extension is sure to involve further and more serious losses to the Revenue; whether the increased facilities for deposit suggested by the Question will not increase the risks to depositors in such banks, as well as cause further losses to the Revenue; and, whether there is any Government security guaranteed to the depositors in Trustee Savings Banks?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W.H. SMITH), in reply, said, he would answer the last Question first.
  82
  The figures quoted by the hon. Member in paragraph 1 were substantially correct. But an increase of money deposited with the National Debt Commissioners by the Trustees of Savings Banks would not increase the loss to the Revenue so long as the Commissioners could earn 3 per cent on their investments. On the other hand, an increase in the aggregate amount of deposits would naturally increase the risk of loss to depositors from. fraud or mismanagement. There was no Government security guaranteed to the depositors in Trustee Savings Banks, as the hon. Member was aware; the National Debt Commissioners being only liable to the Trustees for moneys remitted to them for investment. With regard to the Questions on the Paper, the Government had carefully considered this subject in the interests of the industrial classes. It had been urged that sufficient opportunity for saving was not afforded by the limit of £30; but, being met with the demand on the part of the Trustee Savings Banks to have the same power extended to them, it was open to this observation—that they might be tempted to give a larger rate of interest than could be afforded by the Post Office, or safely earned. The Government felt that it would be accompanied with some risk if they extended this increase of power to the Trustee Savings Banks. Under these circustances, and having regard to the opposition with which the Bill was threatened by the Trustee Savings Banks, unless they shared in the extension of the limit of deposit in any one year from £30 to £50, which, the Government felt they could not safely accede to, and looking to the period of the Session, the Government thought it best, on the whole, to abandon the proposal to increase the annual limit of deposit from £30 to £50, and to extend to Trustee Savings Banks the facilities for investment in Consols now enjoyed by the Post Office Savings Bank. They regretted the course they had been compelled to take; but they had no alternative at this period of the Session.
  MR. HOWELLasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that in 1880 a Bill passed through Committee authorizing an extension of the limit of deposit to £100 a-year, and to £300 as a maximum?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was aware that some legislation of that kind passed through Committee; but there were other considerations involved, to which he had not referred, which made them hesitate in concurring in any proposal which would largely increase the amount of deposits held by the Government.

  REVENUE BILL.
  MR. GILLIATappealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the expediency of not proceeding with those clauses of the Revenue Bill which it was understood would disturb the existing machinery for the collection of Income Tax.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), in reply, said, it was an "omnibus" Bill, and dealt with several matters; but in it there would be clauses to carry out the principle of abolishing the payment of collectors and assessors by poundage. On that matter he had received representations from various parts of the country; and it had also been brought before him by deputations from Chambers of Commerce. The subject appeared to be one in which great interest was taken, and there was a fairly unanimous opinion that some change should be made. It would be with the greatest possible reluctance that he would be forced to abandon this proposal of the Bill; and he trusted the Income Tax Commissioners of the City of London would not meet the clauses with any strong opposition. The Bill would be circulated on Friday.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  In reply to Mr. MUNDELLA. (Sheffield, Brightside) and Mr. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he understood it would be a convenience to the House that the Lords' Amendments to the Irish Land Law Bill, if there were any, should be taken to-morrow at a quarter past 4 o'clock. The Government were exceedingly anxious that the Amendments of the Lords should be considered with as little delay as possible, and be understood that no objection would be made to them in that House. It would be convenient, probably, that the Education
  84
  Vote should be taken on Saturday. He should be glad, if it were possible, to take the Diplomatic Vote on Saturday; but he was afraid there would be no chance of doing so. He proposed, unless urgent Business intervened, to take it as the first Business after the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill had passed through Committee. That Bill stood for Monday, and he was anxious to keep an engagement entered into many days ago with the Members representing mining districts. He hoped the House would get through the Bill with fair rapidity. The Customs and Inland Revenue Estimates would be taken in their order, and their order was last.
  In reply to Mr. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, if there was time the Scotch Education Vote would be taken on Saturday, following the English Vote.
  In reply to Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the remainder of the Scotch Votes would be taken before the Irish Votes.
  In reply to Mr. F. S. POWELL (Wigan),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that he was under the strongest pledge to the House to take the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill de die in diem.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked at what hour the Saturday Sitting would close?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought it would be for the convenience of the House that the Sitting should terminate on Saturday at 6 o'clock, and he should move that the Standing Order regulating Wednesday Sittings should also apply to Saturday Sittings.

  PARLIAMENT—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE (1882) — RULE 2 (ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE) — AFFAIRS OF EGYPT.
  MR. LABOUCHERE, Member for the Borough of Northampton, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, our relations with the Turkish and Egyptian

  85
  Governments, and the Egyptian people, in regard to Egypt; and our relations with the French and Russian Governments with reference to the recently contemplated Egyptian Treaty with the Porte.
  The pleasure of the House not having been signified,
  MR. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than Forty Members having risen accordingly—
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that very few Members could think he did wrong in moving the adjournment, considering that on this question the House had maintained, in the words of the noble Lord the Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salisbury), an "Egyptian silence" during the present Session, although much had occurred with which hon. Members did not agree. So far as we were concerned, there had been lately negotiated with the Porte a Treaty with regard to Egypt which would have involved us permanently in very heavy obligations, and in the Papers presented to the House there were statements made by Lord Salisbury to which it was necessary to call attention. If the subject were discussed on the Diplomatic Vote, the discussion would be reduced to a sham fight, and hon. Members would not be able to express their views fully. The Treaty, as the House was aware, had vanished, owing to the action of the Porte, who refused to ratify it. There were two important Despatches, Nos. 96 and 97, which were sent by Sir H. Drummond Wolff, and if we acted upon them, although Sir H. Drummond Wolff would have cost a great deal, he would have been almost worth the money. It was wrong to endeavour to negotiate a Treaty with the Sultan without first obtaining the views of those Powers with whom we had been concerned previously in, all matters affecting Egypt. A good deal had been heard about the European Concert, and it was never more necessary to maintain it than it was now. We knew how angry Europe was at the time that a Treaty respecting Cyprus was negotiated by Lord Salisbury. The House would also remember how indignant the people of England had been frequently when they thought that Russia was endeavouring to carry on diplomatic action in secret.
  86
  This Convention was not secret, it was true; but if Turkey had not informed France and Russia of what was going on those countries would have known nothing about the matter. It was a fault to negotiate when we were aware that nothing could be valid without the assent of Europe, and to negotiate in such a way that the arrangements could not be assented to by Europe. Her Majesty's Government had frequently said that our occupation of Egypt was essentially one of a temporary character. Frequently, however, when the Government had been asked to state the term for our withdrawal they had always shrunk from doing so. It was true that in the Treaty Her Majesty's Government agreed to a term; but they insisted upon inserting a clause to the effect that England might go back without the assent of Turkey or Europe, and practically such stipulations had been made by the Government with regard to Egypt that we necessarily should have to return. The country was not left in doubt as to the opinion of Europe. In a despatch from Sir H. Drummond Wolff to Lord Salisbury they saw what were the views both of Russia and of France when those countries heard what England was going to do. Sir H. Drummond Wolff stated that in return for repeated visits he called upon the Russian and French Ambassadors. He went on to say—
  "M. Nelidoff informed me that from the point of view of his Government the Sultan, by giving us the right of re-entry, had practically sacrificed to us a portion of his sovereignty. M. Nelidoff also objected to the want of definition as to the causes that would justify the re-entry. England might look on a movement of troops in Afghanistan as an external danger, and make this a pretext for occupying Egypt. His Excellency said that, speaking personally, he thought Russia might consent that England should be the one Power to whom should be confided the task of restoring order in Egypt; hut this must be done under restriction, and Commissioners of other Powers should accompany the English troops. Or he thought that the restoration of order might be effected by more than one Power. Such were his views, which having been to a great extent adopted by his Government, he opposed the ratification. M. de Montebello, with whom I had two interviews, took much the same line The right of re-entry was destructive to the Mediterranean equilibrium. France was determined never to accept it. As Article now stood, her non-acceptance of the right of re-entry would make our occupation of the country permanent."
  There was an enclosure in the Despatch

  87
  containing copy of a letter from the Count of Montebello to the Sultan, the language of which was exceedingly strong—
  "In case the Convention should be ratified, the French Government will devote their attention to the protection of their personal interests, which will be injured by the destruction of the balance of power in the Mediterranean, and they will take with this object such measures as may in their opinion be necessary. As the disinterested policy of France can alone protect the Ottoman Empire against the encroachments and ambitious aims of England, the maintenance of this friendship will be considered by your Imperial Majesty as much more advantageous. If your Majesty does not ratify the Convention, the French Government will protect and guarantee you against the consequences, whatsoever they may he, that may result from the non-ratification."
  He (Mr. Labouchere) presumed that that Despatch to the Sultan was circulated in Constantinople because it was telegraphed to a journal in London. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergussou) was asked whether he knew anything about it, and he gathered that the right hon. Gentleman said that he knew absolutely nothing about it. [Cries of "No, no!"] He said that he had received no information.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I will mention at once what I did say, because it is perfectly absurd to attempt to deceive the House in a matter of this sort, and I trust that I am not capable of doing so. I was asked as to the truth of a statement in the Daily News as to a certain Note addressed to the Sultan, and I said that—
  "The Government are not in possession of the contents of the alleged Note. No such Note has been communicated to the Government, nor has any communication upon the subject been made to the French Government."
  When I gave that answer on June 28 the Government were not in possession of the contents of the Note. They simply had a reference to it and to its purport in telegrams from Constantinople, which clearly were not of a reliable character. The text of the Note, as far as is known now, was not in our possession until the 2nd of July, and I may say that up to this moment we have not an authentic copy of the Note.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the Note was sent home in a Despatch by Sir H. Drummond Wolff. He certainly did not intend to imply that the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had any intention to lead the House into error, but he thought that the reply given was that no such note had been seen. But this was a matter of mere detail. What was far more important was that when Sir H. Drummond Wolff had been put in possession of this most menacing Despatch, by which Turkey was warned against the encroachments and ambitious aims of England, and told that if the Convention was not ratified the French Government would protect and guarantee the Sultan against the consequences, whatsoever they might be, that might result from the non-ratification, neither he nor Lord Salisbury could have supposed for an instant that the Convention, if ratified, would not injure this Country and put us into a false position with regard to Europe. It was therefore not only a criminal course, but a most stupid course to try and force the hand of the Sultan and induce him to sign this Convention, knowing that by so doing we should alienate France, and that the Convention would become the law of Europe without the consent of France and Russia, both of whom had protested against it in a strong manner. He was exceedingly glad that there was no Treaty. It had, however, left a painful impression on Europe, which always existed when Lord Salisbury was in power. He wished further to call attention to one or two statements made by Lord Salisbury in the despatches as to future policy. Writing to Sir H. Drummond Wolff, Lord Salisbury had said:—
  "Her Majesty's Government have no intention of leaving Egypt without ample security that the social order which they have reestablished there shall not be endangered cither by external attack or internal trouble. Whether the Convention be ratified or not, they will adhere to that intention."
  This practically meant that if Turkey did not sign the Convention we intended to remain in Egypt for ever. England had not organized the Egytian Army? How, then, could the Government say that they would only leave Egypt when that country was preserved by the Egyptian Army from internal danger?

  89
  On Juno 4 Lord Salisbury made a further statement which was of importance. He said—
  "Should the Porte refuse to ratify on the appointed day, Her Majesty's Government will be freed from their engagements to the Forte in regard to Egypt, and will remain free to take their own course."
  What did this mean? He did not understand how the mere fact of the Sultan objecting to this Treaty freed England from previous engagements. If this were so, nothing could be more easy than to free ourselves from any Treaty in any country, and especially a country weaker than ourselves, Lord Salisbury was good enough to supplement these two statements of his by another at the Mansion House yesterday. Lord Salisbury said that the fact of our going to Egypt imposed obligations upon us, and that we should have ample security from internal and external attack. He had already dealt with the subject of internal attack and the statement that we should not leave the country until there was an army capable of putting down rebellion. But Lord Salisbury went on to say that we should not leave the county until it could pursue its course of prosperity itself. There had not been much prosperity in Egypt since England had been there. Lord Salisbury, continuing, said—
  "It is pleasant to think that our sojourn in Egypt is accompanied by the greatest benefits to those among whom we dwell. …The foundations of future national prosperity are being laid broad and strong. …We may feel that we are pursuing an object which confers no immediate benefit on ourselves, but is subservient to the highest interests of philanthropy and humanity."
  He had never heard a Minister talk about doing anything in the "interests of humanity and philanthropy" without having a very strong opinion that he was talking nonsense. It was only when a Minister was going to do something improper and unjust that he talked about "humanity and philanthropy." Sir H. Drummond Wolff was sent out to Egypt by the present Government, and this Country had spent a large amount of money upon him. Was the Government going to take his advice? Sir H. Drummond Wolff, writing to Lord Salisbury, said—
  "I have the honour to call your attention to the abnormal condition of the financial system of Egypt, and the very great hardship it inflicts
  90
  on the people of the country. It would be a blot on any permanent arrangement if some attempt were not made to alleviate the heavy burden entailed on the fellaheen of the debt which crushes their industry and of ten deprives them of their property and means of livelihood. In the schemes which have been put forward for the readjustment of the finances, this important point has always been overlooked. Attempts have been made to establish an equilibrium of Egyptian finance, in which the amount payable for the debt was an almost inevitable basis, and even when the sinking funds have been suspended, this course has been taken rather to sustain the external credit of the country than to better the lot of the people. If the debt had been run up by wars or extravagance sanctioned by the people, it might be right to continue saddling them with this intolerable load. But they had no voice in the matter. This evil has been recognized more than once; but no attempt has been made to diminish it, except on one occasion when Lord Northbrook recommended the diminution of the land tax by £450,000 annually. This measure has only been partially carried out. It is impossible to measure the political effect of this state of things on a population thus mortgaged to the creditors of former bad masters. It must always be the cause of a discontent, not less deep from not being manifest, and it would always render the fellaheen anxious to join any popular leader who would promise them relief. Such a condition does not exist and would not be tolerated elsewhere, and in a settlement which it is hoped may promote tranquillity throughout the country the present fiscal system is a danger that cannot be overlooked."
  That was the testimony of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, and with such a state of things was it to be expected that we should have tranquillity in Egypt? Would the Government act on that Despatch of Sir H. Drummond Wolff? He (Mr. Labouchere) feared they would not, and that Lord Salisbury had no idea of acting on Sir H. Drummond Wolff's advice, especially since Her Majesty's Government had taken over to themselves that very eminent Gentleman, who was the fons et origo of the Egyptian Debt—he meant the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen). The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had forged the chains which now bound the Egyptian people, would, no doubt, do his best to act with an unbiased mind; but his connection with the matter was of such a kind that it would probably be impossible for him to do so. The right hon. Gentleman went out as the Representative of the foreign bondholders and rivetted the chains on the Egyptians. It was clear that we had gone to Egypt and remained there

  91
  for one object only, and that was for the I benefit of the bondholders. In 1864 the total Revenue of Egypt was £4,937,000, and Egypt then owed £3,392,000. That was a loan negotiated by the right hon. Gentleman, or by Frühling and Goschen. In the previous 10 years, from 1854 to 1864, Egypt made enormous progress and must have been fairly prosperous. In 1864 there was a second Goschen loan of £5,804,000. According to Mr. Cave, Egyptreceived£4,864,000, or£1,000,000 less. The loan was issued at 93, and the charge for issuing it was £554,000, or 11 percent. [Mr. GOSCHEN dissented.] Well, he did not know where the money went, but he knew that Messrs. Frühling and Goschen were responsible for that amount. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a member of the firm at that time, and therefore was as responsible as Mr. Frühling. They could not throw it all on Frühling. The profit was immense and led others who were as anxious to make profit to look upon Egypt as the land of Goschen, and they made a rush for it. Loan after loan succeeded for the next 10 years up to 1874, when the Funded Debt of Egypt was £68,000,000; but the entire sum paid to Egypt was £45,000,000, and the only available asset was £9,000,000 paid for the Canal. The rest disappeared in the enormous interest, which was something between 25 and 12½ per cent, according to Mr. Cave. Egypt could not pay, and hero came our first interference—we purchased the Canal shares. There had been a good deal of Conservative boasting because we had purchased those shares at £4,000,000. That was our first step in interfering in Egypt for the benefit of the Egyptians. Sir H. Drummond Wolff, writing to Lord Salisbury on the Suez Canal shares, says: —
  "Your Lordship is aware that the price of £4,000,000 paid for the shares of the ex-Khedive by Her Majesty's Government was originally expended by him out of the money collected from the people In lieu of any profit on this head, they are now paying interest to Her Majesty's Government. Under the original concession 15 per cent was to go to the Egyptian Government. But this revenue of the net profits of the Canal was subsequently sold, thus depriving the Egyptian people of their last chance of obtaining any return for the sums expended out of their toil."
  Our next step was sending out Mr. Cave, who found that the total Debt, including
  92
  the Floating Debt, was £90,000,000. Mr. Cave made no reduction in the interest of the Debt, but he altered the incidence of the Floating Debt. The Egyptians paid a heavy land tax. It was agreed under the Moukabala arrangement that if the Egyptians paid for 12 years about 45 percent above the existing land tax, at the end of that time they should have to pay only half the original land tax. Mr. Cave, in reporting on the finances of Egypt, said that the arrangement was a ruinous one to the State. And so it was. In 1876 the Khedive abrogated the Moukabala and agreed to repay all the payments which had boon made under that arrangement. Unfortunately the proceeds of this Moukabala loan had been devoted to pay off the Goschen loan. On May 12, 1879, Messrs. Frühling and Goschon wrote to Lord Derby in these words—
  "In accordance with the suggestion made by you in your conversation with the Right Hon. G. J. Goschen yesterday, we beg to enclose his short memoranda stating the case of the bondholders of the Egyptian Government loans of 1862 and 1864, which we issued to the public. We shall be greatly obliged if you will urge on General Stanton to support our protest. We accordingly venture to urge on your Lordship to grant us such assistance as you may see fit to render in excluding, as suggested by the Right Hon. S. Cave in his Report, the loan of 1864 from the operation of the decree just issued by the Khedive, and in securing some recognition of the prior claims of the holders of the loan of 1862."
  Following upon this, Lord Derby, on May 19, wrote to General Stanton as follows: —
  "I transmit to you copies of a correspondence with Mesers. Frübling and Goschen, who have requested the assistance of Her Majesty's Government to obtain the exclusion from the late decree of the Khedive of the loan of 1864 and to obtain some recognition of prior claims to the holders of the 1862 loan, and in accordance with the reply returned to them I have to request you to give such unofficial assistance as you possibly can to the agents of the parties interested."
  "Coming events cast their shadows before," for it seemed that on that occasion the Conservative Government were exceedingly friendly to the right hon. Gentleman, and the right hon. Gentleman had retorted by being exceedingly friendly to them. In the same year the right hon. Gentleman went out himself to Egypt along with Messrs. Joubert, who represented the French bondholders. Now, it was frequently supposed that the right hon. Gentleman

  93
  went out in an independent position, as an eminent financier come to bless and to aid Egypt. As a matter of fact, he went out, after a meeting called by the Foreign Bondholders' Association, as the agent of the foreign bond holders, and as the agent necessarily of Messrs. Frühling and Goschen, and he was not an independent person at all. He would not have acted fairly to his constituents if he had not made it his first business to look after the interests of the bondholders who sent him. What did the right hon. Gentleman do? he took the loan and divided it into Preferred and Deferred Debt, and he re-established the Moukabala and insisted on it, thus renewing what Mr. Cave had called an unjust thing.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, that, on the contrary, the Moukabala had been re-established against his wish, and that he objected to it as a bad tax, and as being entirely against his principles. It was re-established at the wish of the Khedive himself as a primary condition, and in deference to pressure put upon his Highness, and the decision was arrived at before he himself had reached Egypt. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would accept this statement, which was simply and absolutely correct.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, of course, he would readily accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement. The right hon. Gentleman said it was entirely against his principles to re-establish the Moukabala; but he could only say that the right hon. Gentleman had sacrificed his principles then, as many on his (the Opposition) side of the House thought he had since. There was then in Egypt a Minister of Finance—a man of some eminence—Ismail Sadik — the right hand of the Khedive; this man was opposed to the establishmant of the Moukabala, and to the projects of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said he would not treat with him. Ismail was at once arrested, taken to the Nile, and no one ever heard more of him. It was fully understood he was drowned. The right hon. Gentleman did more than establish the Moukabala; in his anxiety for Egypt he established a system of European control. We were not only to be behind the scenes to see that the Egyptians paid the bondholders, but we
  94
  sent taskmasters there in the flesh to make them do it. The whole country was pervaded by a vast swarm of locusts. If the right hon. Gentleman was forced to consent to the re-establishment of the Moukabala by the Khedive, the locusts were his own idea. At any rate—although Egypt was admittedly overtaxed —these locusts received £378,000 per annum, and this was put as an extra task upon the Egyptians. From 1876 to 1879 there was one great and persistent attempt made in Egypt to enforce the payment of the taxes, so as to enable the country to pay the extortionate interest on the loans. The Khedive was stripped of his property and the people ruined. Well, despite all this, in 1877 there was difficulty in paying the July coupon; its payment did take place, but our own Consul General declared that this result had only been achieved by the ruin of the peasantry, the crops being hypothecated, and the taxes collected in advance. These interests were thus wrung from a peasantry already crushed by taxation. The British Government knew how the payment of the coupons was arrived at, and yet in 1879 our Consul General was found reminding his Highness the Khedive that — "Any change in the engagements which he had lately made would be mo3fc ruinous." At length the position became impossible. The European employés were paid, but the Egyptians were not. The Revenue was nearly £10,000,000; but after payment of the interest on the Tribute and the Canal shares only about £1,500,000 were left for the administration of the country, the rest was swallowed up by the bondholders. Even the loan agent felt it was a mistake to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs, and therefore an International Commission was established, with Sir Rivers Wilson, who was sent out as President. The Commission came to the conclusion that a little more should be spent upon Europeans, and decided that there should be both a French and an English Minister to see that the Khedive fulfilled his obligations. The Ministers, however, did not reduce the Debt or the salaries of the Europeans; there were 2,500 officers, and they put them on half-pay and refused to pay off their arrears, which was certainly a novel way to keep the country quiet. They increased the land tax. At that time there were a

  95
  number of the fellahs who were not subjected to the corvée, but it was determined that they must pay for exemption. Naturally there was disturbance, and: the Assembly of Notables was called together, and insisted on their country not being pillaged and ruined in this manner. The Khedive dismissed these Ministers, and tried to make two ends meet. We were indignant, and obtained a decree from the Sultan dismissing the Khedive from his position as Ruler of Egypt. Then we set up Tewfik, an innocent, quiet, harmless sort of person, and entirely our instrument; but even so we had found we could not get blood out of a stone, and that it was necessary we should do something to alter the incidence of taxation and reduce its burden. A Commission of Liquidation was then appointed, and the interest of the loans was reduced, but it still amounted to 10 or 12 per cent. The Moukabala was then again abrogated; but did we—who were represented on the Commission—act fairly towards the Egyptian peasantry? These poor men had paid over £17,000,000 sterling for it. They could not do so themselves how ever. They borrowed money at high and ruinous interest, and it might have been supposed that by any Commission of Liquidation in which we were re presented these men would have been paid back, and treated quite as well as the bondholders who had not paid the money. We looked after the bond holders; but we told the peasants that for 50 years it would pay 1 per cent, and at the end of the time the whole £17,000,000 would be swept away. But that was only the half. In 1882 the rebellion of Arabi took place——
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONasked the hon. Member to state the amount of interest that had been paid upon the loans, and in what way the International Commission had reduced the rate?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think that it is my duty to interfere. The hon. Gentleman rose to move the adjournment of the House for the discussion of a definite matter of urgent public importance. Although, the House has given its sanction, the remarks of the hon. Gentleman cannot be said to refer to a definite matter of urgent public importance, because he is going over the whole relations of this country with France, and proposes to
  96
  do so with regard to Russia as well as Egypt; and I think it is an abuse of the Standing Order to take so wide a range.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that was his object. He complained that we were still remaining in Egypt, and that Lord Salisbury had stated in despatches and in his speech at the Mansion House that we had gone there to do good to the Egyptians. His object in moving the adjournment was to raise the point whether we ought to remain there instead of coming away, and to show that so long as we had been in the country we had been a persistent curse to Egypt. But he would not refer further to the finances. He thought, however, that he had said enough to prove his point. In January, 1882, General Gordon wrote of the Egyptians themselves—
  "It is reiterated over and over again that Egypt is prosperous and contented. I do not think that it is altered at all, except in improving the finances for the bondholders. The prisons are as full of unfortunates as they ever were."
  At the same time Consul Rowsell in his Report stated—
  "The taxes are never collected without the aid of the kourbash, which, as a rule, is administered very freely, and without which the tax collection makes very little progress. Failing to pay, it also is a common occurrence for a man to be thrown into prison, when the kourbash is again brought into play, until the amount demanded is forthcoming. Beyond the kourbash and imprisonments, no other cruelty or torture attends the collection of taxes."
  Owing to continuous protests, Lord Northbrook was sent out, and he recommended that the land tax should be reduced by £420,000. It had not been reduced by this amount, however. we had put an end to the corvée, which was worth £250,000, and the Egyptians were obliged to pay this amount because the corvée did not exist. Then there were further negotiations. In 1885 a discussion had taken place between the European Powers as to Egypt, and we guaranteed a loan of £9,000,000, which was absorbed by the payment of the Alexandria indemnities and of the interest on previous loans. It was also agreed that the coupons should be taxed for two years, but not longer without European investigation. But in March, 1887, this period of two years came to an end, and, at the time, the question.

  97
  was raised in the House. Again, Egypt found it impossible to pay these coupons. What did we do? We agreed to pay them. There were certain mythical claims on the part of the Egyptians upon the British Exchequer "vamped up," and we paid them in order to enable the Egyptians to pay the coupons, and to save them from this European investigation. He thought he had shown that we were in Egypt for the bondholders, and that, far from doing good in Egypt, we were creating a situation which must—as Sir H. Drummond Wolff said — tend to create discontent and disorder. Beyond establishing gin palaces and brothels and taxing the people, he did not see what good we had done there. Far from introducing representative government into Egypt, we had done away with what there was of it, and had not sought to build it up again. A few months ago Questions were asked in the House as to two of our officers in the Army of Occupation. He cited the case in order to show the evils inherent in the system of having an Army of Occupation in a country like Egypt. These officers went out to shoot near the Pyramids. They tramped over the crops of the peasants of one of the villages in the neighbourhood. The peasants came out and, naturally, tried to stop them. The officers shot one of the peasants and wounded one or two others; thereupon, as was only natural, the peasants took the officers into the village and somewhat maltreated them. Then we got our instrument Tewfik to send down two gentlemen whom he called Judges, and we added an English Judge. These officials decided that the peasants were in the wrong; and we marched a British regiment into the neighbourhood, and the villagers were flogged by hundreds. Nothing more monstrous than this had ever been heard of, not even in the Franco-German War. On what grounds and under what law, Egyptian or English, were these men condemned to be flogged, and on what ground was a British regiment turned into an Egyptian village to act as executioners on the unfortunate inhabitants? We had spent millions of money in Egypt; we still had there an Army costing £134 per man per annum; and yet the country had not benefited either financially or politically. We had put ourselves in
  98
  the wrong with Egypt, and had established a permanent sore with France. We had created an ill feeling with. Turkey, and no one believed for a moment what we said when we asserted that we were anxious to leave the country, and were only remaining there for the good of the Egyptians. The other Powers knew as well as we did that we were remaining there only for the good of the bondholders. But the House was told that it was necessary to remain in Egypt on account of our position in India. Nothing of the sort. It had been decided that in the event of war the Suez Canal should be neutralized and the Cape route utilized. We had the means of stopping all ships of war belonging to a country with which we were in conflict; and therefore it seemed to him that the idea of the necessity of the occupation of Egypt or of the occupation of the Suez Canal in order to secure our passage being free to India in case of war was entirely exploded. Lord Salisbury did not insist on the point at the Mansion House; he put our occupation solely on the ground of the good of Egypt. According to the Treaty negotiated by Sir H. Drummond Wolff we were bound to re-occupy the country if order was disturbed. But he would point out that there was no proposal in the Treaty to reduce the debt or the interest. Therefore, the House might assume that, as far as the Treaty was concerned, there was no intention to reduce it. He should like to show by figures that we made that Treaty with the deliberate intention and belief not only that we might go back, but that we should go back to the country. The Army at present cost £130,000. The Egyptians paid us £200,000, or a total of £330,000. But Moukhtar Pasha said that 13,000 men at least would be requisite in order to enable the Egyptian Government without us to maintain order and defend the country against external dangers. The cost of these 13,000 men would be £420,000. How was Egypt to provide the £90,000? It could not do so. The theory of Sir H. Drummond Wolff was that the Egyptians were paying too many taxes already. Unless we reduced that taxation, therefore, it would be absolutely impossible, according to the opinion of the best experts, for Egypt to maintain such an Army as would enable the people to preserve order and

  99
  render it unnecessary for us to go back. It was said that if we left Egypt France would so there; bat, for his part, he did not believe it. There was a time when France threatened to do so; but then a great deal of the Egyptian debt was in the hands of the great houses of Paris. This was no longer the case. At present we might fairly make a bargain. France was most anxious that we should withdraw from Egypt. The other Powers did not care much about the matter. We might make this arrangement—that if we withdrew, and did not return without the consent of Europe, Egypt itself should be neutralized, and no Power should claim to go there because the Egyptian debt was not paid. The Egyptian debt should simply be treated like the debt of Peru, or of any other country. They might have some agreement about the neutrality of the Suez Canal and as to the Capitulations, which required modification. The financial question was the pressing question at this moment. As Sir H. Drummond Wolff told them, there could be no prosperity for Egypt if more than half its income was taken up for the debt and spent out of the country. He (Mr. Labouchere) had moved the adjournment of the House because he considered that the House had some right to call upon the Government to give them some sort of a pledge that they would not continue to spoil and harry the Egyptians on account of the bondholders, but would make the reductions which Sir H. Drummond Wolff said were necessary for the well-being of Egypt.
  MR. DILLON, in seconding the Motion, said he regarded the question as urgent on account of the condition of affairs existing between this country and France. He asked whether it was a decent, a fair, or a wise thing to cover with every form of insult and outrage a country like France, because we fancied that she was weak, and that we, as Lord Salisbury and Sir H. Drummond Wolff were never tired of saying, had the German Ambassador at our back. Lord Salisbury had said that when in future we were asked to answer the annoying and perpetual demands of France and Turkey for the evacuation of Egypt we should point to the non-signature of the ratification of the Convention as releasing us from all our previous declarations in re-
  100
  gard to Egypt. Now, he would ask the Government to put their finger on any fact which had set them free from the pledges which had been made over and over again in that House and in official documents in reference to the evacuation of Egypt. The Convention was the result of negotiations conducted between our Representative and the Porte behind the back of Europe; and one of the conditions in it was that it was not to come into operation until all the Great Powers had signed it. The conduct of the French Government towards ours had been courteous, honest, and frank, and the moment they knew what was the nature of the Convention they said in firm and courteous language that they could not assent to it.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)asked what the hon. Member was quoting from?
  MR. DILLONsaid, the report of the interview between the French Ambassador and Lord Salisbury. He could not quote in detail.
  THB FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)asked the hon. Member to quote one single interview between the French Ambassador and Lord Salisbury.
  MR. DILLONsaid, there were a number of them in those despatches. He could not find them then, but he was confident that anybody who looked into the matter would see that there were plenty. The language of France and Russia to Turkey was exceedingly plain; and where, he asked, was there an instance of a single word of insult or menace used against England, except, perhaps, towards the conclusion of the negotiations, where France was spoken of as being the only protector of the Sultan against the ambitious designs of England in Egypt; and that was after a considerable period, during which England intimated plainly that she was determined to go on with the Convention in spite of the objections of France, and put pressure on Turkey to make her agree to it? Any declaration on the part of this country of an intention permanently to occupy or annex Egypt would amount to a declaration of war against France. There was a tone of hostility in all the papers towards France which could not but create ill-

  101
  feeling in that country. In fact, France was covered with insult. They were dealing here with one of the most delicate points, and it was not only France but Russia which was being outraged. He had no animosity to the German nation, but he thought it was an ill-advised thing to be always dragging the German Ambassador into this question of backing up England. Of course, he backed up England, because the object was to sow discord between England and France. The longer the occupation of Egypt was prolonged, the longer it was sure to last. The majority of the English people wished to see the last British soldier out of Egypt; but there were underground, back stair, and malign influences at work for financial purposes. That influence sought to defeat the British nation in this matter. There were a certain number of men interested in financial business who hoodwinked the people, and who would not leave Egypt alone until the last pound had been paid. This operation of constituting the British Army the tax-collectors and the police of the bondholders was expensive and disastrous to the British name. The indignation of the Egyptian people was increasing against England. There was not one in 10,000 who would not hail the day when the last English soldier departed. The occupation was a curse to Egypt, and he held that it ought to cease at once. What did the Correspondent of The Times say? He said that the withdrawal of the troops meant anarchy, and that this would be more true five years hence than now. The worst of it was that this Egyptian business might involve this country in a frightful war with France. The taxpayers of Egypt had been robbed of £200,000 a-year for two years in order that the coupons might be paid. It was clear that it was never intended that the coupons should be paid if it could not be done without continuing the special tax; and it was an infamous robbery that the fellaheen should be sacrificed in spite of the pledge which had been given to them. A bogus surplus had been created partly at the expense of the Egyptian tax-payers, who had been robbed in the manner stated, partly at the expense of the taxpayers of Great Britain by Votes passed in that House, and partly by drafts on the loan of £5,000,000 gua-
  102
  ranteed in 1885; and this bogus surplus had been used to pay the coupons. A deficit bad really existed each year, and it had been made into a surplus in a dishonest way and for a dishonest purpose. In the month, of March last a Question was put in the House as to whether the taxes upon the coupons would be repaid or not, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government of Egypt were considering their financial position with a view to determining the point, while on the very same night the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs said the amount of the surplus was known, and as it was more than sufficient for this purpose the Egyptian Government had given the necessary directions to carry out the arrangement that had been made. It was a nice condition when two Ministers made inconsistent statements on the same night. If we were to continue in occupation of Egypt the House ought to insist upon having every year a discussion on the finances of Egypt, in order that the people of the country might be protected from such a fraud as had been practised upon them. There was a small ring of men who had control of this question and who were responsible to nobody; and the figures were given in the despatches in such an involved way that it required study to get at the bottom of them. Amounts were stated sometimes in Egyptian and sometimes in English pounds. A regular discussion was necessary in order to turn the light of day on the subject, and to prevent the fraud, robbery, and oppression which were being practised on the people of Egypt.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Sir. Labouchere.)
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that when the policy and proceedings of Her Majesty's Government were arraigned in that House it was desirable that a charge should be formulated, and that they should have to deal with something tangible. On this occasion the Government could not know beforehand what form the attack was to take, and many things had been brought up and put into a general bill of indictment. Most of them were not matters of to-day, and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had chiefly directed their attention to what might be described as

  103
  ancient history, his main object apparently being to make a personal attack upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was the head and front of his speech. The House would desire to consider our present and future relations rather than matters which had been discussed over and over again and amply and fully disposed of. The late Convention was referred to by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as a secret Treaty negotiated behind the backs of the other Powers of Europe. Surely there was no secrecy about a Convention which was negotiated between a special British Commissioner and a Minister of the Sultan, and which was contemplated by the Convention of October, 1885. When a Turkish Commissioner and a British Commissioner went to Egypt to inquire and report on the condition of the country with a view to a future arrangement it was manifest that an arrangement would be made, although it would be necessary afterwards to consult the other Powers. As to indignation about this so-called secret Treaty, he did not know in what quarter this indignation was to be found, and the Government had not heard of it. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: In France.] Undoubtedly there were great difficulties to be faced; it was impossible to be unmindful of the susceptibilities of the other Powers; and it had been the anxious desire of the Government to consider those susceptibilities from the first. He repudiated the statement made by the hon. Member for East Mayo, that France had been covered with insults in this business; a more unfounded statement was never made. There was not the slightest foundation for saying that Her Majesty's Government had treated France with the utmost discourtesy. There had been, undoubtedly, features in the negotiations at Constantinople which had been unfortunate and unusual. It was unusual that an Ambassador of a friendly Power should present to the Sultan a note such as that which had been referred to in the debate. But that note was a very private note, and it had not the formality of many official Papers which were made known to the world. It would probably never be known how the note came to be published; but there were many subterranean ways between the Press and officials at Constantinople. As to the Government being
  104
  charged with any want of courtesy and consideration towards France or any other European Power, it was impossible to bring any proof of such a statement. He rose at the beginning of the hon. Members speech to disclaim having concealed anything from the House that he could have stated, as having misled the House in the matter of the Memorandum. The Government had received by telegram a very brief account of a note, as it had been derived by hearsay by Sir H. Drummond Wolff. Its accuracy could not be relied upon. It had been received in a very indirect manner, and he would have incurred a very great responsibility had he admitted to the House that such a note had been submitted by the French Ambassador to the Sultan. It would be absolutely impossible to conduct the foreign affairs of this country with any safety if admissions were made without positive knowledge on the part of the Government. He stated with regard to this note that the Government were not in possession of the facts, and that the Memorandum had not been made known to them. It had not been made known to them officially up to the present day.
  DR. CLARKasked whether the note was not included in the despatches?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that he had already informed the House that it was made known indirectly to Sir H. Drummond Wolff that such a note had been presented. Sir H. Drummond Wolff mentioned in one of his despatches that what was known of the note was not in its original language, and could not be verbally relied upon. Then the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had stated that Lord Salisbury had declared that England was now free from her engagement with respect to the Porte. It was only in respect of the evacuation of Egypt that Her Majesty's Government were left free, in consequence of the non-ratification of the Convention. It was manifest that every engagement which England had made with Turkey must be absolutely adhered to, and he should like to know what engagement England could be charged with not fulfilling. Under the Convention of 1885, by which a certain portion of the loan was to be applied to the expenses of occupation, our position in Egypt was recognized as

  105
  it had not been recognized before. But Turkey and other Powers were anxious that our occupation should not be unlimited; and therefore a strong desire was expressed that some limit should be fixed. He thought it would be seen that there were considerable inducements to name a time, with the view of securing the co-operation and consent of other Powers. With some reluctance, therefore, Her Majesty's Government consented to a time being mentioned at which, if circumstances permitted, the British troops and officers should be withdrawn. That engagement was entered into with some reluctance, because Her Majesty's Government had had experience in times past of the danger of fixing limits to our stay in Egypt. More than once Parliament had been told of the time at which the evacuation would take place; but the hopes under which the promises were given had been frustrated. The condition was therefore laid down that England would retain the right of re-entry if Egypt should be menaced externally or internally, and that evacuation should not take place at the time fixed if the state of the country did not warrant it. He ventured to say that the country would have been extremely dissatisfied if Her Majesty's Government had agreed to retire at three years or five years, or any other number of years, unless they had retained the contingent rights of finishing the work which they had undertaken and of safeguarding the interests over which they had made such great sacrifices. The engagement which they were free from—namely, that of leaving Egypt in five years—was dependent upon and coupled with other engagements in the Convention, which, not being ratified, fell to the ground. Sir H. Drmmond Wolff had done good work in calling attention to the wants of Egypt, and to the manner in which it could be relieved from embarrassment; and he protested against the argument that Her Majesty's Government and the British Agency in Egypt had not done their duty. The statement had been made that taxation in Egypt had not been reduced; and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been attacked with reference to the financial question. Taxation could not be reduced if Egypt fulfilled her engagements. It was extremely unfortunate that the
  106
  taxation was heavy and that it could not be reduced. But was it desirable that the country, which they hoped to put upon its legs, and leave in a firm and prosperous condition, should commence by repudiating its engagements, as, perhaps, the hon. Member for East Mayo might be ready to suggest?
  MR. DILLONremarked, that the right hon. Gentleman had no right to attribute anything of the kind to him. What he said by no means bore that interpretation.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that, at any rate, such a thing was not at all desirable, and would not be allowed by other Powers. Had this Government done anything to reduce the charges upon Egypt? Had anything resulted from the mission of Messrs. Goschen and Joubert to Egypt? Undoubtedly those gentlemen went to Egypt to endeavour to put the finances of that country on a better footing; and a regular system, in. the interests of economy, was established, which had not existed before. Following on that came various measures which reduced the capital and the interest. The rate of interest was reduced from 7 to 4 per cent, which was a lower rate than that of any other country in the world.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the present rate was 5 per cent.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that was so as regarded the Unified Debt; but the average of the debt was only 4 per cent. The charge for the debt of Egypt, which was £103,000,000, amounted to a little over £4,000,000. Therefore, great financial benefit had resulted to Egypt from the British occupation and the improvements which had been effected; and though the taxation might still be high, the people were able to bear it far more easily than before. The great proportion of the taxation of Egypt was derived from a Land Tax, and the incidence of that tax had been always pointed to as one of the heaviest burdens of the country. But would the House believe that last year only 36 persons bad been expropriated or evicted for the non-payment of the Land Tax, and in the year before 122? Whereas formerly this Land Tax was extracted from the people with many cruelties, that was no longer the case; and the hon. Gentleman had to go back five years for an instance of torture or corporal punishment used in the recovery

  107
  of the tax. Such cruelties had been abolished, justice had been purified, the prisons had been turned from disgraceful and miserable dens into places of detention which might compare favourably with the prisons of more civilized countries, the officials did their duty well, and bribery, which was once so common among them, was now very rare. The Army, too, which had been so large and expensive, was gradually being reduced in numbers and cost, and service in the Army was no longer dreaded as it was before. The Egyptian, instead of being dragged from his home and forced to serve, often without pay, was now well paid, well fed, and well cared for by his officers. The hon. Member for East Mayo denied that there was a surplus. The fact was that there was a surplus which had been earned just as it was earned in any country by the Revenue exceeding the Expenditure. The fact was that the receipts for the last two years sufficed to repay the Five per Cent coupons, and, on the whole, there was a surplus for the two years of something like £40,000.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that it was stated in the Blue Book that the abolition of the corvée would cost £250,000, and then followed the words—"This sum is still paid by the people."
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that the Government had promised the House Papers which would be in the hands of hon. Members shortly—he believed in about eight or 10 days—and which he trusted would satisfy them on that point. But the £250,000 became a charge on the year in lieu of the forced labour formerly exacted. For instance, the irrigation of the canals was performed by hired labour instead of taking people away long distances from their fields and compelling them to do the work, to their great injury and the injury of their country. Land actually went out of cultivation because people were taken away such distances from their fields. The best way that the burdens of the people of Egypt could be lightened was that relief should be given from this burdensome tax. He did not mean to say that the corvée for clearing the canals had been altogether abolished; it had been abolished to the extent of about 66 per cent. It had been abolished in its more severe and oppressive form where the people were taken away long dis-
  108
  tances from their homes. The corvée on the canals was retained only where it was lightest, where the men did the work near their own land. But even that was in the course of being reduced, and he hoped in a few years we should see the end of it. As to the coupons, he gave the House in February the figures showing that there was a surplus left of nearly £300,000 more than the estimate. He stated last year, and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) also stated, that there was no choice in the matter, and that we were bound to pay the Five per Cent coupons if the revenue sufficed for the purpose. It did suffice for the purpose, and we paid them. Hon. Members ought not to confound two things — the revenues of Egypt and the revenues assigned to the payment of debt. If the revenues assigned for the service of the debt were sufficient we were bound to pay. He told the House last February that the revenues were sufficient for the purpose, and if the estimates continued to be realized for the remaining part of 1886–7 the country would have a surplus on the two years. As to a Budget for Egypt, it would be a capital thing if there were no fear of disappointment; but the estimates might lead to disappointment. For instance, a rise of 1s. per cwt. on sugar made a difference to the Government of Egypt of £50,000 a year; and a rise of 1d. per lb. on cotton made a difference of £40,000 a-year on the produce of the State land, while it would put £1,000,000 sterling into the pocket of the producer. These things could not be foreseen, and there were complications also arising from the different times at which the accounts were made up, which rendered it more difficult than in this country to give an accurate forecast of the financial results of the year. Now, he must express his surprise that the hon. Member for Northampton should have thought it worth his while to pervert that unfortunate incident which occurred in March last of the accidental shooting of some Natives by English officers in order to found upon it a general charge against the attitude of the English to the Natives. The hon. Member did not state the facts with even approximate correctness. The officers were out shooting quails, and some men were travelling along on camels, when a

  109
  careless discharge of a gun struck some of them slightly as they passed. There was great indignation on the part of the Natives, who made an attack upon the officers, and during the struggle a gun went off as it was being wrenched from the hands of one of the party, the shot I tilling one of the Natives. That was a very unfortunate accident, but it was hardly a matter on which to frame a general charge as to the attitude of the English to the Egyptians. Again, it was asked, "What good did we do in Egypt?" We had done much good. We had regularized the Administration, and lightened substantially the burdens of the people. The cultivated area had been largely extended, and year by year the country was being relieved by the scientific appliances which had bean introduced from the deterioration which previously it had undergone. "What good was Egypt to us?" If the hon. Member in putting that question thought that the gate to the East was of no value to a great commercial country with more than three-fourths of the whole traffic passing down the Canal belonging to it, then he could only say the hon. Member thought differently from every other nation in Europe. He did not think the people of this country would be so blind and foolish as to suppose that the highway for commerce to which all other nations attached such great importance was of none to us, whose commercial affairs were so immeasurably larger. The position of the Canal was one which ought to be secure to all nations. The Government desired no selfish aims in connection with it. They only desired Egypt to be protected from external danger, to keep open the Eastern highway, and to benefit the people of Egypt. Having undertaken a great responsibility in regard to that country, our partner, France, having declined to undertake such responsibility, were we to shrink from our duties and to be taunted with having insulted France because we had fulfilled those duties? Whose fault was it that France was not by our side? We invited France to join us in maintaining the Khedive on the Throne, on which we had assisted to place him and undertaken to protect him. The French Government were willing to go with us, but they failed to secure a majority in Parliament, and surely it was no insult to France that England went forward to do its duty alone. It did not lie in the mouths of a small
  110
  minority in the House to say that the Government had acted contrary to the wishes of the people of this country when successive Governments had been maintained by the majority of the House and the voice of the people out-of-doors in fulfilling their engagements. We were still occupying Egypt, though the Government did not desire that the occupation should be prolonged; but he was sure the people of this country approved of the Government fulfilling the obligations they had entered into, and continuing to do their duty by the interests of this country, which we should never forget, and which were largely concerned in our mission to Egypt.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, the hon. Mover and Seconder of the Motion had made interesting speeches and raised a great variety of interesting and important questions, although he could not help regretting that among those questions they should have thought it necessary to renew an old charge against the Chancellor of the Exchequer which they would have been better advised to have lot alone. But they had also had a long speech from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir James Fergusson), which he must be allowed to characterize as very inadequate compared to the charges brought against the Government. It did not dispose of some of the most serious charges made, and gave no indication of the policy of the Government. As, however, the Government had now promised that they would give the first night after the Mines Regulation Bill for the discussion of the Diplomatic and Consular Vote, and as that Vote would bring up the whole question of our present policy in Egypt, together with the negotiations of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, he thought it bettor —and others on the same side, thought with him—to reserve criticism upon the conduct of the Government, as well as upon the very inadequate reply of the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion.
  DR. CLARKsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) would, perhaps, discover that it would have been better for him to have seized the present opportunity. He did not see that we had done anything to make the I Egyptians bear their burdens more easily. We had rather increased those burdens, no next referred to the despatches of Sir H. Drummond Wolff

  111
  dated June 14 and 18, in which it was stated that the condition of Egypt was so bad as to cause discontent and to render the fellaheen anxious to join any popular leader who would promise them relief. In these despatches more damning accusations were made against the Government than any that had been made by the Opposition. But the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had tried to make them believe that, after all the money that had been spent by Sir H. Drummond Wolff in getting this information, he had misled them regarding the facts of the case. The House was told that our object in remaining in Egypt was to secure the Suez Canal for all nations. The Government might as well tell them that their object in remaining in Egypt was to secure that the sun should rise to-morrow morning. Everything that could be done to secure the Canal for all nations had already been done, and the only Power that had done anything to weaken the effect of the declarations and firmans that had been obtained was Great Britain. During the Franco-German War and the Russo-Turkish War each of those Powers respected the neutrality of the Canal; but during the Egyptian Expedition Great Britain broke the International Law.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked, whether the speech of the hon. Member had any reference to the particular Question before the House? What had the Franco-German War to do with Egypt?
  DR. CLARKsaid, he was pointing out that neutrality of the Suez Canal had been secured long ago. He wanted to ask the Government for what reason we were going to remain in Egypt now? It seemed to him, judging from the words of Lord Salisbury in his Mansion House speech, and from other declarations, that the Government were trying to repudiate the self-denying ordinance on which we had occupied Egypt, and was preparing the way to make the occupation permanent. If the Government did not leave Egypt now, when it was free alike from external and internal troubles, and the Soudan was quiet, they would never leave it at all, and they would remain there under false pretences.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was free to confess that if we were at liberty to establish a protectorate over
  112
  Egypt, and it was expedient to do so, he would not have a word to say against the Convention. He thought it was a very good Convention, and was probably the best and cheapest way of establishing a protectorate. But it was impossible, owing to our obligations, to establish a protectorate in Egypt. He was lost in amazement, however, that the Government should expect the French Government to accept a Convention which was opposed to all their interests and our declarations. The result of the Convention had been that we had been snubbed by France in the most humiliating way. He found that the only result of this snub was that the Prime Minister mot it by emphasizing the declaration that we remained in Egypt until we could retire after having established the security of the country. He believed the Government were remaining in Egypt until conditions were fulfilled which he believed to be impossible of fulfilment. That appeared to him a most dangerous position, and one likely to load to serious complications with France. Moreover, he really did not see that the Government were trying honestly to bring about the conclusion of the present state of things. We were reducing the Egyptian Army to a point at which it could not defend the country, and in order to satisfy the bondholders. Apart from the question of the Army, there were two ways of dealing with the question—either to establish a strong man in the country or to establish something in the nature of Constitutional government. The direction in which we could get out of that Egyptian imbroglio lay in restoring that true understanding and entente cordiale with France, which had been so rudely and unfortunately interrupted by our policy in Egypt. He regretted, but was hardly surprised, that the French should try to play on a small scale in the New Hebrides the same game as we were playing in Egypt, saying that they went there to establish order and a Millennium, and would stay there until their work was accomplished. The French people, however, were unwilling to support their Government in foreign adventures which might lead to war; and he thought that if France was now approached in a friendly spirit, both sides agreeing to let bygones be bygones, an arrangement might be come

  113
  to with her by which, a real autonomous Government would be established in Egypt, with great advantage both to that country itself and to Europe.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he thought he would be expected to say a word or two in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), although he had so often answered similar charges—he believed to the satisfaction of the House—that it was scarcely necessary for him to answer the personal attack which formed, if not the staple, at least the point of the hon. Gentleman's speech. The hon. Member had begun by making some suggestion as if upon one of the loans issued by the firm in which he (Mr. Goschen) was interested 24 years ago, that firm had made 11 per cent profit. Well, the most fabulous figures had often been put forward in many quarters as to the profits made on those Egyptian loans, and he confessed that he had not thought it necessary to refute such exaggerated and absurd statements. But in order, once for all, to induce even the hon. Member to refrain from repeating them—for he presumed that the hon. Member would accept his word—he might state that the aggregate earnings on the loan upon which the hon. Member said 11 per cent had gone into the pockets of the firm were not more than 1½ per cent. He confessed that it went against his inclination to say that much, but he had seen that at elections and on various platforms the most fabulous figures had been imported into the allegations put forward on that subject, and therefore he had now rather reluctantly made this statement.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman would wish this matter to be fully elucidated. Perhaps he will be good enough to state whether he denies the amount of the loan as given by Mr. Cave and the amount received by the Egyptian Government; and whether he denies my statement as to the amount that ought to have been received on the issue price; and whether he will state to whom the difference of something like £400,000 or £500,000 went. His firm is responsible for that.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Our firm were the agents. The agents are not responsible at all.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To whom did the difference go?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the sums his firm received were paid over to the contractors of the loan, and it was not until 15 years afterwards that he heard the allegation that the sum mentioned by the hon. Member had been entered in the books of the Egyptian Treasury. He might, perhaps, be able to throw some light upon the matter. In 1876, when the accounts of the Egyptian Treasury were examined, it was found that the Egyptian Finance Minister—the Minister to whom the hon. Gentleman afterwards alluded as if he was one of the saviours of Egypt—had been deliberately cooking the Egyptian accounts, and that he had deducted some 10 per cent or more from the amounts paid over to the Egyptian Government. It had never been said before that the agents were responsible; but it was now alleged, and the hon. Member seemed to allege, that the money went into the pockets of the firm with which he (Mr. Goschen) was connected.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. Was the loan underwritten or not?
  MR. GOSCHEN: As far as I can remember the loan was underwritten.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then what were the terms?
  MR. GOSCHEN: How can I say now?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Ah!
  MR. GOSCHEN: What does the hon. Member mean by that interruption, which I consider is almost an insolent interruption?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether one Member has a right to say of another that his interruption is insolent?
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the word insolent, which is not a Parliamentary expression.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would withdraw the word; but he confessed it was used under considerable provocation. Did the hon. Member expect that he (Mr. Goschen) should lay before him that of which he was absolutely ignorant himself? He had told the hon. Member that the money was paid over by the firm with which he was connected, and he was absolutely unable to give him further information, nor did he believe that anybody not acquainted with

  115
  the Egyptian Government at the time— in 1865—would be able to give it. He called the attention of the House to the spirit in which, after he had condescended to give the hon. Member what information, he could, the hon. Member attempted to cross-examine him. The hon. Member for Northampton had stated that he had gone to Egypt in order to rivet the fetters of the bondholders. The hon. Member, like many others, had utterly ignored what passed a few mouths before that Mission to Egypt. The French had made an arrangement with the Khedive by which they put him and the whole of his finances under the most stringent French control. Having done so they re-arranged all the loans with every possible injustice to the separate classes of bondholders, and it was in consequence of that proceeding that the English bondholders thought themselves injured. As to the pretest which had been referred to, it was the recognized duty of firms who brought out loans to protest against any injustice inflicted on the holders of such loans; but the special point in this case was that securities which had been promised to one set of bondholders had been diverted to others, who were mainly the French, and it was to rectify this injustice as between different bodies of bondholders that the protest of his firm was made. It was urged that one of the chief results of his mission was that foreign control was introduced into the finances of Egypt; but this international control was established several months before he went to Egypt; and it was established in the form of the Caisse de la Dette, upon which there was a Frenchman and two others, but no Englishman. This Board had the power given to it to summon the Minister of Finance or any of the Government officials before the international tribunals. He wished to direct attention to the fact that this form of control existed before English intervention, and that it had been forced by another Power on the Egyptian Government, and it was not to any British influence that the beginning of that system was to be traced. Again, the hon. Member made a great deal out of the Moukabala, and he intimated that it was continued in order to pay some loans in which his own (Mr. Goschen's) firm was concerned. He did not know whether that was insinuated.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that what he intended to state, and not to insinuate, was that the decree against which a protest had been made had been rendered necessary by the Khedive in his decree abrogating the Moukabala.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, of course that was not so. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Moukalaba. That was a specimen of the argument of the hon. Gentleman. He agreed that the Moukabala was a thoroughly bad tax; but when the Khedive abolished it, its abolition was considered by all the parties concerned a breach of faith, inasmuch as it deprived those who had redeemed half the tax of the ultimate benefit to be derived from their payments. The landholders protested against its abolition, and he thought that they were right in their protest. The tax was bad and ruinous; but the way in which it had been suspended was unjust. He had been frequently charged both with reinstating the Moukabala and with abolishing it. He had explained how it came to be reinstated in 1876, and he had absolutely nothing whatever to do with its abolition in 1880. He had nothing to do with the decision which the Commission of Liquidation arrived at. It became an international matter, and he had no concern with it. Then the hon. Member had gone on and alluded to the case of the Mufettish, who protested against his (Mr. Goschen's) mission. Well, it had been shown that the Mufettish was robbing the Egyptian Treasury. That became perfectly clear, and on his death it was shown that he had enriched himsel. enormously at the expense of Egypt. It had been stated that the revenue which he pressed out of the Egyptians was as much as £12,000,000 or £14,000,000 a-year. He was the man who had ruined Egyptian finance, and though the circumstances of his disappearance were most discreditable, he had done his country the greatest possible harm. It was not because he protested against the Moukabala, but because he was discovered in his robberies, that he was disgraced, His right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had said that there had been an improvement in Egypt. It was absolutely certain that through the control which had been exercised from without the burdens of Egypt had been absolutely and greatly decreased.

  117
  It was one of the points established when he was in Egypt that there should be State protection against the irregular mode of taxation which had been in progress for many years. With regard to the allegation that the bondholders always took their pound of flesh, his right hon. Friend had already shown that the burdens had been reduced. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Not enough.] He war glad of that interruption for it reminded him of a point he ought to make. In whose power was it to make these reductions? Was it in the power of the English Government? The reduction made at the time of his (Mr. Goschen's') mission to Egypt was the result of voluntary arrangement between the creditors and the Government of Egypt. Twenty per cent was struck off the capital of a great portion of the debt, and the amount of interest was reduced from 7 per cent to 6 per cent, and in some cases to 5 per cent, in addition to the reduction of capital. That was no slight modification to make with voluntary powers. Then the hon. Gentleman said the Egyptian Government might repudiate the loans on the Daïra and Domain lands. That was a sample of the loose way in which hon. Members studied the complicated question of Egyptian finance. The reason given was that these loans were based on private property. The Daïra was private property since it belonged to the Khedive, but the Domains were lands handed over by the Khedive to assist the liquidation of the Egyptian debt. The Khedive gave the Domains to the creditors for the relief of the general financial situation, and on these estates a loan of £9,000,000 was raised to relieve Egyptian finance. Every shilling of that loan went to the satisfaction of the general debts of Egypt. If the hon. Gentleman's statement had gone uncontradicted, it would have appeared that the Egyptian people were being swindled, because they had to pay the deficit or difference between the produce of the Domains and the interest of the Domains loan. But as a matter of fact that was not so, because every penny of the Domains loan had been devoted to public purposes. There was a large floating debt of some £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 and growing deficits, and, in order to meet these, the Khedive was asked to give up his estates for the relief of the general situation. He thought
  118
  he had now dealt with the personal charges of the hon. Member for Northampton. He would leave other points to the larger discussion with regard to the Convention which would take place on another occasion. But he would endeavour to elucidate the point to which the hon. Member for East Mayo referred with regard to the £450,000 which he said ought to have been devoted to the relief of the land tax as promised by Lord Northbrook. In carrying out the arrangement proposed by Lord Northbrook there was a Council held, at which it was discussed whether the gift of £450,000 was to be bestowed in the form of relief from forced labour or in the form of remitted taxation. That Council came to the conclusion that the fellaheen would be more benefited by relief from forced labour and by being left in their homes during the large number of days they would otherwise spend in that way. The Egyptian Ministers had as much to do with this arrangement as any of their British advisers. Some hon. Members spoke and argued as if all these matters lay in the hands of the British Government, and as if that Government had only to say—" We will reduce the interest on the debt," and it would be done. In the Conference on that subject two years ago, the Representatives of the British Government did their best to advocate a permanent instead of a temporary reduction of 5 per cent in the interest on the debt; but they were in a minority; they had to deal with the Representatives of a number of European Powers. That was the situation now, and it had been so from the beginning. Foreign Powers had a locus standi in Egypt such, as they had in no other country. They had mixed tribunals on which were Judges representing foreign countries; and these mixed tribunals had what they had nowhere else—the power of summoning Ministers before them, and of preventing the issue of decrees which would appear to involve a breach of faith with foreign creditors. When he was in Egypt a Minister of Finance had actually been summoned before a mixed tribunal, because he had failed to meet an engagement of that kind. Every successive British Government had always been more anxious to deal with the debt in the way of reduction and liquidation than were the Representatives of any

  119
  of the other Powers. As to the allegation that the recent surplus had been a bogus surplus, that could hardly be. It was not only the financial adviser of the Khedive who examined the figures, but there was also the Caisse de la Dette, in which several Powers were represented, and that Board went into the minutest details in. order to ascertain whether there was a surplus. If there was a bias on the part of that Board it would rather be to think that there was no surplus. The accounts were examined from every point of view; they were passed item by item; and it was only by such a scrutiny that the existence of an equitable and a substantial surplus was ascertained. He appreciated the desire to have Egyptian finance discussed every year. The Government had a responsibility which was most unsatisfactory; everyone agreed that it was eminently unsatisfactory; and the difficulty was how to escape from those cords with which all the European Powers were tied together. He affirmed that the interest had been fairly met, and that the surplus had been a sufficient and a real one. An International Commission would not, as supposed, reduce the interest; on the contrary, its tendency would be precisely the opposite. The only Government anxious to reduce the interest on the Egyptian debt was the English Government; in a Commission every other Power would attempt to prove that Egypt was not over-taxed, and that the administration had more money than it was entitled to; and the other Powers would sooner suspend public works and put off reforms than allow one tittle to be struck off the debt. If it should ever come to an International Commission, he said it in the face of foreign countries as well as the face of the House of Commons, such a Commission would not adopt the same clement attitude in regard to the collection of taxes that would be taken by the Government of this country to whatever Party it belonged. With Sir H. Drummond Wolff, he believed it would be to the advantage of Egypt that there should be a reduction in the rate of interest upon the debt. It was to be desired on many grounds. But we had to act with Foreign Powers; we could not by our own action lighten the charge that was placed on Egypt. They knew the interest taken by many Foreign Govern-
  120
  ments in the bondholders, and the lengths they were prepared to go on their behalf. The fall of Ismail Pasha was not primarily due to England, but to the nonpayment of German creditors; his deposition emanated from Germany, and not from this country. The Government were perfectly alive to the unsatisfactory condition of the finances of Egypt, in so far as taxation was concerned; they were alive to many of the difficulties which had been pointed out; they would do their best to seek a solution; and if the time came they would use their influence to bring about an equitable settlement. But it was impossible for this country simply by a stroke of the pen or a Resolution of the House of Commons to take any step in that direction without having first secured the assent of the other Powers of Europe.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he knew the Government were anxious to get into Committee of Supply, and he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL, SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL, SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £53,681, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st of March 1888, for the Salaries of the Law Officers; the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Queen's Proctor for Divorce Interventions, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Costs of Prosecutions, including those relating to the Coin, and to Bankruptcy, and of other Legal Proceedings conducted by those Departments; and various other Legal Expenses, including Statute Law Revision, and Parliamentary Agency."
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think it will be convenient, in the few remarks with which I shall have to trouble the Committee on this Vote, that I should confine myself to the salary which the country pays to the Attorney General, because if we can reduce the salary of that officer it is quite clear that a reduction of the salary of the Solicitor General will follow. I hope my hon.

    121
    and learned Friend the Attorney General will understand that, in moving this reduction of his salary, I desire to keep clear altogether of any personal questions. I admit that it is somewhat invidious to have to move the reduction of a personal Vote, but that is the only way in which this question can be raised, and I feel sure the Committee will understand that in doing so I make no complaint against the present holder of the Office of Attorney General. I am sure we all recognize the great ability with which both the Attorney General and Solicitor General carry out their duties in this House. We have to consider the general question whether we are paying our Law Officers too high salaries. If we can reduce the present Vote, although unquestionably none of us would wish the reduction to apply to the present Law Officers of the Crown, we do desire that it should apply to future appointments; and, perhaps, it will not be long before there is another appointment to this Office, because the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) has stated that he intends to join the Government in the course of the autumn, and that would probably result in a change. I do not believe the country fully realizes the amount which we pay to the Law Officers of the Crown. On. page 198 it appears that we pay the Attorney General for non-contontious business £7,000, and the Solicitor General £6,000 a-year; in addition to that we pay them for what work they do outside their chambers on the average £3,000 to the Attorney General and £2,000 to the Solicitor General, so that the aggregate of our payments to these two Officers is no less than £10,000 for the Attorney General and £8,000 for the Solicitor General. Now, I have no quarrel with the amount which we pay to the Attorney General for what is called contentious business. I see from the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1877 that contentious business is defined to mean briefs in actions or other proceedings, civil or criminal, and consultations upon those briefs, as well as other business of that sort. Those consultations, I understand, we pay for at the market value, and accordingly we get good value for the money which we pay; but when it comes to paying £7,000 a-year for what is called non-
    122
    contentious business, then I think we ought to reduce that sum to a more reasonable amount. The Secretary to the Treasury informed us that the opinion of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General was taken in 385 non-contentious cases in 1884; in 405 non-contentious cases in 1885, and 360 non-contentious cases in 1886, and, in addition to those, there were certain other consultations in connection with patents. But I notice that evidence was given before the Committee of 1887 that the amount of work required in connection with the Patent Office is very small indeed, and consists mainly in the Law Officers signing their names from time to time, it being seldom that any legal questions arise in connection with their duties as Law Officers of the Crown. Therefore, for the assistance given to the Government we pay a total sum of £13,000 a-year to the Attorney General and Solicitor General. Nor is that all. Probably the Committee is not aware that we do not by this large payment obtain the whole of the time and full services of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General; they are allowed to take as much private practice as time permits them, and I believe that in every case the private business is considerable. Of course, we all know they receive the honour of Knighthood; but that I will throw in. Then, again, the Attorney General is almost certain of obtaining the post of Lord Chancellor, and at any moment, if he wishes, he can always have a Judgeship. Therefore, we must take these matters into account as a decided advantage, which ought to be calculated at a considerable sum. I ask whether the Government can give any reason why we should pay the Attorney General twice the amount which we pay to the Prime Minister? I am sure that the Attorney General, being a very modest man, would not say that he is equal to two Prime Ministers; but if we estimate it in money, the amount he receives is double that which we pay to the Prime Minister or any Secretary of State. There is, as far as I can judge, only one reason advanced for paying our Law Officers such very high salaries—namely, that if we reduce the amount we should not get the best men, but have to put up with inferior lawyers. I do not myself believe that this could be so, because, even on the proposal I am going

    123
    to make, the Attorney General would still receive £8,000 a-year, in addition to the advantages I have referred to. But I do not believe that the Attorney Generalship is looked at from a money point of view. I believe it is looked upon as a great honour—as the blue ribbon of the Bar—and, therefore, I cannot believe that anyone will seriously argue that the Attorney Generalship, with the honour which attaches to that position, and the work with which it is connected, would be refused by the best men at the Bar. We shall be told, probably, that we have made a bargain with our Law Officers under the arrangement of 1871, when the fees were commuted, and that it would not be fair to alter that arrangement. I ask whether that bargain was made with the occupants of the Office, or with the Bar as a whole? If it refers to present occupants, I cannot admit that the Law Officers of the Crown have any vested right in the Office, or any right to say that the salaries shall not be reduced, more especially as their Successors would probably be gentlemen opposed to them in political opinions. I cannot see, either, that we have made any bargain with the Bar that these salaries should not be reduced if the country so wishes. I think everyone will admit that the House of Commons may abolish either of these Offices; and surely, if they are entitled to abolish them, how much more are they entitled to reduce the salaries? Mr. Robert Lowe, in 1871, by a mere stroke of the pen, reduced the salary of the Attorney General, for non-contentious business, from £11,000 to £7,000, and that of the Solicitor General by about £3,000 or £4,000. If that could be done by Mr. Robert Lowe, surely, if the House of Commons desires, they can go still further in the same direction. I hope the Attorney General, if he endeavours to convince the Committee that these high salaries ought to be paid, will have better arguments to use than that the best men at the Bar will not accept £8,000 a-year, with other emoluments, and the honour attached to the Office, and that we have made a bargain which we cannot break. We have reduced this Vote before, and I cannot see any reason why we should not try to reduce it further. I think the proposal which I make is a moderate one; it is to reduce
    124
    the fixed salary of the Attorney General to the amount we pay to Secretaries of State; and I trust it will be accepted by the Committee. I place it at that amount, not because I think it ought not to be further reduced, but because it seems to me a good line to take that we should not pay the Attorney General a higher salary for non-contentious business than we pay to the highest officers of State.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by the sum of £4,000, viz., in respect of the Salaries of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General."— (Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I am quite sure that no one will suppose it is from any personal motives that the hon. Gentleman opposite has moved the reduction of this Vote. The hon. Member is good enough to say that this reduction shall not apply to the present Law Officers, and I may state that both the Solicitor General and I approach this question quite apart from all personal considerations. The hon. Member has expressed the opinion that the salary of each of the Law Officers should be reduced to the level of that of the Prime Minister or of a principal Secretary of State. If the circumstances of the appointment of the Prime Minister or a Secretary of State were identical or parallel with those of the appointments of the Law Officers of the Crown I should agree entirely with his observations. I should like to say here, however, that I by no means think that the Prime Minister is paid a sufficient sum. It is not for the reason of enhancing the services of the Law Officers that I say that; it is because I think we do not proceed on a proper scale, and I hope some day or other that the country will be rich enough and liberal enough to pay the Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State larger salaries. But the circumstances under which the Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State are appointed differ in most essential particulars from the circumstances under which the appointments of Attorney General and Solicitor General are made. I am not at all suggesting that some time or other it would not be desirable that the mode of payment to the Law Officers should be considered; but I must

    125
    not by that observation be understood to mean that I think there can be any substantial saving to the country, because the position which the Law Officers occupy is a very peculiar one. In the first place, the Law Officers have no public clerks, no staff, no office or public department, and no records on which they can fall back. I think it is a great defect in the department of the Law Officers that there is no permanent staff, and if it were not for the good feeling which prevails between the successive holders of the Office, it would be utterly impossible for the duties of the Attorney General and Solicitor General to be satisfactorily performed. I can say for myself that when I, for the first time, came into the Office which I have now the honour of holding, if it had not been for the kindness and consideration of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), I must have spent two or three months before I could have even understood the business entrusted to me. The Committee will remember that when a Minister of State succeeds to his Office he finds his Department, with all its machinery, staff of clerks, and private secretaries to his hand. Do not let it be supposed that I consider the machinery and staff, at the disposal of the Minister of State too great; I only wish to point out that he steps into a ready made place, and has to do the work of his Department under the circumstances I have described. But the Law Officer, when he succeeds to his Office, as I have said, has no staff and no established records, and he has to rely for what he wants on the good feeling of his Predecessor. It follows from that that an Attorney General must in connection with his public business at once, not only pay his own clerks, but also gentlemen to do work similar to that performed by private secretaries in public offices, and I suppose there has never been a Law Officer who has properly done his work who has not paid a very considerable sum for clerks to assist in the mechanical work, and also to gentlemen who can assist him in the performance of public business. Therefore, when the hon. Member suggests that the Attorney General receives £7,000 a-year apart from contentious business, I can assure him that very considerable reductions have to be made for work to
    126
    be done. I hope that some day, without the necessity of increasing the charge to the nation, the matter may be so adjusted that, while the nation obtains in a certain sense better value for its money, there may be a permanent staff ready to be handed over to the Law Officers. There was the same defect that I have alluded to in connection with the Office of the Lord Chancellor; but a change was made not long ago in the direction I have indicated, which has worked a great improvement. It must, therefore, be borne in mind that from this £7,000 a-year there is to be made a reduction of many hundreds of pounds, depending, of course, on the way in which the Attorney General or Solicitor General pays for the assistance that is absolutely necessary. In 1875 a Departmental Committee was appointed to consider this subject. On that Committee sat the late Master of the Rolls, Sir George Jessel, and other eminent men. They examined Sir Richard Baggallay, Sir John Karslake, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), and one or two others; and the point that was discussed before the Committee in no way arose with respect to any suggestion that there was over-payment, but in consequence of some friction which had arisen from the way in which the fees of the Law Officers had been paid. I do not know whether I am correct in that or not; but if hon. Members will refer they will find that the Report proceeded on the basis that the salary of the Law Officers was not an exceptional salary, and when the whole of the circumstances are considered I think that no one will come to the conclusion that it is excessive. The hon. Member says that the business of the Law Officers in connection with the Patent Office consists in only signing their names, and that there is no strain put upon them in this respect. The hon. Member in saying this is probably confusing the old practice with what is done at the present time. That was the case in the old days, when the Attorney General signed the odd numbers of patents, and the Solicitor General the even numbers; but it is very different now.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The evidence given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir

    127
    William Harcourt) was that, as a rule, all that the Law Officers had to do was to sign their names.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was, for once in his life, not quite accurate, and he was certainly confusing the old mode with the work that has now to be done. That work consists of the Law Officers sitting two or three or a greater number of hours on some 30 days in the year, and hearing cases with reference to appeals. I do not say the work is of a very difficult character, but it is very important and highly responsible work. The hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that a discussion took place in 1871 with reference to the emoluments of the Law Officers on the Motion of the late Mr. Fawcett, and that it was renewed on a subsequent occasion. I do not suppose anyone will deny that it is to the advantage of the State that these Offices should be filled by persons who are willing to make sacrifices for the honour of the Office which I fully recognize. It must not be supposed that these sacrifices are not made; and when I say this I am not speaking of my own case alone, for I am sure the same thing can be said of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James). Lawyers cannot accept the Offices without running serious risks with regard to their own private business. When this point was put to Sir John Karslake by the Committee, he said it would be a great misfortune if the Attorney General and the Solicitor General were not at the head of their profession; that it was most important that those who advised the Government and the House of Commons should be in touch with the general practice going on, and that they should be able to keep up their experience with the current legal practice, and not be merely guided by their former experience. If this Office is to be properly filled it must be by men who are willing to make considerable sacrifices. We know, as a rule, Law officers are not independent men, as Prime Ministers frequently are, but men who look to going back to their profession at a later day, and the consequence is that the State ought to make the position so remunerative that it should always command men who are fitted for the post.
    128
    But I say again that my reason for resisting this Amendment is that I do not believe, having regard, to the work to be done, and having regard to the fact that the State does not supply a staff of clerks or any other assistance, that the salary is too high. I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member in support of this Motion to reduce the Vote; and although I do not in any way complain of what he has said, I do not think he has made out any case except on the point of comparison with the salaries of the Prime Minister and the principal Secretaries. I have pointed out that the sacrifices to be made by those who accept this Office are not inconsiderable; and I hope and believe that, as long as the duties shall be performed by those who hold the Office in future as well as they have been performed in the past, the country will be satisfied with the return it receives for the remuneration of its Law Officers, and unless something is done to relieve the Law Officers of the heavy charges on them for conducting their business, I think the House of Commons ought to be of opinion that the salaries are not too high.
    MR. P. STANHOPE: Inasmuch as this is the sole occasion we shall have of raising this question, which is only an item in the greater subject of the general law costs of the State, I wish to make some observations in support of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Sydney Buxton). The Attorney General has given us a most judicious defence of this Office in the abstract, and I entirely acquit him of any personal feeling in resisting the Amendment for the reduction of the Vote. There was one statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman which struck me as being peculiar. My hon. Friend pointed out that the salary of the Attorney General was double that of the Prime Minister, and he replied that that was no doubt the case, at the same time giving it as his opinion that the salaries of the Prime Minister and the principal officers of State should be raised in amount to that of the salary of the Attorney General. In these democratic days I think the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman is hardly likely to commend itself to this House, and certainly not to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill).

    129
    The hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to show us that the salary and fees in his case did not represent absolutely the profit of the holders of the Office; that he had to pay a large clerical staff, and that he had also to obtain the assistance of properly qualified gentlemen, who, I believe, are popularly known as devils, and are extremely expensive. No doubt, that does, to a certain extent, diminish the value of the Office of Attorney General; but, in saying that, the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to miss the point of our attack. The hon. and learned Gentleman also argues that there is no permanent Office connected with the appointment. But I would remind the Committee that the eminent lawyer who occupies in France the position of Attorney General receives £1,200 a-year; and, again, that in America you have the Attorney General, a gentleman of high qualifications and learned in the fame English law, receiving $10,000 or £2,000 a-year. I ought to add that the Senate of the United States, in the exercise of its discretion, reduced this sum to$8,000, and I am not aware that the gentleman now occupying the position of Attorney General of the United States is in any way inferior to his predecessors. I can only say that we on these Benches, and other Members who are interested in the question, will feel it our duty to attack this and other exaggerated legal charges whenever the opportunity presents itself. We contend that the system is bad, that the legal expenditure of the Government is enormous, and that the particular case of the Attorney General is merely characteristic of the whole. The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of the market value of the best legal talent; but I venture to say that the exaggerated salaries which we pay to the Attorney General and Solicitor General are the cause of the high market value of those legal talents. We go, as an opulent Government, into the market, and our system is such that legal fees throughout the country are enormously increased. Any gentleman who has had a lawsuit will know that, having consulted his solicitor, the first thing is that the latter says that your opponent has retained the Attorney General. You shudder and feel that your last day is come, and then you are told that you must send a retainer to the ex-
    130
    Attorney General, who is the only man able to cope with the Attorney General in Court. I say that this ridiculous competition has the effect of raising fees throughout the country, and that a great benefit would be felt on all hands if the Attorney General and Solicitor General were paid less money and were reduced in market value. The hon. and learned Gentleman laid great stress on the evidence taken before the Committee he has referred to; but I would point out that the constitution of that Committee was almost entirely legal. He quoted particularly the opinion of a very eminent man, of whom I desire to speak with great respect; but Sir John Karslake was a lawyer, and, unquestionably, we shall always hear from eminent lawyers the opinion that lawyers are not paid enough. I hope, at all events, although my hon. Friend and myself may not carry the Committee entirely with us, that the Amendment will be pressed to a Division, and that the result of the discussion will be to call public attention to these exaggerated charges, so that, in course of time, this Vote may be placed on a more moderate footing.
    MR. MOLLOY: As a member of the Bar, I rise to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Sydney Buxton) It is three years ago that I made myself a similar Motion, and drew attention to the excessive fees paid to members of the Legal Profession in this House. There is a mystery about the legal element here, which consists of those who have official positions, and those who hope to get them; those who have them support the present payment, and those who have them not, support it because they hope some day or other to get it themselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the Attorney General has to go back to his Profession. I will tell the Committee what the position of an Attorney General is when he has to do that. In the first place, the Law Officers are selected because they are Members of this House, and because of their position at the Bar; naturally those whose positions are not good would not be chosen; the selection is made of men in the highest position. Now, what is the result on the practice of a barrister on becoming Attorney General or Solicitor General. The only result, as far as I can see, is that their clients have to pay

    131
    double fees; and when once lawyers have doubled their fees they never reduce them. But, supposing that they go back to their Profession, their position at the Bar is not in the least degree injured. Surely the position of a man at the Bar is improved by the fact that he has been selected by the Government for the position of Attorney General or Solicitor General; so much therefore for the argument that the private practice of a lawyer is injured by holding either of these Offices. The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of the sacrifice that men in his position have to make. What is the position of the Attorney General and Solicitor General? Why, they become the glory of the whole Profession, and all we who are juniors, and are running about to get bread and cheese, follow them, flatter them, and do all we can to obtain some little appointment—crumbs from the rich man's table in the shape of a prosecution or something of the sort. The position, I say, is one of glory as well as wealth. The Attorney General bids us look on the burdens he has to carry, and he says—" we have to give opinions during the Session and during vacation;" but I ask would not many barristers be only too glad to give opinions every day. I know that I would be glad to do so; but at the present moment I do not give more than one in three months, and then I am sorry to say that sometimes I do not get paid for it. And here again the position of an Attorney General is superior because he has clients who do not fail—they are men who pay—so that the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the burdens on the Office is one that falls to the ground. Then, again, the Attorney General looks to the Lord Chancellorship, and in nine cases out of ten gets it. It is the same with regard to the Irish Office; almost all the Attorney Generals and Solicitor Generals for Ireland who come into this House support the policy of their Party, and their whole aim is the Judicial Bench, where they are always to be found after they cease to be Members of this House. Now, on the ground that no barrister is injured in his Profession by accepting the high and dignified position of Attorney General or Solicitor General, and looking to the fact that it only tends to double his fees, I think that any
    132
    appeal to us to support the enormous payment now made to the Law Officers is one that should not receive the assent of the Committee. When it is remembered that the work of the Prime Minister is paid for at the rate of about £5,000 a-year, and that he has not only to give an opinion once every day, but that the whole of the responsibility of the Government rests upon his shoulders I think we are entitled to say that this Vote ought to be reduced.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: If I understand my hon. Friend aright, he objects to the present remuneration of the Law Officers on two grounds — first, that the holders of the Office make no sacrifice; and, secondly, that they enjoy the advantage of getting double fees. I had not the pleasure of hearing the Attorney General's reply to the hon. Member for Poplar; but I am quite sure he did not put it to the Committee that barristers were placed at any disadvantage by accepting the position of Law Officer. I am surprised, however, at the statement of the hon. and learned Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy), that the Law Officers of the Crown receive double fees. It is certainly the first time I have ever heard that said.
    MR. MOLLOY: I can give a case exactly in point of a barrister who, on acceptance of the Office, gave notice that he could not accept the old fees.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: My hon. Friend seems to think there is some kind of compulsion in the payment of fees; but payment for the services of the Attorney General in no way differs from the purchase of other marketable commodities. I remind my hon. Friend in a very homely phrase that you cannot buy champagne at the price of small beer. I have no doubt there are numbers of gentlemen who would undertake the responsible post of Law Officer to the Crown for a much smaller consideration; but the country has to go into the legal market and buy the best article that can be obtained at the market price. Therefore, if there is a case to be made out by those who oppose this Vote, it must be shown that the Law Officers are receiving higher remuneration from the State than they would get in private practice. I am not going to tell secrets; but I happen to know something of the fees of some of those who have filled the

    133
    position in question, and I can assure the hon. Member that it is not a rare thing for leading barristers in this country to make £10,000 a-year in fees. As long as there are people capable of paying high fees, I think you cannot be surprised if the Government of the day has to pay a correspondingly high price for its legal requirements. But to bring the discussion to a practical point. I very much doubt whether, when the State makes these payments to its Law Officer, it has not the right to require that he should devote the whole of his time to the work of the Office. The work of the Attorney General is increasing year by year and becoming more important. The rule now is one of constant attendance in this House. The Attorney General and Solicitor Qeneral are now compelled to be here during every debate; there is hardly a debate in the course of which some question does not arise on which the Government require to be guided by the Law Officers of the Crown; and I throw out the suggestion that the time has now arrived to consider whether the whole time of the Attorney General and Solicitor General should not be devoted to the service of the country. I cannot support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poplar, because it is not shown that the fees paid to the Law Officers of the Crown are higher than they would receive in private practice.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 155: Majority 98.—(Div. List, No. 271.) [9.55 P.M.]
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I do not want to move an Amendment, or to interpose for more than a minute before the Vote is taken. All I desire is that the Government should give us a little information upon the figures in reference to the "Solicitor, Queen's Proctor, and Director of Public Prosecutions." It will be seen that there is a Director of Public Prosecutions who, I presume, is the same person as the Queen's Proctor, and that he has a salary of £2,000 a-year. He has three assistant solicitors, one principal assistant, six assistants, and then a number of first-class and second-class clerks—two first-class and nine second-class clerks, besides five supplementary clerks. It appears
    134
    to me that this staff is very largely in excess of the requirements of the establishment. We had presented to us the other day a Return showing the amount of work in connection with public prosecutions for criminal offences with which the Public Prosecutor has to do, and from my recollection of the figures given in that Return I can say that there is not nearly so much work in the way of prosecutions undertaken by the Public Prosecutor as to necessitate such an enormous staff as we have here. But admitting that all these clerks, and assistants, and solicitors, and so on are required, what I do not understand, from my examination of this Estimate, is why the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Queen's Proctor, who, as I say, I suppose are the same person, should have, in addition to these assistants and clerks, a sum of £700 in one case and £309 in another case, as appears on page 199, as allowances for clerks. The Queen's Proctor has an allowance for two clerks, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has an allowance of £309 for clerks. It appears to me that these charges ought to come under the charges on the previous page; I do not understand why there should be an additional sum set down afterwards in the Estimates for clerks generally. I just mention these points, and I shall be glad if some facts are given us by the Attorney General to prove that the duties of the Public Prosecutor, like those of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, are so exceedingly onerous that the provision made is not too great; but whether I am satisfied on that point or not, I should like to have an explanation of the additional payments to which I have drawn attention.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I desire also to draw the attention of the Committee to the charge of £1,000 for a solicitor to the Queen's Proctor and the Director of Public Prosecutions in connection with the item of £25,500 a-year under Subhead B on account of criminal prosecutions. Now, Sir, in connection with the expenditure of this money there is a blot upon the criminal procedure of the country which is very little short of scandalous. I mean that in connection with the position of clerks at Petty Sessions in the rural districts of England. According to the Municipal Cor-

    135
    perations Act of 1882, Section 159, justices for a borough have to appoint from time to time a fit person to be their clerk, to be removed at their pleasure, but the clerk to the justices shall not by himself or his partner or otherwise be directly or indirectly employed or interested in the prosecutions of any offender committed for trial by those justices, or any of them, at any Court, or gaol delivery, or Quarter Sessions. That is the rule with regard to the boroughs, but in regard to the rural districts no such rule obtains. You have this situation, that in the Petty Sessions throughout the country you find as magistrates' clerk a man who is a solicitor, who is the legal adviser, who is in reality the legal steam tug of the Bench, and who almost invariably sways the Bench in regard to any question of law.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the hon. Member connects his present observations with this Vote. There is nothing contained in the Vote for clerics to magistrates as far as I can make out.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I think I shall be able to show you, Sir, that my observations are distinctly relevant to the expenditure of £25,500 for criminal prosecutions, &c. The Solicitor and Queen's Proctor is the director of these public prosecutions, and I am speaking of the position of magistrates' clerks in connection with public prosecutions. The point I raise is admitted to be a serious blot upon the administration of justice. What is not allowed in the boroughs is allowed in the country districts, and the clerk to the magistrates, after having caused by his advice the committal of a prisoner, will often be entrusted personally with the prosecution of that prisoner, and the money which is distributed under this Vote goes in part to pay for the services of magistrates' clerks whoso duties conflict with their personal interest, and that is where the blot lies. I know that in one case on the Northern Circuit—I do not think it would be difficult to adduce other cases on other Circuits— the clerk to the magistrates, in collusion or by arrangement with the superintendent of police is, I am assured, secured in a considerable amount of business by reason of the committals which take place at the Court where the superintendent of police is allowed to
    136
    act as prosecuting officer. The superintendent of police acts as advocate in the Court, and the men who are committed by that Bench are prosecuted to the professional benefit of the clerk to the Bench himself. Now when, some little time ago, there was a case of a young girl who was very seriously injured, a private prosecution was instituted; a private solicitor was instructed by the girl to take certain proceedings. The girl herself died, as was suggested, by foul play, and the mother of the girl then instructed the same solicitor to institute a prosecution. The superintendent of the police of the district went down and inquired into the case, and then he and the clerk to the magistrates arranged to secure a public prosecution. Now, in the Act which regulates the duty of the Public Prosecutor—that is to say, the 42 & 43 Vict. c. 22, s. 7, it is laid down that nothing in that Act shall interfere with the right of any person to institute, undertake, or carry on any criminal proceeding. In the case to which I have referred the private prosecutor was practically ousted out of the business altogether. A superintendent of police undertook as far as he could the duty of the Public Prosecutor, and the prosecution was in the hands of the clerk to the magistrates. I am assured that the Treasury Solicitor, that is to say, this very man for whom this £1,000 a-year is asked in this Vote, gets a commission on these transactions from the magistrates' clerks who act on agency terms. I want to ask the Attorney General or the Solicitor General if he can inform me whether any agency fees are now paid? I am credibly informed that the business of criminal prosecution is conducted on agency terms, and that the Treasury Solicitor to the Director of Public Prosecutions attains the commission upon the proceeds of the business. If that is so, I wish the Attorney General to say whether the commission so paid goes into the personal pocket of the Solicitor whose pay is asked for here, or whether it goes into the Exchequer? If it goes into the Exchequer, why is it not shown in the Vote? That is a query I address to the Attorney General; but the point to which I attach much more importance, the point to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Heary James), I know, at-

    137
    taches considerable importance, is that which I first mentioned—namely, the fact that the duties and the interests of magistrates' clerks in rural districts conflict one with the other. It is certainly a very serious blot upon the administration of justice that you should have a man brought up in the first instance before one who practically decides whether the man shall be committed for trial or not, and who is himself interested in the committal of the prisoner. I trust the Attorney General will give the Committee some information upon the points I have raised.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: First of all, let me say a word or two in regard to the supposed allowance of commission with respect to any work which is undertaken on agency terms. As far as I know, there is no foundation whatever for that suggestion. The other matter referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) is one which does require consideration — namely, whether the clerks to magistrates in rural districts should not be subjected to the prohibition to which clerks to magistrates in boroughs are already subjected. I have had communication made to me on this point, and I have called the attention of the Home Secretary to the matter; and I have no doubt that it will be further considered. I have long been of opinion that some such similar restriction ought to be made. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), I think it is right to say that the whole question of this Office of Public Prosecutor is now under the consideration of a Committee. That Committee will inquire as to whether it is necessary that there should be so large a staff, and as to whether the work is being properly done As a matter of fact, the Treasury Solicitor acts for a great many Public Departments. I know he does a considerable amount of Treasury, and War Office, and Admiralty work, work which used to be done by independent solicitors at great cost. I do not think, therefore, that it will be found that the staff is capable of large reduction; but still the matter is now undergoing thorough examination by a strong Committee.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  LABOURERS' ALLOTMENTS BILL.
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Secretary Stanhope, Mr. W. H. Long.)
  LABOURERS' ALLOTMENTS BILL.

    [BILL 329.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I think the history of this Bill is a remarkable one, and is deserving the attention of this House. In the course of the present Session a Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for the Rugby Division of Warwickshire (Mr. Cobb), who has taken great interest in this question of allotments. That Bill was before the House, and on the 16th of May the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) announced that the Government intended immediately to introduce a measure dealing with this subject, and that it would be introduced in the House of Lords. Well, a month elapsed, and no such Bill appeared at all in the House of Lords. The House of Lords has a great many merits, and amongst others it has the merit that it is not an overworked Assembly. We frequently hear, as we did the other night, eulogiums passed on the House of Lords for the manner in which it does its Business, and how little it talks and wastes its time. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes; and why is it, then, that the House of Lords did not see the Allotments Bill in the month of May or the month of June? It is true that an independent Member of the other House of Parliament introduced a Bill on the subject of allotments; but that Bill was quietly and civilly got rid of, and on the 16th of June a declaration was made, I must not say by whom, and I must not say where, but it was to the effect that there was another serious difficulty, which had been alluded to, and that was what Local Authority the powers of the Bill should be entrusted to. In that declaration it was said—
    "If you take the Court of Quarter Sessions, or some Central Body not specially concerned in the matter, it is possible it may deal with it in a perfunctory spirit, and that no active result will follow; but, on the other hand, if

    139
    power be given to a Local Sanitary Body, such as the Board of Guardians, it is taking an optimist view if you think there is not some danger I in the management of local funds, as well as some chance of disturbing the peace of the locality."
    And furthermore—
    "I confess I should have preferred that we had been able to pass our Local Government Bill before we dealt with this question, for I doubt very much whether, with the present organization of the Committee, you can do much with it in the shape of finding a fit authority to administer the measure."—(3 Hansard, [316] 243–4.)
    These were the views on the 16th of June of the Prime Minister as regards an Allotments Bill which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons had said should certainly immediately be introduced into the House of Lords. We have the Leader in one House stating that a Bill would be introduced into the other House, and we have the Prime Minister the Leader of the other House saying that it is impossible to deal with the question at all, and that there are two things which must certainly not be done —the powers must not be confided to Boards of Guardians or Quarter Sessions. And now we have got a Bill which confers the powers upon both the Bodies I have mentioned. That is a remarkable circumstance; indeed, so singular a condition of things requires some explanation. On the 2nd of July —that is to say, a fortnight after this declaration was made—a rather remarkable event occurred—namely, the Spalding Election; and on the l6th of July the President of the Local Government Board, in the face of the declaration of the Prime Minister that there should be no allotments until the Local Government Bill had been passed, introduced a Bill which is founded on the two very principles which were so denounced by the Head of the Government. That is the remarkable history with regard to the progress of this Bill in the present Session. However, we have got the Bill before us—[Ministerial clicers]—and I am very glad of it; and I want to tell you what part of the Bill I am glad to see. Now, the Bill may be divided into two portions—there is the principle of the Bill, and there is the machinery of the Bill. As regards the principle of the Bill, I, for one, am entirely in accord with it; I always have been, in accord
    140
    with it. [Ironical Ministerial dicers.] Oh, yes; have Gentlemen opposite always been in accord with it? Why, it is the great principle of the "three acres and a cow" which we fought out at the Election of 1885. We all remember that campaign. [Cries of "One acre! "] Yes; one acre without the cow. Now, this Bill includes a very important principle to which I venture to call the attention of the House. The principle of the Bill, as I take it, is to be this—that the Local Authority is to have power by compulsion to acquire land for the advantage of the community in letting it out, or otherwise disposing of it to individuals. Now, that is the principle, and that was the principle of the great contest over the "three acres and a cow." Well, on the one side, in favour of the "three acres and a cow," were ranged my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), and last, but not least, my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings), followed at a humble distance by myself and Friends; but the two hon.-Gentlemen I have mentioned had very formidable opponents on that occasion. My noble Friend the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), who, I regret, is not present to-night, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), were the great opponents of the principle of "three acres and a cow." They used very hard language up and down the country of the two hon. Gentlemen to whom I have referred. This was the great charge of Socialism which was brought against my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham; but, happily, we are all Socialists now. This is the very thing that was determined on that occasion. There was one thing, at all events, which we were never to have. Lord Salisbury, speaking at Newport, said — "Whatever you have, you must not have compulsion." That was the one principle which the Conservative Party and a section of our Friends, the Dissentient Liberals, never would listen to at all. Well, now, after the Election of 1885, occurred also a very important event, and that was the celebrated Amendment to the Address moved by my hon Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr.

    141
    Jesse Collings), a most exemplary and innocent Resolution.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: And you supported it.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes; I supported it most heartily. I know, perhaps, as much of the secrets of it as my hon. Friend; but I shall tell no tales out of school. Now, that Resolution declared that facilities should be afforded to the agricultural labourers and others in the rural districts to obtain allotments of small holdings on equitable terms as to rent and security of tenure. The whole of the Conservative Party was up in arms against that Resolution. [Ministerial cries of "No, no!"] Oh, yes; my right hon. Friend the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) represented the Government on that occasion, and he said there was one thing he would have nothing to do with, and that was that blessed word "compulsion."
    MR. CHAPLIN: I never used that phrase.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have extracted the words carefully from a report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech; but if he disavows the words, of course I accept his disavowal. Will the right hon. Gentleman, however, deny that he said that this question was one which ought to be left to the country gentlemen of England to deal with, and that they would deal with it more fairly than any Alderman of Birmingham or any member of the Caucus; and that he said, moreover, that this Resolution— this innocent Resolutiou—of my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham was full of those predatory instincts of a class whose Socialistic schemes had found such powerful exponents in these days, and were adequately represented by the Member for Ipswich — my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham was then the Member for Ipswich — and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) said that the Resolution was full of the predatory instincts of a Socialistic class, and he ended by a declaration I am sure he will not disavow. And it was this—that, speaking for himself and the Government, he said, emphatically, "No" to that Amendment. Well, the Government staked its exist-
    142
    ence upon the rejection of the Amendment, and it fell. The next stage in the history of this very important event is that a few months afterwards my hon. Friend the Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derbyshire (Sir Walter Foster) introduced a Bill which embodied the views of the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jesse Collings). Again, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire came to the front, and said that he would vote against the second reading of the Bill. I, as representing the Government on that occasion, made a counter declaration by saying that we would vote for the Bill. That was on a Wednesday afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire had an ally whom I see now sitting behind me—the hon. Member for the Harrow Division of Middlesex (Mr. Ambrose), and the two of them talked the Bill out. That is the history of that Bill, and on the occasion of the discussion of the Amendment to the Address moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) delivered his views. He was then representing, as I believe he still does, the true and orthodox section of the Liberal Party; and he said that the subject was too great to be disposed of after one night's debate. Well, but we are going to dispose of it now after a debate commencing at half-past 10 on the night of a day well on in August. I always admired the political philosophy of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that the principle of the Bill was one which "reaches deep down into society,'' and he said that the principle against which he was contending was that the State should step in and take the place of the individual. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say that—
    "The position is that it is assumed that voluntary effort has now failed, that the community should come to the rescue, and that we should put on the community at large tasks which I doubt whether the local authorities will be able satisfactorily to perform."
    That was the dangerous principle in the unauthorized programme against which the Chancellor of the Exchequer fought all over the country. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Member

    143
    for West Birmingham (Mr. J Chamber(lain upon the triumph of the unauthorized programme. He said that the right hon. Gentleman had actually succeeded in foisting upon the Liberal Party in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) the unauthorized programme against which he and the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) had fought at the hustings all over the country. He would have none of it: and he said that they would be traitors to their consciences if they did not dare to speak out in the House of Commons against that Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, is never a traitor to his conscience. If ever there should appear a Bill which assumes that voluntary effort has failed, and that the community should come to the rescue, he will now, as he did then, unless he be a traitor to his conscience, denounce such a measure. I do not know exactly whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever been converted, or what is the process through which he has gone on this question. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) was an exceedingly heavy one, as his speeches always are. Well, now, will the right hon. Gentleman turn round now, and ask, is the Conservative Party prepared to adopt the principle of compulsion? As the true and orthodox exponent of Liberal principles, he said — "I want to know since when has this formed part of the creed of the free and general Liberal Party?" The right hon. Gentleman represents the free and general Liberal Party, and he said that compulsion should form no part of the creed of such a Party. "I ask," he said, "what was the date of the conversion of the Leaders of the Liberal Party?" Now, these were the doctrines of the right hon. Gentleman in the year 1886. Upon no possible grounds would he consent that there should be acquisition by the community of lands for the purpose of letting them out in allotments. That was a principle which was fatal to society; and, above all, compulsion should never form part of the doctrines of the free and general Liberal Party. Well, it is very remarkable that on that occasion he (Mr. Goschen) was supported by my noble Friend the Member for Rossendale (The Marquess
    144
    of Hartington). It is generally supposed that what has been called the split in the Liberal Party arose out of the Irish policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone); but it did nothing of the kind. The split of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale, and the Gentlemen who followed him—the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), the noble Lord the Member for Tavistock (Viscount Ebrington), the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Arthur Elliot), the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), Sir John St. Aubyn, Mr. Seely, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Wodehouse), and others — broke off from the Liberal Party, not upon the Union at all, but upon the doctrine of land. It was upon this doctrine of land that the first declaration was made. Well, now, I hope we are not going to see a split in the Party opposite; I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not going to split from his new allies as he did from us. If they have adopted this terrible principle of substituting the community for the individual, if they have adopted the dangerous doctrine of compulsion, I hope he is a sincere convert to these doctrines, and that he will adhere to them. It is very satisfactory to us who have maintained for more than two years this doctrine that it should now receive universal acceptance. Oh, there will be other questions which you have declared you will be traitors to your consciences if you do not denounce — there are other questions which you will give way upon. [Cries of "Two years!"] Yes, for two years. Why, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been converted in 24 hours upon the question of revision of rent. I want to know whether this doctrine of compulsion and this doctrine of substituting the community for the individual have been accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and what are the arguments which induced him to accept now what he denounced in 1886? However, as far as the Bill is concerned, I am very glad all these alarms about Socialism and about jobs and dangers to the ratepayers, and all these terrible fears about compulsion are gone, and that we are

    145
    all agreed. The principles of this Bill are those so long contended for, and so honourably contended for, by the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings), and which, as I say, have obtained our support.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: And stopped there.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon, that is not so. I have pointed out that I not only supported the Resolution of my hon. Friend, but that I supported the Bill drawn upon the lines of his Resolution, and introduced into the House by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derbyshire (Sir Walter Foster). I do not know whether my hon. Friend was here to support the Bill or not, but all I can say is that that Bill which was introduced under the authority of the Allotments Committee of Birmingham, was one for which I spoke, and for which I was prepared to vote within a few months after the adoption by the House of the Resolution of my hon. Friend. Well, then it is very satisfactory that these terrible socialistic doctrines are gaining ground. It is a great thing to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer, sitting where he is, recommending the unauthorized programme to the Conservative Party, and the Conservative Party taking to it as if it were their mother's milk. I may add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) upon the illustrious convert he has made upon this occasion. I now come to an important matter—namely, the machinery of the Bill. I am sorry to see that, agreeing entirely, as I do, with the principle of the Bill, that is with the substitution of the community for the individual, and agreeing also with the compulsion without which the Bill, in my opinion, would be absolutely useless, the machinery of the Bill is very imperfect. This Bill was introduced under the circumstances I have stated by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), who appeared to me to be at great pains to explain how very unnecessary the Bill was because of the enormous number of allotments already existing in the country.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTBOARD(Mr. RITCHIE): I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, that is not a proper interpretation of my speech.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That was the impression produced on my mind. The greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was occupied in showing what a great number of allotments there were all over the country, conveying the impression that there was very little necessity for anything more to be done, and that really this Bill was not very necessary but that he thought he would introduce it. That was the impression his speech made on my mind. He certainly expressed the hope that there would not be occasion to use it, and the whole speech seemed to be inspired with the spirit that we should do as little as possible, and that he would rather not have done anything at all. Well, there are three requisites in a Bill of this kind; first of all that you will have workable compulsory powers. Now, are the compulsory powers here workable? You have, in the first place, the Boards of Guardians, which Lord Salisbury says will disturb the peace of localities. I do not know why, but I think they are not generally regarded as very truly representative bodies, at all events, for such purposes as the Bill contemplates. When we recollect the principles upon which Boards of Guardians are elected it is quite obvious that these terrible Socialistic principles are not likely to find great favour with them. Then the next proceeding is that if the Local Authorities find the proprietors of the land unreasonable they are to appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions, and the Court of Quarter Sessions is to exercise this power of compulsion. It is almost difficult to treat a proposal of that kind as a serious proposal. Does anyone imagine that such an authority as that is likely to exercise the principles of compulsion at all? I will say nothing more than what Lord Salisbury has said of them—namely, "That the Court of Quarter Sessions is an authority who would be likely to deal with it in a perfunctory spirit, and that no real results would follow." Such are the words of the head of the Government which pro-

    147
    duces this Bill. Then, having gone through the Board of Guardians and the Court of Quarter Sessions, it is to go to the Local Government Board, who are to introduce a Bill to carry it out. Can anyone go through the farce of believing that such a measure as this is meant to be worked at all? Perhaps, the fact may allay some of the terrible fears as to the Socialistic principle of the community taking the place of the individual, or as to compulsion that though the principle is admitted the machinery as constructed throughout the Bill will not work. Well, there is a second thing which is necessary—namely, that there shall be provision against extortionate prices. I consider that no measure of this kind will really be of any value unless you have a provision in it that the authorities shall be able to acquire land at a reasonable price; that there shall be no method of swelling prices with which we are familiar under compulsory clauses. Then, there is another thing of very great importance—namely, the prices at which these lands are to be let. It is said there are a large number of allotments already existing in the country. Have the right hon. Gentlemen whose names are on the back of the Bill ever inquired at what prices these allotments are let, or what relation the rents bear to the ordinary agricultural rent? There are hon. Gentlemen sitting behind me who are much more intimately acquainted with this matter than I am, and who will, no doubt, inform the House on the subject, but my information is that in a great number of these cases the rents are double, and very often a great deal more than treble those of agricultural rents. What is the use, therefore, of quoting allotments held on such terms as any mitigation of the necessity for a Bill of this description? Then, again, there is a question as to the extent of the letting. Since the 16th of June the Government seem to have had their attention turned to this point, and they have resolved upon an acre. Now, if the letting is confined to an acre, that will entirely exclude pasture letting, and I am quite sure that is not the wish of my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordosley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings). As a result of my observations I do not distinguish the least in the world between
    148
    a man having a small grass field in which he can keep a cow or a small plot on which he can grow vegetables. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, I happen to live in a district which is surrounded by people who have these small holdings, and who hold them with great advantage. I am extremely sorry that there should be a measure passed which should not afford facilities for lettings of this kind if the nature of the country is such as lends itself to such lettings. Of course I know districts where it is not possible, but on the other hand there are many districts where it is possible the best farm letting you could have would be a pasture field of two or three acres. I think it would be well to leave the extent of the letting to the Local Authorities, who undoubtedly would be the best judges, within reasonable limits, of what should be the size of the holdings. I do not see why it is necessary to restrict the size of the lettings to one acre. These are the observations I have to make upon the machinery of the Bill. I think the machinery of the Bill is totally defective in the multiplication of authorities to which you have entrusted it. I think that is a very grave defect in the Bill. I think that the Bill is also very defective, inasmuch as there is no provision made that land should be acquired at a reasonable rate. That is the second defect of the Bill. I also think, though I am very willing to accept one acre in the Bill, that the letting ought not to be restricted to one acre. I think that if you had a competent Local Authority you might very fairly leave the matter to them with a confidence that they would only let such land as could be used for the advantage of the people to whom it was let. Then what are we to do with this Bill which I think is sound in its principle, though defective in its machinery. I think it is quite clear we ought to vote for the second reading, if only to secure the advantage of the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen). I think it is well the Session should not close without an opportunity being afforded the right hon. Gentleman of showing that without being a traitor to his conscience he is able to approve the principle of this Bill. He is no longer alarmed at the community assuming these duties. He is no longer terrified at the principle of compulsion,

    149
    and you ought never to make the process of conversion too hard and difficult. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is such a promising convert, he has already given up so many sacred principles from which he declared he never could depart, and we will encourage him in that course by reading tins Bill of his Government a second time. But, to say I believe this Bill really will work, that it will ever produce the results at which it is aimed would be to say that which I do not think. I am perfectly certain that so long as you keep this Bill with such machinery as that you have put into it it will never move at all. I do not know whether it is possible at this time of the Session, or whether it is possible at all to amend this Bill so as to give it real life and vitality; but, agreeing, as I do, cordially with the principles of the Bill, I shall take the course on this Bill which I have on all Bills ever produced on this subject— namely, support the second reading of the measure.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), in his concluding words, said he is going to vote for this Bill; but the principal part of his speech has not borne upon the question of allotments at all, but upon the consistency of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think that the right hon. Gentleman, in attempting to convict others of inconsistency, is a sight for gods and men. If the right hon. Gentleman would publish a book entitled "Harcourt on Consistency," it could only be excelled in the extent of sale, and the amount of interest it would create by another book, if it could be written, entitled "Consistency on Harcourt." What is the difference between the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite? The difference is simply this—that the right hon. Gentleman gave pledges and broke them, and hon. Members opposite gave pledges and endeavoured to keep them. I wonder the right hon. Gentleman was not ashamed to refer to the General Election of 1885. He said that this subject was the great principle involved in the General Election of 1885. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, no; and Ministerial cries of "Yes, yes! "] I agree with him.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said the battle was fought upon it.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: That makes my argument stronger. The battle in 1885 was fought upon this question, and it was a great battle, won by the votes of the men whom this question affects. In their innocence they gave their votes to the Party of which the right hon. Gentleman was a responsible Member, on the distinct faith that this question was to be dealt with; but as soon as the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues came into power on the vote of 1885 they threw aside all these considerations, and nothing has ever been done by them. I am sorry, both for the tone of the debates in this House, and for the right hon. Gentleman's political reputation, that there should be such a repitition of the Hudibrastic speeches with which the right hon. Gentleman favours us. I wish that all questions brought before the House were treated more seriously and on their merits, and not from the point of view of that Bench or this. We know that both astronomers and landscape painters tell us that position is everything in regard to the subject; and the position of the seat occupied in this House by Members is everything, it seems to me, to be the view to be taken. Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman alluded to my Resolution in June, 1886. It is quite true that there was another pledge—the strongest pledge, it seems to me, that politicians can give—that this question should be dealt with; but as soon as the question had served as a hobby-horse on which right hon. Gentlemen could ride into power it was kicked away, and nothing more was heard about it. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues would have kept their proceedings of 1886 as much as possible in the dark. As soon as the subject of the Resolution in favour of allotments had served its object it was cast aside, and the then Prime Minister went out of his way to speak of me as a man whose views he never sympathized with. I think there is something due to consistency—that if right hon. Gentlemen ride into power on a particular question they should not immediately kick away the ladder on which they have got into power. I am told that they never meant anything by

    151
    that Resolution—that they meant Ireland, or something else. I have always refused to believe, that I cannot conceive, any lower depth of degradation in politics than for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to accept a Resolution which places them in power, and, at the same time, in their inmost thoughts having no intention whatever of giving effect to it. Therefore, I refuse to believe that of the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues. The difference between the right hon. Gentleman and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are trying to pass this measure is, that the latter may have changed their opinions, but the former have broken their pledges. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby said the right hon. Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin) gave an emphatic "No" to this question; but the right hon. Gentleman himself did worse. He gave an emphatic "Yes" to the Resolution before he got into power, and reserved an emphatic "No" when he was in power. Now, Sir, this appears to me to be the thread going through the speech we have just listened to — that the right hon. Gentleman, and others with him, are very much vexed to think that a Conservative Government is dealing with this question. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to make a point out of the fact that he had supported a Bill on this subject— the second reading of the Bill. He did support the Bill which was introduced last Session, and he seemed to take great credit for it; but to what did that amount? To very little, seeing that while in power, and having the opportunity of doing something, the right hon. Gentleman gave no support to that policy, and it was not until he was out of power that he had endeavoured to advance the interests of the labourors who desire to have allotments.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I was speaking for the Government.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Yes; that makes it still worse; because the right hon. Gentleman, while declining to do what, as a Member of the Government, he could de—namely, introduce a measure on behalf of the Government, satisfied his conscience by voting for a private Member's Bill on a Wednesday afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman can find any justification in that
    152
    very well; but, at any rate, we are not to be blinded by any such form of reading as that. Besides this, what did the Government say on a recent occasion? Why, that they opposed private legislation, because they were going to bring in a Bill of their own. That, surely, is reason enough for any Government to oppose a Bill, or to refuse to support a private Member's Bill if they pledged themselves to bring on a measure of their own, provided they mean to redeem their pledges which, in the present case, Her Majesty's Government have given sufficient indication that they mean to do. Coming to the measure, to me it is a great source of satisfaction, and I believe it is a source of great satisfaction to others who have this question at heart, to find the House seriously engaged on the question of allotments to labourers. For many years past this question has been before us with very little result. I do not think upon this question that either side of the House can reproach the other to any great extent. From the years 1881 to 1885 the question was talked out, counted out, kicked out without any impartiality all round; and it has only been within the past two or three years that it has been taken up and brought within the region of practical politics. There has been one difficulty in the way of making progress with it, and that has been the question of compulsion. That difficulty was introduced by both sides of the House. It was introduced by members of the schools of political economy, no matter on which side of the House they sat; therefore there is no room for any section of the House to cast reflection upon the other for the non-carrying out of this policy. I congratulate the Government, and I think the country will recognize their efforts in regard to two particular points of difficulty— namely, that which was always a difficulty, the question of the compulsory acquisition of the land and the question of the Local Authority for administrative purposes. I think that if we should go to a General Election again I and others who spoke so strongly at previous elections would be ashamed to say anything more about allotments, seeing that since 1885 nothing has been done, and nothing has been attempted to be done, until now; and now I come to the difficulty to which the right hon. Gentleman referred

    153
    as to local government and so on. Every Allotments Bill, or, indeed, any Bill affecting the rural classes, must suffer from the want of that which does not. exist—namely, the want of a good County Authority; therefore;, no Government is to be blamed on that head; but let us admit that the Government has chosen the best authority that exists in the towns. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, take the urban districts. I suppose there is nothing; better there in the way of Local Authority than the Town Council. I do not hear any contradiction to that. Mind you, that is a new idea. I was not intended or brought prominently forward at first that Town Councils in large boroughs should have the advantage of allotments; but the Government has placed that in the front; it has put the matter into the hands of the Town Councils, who, I believe, will use this Bill very largely: and they have also put into the Bill, that as soon as we get those "rural municipalities" — which, we think, according to the pledges given by all sides of the House, cannot be more than another 12 months ahead— those shall be the authority in rural districts. What could they have done move? Those two principles being conceded all other difficulties in connection with this Bill are minor ones. The two principles of compulsory purchase of land, and the Local Authority, so far as administration goes, being put upon one side, all the rest is plain sailing. Of course, we want to amend the methods and the manner by which the principles of the Bill are carried out. We think they are capable of great improvement, and I trust the Government, having admitted the principle, will, though they might rather disappoint other people, accept this Amendment in a generous spirit so as to make the Bill thoroughly effective. The Amendment will affect three things besides minor points. They will provide for setting the Act in motion, so that it may not become a dead letter in rural municipalities—I have no fear of its becoming a dead letter in the urban districts. They will provide for the methods of purchase, and the complement of one acre of arable land which is the three acres of pasture land. Those are the three principal things, and, above all, I hope the Government will determine to pass the Bill this Session. I know the Government will
    154
    pass it if they can; but I trust they will do so, no matter what obstacles or what delays may rise up before them—I trust that, they will pass an Allotments Bill this Session. Time, no doubt, is important, and I have no wish to detain the House. I should not have detained the House so long as I have were it not for those remarkable speeches —remarkable though usual, but never ceasing to be remarkable—from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. I would give anything if I had the twentieth part or even the hundredth part, of the swagger, and that particular element which I leave the House to describe, with which the right hon. Gentleman is so richly endowed. I need not detain the House with anything about the present supply of allotments. All I have to say is that if a district is well supplied the Bill will not be wanted, but that if it is not supplied then the Bill will become operative. If there are so many allotments already existing as some hon. Gentlemen say there are, what does that fact prove? It weakens the contention of those who say that labourers do not care for allotments. Then, bear in mind that this question is now for the first time receiving legislative encouragement. There has been no security for allotments up to now. They have been subject to the high rents of the last year or two, and all sorts of difficulty, and yet, in spite of everything, enormous numbers of allotments exist, therefore proving the pressing character of the demand; besides this, the measure will create a demand to a large extent, for it is a mistake to suppose that it is only the labourers who want allotments. It will be a. great blessing for the urban population, both from an economic point of view and from a Tory point of view. We cannot over-estimate the extent to which in a certain number of our manufacturing towns the workmen, who perhaps have only three or four days work a week in bad times, fill up their time in an economical and even profitable manner on their allotments, and will not only fill up their time and make some profit, but secure a solid addition to their dinner tables. The more we go on this principle the more those allotments are taken up in the country, provided only that the laud will be cultivated, the more we should rejoice. And one other thing I do hope

    155
    from this Bill is that the supply of milk, the want of which in cur rural districts is creating such havoc on the physical condition of the poorer classes, will be increased. There is this danger about it, that the poorer classes in the rural districts have so long been deprived of milk, have so long been accustomed to bring their children up without milk, that they do not any longer realize the danger and the difficulty and proper provision which the want of milk constitutes. I have no doubt that if this Bill is passed it will not be long before that in every village you will find good ample supply of milk, either by a man keeping a cow himself, or by people being able to buy the milk, as they used to be able to buy it in my younger days, at almost a nominal price. I will not keep the House any longer, I am sorry I have kept it so long; but I wished personally to express my gratitude to the Government for having brought on this practical measure. I believe that the agricultural labourers when they have seen through all the blarney which has been talked to them will believe that after all "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush;" and that that which their self-constituted friends proposed in 1885 and 1886, and did not do, they maybe grateful for to Her Majesty's Government. They will remember that the one Party talked so long about this subject, and did nothing with regard to it when they had the opportunity, and that from the other Party they have really got a substantial boon. All this will come out by argument, I do not fear about it, and therefore I trust that the Government, though the Session is late, will persevere and pass the Bill. I must say they are entitled to the thanks of all the friends of the agricultural labourer, and notwithstanding the pressure which has been put upon them from different sides of the House, they have passed Bills of great importance, Bills in which Members are greatly interested, yet they have withstood every importunity, and have dropped other Bills of enormous importance, and have taken up this, I hope with a determination of carrying it through Parliament. I trust we shall pass the second reading, and that the Bill will go through Committee with the improvements which I have indicated. The rural population will then enjoy a great blessing, they will enjoy almost
    156
    the first piece of legislation of a substantial character which has been done for them, and when the advantages of which they have hitherto had no experience will enable them to appreciate.
    MR. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) made such frequent allusion to myself in the course of his opening remarks, that I trust the House will allow me to intervene for a few moments on this debate. I will not waste the time of this House by dwelling on what seemed to me very factious criticism on the part of the right hon. Gentleman on the House of Lords, and the consistency of Gentlemen who sit upon this side of the House—criticism which, coming from the right hon. Gentleman seems to fall exceedingly flat on his audience, and which, I think, has been sufficiently answered by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings). The right hon. Member for Derby criticized the Amendments of the Bill, but he tells us that he agrees entirely with its principle. What is the main principle of the Bill according to him? According to the right hon. Gentleman, the main principle is that land shall be acquired for allotments by compulsion. I take exception altogether to that statement. The principle of this Bill, as I understand it, is to facilitate the provision of allotments for enabling people in this country, if possible, by voluntary agreement, but by compulsion if agreement cannot be entered into. Upon an exceedingly incorrect statement, the right hon. Gentleman charged Lord Salisbury with, inconsistency, and said that, in the celebrated Newport speech, Lord Salisbury declared that he would not, under any circumstances, sanction any compulsion on this subject. That was the second inaccuracy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. Lord Salisbury, certainly had referred to compulsion at Newport, but it was solely in reference to glebe lands. He declared that he could not sanction the principle of the compulsory purchase of glebe land from the clergy, but so far as regards the general question of the compulsory purchase of allotments he said not one word. Then the right hon. Gentleman declared that when the hon. Member who has just sat down moved

    157
    his Resolution in this House, the whole of the Party were up in arms, and that I myself had met it with an emphatic "No." The right hon. Gentleman ought to know that that was his third inaccuracy, for I recollect correcting him on this very subject on a former occasion. I told him then what I should have thought it would have been unnecessary for me to rise now and say, that what I offered an emphatic "No" to was a Motion of direct censure on the Government of the day, and that the whole of the speech I made was so strongly in favour of a large extension of the principle of allotments as any speech any hon. Member of the House could possibly have made. Then the right hon. Gentleman said there should be no "blessed word of compulsion," so far as I was concerned in any measure of this kind, and he gave the fourth inaccurate statement in regard to something he supposed I had said in the course of the debate to which I have alluded. I recollect very well making the allusion to the right hon. Member opposite to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and saying that in dealing with this matter nothing but the "blessed word compulsion" would satisfy them. I never said, for a single moment, that I was not willing to agree to compulsion upon this question. As to what has been said by many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House with regard to the question of allotments, we are all liable to err. Subsequent experience and knowledge of the times than Gentlemen on this side previously hold upon the question—especially after the speech just delivered—have convinced us that the instincts of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham are by no means so predatory as we thought, and we see no reason whatever why hon. Gentlemen on this side should not heartily join with him in the endeavour to pass this Bill. Then, Sir, there was a fifth incorrect charge made by the right hon. Gentleman against me. The right hon. Gentleman declared that I opposed a precisely similar proposal when it was raised in the last Parliament. That is true. I did oppose the Bill introduced in the last Parliament, but what was the character of that Bill? Was it a Bill to facilitate the provision of allotments, and of allotments alone? No-
    158
    thing of the kind. It was a Bill to facilitate the provision of small holdings going up to 40 acres a-piece, the whole burden of the provision of which was to have been thrown on the rates. In consequence of its character, I opposed that Bill, and if it were now brought forward I should oppose it again to-night. Then the right hon. Gentleman charged the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) with having opposed the unauthorized programme of 1885, and of being perfectly willing to accept it to-day. But what similarity is there I should like to know between the unauthorized programme of that day and the modest proposal before the House now. Why, Sir, it is absurd to suppose that there is any similarity. When the right hon. Gentleman makes an unfounded statement of this kind, and when he charges us who sit on this side of the House with inconsistency, it surely would be wise of him to remember what his own record is on that point. He has heard a good deal on that subject already from the hon. Gentleman who sits near me, and I desire to take this opportunity of stating that if there is one man in this House more thoroughly consistent than another, and who has always been so from the first, it is the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham. I recollect perfectly well the first occasion on which he raised this question—on the 20th of July, 1883. What was the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby and his Colleagues who were in power at that time, with regard to the action of the hon. Member? There was not one amongst them who had a single word to say in support of the proposition of the hon. Member, and so entirely did they leave him in the cold that, although they were the Government in power at that time, and were in a position to influence the Business of this House, they allowed the House to be counted out. If I may be permitted to refer for a few moments to the Bill before the House, I would say that I am heartily glad to see that amongst the very first measures apart from Irish legislation which the Government have found themselves able to deal with is this Bill on the subject of allotments. It is a measure undoubtedly of vast interest and of the greatest importance to an enormous number of our population,

    159
    and so far as the working classes of our rural districts are concerned, I know of nothing in the way of legislation that is more likely to confer a real and substantial boon upon them than an Act providing them with facilities for obtaining decent sized allotments of land at a fair and reasonable rent and within a convenient distance of their homes. That I take it to be the object of the Bill now before us; that I take to be the object that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) has in view; and that being so, I can only say that I, for one, subject to Amendments which I think it will be desirable to make in Committee, one or two of which I shall regard as being of considerable importance, am anxious to give it every support in my power. Now, having said that, I hope I may be allowed to offer one or two criticisms upon the measure as it stands. Now, it seems to me that the first thing we have to do and the first thing we have to consider in regard to a Bill of this kind is what is the best and the most satisfactory way of obtaining the object which you have in view. I am quite clear upon one point, that far and away the best means of providing the different classes whom we wish to provide with allotments at the present moment is to induce the landowners or the landlords in a particular locality to provide them themselves. I do not notice any provision in the Bill calling upon the Local Authorities with this object in the first instance. What the Bill provides is this, that the Local Authorities where there is a demand for allotments shall acquire land, if possible, by agreement, and, failing that, then powers are given them to acquire it by compulsion. Well, Sir, I am willing, and always have been quite willing from the first, to accept the principle of compulsion, and I have not the smallest objection to the Local Authorities acquiring land either by agreement or compulsion, if it is absolutely necessary in order to attain the object you have in view. What I have always contended is that these measures should be resorted to only as a last resource. It is far better, in my opinion -—and I do not think there can be a question about this—it is far better, both on the ground of expense and from every other possible point of view, to avoid collision with the landowner or landlord
    160
    as long as you possibly can. As to the machinery of the Bill, the House will observe that the whole of the initiation of proceedings in connection with this measure is placed in the hands of the Sanitary Authority. Well, the Sanitary Authority is, of course, of two kinds. You have the Urban Sanitary Authority and you have the Rural Sanitary Authority. I do not wish to say much about the Urban Sanitary Authority; I am not at all sure that they are not the best body to deal with a question of this kind; but I doubt if this measure is likely to have a very large effect in towns, especially in large towns. It seems to me unlikely, from the nature of the question. I do not think it is likely to have a large effect, and even if it were largely availed of under its provisions, the Urban Sanitary Authority would have to go to the County Authorities before they could bring the compulsory powers into play. But as regards the Rural Sanitary Authority, my objections to the Bill in its present form are more serious. The Rural Sanitary Authority is, of course, the Guardians. The Guardians consist of certain magistrates who are resident in the district and who, as a general rule, I think form part of the Boards, and in addition to these magistrates the Boards consist of farmers. I confess to some apprehension that the Rural Sanitary Authority, as the motive power and as the body having the initiative in this matter, will prove to some extent a snare and a delusion. Why, in the first place, everyone knows perfectly well that the Guardians, as a rule, would be quite as much afraid to do anything to increase the burden on the rates as I was myself last night, and with very much more reason. They well know that under this Bill allotments ought to be self-supporting, and I cannot help entertaining a very grave doubt that the Guardians will be desirous of avoiding everything that has a tendency to impose risk of a fresh increase on the rates, especially at a time like the present. And not only that, but the people who employ the labour of the persons who desire the allotments are not likely to be particularly anxious to afford those persons more facile modes of employment than they have at the present moment. I would like to see this matter gone into very carefully, as I am anxious that this should be made a really effective

    161
    measure. I must say that I should like to see the initiative to a much greater extent placed in the hands of the people who will want these allotments for themselves. I should like to see a certain number of the ratepayers and electors of the district hold a meeting and say to the Sanitary Authority—"We want allotments, and it is your business to move in providing them; "and then, if the Sanitary Authority failed to act upon this requisition, I would give the ratepayers power to appeal to the County Authority. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby just now said— "An appeal to the Quarter Sessions! Why, they are the very last people in the world to facilitate the provision of allotments." I should like to know on what ground he said such a thing as that. Who are the Quarter Sessions? Why, they are nearly all of them country gentlemen, and it is not denied, and it will not be denied by a single Member of this House, that the great majority of these gentlemen have already provided the allotments required by the rural population. If hon. Members will look at the most recent Returns on this subject they will find that though there may be still a large unsatisfied demand in this matter, yet that a great deal has been done already; and it is only reasonable to suppose that the gentlemen constituting the Quarter Sessions will not, when appealed to, hesitate to compel the minority of landlords to do what they have done themselves. And now I would say one word on the subject of the limit of one acre. Some people think that one acre is too small an amount of land to give in the shape of an allotment, whilst others think that it is too large an amount. Now, I sympathize very much with the view of the hon. Gentleman opposite who is anxious to afford facilities to the rural population for providing themselves with milk. Undoubtedly it would be of the greatest possible benefit to afford these facilities; but I honestly confess that, having given some thought to this question, I do not see my way at present to providing by compulsion three acres of pasturage for every cottager. I do not see where it is to be obtained, especially in agricultural districts, where grass land is very scarce. With every sympathy for the view of the hon. Gentleman, it would be dishonest on my
    162
    part if I did not say that I do not see my way to carrying out the plan which he seems to think so desirable I would have limited the allotments under the Bill to half an acre instead of an acre if I could have my own way. I have here a great authority on the matter — the evidence given by Mr. Arch, who was lately a Member of this House, before the Agricultural Commission in 1881. It is quite true that Mr. Arch had strongly contended that if a man was able to do it, and if he had been successful in one allotment, there was no reason why he should not have more, yet on the general ground of what was most desirable to obtain Mr. Arch made this statement; I myself asked him the question; I said with regard to those who must remain in their present position—speaking of the agricultural labourers—
    "I want to know what size of allotment is sufficient in your practical experience to give them a comfortable home and a good garden?"
    His reply was—
    "If I were going to apportion the land out, I should give a quarter of an acre first, and if a man cultivated that properly and made the best of it, I would increase it to half an acre, and if he did not do that he should not have it."
    That is the opinion of Mr. Arch, a representative of the labourers, who knows as much on this subject, I suppose, as any Member of the House of Commons, and I am bound to say that, from any experience I have acquired on this subject, my views upon the matter would be identical. I would call attention to Clause C, which provides that no building whatever shall be erected on a holding. Now, I think that it would be a mistake to pass such a provision. While it might be right to provide that no building shall be erected to be used as a dwelling house or a workshop, supposing a holding is half-a-mile away from a building, surely it would be hard to prevent the labourer from erecting a tool house to hold his spade and other implements without compelling him to carry them to and fro. Then there is nothing that the agricultural labourer looks more forward to and there is nothing that more shows that he is in a prosperous condition than being able to keep a pig, and I think it is very desirable that the measure should permit him to build a pigstye on his allotment. I would ask for information only with regard to one clause more, and that is as to the last line

    163
    of the Bill, which says that the land is to include the right of way or easement. I do not quite understand, that provision, but probably when we get into Committee on the Bill the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will explain what it means. I would now only re-echo the words of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham—namely, that the Government will use every endeavour to pass the Bill this Session.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: When the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) introduced this measure on the 18th July, I had not the pleasure of hearing his speech, but I read it, and I saw that he said this—
    "The Allotment Question has made great progress during the past few years ‥‥ Nearly one-half of the whole number of agricultural labourers in England and Wales have been provided with allotments."—(3 Hansard, [317] 1303–4.)
    The figures he gave to prove this are as follows:—In the first place, he estimated the number of labourers at 800,000, and said that of these the number holding: under one-eighth of an acre was 131,207; the number holding from one-eighth to a quarter of an acre was 103,915; and the number holding from one acre to four acres was 35,036; and his conclusion was "so that if we deduct the cottage gardens, nearly one-half are provided with allotments." Now, Sir, the answer to this is first of all that allotments under one-eighth of an acre are a parody altogether on the word allotment. As has already been pointed out by the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) you have not alone got to consider the 800,000 agricultural labourers, but you have to consider the large urban population which wants allotments every bit as much. The existing 386,513 allotments are probably not more than two-thirds, and possibly not more than one-half occupied by agricultural labourers, and this applies even more to the occupiers of cottage gardens of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. But the right hon. Gentleman said nothing about the prices and conditions upon which the voluntary system meets the wants of our large population. I have taken some pains to inquire into this subject, and I
    164
    only wish that every other Member of the House had done the same—I dare say a great many have done so. I have taken pains to find out, so far as my own constituency is concerned, how many allotments exist there, and what are the conditions under which they are held. I had the honour of addressing the House on this subject during the last Parliament, and I then gave a few figures bearing upon this question. Since then I have collected a great many more. I have Returns from 100 parishes, which I should be very happy to show to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and I find from these that only in 10 per cent of the cases is the price charged for the allotment land the same as the agricultural rent—Imean adding to it the 10 per cent which ought, of course, to be added for local taxation—10 or even 15 per cent. I think it is only fair, as I have already mentioned the names of those noblemen who charge for the allotments they let four or five times the amount of the agricultural rent, to say that in the reference I am now making I have in my mind, as the estates upon which agricultural rents only are charged, those of the Earl of Harrowby and Lord Gainsborough. According to these Returns, on 75 per cent of the holdings the rent charged is more than double the agricultural rent, and in the case of the others the rent goes up to five, six, or even 10 times the agricultural rent. I have a letter here from a labourer. I think I had better not mention names, though the communication is open to any hon. Member who may wish to see it. The writer says—
    "I return you the forms filled in as well as I can gather information, but there is a large quantity of land within the village that is let as garden which was originally let as allotments, but which the tenants have planted with fruit trees, and are now charged from £8 to £10 per acre."
    The price of agricultural land there is from 25 s. to 28 s. per acre. Another letter which I have received discloses a state of things which prevails in connection with a great many of these allotments. The writer says —
    "I have answered the questions as near as I am able to do. There are about as many people here as have no allotments at all, as have got allotments, and you will see that there is a great deal of difference in what the farmers and what the poor pay. We get served bad by our

    165
    landlady. We must not offend in the least or it's out you go! as there is always someone ready to take what is given up. We used to pay more than we do now. The people begin to think now there is some chance of having some land, and they say they know now who their real friends are."
    "We must not offend in the least or it's 'Out you go' "—such are the terms on which many allotments are held; the price is often cruel and unfair and the conditions are those which accompany serfdom, and not those proper to dealings between free men. What we contend for is not the voluntary allotment given by a kind landowner, or by a landowner for political reasons; but what we contend for is the right of every labourer to occupy on fair terms as much of his native soil as he can fairly cultivate by spade culture. We look upon this as a right and as no favour at all. The great fallacy that underlies the argument of the President of the Local Government Board is that as regards price and conditions, he does not make allowance for the fact that voluntary allotments do not at all comply with what we conceive to be absolutely necessary. But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have made an enormous advance in this question of late. It was only in the summer of 1885 that many of us fought our elections on this question of the right of the labourers to allotments, and received for our pains a good deal of what I considered at the time to be unmerited abuse. We were denounced as plunderers and Socialists for preaching as our gospel the right of the labourer to enjoy "a piece of his native land for spade culture at a fair rent." I will not allude to anything that was said by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tewkesbury Division of Gloucester (Sir John Dorington), who was my opponent at that time. I prefer to take as a sample of the attacks made upon us what was said by two hon. Gentlemen who were then, but who are not now, Members of this House. I am not going to trouble the House with long quotations; but I would mention that while spending a little holiday in Yorkshire I had the pleasure of hearing these words by the Hon. Guy Dawnay—
    "He was going to deal with these doctrines, the immorality of which was only equalled by their absurdity and impracticability.…Mr. Jesse Collings's idea of depriving the owners of land of their property—what he called the
    166
    allotment system—was the very worst system that could possibly he conceived for the labouring classes of the country."
    These words were used at Marska, in the Cleveland Division of the North Riding. Mr. James Lowther, on the same occasion, said—
    "They must all have listened with great pleasure to the masterly speech of their Member, Mr. Dawnay, who had shown that he had a complete grasp of this political problem of the land, and who had completely exposed the crude fallacies and untenable balderdash propounded by Mr. Jesse Collings."
    Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House now find very much better language to use towards my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham, and he gives them back very suave speeches. The language he uses now is rather different from that employed by him with regard to Tory landlords at the time of which I am speaking. But I leave him to settle that matter with them—I will not interfere with the harmony of the evening. A great and a happy change has come over the minds of a great many Members, and I am not one of those who desire to throw charges of inconsistency at random about the House. With regard to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), who I am sorry to see is not in his place. I did not like to rise to interrupt him when he contradicted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt); but I have some extracts from the speeches which, were delivered in this House by the right hon. Gentleman, and I should like to be permitted to trouble the House with a few words from these, because we have heard a very flat contradiction from the right hon. Gentleman. According to Hansard of the 26th January, 1886, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin), in the speeeh of "emphatic No!" which he delivered in the memorable debate on the question of the "three acres and a cow," said he was in favour of Lord Salisbury's glebe scheme, but he ridiculed compulsion. He said—
    "Nothing would satisfy them but that word which is of so much blessing and comfort to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham — that blessed word 'compulsion.' "—(3 Hansard, [302] 452.)
    He went on to speak of the proposal of

    167
    Lord Salisbury at Newport as his alternative—
    "If that be done you will find—and this is my answer to the statement of the hon. Member for Ipswich—‥‥ in a great number of the parishes of England land thrown upon the market of just about the right amount, and probably just about the right description, and situated in places such as are requisite and most suited for the agricultural labourers of the country." — (Ibid. 455.)
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Western Division of Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who was—I believe I am right in saying—the Leader of the House at the time, spoke in ridicule of—
    "An attempt to redeem all those wild and astounding promises which were made at the General Election to the deluded agricultural labourer." — (Ibid. 517.)
    Was that right hon. Gentleman a convert to compulsory allotments on the 26th January, 1886? He is reported to have said in The Times' Reports, p. 112—
    "Although there are points connected with that important question of compulsion to which I could not hold out for a moment that Her Majesty's Government would be able to give their adhesion."
    As allusion has been made to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) in the same debate, I will not give the extract; but it is amusing now to recollect the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) spoke in reply. He said—
    "My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Goschen) has promised to vote for them—my right hon. Friend is going to exchange sides; but I do not think he will gain much by the change."—(Ibid. 515.)
    Well, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), on the 31st March, 1886, according to Vol. 2 of The Times, p. 49, made a speech in opposition to an Allotments Bill. He said—
    "Compulsion should be the last resort in its operation, and his complaint as regarded this Bill was that compulsion was the first thing of all others put in the foreground from beginning to end."
    And again he said later on in his speech—
    "What I said was that I did not desire compulsion, but I was not afraid of it."
    That is a great advance on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincolnshire. On the 26th January,
    168
    1886, he ridiculed compulsion; on the 31st March he had got so far that he was "not afraid of it;" and a little later he fathered a Bill which contained a compulsory clause. In a debate upon another measure he spoke of "fine old full-flavoured Tory Resolutions." This right hon. Gentleman who has told us the deep interest he feels in the welfare of the agricultural labourer showed how much he loves them by saying on the second reading of the Technical Instruction Bill that the most effectual reform in educational matters that he knew of, so far as the agricultural interest was concerned, would be that the sons of agricultural labourers, the boys who formerly used to work in our fields, should he allowed to go into the fields at a considerably earlier age than they did now. I do not wonder that an hon. Member on the other side—I think it was the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Elliott Lees)—spoke afterwards of that speech and of another speech or two of the same character delivered on that side of the House as speeches of dead Tory fossils. I hope the Government will not listen quite so much to the advice of right hon. and hon. Members on the other side, who are described by the hon. Member for Oldham in that way, because there are hon. Gentlemen on their side of the House who represent large popular constituencies who know the need for these allotments, who know the hearty desire of the people to have them, and who are not willing to be fettered by the old-fashioned prejudices of the squirearchy. I do not propose at this time of night to go into the details of the Bill. I am going to vote for the second reading for the sake of its principle of compulsory powers, because I thoroughly agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that without compulsion no Allotments Bill will be worth the paper it is written on. I think I have shown that at all events, so far as my own experience goes in my own constituency, the voluntary system has utterly failed. Whoever is charged with the working of the allotment system should have power to take over the existing voluntary allotments, or to see that the rents charged under that system are fair rents. The second great blot, and the greatest blot of all to my mind, in this Bill is its machinery—the bodies to whom the administration of the measure is en-

    169
    trusted. I protest against the proposal to entrust these powers to the Boards of Guardians. "Who are the Boards of Guardians" in the rural districts? Why, they are the farmers of the districts. They are the very men whom Bishop Ellicott advised a few years ago to put Joseph Arch into the pond if he came to their neighbourhood preaching his doctrines. I protest against the Guardians being entrusted with these powers. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board says he dismisses the County Authority because it is not representative. Well, but are the Guardians representative of the poor? If you want to make them so, you must do three things. You must make the elections by ballot, and not by voting papers. You must abolish the property qualification, and you must adopt the principle of one man one vote, in place of the cumulative system. Lord Salisbury, speaking on the 16th June on Lord Dunraven's Bill, objected, as the House has heard already, both to Quarter Sessions and to the Guardians—to the former because he said they would exercise their powers in a "perfunctory spirit," and to the Guardians because they would net in such a way that there would be "danger to the peace of the locality." It is not often that I agree with Lord Salisbury, but I do agree with him in that. If you are going to give allotments with one hand and take them away with the other by handing over to the Guardians the administration of the Bill, I think the effect of the measure will be that which Lord Salisbury has described. As well might you hand over the administration of the Bill introduced by an hon. Friend of mine to provide sites for the building of chapels for Nonconformists to the Bench of Bishops. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite why, when they take up questions of this kind, do they make their proposals such shams? They passed an Agricultural Holdings Bill for the farmers. They put a clause in it at the end making it permissive, and rendered it worthless. The same with your Technical Instruction Bill. You admit the want of technical instruction, and you make a half-hearted attempt to satisfy it. You make your Bill, so far as the large mass of the population is concerned, entirely worthless; you render its benefits available only to a few.
    170
    And now, in the present Bill, you say you want to give the agricultural labourers allotments, and yet you hand over the administration of the Bill to men whom you not only know have no sympathy with the agricultural labourers, but are diametrically opposed to their interests. [Cries of "No, no!"] The Guardians, in 49 cases out of 50, are Tory farmers, and to the tender mercies of these men, forsooth—these elected Guardians, reinforced, whenever a question of property comes up, by all the ex officio Guardians, all the owners of the very property you are to take—you entrust the administration of the law! I submit that if this Bill passes in its present form, and with its present machinery, it will be nothing more nor less than a sham, and will not be worth the paper on which it is written. I appeal to Conservative Members on the other side who do not represent large landed interests— I appeal to Conservative Members on the other side, whom I thoroughly believe to be anxious to promote the interests of the working classes as much as we ourselves—I appeal to them not to let the "dead fossils" of their Party influence the shape which this measure will ultimately bear. I appeal to them to bring their influence to bear upon the Government, and to make this Bill, while they have it in hand, a reality and a blessing to the agricultural poor.
    MR. HULSE: I venture to ask the House to permit me to address a few words in support of the principle of this measure, because, though I am a Member for an urban population, I have passed most of my life in the country, and on an estate and in a district where the practice of granting allotments has existed for many years. I am sure that no one who has witnessed what I have done — the eagerness with which members of my constituency have availed themselves of agricultural holdings secured to them by the good offices of the Mayor of the borough which I represent—will doubt that the working classes, both in town and country, welcome the opportunity of securing for their personal cultivation a piece of land to which they may devote their labour and their skill. On the estate to which I have referred allotments are no new boon. They are not baits thrown out to catch

    171
    the votes of the newly enfranchised. On the contrary, the labourers on that estate have for the last 40 years been able to secure 40 lugs of land, or a quarter of an acre. In. my experience I have never found in urban or rural districts that the granting of allotments has in any way rendered the services of those who have devoted their labour to the soil less valuable to the employers. Nor have I found that they have deserted their work. On the contrary, I have found that in nine cases out of 10 it has produced beneficial social effect. So much for the value of the allotments, both to the employers and the employed. I will now ask the House move especially, if I might do so, to accede to the principle of the Bill that where allotments cannot be otherwise secured the authority of the law maybe evoked to compel landowners to grant them. Compulsion and coercion are terms that we have heard used in this House and throughout the country on many occasions lately. They have been used by various speakers to justify varying ideas; but the allotment system is, I think, a necessity, and one which is felt in very many districts. It is a boon which the quiet, industrious, and law-abiding labourers of England most richly deserve. The importance of this debate cannot be exaggerated, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will not allow anything to prevent this Bill becoming law this Session. I do hope they will see that this first installment of legislation for the agricultural community of this country is carried, because I think the wants and the wishes of that community are quite as much entitled to consideration as those of any other class. By carrying this measure during the present Session a grievance will be abolished; and it appears to me, Sir, that the abolition of grievances is peculiarly the duty and mission of the Party who now occupy these Benches. Two years have elapsed since that memorable night when a former Conservative Administration was defeated, because there was no mention of this very measure in the programme of the Session. I think it will be a triumph that this Party is now to be entrusted with this measure, and with the personal settlement of this once vexed question. The delay in bringing the matter forward was not of our
    172
    seeking. I do not think Her Majesty's Ministers can be blamed for not bringing this matter forward earlier in the Session. The state of Ireland, and the time demanded by Irish Representatives, prevented this and many other measures of social and domestic reform receiving the attention of the House; but I can assure the Government, and I hope I shall not be considered presumptuous in doing so, that they will receive the cordial and enthusiastic support of hon. Members representing not only rural, but urban constituencies as well, if they will use their influence for the passing of this Bill during the present Session, and I look forward with confidence and interest to yet other measures for relieving the agricultural and the farming classes from the result of that depression, and from those incidents of taxation from which they are alike suffering. Some reference has been made—I think it was by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt)—to one of the details of the Bill which can scarcely commend itself to the favourable notice of the municipal boroughs of England, for they will naturally prefer that their own Corporation, whom they elect and control, should have the power of setting this Bill in motion, and of determining all questions as to ways and means. In my own constituency, to which I have already referred, the working classes, through the intervention and the efforts of the Mayor, have secured very valuable plots of land for allotments. But, on the other hand, I fully admit that there should be a multiplication of authorities with powers of purchase. I hope the Members of Her Majesty's Government, when formulating their scheme for county government, may be enabled to secure the due representation on the County Boards of the various Municipal Corporations in the county area. It may seem strange that upon this occasion—the first upon which. I have addressed the House—I should have ventured to intrude myself upon the notice of the House on a subject in which my constituents are but slightly interested, yet I thought the House would accord me their indulgence while I made these few remarks, because I know from personal observation the very great benefits of the allotments system in town and country, and because I feel that any measure which directly or in-

    173
    directly gives the working classes, whether ill town or country, increased interest in the land must be beneficial as tending to point out to them by personal experience how great are the dangers and how heavy are the responsibilities to those who seek to cultivate the land for profit and support. Such a measure as this will also, I think, prove to the labourer that the price of produce must have some influence and some weight in regulating and fixing the wages paid to him and his class; and it will, I hope, open his eyes to the great danger of foreign competition, and also to the wisdom and necessity of encouraging and increasing, as far as possible, the home supply of food. I hope hon. Members will forgive me for venturing to take up their time; and, in conclusion, I repeat my appeal to Her Majesty's Government to leave no stone unturned, to use their best endeavours to secure, during the present Session, the addition of this very valuable and most useful, and most essential measure to the Statute Book.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I can assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hulse) that Her Majesty's Government will most certainly use their very best endeavours in order to pass this Bill. I trust we may rely upon the assistance of both sides of the House to accomplish that result, and, in passing, I hope I may be allowed to congratulate the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hulse) both on the temper, and the form, and the substance of the speech which he has just delivered. The Government will not only do their best to press forward this Bill, but to give effect to it. The hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Winterbotham) spoke of this Bill as a sham. I prefer to take in this matter the opinion of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings), who is, I think, a greater authority even than my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester upon a Bill of this kind, and in the judgment of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham this is a Bill which well deserves the support of the House. Now, I shall leave the criticism upon the various suggestions which have been made with regard to the details of this Bill to my right hon. Friend the President of the
    174
    Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) who is in charge of the measure, but I trust the House will give me its indulgence for a few moments, if I intervene in this debate, to reply to the challenge made to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). I think I almost owe it to the House to reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I have a kind of feeling that he rather likes personal questions, as he forces them on, on every occasion he can, and I had n profound conviction which has not been falsified by the event that when he was so pressing to have the Bill brought on at an earlier hour it was because he had got a great speech ready in which he was going, not to discuss the advantages which would result to the agricultural labourer from this Bill, but in which he would be able to pose, after his manner, as the Representative of consistency in this House, while charging other Gentlemen with every inconsistency. I am afraid I am bound to waste a minute or two of the time of the House in replying to the right hon. Gentleman, and I only trust his example will not be followed by any other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Cirencester spent a very large portion of the time which he took up with his speech in an account of personal considerations, and apologized when he came to the details of the Bill. After consuming a considerable time with personal questions, he said —''Well, I think I ought to say a few words upon the details of the Bill." It appears to me it would be better to discuss the Bill itself than to discuss the previous declarations of other Members of the House. I am prepared to meet the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. He takes a deep interest in the natural history of my alleged conversion, and so he is anxious to know what can have induced me to be converted upon the principle of compulsion which is introduced into the Bill. He asks whether I have been converted upon 24 hours' notice. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that if a man has held principles for two years, he has held them for a very long time. According to the standard of the right hon. Gentleman, if men adhere to views for two years together they may be considered consistent politicians.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said this question was started two years ago.
    MR. GOSCHEN: This question was started in 1883. In 1883 this question was brought before the House, and the right hon. Gentleman, who was then in Office, allowed the House to be counted out. In 1885, during the Election, he was a convert to the system, and a warm and enthusiastic convert; but when he came into Office again, as has been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham, the question was dropped. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, no!] Now, I will be perfectly frank with the House on this subject. In the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded I stated my objection to the principle of compulsion. I stated that I thought it was far better that individuals should continue to perform their duties than that they should be compelled by the State to perform their duties. I hold that opinion still. If in this Bill there is the principle of compulsion, and if I have assented to it as a Member of Her Majesty's Government, I bare assented to it because it is impossible any single Member of the Government can carry out his own views upon every possible question, and not because I have been converted with regard to the principle. I am not one of those who can use such a canting phrase as to say they have found salvation. I do not wish to minimize the views which I hold, but right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and all hon. Members of the House, must know that it is perfectly impossible that every individual can carry his views in every possible respect. I bow to the decision of the House in general, to the views of hon. Members who sit upon this side of the House, and who are in favour of the principle of compulsion, and I believe they will prefer that I should boldly stand here and say I retain my individual opinion in regard to the principle of compulsion, rather than that I should profess to be converted under the exigencies of the situation. It appears to me that is a more honest and fair way of dealing with the House than to profess sudden conversion. At the same time, I have never been otherwise than favourable to allotments in themselves, though I may differ from some hon. Members as to the best
    176
    method of multiplying them. Now, what happened when the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham introduced his measure relating to small holdings and allotments? In the speech which I made on that occasion, I expressed the opinion which I hold to this day, and which I am glad to see embodied in the Bill before the House— namely, that the promotion of the system of allotments is of the greatest possible interest to the agricultural labourer, and to the agricultural interest generally. I declared my adhesion to the principle of allotments, and I said I believed, as I believe now, that all the evidence was in favour of the extension of that system. One of the very reasons I gave against compulsion was that the process of giving allotments was going forward at a great pace. The voluntary system was at work, and was working, I do not say with sufficient rapidity, yet with considerable rapidity. I trust that the time may not be far distant when every labourer will have an allotment, though I think that the principle laid down by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester is somewhat dangerous. The hon. Gentleman says it is not a question of expediency that every labourer should have an allotment, but it is a question of right. Now, considering how agricultural labourers may multiply, I should like to know how right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who cheered the sentiment that every labourer has a right to an allotment, are afterwards, with the limited land at their disposal, going to carry out the principle they advocate? It is the desire of the House—it is the desire of both Parties in the House—that every agricultural labourer should, if possible, have an allotment, and this Bill is honestly intended to carry out that object. I have frankly told the House I am not in favour of the principle of compulsion; but, having accepted it in this Bill, I, as well as every other Member of the Government, am anxious that this Bill should not be a sham, but should be a reality, and that every agricultural labourer who looks forward with hope to the legislation which we are now passing may not be disappointed in his hope. The Government will be prepared to accept every suggestion or modification which, in their judgment, will give increased facilities and increased efficiency to the

    177
    Bill, which they propose with a great and deep desire that it may be effectual in meeting the desire of the agricultural classes for allotments.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, we are sorry on this side of the House that we have not had a more definite and explicit statement of conversion from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He states be is still opposed to the principle of compulsion. I should like to know how many of his Colleagues are opposed to it? He accepts this Bill as a matter of expediency, and not of principle, and he dismisses the right of agricultural labourers to allotment of land on the ground that they may multiply.
    MR. GOSCHEN: No. I said I did not admit the right—I admitted the expediency.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: The right hon. Gentleman admits the expediency, and denies the right because they may multiply.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I am sure the hon. Gentleman has no wish to misrepresent me. I pointed out that if you once admit the right of an agricultural labourer to a certain amount of land, in the future, as they multiply, you may find it is absolutely impossible to meet the demand you admit.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: As to the agricultural labouring classes multiplying, it is well known that during the last 20 years they have rapidly decreased, and decreased to the extent, as I stated in a previous debate, of 30,000 a-year. I therefore think the contingency the right hon. Gentleman seeks to put before the House is not a contingency we need entertain. Now, I am very anxious that this Bill should not be a sham. I regret that in its present form it is likely to end in a sham. I shall vote for the second reading, not because I think the Bill is worthy of the Government which has introduced it, or worthy of the support given to it by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings), but because I hope in Committee the Bill may be so amended that it may end in a reality. There are three or four points in connection with this Bill to which attention ought to be directed. First of all, I regard the Bill as extremely unsatisfactory on account of the nature
    178
    and the size of the allotments it is proposed to give to the agricultural labourers. It has been contended by many people who have devoted a good deal of time to this matter that one acre of arable land or three acres of pasture land are the complements of each other, and that no Allotments Bill will be satisfactory which does not provide for three acres of pasture land. My hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham spoke very properly and wisely of the necessity of providing milk for the children of the agricultural labourer. Milk is one of the prime essentials to the health and growth of a peasantry; but at the present time the English peasantry are deprived of it. Where in this Bill does my hon. Friend find a provision for giving the agricultural labourer milk? One acre of arable land will not do it, and three acres of pasture land, which would give it to him, are not in the Bill. Then as to the size of the allotments. I desire to call hon. Members' attention to the fact that the Bill says the maximum allotment is to be an acre; and the Government do not contemplate—if I may judge from the words used by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) in introducing the Bill—that labourers shall get anything like that extent of land to cultivate. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board pointed out that of the 386,000 allotments existing in the country 250,000 are under a quarter of an acre; and he said—"Probably the size of the great bulk of allotments under this Bill will not be greater than this quantity." Why, a quarter of an acre of land is not sufficient to alter the social and material condition of the agricultural labourer. We want them to have something that will aid them in increasing their scanty means and give them more comfort and food; therefore, any Bill which does not provide for a greater allotment than one acre, and which contemplates, in the opinion of those who introduced it, a quarter of an acre, is not a satisfactory conclusion to the great controversy which has been going on for so long a time. Then with reference to the Compulsory Clauses of this Bill. I cannot discuss them at any length. That is rather work for the Committee stage; but I may say that the Compulsory Clauses are cumbrous,

    179
    and absolutely unworkable. By the time the agricultural labourer has grown old the necessary scheme will be passed through this House for giving him the allotment he applies for, at any rate, a very considerable time will elapse before the agricultural labourer applying for an allotment under this Bill will be able, in view of these unworkable clauses, to obtain one. Now, land will be purchased under this Bill, not, as was contemplated by my hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) in his Bill, at a price as between a willing vendor and a purchaser in the open market, but by some scheme of agreement or arbitration, which will add considerably to the purchase money, and thus necessitate an increase of the rent required from the labourer. I do not want to discuss this Bill at any length; but as I was in charge of the Bill in the last Parliament —the Bill of my hon. Friend—I may here distinctly repudiate on behalf of the Allotments Association and the gentlemen with whom I act in this matter, and acted then, any charge as to unfairness or breach of faith on the part of the then Government. We received most valuable assistance from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). He spoke in favour of our Bill, and he promised us the support of the Government to get it carried, and we should have carried the second reading on that day, -when my hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) was, unhappily, absent from the House, from causes to which I will not refer, but for the action of certain Gentlemen who now sit upon the Ministerial Benches. This, Sir, is known not only to the House, but throughout the country; it is well known that the then Government were perfectly willing to support the Bill, based as it was upon the lines and embracing the principles of the Amendment of my hon. Friend to the Address in the last Parliament. I hope this Bill will be carried; and let me say that we have seen some notable examples of progress in this matter. We have seen the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) go through three stages of conversion. I have watched him advance with considerable interest. He was cool on the first occasion that my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham
    180
    moved his Amendment to the Address; he got a little warmer afterwards when discussing the second reading of the Bill I introduced, but now he has become quite warm in favour of allotments. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I actually moved the rejection of the hon. Gentleman's Bill. I do not know whether he calls that getting a little warmer in its favour.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I did not refer to the right hon. Gentleman's action in moving rejection of the Bill of which I had charge. The warmth to which I referred was his warmth in reference to doing something for the agricultural labourer in the shape of allotments, and I congratulate him on having a much higher opinion of Mr. Joseph Arch, now that gentleman is out of the House, than he had when he was in the House. Mr. Joseph Arch described the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman introduced as not worth the paper it was written on. I have no doubt if he were here he would be able to take care of himself; but, in his absence, I venture to call that fact to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. We wish for reform, and, looking at the matter from the point of view of the agricultural labourer, for whom we are more or leas able to speak, we congratulate the Government on their conversion to the principle of compulsion. I wish they had been converted more generously, and had accepted the principle more largely. I can, however, understand why they do not accept the principle more generously. It was only in the last debate upon this question of allotments that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board—the Member for Devizes (Mr. Long)—distinctty affirmed that in nine cases out of 10 where labourers wanted allotments, and where the land was suitable, they could get them at a fair rent. I can quite understand Gentlemen who utter and believe such a sentiment when it suits them are not very anxious to make the Compulsory Clauses of this Bill as wide and generous as they might be.
    MR. BROADHURST: We have witnessed to-night a very extraordinary performance on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr.

    181
    Goschen). He rose, professedly agreeing with this Bill, and expressing his determination, so far as it was possible for; him, to see that the Bill was passed this; Session. But, before he sat down, he made it perfectly clear he was opposed to the only part of the Bill which is of the least possible value to the labourers, and that is that part of the Bill which affirms the principle that compulsion j shall be applied if necessary to provide the labourers with allotments. It is a most extraordinary position which the right hon. Gentleman occupies upon this question. He strongly opposed compulsion, when he thought there was no question of the expulsion from Office of the Tory Government; but when it is necessary to support compulsion in order to retain the Tory Government in Office he supports it. A more extra-ordinary confession of weakness and want of consistency has seldom been witnessed in the House. Then, as to the complaint of the late Government in respect to this allotments question, the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Coliings) can scarcely remember the facts of the case when he brings this serious charge against his late Colleagues. The Government of the day did all they could to support the Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby made a strong speech in support of it. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh, but surely we have our recollection, and the opportunity of refreshing our memory of what occurred. I remember distinctly that the right hon. Gentleman did make an earnest speech in support of the second reading of the Bill, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who rose as champions of the cause to-day are those who on that occasion defeated the Bill by talking it out on a Wednesday afternoon. I confess 1 was rather surprised at the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham in support of the Bill. True, its aim and proposal is to provide allotments for labourers, but I remember that the great point of my hon. Friend in this class of legislation was not so much allotments as small holdings. He, times out of number, declared that legislation of this kind would altogether fail unless it provided for small holdings of from 20 to 60 acres in extent.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but indeed I never said anything of the kind, or anything like it. I have always said that allotments are quite distinct from small holdings.
    MR. BROADHURST: I shall avoid, if possible, drifting into that very painful position we were in the other night with reference to the truth of statements made by one or the other Member of the House, but I am sure my hon. Friend will scarcely maintain his denial if I remind him of many conversations we had on the subject before the Bill saw daylight in this House. He supports the main proposals of the Bill to-night, amid the unanimous cheers of that side of the House, which I could not help contrasting with the noises and interruptions from that side which accompanied his speeches a few years back——
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: From this side, too.
    MR. BROADHUEST: I cannot congratulate my hon. Friend on the changed relations between him and the Party opposite. His mind to-night was running on the lines of his original proposal. In sentence after sentence he spoke of the importance of milk as if this Bill were going to supply milk to the agricultural labourers. Sir, there is no provision to provide the proverbial pigeon's milk to those who were once his friends in the agricultural districts. He was rebuked somewhat by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and warned that relying on his deep and earnest friendship he must not presume to return to his doctrine of three acres and a cow, or he would again find the right hon. Gentleman his foe. That was the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, if it had any meaning in it. What is the value of the Bill except the one principle it proposes to establish of compulsory acquisition of land? The right hon. Gentleman defended the provision of Quarter Sessions as a very proper institution as a Court of Appeal in matters of this kind, because country gentlemen are friends of allotments. But if country gentlemen are the advocates and friends of allotments, whence the necessity for this Bill? Why have they not provided these allotments?
    MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member will excuse me—I said the majority of them.
    MR. BROADHURST: Oh! the majority of them. Well, I very much doubt it, and take the liberty of differing with him as to a body of gentlemen with whom, of course, he is much better acquainted than I am. But there is greater proof regarding their general relations to the labourers of the country in the possession of hon. Members of the House other than the right hon. Gentleman. Do labourers approve of Quarter Sessions as the appeal on the Allotments Question? Will you go to your constituents and assert there in the face of a meeting of agricultural labourers that Quarter Sessions is the institution of all others that to which the friends of the agricultural labourers would surrender them, they having been through all time their advocates and defenders? For all I know, the gentlemen who constitute Quarter Sessions may have undergone a conversion as sudden as that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He undergoes a conversion in the course of a few hours, and of course we cannot say but Quarter Sessions are equally susceptible to similar influences. If it be so, I am glad to find it so, for better late than never. I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill thinks of a provision that, as I read it, would load to this extraordinary result. Town Councils would, under certain conditions, have to go to Quarter Sessions to ask permission of Quarter Sessions to put the machinery of the Bill in force. Will the hon. Member for the Bordesloy Division go to Birmingham and tell the Town Council of that town that it is their duty to acknowledge the superiority of Quarter Sessions; that they must bow to their footstool? Will he undertake to make such a recommendation to the Town Council? We know the opinion of Quarter Sessions respecting members of Town Councils. I was reading only a few minutes back the references of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford to the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham, whom he called a Birmingham Alderman presuming to understand about allotments and agricultural affairs. What a lovely change of atmosphere in the relationship of the parties to-night! Now the Bir-
    184
    mingham Alderman is a wise statesman, the apostle of truth and reason, and, having abandoned all his Socialistic proposals and dangerous intentions, is admitted a repentant sinner into the camp of Quarter Sessions. I hope my hon. Friend may not live to regret the day when he was received into this distinguished company with such general acclamation. But I will not detain the House at greater length. [Cries of "Time!"] This is quite a new practice, so far as I understand, that Bills of this importance are to pass through their second reading under constant and irritating calls of "Time" from hon. Gentlemen opposite. When they have had a longer experience of the House, they will learn, perhaps, that debates on the second reading are not always loss of time, but facilitate the future progress of the Bill through Committee, and on a measure of this importance we claim to express our opinion, and to tell the House and the country our reasons for objecting to some of its contents, our reason for asserting that the Bill is, to a great extent, a sham, and only admits the bare skeleton of the principle on which it should be founded. I am afraid I might be out of Order if I were to say it is merely the building of a platform for speeches during the Recess to agricultural constituencies. We fear, and we have reason for believing, that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to press this measure forward through Committee, and make it law this Session. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, I do not take the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as an authority; he no more likes the principle of the Bill now than he did 18 months ago; but he accepts the Bill as an alternative to leaving Office. I value very little the friendship towards the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer under such circumstances. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman, who is responsible, whether there is a 6erious intention of pressing the Bill forward, or whether we are only having a debate to-night for the purpose of "marking time," and to give the Government the opportunity of claiming in future elections the credit of good intentions, and to talk of the wonderful things they had intended to do if they had had the opportunity, and the Oppo-

    185
    sition had allowed the Bill to pass without debate or criticism though its second reading? There is only one section of j the Bill to which I will now refer, and it is a matter in which hon. Members who know anything of it will agree with my objection. I refer to Subsection 5 of Clause 6. That section prohibits the tenant of an allotment from erecting any building whatever. If that is to be the case, then the Bill will be a great sham — indeed, a perfect delusion, and absolutely useless. It could only have been proposed by people in utter ignorance of the whole question, and the interest of the tenant of the holding. You render it utterly impracticable and useless to the labourers who are to obtain allotments under this Bill. No allotment of three-quarters of an acre, half an acre, or a quarter of an aero situated half, or even a quarter of a mile, from the cottage of the cultivator will be of use if it is to be held without the right of erecting a shed of any kind, not to speak of a pigstye or shelter for a donkey or pony. How is the cultivator to carry backwards and forwards all the implements necessary for the successful cultivation of his small holding? Where can he store his seeds, and many other things required in his daily work? Where can he retire in stress of weather? What encouragement is given him to spend time on his holding if, when, he gets there, he has not an inch of cover for himself and the implements he may require for cultivation? I hope this clause will be amended. I shall place Amendments on the Paper, having the object in view of permitting, under certain conditions, the erection of some kind of building or sheds for the purposes I have indicated upon holdings of this description. We know that the allotment system is most successful when the land adjoins the cottage in which the cultivator lives. This is well known to anyone with experience of allotment or garden cultivation, and if a man is not allowed to erect even a store shed, then the thing is altogether absurd, and a sham. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept an Amendment in that direction. If he does, so far as I am concerned, although the Bill requires amendment in other directions, still I shall vote for the second reading tonight, in so far that it asserts a just and important principle, and I sincerely
    186
    hope there will be no Division against this stage.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) has asked me very pointedly whether the Government have an intention to pass the Bill through all its stages this Session? I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking?
    MR. BROADHURST: Yes.
    MR. RITCHIE: Then he must have heard my right hon. Friend say most distinctly that the Government intended to use all their influence to pass the Bill this Session. But the hon. Gentleman does not believe the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he opposed a Bill—
    MR. BROADHURST: I should be sorry to be open to the charge of having expressed any want of belief in what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. What I said was that I should require an assurance from some other authority, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman was opposed to the main principle of the Bill.
    MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Gentleman puts a very pointed question to me, which has been previously answered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To that answer he makes reply that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to the Bill. If that does not imply that he places no reliance upon what the right hon. Gentleman said I do not know what language means. The hon. Gentleman need have no apprehension. The Government have introduced this Bill with the full intention of pushing it forward into law, and they will welcome the assistance of the hon. Gentleman, or any other assistance that will conduce to that end. The Government are grateful for the promises of support from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I must say some of the promises of support were rather of a halting nature, mixed up with a great deal of criticism, and mainly criticism not of the Bill, but of what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are pleased to call the inconsistencies of Members of the Government who promote the Bill. [Cries

    187
    of "No, no!"] Well, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) and the hon. Member for the Cirencester Division of Gloucester (Mr. Winterbotham) were,above all others, loud with charges against Members of the Government for inconsistency.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: The only Member with whom I concerned myself was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and he is not a Member of the Government.
    MR. RITCHIE: I think the hon. Gentleman had something to say of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his change of opinion.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: No; I had not.
    MR. RITCHIE: I am bound to say that of all hon. Members of the House the charge of inconsistency comes with the least grace from the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen I have mentioned. Certainly, if a knowledge of the art qualifies Gentlemen to criticize action of this kind I must acknowledge the claim of those I refer to. I fancy the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby might have a few not very pleasant things said of them as to their want of consistency in many matters. Well, the great brunt of the attack of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend can defend himself much better than I can; but I say this of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he could not say for himself, that there is no man in the House or the country less open to the charge of inconsistency. No man has made greater sacrifices for the sake of consistency than the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not going to waste the time of the House in referring to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, three parts of which was a wrangling on consistency and demonstrated his want of it; I will take advantage of the few minutes wherein I can trespass on the attention of the House at this late hour by dealing with a few of the criticisms addressed to the Bill itself. The right hon. Gentleman
    188
    the Member for Derby attacked the noble Lord at the head of the Government (the Marquess of Salisbury) for saying something which he did not say. He attacks my noble Friend for having, as he said, said in a speech in the House of Lords that the Government had no intention of proceeding with a Bill of this kind until the new Local Authority had been set up. Now, my noble Friend never said anything of the kind. He undoubtedly did say—I understood him to say, and it is what we all say—that it would be far better to set up the new authority before introducing this Bill. He criticized certain of the authorities who might have charge of the carrying out of the Bill, and he went on to say— "It would be much better if we could set up the new Local Authority." Well, I believe we most of us would agree in that; but my noble Friend never said a word to induce the House to believe that there was no intention of introducing this Bill. He said—"I am not going to say what the Bill of the Government will be;" and he pointed out distinctly that the Government intended to introduce a Bill on the subject, and have not Members of the Government in this House repeatedly said again and again that the Government did intend to introduce the Bill? It has been our intention from the commencement of the Session, and we have never departed one hair's breadth from that determination.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that what Lord Salisbury said at the end of his speech was—
    "I confess I should have preferred that we had been able to pass our Local Government Bill before we dealt with this question; for I doubt very much whether, with the present organization of the counties, we can do much with it, in the shape of finding a fit authority to administer the measure."—(3 Hansard, [316] 244.)
    I cannot find in Lord Salisbury's speech at that time—16th June—any indication whatever of an intention to introduce this Bill.
    MR. RITCHIE: Not a word the right hon. Gentleman has quoted is inconsistent with what I have said. Distinctly my noble Friend, and all of us, thought and said it would be better to deal with local government before introducing a Bill on allotments. In the first part of that speech my noble Friend

    189
    speaks distinctly about a Bill the Government had; and at that time there was a Bill the Government intended to introduce.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Why did you not introduce it in the House of Lords?
    MR. RITCHIE: Because we thought, on consideration, that it was better that this House should deal with it first. Bills were being constantly passed through the House of Lords, while in the House of Commons they were blocked. We thought that a Bill introduced in the House of Commons had a better chance of passing this Session than if it were introduced in the House of Lords. That is the sole reason why we thought it better to introduce the Bill in the House of Commons. It is now before the House, and has been freely criticized. In the first place, the machinery for the Bill has been very much questioned — the authority for putting the Bill into force. The hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Winterbotham) was hard upon us for adopting the authority of the Board of Guardians. I will not repeat what he said, but he expressed his entire and utter want of confidence in the Boards of Guardians as the machinery for putting the Bill into operation. But he did not tell us what machinery he proposes.
    MR.WINTERBOTHAM: The Vestry.
    MR. RITCHIE: Well, I should have thought of all the authorities possible to set up the least efficient authority would be the Vestry. What has been done in recent legislation in reference to Vestries? Has it not been the policy of recent years to take away from Vestries the power they have in dealing with such things as water and sewage and other matters, giving the power to larger authorities, Boards of Guardians in rural districts, Local Boards in urban districts? The whole policy has been to limit, not to extend, the area of the Vestry authority. And let me tell the House the constitution of the Vestry has that fault which the hon. Member found with the Board of Guardians—their election is not by one vote one man, but by plural votes, the same as the Guardians; and a body more likely to be interested, more open to the influence of the landowner, and adverse to the interest of the labourers, it is impossible to conceive. Since when
    190
    has the hon. Member for Cirencester changed his mind on this point? I have here the Bill of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham, and I think I shall find on the back of it the name of the hon. Gentleman. Yes; I do. And what is the authority set up in this Bill of the hon. Member for Bordesley? The Board of Guardians! Sir, the hon. Gentleman actually put his name on the back of a Bill which in his view was a sham!
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman; but may I point out that when I put my name on the back of the Bill, and when I spoke in support of the second reading, I was careful to say that I supported it on account of its principle of compulsion, but that I differed from it in regard to detail and machinery.
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes; but what the hon. Member said to-night was that the setting up of the Board of Guardians into an authority converted the Bill into a "sham," so that the hon. Member is, at least, convicted of this inconsistency— that he gave the great authority of his name to a Bill which, in his opinion, set up machinery which would render it a sham. Now, what are these Boards of Guardians? They are the authorities who transact the whole business of local government in rural districts. They have complete control over all matters of local concern within the rural districts; and yet you would say that for a purpose of this kind—a minor purpose of this kind—you have no confidence in the body to whom you entrust all the machinery for governing your rural districts. It may be true that there ought to be some reform in our Local Bodies there and elsewhere. I do not say that the Boards of Guardians are incapable of reform. Perhaps when I have the honour of bringing forward the Local Government Bill, hon. Members will see that I think the Boards of Guardians are capable of some reform; but I should be sorry to say that, constituted as they are, they are not entitled to our confidence, and are not entirely capable of carrying out the powers which we propose to confer upon them by this Bill to the entire satisfaction of the rural communities. But the Boards of Guardians are not the only authority who have to carry out this Bill. There are the Town Councils and the Urban Boards in each dis-

    191
    trict. An hon. Member—I forget who it was, but I rather think that it was the hon. Gentleman himself—criticized the figures which I gave in connection with these allotments when I introduced the Bill. Well, he has in no way attempted to disprove the figures which I then gave; they were correct; but the hon. Member said that I only took into account the number of the agricultural labourers. I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I distinctly said that, in my opinion, it was a mistake to suppose that it was only the agricultural labourers who were interested in this matter, and that, in my opinion, the artizans in our towns were as greatly interested in it as the agricultural labourers in our rural districts. I said I looked with the utmost confidence to the great things that were to be done by a measure of this kind to our urban population. I believe it may have an effect upon them as great, if not greater, than upon the agricultural population. I look with great hope on the effect it may have in raising the character of our labouring urban population. Then objection is taken to what is called its "cumbrous machinery for compulsion." But, with the exception which I am about to state, the machinery is precisely the same that was adopted in the Bill of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham, which was backed by the hon. Gentleman himself—that is to say, that where compulsory powers are required in the Bill, the Local Authorities had to apply to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order, which had to be confirmed by Parliament. Well, now, we have not proposed in this Bill that the application for a Provisional Order should be made to the Local Government Board, for reasons which I stated in introducing the Bill. We believe that in proposing to set up a great County Authority throughout England it was desired that there should be a considerable amount of decentralization and extension of local self-government. I thought that in taking away, as it were, the power which the Local Government Board alone possesses at present, and issuing Provisional Orders and putting them into the hands of an elected assembly in the county, we were giving a large and valuable extension of the powers of local self-government. It is quite true that during the time which
    192
    will intervene between now and the setting up of this authority we say that the Quarter Sessions should be the authority which should issue this Provisional Order. An authority cannot issue a Provisional Order to itself; it must make an application to some other authority for the issue of a Provisional Order. Well, we say that when the County Authority is elected the question should be left to them, and they should issue the Provisional Orders. Objection is taken to the Quarter Sessions, and upon this point I may say at once that, so far as the Government are concerned, they attach no particular value to that provision, and if it is agreeable to the House, and the House would desire it, the Government are perfectly ready to strike out the Quarter Sessions, and to make the application an application to the Local Government Board until the setting up of the County Authority. It is a part of what I consider the valuable principle of this Bill that when the County Authority is set up, then it should be to that authority that the application should be made. An hon. Friend behind me wished to know whether or not boroughs will be represented on the County Authorities? Of course, boroughs will be represented. It would be impossible to conceive a County Authority on which boroughs would not be represented. I cannot conceive that there would be any loss of dignity in a Local Authority going to a superior authority to complete an operation under this Bill. So far as the interposition of Parliament is concerned, I may inform the House that out of the 110 Bills presented to Parliament for the confirmation of Provisional Orders during the past five years by the Local Government Board in regard to the purchase of land, 108 have passed unopposed, and the House will therefore see that the machinery we set up for the compulsory purchase of land, which is the machinery in existence for the purchase of land of every kind, is an easy and expeditious machinery. As I have said, I have no doubt that the objection which is held in some quarters, especially in boroughs, to conferring these powers on Quarter Sessions is a justifiable one; therefore, we are prepared to do as I say. A good deal has been said about the question of the price at which the allotments that

    193
    I spoke of when I introduced the Bill are let at present. The hon. Member for the Cirencester Division of Gloucester said that the price paid for allotments is often unreasonable, and that our Bill provides no means whatever of getting rid of that difficulty. Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot have read the Bill carefully, or he would have seen that one of its principles is that the allotments shall be let at the ordinary agricultural price of the land. In the very first page of the Bill, while we base the whole fabric of the measure upon voluntary agreement, so far as possible, we distinctly say that the Local Authority have got to satisfy themselves that such holdings can be obtained at a reasonable rent by voluntary agreement. So that all that allotment holders would have to do if the land was let to them at an unreasonable rent, would be to give up the allotments they at present hold, and see that the Local Authority finds them other allotments at a reasonable price. One of the principles upon which the Bill is founded is that no labourer, after the passing of the Bill, shall be called upon to pay more than a fair rent for agricultural land. Now, something has been said about the size of the allotments. I have been found great fault with, because in introducing the Bill I said that I believed a large number of these allotments would not exceed a quarter of an acre. I may be right or wrong, but I cannot see the foundation for any complaint which the hon. Gentleman who made it could possibly have, when we distinctly provide in this Bill that Local Authorities may give allotments up to the size of an acre. I have not heard any hon. Gentleman on either side of the House contend that, so far as arable land is concerned, one acre is not fully ample and sufficient. I know that there are certain cases in which an acre ought to be given, and I should be sorry in giving such large powers as we give the Local Authorities under this Bill to tie their hands and say—"Under no circumstances shall you give an acre of land in an allotment." We may hope that Local Authorities will be reasonable and will not give an undue quantity of land to a person who may not be able to cultivate it. We thought it best to draw a wide limit in the matter. Now, as to the question of three acres—I was
    194
    going to say "three acres and a cow." I very much sympathize with the arguments used as to extending the Bill so as to provide some tenants who may wish for it with three acres of pasture land; but I am bound to say that that is a matter which will be much better dealt with by voluntary agreement than by any compulsory arrangement as to purchase. I cannot think that in pasture counties there -will be any difficulty in the Local Authority acting between the land owners of the persons desiring to have allotments of that kind when they are required; but hon. Members will see that the application of a principle of this kind must have a very limited scope. A man may take a piece of arable land with his family, and without any capital at all may proceed to cultivate it, and benefit himself very considerably. But it is a very different matter when you come to grass land. You must have your cow. It would be necessary in providing the three acres for a labourer to keep a cow, that that man should be able to scrape up enough money, not only to buy a cow, but in the event of the cow dying to protect himself against a position of something like absolute ruin.
    An hon. MEMBER: They have insurance clubs.
    MR. RITCHIE: Then we will say nothing further on that point except this, that the labourer who desires to have a grass holding will be obliged to have capital before he can invest it in the purchase of a cow, and that therefore the number who would avail themselves of such a provision would be extremely limited. I cannot conceive how in pasture counties there would be any difficulty in a labourer who has capital not being able to provide himself with sufficient pasture land to keep a cow, and I may say with reference to any Amendment on that head or any other Amendment which any hon. Member may bring forward, we shall give them every consideration. Several questions have been put to me with reference to Clause 6, which prohibits building on the allotments. I frankly acknowledge that the building I had in my mind was a building in which the allotment holder might live, and it does not occur to me that there ought to be any difficulty whatever in

    195
    allowing such modest; buildings as have been suggested by hon. Members to be raised on the allotments. We are anxiously desirous that this Bill should be a complete Bill. We are anxiously desirous that nothing should be wanting in this Bill to make those allotments a blessing to those who are fortunate enough to obtain them, and I can assure hon. Members who have spoken about buildings that I do not believe myself that there will be any difference between us when we come to discuss this matter. Well, Sir, I do not think I have anything more to say. I do not know whether I have missed any point. The discussion has been rather discursive and the greater part of it has been taken up with diatribes and incriminations. I hope I have taken up the most important points, and that I have so far explained the course of the Government as to get the House to see that we are extremely desirous of considering very carefully and as favourably as we can any Amendments which will not strike at the principle of the Bill. We rely confidently on the assistance of the House in passing the Bill into law during this Session. I hope hon. Members will confine the Amendments they intend to propose in Committee within reasonable limits, because it must be perfectly obvious to hon. Members that however desirous the Government may be of passing the Bill at this period of the Session a great deal must depend upon the action of the House itself. We believe from the disposition the House seems to be in at this moment that there ought to be no difficulty in passing the Bill this Session. Once more I assure hon. Members that it is the earnest desire of the Government to pass the Bill, and that in their opinion there is no measure before the House at the present time which is of greater importance and which is more desirable to pass quickly so that its provisions may come into operation with as little delay as possible.
    MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I wish to say with regard to this measure that I do not believe it will do any good whatever seeing that it comes from the other side of the House. I do not believe indeed that any Bill framed by the occupants of either of the Front Benches would do the slightest good even if it extended every allotment to three acres, and asso-
    196
    ciated with it a cow or even a crocodile. My reason for saying that is that such a measure as this is only tinkering with, a system which is both doomed and damned. I, however, congratulate both sides of the House upon having to-night taken the first step in that reforming path which must inevitably lead to the nationalization of the land.
    VISCOUNT WOLMER: I do not wish to intervene between the House and a Division for any length of time; but I should like to make a few remarks to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) in the hope that he may consider the suggestions I throw out between now and the Committee stage of the Bill. I would join with other Members in pressing upon him the desirability of reconsidering the proposal with regard to Boards of Guardians, for I fear that the Local Authority will sometimes find themselves placed in an awkward position. We are glad to hear what he has said with regard to buildings on allotments; but I wish to point out to him that the principle of this Bill, of which I personally approve, is that the rents of these allotments should not be charity rents, but should be such as will recoup the legitimate expenses of the working of this Act. But the far too complicated machinery of the measure, in my opinion, lays a terrible trap for the Boards of Guardians. Suppose the application of the measure is opposed, all the expenses of defending the course the Guardians wish to adopt will fall upon the rates. [Cries of "No, no!"] Yes; but under this Bill they will. I am, at any rate, glad to hear that point contested. Notwithstanding the denial of the hon. Members, I believe that such expenses will fall upon the rates, and, if they do, how can you arrange with any labourer for the payment of a rent fixed so as to cover the expenses of defending a private Bill? I am glad to hear that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to provide that the rent of these allotments shall be the fair agricultural rent, but I hope they will express it in the Bill—that after taking into account the expenses of the working of this Act the rent fixed shall be as far as possible the same as that paid by neighbouring farmers for neighbouring land. In the 7th section there is a valu-

    197
    able provision dealing with unexhausted improvements, but there is no direction as to how these unexhausted improvements are to be valued, or upon what scale compensation is to be given; and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to direct attention to that point so that there may be a clear expression upon it in the Act. I think I may fairly congratulate hon. Members on this side of the House with whom I am divided on the great question of the day on the action they have taken in this matter. I was rather alarmed lest they had changed their minds since they had voted 18 months ago on the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings). It is true that this measure meets with the approval of the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) and that right hon. Gentleman is a very great man. But there is a greater than he, and that greater than he has spoken upon this subject since hon. Members supported that Resolution. That greater than he on one occasion alluded to "a certain Mr. Jesse Collings with certain doctrines about land which I, for my part, have never adopted." Well, if the Leader of my hon. Friends sitting around me has repudiated the doctrine adopted by him a few months previously it is only natural that we should feel some alarm lest his faithful followers had followed his example. Therefore, I may, I think, congratulate the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham that he has not lost those supporters whom he might perhaps have expected to lose.
    MR. STAVELEY HILL: I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Staveley Hill.)
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I trust that this Motion will not be pressed, having regard to the late period of the Session, and to the fact the Bill is almost unanimously accepted in principle by the House. It is most important that we should get into the next stage of the Bill, so as to allow every hon. Gentleman who desires
    198
    to say anything upon the clauses ample opportunity of doing so. I earnestly hope that the House will consent to the Bill being read a second time to-night.
    MR. COBB: A great many people take deep interest in this subject, and necessarily, because it is a subject of very great importance. I know there are a great many hon. Members on the other side who take the same interest in the question that we do, and who are desirous of speaking upon it, but have been unable to do so. Whose fault is that? It is absolutely the fault of the Government. [Cries of "No, no !"] Well, they were appealed to night after night try the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), and by other right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench beside him, to give full opportunity for a discussion; and they always declared that the state of Public Business would not allow them to make any arrangement with regard to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, in order to meet the exigencies of the Tory Party, wishes us to take a number of Bills without any discussion whatever. We are not prepared to assent to that. I have risen two or three times; and it is not my fault if I have not been called upon. No doubt it is perfectly right that I have not been called upon, and I have no complaint to make; but I do desire to have an opportunity of speaking. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, on the Motion to go into Committee on the Bill, we shall have an opportunity of speaking on the main question, and not merely upon the details.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I should have been glad to afford every possible facility in my power; but it seems to me that the main principle of the Bill has been accepted by the House, and the question for hon. Members is now simply one of clauses. I have not heard a single objection to the principle of the Bill. I have heard objection made to the clauses, and I can only say that, as the House desires, as I understand it, that the Bill should be passed, I earnestly hope hon. Members will allow the present stage to be taken. If hon. Members desire to speak upon the Bill on the Motion for going into Committee, I shall make no objection.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. Staveley Hill) will withdraw his Motion. Everyone, I think, must be anxious to see this Bill passed into law; but I certainly must say that I think the right lion Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury might have put the Bill down at an earlier hour—even as the first order—that being the position which I should have thought its importance deserved. I should have thought, in discussing a Bill of this kind, we ought to have had some power of discussing it as a whole. On both sides of the House there are Gentlemen who desire to make further observations on the Bill. It is too late, of course, to do that to-night; but if the right hon. Gentleman will bring on the Motion for going into Committee on the Bill at a moderately early hour on the next occasion, that, perhaps, will afford a sufficient opportunity to hon. Members to express their opinions.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I certainly will do that.
    MR. STAVELEY HILL: I am always glad to accede to anything that falls from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I, for one, take, perhaps, as great an interest in the subject of this Bill as any hon. Member in the House; and I wish for an opportunity of expressing a view with regard to proposals which I consider illusory and unjust. I withdraw my Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CHANNING: I do not think this debate should close without a few words in further justification of the course the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) has taken in challenging the Government to say definitely whether they intend to proceed with the Bill. The history of this measure during the Session is before this House and before the country, and it gives us fair reason for challenging the sincerity of the action of the Government on the matter. [Cries of "Divide!"] I insist, Sir, upon making my statement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) quoted words used by Lord Salisbury in "another place," and I wish he had continued the quotation, because the words of the noble Lord absolutely support the con-
    200
    tention of the hon. Member for West Nottingham that the Government, at the time Lord Dunraven's Bill was before the House of Lords, did not intend to proceed with the question of allotments during the present Session. The words in the speech of Lord Salisbury, which followed the words quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, were these—
    "One of the reasons why he was unwilling to introduce this subject as a separate question without waiting until the proposals of the Government with respect to Local Government were before Parliament, and in a fair way to acceptance, was that one of the most difficult problems connected with this question was the selection of an administrative authority."
    I should like to ask the House whether these words, as given in The Times reports—which I have assumed to be correct, as we know that The Times reports are also the reports for Hansard —mean any more or less than this, that Lord Salisbury did not contemplate going on with this question until he had introduced, and practically carried, the Local Government Bill. I think that fact, and the fact that the Government changed its mind as soon as my hon. Friend the Member for the Spalding Division was returned, was significant. The late Government, in the person of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, has been charged with inconsistency, and with a wish not to really deal honestly with the allotments question. They were most needlessly charged with having got into power on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings), and then with evading this question. But I would call the attention of the House and the country to this fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) invited the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham to take Office in his Government expressly to carry out that very policy, and therefore it is not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and his Colleagues had no intention of dealing with the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and his Friend deserted him and turned him, out of power before he

    201
    was able to carry out that policy. Sir, as I said, I heartily support the principle of this Bill. I welcome—and I welcome as a member of the committee of Liberal County Members who have carefully considered this Bill—the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he will favourably consider the Amendments we are about to lay upon the Table, and the Amendments that may come from the other side of the House. I hope that assurance will be carried out literally and fully, because I can assure him we agree largely with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for the Cirencester Division of Gloucester (Mr. Winterbotham) that we consider the Bill in its present form—if not a mere sham—is a skeleton that requires to have flesh and blood added to it to make it work, and we shall insist upon the Amendments we consider right; but I assure him we shall not persist in carrying the debates upon them to any undue length..
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
    MR. STAVELEY HILL: May I ask after what time the right hon. Gentleman will not take this Bill?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Not after 11 o'clock.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Order for Further Consideration of Postponed Resolution [8th August] read.
  (10.) "That a sum, not exceeding £13,761, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments."
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I shall not detain the House for many moments; but I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) to the question I wish to raise in connection with this postponed Vote. The Committee of Supply was placed in very considerable difficulty in discussing this Vote the other night, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) would not have sanctioned
  202
  the difficulty in which the Committee was then placed. On the 28th February last this House ordered a Return giving full details of the income and expenditure in connection with this Department of the Woods and Forests, about which i there has been considerable dissatisfaction for a considerable number of years, and though that Return was ordered on the 28th February, and only consists of three pages, that Return was not placed in the hands of Members until two days after the Toto was taken in Committee of Supply. I will not comment upon that, it carries its own story, because anyone who knows anything of the Accounts and of this Department knows that the Return could have been prepared, I was going to say in a few hours, but, at all events, in a few days; but to say that it takes five months to prepare a statement of the Accounts of the Woods and Forests is one of the severest condemnations of the Department, and it deserves the attention of the House. What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is this. Twelve months ago the question of this Department was brought before Parliament. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer—the Leader of the House and Representative of the Conservative Government (Lord Randolph Churchill)—promised a Committee to inquire into the whole management of this Department. I did not move for the Committee at the commencement of this Session, as I thought the Royal Commission on Civil Service expenditure could grapple with this inquiry; but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have devoted the whole of our attention this Session to other Departments, and I doubt if we can now make that searching inquiry, that strict Parliamentary investigation that it deserves; and without desiring to delay the House upon this Vote, though it was passed by the Committee in complete ignorance of the real state of the case, I wish to ask whether next Session the right hon. Gentleman will be disposed to grant a Select Committee for further inquiry into the funds and administration of this Department?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The right hon. Gentleman gave me no Notice of the purport of the Question, and I am unable, there-

  203
  fore, to inform him of the facts of the case. I have no doubt he made an accurate representation of the promise made 12 months ago; but I should wish to look into the question, and in the course of a few days I will give an answer to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Resolution agreed, to.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1875) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.— [BILL 353.]
  (Mr. Jackson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1875) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.— [BILL 353.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    DR. CLARK: I beg to move the following New Clause, which is merely a qualification of the present Act:—
    "Sub-sections (5) and (6), of section thirty, of the principal Act, are hereby repealed, and the following sub-sections substituted:—
    "(5) No clerk nor collector shall be present at, or vote, or take any part in the proceedings of any meeting of the same;
    "(6) At least one general meeting of the Society shall be held in every year to consider the annual return or balance sheet; any report of the Committee of management or managers; any amendment of the rules of the society, of which due notice has been given: to elect the office bearers; and transact such business as the rules may require or permit; such meeting shall be open to any adult member of the society, except those disqualified by sub-section (5), or where the rules determine that the members shall be represented by delegates.
    "In sub-section (7) of section of the principal Act, at end, after the words 'carried on,' insert the words 'where the day, hour, or place of an annual or other periodical meeting is fixed by the rules, notice of the objects of the meeting, and of any proposed amendments to the rules, shall be published in any newspaper in general circulation in every county where the society carries on business, or delivered to the members by the collectors, at least fourteen days before the day appointed for such meeting. Where the members are represented by delegates at the annual or other periodical meetings, the notice shall be given at least one week before the meeting to elect delegates. Any adult member may give notice of motion or proposed amendment of the rules in writing, not less than fourteen days before the period fixed for giving notice of the meeting or its business.'
    "Sub-section (8) of the same section, the words 'or annual return in the form prescribed by section 14,' shall be inserted after the words 'balance sheet,' and at end of sub-section, the words 'or the society may supply gratuitously every member or person interested with a balance sheet duly audited containing the same particulars and in the same form as to the receipts and expenditure funds and effects
    204
    of the society as arc contained in the annual return,' shall be inserted after the words ' on demand.'"
    New Clause (Repeal of Sub-sections (5) and (6),—(Dr. Clark,) —brought up, read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  (Mr. Jackson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

    [BILL 364.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Jackson.)
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: I am not going to detain the House at any length. I only wish to ask two questions. I had hoped this Bill would have given effect to two small matters of detail which have often boon pressed upon the House, and which were contained in a Report of the Committee upon harbour accommodation. One is that the area to give collateral security should be increased in a manner something similar to that in vogue in Ireland, where two, three, four, or move baronies were allowed to join and give collateral security. The recommendation was that parts of counties, parishes or parts of parishes should be able to join and give collateral security for the money to make harbours in which they are interested. The second point is with regard to facilities being given to small harbours to consolidate existing debts. That, I think, has been before the Treasury on several occasions. I do not wish to press the matter now, beyond asking for some explanation, and asking whether something could not be done in this direction in Committee?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): With reference to the first question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, we have given effect to the pledge we made to the House to insert in this Bill increased powers of giving collateral security, and I am under the impression the Bill does give the power he desires because it gives power to any Local or Rural Authority to deal with the security, and to any Justice of Quarter Sessions and representative county boards,

    205
    and it gives the like power for Scotland and for Ireland. We were hoping that we had met this point very fully, because there is no bar not only to one authority of the county giving the security, but more than one authority of a county joining together for the like purpose. With reference to the other point, about the power, as he calls it, to consolidate existing debt, we are advised there is no power at present for that purpose—that is to say, there is no power to take up existing debts, or do otherwise than make advances for new works; and I am afraid there would be considerable difficulty created if that power were given, because I do not think it was ever the intention of Parliament to grant public money merely for the sake of saving interest upon existing debts, and that would be the only effect it could have. I quite sympathize with the objects the right hon. Gentleman has in view—namely, to enable these authorities, if possible, to borrow the money. However, that is a point that may be considered hereafter. I hope what I have said will meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Question put, and agreed, to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
  CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

    [BILL 270.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
    SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLE: I am sorry to detain the House even for a few moments before you Sir, leave the Chair; but I desire to say a few words about this Bill in explanation of the position I hold in regard to it. A Blocking Notice appeared for some weeks in my name in regard to this Bill; and I wish to explain, not so much how it was that I came to block it, but why I ceased to block it at the present time. My object in blocking the Bill was to endeavour to get it understood, though, perhaps, I am too sanguine in supposing that the Bill is oven now understood by the House.
    206
    That was my object; and I was further desirous of ascertaining whether it was the serious intention of the Government to press forward the Bill during the present Session, a Bill which I hold, the Government ought never to have introduced. I have, however, become aware that the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian) convened a meeting of Scottish Members—I think on Tuesday last—and at that meeting there was a very general feeling in favour of the Bill being pressed forward, and having for many years represented a Scottish constituency in this lie use, I determined yesterday, out of deference to the feeling of that meeting, that I would not renew my Blocking Notice. The only difficulty that stood in the way of removing the Notice was lest I should be supposed to have been influenced by a variety of articles that, I understand, have appeared in a sensational evening journal. I say I understand such articles appeared, because, except the first one, I have not myself seen the articles. Two ideas seem to have weighed with the House generally in reference to this Bill. One was the belief that some result unpremeditated by the Legislature had followed the passing of the Act of 1874; and the other salient idea was the case—if I may so describe it—of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Lyell). As to the first of those points, it is a matter of keen dispute among lawyers at present in Scotland; and even if the allegation is true, I would assert that the discovery was made so long ago as 1877. The case of Rossmore's Trustees decided the law at that time, and many transactions have taken place on the basis of the settlement of that year. But what I wish particularly to call attention to is this, that this clause is retrospective—a nice thing for a Conservative Government to propose, that this provision of the 1st clause should apply retrospectively ! What I wish to ask is this—what is to happen to those who have been paid since 1874? Are they to repay if this measure is to be retrospective? And if not, I ask where is the safeguard against such a monstrous injustice being done? This clause is one which, for the first time, gives sanction to the device whereby purchasers were formerly able to defraud the superior; and that, I say, is a most objectionable and reprehensible principle.

    207
    This clause has created great uneasiness among many persons in Scotland. Originally there was an intention on the part of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace) to oppose this clause, and I hold in my hand a statement on behalf of the Corporation of Edinburgh in support of the hon. Member's Amendment to leave out Clause 1. For it must be told that when the Bill first appeared the hon. Gentleman was breathing out threatenings and slaughters against it, under the conviction that it was a Bill that would injure the poor. It was pointed out to him, however, that he was clearly playing into the hands of the owners of land, and from that moment he did not support the Corporation and his opposition to the Bill has disappeared. I beg to point out that the Act of 1874—which this measure is intended to remedy—was essentially a measure of compromise, and it is a perfect delusion to assert that the superior by that Act did not make concession; it was a measure of compromise in the truest sense, and the present measure is intended to upset that arrangement. I earnestly hope, at least, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will offer a defence of the Bill, and especially of the retrospective character of the Bill. I understand the position of those who wish to sweep away casualties altogether, and this Bill receives support from persons who go all that length. I know that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to go that length; but I doubt it the Government have the least notion of the character of the Bill to which they are lending their name. With regard to the case of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, as I have said, that would be abundantly met by Clause 2, and if the Bill consisted of that single Clause 2, there would be no objection, because everyone must desire that if relief can be given in his case it should, be given, and if the Government intended that they ought to have confined their attention to Clause 2 alone instead of demanding the far larger proposal of Clause 1, which, in its retrospective character, does very great injustice. I will not detain the House further, and I apologize for having detained it so long; but before I sit down, let me say I shall move the Amendment in Committee, if I am permitted to do so, which stands in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-
    208
    Mackintosh), and if not, I shall move a proviso to Clause 1 when the proper time arrives.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON): I think my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has a perfect right to ask for an explanation as regards the purport of this Bill, because it does appear that certain rights are vested by Statute in a limited number of persons. Although the subject is highly technical, I think I can explain, in two or three sentences, the object for which this Bill has been framed. The right which it is intended to take away from the superior is the right to demand a full year's rent in the event of a certain change of proprietary. According to the practice before 1874, the superior had not the right to demand that if the vassal took certain stops that were not of a difficult or complicated character. The vassal had the right—I am, of course, using language highly technical, and which, I am afraid, will only be intelligible to Scottish lawyers—to present the heir of the last entered vassal, and to demand for him an entry on a payment not of a year's rent, but of a year's free duty, which, of course, is vastly less than a year's rent. The result of the Act of 1874, however, was that the mere recording or registering a title made the purchaser an entered vassal, and the consequence was that the purchaser became necessarily an entered vassal, and had to pay the casualty due from a purchaser. When a purchase took place, and the purchaser bought his title, the superior drew, not the casualty from the heir, but the full amount of a year's rent. That, I say, was unintended by the Act of 1874, and must, at the same time, have the effect of augmenting the estate of the superior, and consequently diminishing to that extent the estate of the vassal. That is not a state of matters that should continue, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Asher), my Predecessor in Office, will remember the subject was brought up last year by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), in a measure considered to be somewhat crude and not sufficient to effect its object. At the same time, all were agreed the object was one that deserved consideration. The late Government brought in a measure that differed from

    209
    the present in points of not great materiality, but we consider the present Bill an improvement on that introduced before. My hon. Friend has asked one question, to which he is entitled to an answer, and it is this—how does the Conservative Government, or any Government, justify the passing of an Act which is retrospective to the extent of taking away a right which is given by Statute? I think that is a very serious question, but at the same time the principle of the Bill is this. We believe that the Act of 1874 did not intentionally confer upon the superior this increment of the estate, and accordingly this Bill proposes, acting on that assumption, to take away from superiors the right to exact what was not intentionally conferred. It does not, of course, take back what superiors have already got payment of. But as I said, I think this is a matter deserving grave consideration, because unquestionably the Bill does take away a right at present vested in superiors by virtue of an Act of Parliament. But justification of that is to be found in the view that the Legislature never intended to give that, and may, therefore, fairly take it away. My hon. Friend has said that the Act of 1874 was a measure of compromise. I am bound to say that I have not been able to verify that statement, although it has been made before. The rights of the superiors were affected only to this effect, that the vassal had a right to make a commutation payment in full of payments which occurred periodically. But I cannot discover in the course of the legislation of 1874 any trace of the idea that there was given up by the vassals in favour of the superior the rights now in question. Accordingly, Sir, without detaining the House at greater length with, I am afraid, a not very successful effort to make dear a subject extremely obscure, I will conclude by expressing a hope that you will be allowed to leave the Chair. The Bill is one which ought to be debated; but the subject is one which one has little confidence in pressing strongly, because the majority must take on trust what is stated in regard to it by professional men. I can only say that the subject is one of serious difficulty, and has been considered by successive Administratives in the Legal Department, and the conclusion I have arrived at is in the direction I have pointed out.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Limitation of casualties payable by vassal under Act of 1874).
    SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLE, in moving an Amendment, in page 2, line 9, after "superior," insert—
    "Provided always that this clause shall only apply to casualties emerging after the passing of this Act,"
    said: I trust I may be allowed to propose this Amendment, although it stands in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh). I feel bound to repeat the statement that this clause takes away the rights vested in superiors by Act of Parliament; and I can only remind the Committee that the decision of the Judges of the Court of Session in 1887 confirmed their belief in their possession. Many new transactions have been carried through since then on the faith of that decision, and it is a strange proposal to emanate from the present Government that such transactions should be interfered with, and I regret exceedingly that it should have been made. My hon. and learned Friend has distinctly said it is a very doubtful policy, and it is only defended on the ground that something was done, or omitted to be done, by legislation which was not intended. But on that matter there is the greatest possible difference of opinion in the Legal Profession in Scotland, and yet in the face of that difference the Government are making this clause retrospective, and, by so doing, are causing great injustice to the superiors in Scotland.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Clause to add the words, "Provided always that this section shall only apply to casualties emerging after the passing of this Act."—(Sir Charles Dalrymple.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT: It is very satisfactory to find that the opposition to the Bill is to be determined by the decision on this one clause, and that there is to be no opposition to other important clauses. It has been said that the effect of this Bill would be to prevent the superiors obtaining certain money advances to which they had a right. Whether or not that is a right

    211
    description of the state of things between the superiors and vassals before the Act of 1874 I do not know; but I want to ask whether, as a matter of fact, the superiors had a right of obtaining a year's rental of the property in the case of transfer, and whether, when such a right was claimed, the decision was not almost invariably against it. If that was so, then I submit that the language of the hon. Member opposite cannot be justified, and the objections to this clause cannot be maintained.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: My hon. and learned Friend is perfectly accurate. The case is this. The vassal who was asked to pay the casualty at once turned round and presented his last predecessor for entry on payment of a year's few duty. The right of the superior was to ask the larger sum; but it could be at once met by an offer of the heir of the vassal and the smaller sum. The subject, I know, is debateable; but, at the same time, the proposition of the Bill, as I stated in the few observations I made before the Speaker left the Chair, is, that the larger right which is asserted by the superiors is one which unquestionably arises on the terms of the Act of Parliament, but was not a right intentionally conferred by the Legislature. That is the theory of this Bill; and accordingly, the proposal which is made in the Bill as it stands is that that right should be taken away, and that the vassal should be furnished with a good defence against any such clause arising under the provisions of this Bill. The Amendment which my hon. Friend proposes would restrict its operation to casualties emerging from the present time onwards; but that would not give full effect to the view presented in this Bill, and therefore I think that the more consistent course would be to adhere to the clause as it stands.
    MR. CALDWELL: There can be no question whatever that the Act of 1874 restored certain rights to the superiors, and it is rather late now in the day to turn round and say that that was not the intention of the Legislature. If you do that in this case you may be asked to do so in a great many other cases, and you will be establishing a principle which might be carried to a serious extent. This Act has been acted upon in many
    212
    cases. Superiors have in terms of it already got from the vassals payments of this character, and yet you are now proposing to relieve parties who by law are bound to pay. I think you would be acting most unconstitutionally in doing so, and the Committee would do well to consider the precedents which they would be establishing. Provisions of this kind are not usually made retrospective. By this Bill you are proposing to take from the superiors rights which are actually vested in them by Act of Parliament, and yet you are not seeking to ensure that the money which some vassals have already been called upon to pay under the Act should be refunded to them. If you wish to be consistent you must also provide for that being done, you must give relief to those who have paid so as to render the Act of Parliament really nugatory as regards the clause binding vassals to pay this casualty. Of course the Government have a majority, and can, if they choose, pass this clause, but I have no hesitation in saying that they are taking upon themselves a grave responsibility in a matter of this kind. Neither I nor the public generally have any interest in this particular matter; it is solely a question between the superior and the vassal, and the latter is probably the more wealthy of the two, but I warn the Government that they will be making a dangerous precedent, and that they must bear the responsibility of doing so.
    SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLE: I appeal to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) whether he is aware of what this clause proposes to do? It is one thing to enact, but it is quite a different thing to make the new legislation retrospective. What is now proposed to be done retrospectively may involve the repayment of money which will have passed from one to another 14 years ago, and that is a very serious step to take. I doubt if the Government have the least notion of its seriousness, I am not a lawyer. I yield implicitly to the legal statements of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Scotland, but I say that the retrospective action is so serious that if I can get anyone to tell with me I shall be bound to divide the Committee against it.
    MR. ASHER: I think the hon. Gentleman opposite is under a

    213
    misapprehension as to what is the effect of this clause. I understand him to be under the belief that the Bill as it stands is retrospective in this sense, that it involves the repayment of money spent 14 years ago. Now, I do not agree that that is the effect. It would not have the effect of entitling the vassal who had paid to the superior a casualty under the Act of 1874, to get it back simply because the law had been altered as proposed by this Bill. It would merely have the effect of preventing the superior to whom a claim has already emerged, but who has not received payment of it from insisting on the payment of it after this Act has been passed. It is quite true that the Bill is retrospective in a sense, but it is only a limited sense, and it will only affect casualties which have emerged, but which, have not been demanded by the superior. I submit that if the Bill is to pass at all it ought to have within it that retrospective character. I quite agree that it is a formidable suggestion to pass an Act of Parliament retrospective in the sense of depriving persons of rights vested in them by an Act of Parliament. But what is the character and object of this Bill? It has been introduced for the purpose of rectifying an. error in the Act of 1874, and Act passed solely for the purpose of simplifying the completion of title; it was intended to have no efficacy at all except the abbreviation of the formal steps necessary for the completion of title. But it has been found to give the superior a higher right against his vassal than before for a money claim, and it is now desired that the relation of the superior and vassal as regards that money right should be made precisely as it was before the Act of 1874. I think that that is a perfectly legitimate proposal.
    MR. GEDGE: The argument of the hon. Member that this clause will apply to only a few cases convinces me that it ought not to be passed. If any great injustice had been done, if any enormous wrong has taken place, then it might possibly be excusable to adopt so vicious a principle as this. But that is not so. Even assuming that the Act of 1874 did make a mistake, it seems that we have gone on for a great many years without there being such a great grievance as to make it necessary to pass an Act to
    214
    alter it. Now that our attention has; been called to it, I think it will be quite enough to pass an Act dealing with the future, and not to trouble ourselves about the few cases which may exist, and in which, if we do not make the Bill retrospective, the law of 1874 will prevail. It is a dangerous principle to establish for the Government to ask us to pass an ex post facto law, and I shall not follow them into the Lobby on a principle of this kind.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Having listened to this debate, and though I do not profess to be learned in Scotch law, it does appear to be that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Charles Dalrymple) has made out a case for the principle, and therefore, without in the slightest degree impairing the efficiency of the Bill, or taking from it any of the advantages which it possesses, I think we may reasonably accept the Amendment, and permit the Bill to come into operation from and on the day on which it is passed. There is a great deal to be said against the principle of retrospective legislation.
    MR. HALDANE: I regret extremely the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith). I think the moderate character of the Bill has been, almost understated by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) in the able speech in which he explained it to the Committee. The Bill does not even profess to give a new right to the vassal, a right which he had not before the Act of 1874; it will only enable him to regain possession of the advantages he had under the old law, if, and only if, ha can find a heir to come for ward and satisfy his superior in the way the heir used to satisfy him. It is in that sense, and that sense only, that it is retrospective. As regards what has been said about the principle, I can only say that since this Bill was first introduced in a somewhat different form in the House of Commons, the superiors throughout Scotland have been instructing their agents to hunt up these claims, and enforce them against all sorts of people. To my knowledge, claims many years old have been enforced within the last few months simply because this proposition

    215
    is before Parliament. It is therefore important that the clause should enable these claims already in existence—not to be defeated, but to be met in the way they used to be met before 1874. If this Amendment is accepted, it will be accepted in the teeth of nine-tenths of the Representatives of the people of Scotland, and in the teeth of the wishes of the entire country.
    MR. DILLON: I strongly suggest that the hon. Members for Scotland should not allow the Government to proceed further with the Bill until the public have had an opportunity; of making their wishes known. We saw that this Bill was actually going to be allowed to lapse until public opinion outside became very strong, and we had better get a few days' further adjournment, in order that public opinion may have a similar effect on the Government in regard to this Amendment. The Bill has now reached a stage that it cannot be dropped, and if the Scotch Members have not sufficient force to defeat this Amendment, it might be worth consideration for them to postpone the discussion until some future day.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT: I am rather sorry to hear the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith). I can hardly help thinking that if we understood the intention of the Bill more clearly we should not differ among ourselves, because it appears to me that what the Act of 1874 intended to do was to give some ready relief, and to read just the rights between the parties. It has not been denied by any person of authority that the ease in support of the Bill is that the action of the Act of 1874 was never contemplated by anybody at all, and it does seem to me unjust that the right should, under the circumstances, be enforced by the superior against the vassal. I can only say that if I saw any way to readjust even those payments which have actually been made, I should say it would be the proper thing to do. But that would be impossible. As, however, this section with which we are dealing applies merely to claims that are not made, and have not been paid, I think it just to support the Bill as it stands, and I hope that the Government will not alter it.
    MR. WALLACE: I think I have a right to be heard for a Few minutes on this matter, if for no other purpose than to correct an erroneous reference which has been made to myself by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ipswich (Sir Charles Dalrymple). I do not know where he found his material for the description he gave, for I have never opened, my lips against the Bill until this moment. It is quite true that an Amendment stood in my name for a short time in connection with the 1st clause of the Bill; but my attitude has never been one of opposition to the Bill. I entirely approve of its spirit, more particularly on the grounds which have drawn forth the opposition to it of my hon. Friend the Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell), and also on the grounds on which the Amendment is supported by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith). I am well aware of the exceeding importance of the example which the Government is setting. To me that is one of the great recommendations of the Bill. I am delighted that such a Bill should have been brought forward by a Tory Government, because I believe the principle will be followed in other matters to which I look forward in connection -with land legislation. I wish to be allowed to say, therefore, Sir, that my sole object in putting an Amendment for a time on the Paper was to obtain a hearing for the views held on a certain matter, which, as I thought, the constituency I represented desired to have made known. The City of Edinburgh stands in a very remarkable position in regard to its own superiorities. To a large extent the City, as I think will be acknowledged by the two lion, and learned Gentlemen opposite, is the superior of its own property. It is its own superior, and if it pleases it can have a certain arrangement with regard to the exaction of casualties, and providing there is unanimity, it would seem hard it should be interfered with from the outside. It may be considered an absurd arrangement by outside critics, but there would be no justification for their interfering with it. Therefore, for a time the Amendment stood in my name to give an opportunity, at the request of the city, to make an explanation to that

    217
    extent. But, Sir, I began to discover that that unanimity did not exist. Information came to me that there was dissatisfaction, and therefore I abandoned the position I had taken up. But in all other respects with regard to the spirit and object of the Bill, it had always my most hearty approval, and I am one of its most thorough-going supporters. Therefore I oppose this Amendment.
    MR. BIGGAR: I do not know what course the Government really intend to take with regard to this Amendment. We have heard the opinion of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson)—who evidently understands the subject—and we have have had an opinion from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), who says he knows nothing at all about the matter. Under these circumstances, I think the House would do well to decide in accordance with the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman who understands what he is talking about. The Government will put themselves in a position to give a bad opinion if it is discreet to do so, and I therefore think we are bound to vote against the Amendment, and support the Bill as introduced by the Government, incomplete though it may be.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 37: Majority 36. — (Div. List, No. 372.)
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Remaining Clauses and Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  IRISH LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Message from The Lords,—That they have agreed to certain of the Amendments made by this House to the Irish Land Law Bill, without any Amendment, and to certain other of the said Amendments with Amendments, to which they desire the concurrence of this House; and have made Consequential Amendments to the Bill, to which they desire the concurrence of this House; and have disagreed to certain of the
  Amendments made by this House, for which they assign their Reasons.

  SITTING OF THE HOUSE (SATURDAY).
  Resolved,—That the Sitting of the House on Saturday next be held subject to the Standing Orders that regulate the Sitting of the House on Wednesdays.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  House adjourned at Five minutes before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) *; (226); Boiler Registry and Inspection * (229); Deeds of Arrangement (No. 2)* (230).
Second Reading — Public Parks and Works (Metropolis)* (214).
Committee—Stannaries Act (1869) Amendment* (216–228).
Committee—Report—Settled Land Act (1882) Amendment*(220); Turnpike Roads (South Wales)* (207).
Third Reading—Criminal Law (Scotland) Procedure (No. 2)* (209), and passed.

PRIVATE BILLS-STANDING ORDERS, Nos. 85 & 102.

  AMENDMENTS.
  On the Motion of the CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Duke of Buckingham and Chandos), Standing Orders Nos. 85 and 102 were amended as follows:—
  2
  "85. When an Examiner's certificate or special report shall be referred to the Standing Orders Committee, the Committee, if they think fit, shall hear the parties affected by any Standing Order referred to in such certificate or special report, provided such parties have deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 o'clock on the second day after the order for the meeting of the Committee is made, a statement (to be printed in all opposed cases) of the facts to be submitted to the Committee. Such statement shall be confined strictly to the points reported upon by the Examiner, and no party on the consideration thereof by the Committee shall be allowed to travel into any matter not referred to in his statement."
  "102. In all cases of opposed local Bills in which no parties have appeared on the petitions against such Bills, or, having appeared, have withdrawn their opposition before their case have been fully opened, or whose locus standi has been disallowed, the Committees on such Bills shall report accordingly to the House, and such Bills shall thereupon be referred to the Chairman of Committees, to be dealt with by him as if originally unopposed."
  Standing Orders to be printed as amended. (No. 227.)

IRISH LAND LAW BILL.—(No. 218.)
(The Lord Privy Seal, Earl Cadogan.)
IRISH LAND LAW BILL.—(No. 218.)

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
  Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons' Amendments, read.
  Moved, "That the said Amendments be now considered."—(The Lord Privy Seal, Earl Cadogan.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he hoped that their Lordships would allow him to say a few words with reference to the position in which they were placed by the changes that had been made in the Bill. They were now at the 11th of August, when Members of both Houses of Parliament, to use the language of grouse shooting, began to "pack," and it was impossible to get a largo number of Members to give their attention even to changes of this kind. Under these circumstances, and under the belief that the changes now proposed to their Lordships were, for the most part, matters of compromise between the two, or rather the three or four, different Parties, it was very difficult for them to act together, or even upon their own individual judgment, without involving political consequences which none of them wished to bring about; and, therefore, he could not help feeling that they were not in a position to consider these Amendments on their own merits. On that account, he wished to say a few words as to the general aspect of the Bill as it came before them. In the first place, no one could fail to see in the Amendments now before them from the Commons what an immense development they were of the principles of the Act of 1881. That Act was accepted at the time by the Irish Party, not as perfect, but as merely containing valuable "germs;" and he thought he need hardly point out how great had been the growth and development of those germs. The Bill, as now altered, made most extensive changes on the Act of 1881; and he would point out that, with two exceptions, all those changes were in the direction of greater concessions to the majority of the voting power in Ireland — now the tenants. There were only two that he believed would be of value to the landowners, though what that value might amount to be had some doubt—one, the reform of method of procedure in the case of
  4
  bankrupt tenants, which he believed would be of real value; and the other was something like the establishment of a principle that rent was to be considered as just a debt as a debt to traders or other creditors. That immense development of the Act of 1881 led to important considerations. Both of these were valuable concessions in principle; but all the other Amendments were in the direction of greater concessions to the tenants. Some of them were of the most extensive kind. There was no doubt whatever that the Act of 1881 had been passed in the belief in the permanence of certain limitations contained in it; and Members of Parliament had been persuaded to believe, as they were now, that those limitations would be permanent and would be sustained. The faith of contracts had been pleaded for the exclusion of leaseholders from the Act; but almost all the limitations imposed by Mr. Gladstone, and on the faith of which that Act had been passed, had now been swept away. He thought that these facts taught them very clearly the important lesson that when a Minister came down to Parliament with very large proposals involving new principles concerning the interests of large classes of men, they could never trust to the limitations under which, those proposals were made. The Minister might be perfectly sincere; and, for his own part, he (the Duke of Argyll) believed that Mr. Gladstone had been sincere in the limitations which he had placed on the Act of 1881; but the sincerity of the Minister had nothing to do with it. The personal interests of large bodies of voters had an inevitable tendency to extend themselves against all limitations which Ministers imposed. He trusted that it would be remembered in the future — the near future before them—that great general proposals involving interests of that kind were to be tested by their inevitable tendency, and not by a reference to the professed limitations which a Minister might impose. His noble Friend, on a former occasion, complained that he (the Duke of Argyll) had expended all his efforts on the political situation instead of on the Bill before them. He could not admit the justice of that remark, for no one knew better than his noble Friend that the Bill was a consequence of the political situation, and nothing else; and that

  5
  when they spoke of the political situation they were speaking really of the cause and the origin of the Bill. Mr. Gladstone had lately publicly announced that he had withdrawn his Bills about Home Rule in Ireland; and a large portion of the country would believe that the further propositions Mr. Gladstone would make would be so safeguarded as to secure the safety of the Union. He could not help pointing out to the House that they were in this position—that in a limited number of years they would probably have other proposals made with regard to the government of Ireland and the interests of property in that country, and he trusted that Parliament and the country would remember that those must be judged by themselves, and without reference to any fair and specious promises of limitation. They must beware of these promises of limitation; in such circumstances they were never worth the breath with which they were uttered. They should look to the permanent motives in the minds of a large portion of the people, and they might be quite sure that any specious promises of limitations made at the time were certain to give way before the pressure which would be used against them. That was the lesson to be drawn from the change in the form this Bill had taken in the other House. Another point to which he wished to call attention was the enormous development given by this Bill to the worst fallacies of the Protective system. He was himself a thoroughly convinced Free Trader, with regard to the belief that all Protective Duties for the protection of native produce must increase their cost to the consumer; but he was not one of those who believed that under no circumstance might it be worth while for the consumer to pay an increased price for produce, and that he believed would be found to be the opinion of the people of Ireland, if ever they had a Parliament of their own. The Bill before their Lordships was not a measure for the protection of native industry, but a measure for the protection of native idleness and unthrift. He admitted that it was possible to stimulate industry in a young country by Protective Duties. Some years ago, for example, the Canadian Parliament determined to impose duty on imported agricultural implements, and the result had been to stimulate effectually the implement-
  6
  making industry of Canada. Manufactories had been extended successfully, and the Canadians now paid less than of old for their agricultural implements. That was an example of the successful encouragement of a native industry by a system of Protection. But this Bill, taken in conjunction with the Land Bill of 1881, which it developed, would not stimulate any native industry in Ireland, but would be a great measure for the protection of native laziness, idleness, unthrift, and moral blindness that prevailed in that country. Fair rent had now come to mean eleemosynary rent, or rent below that which men were ready to give. The rent of the farm which a man occupied was, in future, to be fixed below the price which others would willingly give. The course the Land Commission were taking, he believed, was to make what they called the fair rent so low that the existing tenant, however idle and unthrifty, should continue to live upon his holding. Thus they prevented others, who did not hold tenancies, however more thrifty and industrious they might be, of getting any chance; and so from the tenantry of Ireland was being withheld the healthy stimulus of competition, which we believed to be essential for the advance of all industries in this country. Out of 500,000 tenants in Ireland, a large proportion, probably not less than 200,000, paid less than £4 a-year in rent. A reduction of 25 per cent upon a £4 holding was only a reduction of 20s. a-year, and he need hardly point out that the gain which the tenant derived from such reduction was far less than would be the gain resulting from the improvement of his industry and the system of cultivation. The reduction, therefore, was nothing but an encouragement of laziness and of idle habits. There was another remarkable change which had been made in the Bill by the House of Commons, and he trusted that it would not be acceded to by their Lordships. One of the limitations placed by Mr. Gladstone on the sweeping measure of 1881 was the removal from its purview of certain kinds of land, among others of land which had a special and artificial value through its immediate proximity to a town. The present Government, on the recommendation of the Cowper Commission, had determined to effect some change in the legislation of 1881 in this

  7
  respect, and had embodied their views in the Bill. The Amendment to the proposal of the Government that had now come up from the other House would virtually abolish the special value which belonged to all accommodation land in villages or towns under a population of 2,000 persons. This provision would be very unjust. Let their Lordships remember that many of the landowners in Ireland were much poorer than their tenants; but many of them had been able to derive hope from the knowledge that an additional value attached to property close to a town. So far as the value of their property had diminished from natural causes, they had no more to complain of than others; but those who had property near towns were entitled to look for the additional value thereby attaching to it untouched. But this Amendment would sweep away from a large number of the Irish landowners that additional value; and, considering that as a matter not of politics, but as one of their personal honour, he trusted that such an Amendment as had come from the other House would never be agreed to by their Lordships, until some stronger reason of public policy could be shown for depriving the Irish proprietors of that which was undoubtedly their property than any that had been given in the House of Commons. At present, every consideration, of public policy pointed in the other direction. If the Amendment were passed, and if the holders of all the plots of land in the neighbourhood of a small thriving town were given tenant-right under the Bill of 1881, the town would inevitably be deprived of all power of expansion. Then, another novelty was furnished by the Commons' Amendment attempting to regulate cotter rents. It had always seemed to him to be a great anomaly that attempts should be made to regulate the rents of tenants, and that the Legislature should shrink from regulating the rents of sub-tenants. In this Amendment an attempt—a very feeble one, it was true—was at last made to regulate those rents; but the change was to be confined to the rents of farm labourers, and they all knew that in a great part of Ireland no labourers were employed upon the holdings. The Amendment, therefore, would leave unassisted the great majority of the sub-tenants of Ireland. This Amendment was utterly
  8
  nugatory as regarded the protection of the labouring population, for the attempt to regulate cotters' rents took no account of conacre. Those who, like himself, were in the habit of reading the Irish papers, especially those of the North of Ireland, would know that letting by conacre was sub-letting to all intents and purposes. Individual fields were often sub-let in this way at rents varying from £2 to £6 per acre; while the tenants were crying out that for the same land a rent of 15 s. or £1 was monstrous and exorbitant. This system prevailed all over the North of Ireland, and no attempt was made to give the poor conacre tenants any protection whatever. This, however, was simply the beginning of a new principle, which, also, no doubt, would be carried further; and the cry would soon be raised for the protection of sub-tenants all over Ireland. Having given that, then they would be asked to protect house rent as well. When was this legislation to end, and upon what principle was it to be guided? The fact was that there was no attempt at principle—a universal slipshod prevailed in Irish legislation. Then, again, certain powers had been given to revise judicial rents, and he knew that the political situation was involved therein, and that if the House rejected the compromise with respect to the revisal of those rents, the Bill would probably be lost, and political complications of a grave character would arise, and he was not inclined to advise the House to take that course; but it was his duty to ask their Lordships to look at the absurdity of the principle upon which this revision had been made. Its author was obviously a man of benevolent intentions, who knew nothing about the management of land. There was a Statutory Order of the Land Court to revise rents according to a scale of prices. That would be reasonable, if the judicial rents had been settled on a uniform principle. But the Courts had been guided by no principle, because Parliament gave them no principle. Parliament originally intended to do so, and when the Bill was introduced a principle was laid down. In the Bill of 1881 a principle of valuation was laid down, and Mr. Gladstone, in his first speech on the Bill, said it was the duty of Parliament to lay down that prin-

  9
  ciple; but that duty had disappeared, and they had heard nothing of it since; in. fact, the Land Courts had acted on purely arbitrary principles. The Courts had gone about the country fixing rents according to their own judgments, and according to what they might have seen. Moreover, as regarded all produce and wheat, of which, after all, little was grown in Ireland, the fall in prices had not been so great as was alleged, and the prices of the store cattle raised by the small farmers of Ireland had not fallen so much as other things. Thirty years ago—soon after the abolition of the Corn Laws—prices were lower than they were at the present moment. It might fairly be assumed that the Land Courts had fixed a fair average of rents, and he protested against their being revised. Such a revision would destroy the confidence of people in the legislation of Parliament, and in the permanence of their arrangements. In the next place, how could Courts possibly tell whether a man's inability to pay, when application was made to stay process against a tenant, arose from his own fault or not? Was idleness or ignorance, or want of skill or thrift, such a fault as would disentitle a tenant to relief? No; the Courts would bring down the rents to the level of the idleness of these people. He hoped their Lordships had all read the Blue Book produced by Mr. Balfour, and especially the evidence about the bankrupt Unions of the West of Ireland. There was not a man found to resist the grossest jobberies of public money; and the feeble protest of a few ex officio Guardians was of no avail to prevent the wholesale pauperizing of the population. In some Unions the whole population was in receipt of outdoor relief, and, in one case, the number scheduled, in true Irish fashion, actually exceeded the population. It was only when this state of things came to the ears of Dublin Castle that large numbers were struck off the rates. The whole of that part of Ireland was deeply in debt to the Government. In short, it was a perfect farce to legislate on this subject and to attempt to root these miserable people in holdings which would not support them. The Court would have to hear the evidence, see the rags which would probably be put on for the occasion, and lower the rent to the level of
  10
  the idleness of the person to be protected in the holding, proceeding, on the poverty of the applicant being proved, to reduce the rent. He wished to make an appeal to his noble Friends who led the Opposition in that House. It seemed to him that there was a competition among Parties in England at the present moment as to who could best bribe the poor voters in Ireland. Where was the virtue which once belonged to the Liberal Party in regard to economic questions? One of the greatest triumphs of the Liberal Party immediately after the passing of the first Reform Bill was the amendment of the English Poor Laws. The evidence given before the Commission appointed to inquire into those laws described a state of things in many parts of England closely analogous to the state of things now existing in Ireland. They pointed out that the increasing poverty of the people was due to the system of the Poor Law and to the rates in aid. The whole of our legislation was now nothing but rates in aid paid out of one class of property— not paid out of the Public Exchequer, not paid by the whole of the ratepayers, but paid out of the rental of the soil. The proprietors were a small minority, and could be attacked without fear; the poor majority were the voters, and they could not be attacked without fear. He asked his noble Friends to show some of the old virtues of the Liberal Party, and to stick to the doctrines which they held for so many years in favour of economic principles. Probably they would shrug their shoulders, and say—"The thing is inevitable; you cannot help it." Do not let them be mistaken. The whole of this was essentially vicious legislation. It would increase the poverty of the Irish people and discourage their industry. Perhaps his noble Friends would say—"We must leave that to the Irish people themselves." Did they think that the local self-government that was shown by the existing Unions and other bodies in Ireland was a good presage for the local self-government of that county? He knew that his noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant (Earl Spencer) was very sanguine on that point. His noble Friend said that these evils would be remedied by the Irish people if they were left to themselves; but his noble Friend had never given them any argu-

  11
  ment on the matter. They must accept the Bill which was now before them from the necessities of the political situation. There were, however, one or two Amendments which, he trusted that House would insist upon, particularly that relating to accommodation land. But the measure as a whole they must swallow. Although they must do that, he, for one, protested against the principles which it involved, and he ventured to predict that it would not be the last of the attempts they would see—that it would not be the last flounder in this Serbonian bog of Gladstonian legislation.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was willing to admit that their Lordships were placed in a position of difficulty in regard to the proceedings that evening. The very fact that they would have to consider Amendments which were circulated only an hour and a half before the House met was a sufficient proof of that. However, he did not think that they would be assisted by going into a discussion on Homo Rule, which was not before their Lordships, or by discussing the social, political, and economical questions which had been referred to by the noble Duke in a speech which would doubtless have been admirable had the second reading of the Bill been before their Lordships. He was quite sure that they would not advance very much if they embarked upon a discussion of such subjects as had been touched upon by the noble Duke in the course of his vigorous assault upon those Amendments which the Marquess of Hartington, with the assent of his Friends in the House of Commons, and, he presumed, in the House of Lords also, rather forced than otherwise on the Government. Many of those Amendments had been suggested by his (Earl Granville's) noble and learned Friends (Lords Herschell and Fitzgerald), who in offering them had been called officious; but now that they were before their Lordships with the full recommendation of Her Majesty's Government, they on that side of the House would most heartily support them. He thought there was some ground for saying that it was something of a hardship on the whole House, in consequence of the fact that during the animated debates in that House on the Bill, the course which the Government intended to pursue, with or without consultation
  12
  with the Liberal Unionists, had been absolutely concealed from them. It was a complete farce to have debate on the second reading in Committee, and on the Report, and to delude the Irish Peers by Amendments in favour of the landlords being accepted by Her Majesty's Government, if that conduct was to be followed up by an entire reversal of policy, and by Amendments of an entirely opposite kind being forced upon the House of Commons and accepted by the Government. He really thought they had some ground to complain of the manner in which the question had been treated in that respect. The noble Duke thought the germ of this measure was to be found in the Act of 1881. He (Earl Granville) believed that that Act and the Statute which preceded it, the Act of 1870, were absolutely necessary, and that if they had not been passed things would have been absolutely worse in Ireland than they were at the present time. But the germ did not appear for the first time in 1881, but was very much stronger in 1870, when the then Government had the noble Duke entirely agreeing with them. He had really thought it right to protest against the manner in which the House had been treated, and having done that, he wished to say that he thought they had better at once proceed to work and discuss the different Amendments before them. The Bill had come back to them a very much improved measure, and he would gladly promise, for those with whom he acted, that he was ready to give the Government all the support he could in getting the Bill through.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) had asked their Lordships to go immediately into the consideration of the Amendments. He (the Marquess of Salisbury), however, thought that it would hardly be treating the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), or even the noble Earl himself, with courtesy, if he did not make a few remarks. He would not go through the speech of the noble Duke, but would venture to point out that when once the germ of an evil principle was introduced into legislation, it was impossible to get rid of it. Somehow or other, the fabric of social order had to be maintained. Somehow

  13
  or other, an effort had to be made to adjudge to each man his fair rights. If departure was made from the sound system on which those results were formerly obtained, and they entered upon an unsound one, it would be necessary to develop and push on that unsound principle, in order to obtain the elementary objects for which all society existed. That could not be done with a structure once broken. They must persevere in the path on which they had unfortunately entered, and do their utmost to obtain the best and most expedient and just results that might be forthcoming. In 1881 he confessed, and in 1870 also, the then Government had entered upon what, in his judgment, was the very unwise plan of trying to place upon the State the responsibility of insuring that the relations and contracts between landlords and tenants were in conformity with equity. They departed from the principle of free contract that then existed, and made what was, in his judgment, the very great mistake of giving fixity of tenure. When they had once done that, it then became the responsibility of the State to see that those two persons, the landlord and tenant, should bear relations which were in themselves just towards each other. They had absolutely renounced the existence of free contract, and, having renounced it, they could not allow unjust and impossible relations to grow up. His answer to the noble Earl opposite was clear. It was only to repeat what he said of this Bill more than once during its passage through the House. There was a great evil to be met, a great danger to be averted. It was necessary that the land war in Ireland should cease, and the Government believed that the healthiest and best way of interfering on behalf of those who were reduced to inability to fulfil their contracts, by events which were outside their own power, was an application of the law of bankruptcy to the relations between landlord and tenant. That was the remedy which the Government, after very deep consideration, had decided to recommend, and they exhausted every effort at their command to impress that doctrine upon the House. The noble Earl asked—he did not think he had any right to do so—whether the application of that remedy was resolved upon with the knowledge and concurrence of Lord
  14
  Hartington. In answer to the question he could at once say that that remedy was agreed to in concert with him, but the Government had absolutely failed to carry it. They had absolutely failed in their Lordships' House, to say nothing of the House of Commons. They had been obliged to alter the Bill again and again, because they could not induce the landlords to accept the application of the bankruptcy principle, and so much was forced upon the Government in their Lordships' House, that when the Bill came into the other House of Parliament it became evident that the application of the Bankruptcy Law which they had recommended was not a measure which they could induce the House of Commons to adopt. That being the case, they had to find some other mode by which the pressure of economical events upon the tenants could be lightened, at least during the interval which separated them from those further land measures to which the Government were pledged, and in which they believed the final solution of the Land Question in Ireland was possible. Had the Bankruptcy Clauses been accepted, the Government believed they would not only have relieved the insolvent tenant, but would also have furnished a motive to the landlord to treat with liberality and equity those to whom agricultural changes had made the rent so severe. The Bankruptcy Clauses having become impossible, it was inevitable that they should fall back upon some change of the kind recommended by the Cowper Commission, and that was the principal change now submitted to their Lordships. What the Government had recommended was, he need not say, not a revision of rents, but the substitution of a produce rent for a money rent. It was not exactly in the form recommended by the Commission; but it was much more transient, and, in his judgment, in a much more simple and salutary form. But he did not for a moment say that he preferred it to the Bill the Government submitted to the House. He would gladly have passed the Bankruptcy Clauses if the Government had had the power; but they had not the power. The Government informed their Lordships that they intended to pass a Bill which would have the effect of putting an end to evictions which we thought dangerous to the peace of Ireland. They

  15
  earnestly pressed on their Lordships, and on the other House of Parliament, the mode of doing so which they thought expedient; but they certainly did not think themselves justified in abandoning a Bill which had the object he had stated in view, because they were unable to obtain the particular means of doing it which they thought most convenient. It would have been contrary to the pledges they had made. It would, have led to political events, which he need not further enter upon, as they had been dwelt upon by the noble Duke in his speech; but sooner or later, at a longer or shorter interval, it would also have had this deplorable effect, that if the Government had abandoned the Bill and made no effort to lighten the burdens of the Irish tenants, which now, by extraneous circumstances, lay upon them, they would have had to face this political contingency—that some time or other a Dissolution would have taken place and an Election would have been made, in which, owing to the overwhelming pressure of a secondary controversy, the votes of the loyal people of Ulster might, for a time, have seemed to be upon the side which the Government believed to be absolutely fatal to the interests of the Empire. He had thought it best to speak out his mind upon this subject, as it seemed to him that that was the best way to meet the ordinary dangers with which politicians had to deal, and he bad not heard anything to convince him that in the circumstances of extreme difficulty in which the Government had been placed they had taken other than the course which was indicated by patriotism and right in the interests of the Empire.
  THE EARL OF ERNEsaid, he agreed to a great extent with what had been said by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) as to the manner in which they had been treated, and he could not follow the defence offered by the noble Marquess. He believed, however, that the Bankruptcy Clauses, as amended by their Lordships, would have been a great benefit to the Irish tenants. He desired to enter his protest—because anything beyond protest was impossible—against the manner in which the Bill would, by its changes, treat a large body of men in Ireland. There was, unfortunately, a large class of small proprietors with heavily encumbered estates who would
  16
  be almost ruined by the clause for the revision of the judicial rents. To them Parliament had almost been guilty of a breach of faith. By the Land Act of 1881 they were called upon to make considerable sacrifices, and their incomes were greatly reduced until, in many cases, hardly any margin was left over the charges upon their estates. He had always held that the Act of 1881, although it did not contain any statutory guarantee, yet it gave a moral guarantee to those men that that margin would be retained to them, and the judicial rents paid; but that guarantee was altogether destroyed by the Bill, for by its means the greater portion of what was left to them would be cut away. By passing the Bill, the Government had, he believed, thrown away any chance of success they might have had for the Purchase Bill; for, until they gave the Irish tenants the idea that there was some Quality in their legislation, and that no more concessions could be looked for, no purchase scheme was likely to succeed, and Parliament would only be wasting time. He certainly believed the line of conduct recommended by Parliament and the Government would not be conducive to the interests of Ireland, or to the credit of this country.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that he had no desire to stand for any long time between the House and the discussion which was about to take place, but he thought that he ought to take that opportunity of thanking the noble Marquess opposite for the manly and frank explanation of his action in this matter which he had given to the House. He certainly had agreed in principle with the original scheme of the Bill, and he had also agreed with the noble Marquess in thinking it was desirable, during the interval which must elapse before the larger measure which all parties agreed was necessary could be brought forward to do no more than the exigencies of the case made absolutely necessary, and in hoping that it would be sufficient for that purpose to deal with the cases of tenants unable to pay their rents, without fault of their own, and on whom the powers of eviction might otherwise be exercised. He had hoped that such a measure might be sufficient, and he agreed with the noble Marquess that it was not desirable to introduce into this Bill matters

  17
  which could be dealt with, more conveneniently in the larger measure which Her Majesty's Government intended to introduce as soon as they could do so. He had entirely agreed with the noble Marquess upon these two points— first, that the supremacy of the law should be restored in Ireland by means of another measure which had now become law; and, secondly, that an Act must be passed which would limit the right of landlords to evict, and would prevent an abuse of that power for the purpose of enforcing the payment of impossible rents, which was dangerous to the State, and calculated to strengthen disaffection, and to extend the power of the disaffection already existing. With that patriotism which Irish landlords had often displayed, they, on this occasion, mitigated their tone of objection to the Bill; but, at the same time, there could be no doubt that the manner in which they originally received the Bankruptcy Clauses was calculated to defeat that part of the scheme of the Government; and it could hardly have surprised them to find that those clauses were given up. He confessed he was strongly impressed with the force of some of the arguments against these clauses. But having failed, what was the alternative for those clauses? Were they simply to enlarge the Equitable Clause, and give power of an unlimited kind to Courts to deal with arrears? In his opinion, merely to give time for the payment of arrears would not be effectual, because the arrears would go on accumulating year by year. The Cowper Commission had arrived at the conclusion that the rents of holdings in a great part of Ireland were such that at the present prices of produce many of the tenants could not pay them; and, looking at all the circumstances of the case, he thought the plan now adopted by the Government was as just as any that could have been proposed to bridge over the interval until the larger measure of the Government was introduced and passed; for, with a rise in prices, the landlords would have the benefit, and with a fall in prices the tenants would have the benefit. The general manner in which the change was to be made freed the scheme from the objections justly urged against individual applications for a revision of rent; and the Go-
  18
  vernment would have been extremely wanting to their duty if they had thrown up the Bill when they found that a larger measure of relief than they at first contemplated was desired by the loyal tenants in Ireland, because they had not been able to carry the Bankruptcy Clauses. He was as sensible as anyone of the solid grounds which there were for saying that if there had been no such legislation as that of 1870 and 1881 they might possibly have been in a worse position than that in which they now found themselves. He agreed that the legislation of 1870 had been the starting point, but if he might venture to say so, the germ of the measure of 1870, which had carried with it these later consequences, was not that which was contested at the time— namely, the question of compensation for disturbance, but that upon which everyone was agreed—the legalization of the Ulster custom. Not only Mr. Sharman-Crawford, but also Lord Mayo, in the House of Commons had continually urged the principle of that measure. When they had gone so far as to turn the statutory principle of contract into a law of tenure in accordance with customs, which in practice combined, in a manner scarcely intelligible, those two conflicting principles, it was difficult to avoid going further. Although he was very sensible of these considerations, still he would rather have cut off his hand than be a party to that measure of 1881, giving the House the reasons and assurances which he then gave, if he had known that within five years after its passing it would have been thrown over by its authors, and that the course they had now taken would be entered upon; for such action on their part made its permanent success, or whatever degree of success might otherwise have been hoped for, absolutely impossible. But that course having been entered upon by them, there was nothing now left but to make the best of the situation, and, for his part, he thought the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, under the circumstances, had done his duty bravely and patriotically in the matter.
  THE EARL OF HOWTHsaid, he i thought the Irish landlords had taken a I very patriotic course in regard to the i Bill. As far as the Liberal Unionists

  19
  were concerned, they approved of the two main principles of the policy of Her Majesty's Government — namely, the Purchase Bill and the secondary Bill dealing with the removal of the evils which had become the bane of the Irish tenantry, and repairing the blots in the Bill of 1881. He feared, however, that the development which was shown by the alterations made in the Bill pointed, to the fact that Her Majesty's Government had yielded to the pressure brought upon them by the National League, for they seemed to have been proposed with a desire to make the rents as low as possible before the purchase scheme was prepared. That was a great injustice to the landlords. Another fear which he had was that Her Majesty's Government was greatly in want of money to carry out their Purchase Bill. One of the chief points to which he wished to allude was the manner in which valuation with respect to the landlords' property was carried out under the Act of 1881 in Ireland. At first, there had been no difficulty; but then had come the crash caused by the fall in prices, and the whole machinery of valuation was thrown out of gear. What had been a modus vivendi in 1881 ceased to be so in 1886, and the consequence was that valuators came to totally different conclusions. There were the landlords' valuators, then the Judges of the Law Courts, who had estates under their supervision, and there was also the tenants' valuators, who very naturally valued in anticipation of a still greater fall in prices. The valuer of the Land Court also exercised his valuation in anticipation of a further fall. There was thus great confusion existing, and he thought that the Government might lay down some medium of valuation, for a most unjust system of valuation had been pursued. He further hoped the Government would consider the condition of the landlords of Ireland at the present time, and that after the very great concessions which had been made to the tenant, something would be done to relieve landlords of some of the heavy burdens which at present were thrown upon them, and which they were unable to bear.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he thought it only fair that the Irish Representatives should be allowed to enter their protest against the course pursued in
  20
  reference to the Bill. The measure now before the House was a totally and entirely different measure from that which had left them. The Bill was three months in that House, and they had reason to complain that during the whole of the time the Bill was before their Lordships the Government gave them no idea of what has since taken place in the Commons. He, as one of the Representatives of Ireland, was negotiating with the Government with reference to the provisions of the Bill, and they understood that the Government were carrying on negotiations with the Liberal Unionists in the same way as with Irish landlords in that House. The Bill, as it left that House, was the result of a compromise, and if there had been no such compromise, many more Amendments would have been moved. But what was his surprise when the Bill went down to the House of Commons, in the very first speech made by a Member of the Government—he believed it was Mr. Smith—it was stated that the Government would be delighted to consider any Amendments from whatever quarter of the House they might proceed. The Government, in fact, had a perfectly open mind on the subject. There was, therefore, just cause of complaint against the Government. If this was the course which the Government intended to adopt, and if they thought the Bill could not be fairly treated in that House, it would have been far better to introduce the measure in the other House. But that was not the only fault he had to find with the Government. The Bill came up on Monday last. He had anxiously waited for it; but it was only yesterday that the Bill was sent to him with the Commons' Amendments. But the omissions in the Bill as it left their Lordships were not pointed out, and it was not till to-day that he was able to compare the two Bills. With such short notice, it was not reasonable to expect the House to discuss the Amendments on the Paper. In the House of Commons a clause had been introduced for altering judicial rents, a proposal to which, over and over again, the Government said they would not consent. The Bill as it stood admitted leaseholders to the benefit of the Act of 1881, and now in the House of Commons it was declared that judicial rents fixed five years ago were unfair.

  21
  In such a state of things the leaseholders ought only to be tenants from year to year, and he thought it was very unfair that leaseholders should be admitted to the Act of 1881 at a time when prices were at their lowest, without any provision that if prices rose the landlords should be entitled to some benefit in the better prices. He hoped the Government would make some modification in that direction, for otherwise they would be doing an injustice to owners of property. He would suggest that if judicial rents were reduced, the reduction should be made contingent on payment within a reasonable time. He wished, as an Irishman, to protest against the course pursued by the Government in regard to the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Commons' Amendments considered accordingly.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCI VISCOUNT DE VESCI moved an Amendment rejecting the Commons' Amendment which provided that the option of applying to have a lease broken should be limited to the tenant, and providing that the option should be extended to the landlord as well as the tenant, as it stood originally in the Bill.
  Amendment moved, at end of Clause 1, to add ("an application to break a lease may be made to the Court by the lessor as well as by the lessee").—(The Viscount De Vesci.)
  LORD CASTLETOWNsupported the Amendment.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)said, that the proposal of the noble Viscount was that an Amendment passed in the other House should be disagreed with and that lessors as well as lessees should be given the power of applying to the Land Court under Clause 1. That clause had for its object to extend to leaseholders the benefits of the Land Act of 1881. He feared that if his noble Friend's Amendment were agreed to, and the option were given to the landlord as well as the tenant, some landlords would strive to got their tenants' leases broken, with a view to raise the rent. He trusted that their Lordships would reject the Amendment.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.
  On the Motion of The LORD PRIVY SEAL, consequential Amendments made to the Commons' Amendment to Clause 1.
  On the Motion of The Viscount DE VESCI, the following Amendment made, at end of Clause C, add—
  ("This section shall not apply to a subletting made by a tenant dining a statutory term, nor to a sub-letting made after the passing of this Act.")
  Commons' Amendments agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in moving an Amendment, requiring the Land Commission, in fixing fair rents, to attach to their judgment a scale of prices of agricultural produce affecting the holding in regard to which the rent was fixed, said, it was quite possible that the Act might continue in operation for a longer period of time than was at present anticipated. If the rents which were now about to be revised had had, in the first instance, such a scale attached to the judgment, it would be a great convenience. He believed that under the Act the rents about to be fixed on easier terms might, next year or the year after, be again revised, if there were a further fall in prices, and it would be very desirable in that event to know the prices upon which the rents were fixed.
  Bill 218, Clause 5, page 3, line 31, Amendment moved, to add, as a new paragraph, at the end of words inserted by the Commons—
  "The Court shall, in making an order for the fixing of a judicial rent under this section, attach thereto a scale of the prices of agricultural produce affecting the holding in regard to which such order is made, which the Court has taken into consideration, in fixing such judicial rent." —(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, the Government could not accept the Amendment, which would throw an undue burden on the Commission. There were a great many elements to be taken into account, and it was not desirable to take out one element—namely, the element of price, and require that element to be stated. He did not think it reasonable to ask the Commissioners to state one of their grounds for fixing a fair rent, for he was convinced that it would only excite a feeling of rivalry and jealousy.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYurged that if the scale were fixed and prices happened at any time to be lower than that

  23
  scale, the effect of the Amendment would be to create discontent and agitation among tenants, and if prices were at any time higher than the scale fixed the scale would be detrimental to the landlords; because if the tenants in future times saw that existing prices were lower than those stated in the scale accompanying the judgment, they would agitate to have the rents lowered. The Amendment would multiply discontent and encourage litigation.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he felt that there was very much force in what had been said by the noble Marquess, and he would oppose the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENwithdrew the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  LORD FITZGERALD, in moving to leave out of the eviction by registered letter clause the words "a copy of the said notice shall be published in a newspaper circulating in the district," said, the clause was complete without the sentence, which was unnecessary, and might be dangerous. He would not venture to predict what would occur where there were two papers circulating in a district; but suppose there was only one paper, and it was favourable to the tenant, they would be at the mercy of the newspaper proprietor, who might refuse to publish save at a prohibitory cost. The due publication of the notice would form a part of the landlord's title to be put into possession, and without strict proof of the statutable requirements in this respect he could not eventually recover the holding.
  Amendment moved,
  To disagree to the Commons' Amendment (Bill No. 308) in page 3, line 8, after ("lane"), to insert ("in all such cases, a copy of the said notice shall be published in a newspaper circulating in the district, and a copy shall be sent in a registered letter addressed to the tenant ").—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
  EARL CADOGANsaid, he would accept the Amendment on behalf of the Government.
  Motion agreed to.
  Commons' Amendment disagreed to.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN moved an Amendment to the Town Park Clause, striking out the provisions by which a town for the purposes of the clause was
  24
  defined to be a town of over 2,000 inhabitants.
  Bill No. 218, Clause 9, page 8, line 21, moved ("to disagree with the words inserted by the Commons.")—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  LORD MACNAGHTENjoined in opposing the Commons' Amendment. He had been much disappointed when the Bill came back to find how much this clause had been mangled and patched; so much so, indeed, that he was ashamed to own any connection with it. He could not even understand it. It was now contradictory and absurd; because, after stating that town parks were an accommodation to towns, it yet proceeded to deny that accommodation to the class of towns which most desired it, for the towns which most needed them were just the towns which would be deprived of them by the clause as it loft the Commons. A town park was land in the vicinity of a town which was in the occupation of shopkeepers or other residents of the town, and there were certain peculiarities in regard to its tenure. Tenant-right had never been an incident of town parks; but the tenant had always been entitled to be paid compensation for his improvements. Out of the 300 witnesses examined before the Cowper Commission, only 15 alluded to the subject, and of those 15 only one would name any limit, and that limit was 20,000. Yet the Commissioners recommended a limit of 5,000. Heaven knows where they got that. The effect of the clause, as it left the Commons, would be that shopkeepers or doctors in small towns who held accommodation land could have the rent revised, and could have holdings for £100, £200, or £300, in which, at the present moment, they had no saleable interest whatever, and in which they never expected to have any saleable interest. Tenant-right did not, as he had said, exist in the case of town parks, and though the rent was a little higher than that for purely agricultural land, still the tenant had not to pay the fabulously large sums to the outgoing tenant which prevailed in regard to ordinary holdings. Mr. Litton, one of the Chief Commissioners of the Land Court, said in his evidence before the Royal Commission that he thought the holdings known as town parks were of

  25
  "enormous advantage to small towns," and by small towns places with a population of from 500 to 2,000 were just those which were meant. Yet the Amendment made in the House of Commons would destroy town parks just in these very towns. Another effect of this Amendment would he to confer on the present tenants of town parks a tenant-right which they had never possessed, and which they would, in many cases, be able to sell for some hundreds of pounds. The only people who wished to abolish these town parks were those whoso object was the spoliation of the landlord. He was not advocating the cause of the Irish landlords; but he might take the liberty of doubting whether the spoliation of the landlords was in itself so admirable and excellent a thing that it was worthwhile, in order to attain that object, to inflict this very serious injury upon Irish, country towns.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIsaid, he wished to point out that owners of land near towns often let land to agricultural labourers on easy terms, and that the labourers, in default of such provision, would be compelled to live in the towns themselves. The result was that many towns contained less than 2,000 inhabitants when, but for the liberality of the landlords to the labourers, they would contain more. It was hard in such circumstances that the rights of the owners of town parks should be diminished. Had they not acted liberally towards the labourers, the latter must have swelled the town population, with the result of excluding the occupation land from the operation of this measure.
  LORD FITZGERALDhoped that the Government would yield upon this question. If the clause, as it left the Commons, were agreed to, it would place an iron band around about 240 small towns in Ireland, including Lismore, Coote-hill, Castleblayney, Belturbet, Ballybay, and Antrim, and would prevent the expansion and improvement of those towns.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that these town parks were not only an advantage to the landowner, but to the community. He was in favour of supporting the rights derived from custom, as from written contract; but, in the case of town parks, there never had been asserted on the part of the tenant any custom or right to the holding.
  26
  They were, in fact, allotments given out for the benefit of the people, and very often rich people competed for them in the open market. By the Amendment under consideration, the Land Court would be empowered to deprive landowners of the value of their accommodation land, in favour of the men who might happen to be in possession of it at a particular time. These men would be able to sell their rights in open market, not for the advantage of the Irish people, but for their own advantage, and to realize the additional value which attached to land near a town. There was no great public interest to be served by agreeing to this clause; indeed, there was a great public interest adverse to it—namely, that the growth of the towns would be checked by the clause. In a particular case in the neighbourhood of Belfast, the Act of 1881 was having that effect; for he had a letter from a landed proprietor in the neighbourhood of Belfast, who stated that that town could not be increased in his direction because some small tenants under the Act of 1881 would not allow their interests to be bought. Public interest demanded that the Amendment should be expunged.
  EARL SPENCERsupported the Commons' Amendment, which he should be sorry to see disagreed to without something being said in its favour. This was a matter upon which the holders of town parks felt very strongly, and there was an urgent demand for their inclusion within the Act of 1881. Even long before he left Ireland, that had made itself felt, and there had been bitter complaints against their exclusion. At one time, Mr. Gladstone's Government contemplated the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the subject. It was unjust to charge an exorbitant rent for these holdings, and this clause would enable a fair rent to be fixed. It would not be supposed that the Land Commissioners would fix a purely agricultural value on these farms; but the tenants on these farms should have the opportunity of having the present rents revised, and, no doubt, the Land Court would consider what the proper accommodation rent ought to be. He quite agreed that if the land was likely to be valuable for building, in consequence of its nearness to a large town, that ought to be taken into consideration; but in

  27
  the Act of 1881 there was power to resume land for building purposes. The Amendment in "another place" was a compromise on the part of the Government. Under all the circumstances, he hoped that the Government would consider carefully before they assented to the Commons' Amendment being expunged. He did not think it would do injustice lo the landowners, or he would not agree to it; but his belief was that it would only give the Court a power of fixing a proper rent for accommodation land; and if the land was building land, it gave power to allow it to be used for the public good.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that it seemed to be assumed by his noble Friend that the solo operation of the Land Act of 1881 was the fixing of a fair rent, whereas there were other statutory conditions—fixity of tenure and free sale—conditions inapplicable to this kind of land. These town parks were accommodation land, let for the convenience of the occupiers of houses in towns; and to place them on a footing applicable to agricultural land unconnected with those houses was manifestly unreasonable. The clause as it now stood did not abolish town parks altogether; it made a distinction between towns under and towns over 2,000 inhabitants, according to the last Parliamentary Census, so that the limit of 2,000 would be a fluctuating one, and a town which had now more than 2,000 inhabitants was to be treated as if it had less, because it had less six years ago. Was it not desirable that the number of considerable towns in Ireland, at present so small, should be increased? But the limit now placed in the Bill would tend to discourage the growth of towns just under the 2,000. It was because it was desirable to develop towns that, by the clause as it stood, the Land Act was prevented from applying to town parks when the population exceeded 2,000, unless it were made clear that no obstacle to the improvement of the town or inconvenience to the inhabitants would result from so applying it. This was on the face of the clause, as it now stood; and yet it was proposed to disregard all those considerations in the case of the smaller towns, in which they might often be of more importance than in the larger. As for the argument from the recommendation of the Commission,
  28
  he could attach no weight to that, when it was not supported either by evidence or by reason. That recommendation, was not law; but the House was enacting a law, and it was their duty to do what was just and consistent and reasonable in the matter.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that, in his opinion, the reasons urged by the noble Earl (Earl Spencer) in support of this change introduced in "another place" were inconsistent with each other. The special characteristic of leases was duration for a term of years, that of town parks was their being for the most part let annually. The process of resumption of land for building purposes under the Act was notoriously a troublesome one.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was not at all learned in the law of town parks; but he was sure that if the House went to a Division, there could be little doubt that there would be a largo majority in favour of adhering to the clause as it originally left the House of Lords. He did not think, so far as he could judge, that there was very much to be said for this numerical limit. He was much struck by an observation of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Macnaghten), that any authority derived from the Cowper Commission in this regard was not to be esteemed of great value, because it was merely evolved from their own internal consciousness, and did not depend upon any evidence that they received. He fancied that the idea of a numerical limit proceeded entirely from the Cowper Commission, that it was recommended to the House of Commons on that ground, and the Government undoubtedly did in debate accept as a compromise the limit of 2,000 inhabitants. He did not, however, think, on consideration, that that precise limit could be adhered to, as the number was to be drawn from the last Parliamentary Census — he imagined that that would mean the last Parliamentary Census before the time when the matter was submitted to the judgment of the Commissioners. If that was the case, of course a town would be liable to go in and out of the restriction as town parks according as its population altered with each succeeding Census, and people who had made their arrangements on the basis of one population might find themselves remitted to another rule of law for another popula-

  29
  tion. Besides, in towns of the limits named, it might be very difficult to decide where the town ended. These towns ran out into suburbs and villas, and the fixing of a numerical limit would tend to agitation and considerable litigation. Under all the circumstances, he would accept the Motion of his noble Friend behind him, that the words should be struck out.
  Motion agreed to; Commons' Amendment disagreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN EARL CADOGAN moved to amend a Commons' Amendment to Clause 19, to take from a High Court the power of making a temporary prospective abatement of rent.
  Bill No. 218, page 14, line 7, moved in Clause D, to leave out from the first ("rent") to (" due ") in the next line, and insert instead thereof (" for the time being.")— (The Lord Privy Seal.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that the sole object of the Government was to confine the jurisdiction of the Court in dealing with arrears; but as the words of the clause were not particularly clear, he hoped that the Amendment would not be opposed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CADOGAN EARL CADOGAN moved, that the Commons' Amendments as far as the New Clause dealing with the temporary adjustment of judicial rents be agreed to.
  Moved, "That the Amendments made by the Commons, as far as Clause E (Temporary adjustment of judicial rents) be agreed to."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  LORD EMLYsaid, he must protest against the provisions of the clause, and would urge that some Proviso ought to be brought into the clause, stating that any judicial rent fixed during a time of exceptionally low prices should not continue for more than three years. The principle involved in the clause showed that a gross injustice might be done to the landlord. He protested against fixing rents in these uncertain times for 15 years.
  EARL CADOGANsaid, that a temporary remission of judicial rents during a period of three years, as proposed by the Bill, was a different thing from a permanent provision for a periodical revision of those rents according to a scale of prices, as was proposed by the noble
  30
  Lord, and Her Majesty's Government could not accept the noble Lord's proposal.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the Bill as it now stood provided for the alteration of the judicial rents during the next three years. That appeared to him to be a very important germ which had been introduced for the first time into the law of landlord and tenant by this Bill, and before long that germ would develop into a full-grown tree. No one could believe that when the three years had expired, the old rents would be revived, and indeed, as au English landlord, he was of opinion that rents in the future would fall still further instead of rising, no did not blame the Government for making the provisions of this Bill temporary; on the contrary, when an experiment of this kind was attempted to be made, it was better that it should be of a tentative character. He, however, wished to express his opinion most emphatically that by consenting to this provision being introduced into this Bill, Parliament would have laid down the permanent principle that in the future there must be a periodical revision of rents. He was glad the Government had listened to the representations which had been made on this subject in the House of Commons. It was his firm conviction that the principle of produce rents, having been once adopted, it would be impossible hereafter to resist its further application.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the proposal was an alternative to the better plan of the Bankruptcy Clauses, and the consequences which must flow from the adoption of the principle of a periodical revision of rents was fully in the minds of the Government when they agreed to the proposal. It was a harmless germ because it was not unexampled. It had been tried in England and in Scotland under circumstances which, with respect to the changeability of prices, differed not very largely from those in which they now found themselves. It amounted practically to a return to the old practice of paying rent, not in money, but in produce. If it should eventually become the rule that money rents should become produce rents, variable from year to year according to a sliding scale of produce prices, he did not think that it would be inju-

  31
  rious to the community or unjust either to the landlord or the tenant; and, indeed, upon the whole, that would be the sounder principle. Therefore he did not think they were committing themselves to any germ of whose ultimate growth they would have any reason to complain. As to the yearly valuation, that was an inevitable necessity when the State was made a determining power in the relations between landlords and tenants. Dealing with a landlord so weak as the State, and tenants so utterly without capital as the Irish tenants, there was something absolutely absurd in fixing a 15 years' term for the rents, which at any moment might be disturbed by an unexpected accident arising out of the variable circumstances of the case. Therefore he could not admit that they were running any dangerous risk in substituting a produce for a coin rent, and he utterly disclaimed the idea that the clause committed them to any germ whose growth there was reason to fear.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, that they were told that this Act would be practically superseded by some large measure of land purchase. That might be so; but that scheme might not be passed as soon as seemed to be hoped. The condition of present tenants was that they would be liable to have their rents looked into in 1888 and 1889; and he could not see why all classes should not be put on the same terms.
  THE EARL OF HOWTHsaid, he thought that owners of leasehold property were entitled to the consideration of the Legislature. It was well known that before 1870, leases had been considered the greatest boon that a tenant could seek for, and the owners of leasehold property were held up as examples.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he thought that the matter which the noble Lord (Lord Emly) had specially noticed was one from which hardship and injustice might arise, and that it ought to be taken into consideration. He understood the noble Lord to point out that the 130,000 leaseholders now brought under the Act would in great part have their rents now settled at a time of the lowest depression and for a term of 15 years. This was hard indeed on the lessors. It had hitherto escaped notice, and he entreated the consideration of the Government.
  Motion agreed to.
  LORD CASTLETOWN LORD CASTLETOWN moved an Amendment providing that the tenants whose rents had been fixed by mutual agreement between landlord and tenant should not be subject to abatement under this clause, said, he thought it most unfair that where a landlord had come to some amicable arrangement with his tenant, this arrangement should be subject to abatement under this Bill merely because such arrangement happened to have been ratified by the Land Court.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that rents were judicial rents whether they had been fixed by the Court or ratified by the Court after agreement between landlord and tenant. On many properties these agreements had been arrived at upon the basis of reductions made and rents fixed by the Land Courts on neighbouring estates, or on part of the same estate; and since these latter were to be subject to abatement, it would not be logically defensible to exclude the former.
  Amendment negatived.
  EARL CADOGAN EARL CADOGAN moved an Amendment to insert in Clause E, in the second paragraph, the following words:—
  "So that the rent fixed under the provisions of this section shall differ by the difference in prices as aforesaid in the respective years."
  In Clause E (inserted by the Commons), after ("and eighty-six respectfully") in the second paragraph of the Clause, moved to insert—
  ("So that the rent fixed under the provisions of this section shall differ by the difference in prices as aforesaid in the respective years ").— (The Lord Pivy Seal.)
  EARL SPENCERbelieved that it would be unwise to confine the Land Commissioners within the rigid limits of this Amendment. He did not think it right to tie down the Land Commissioners by requiring them to make an alteration in rent exactly equal to the difference which had taken place in prices. He would illustrate his meaning by an example. Take a farm the gross produce of which at the higher prices was worth £500. The cost of production might also vary; but it would not vary to anything like the same degree as the value of the products, and it might remain unchanged. For the sake of argument he supposed the case where the cost of production remained the

  33
  same; he put that at £300, when the gross produce came to £500. That left £200 to be divided between the landlord for rent and the tenant for profit. He would take in this case the rent at £100. A fall in prices equal to 20 per cent came; what was the effect of that? The gross produce would fall to £400, and, the cost of production remaining the same, that would leave £100 for rent, & c. If the Amendment of the noble Earl were carried into law, the Land Commissioners would have to reduce the rent by 20 per cent. That would give the landlord £80 for rent, and leave only £20 for the tenant. He thought that a most unjust operation, and he believed it was essential not to tie the Commissioners' hands so absolutely that they must deal with the rents under consideration in this way, and this way alone. He understood that the clause, as it originally stood, would work in the following way. There might be two farms of exactly the same size, quality, and condition side by side. Call one A, the other B. The rent of A was fixed in 1881 or 1882. The rent of B was fixed this year. According to his view, the Commissioners would alter for this year, the rent of farm A to the same as the rent they had just fixed for farm B. That would be a just and proper arrangement. He did not know whether the Commissioners had regard to the considerations to which he had referred as to the relative deduction to be made in the rent and the fall in prices; but if they took these into consideration in the one case, they ought not to apply a different rule in the second case.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he thought that the Amendment was one that was distinctly favourable to the tenant. It was his opinion that they ought to adhere to the strict principle of a produce rent.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the Bill did not establish the principle of a produce rent. He looked upon the Amendment as being too restrictive.
  EARL FORTESCUEheld that it was very desirable that the Land Commissioners should be supplied with a principle for their guidance when fixing rents. He had in vain protested against the Bill of 1881 not laying down any. The first Land Commissioners had announced none for the guidance of the Sub-Commissioners and the information
  34
  of the public, so no one knew what to expect, and voluntary agreements were much less resorted to in consequence.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 39; Not-Contents 17: Majority 22.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN moved to add to the New Clause an additional sub-section—
  "The Land Commission in publishing such orders shall also publish a scale of prices of agricultural produce in the area to which such order refers, showing the principle on which, having regard to such prices, they have made such order."
  Bill 218, cl. 23, p. 16, line 16, moved, to insert a new sub-section.—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, for it made no improvement on the clause, and would simply raise elements of rivalry, jealousy, heart burnings, and disagree abilities.
  THE EARL OF KILMOREYsaid, he thought that where there was no appeal the publication asked for was not unreasonable.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD CASTLETOWN LORD CASTLETOWN moved to confine the abatement to any gale of rent "which shall be paid at the time when the same is ordinarily payable or within 30 days afterwards, but not further or otherwise."
  In Clause E (inserted by the Commons), at the end of paragraph 2 of the Clause, after ("Land Commission") moved to insert ("in respect of any gale of such rent which shall be paid at the time when the same is ordinarily payable, or within thirty days afterwards, but not further or otherwise").—(The Lord Castletown.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. The words "ordinarily payable" would lead to much confusion and contention, for the time of payment varied very much on different estates.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided: —Contents 20; Not-Coutents 40: Majority 20.
  Resolved in the negative.
  EARL CADOGAN EARL CADOGAN moved to add, after ("Land Commission") at the end of the second paragraph of the Clause the words—
  "This section shall not apply to any rent 6xed or revised upon appeal or rehearing by the Land Commission subsequent to the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six."
  Amendment moved,
  Bill No. 218, page 16, line 2, in New Clause E after ("Land Commission") at the end of paragraph 2 of the Clause to add (" this section shall not apply to any rent fixed or revised upon appeal or rehearing by the Land Commission subsequent to the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six").— (The Lord Privy Seal.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked if, on an appeal, the Land Commission would not be ruled by the prices existing at the time the judicial rent was fixed, or at the time the appeal was heard?
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that the Land Commission considered the prices at the time the appeal was heard.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD FITZGERALD, in moving to add these words at the end of the Clause—
  "The powers and duties conferred and imposed by this section shall be exercised by the three Commissioners, formerly the Land Commission, and shall not be delegated to or exercised by any Sub-Commission or Sub-Commissioner, or any other body or person,"
  said, he wished to make it clear that the power could only be exorcised by the Land Commission.
  Moved to add,
  At the end of Clause E, Bill 218, page 16, line 25—("The powers and duties conferred and imposed by this section shall be exercised by the three Commissioners formerly the Land Commission, and shall not be delegated to or exercised by any Sub-Commission or Sub-Commissioner, or any other body or person"). —(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he had no objection to make to the object which his noble and learned Friend had in view; but, in his opinion, it was altogether unnecessary, for it was already quite clear, by Section 43 of the Act of 1881, that the powers conferred by the section must be exercised by the Land Commissioners themselves, and could not be delegated to any other body. There was no possibility of any mistake in the matter.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid, he was very glad to hear that strong expression of opinion, for he thought there was a great doubt in the matter. If the Amendment were inserted it would avert a great deal of alarm. What possible harm could arise from putting these words in the Bill? They would constitute a Parliamentary declaration on the point.
  EARL CADOGANsaid, he had no objection to inserting the words. No better reason could be given for the adoption of the Amendment than the doubts of the two noble and learned Lords.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF KILMOREY, in moving to disagree with the Commons in the omission of Clause 19, which contained special provisions as to the constitution of the Land Commission for the purposes of hearing appeals and rehearing cases, said, he contended that no good reason had been given in the House of Commons for the omission of this clause, and he begged to ask his noble Friends on the Front Bench whether they could give the House some good reason?
  Moved, "To disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons, leaving out Clause 19."—(The Earl of Kilmorey.)
  EARL CADOGANsaid, he was afraid that his noble Friend would not consider the reason he had to give a very good one. It was, however, that it would be absolutely impossible to pass this clause in the House of Commons, and therefore he could not recommend their Lordships to press it. At that period of the Session it would be impossible to re- open the question of the constitution of the Court of Appeal.
  LORD EMLYsaid, that by the omission of the clause a gross act of injustice would be done to the Irish landlords, and he thought that as the Government were inflicting heavy penalties upon them they ought not to refuse the restoration of this clause. It was but a common act of justice, and no valid reason had been given why the clause should not here-inserted. He protested against the argument of the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the fact that they were dealing with properties of enormous value in Ireland.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided: —Contents 24; Not-Contents 31: Majority 7.
  Resolved in the negative.
  LORD CASTLETOWNthen moved to disagree with the Commons in the omission of Clause 20, which dealt with procedure on appeal.
  Moved, "To disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons, leaving out Clause 20."—(The Lord Castletown.)
  THE EARL OF KILMOREYsaid, he did not know if the temper of the House of Commons would be the same tomorrow as it was when the clause was struck out.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that personally he had no objection to the Motion, but he could not answer for what the other House would do in the matter.
  Motion agreed to; Clause, as amended, restored to the Bill.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCI VISCOUNT DE VESCI moved that the Commons' Amendment striking out Clause 21 (Remission of Rates) be disagreed from.
  Moved, "To disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons, leaving out Clause 21."—(The Viscount De Vesci.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, no doubt the circumstances commanded their sympathies; but he must point out that if the rates were remitted in respect of unlet farms, other farms belonging to the landlord would require to be more heavily rated in order to make up the amount of the local rates, so that no practical relief would be afforded. The subject dealt with by the clause was of a very controversial character, and its reinsertion would probably lead to prolonged debate and a great expenditure of time with small practical results.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he thought that the Amendment of the Commons laid open a great temptation to giving extravagant relief to evicted tenants, as the whole rate levied on unoccupied land ex hypolhesi come from the landlord, in addition to all rates on holdings under £4. Land League Guardians would be encouraged vindictively to squander rates, hardly any of which in some Unions would be paid by tenants. Everything should not be conceded to the demoralizing and unpatriotic body which was so largely dominant in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he thought that the question was not merely one of abstract justice. If that were the question, he certainly did not think that a man who could not get rent for his land ought to be rated as if he could get it. But, as a clause as to rating was really a money clause, he thought, on the whole, that it would be better to acquiesce, as to reject the Amendment would necessarily lead to difficulties "elsewhere."
  Motion negatived.
  Clause 24 (Power of Court to stay eviction).
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN moved to omit the words, "any person" and insert "landlord." He thought that as this was a Land Bill it ought to be restricted to debts arising out of dealings connected with the land. By the Motion ordinary trade debts were excluded.
  Bill 218, page 16, line 28, moved to leave out ("any person") and insert ("landlord").—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEopposed the Amendment; and said that the rent due to the landlord was quite as justly due as any other debt.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD FITZGERALD LORD FITZGERALD moved an Amendment empowering the County Court to deal with arrears when landlord and tenant failed to come to an agreement.
  Bill 218, page 16, line 38, after the words in Commons Amendment ("agreed on between the parties") moved to insert ("or in default of such agreement as shall be settled by the Court").—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would give to the County Court powers which ought only to be exercised in the case of bankrupty.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he hoped that the Amendment would be accepted. He held that if the County Court was capable of adjudicating with reference to the question of instalments, it was also capable of deciding what arrears should be paid. It was but fair that arrears which had accrued under a rent which was too high should be subjected to revision. He might point out that this Amendment was proposed and seconded in the other House by two Members of the

  39
  Unionist Party. The Tellers for it on the Division were two Liberal Unionists, one of them being an eminent lawyer; and Lord Randolph Churchill had declared that failure to deal with the question of arrears might mean the failure of the Bill. He appealed to the Government, before it was too late, to accede to the Amendment. This was a Bill for dealing with excessive rents. There was no question of the other debts being unjust or unfair. Therefore he did not see the logic of the argument that because it was just to deal with the arrears of rents which were too high, it was necessary to deal with other debts as to which there was no complaint at all. The other debts might be loans from the bankers, or they might be butchers' bills—though as far as the small Irish farmers were concerned these would hardly exist—or bakers' bills, and there was no question at all of those prices being too high. With regard to the Bankruptcy Clauses, there had been no prospect of coming to any compromise; and, therefore, the only thing to do now was to press Her Majesty's Government to consider the Amendment moved by his noble and learned Friend. He believed that they would thereby be doing a great act of prudence on their part, and one which would be only an act of justice. If they did not do so, he feared that a large number of tenants in Ireland would not get the benefits which were expected to be given to them. He hoped, for the sake of the peace of Ireland, and for the success of their measure, that the Government would reconsider the matter, and accept the Amendment which had been moved by his noble and learned Friend.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper somewhat similar. He therefore trusted that the Government would consider whether they could not accept the whole of the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, and thus enable the Court to arrange some reasonable composition with regard to arrears in the event of the landlord and tenant not agreeing. If the Government did not accept it, he hoped the noble and learned Lord would press his Amendment to a Division. He felt perfectly convinced that the clause in its present form would operate very harshly to the tenants and injuriously to the landlords also.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid, that in all the circumstances of the case, if his noble and learned Friend (Lord Fitzgerald) wont to a Division he would vote with him. He believed that without the Amendment injustice would be done to many tenants.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, this was a question which was surrounded by considerable difficulty, and one which had already been very fully discussed. It was an Amendment which was not framed to do fair justice all round, and therefore it would not be accepted having reasonable regard to the interests affected. It was an attempt to provide not bankruptcy or composition, but merely to give the Court the power of freeing the tenant from his obligations to his landlord without dealing with the claims of other creditors.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Ashbourne) had objected to the Amendment, because it put the landlord on a different footing from other creditors. But that principle had been adopted in the crofters' case. He did not believe that any just landlord would be affected by the Amendment, as such a one would not allow the tenant to be crushed under his arrears when the rent had been partly remitted.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that there was one broad and very good reason why Her Majesty's Government should not dig up the past in the matter of these arrears, and that was the one that was afforded by the action of the noble Lords who now blamed the Government for following the example which they themselves had set in the previous Irish Land Bill. It was quite a mistake to suppose that they had yielded in the House of Commons what they had refused to yield to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell) and the noble Earl (Earl Granville) in the House of Lords—namely, to single out the landlord for special treatment to his disadvantage. It was absolute injustice that when a tenant owed a landlord, say, £200 arrears, a debt upon which the landlord counted, and which he had no reason to believe would be interfered with, to provide for the reduction of such rents, and thereby prevent the landlord from fulfilling his own obligations. They were proceeding upon the same principle with regard to arrears which the

  41
  noble Lords opposite had acted on in 1881. When noble Lords opposite carried their Land Bill they never attempted to touch arrears of rent. In that case, they gave largely out of the surplus Church funds then at their disposal.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would ask whether, having a practical object in view, and great sacrifices having been made, they were going to spoil and to destroy the Bill, and probably frustrate the whole of the good it would do, on account of this supposed injustice with regard to a particular set of arrears? The problem was there, and they had to face it as practical men, and if some such provision were not inserted, there was a grave danger that they would fail to carry out the object which they had in view in passing the Bill. He appealed to them not to allow the object of the Bill to be marred by omitting to deal with this question of arrears.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 18; Not-Contents 40: Majority 22.

  CONTENTS.

  St. Albans, D.

  FitzGerald, L. [Teller.]

  Houghton, L.

  Granville, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl) [Teller.]

  Kimberley, E.

  Morley, E.

  Spencer, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Macnaghten, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Oxenbridge, V.

  Robartes, L.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Thring, L.

  Acton, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Fortescue, E.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Cranbrook, V. (L. President.)

  Onslow, E.

  Orkney, E.

  Cadogan, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Selborne, E.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Buckinghamand Chandos, D.

  Cross, V.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Ashbourne, L.

  Castletown, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Salisbury, M.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L

  Mount Edgcumbe, E. (L. Steward.)

  de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci.)

  Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Foxford, L; (E. 'Limerick.) [Teller.]

  Camperdown, E.

  de Montalt, E.

  Harris, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  42

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) [Teller.]

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Sudeley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Ventry, L.

  Wemyss, L (E. Wemyss.)

  Rowton, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  Stanley of Preston, L.

  Resolved in the negative.
  The rest of the Commons' Amendments agreed to, with Amendments, and with consequential Amendments to the Bill; and a Committee appointed to prepare reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to certain of their Amendments: The Committee to meet forthwith.

INDIA (NORTH WEST PROVINCES)— THE ARNIGHAD EXPROPRIATION.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDEELEY, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he can give any information as to the result of the inquiry into the Arnighad expropriation and events connected therewith; and to move for a Copy of the Resolution of the Lieutenant Governor of the North West Provinces on the judgment of Sir W. Comer Petheram in the Laidman-Hearsey trial, said, there were two propositions which he wished to submit to the House, and which he hoped the Secretary of State for India would admit the truth of. The first was, that the wrongful acquisition of a small property by Members of an Administration was more criminal than the wrongful acquisition by a neighbour, because the latter acted under the temptation of personal interest, which was absent in similar wrongful acts by Members of an Administration, whose only motive, unless they were entirely misinformed on the subject, must be a preference for highhanded injustice. That criminality varied with the amount of temptation was shown by the general opinion, and the law of some countries, in the case of a starving man who takes bread from a baker's shop. The second proposition was that a much greater amount of ill-will and disaffection to the Government was caused by a wrongful act of the Administration than by the unrestrained wrongful act of private persons. The first duty of Members of an Administration was to protect their subjects, and if,

  43
  instead of doing that, they themselves dispossessed a man of his property, the whole body of subjects became apprehensive that their turn might come next. The conduct of such officials was like that of sheep-dogs, which worry the sheep they were intended to protect from the wolves. On the last occasion the Secretary of State bad said the Arnighad Zemindars had no case, nor defect of procedure to complain of, because the High Court had given them no redress. He (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had as much confidence as the Secretary of State in the High Courts, and be urged that after the manner in which Sir W. Comer Petberam had from the Bench described the case of the Arnighad Zemindars, it was clear that their case had not been before, and had not been heard by, any High Court. He had sent to the Under Secretary at the India Office copies of letters from the Hindoo lawyer employed by the Arnighad Zemindars, which showed how he had thrown up their case because they had no more money to give him beyond the 50 rupees which they gave to him at first. Since these Zemindars had been kept out of the High Court, the Secretary of State would only be doing justice if he ordered a new and independent inquiry, or if he sent the case before a High Court. With regard to the matter of the costs given against Mr. Laidman, which had been refunded to him by order of the Lieutenant Governor, since he had spoken of this in the House he had been informed by a retired Madras civilian that this had been done in accordance with a rule of the Service, and on further inquiry it appeared that this rule was not absolute, but the repayment of costs depended on the circumstances of the case and the discretion of the Government; and as it had been judicially established that bad language had been used in the Small Causes Court, Captain Hearsey, who had been the means of checking the use of such bad language, and who bad won the verdict, was equally, if not more, entitled to have his costs refunded to him. For unless the Laidmau-Hearsey trial was considered as a means adopted for arriving at the truth, and analogous to the offer recently made by Her Majesty's Government to the Parnellites to prosecute The Times, it must be looked
  44
  upon as a malicious prosecution; and he would then ask the Secretary of State to consider whether a rule should be maintained that encouraged litigation among members of the Civil Service at the public expense in lieu of independent inquiry by the Government? A Hindoo newspaper, The Reis and Bayyet of June 25, quoted The Pioneer as having stated that the Secretary of State had given orders for Captain Hearsey's costs to be returned to him; and he (Lord Stanley of Alderley) hoped the Secretary of State would be able either to confirm this, or to state whether such orders had been given by the Government of India. He would conclude by moving for the Resolution of Sir A. Lyall on the judgment of Sir W. Comer Petheram, whenever it was no longer sub judice. If the Secretary of State should refuse to lay this document on the Table of the House and negatived the Motion, it would be looked upon as an admission that the document would not bear the light, and was such as should not have been written by the Lieutenant Governor upon the judicial action of the Chief Justice of the nigh Court of the Province.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for copy of the Resolution of the Lieutenant Governor of the North-West Provinces on the judgment of Sir W. Comer Petheram in the Laidman-Hearsey trial."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): I have received no further communication from India on this subject since I last made a statement in answer to the noble Lord, nor am I able to inform him what steps, if any, the Viceroy has taken in the matter. As the noble Lord is aware, I have reason to know that Captain Hearsey has sent a Petition to the Government of India for transmission to me; but no such Petition has reached me. The measure, therefore, still rests with the Government of India. With regard to the Resolution of the Government of the North-West Provinces referred to by the noble Lord, such document as is described would necessarily; be of a confidential nature, and could not be produced without the consent of the Government of India.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: asked whether the noble Viscount would be able to give an answer next Session?
  VISCOUNT CROSSsaid, that that depended upon the Government of India.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

  BOILER REGISTRY AND INSPECTION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make better provision for the safety and safe working of boilors—Was presented by The Lord Stanley of Preston; read 1*. (No. 229.)
  DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for the registration of deeds of arrangement, assignments, and composition— Was presented by The Lord Chancellor: read 1*. (No. 230.)

  IRISH LAND LAW BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of the reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to certain of their amendments; read, and agreed to; and a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill with amendments and reasons.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock A.M. till a quarter past Four o'clock P.M.