Sitting of 25 August 1887

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [August 24] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Labourers' Allotments* [329]—R.P.
Withdrawn—Parish Allotments Committees* [170].

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—DELIVERY AT GLENGEVLIN, CO. CAVAN.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, If he will arrange to have letters delivered at Glengevlin, County Cavan, on six days of the week instead of four days weekly, which is the present practice?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES), in reply, said, that the expenditure for the present service exceeded the available revenue, and he regretted, therefore, that he could not grant an extension.

  MINES REGULATION ACTS—THE TAWDVALE COLLIERY, SKELMERSDALE.
  MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can say whether it is true, as alleged, that, on the night of the 12th June, a shift of day-wage men entered the Park Mine of the Tawd Vale Colliery, Skelmersdale, without a report of the condition of the mine required by law having been made; and, whether workmen other than those engaged in the firing of shots were allowed in that part of the mine during the time such shots were being fired?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Inspector that 28 day workmen did go down at 9.30 p.m. on Sunday evening, June 12, to repair the roads in the mine referred to, although the last formal inspection had been made at 11 a.m. on the same day. As this case may come before a Court of Justice, it is better that I should refrain from expressing an opinion whether there has been an infringement of the law; but, if applied to, I shall be willing to give my sanction for proceedings to be instituted against the manager. So far as I can ascertain, there were no shots fired on the night of June 12.

  BOARD OF TRADE (RAILWAY DEPARTMENT) —THE RAILWAY WHISTLE AT NIGHT IN THE METROPOLIS.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he has considered the possibility of mitigating the nuisance caused by the constant use of the railway whistle at night on some railway lines to the inhabitants of the Metropolis; and, what is the result of his correspondence with the Railway Companies on this subject?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Board of Trade have communicated with the Companies, and are assured that every effort will be made to reduce the nuisance caused by whistling as much as possible.

  METROPOLIS (CLOSED BURIALGROUNDS) —STATE OF WHITFIELD CHAPEL BURIAL GROUND, TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the state of Whitfield Chapel Burial Ground, Tottenham Court Road; if he is aware that it has been converted into a ground for public shows and amusements; and, whether he has any power to put a stop to the proceedings which have been described as disgraceful by the Parliamentary Committee of the Vestry of St. Pancras?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, he was informed by the Commissioner of Police that the ground had been let to a person who was using it as a place of entertainment, and had erected swings and shooting galleries. An injunction had been obtained restraining the person from continuing a noisy entertainment, and from giving annoyance to worshippers in the chapel. A summons had been taken out against the person under the Unlawful Fairs Act, and would be heard that day.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)—THE REGENT'S CANAL BASIN.
  MR. LAWSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the condition of the Re-

  1795
  gent's Canal Basin; if he is aware that it is covered with slime; that many dead animals have been taken out of it; and that it emits a bad smell most obnoxious to the neighbourhood; and, whether he will inquire into the possibility of improving its present state?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): Prior to the Notice of this Question, ray attention had not been called to the condition of the Regent's Canal Basin. I have obtained a Report from the Medical Officer of Health of St. Pancras on the subject. It appears, as to slime, that when the wind blows from the northerly points anything upon the surface of the arm of the Canal leading to the basin is blown down into the basin and collects at the extreme southern end. With regard to dead animals, the Medical Officer of Health states that the basin and the Canal itself are the receptacles for most of the dead animals of the neighbourhood. The Company clear them away twice a-week. Occasionally there has been delay; but, as a rule, the duty is fairly well done. With regard to the bad smell, I am informed that there have been complaints from a resident on the bank of the arm leading to the basin; but the Medical Officer of Health has not been able to verify any nuisance, probably from its fitful occurrence. I have no doubt that the condition of the basin is unsatisfactory. The Medical Officer of Health has made certain suggestions with regard to the more frequent dredging of the basin and other matters; and I am informed that the Vestry are in communication with the Canal Company on the subject. Some time since the Chief Sanitary Inspector received instructions to have the Canal constantly watched, with a view to taking proceedings, if necessary.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND) — POWERS OF COMMITMENT OF A COUNTY COURT JUDGE.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is aware that a man, named Philip Quigley, was committed for contempt of Court, for refusal to sign a document, by the County Court Judge of Monaghan, on the 23rd of May last, to Dundalk Gaol, and is still confined there; whether a County Court Judge has power to commit for contempt of Court for a longer terra than a fortnight;
  1796
  and, if so, what is the maximum term; and, whether he will inquire into the circumstances of Quigley's committal?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON), in reply, said, that Quigley had been committed on the 25th, not the 23rd of May, under an order made by the County Court Judge in the exercise of the equitable jurisdiction vested in him under 40 & 41 Vict. c. 50, which gives him the powers of the Court of Chancery with regard to contempt. Quigley contumaciously refused to sign an assignment, and had not yet purged his contempt.
  MR. SEXTON: How long can this man be kept in?
  MR. GIBSON: The ordinary rule is, in cases of contempt, that a man shall remain in custody until he has purged his contempt. He has been ordered to sign a deed by the Court, and when he does this he will be discharged.

  ADMIRALTY—THE DOCKYARDS—DISMISSAL OF WORKMEN AT PORTSMOUTH.
  SIR SAMUEL WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is proposed that any new ships are to be built at Portsmouth to employ the permanent hands, who cannot be dismissed, after the Trafalgar is completed; whether it is the case that some hundreds of men are about to be dismissed from the Portsmouth Dockyard immediately; and, if so, how many this year and next; whether extra hands have been put on temporarily at Portsmouth during the past three months; and, if so, how many; whether, in view of the proposed discharges, it would have been possible for the Dockyard hands to have done the work for which extra men have recently been engaged; whether it is still his intention to construct the Melpomene at Portsmouth, as mentioned in the Naval Report of The Times of 20th August; whether, after the enormous expenditure in constructing the Portsmouth Dockyard, and bringing together workmen to be employed there, the Government intend to stop shipbuilding there; whether about 20 ships are now being built at private yards for the Government; what number of workmen have left the Service each year in the last three years from deaths, superannuation, &c.; and, whether the Government

  1797
  intend to build any more iron-clads, to take the place of worn-out and obsolote ships now in the Service?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Though the Trafalgar will be launched next month, her completion will occupy many men for some time to come. A considerable number of ships will be built during the ensuing year in the Royal Dockyards sufficient to employ not only the permanent hands, but many thousands of hired workmen. Certain discharges from Portsmouth Dockyard will be necessary during the present year and the next; but the exact number cannot be estimated until the shipbuilding programme for 1888–9 is definitely settled. Endeavours are being made to provide useful work so as to reduce discharges; but their whole effect cannot be foretold. The Melpomene will be built at Portsmouth. Owing to the sudden commissioning of a large number of ships for the recent naval evolutions, it was found necessary to enter 200 extra hands to complete the work, as the regular Dockyard employés could not have accomplished it within the necessary time. There are six, not 20, ships now building by contract, two of which will be delivered in a few weeks. The number of men who left the five Home Yards from the causes named during the last three years were 1,173, 1,391, and 1,229 respectively. It is not proposed to lay down any new ironclads; but our policy is to complete those now building as soon as possible. Between now and the end of the financial year we hope to add to the Fleet five armoured battle ships and five belted cruisers. These are in addition to the ships that took part in the Naval Review.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT, 1875—THE AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' UNION.
  LORD HENRY BRUCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can cause an inquiry to be made as to the truth of the alleged illegal transfer of over £2,000 from the Sick Benefit Fund to the Trade Fund of the Agricultural Labourers' Union?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to answer the Question. I understand that the Registrar of Friendly Societies
  1798
  has no official information as to the alleged transfer, and therefore that no question can arise of action on his part. The best course would be for any person who thinks himself aggrieved to lay a full statement of the matter before the Registrar.

  ADMIRALTY—SUBVENTION OF MERCHANT STEAMERS FOR WAR PURPOSES.
  CAPTAIN COLOMBasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, What are the conditions, as regards speed and coal-carrying capacity, laid down by the Admiralty as necessary to qualify a merchant steamer for annual subvention for purposes of war; and, whether the arrangements for an annual subvention to be paid to the Peninsular and Oriental Company for the Victoria, Britannia, and Oceana include any stipulations as to crews and stokers; and, if so, what is the nature of such stipulations?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. FORWOOD)(who replied) said: It is impossible, within the reasonable limit of an answer to a Question, to give my hon. and gallant Friend full particulars of the relative importance attached to the many points that have to be considered in determining the comparative value of merchant steamers for cruising purposes. Speed is, however, of primary consideration, and no vessel with lees than 16 knots sea-going speed has been entertained. Four of the steamers retained from the Peninsular and Oriental Company exceed this rate of speed—namely, 384 knots per day, and can carry sufficient coal to maintain it for 26 days, during which they could traverse 10,300 knots. For an ordinary cruising speed of 10 knots their coal capacity is equal to 50 days' consumption. In addition to this quantity of coal they have room for from 1,800 to 2,000 troops. Allowing for hospital, issuing rooms, and the other requirements of Transport Regulations, this is all she could do; and then she could not take coal in all the holds, as we should require baggage room and stowage for provisions. I am assured that with a slight change in the form of screw, their speed would exceed 17 knots. In reply to the second part of the Question, the agreement stipulates for the Company, if required, to find the crew according to the usual Transport

  1799
  Regulations. The Company are also under an obligation to arrange, as far as possible, that the European portion of their complement shall be members of the Royal Naval Reserve, and for their services being at the disposition of the Admiralty.

  PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (SCOTLAND) — DISQUALIFICATION FOR NONPAYMENT OF POOR RATES.
  DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the statement in The Highland, News is correct, that about 2,000 crofters, small tenants, in Inverness-shire, 1,736 in Ross-shire, and 539 in Sutherland shire, have been disqualified and kept off the voters' roll for non-payment of poor rates in June; whether large farmers of over £50 rental are retained on the roll, whether they pay their poor rates or not; and, if so, whether the Government will introduce a measure to place small tenants in the same position in reference to this matter as the larger tenants?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Two thousand small tenants in Inverness-shire have been reported to the assessor as not having paid their rates, 1,599 of these being crofters. I have no accurate information as to the number in Sutherland-shire; but it is believed to be between 500 and 600. As regards Ross-shire, I am informed that 1,215 crofters and 521 other persons have been returned to the county assessor as not having paid poor rates. Non-payment of rates is a disqualification for electors who were enfranchised by the two last Reform Acts. Tenants paying over £50 of rent are not enfranchised under the Acts of 1868 or 1885, but under the Act of 1832. Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to bring in a Bill regarding franchise, the policy of reform legislation having been not to interfere with any existing franchise in extending the franchise to other householders on such conditions as to the Legislature seemed wise.

  THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES—INSTRUTIONS TO THE ACCOUNTANTS.
  MR. BOARDasked the Secretary of State for War, What in-
  1800
  structions have been given to the accountants appointed to investigate and report upon the accounts of the Army Manufacturing Departments, and what is the estimated cost of the investigation; and, whether one of the accountants selected to report upon, the correctness of the War Office system has been actively engaged in getting up the case against the War Office officials before the Select Committee on Army and Navy Estimates?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): My hon. Friend will find a copy of the instructions given to the accountants in the Fifth Report of the Committee on Army and Navy Estimates. I have made inquiries from the Secretary to the Treasury as to the estimated cost of the investigation, and I find that he is not yet able to give me such an Estimate as can be laid before the House. I believe it is true that one of these accountants has been assisting my noble Friend the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) in preparing for the work of investigating the accounts of the Army Manufacturing Departments. But he has now been selected by the President of the Society of Chartered Accountants to discharge a most responsible public duty; and I have no reason to doubt, from his high general reputation, that he will perform it with impartiality.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES—SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government will abstain from appointing any successor to the late Mr. Justice Lawson until Parliament has had an opportunity of considering the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Amendment Bill?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERalso asked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, having regard to the fact that according to the latest annual Return in the Judicial Statistics there were tried by the 15 Common Law English Judges 3,626 prisoners and 2,282 civil actions, and by the 10 Common Law Irish Judges 1,014 prisoners

  1801
  and 588 civil actions, he will abstain from filling up the present vacancy in the Irish. Common Law Bench until Parliament has had the opportunity of considering whether the number of the Irish Judges cannot be reduced?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am anxious, of course, to carry out as far as I can the policy expressed in the Bill laid on the Table of the House. The hon. Gentleman and right hon. Gentleman are aware that the Judgeship which has been made vacant by the death of Mr. Justice Lawson is not one of those which it was proposed to abolish either by the Bill of the late Chief Secretary or by the Bill which I have laid on the Table of the House; and though I shall do everything in my power to carry out generously everything involved in that Bill, I could not give the pledge which the hon. Gentlemen ask for.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)— WESMEATH.
  MR. D. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the Sub-Sheriff of Westmeath drove from Mullingar to Tang on Wednesday the 17th instant, a distance of 18 miles, to attend an eviction, without police protection, owing to the peaceable state of the county; whether, during the process of evicting Patrick Dillon, one of the tenants on Mr. Frederick Russell's estate, the police behaved in a violent manner, batoning men and women indiscriminately; and, whether the Government will cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct of the police on the occasion?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)(who replied) said, it was the case that the Sub-Sheriff drove, for the purpose of executing 24 judgment decrees, the distance stated without police protection. That appeared to have been due to his personal popularity. On endeavouring to gain access to Dillon's house the police did not behave in a violent manner, nor did they baton any women. On the contrary, they acted with the greatest forbearance towards the people, as was testified by the Roman Catholic clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Byrne, at the close of the day. Dillon was not evicted owing to illness. No inquiry was necessary.
  MR. D. SULLIVANasked from whom the information came?
  MR. GIBSON: From the usual sources.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN: The police, I suppose.

  EGYPT—ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE —THE REPORTS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why the later Reports of Mr. Justice West, specially deputed by Her Majesty's Government to inquire into the administration of justice in Egypt, have never been laid before Parliament; and, whether certain extracts from those Reports which got into the newspapers at the time, and which condemned in very strong terms the action of the Courts, and the treatment of untried prisoners in the gaols, were genuine, especially those which set forth that, owing to the inefficiency of the new police and new tribunals, brigandage had greatly increased; that in view to its suppression methods more arbitrary than those of the old Cazees had been adopted; that people were thrown into prison without evidence and kept there without trial; and that, in consequence, great abuses prevailed in the gaols?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): A Report of Mr. Justice West on Judicial Organization in Egypt was published in Egypt No. 5, 1886, page 28. Some reference is made in that Report to abuses such as are mentioned in the Question. Mr. West was not specially deputed by Her Majesty's Government to inquire into the administration of justice in Egypt. He was selected and appointed by the Egyptian Government to be Procureur Général of the Indigenous Courts, and he drew up the Paper in question at the request of Sir Evelyn Baring. Mr. Justice West made a further Report containing a long and technical explanation of a Code of Criminal Procedure which he had prepared for the Native tribunals. This was referred to a Commission for consideration. The Papers will be examined, in order to see if anything can be presented with advantage. I may add that great reforms have been accomplished in the particulars upon which Mr. West animadverted.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—ABOLITION OF THE CORVEE—THE NATIVE ARMY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to Egypt, What final arrangement has been come to with the French and other Powers for finding the money, beyond that assigned for administrative purposes by the Convention, which is required to substitute paid labour for part of the corvée and to pay the Native Army, and from what source the money is to come in each case; whether the 9,393 men of the Native Army include the special battalions raised to garrison Suakin; what is the calculated cost of the Egyptian Army, exclusive of the payments for European troops and the British Navy, and inclusive of Suakin; and, whether the Financial Papers relating to Egypt, promised in a few days, frill be got out quickly, and will contain the Budget for the present year?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): As regards the cost of hired labour instead of corvée, a revised Decree has been accepted by the French Government, and has been proposed to the other Powers, sanctioning the charge of £250,000. This charge will form part of the general administrative expenses to be paid out of the general revenues. No arrangement has been come to with the other Powers with reference to the extra cost of the Egyptian Army beyond £130,000; but the Egyptian Revenue of this year will probably exceed that estimated by the Convention by more than £500,000. Further, is is hoped that the reduction of the British Forces in Egypt will lead to a corresponding reduction in the cost of the Army of Occupation. The 9,393 of all ranks of the Egyptian Army include the garrison of Suakin. The total cost of the Egyptian Army is E£367,000. The Financial Papers will be ready very shortly. Further reductions are still under discussion.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)—CONDITION OF TRAFALGAR SQUARE.
  MR. KIMBERasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the present filthy state of the water in Trafalgar Square, and if he is aware of its cause; how often the water is changed;
  1804
  whether he can hold out any hope that an improvement may shortly be effected; whether the attention of his Department had been called to the fact that through the summer months the square is used at night as a sleeping place by vagrants, to the annoyance of the inhabitants; and, whether any steps can be taken, either to abate this practice or to obviate its attendant consequences, which prevent the place and the seats therein from being used by any other persons even in the daytime?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): The water in the basins of Trafalgar Square is being constantly replenished; besides this, these basins are, under ordinary circumstances, completely cleaned out three times a-year; but I have given directions that this operation shall be immediately performed. The fact is that during this long spell of fine weather a great number of homeless people have congregated in Trafalgar Square at night for the purpose of sleeping there; and before they vanish in the morning some of them not only perform ablutions at the fountains, but deposit various portions of their raiment and other chattels in the basins. I am afraid that these nocturnal visitors also leave behind them certain nomad populations on the benches, which make them not very safe for cleanly people afterwards; but it is not easy to see what can be done. I have communicated with the police, and they have succeeded to a great extent in checking the disorderly and offensive conduct which was lately complained of. But I have not the power, even if I had the will—and I certainly have not the will—to banish these unfortunate creatures from the Square altogether; and I should be very unwilling to take away the seats which were placed there by the charity of Lord Brabazon—I presume mainly for the use of the poor. All I can do is to see that our rule that the Square, including the benches, is to be washed down every morning, and that all filth and rubbish is to be cleared away, shall be carefully carried out, as I believe it now is; and, as I have said, the fountains shall be as often as necessary cleaned.
  MR. KIMBERasked, whether it was a fact that the water used in the Square was obtained from the neighbouring baths and washhouses?
  MR.PLUNKETsaid, it was not a fact. The water came from the Water Company.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—BURNING OF ST. PAUL'S CHURCH, COLWYN BAY.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a letter in The Liverpool Courier of 8th August, from the Rev. W. Venables Williams, Vicar of Llandrillo, Denbighshire, in which he attempts to connect the Nonconformists of his parish with the burning of St. Paul's Church, Colwyn Bay, and states that he has evidence in his possession which leaves no doubt as to the identity of the individual who set fire to the church, and that stores of lime and gas tar were carted into a neighbouring farmhouse in order to make solid balls for maiming the police; whether the inhabitants of the parish have petitioned the Home Office to instruct the Public Prosecutor to take action in the matter, so that these serious charges may be examined; and, whether any steps will be taken to grant their request?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): No, Sir; I have not seen the letter in question; but I have received a Petition from certain tithepayers and Nonconformists in the parish asking me to instruct the Public Prosecutor to institute proceedings for the purpose of compelling the rev. gentleman to reveal all the evidence in his possession. There are no means by which I or anyone else can do this. I can only say that I hope that if the rev. gentleman, or any other person, has in his possession any evidence with reference to any alleged crime, he will lose no time in communicating all particulars to the proper authorities.

  POST OFFICE—CIRCULARS TO MEMBERS OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that Circulars issued to members of Friendly Societies, containing a statement of arrears of contributions and fines, and summoning them to their several periodical meetings, are charged 1d. postage, while the same information or matter, placed on a separate paper
  1806
  and enclosed in another paper is only charged a halfpenny; and, whether any steps can be taken to put an end to an anomaly which is productive of much inconvenience, and without any apparent advantage to the Revenue?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that I have had, as he is indeed aware, the subject of his Question for some time under consideration. There is, without doubt, an anomaly in the present practice; and it is one which, I hope. I shall see my way, with further consideration, to remove.

  THE CROFTERS' COMMISSION—THE ANNUAL REPORT.
  DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate, Whether any parishes have been determined to be crofting parishes by the Crofters' Commission since the last Return; and, whether the Annual Report of the Commission will be published before the Vote for the Commission is taken?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): No more parishes have been determined to be crofting parishes since the last Return made to Parliament. The intention of the Commissioners to determine the parishes of Kirkwall and St. Ola and Stromness to be crofting parishes has been, as usual, advertised for the last month. No objection to this determination having been made, it is probable that it will be shortly confirmed. I promised last night to inquire as to the Report of the Commission.

  POST OFFICE—SUNDAY POSTAL LABOUR—REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
  DR. CLARKasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has considered the Report of the Select Committee on Sunday Postal Labour; and, what action he intends to take in reference to it?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have already carefully read the Report of the Committee; but time has not yet allowed of my making a complete examination of the evidence tendered to them. This I hope to undertake during the Recess; and I shall be very glad if I

  1807
  can give effect to any recommendations which are supported by evidence and appear likely to conduce to the convenience of the public and the Service.

  HIGHWAY ACTS—THE SALVATION ARMY— RELIGIOUS SERVICES AT WARWICK.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether three officers of the Salvation Army were, on Monday last, the 22nd instant, fined, without the option of appeal, by the Warwick Bench of Magistrates, for holding a religious service in the Corn Market there on Sunday the 7th instant?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Three members of the Salvation Army were convicted by the Warwick Magistrates for obstructing the highway by holding services in the Corn Market, notwithstanding warning and caution by the police. The men have a right of appeal by law. I cannot give off-hand the names of the magistrates.

  POST OFFICE—POST AND MONEYORDER OFFICE AT WILLESDEN— SALE OF BEER.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that the Post and Money Order Office in Vicarage Road, Willesden, is held at a shop where beer is retailed from barrels behind the counter; and, whether he intends to continue the office at this shop?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I may say that I am aware of the circumstances to which he alludes. As a general rule, I think it is desirable to avoid having post offices in shops where beer is sold; but in the case in question the premises were the most suitable that could be obtained at the time the office was opened; and as it has been well conducted for four years without complaint from the public I do not purpose to deprive the receiver of his office. I may add that the house is not licensed for the sale of beer to be drunk on the premises.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—IN SPECTION OF POLICE STATIONS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to
  1808
  the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will secure the inspection, by the Board of Works, of the following police stations in Donegal:—Linsford, Doaghbeg, Fintown, Grousehall, Gweedore Bunbeg, Redcastle, Barnesgap, Knockbrack, Aughakeely, Kincashlagh, Mynthias, Breenagh, Glenveigh, and Dunkineely, and report on the sanitary state of each, and the accommodation afforded to the men?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)(who replied) said, he did not think he could comply with the hon. Member's request, on account of the expense which would be involved in holding the investigation. It might, however, meet the hon. Member's convenience if a Report were obtained from the local constabulary authorities with regard to the sanitary state and accommodation in each barracks. The Executive, on receiving the Report, would be in a position to see what steps should be taken in the matter.

  PATENTS OFFICE INQUIRY COMMITTEE —THE PATENT OFFICE.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the recommendations of the Patents Office Inquiry Committee, as regards the simplification of the system of examination of specifications, have been carried out; whether the publication of the arrears of Abridgments and Indexes has been resumed; and, whether anything has been definitively settled with regard to the staff and the internal regulation of the Patent Office?
  MR. HANBURYalso asked the hon. Gentleman, Whether the late superintendent of the Index at the Patent Office, Mr. Michel, died or resigned nearly three years ago, and that his salary of £800 a-year had since been annually voted by the House, and re-appeared this year on the Estimates although no successor had been appointed?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): No definite arrangements have yet been made; but the alterations necessary in the Office are now under the consideration of the Treasury. With reference to the further Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, I may say that the post held by the late Mr.

  1809
  Michel has not yet been filled up, pending the re-arrangement of the Office generally. For the same reason the active publication of the arrears of abridgment was stopped, as both these questions largely depended upon the Report of Lord Herschell's Committee on the Patent Office, of which I was a Member. The alterations necessary upon the Report of that Committee are, as I have already stated, under the consideration of the Treasury. The necessary amount is provided for in the Estimates, but has not been expended.
  MR. HANBURYasked how long this had been going on?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he could not say without making inquiry.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, Was the Treasury responsible?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he could not admit that the Treasury was responsible for anything.

  VENEZUELA—SEIZUKE OF THE BRITISH SHIPS "HENRIETTA" AND "JOSEPHINE."
  MR. WATTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have yet decided what means to adopt so as to secure from Venezuela the indemnity decided upon as due to the owners of the two British vessels improperly seized by Venezuelan officials several years ago; whether the Government have been made aware of the fact that property valued at £750,000, belonging to British subjects, has been confiscated by the Government of Venezuela since the suspension of diplomatic relations; and, whether the Government will intimate to the Government of Venezuela that they will be held responsible for all acts of spoliation of property belonging to British subjects?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): It is unusual and inconvenient to state in advance what measures Her Majesty's Government may deem it expedient to take. No information has reached Her Majesty's Government of any such action on the part of the Venezuelan Government as that implied in the Question?

  VENEZUELA AND BRITISH GUIANA— THE BOUNDARY QUESTION.
  MR. WATTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government are in possession of information to the effect that the President of Venezuela has asked for, and been declined, the intervention of the United States of America; and, whether he had accordingly sailed for Europe, so as to endeavour to secure the intervention of His Majesty the King of the Belgians, in the dispute now pending between British Guiana and Venezuela, with reference to boundary?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: In reply to an offer of the United States Government of their good offices to promote a settlement of the dispute between Her Majesty's Government and that of Venezuela with regard to the boundary line between that country and British Guiana, they were informed that the attitude which had been taken up by General Blanco in regard to the question at issue precluded Her Majesty's Government from submitting it at the present moment to the arbitration of any third Power. Her Majesty's Government have no information as to the intentions of General Guzman Blanco.

  WAR OFFICE—REGIMENTAL BANDS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS.
  CAPTAIN COTTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it be the case that a General Order was issued on the 3rd instant, forbidding regimental bands to play out of their own districts; and, whether it be the case that the band of the Grenadier Guards was permitted to play on the 17th and 18th instants at the Flower Show at Shrewsbury; and, if so, why?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E.STANHOPE): An Order was issued on the 2nd instant forbidding regimental bands to play out of their military districts without special permission from headquarters. The band of the Grenadier Guards played at the Shrewsbury Flower Show on the date named under a misconception of this Order, and believing that they had authority to do so under a previous permission. Orders have now been issued

  1811
  making it quite clear that permissions granted anterior to August 2 are cancelled.

  HIGHWAY ACTS—THE SALVATION ARMY—RELIGIOUS SERVICES AT STAMFORD.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that the religious services in Stamford were held in a square, and could not be regarded as obstructing any public thoroughfare?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERalso asked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he has come to any decision with respect to the persons now undergoing imprisonment in Leicester Gaol for obstructing the highway by holding religious rervices in the Market Square of Stamford on Sunday evenings?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Salvation Army services in Stamford were held in a public square. The magistrates held that square to be a '' highway "within the Highway Act, and found, that it had, in fact, been obstructed. I see in the newspapers to-day that an appeal by way of special case has been lodged against this decision, and the defendants have, I understand, been liberated meanwhile. I have telegraphed to ask if this is the fact, but have not yet received a reply. If it is, pending such an appeal, I ought not to express any opinion on the point of law involved, or on the sentences.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— PIER AT MALIN HEAD, COUNTY DONEGAL.
  MR. O'DOHERTYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the pier at Milan Head, County Donegal, What has been the cost of constructing the 30 feet extension to the original design of the pier; what the extra flight of steps cost; what has been the cost of the "toeing blocks" which were put down along the wharf wall and the sea wall, in order to protect the foundation of the structure; what is the estimated cost of the rock cutting under water adjacent to the pier head; what engineering expenses have been incurred during the progress of the work: what surplus (if any)
  1812
  yet remains of the original Estimate, £10,000, the original contract being taken at £7,765 14 s. 11 d.; and, whether it is the intention of the Board of Works to expend any surplus which may yet remain in further deepening the harbour inside to the depth of low water at spring tides?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, the cost of the extension was £1,140; of the extra flight of steps, £60; of the blocks, £400; of the rock cutting, £280; of the engineering expense, £297. There was no surplus.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE POLICE AT KANTURK.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would state what authority there is for the statement that upon the occasion on which Head Constable Horgan, of Kanturk, and other constables forced their way into the private grounds of Father Collins, that it was intended to hold a public meeting there; what authority is there for the statement that some people present carried pitchforks; if he is aware that, on the occasion in question, the reverend gentleman, whilst protesting against the entrance of the constables into his private grounds, offered to conduct them to a spot outside those grounds, but within a few yards distance, from whence they could hear and see any proceedings which might take place, but the Head Constable refused the offer, and insisted upon entrance; and, whether, in view of all these circumstances, he will grant a local inquiry into the conduct of the policemen?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)(who replied) said, the statements alluded to were made on the authority of the Divisional Magistrate after full investigation. A turbulent crowd proceeded to the place of meeting, and the Rev. Mr. Collins asked the police to stay outside the grounds; but the police constables preferred to go inside the grounds, believing that a meeting was to be held.
  MR. FLYNN: If I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that no meeting was about to be held, and if I can assure him that the crowd was not turbulent, will he look into the matter?
  MR. GIBSON: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that we have made an inquiry, and what the result of the inquiry is.
  MR. SEXTON; I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if the whole affiair was not this—that the Member for the Division accepted an invitation to dine with the parish priest, and the town band played him to the parish priest's house; and what right the police had, under such circumstances, to intrude themselves on private premises without a warrant?
  MR. GIBSON: It is perfectly plain that the police on the spot did not adopt that view.
  MR. SEXTON: Had they a warrant?
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Member for the Division—that is myself—asked the Head Constable if he had a warrant, and, under the circumstances, what authority he had to intrude on private premises; and, furthermore, if the Head Constable was asked by myself on the occasion what information he had that any meeting whatever was going to be held on the night in question?
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he could not answer as to the conversation between the hon. Member and the Head Constable. But a warrant was not necessary.
  MR. FLYNN: On account of the unsatisfactory answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to give Notice that I will call full attention to the matter when the Estimates come to be discussed.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE CRYPT UNDER THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the First Commissioner of Works, When the Crypt of the House of Commons will be open for inspection by the public?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): I have communicated on this subject with the Home Office; and I am informed that the police authorities do not consider that the time has yet come when the crypt of the House of Commons can be safely opened to the public.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of allowing Members of the
  1814
  House with their friends, if they wished, to see the crypt? [Cries of "No, no!" and an IRISH MEMBER: Why?]
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, if hon. Members expressed a wish to see the crypt he would consult the authorities on the subject.

  POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—THE CALEDONIAN CANAL.
  DR. CLARKasked the Postmaster General, Whether the through postal communication along the line of the Caledonian Canal, between Inverness and Fort William, is broken by a distance of 16 miles (between Invergarry and Spean Bridge), whereby persons along the route cannot intercommunicate without an interval of several days; whether numerous petitions have, from time to time, been sent from the inhabitants to have this state of matters remedied; whether it is the practice for the Post Office, in estimating the Revenue from the remoter districts in the Highlands, to count only the letters carried out from the post office, and not to count those carried to it; whether they only allow a halfpenny for each letter instead of 1d., and only 1d. for every parcel whatever its weight; whether over five miles of this gap of 16 miles—namely, between Spean Bridge and Glengloy, the Post Office refuses to supply postal communication unless the cost is guaranteed by private individuals; whether 9,000 letters are carried to the post office, and as many carried from this district in a year, while the whole cost of the service is only 10 s. a-week; whether the carriage of letters from Invergarry Post Office, Invernessshire (the only post office serving the surrounding district of upwards of 100 square miles), to Achnacarry, a distance of eight miles direct, occupies about 48 hours; whether these letters are sent by a circuitous route of about 180 miles; and, whether letters from Invergarry to Paris are delivered as soon as letters from Invergarry to Achnacarry, a distance of eight miles?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The facts stated by the hon. Member are substantially correct; but he has omitted to state that during the summer months, when the steamers are running, direct postal communication between Inverness and Fort William is main-

  1815
  tained. There is a difficulty about maintaining such communication in the months when the steamers are not running, as the amount of correspondence is too trifling to warrant any increased expenditure in the way of additional mail carts. It has, therefore, been necessary to have recourse for the local letters to the circuitous route viâ Inverness and Kingussie, for correspondence emanating from Invergarry and other adjacent places. But I shall be glad to consider whether some economical system of post may not, under the special circumstances, be established.

  IRELAND—THE PROCLAMATION OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE—ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in The Times of the 24th August, that he had an interview in Dublin Castle, on Tuesday the 23rd instant, with Irish Divisional Magistrates, who are entrusted with the administration of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; whether it is true, as stated in the same paper, that full information was received from the magistrates as to the state of their respective localities, and that their opinions were elicited as to the probable effects of the Crimes Act; and, whether it is in accordance with Constitutional usage that the Chief Minister of the Crown in Ireland should seek interviews, obtain full information, and sound the opinions of persons discharging judicial functions, with reference to matters coming, or likely to come, before them in their judicial capacity?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I cannot admit the right of the hon. Gentleman to ask me Questions as to interviews I may have had with persons in Ireland in the discharge of my official duties; but I can re-assure the hon. Gentleman on one point. He appears to be of opinion that Divisional Magistrates are entrusted with the administration of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; but there are no judicial functions assigned to them.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked, whether not only Divisional Magistrates but Resident Magistrates were present at the inter-
  1816
  view; whether that interview lasted from 2 o'clock till 5; and whether the Lord Lieutenant was also present?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I have already informed the hon. Member, that is not the kind of Question that ought to be put to me. At all events, it is not the kind of Question I feel bound to answer.
  MR. CHANCEasked why, if these Divisional Magistrates had no judicial authority, they were called magistrates, and paid out of the sum voted for the Magistracy in Ireland?
  MR. SEXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to state whether he conferred not only with Divisional Magistrates, but also with ordinary Resident Magistrates with regard to the Proclamation of the League?
  [No reply.]

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES—DISTURBANCES AT OSTEND—PROTECTION OF BRITISH FISHERMEN.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he has received any information in regard to the disturbances reported to have occurred at Ostend; and, whether any steps have been taken for the protection of British fishermen and other subjects at that port?
  MR. CAYENDISH BENTINCKasked, whether Her Majesty's Government had taken, or were about to take, any adequate steps to obtain compensation for the injuries to British fishing belonging to the East Coast?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: Her Majesty's Minister at Brussels has sent the substance of a Report by Mr. Vice Consul Thellusson, of Ostend, on the disturbances referred to, which corresponds substantially with the reports in the newspapers. Lord Vivian, on being made acquainted with the circumstances, at once brought the facts to the knowledge of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who assured him that measures would be promptly taken to prevent a recurrence of the disturbances, and for the protection of British fishermen in the exercise of what His

  1817
  Excellency admitted to be their undoubted right, to soil their fish in the Belgian market. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), I have formerly explained to the House that it is not within the function of the Public Prosecutor or the Government of a foreign country—of Belgium, for example—to procure compensation for damage done. That compensation may be obtained by a civil action; and the law of Belgium provides unusual facilities for recovery of such damages, seeing that it allows the civil suit to be brought by the aggrieved parties before the same Court which has tried the matter criminally.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, his Question was, whether the Government would insist on compensation being paid?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I think the House will see that it is not for Her Majesty's Government to seek for compensation diplomatically when that remedy can be readily obtained by the ordinary course of law.
  MR. CHILDERS: As arising out of the Question and answers, I should like to ask whether there is any foundation for the allegation that fish brought here, whether in British or in foreign ships, is liable to duty?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I have a Memorandum from my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade in case this Question was asked, and as regards the United Kingdom no Customs duties are levied on the import of fish, whether in British or foreign vessels; but dues are levied in many ports and harbours for the support of such harbours. But no favour or exemption is shown to fish brought in British boats as regards these dues.

  INDIA (BOMBAY)—SALE OF SPIRITS.
  MR. ROWNTREEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any means have been taken to bring the statement contained in the despatch from the Bombay Government to the Secretary of State for India, of the 22nd April, 1887—namely, "that Government would regard a 'genuine movement in favour of temperance with satisfaction," to the knowledge of the Natives in those districts where spirits
  1818
  are retailed by Government contractors?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The extent and manner of making known the opinions of the Government of Bombay to the Natives of that Province must be left to the discretion of that Government; but the Question of the hon. Member will, no doubt, bring the matter to the knowledge of the Natives referred to.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT) —DEFECTIVE BAYONETS.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that the bayonets belonging to a battalion of the Lincolnshire Regiment, and which were supposed to be serviceable weapons, have recently been examined at Grantham, and found in many cases defective; what was the number so examined; and, what were the results?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (MT. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: The 4th Battalion of the Lincolnshire Regiment is a Militia battalion, whose bayonets, as stated by the Secretary of State for War on the 18th of April, are in process of re-testing. At Grantham, of 800 triangular bayonets examined 512 were found serviceable, and 18 out of 31 sword-bayonets.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CRIMINAL CASES AT THE SUMMER ASSIZES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many criminal cases were tried in Ireland at the Summer Assizes, and in how many of them the Judges disapproved of the action of the juries; and, whether any Assize Court was adjourned, or the trial of any case postponed, in consequence of the withholding of evidence, the absence of witnesses, the refusal of juries to convict in proper cases, or any other impediment to the due administration of justice?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)(who replied) said: As Notice of this Question was only put down yesterday evening, I am not able to answer the first paragraph as to the number of

  1819
  cases in which, the Judges disapproved of the action of the jurors at the last Summer Assizes. I have, however, gleaned from the ordinary sources of information—namely, the newspapers— the following facts:—At Longford, in the case of a trial for homicide, there was an acquittal, on which Mr. Justice Murphy remarked strongly, saying the verdict was contrary to the evidence. Several cases were postponed on the application of the Crown in County Clare on the ground of the impossibility of a fair trial; and after several acquittals in the face of clear evidence in Kerry, Mr. Justice O'Brien, on the application of the Crown, postponed several cases, stating the jurors had not done their duty; that they had refused to convict in the clearest and most certain cases; and that, in his experience, no such example of unfaithfulness to duty had occurred on the part of jurors in any trial; and that it was well it should be understood so far as the machinery of justice was concerned for the protection of person and property and life in that county law was at an end.
  MR. SEXTON: Then the answer of the right and learned Gentleman amounts to this—that in the 32 counties of Ireland there was nothing of this kind except in those cases in Clare and Kerry, and one case in County Longford?
  MR. GIBSON: Those were all that I could get in time for the purpose of this answer; but it is quite likely that I will be able to give the hon. Gentleman a half-dozen others.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary, in view of the pledge given some time ago in the House that specific details should be forthcoming with reference to this matter, whether, in the course of the debate this evening, he will lay before the House the specific cases that the Government have to produce?
  MR. JOHNSTON: And I should like to ask, will the right hon. Gentleman take means to ascertain how many of these cases are due to the action of the National League?
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: With reference to the case of Kerry, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in County Kerry at the Assizes, contrary to the ordinary practice in Ireland, the Crown did not exercise the right of "stand
  1820
  aside," or challenge; and that Mr. Adams, who represented several of the prisoners, said to the Crown Prosecutors, in the presence of the Judge in Court, that they rode for a fall, meaning thereby that they had ridden for the discredit of the jurors, by not excluding relations and connections, as it might be, of the persons accused?
  MR. GIBSON: I am aware that the Crown did not exercise the right of challenge, upon the ground that such challenge would be in operative, as all the jurors were practically of the same class. As regards the observations of my friend Mr. Adams, I am unable to say what he may have said in the discharge of his duty as the prisoner's counsel; but I am able to state—having read the paper this morning—that the learned Judge gave as his reason for acceding to the request of the Crown for a postponement that he had never seen such a disregard of duty on the part of jurors in any previous trial.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: May I ask whether it was by any previous concert that this method of no challenge was adopted by the Crown in Kerry?
  MR. GIBSON: It is hardly necessary to state to the House that the word "concert" has no application to the action of the Crown. The Crown counsel acted on their discretion on the spot, and the subsequent observations of the Judge, in my opinion, demonstrate that they acted wisely.
  MR. SEXTON: I must press the Chief Secretary, in view of his pledge, will he be good enough to say whether the Government intend, in the forthcoming debate, to allege specific cases?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have no details to give to the House—I gave no such pledge.

  BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883—FOURTH REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, When the Inspector General in Bankruptcy's Fourth Report will be issued; and, why it was not issued in June this year, as usual?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Fourth Report of the Board of

  1821
  Trade, under Section 131 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which includes the Report referred to by the hon. Member, was presented on Monday last, and will shortly be circulated. The Report of last year was not delivered until the 21st of September.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES—COLLISION OF AN OSTEND AND AN ENGLISH BOAT.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the case of the Belle of the Fleet, Ramsgate boat, the master of the Ostend boat was fined £1 and sentenced to three days' imprisonment and to pay the whole costs; whether no damages were awarded by the Belgian Court to the owner of the British vessel; on what grounds, if the captain of the Ostend Boat was found guilty of having wilfully run into and injured the Belle of the Fleet, he was not ordered to make good the damage and loss incurred by the British owners; and, what further steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONasked, whether the British seamen who gave evidence in the Belgian Court were each awarded the sum of one franc only for the trouble and inconvenience to which they were put?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I have no information on that matter; but I can say, with regard to this inquiry, that several points seem to require further explanation, which has been asked for. In answer to the Question on the Paper, I may say that the master of the Ostend boat was condemned to pay a fine of 25 francs, with the alternative of three days' imprisonment, and to pay the costs. As to the question of damages being awarded, it rested with the owner of the Belle of the Fleet to make a claim for damages by a civil action at the same time and in the same Court in which the criminal proceedings were taken by the Public Prosecutor.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: Is it not a practical denial of all justice that a poor man is expected to bring a civil action in a Belgian Court of Justice to obtain damages in a case like this?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I can assure the House I have again and again inquired into the matter. The Belgian law seems to afford peculiar facilities for recovering debts in the way I have described; and I have always been surprised that these facilities are not embraced by our fishermen, and that Associations do not take advantage of the opportunity to bring civil actions in the way I have indicated.

  TURKEY IN ASIA—OUTRAGE ON AN ENGLISH LADY AT ALEPPO.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the outrage perpetrated last October upon an English lady in Aleppo by the dragoman of the Governor of Aleppo, and to the failure of the authorities there to have the offender brought to trial; and, whether the Government have taken, or are taking, any action in the matter, with a view to the protection of British subjects? He wished to add that the outrage was only brought to the notice of the Foreign Office last month.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): No Report respecting this case seems to have been received. Last autumn the Porte sent a Special Commissioner to Aleppo to inquire into the conduct of Djemil Pasha, the Governor General, and he was removed to another post in consequence of the Commissioner's Report. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople instructed the British Consul to bring to the notice of the Ottoman Commissioner any grievance and complaints of British subjects.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—SENTENCE ON MIRIAM JONES, CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED CHILD MURDER.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether a Petition addressed to him in favour of the commutation of the sentence of eight years' penal servitude passed upon Miriam Jones at the late Swansea Assizes was forwarded to the Home Office on the 8th instant, and its receipt ac-

  1823
  knowledged on the 18th instant; and, if so, whether the Petition has yet been brought to the knowledge of the Secretary of State?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, that he had received several Petitions in favour of the commutation of the sentence.

  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND— ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE OFFICE.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, on the re-assembling of Parliament, he will allow a Select Committee to be formed, composed mainly of Scotch Members, to inquire how far the large additional expenditure, stated by the Secretary to the Treasury to be about £11,300, for the newly created Office of Secretary for Scotland and Education Department is justifiable by its usefulness to Scotland, as to the advisability of transferring some of the expenditure hitherto provided under Votes 14 and 16, Class III., to the Secretary for Scotland's Vote, and as to the possibility of meeting the whole extra expenditure of about £11,800 for the Secretary for Scotland by economies out of the other Scotch Votes; and, generally, to inquire into the position and duties in and out of Parliament of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland in relation to the Secretary for Scotland?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It will be the duty of the Government to consider most carefully what establishment for carrying out the work of the Secretary for Scotland's Office shall be granted; but the Government do not think it right that they should delegate their responsibility to a Committee of the House. It will be for the House to consider the proposal which the Government may make next Session.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION— APPOINTMENT OF MR. W. J. COURTHOPE.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Mr. W. J. Courthope, who has been appointed third Civil Service Commissioner at a salary of £1,200 a-year, has till now been a Junior Examiner in
  1824
  the Education Department; what are his special qualifications for the important post to which he has been appointed; whether any of the Commissioners have any special acquaintance with science or mathematics, in which subjects it is their duty to direct examinations; and, whether it is the case that up to the present time Mr. Courthope has been one of the editors of a Conservative periodical called The National Review; and, if so, whether he will be permitted to continue in that post?
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked, whether there was any Regulation, statutory or other, which precluded Civil servants from editing any political paper?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have had no Notice of the last Question, and I cannot answer it. Mr. W. J. Courthope has been a junior in the Education Department. These examiners are specially selected from those who have taken high honours at the Universities, and Mr. Courthope obtained at Oxford, in 1863, a first-class in classical moderations, and in 1865 a first-class in the Final Classical Schools. He also obtained the Newdigate Prize for English verse in 1864, and the Chancellor's Prize for the English essay in 1868. These honours, and also the result of inquiries I made, were quite sufficient to satisfy me that Mr. Courthope was specially fitted for the post for which he was selected. I am not aware what special acquaintance the Civil Service Commissioners have with science and mathematics, which are only two out of many subjects in which they have to direct examinations. These examinations are conducted under the superintendence of an eminent staff of examiners, and no complaint has ever been made that the papers set in either of these subjects are of too easy a nature. If the hon. Member has any doubts on the subject the Commissioners would, I am sure, be glad to send him a few of their examination papers. Mr. Courthope resigned the joint editorship of The National Review on being informed of his appointment.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked, whether any one of the Commissioners had taken a degree either in mathematics or science?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I really do not know; and I have already stated that these are only two of the many sub-

  1825
  jects in which the Commissioners have to direct examinations. It is not reasonable or desirable that they should be called upon to take a degree in every subject in which they have to direct examinations.

  ALLOTMENTS BILL.
  MR. H. GARDNERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it was his intention to bring the debate on the Proclamation of the National League to a close at a convenient hour this evening, with the view of making effective progress with the Allotments Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The debate will, I suppose, be adjourned at the usual hour at which such debates are adjourned; and, having regard to the period of the Session, I do not doubt that hon. Gentlemen who take a great interest in the Bill, as I know the hon. Member does, will be content to sit for a couple of hours in order to make progress with it.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there was a very large number of serious questions in connection with the Bill that could not be discussed at a late hour; and he wished to appeal to him to make an effort to bring the debate to a close a little earlier than was usual, so that they might really get one English question discussed adequately this Session.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not doubt that there is a strong desire on the part of English Members to discuss this question adequately, and I am certain that they do not want to discuss it more than adequately. The Government will endeavour to find ample opportunity for that adequate discussion, and I shall not be justified in interfering with the debate this evening at too early an hour.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—PROCLAMATION OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE— THE IRISH PRIVY COUNCIL.
  MR W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he would inform the House how the Members of the Privy Council in Dublin were summoned to its meetings;
  1826
  whether they were summoned in the usual manner on the occasion of the recent Proclamations; and, if so, how we are to account for the fact that out of the 53 Members constituting the Privy Council only two were present, in addition to the Lord Lieutenant; whether he adhered to the statement he made on Friday last, that the Privy Council were not consulted before the Proclamation was issued; whether that is not in direct contravention of the terms of the Statute, which provides that an Association shall be declared to be dangerous only by and with the advice of the Privy Council; and, whether this irregularity does not render the Proclamation invalid?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am not acquainted with the method by which the Privy Council is summoned. I have no doubt whatever that the ordinary practice was followed in the case alluded to. I do not know why not more than two Members of the Council were present; but, of course, it is habitual for the work of the Privy Council to be carried on by a very small portion of that body, especially at a time of year like the present, when a great number are absent. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether I adhere to the statement made by me, that the Privy Council were not consulted before the Proclamation was issued? Yes, Sir; I do adhere to that statement. The hon. Member asks whether that is not in direct contravention of the terms of the Act, which provides that an Association shall be declared dangerous only by and with the advice of the Privy Council? The advice is given by the Members of the Privy Council present attaching their signatures to the document; and the hon. Member concludes by asking whether this irregularity does not render the Proclamation invalid. No, Sir; it does not.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether a notice was sent to the right hon. John Morley, who is one of Her Majesty's Irish Privy Councillors?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman had better address I that Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Would it be in Order for me, Mr. Speaker, to take the

  1827
  advice of the Chief Secretary, and put a Question to a private Member?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The First Lord of the Treasury.

MOTIONS.
  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  Ordered, That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to the Special Proclamation as to the Association known as the Irish National League.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
IRISH NATIONAL LEAGUE (SPECIAL PROCLAMATION).

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I rise, Sir, according to Notice, to move the following Resolution which stands on the Notice Paper in my name:—
  " That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, humbly to represent to Her Majesty that there has been laid before this House a Special Proclamation of the Viceroy of Ireland declaring the Association known as the Irish National League to be a dangerous Association, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887; that no information has been furnished to Parliament to justify the issue of the said Special Proclamation, by virtue of which Her Majesty's subjects are liable to be punished as criminals without judicial inquiry into the nature of their acts; and that this House, in the absence of such information, prays that the said Proclamation shall not continue in force as to the Association named and described therein."
  I hope there will be no misapprehension in the House as to the nature of the function which we have to discharge to-day. It is a function imposed upon us by the act of the whole Legislature. An act of great importance, undoubtedly, which we, many of us, think to be an act of great violence, but an act of great importance has been performed by the Executive Government. That act, according to the law of the land, cannot be their act alone. The action of Parliament, whether in a negative or in a substantive form, must not be withheld. At this moment the action of Parliament is as essential, in the view of the law with respect to this Proclamation, as the action of the Executive itself. The Executive takes a solemn decision. It then introduces that solemn decision to our notice. We are called upon either to give or not to give an opinion upon it. For my own part, and for
  1828
  those who may think with me, I have expressed that opinion, I hope, clearly in the Motion upon the Paper. If no opinion be given upon the Proclamation the Proclamation conies to be the Proclamation of this House just as truly and substantially as it is the Proclamation of the Government. That is the reason why reference is made in the Statute to this House, that the House may become a party to it by the silence of approval, or by such comment or objection as the House may choose to make. Well now, Sir, in this particular Proclamation the Viceroy of Ireland declares, by and with the advice and consent of his Privy Council, that he is satisfied that the association known as the National League in Ireland is an association which incites to acts of violence and intimidation—I think those are the words. Sir, we do not and cannot possibly suppose that this conclusion of the Viceroy thus announced is a conclusion arbitrarily arrived at. It is necessarily founded upon information. It is impossible that the Viceroy should not have consulted—in fact, it would be the grossest breach of his duty if he had not consulted the best, the most authoritative sources of information, the largest number of those whose duty it is to supply him with information upon the state of the country; and upon that information we must take it for granted that this important conclusion of the Viceroy has been founded. Now, Sir, where is that information? We have a right to ask for it. We have a right to that information. The Statute has put upon us the duty of becoming parties to the act of the Government. Was it the intention of the Statute that when the House of Commons was to become a party to the act of the Government, or was to pass judgment upon it, it was to do so without being possessed of the means of forming a judgment? I assume it to be a matter that requires no argument, and that bears no argument. I assert that if we are associated with the Government when it comes to an important conclusion, we have a title to know the grounds upon which that conclusion has been arrived at, in order that our judgment may be supported and justified by this information in the same manner as the Government believe that their judgment is supported and justi-

  1829
  fied by such information. Well, Sir, the Government have been asked whether they intend to give us information in order to enable us to discharge our duty, and they have refused. I suppose there is no doubt at all that I am accurate in making that statement. Now, it is not for us to be led blindfolded to a decision upon this matter. It is for us to claim that we shall be supplied with the means of action; and if these means of action are withheld from us, then I say there are three propositions which we must immediately urge upon the House and the Government hi consequence. In the first place, it is a slight—I may almost say an outrage—upon the dignity of Parliament to suppose that it is to discharge a statutory duty of this importance without being in possession of the grounds upon which alone the discharge of that duty can properly be founded in the face of the country. In the second place, it reduces to utter destruction, to utter absurdity, the main contention of the Government put forward at the time when we were discussing the Coercion Act under which this Proclamation is issued. When the Government were pressed with the unquestionable fact that this is a wider and more searching and far-reaching Act than ever has been passed with a view to the restraint of private action in Ireland—[Ministerial cries of "No !"] I answer "Yes." I am very familiar with, that method of interruption, and treat it with as much respect as it deserves. But it is not necessary for me to make the assertion with regard to the Act as a whole. The assertion was made with regard to the Act as a whole; but of course it had reference specially to the most salient point of the Act—to the 6th and 7th sections of the Act in particular. It was pointed out that though undoubtedly this is a very unusual method of proceeding—a proceeding wholly without precedent—I think no negative to that can be ventured, even by the boldest of silent Members, yet we were called upon to observe the peculiar and effective safeguards under which it was placed. What were those safeguards? They were two. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had the courage to refer to the fact that the provisions of the Act were largely or gene-
  1830
  rally dependent upon the discretion of the Government who applied them—that is to say, upon his own discretion. It required some cornage to place that before the House as being in the nature of a safeguard which we were to take into our view as of appreciable weight. But there was a second and a greater safeguard, and that safeguard was the action of the Government under the 6th and 7th clauses, the most vital, perhaps, and the most far-reaching of all the clauses in the Act. That action was to be subject to the concurrence, to the review of Parliament. But what, Sir, is the value of the concurrence of Parliament, what is the meaning of the review of Parliament, if the vote of this House is to be a vote given blindfolded, given in ignorance of facts, given under circumstances under which the Government daringly refuse to make known to us the very grounds of their act which the statutory authority has required us to perform and sanction? Therefore, these safeguards have proved to be a farce—a farce, and nothing less than a farce. I want to know what is the value of the approval of this House given in the dark? I want to know whether it is not an approval given in the dark if the information upon which the proceedings of the Government have been founded is to be kept secret, if that information is to be withheld? I hope I shall not be told that there are various Papers on the Table of the House with respect to Ireland which will show to me that, for a long time past, there have been a number of persons subjected to the painful process termed Boycotting, and a number of persons in Ireland subjected to the protection, and, of course, necessarily annoying protection, of the police. These are the facts which, no doubt, have been before us for months and for years. If these are the facts upon which you are to justify these proceedings, why did you come to us for a discretionary power; why did you not ask us, in the regular and Constitutional method, to proclaim, denounce, and prohibit the action of the National League when the Statute was passing through Parliament? Why did you not do that which Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington did in 1829, who, when they deemed the Roman Catholic Association to be an association injurious to peace and good order in Ireland, asked

  1831
  Parliament to prohibit the action and existence of that association? I do not think that following times have greatly favoured the justness of their conclusion; hut nobody can doubt the propriety of their method. Why was not that course taken in the present instance? It was obviously the duty of Her Majesty's Government, if they had a case for the prohibition of the National League, to ask Parliament to concur with them in that prohibition in a regular manner by enacting it by Statute. So much, then, for safeguards. The safeguards, be it understood, have disappeared—they are absolutely null. Be the rest of the case what it may, no man will tell me that the mere action of a Party majority in this House, not founded upon information supplied for the purpose of enabling it to form its judgment, is a safeguard and not a delusion. It is a delusion practised upon the country, and is as little creditable to the Parliament who enacted it as to the Government who proposed it. So much for these two propositions with regard to the information that is withheld from us on this important occasion. There is a third proposition not less material and weighty than that to which I have already referred, and that is this—What are we to think of the information which those who have it know will not bear the light? Remember what has been the great controversy between us during most of the debates of this year. You have professed to legislate against crime, while we have contended that you were legislating against combination apart from crime. We have now come to the occasion when, if you had a case to produce, it was alike your duty and your interest to produce it; and to show that the combinations you are legislating against are combinations which issue in a crime. You shrink from the test. You decline our challenge, although we have as much title to know on what grounds you are proceeding as you yourselves have. It is impossible not to arrive at any other conclusion than this—that you yourselves know that the information which you withhold is information which will show that your proceedings are in effect proceedings against combination which does not issue in crime. Well, Sir, so much for the question of information. But what follows? What is the light thrown
  1832
  by this manner of proceeding upon the nature and provisions of the Act we have been passing, and particularly upon the nature of these 6th and 7th clauses, by which it was deliberately decided to deprive Irishmen, within the liberal and large limits assigned by the 2nd clause, of the protection afforded them by judicial inquiry? The issue of it all is this—that as the concurrence of Parliament is reduced to a mere form—I am afraid I might say a mere imposture —tho action of the Government, according to the view of the Government, is to be a solo action; and, being so, what I affirm is this—that this Bill in these particular sections, so viewed and so interpreted—and, in my opinion, such an interpretation is a great and mischievous aggravation of the Bill—is a new form of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act. Yes, Sir; it is a new form of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act; it is in essence the same, in exterior shape it is somewhat different, but not, perhaps, an improvement. The meaning of the Acts which have been passed for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act is this—that the discretion of the Executive is substituted for judicial inquiry with reference to the liberty of the subject. That is the essence, and with respect to that central provision and substance of the matter the action of this Act is precisely the same—when the concurrence of Parliament in this Proclamation has been reduced to idle form by its being deprived of all judicial character, the essence of this Act becomes exactly the same as the measures for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. In the shape of the enactments I admit there is a difference, because in the case of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Acts you have a power of imprisonment undefined in its length further than it may be denned by the fact of such Bills being necessarily odious and un-Constitutional, whereas this Act has been deemed to be so great a blessing to Ireland that it has been deemed unjust to assign beforehand any limited period during which she is to enjoy it. What have we got to substitute for the discretionary power of the Executive in those Acts in the present Act? In the present Act we have an apparent trial, with a summary jurisdiction of imprisonment for six months. Is that an improvement? Is

  1833
  that apparent trial an advantage? Why do I call it an apparent trial? Because, although it has the exterior of a trial, inasmuch as the fact must be affirmed before a judicial tribunal, yet the law, the nature of the acts done, the character of the association, the substance or the emptiness, and futility of the allegations of the Government are entirely withheld from the cognizance of any Court of Justice whatever. And when any hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) endeavoured to secure that there should be something like a judicial concurrence, at any rate, of these Resident Magistrates in the judgment arrived at by the Lord Lieutenant that was refused by the Government, and nothing is left to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction but the simple recognition of the fact that a meeting of the National League was held when a certain person was present at it, or that an advertisement appeared in some newspaper friendly to the general purposes of Nationalism, or something else of that kind. Why, Sir, what kind of trial is this? It is, as it appears to me, identical in substance with what the Law of Libel was in this country before the time of Mr. Fox, when what you had to do was to prove the fact of publication, and when the fact of publication was proved the character of the publication was altogether withheld from the cognizance of the jury. Now, how do you look back upon that period—the introduction of the Court of Justice as little better than a mockery and a delusion and a snare, to use the language of Lord Ddntnan—when the essence of the thing was withheld from judicial cognizance? When you were giving the Viceroy the whole substance, you might as well, perhaps, have given him the shell too. At any rate, this apparent trial may have the effect of deluding superficial observers into the idea that the case has been judicially handled, when, in point of fact, it has been determined, exclusively, to all substantial intents and purposes, in the chambers of the Viceroy of Ireland. I think that that is a state of things which is hardly creditable in a country in which liberty is valued as highly as it is hero, and which has lately widened very largely its securities for liberty by calling in the popular judgment on a scale hitherto unprecedented. The libertie of the
  1834
  people in one of the Three Kingdoms are to be committed to a jurisdiction unprecedented in our annals, unknown to our history; and that upon a scale, and in a manner, of which tyranny, even in former times, had never formed the brilliant conception. The arbitrary will of the Government is to be substituted for the regular action of the law. This principle of assumption instead of law is a principle most dangerous—I think most disgraceful—to be enacted in any country, most of all to be enacted in Ireland. There is no country whose claim to be treated with the strictest legality, and with the strictest observance of the higher principles of the Constitution, is so strong as that of Ireland; because there is no other country in which for such lengthened periods law has been made to assume the form of an outrage upon, the people. Unfortunately, we ail know very well that this has not been simply in ancient times. We all know very well that a great wrong has been inflicted upon the people of Ireland by the Acts of the Imperial Parliament. All of us, at least the great bulk of us—a large and increasing proportion of us—who sit on this side of the House are of opinion that nothing could be more grossly unjust than the manner in which, by Acts of the Imperial Parliament, the whole law of tenure and the recovery of rent was completely reconstituted in the earlier years of this century against the tenant and in favour of the landlord. We know—at least, I believe we know—that there never was a grosser act of injustice—though I do not believe it was unjustly intended, but that is quite another matter—there never was a grosser act of injustice perpetrated by the Legislature than when in the Constitution of the Encumbered Landed Estates Court we not only enabled but encouraged by our solemn sanction the encumbered landlords of Ireland to sell the improvements they had not made to people who were to give value for them, knowing that the value was to go into the pocket of the outgoing landlord, and the incoming landlord, who would pay for it, was naturally expecting it would be repaid to him in an increased rent. I might go later down. I might make an appeal to the Treasury Bench in relation to the Habeas Corpus Act of 1881, which I have heard this year censured by my

  1835
  right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), and which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has described in my hearing as a monstrous Act, with respect to which I confess I am not forward to undertake the defence of its provisions, although I am of opinion that in the condition which Ireland then presented special legislation of some kind was necessary unless we were prepared to give over to Irish hands the management of Irish affairs. All this has been done, and the law in Ireland is still upon its trial. The misfortune of Ireland is that in Ireland, in contrast to England and Scotland, those who administer the law, and especially those who administer the law locally and enforce the law, are not in sympathy either with the aspirations or the feelings or the interests of the people. Under these circumstances, it appears to me to be in the strongest sense playing with edged tools to pursue these rough and ready, these arbitrary methods, of dealing with the people of Ireland, for while the Coercion Act set up the intervention and review of Parliament as a safeguard and control on the Executive and the language delivered most emphatically by the authorized Representatives of the Government in de bate was to the same effect, yet a course has been taken which reduces the whole of this supervision of Parliament to a mere idle form, and makes the Executive Government uncontrolled master, within the limits of the 2nd clause, of the liberties of the people of Ireland with reference to all associations which they may think proper to proclaim. I am of opinion, therefore, that in Ireland it is not merely the Moonlighters, not merely the exclusive dealers, the Boy-cotters; but it is also the administrators of the law, and the law itself, that have, to a large extent, a character to retrieve, with respect to which it is our most sacred and solemn duty to take care that we do nothing further to compromise its dignity and its influence in the eyes and the minds of the Irish people. Well, now, Sir, we are tempted to ask which is the object which Her Majesty's Government contemplate as the probable result of this Proclamation. I will not oven touch the more delicate part of the question; I will ask myself, What is the National League? It is said to be
  1836
  a League which has for its members 500,000 of the people of Ireland. I know not whether that is statistically established. I simply quote the figures which are in current circulation, and I do not know whether they can be contradicted. If these figures be true, it is a very important truth, because it shows how unawares we come, or may come, nearer and nearer to that state of things which was once vividly and boldly described by Sir James Graham in reference to a far milder Statute, and under a far milder Government—when he said of a Bill he was opposing that in his opinion it came near to a declaration of war against the people of Ireland. I do not doubt that the sin of the League is that it has actively promoted and incited popular combination. I take it, there can be no question that those combinations have been formed and encouraged, not by any means only—far from it—but partly with a view of the enforcement of what is called exclusive dealing. I have never said a word to mitigate the character of exclusive dealing. It is, in my opinion, an evil and an objectionable practice in whatever hands it may be. This, I own, is a very popular practice, and popular, not in the sense of being dear to the people, but in the sense of being very agreeable to those persons of power and influence who make it an instrument by which they can promote their purposes. I have not a doubt, Sir, and perhaps hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may partially, though I do not think they will wholly, dissent from my observations—I have not a doubt that these combinations, this exclusive dealing, must involve much personal hardship on innocent persons. What is this exclusive dealing? It is the symptom of a social disease, and you, like quack doctors, are aiming all your power at a symptom and neglecting the source of the disease. You are only driving the disease in. Does the most sanguine among you believe that you can stop or effectually narrow the practices you think objectionable on the part of the National League? I doubt if you believe it. Certainly, I think, none of us believe it; but what we do contemplate as possible is this. If your Proclamations, or your measures, or your orders under this Proclamation have any success at all—which must be most problematical—

  1837
  but if they have any success at all, all the success they can have will be to substitute secret and clandestine action for action open to the light of day, and to substitute secret proceedings which none of us can get at for proceedings that can be published in the newspapers, that can be blazoned abroad as they very properly should be in all the organs of the landlords, and can be made the subject of special criticism and censure in the House of Commons. Is that substitution of secret for public action of itself good? It appears to me to be the exact reverse of good. You release all those who are engaged in it from responsibility—public responsibility—but you do not seriously narrow their liberty of action. You cannot deal with a whole people—I mean the whole people in by far the larger part of Ireland—effectually by these methods of coercion. You failed to do it in former centuries and former generations. Great changes have taken place in the present generation, and the most important change of all is that which has occurred within the last five years, when the Irish people have become fully enfranchised—possibly, looking to the construction of the law as it bears upon Ireland, quite as fully emancipated—I beg pardon, I mean enfranchised—quite as fully an enfranchised people as the people of either England or Scotland. So much for the miserable and scanty fruits—not miserable and scanty only, but the unsavoury and probably poisonous fruits—which you will hope to reap from this discretionary and arbitrary action. Now, Sir, I have contemplated the League on its side of weakness, and I have said that I do not doubt for a moment that much hardship must be involved in the action of popular combination; but is that a reason why we should go to the root of the matter and declare them illegal, or act against them as if they were illegal? If you strike at the hardships inflicted by exclusive dealing—though I do not believe that you could strike at them without substituting a greater evil for a lesser one—you ought to strike at them in all classes alike. [An hon. MEMBER: Huntingdon.] What is the difference, the vital difference, in this respect between the wealthy and poorer classes? The difference is this—that for all the important purposes of annoyance, vexation, and oppression
  1838
  which are comprised in the large assemblage of acts which in one or other of its various forms may be called exclusive dealing, in the use of that great power the rich man can proceed single-handed; he is strong enough to annoy, to vex, and oppress in a multitude of cases by his own solo action, without asking counsel or aid, and without rendering account why or wherefore. Not so the poor man. The poor man can only be defended by combination. It is combination alone—apart from crime—it is combination alone which places them upon a footing of anything approaching to equality with those whose interests may at times be in competition with or in opposition to theirs; and if you strike at combination on the part of the mass you deprive them of the weapon which in its full efficiency remains in the hands of the adversary with whom they may have to deal. We say you do not go to the root of the matter, and what we mean by going to the root of the matter the House is well aware. I will not enter now on the merits of that discussion; but having looked at the League from one sido—namely, the evils which its action produces, or the errors its members may have been betrayed into—I must look at it upon the other side. I must consider what it has done for the people of Ireland, as well as what it has done against any individuals among them. I wish with all my heart we may live to see the day when exclusive dealing in every class and rank may not only be abandoned in practice, but the very name forgotten. But I cannot consent to overlook the facts which stare me in the face as to the effect which has been obtained by means which may not be warranted, but for an end and a purpose which is not only lawful merely, but almost sacred. There has been—it is admitted now on all hands—a case in Ireland. The Legislature has thought it necessary to step in to recognize that case, and to legislate upon it. There has been a ease in Ireland where rents required to be reduced, and where there was not that willingness to reduce them which happily so widely prevails in this country, and the wide prevalence of which has enabled us to tide over, as I trust in the future it will, many and many a social as well as political difficulty. Has the action of the League in these respects been able to afford a real

  1839
  and humane influence in that behalf? I shall quote testimonies in its favour that cannot be contradicted—testimonies of persons who cannot be accused of undue friendliness to its principles, or even to its objects. Now, Sir, I shall quote only two of those testimonies—one of them is the evidence of Sir Redvers Buller, to which, in these new and unparalleled circumstances, it becomes necessary to revert. When Sir Redvers Buller was asked by Lord Milltown as to the general sympathy with, the action of the League, Sir Redvers Buller replied—"Yes; I think there is sympathy, because they think it has been their salvation." That is the statement in the evidence of Sir Redvers Buller. I have seen various editions of the evidence of Sir Redvers Buller. One of those editions contained an expression of concurrence in that view and sympathy with that view which is apparent in every line of that evidence of Sir Redvers Buller. In answering a further question, he said—
  " The tenants in the West part of Ireland told me of rents that have been reduced and evictions that have been stayed which is directly due to the operation of the League. They believe that, whatever truth there may be in it."
  Then he goes on, without any interposition of words, to say that he is merely quoting the opinions of others. He goes on to say—
  "Nobody did anything for the tenants until the League was established; and when the landlords could not let their farms, then they were forced to consider the question of rent."
  How does this evidence stand by the side of other testimony borne in this House by a very able Member of this House—the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell)—whose private opinions and leanings I have no-power to estimate, but with respect to whom, listening with much admiration to his able speeches, I must own I think that if there be any man who must be wholly exempt from the charge in whole or in part of any kind of sympathy with Irish Nationalists in Ireland or in this House, the Member for South Tyrone appears to be that man. Were I entitled to assume the character of a critic, I might even say that there is a little more than the absence of sympathy; but, at any rate, it is enough for me to establish the character of the hon. Member as a witness in this House. I
  1840
  am going to quote language of the hon. Gentleman, and he will correct me if I am wrong, as to the substance of a very recent declaration of his—uncontradicted, so far as I know, in any quarter of the House. The substance of it was this. The hon. Member said that in Leinster, Munster, and Connaught, the three Provinces of Ireland, I think he said, in which outrage and intimidation had done their work, there had been reduction; in Ulster there had not been outrage and intimidation, and there had been no reduction.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I said little or no reduction.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I beg pardon—little or no reduction—I wish to quote accurately; but I was not very far from the mark. Well, Sir, the meaning is this—he has indicated three Provinces of Ireland in which there have been reductions, and those three Provinces have been the Provinces in which there has been effective action of the League. Do not suppose that I am stating these facts with respect to the National League for the purpose of insinuating that the League is to be allowed to do what it likes. Nothing of the sort. But what I am contending is this. That where there is a great association which, through a considerable part of Ireland, commands the confidence of the people, and where that association is, by the confession of witnesses, in some cases hostile and in others perfectly impartial and raised far above the reach of prejudice—where that association has been the means of conferring relief upon the tenantry of Ireland, relief which you, by your legislative acts, have admitted ought to be conferred—those are reasons strong and conclusive as if almost they were written in Holy Writ. My object is to show that in dealing with such an association you ought rigidly to adhere to the principles of law, and carefully to eschew the methods of arbitrary government and discretion. [Ironical Ministerial cheers.] You sneer, but you seem unconscious that my main, position is this—that by the strained and unheard of construction which you give to the statutory declaration respecting the intervention of this House, you depart entirely from the principles of law; you become yourselves so far, not law-abiders, but law-breakers. You set a bad, a mischievous, and a dangerous

  1841
  lesson to the people of Ireland when, if you find the language of the Statute inconvenient and restrictive with reference to a licence of action, you are determined to make no more difficulties than some persons in some parts of Ireland have made in bending the language of that Statute to your purpose. Well, now, Sir, I am well aware that in dealing with this question we are not to reargue the 6th and 7th sections. I am not rearguing them. I have spoken entirely upon what appears to me to be their undeniable construction, if any Act of Parliament is capable of being read plainly, in a plain sense and meaning. I have spoken of war against the people of Ireland; but pray observe that you cast the net very wide. I believe the members of this League are counted by hundreds of thousands; but in the 7th clause you go beyond the members of the League. The League itself is to be unlawful; the assemblies of any of its members for its purposes are to be unlawful; to call or to share in them is to be unlawful; to publish, with a view to promoting them, is to be unlawful. These are curious words. I think if those words be thus construed they will apply to comments in a friendly newspaper on any of the proceedings of the League—not to The Times or The Standard, who will not be suspected of sympathy with those purposes, and will be exempt from this prosecution, because it will not be construed to be "with a view to promoting the purposes of the League;" but whore the friendly newspaper inserts an advertisement or comments, without entirely condemning, where it points out that moneys have been received for the League, and that moneys will continue to be received for the League in such and such a place, I suppose that friendly newspaper will run a very slender chance indeed before the two Resident Magistrates. And, now, Sir, I may remind the House of a rather remarkable passage in a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland—I think it was the speech in which he introduced the Crimes Act. He said that the Bill contained no clauses relating to the Press, but that it contained provisions—I am not quoting his exact words; he will correct me if I misrepresent their substance—but it contained provisions under which he thought it reasonable to hope that the conduct of the Press would be somewhat
  1842
  modified and restrained. No Press Clauses! Not for the world would this Government have the odium of Press Clauses; but it is a new and ingenious invention to avoid the odium of Press Clauses, and yet to introduce words into your Act under which at the sole discretion of the Executive Government persons writing upon the National League, with ever so qualified a favour of its purposes or with ever so candid a recognition of the real good which General Redvers Buller and the hon. Member for South Tyrone say that it has attained, will be liable to be brought before two Resident Magistrates and to have their action qualified, modified, and restrained. Well, it appears to me that, viewing the matter as a whole, we are pressing the people of Ireland very hard. It is quite evident that it is intended to work the recent law by the method of summary jurisdiction, and the circuit of summary jurisdiction has accordingly been expanded, and the actions of which, it can take cognizance have, according to Mr. Justice Holmes, been enlarged and increased. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said it was very unfortunate that Mr. Justice Holmes had never been able to attend this House for the purpose of contradicting the account that had been given of his words. Yes, Sir; and what is a great deal more unfortunate still is that if he had attended this House he could not and would not have contradicted the account that was given of his words. I, for one, am perfectly ready to take my affidavit and make my deposition of having heard those words, and I am perfectly certain that Mr. Justice Holmes will not contradict them. Well, we have taken away from the people of Ireland within limits which we think sufficiently wide to make this summary jurisdiction an effective instrument for the working of the Act—we have take a away from them trial by jury. We have brought the whole law of association and the law affecting all those who belong to an association, or who in any way promote their purposes—for the words are as large as they can be—under the sole discretion of the Executive Government, just as much as if we had passed in plain and honest terms a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. We have set up with this tribunal of summary jurisdiction and constituted it

  1843
  in a manner that was deemed to be safe; and now, even to this pet tribunal—even to these two Resident Magistrates—we will not allow any power of trying I the nature of the acts done in connection with the proclaimed association for which they are to award six months' imprisonment. Sir, is not that pressing hard on the patience and spirit of endurance of the people? We will not allow them to judge. Of course, they cannot judge anything but the bare fact, which is of little or no consequence; but of the character of the act, its legality, or its spirit, they can pronounce no judgment; and finally we, the House of Commons, are absolutely shut out by the action, and I presume we shall be shut out by the declaration, of the Government from performing anything but an absolutely perfunctory operation in connection with the great responsibility laid upon us by the Statute. Our judgment is to be of no more worth than the nodding of a Chinese mandarin made in porcelain to convey our sanction to a measure or a proposition. This is going very low indeed. And most curiously, by the structure of the Act in this respect, even now we are not dealing with conclusive proceedings under it. Under the Proclamation itself nothing can be done. It is only indirectly that action can take place, and in virtue of that action the liberties of the people are to be sacrificed and trampled under the feet of the Executive Government. It is to be done by orders issued from time to time, and of these orders the House of Commons is not to have even the smallest cognizance. We are called upon to take cognizance of the Proclamation, which by itself does nothing, and that cognizance is reduced to a perfect farce. The whole of the operative proceedings under the Proclamation is reserved for the action of the Government of Ireland, without even the formal acknowledgment of our authority in the matter. The sword of Damocles is to hang over the heads of the Irish people. When we look to the sanction of the Act, there are no jury, no Judge, no Resident Magistrates, no control of Parliament; there is nothing but the absolute, unmitigated, arbitrary discretion of the Executive Government—of a political and necessarily a partizan Government. Well, will the Irish people bear the pressure that we are thus putting on
  1844
  their patience? I hope that they will, and I believe that they will. In my opinion, although the remains of former ill habits will necessarily be found in a country like Ireland, which has suffered so much and so long—although grievances may in the hands of those of the less instructed and less Christian-minded part of the population associate themselves with opportunity for the indulgence of evil passions—yet I rejoice to think that under recent pressure the conduct of the Irish people has testified to the great absence of all special and exceptional crime and to a great regard for and observance of the authority of the law. I trust, Sir, with all my heart, that that attitude will be continued; and if I may be permitted to offer them one syllable of recommendation, with all the earnestness that I can command, it is that it should be steadily continued. But what will be the motive that will come to reinforce other good motives in inducing the people to show respect for the law is Ireland under such trying circumstances as I have described in connection with the proceedings of the Legislature and also those of the Executive Government at this moment? If the Irish people suffer silently and obey, as I trust they will, they will not, I am sure, suffer and obey through fear. It will not be through fear of your Viceroys and your Chief Secretaries, nor through fear of your Proclamation and your orders issued from time to time. It will not be through fear. It will, on the contrary, be from the action of strong, vivid, and buoyant hope. The spirit of hope has come into the mind of Ireland within the last two years, and has become a great agent in determining its conduct. That spirit of hope was not effectually damped even at the General Election, when the Irish people saw that those to whose sympathy they looked had become a very small minority of this House. It subsisted under the darker circumstances of the last summer; it has become brighter and more lively. The Irish people believe that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is not the sense of the British nation. They know that the time and the opportunity must come—whether the majority of this House like it or whether they like it not—when that sense will be fully and authentically declared, and they are willing to trust to: it and they are confident of its character.

  1845
  They know likewise that under the operation of the law from time to time, as we have seen during recent years, opportunities sufficiently significant arise from month to month, and almost from week to week, from which inferences can, with rational probability, be drawn. I believe, Sir, that when that time comes the verdict will be the verdict that they desire and that they like; and they derive from current events accumulating and not insufficient evidence that such will be the case. And as they believe this, so, I think, I may say that we—those for whom I may presume to speak—believe it also. That that opinion of ours is the opinion of those who differ from us in this House or outside of it I do not say; but many of those who differ from us, if they do not believe that that is the case, are beginning rather ominously to suspect it. In the feeling of Ireland, Sir, we concur. We think that you have built your house upon the sand. The house may be in itself all very well as far as it goes. It is a majority of this House—a majority of tin's Parliament; and that majority is hold together with a great, or possibly we may find a somewhat diminishing, tenacity. But the House will not make the foundation of the house. The foundation of the house, if we are right, is slipping away from under your feet. It appears to us on this occasion in connection with this Proclamation that the violence of your proceedings increases as the strength which alone can sustain them steadily diminishes. And this, Sir, Ireland sees, and wisely and justly judging the signs of the times and taking account of this accumulating evidence, she trusts to this great nation for the fulfilment of her reasonable wishes; and in that generous expectation I, for one am convinced that she will not be disappointed. I beg, Sir, to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, humbly to represent to Her Majesty that there has been laid before this House a Special Proclamation of the Viceroy of Ireland, declaring the Association known as the Irish National League to be a dangerous Association, under ' The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887.'
  "That no information has been furnished to Parliament to justify the issue of the said Special Proclamation, by virtue of which Her Majesty's subjects are liable to be punished as
  1846
  criminals without judicial inquiry into the nature of their acts.
  "And, that this House, in the absence of such information, prays that the said Proclamation shall not continue in force as to the Association named and described therein."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): There is much, Sir, in the speech to which we have just listened as to which I should like to have detained the House, but which, however interesting in itself, does not appear to me to be relevant to the issue now before us, but to be rather appropriate in its character to the too prolonged debates which we have already had on the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. There is especially one passage of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on which I should like to have dwelt, in. which he took occasion to repeat for the third or fourth time a proposition which. I believe to be wrong in law and in fact, a proposition which he attributes—without a shadow of foundation, though. I do not doubt that he believes it—to the late Attorney General for Ireland, of which no record can be found, which, was not heard by his Friends, which is in direct contradiction to all he said in private, and which has been contradicted in the House of Lords, by, perhaps, the greatest living legal authority, the noble and learned Lord who was Solicitor General, Attorney General, and three times Lord Chancellor in the Governments of the right hon. Gentleman. That proposition is that by the Crimes Act we created new offences. But, important as such a statement would be if it were accurate, I must on this occasion abstain from doing more than giving it a passing contradiction, and must hasten at once to a consideration of the substance of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. On what does he base the Resolution which has been put from the Chair? He bases it, in the first place, on the ignorance in which he asserts that the House has been left as to the ground of the Proclamation; and, in the second place, on on a defence of the action of the National League. I confess, though I think his case a weak one, on his first point he would have been well-advised had he not gone further. I think he would have been well-advised, in the interests of his own fame and reputation, if he had not taken upon

  1847
  himself to defend an association, the character of whose actions in certain parts of Ireland I shall shortly have to discuss before the House at considerable length. I will take the first count in the right hon. Gentleman's argument. It is that the House is not at this moment in possession of sufficient information to enable them to form a judgment on the question before them, and that the deficiency of information is the fault of Her Majesty's Government. Sir, information abounds. It is not want of information that is the difficulty, but the mass of information. It is not the difficulty of finding facts which taxes our industry or ingenuity, but how to make a selection out of the enormous accumulation of facts presented to our notice, and I will point out to the right hon. Gentleman that some of those facts have been laid before the House in the form of official Returns. He seems to make very light of those Returns—he seems to suppose that they have little bearing on this case. Is he aware that in the last Return laid before this House it is shown that nearly 5,000 persons in Ireland at this moment me suffering under the curse of Boycotting? Is he aware that Boycotting is the chief instrument of the National League—an instrument which it has freely used and never disavowed; and is he incapable of drawing the inference that the association under whose auspices nearly 5,000 persons are subjected to this kind of coercion is an association fatal to the rudiments of personal liberty in the country where it exists? That is not the only fact before the House in an official form. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted from the Cowper Commission. Has he read what the Commissioners say upon this question? The Cowper Commission gives an account of Boycotting practised by the members of the National League. I shall read an extract to the House—
  "Outrage was at first made use of to intimidate parties who were willing to pay rents, but latterly the methods of passing resolutions at National League meetings, causing their proceedings to be reported in local newspapers, naming obnoxious men, and then Boycotting those named, have been adopted. Tenants who have paid even the judicial rents have been summoned to appear before self-constituted tribunals, and, if they failed to do so, or, appearing, failed to satisfy those tribunals, have been fined or Boycotted. The people are more afraid
  1848
  of Boycotting, which depends for its success on the probability of outrage, than they are of the judgments of the Courts of Justice. This unwritten law in some districts is supreme. We deem it right to call attention to the terrible ordeal that a Boycotted person has to undergo, which was by several witnesses graphically described during the progress of our inquiry. The existence of a Boycotted person becomes a burden to him, as none in town or village are allowed, under a similar penalty to themselves, to supply him or his family with the necessaries of life. He is not allowed to dispose of the produce of his farm. Instances have been brought before us in which his attendance at Divine Service was prohibited; in which his cattle have been some killed, some barbarously mutilated; in which all his servants and labourers were ordered and obliged to leave him; in which the most ordinary necessaries of life, and even medical comforts, had to be procured from long distances; in which no one would attend the funeral of or dig a grave for a member of a Boycotted person's family; and in which his children have been forced to discontinue attendance at the National School of the district."
  Now, Sir, the facts here stated are familiar to the House, and I do not require to go to the Cowper Commission to establish their existence. But I quote the extract to show that there is evidence now before the House on this question in an official form, which of itself is conclusive.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is not a unanimous Report.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: If that is so, you ought to have prohibited the League by the Act.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not catch the right hon. Gentleman's interruption.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not wish to interfere; but, as you desire it, I say that the Cowper Report ought to have been dealt with in the recent Act.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is an argument with which I shall deal in its proper place. The right hon. Gentleman seems to suppose that the Government have entirely relied upon secret and confidential Reports. Of course, there are confidential Reports. It is perfectly true there are confidential Reports in large numbers on which a case might be made; but it is a great error to suppose that you require confidential Reports to make out a case. There is ample and overflowing material in the reports of the local newspapers in Ireland, which, to go no further back than the last two or throe months, abound in facts sufficient, in my judgment, and I hope in the judgment

  1849
  of the House, to justify the action of the Government in this matter. Then he asks me why we did not issue the Proclamation before; why we did not mention the League in the Crimes Act. I will give the hon. Gentleman—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: Right honourable.]—the right hon. Gentleman three reasons why we did not mention the League in the Act. I have been of opinion ever since I went to the Irish Office that the League came under the definition of a dangerous association; but I thought it inexpedient to proclaim it until the Land Act was passed. That is the first reason why we did not put the National League by name in the Act? But there is another reason, of which the right hon. Gentleman should know something; for his own Government had experience of how an association can change its name without changing its nature. How the National League would have laughed at such legislation—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: They laugh at you now.] [Cries of "Order !"]—which they would be able to overcome by no more elaborate process than a change of name. But there was yet a third reason why the National League is not mentioned by name in the Act. It may prove not to be the only association which will come under this clause. We cannot tell what dangerous associations may spring up under this Act. Had we limited the possibility of action to one association we should have rendered ourselves open to difficulties. I hope I have now answered sufficiently the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that, by our action, we had practically abolished the Habeas Corpus Act. It appears to me, with all due deference, that when the right hon. Gentleman made that statement he did not really understand what the Habeas Corpus Act does for the liberties of the country. [Ironical cheers.] Well, I will show what I mean. The effect of the Habeas Corpus Act, and the system of law of which it is the expression, is to make it impossible to put and keep a man in prison for an offence not known to be an offence when committed, or of which cognizance cannot be taken by the tribunals when it is committed. This effect it will still have. A man must have ample opportunity of knowing that he has committed an offence before he can be brought under
  1850
  the clauses of this Act. By the Proclamation, and by the order depending upon it a particular association is declared to be illegal in a particular locality. If after that a man acts as a member of it he commits an offence against the law as knowingly and as directly as if he picked a pocket or broke into a house. Whether it is a good law or a bad law is a different point. The right hon. Gentleman thinks it is a bad law; we think it is a necessary law, and therefore a good law, and so far we differ; but there should be no difference of opinion on the point that the law, be it good or bad, leaves the man who obeys it under the protection of the Habeas Corpus Act. Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect the action of his own Government when he says, and says most falsely, that we have, in effect, suspended the Habeas Corpus Act?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That is not usual language.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will at once apologize to the right hon. Gentleman; I meant no offence by using the word "falsely"; I simply meant that the accusation was not one that could be sustained. Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that his own Government actually did what he alleges without a shadow of foundation that this Government has done? They suspended the Habeas Corpus Act, and by so doing destroyed the predecessor of the National League—the Land League—while the Leader of the Irish Party was in prison, when Parliament was not sitting, and without a fragment of information being given to the House or to the country. They proclaimed the Land League in a manner which made it absolutely impossible for any man in Ireland to know whether he would or would not be imprisoned by the Executive without the intervention of any tribunal. No doubt the proclamation of the Land League without the intervention of the Habeas Corpus Act is open to the strictures which the right hon. Gentleman has erroneously made upon us. Does he recollect the terms in which his Government proclaimed the Land League? They are very interesting taken in connection with the line of argument which it has pleased the right hon. Gentleman to take to-night. He was eloquent to-night upon the fact that the

  1851
  National League was a protection to the tenants in the struggle with their landlords, and that we by our action are interfering with a legitimate combination which deals with the relations between landlords and tenants.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That was not my statement at all.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to correct me specifically I shall be glad to give way. I will now read the Proclamation the right hon. Gentleman issued in 1881, when the Habeas Corpus Act was really suspended—
  "Whereas an association styled the Irish Land League has existed for some time past and assumes to interfere with the Queen's subjects in the free exercise of their lawful rights, and especially "
  —let the right hon. Gentleman mark these words—
  "to control the relations of landlord and tenant."
  The right hon. Gentleman has done a great deal more, it appears, than change his opinions on Home Rule since this Proclamation; it appears that he has changed his opinions upon the fundamental operation of law in this country, and upon what does or does not constitute justice or injustice as between different classes. It is not merely his political opinion that has altered—his political morality has altered too. In vindicating the National League the right hon. Gentleman gave what I can only regard as a defence of Boycotting. I am aware that he faintly condemned certain of the aspects of the process; but in the main he appeared to find in the League something necessary, if not laudable, and something which produced excellent and desirable fruits in the country; but it appears to me that when the right hon. Gentleman claims Boycotting as a legitimate mode of limiting the unjust exercise of rights in any society, did it not occur to him that precisely the same argument, with no less effect and force, may be used to defend assassination, when used for the same purpose? I can understand someone following strictly the line of argument which the right hon. Gentleman suggested, and saying of assassination that it was an instrument the use of which he deplored, which leads to very disastrous consequences, which was
  1852
  perhaps wrong in itself, but which as a check, as a limitation on rights unduly pressed, might be used with advantage in certain countries and in certain states of society. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would shrink from such an argument. Then he should be careful how he uses a similar one to justify practices which in times past nobody has more severely denounced than himself. I regret that it is necessary that I should go at some length into the character of this association, quoting evidence from various sources of information which in the main are open to hon. Members. I cannot give a better summary of the conclusions I shall claim to deduce than by reading one quotation, which is in these terms—
  "It is not only the landlords and the red-hot Orangemen who feel apprehension, but it is everyone who has offended the Land League—or the National League, as it was called aftor-wards—by not taking an active part in its support; everyone who has asserted his legal right to work for whom he likes or to take farms from whom he likes; everyone who has taken any part in bringing to justice those whom the organs of the now dominant Administration and Party regard as victims and martyrs; every quiet citizen and every member of that minority which would not be a minority if both Parties would join in a determination that law and order should no longer be trifled with in Ireland any more than it is trifled with in Yorkshire and Somersetshire."—(3 Hansard, [304] 1111.)
  There cannot be a better summary of the facts and arguments I shall lay before the House. It does not lose any weight with me, and I am sure it will not lose any weight in the House, when I say that that passage is from a speech made by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir George Trevelyan) in the debate on the Government of Ireland Bill in April of last year. It has been asserted by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) that the association which we take power to suppress in certain parts of Ireland is a political association, and ought to be treated with the same careful regard to all its rights as any other political association in Scotland, England, or Ireland. I entirely deny that, according to any sound definition of political, association, the National League is a political association. That some of the objects of the National League may be political I do not deny. I have not the least doubt that all the members desire Home Rule, and will

  1853
  make every effort they can to obtain it, and I admit that that is a political object; but you cannot determine whether this association is a political association in such a sense that it deserves the respect of the House merely by defining the objects for which it was originated. You have to consider its methods also. Are the methods by which the National League obtains adhesion to its views, by which it obtains increase in the number of its members—are they argument and persuasion, the only instruments legitimately used by political organizations deserving of the name? I have no doubt that some of the ruffians who in the French Revolution used the guillotine to obtain uniformity of opinion in France would have described themselves—as indeed they did—as a political organization. In the same way, no doubt, the Inquisition would have been described as a religious organization. The Inquisition, like the National League, obtained adhesion to its ranks by other methods than those of argument and persuasion; and, had it suited the exigencies of the time, the right hon. Gentleman might have moved some such Resolution as this in defence of its position, and the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would have given it, as he now gives to the National League, his "moral support." But does that justify arguments of the kind I have described? The fact that associations are religious or political may absolve them from the judgment of this House; but it does not prevent us, should it be necessary, from taking action in the interests of order. I have had occasion to remind the House that the National League recruits itself by intimidation. That statement, when I first made it, was denied by the hon. Member who was, and still is, I believe, secretary of the organization. He said the Central League in Dublin would dissolve any branch that practised intimidation for such an object. I do not know what course the Central League may have taken; but I can state with absolute certainty that at the time I spoke, and before and since, the branches of the League have never hesitated to coerce persons to join it and to subscribe to its funds. It is that which fundamentally distinguishes the National League from anything that we know as a political organization in this
  1854
  country or in Scotland. Let me read a few extracts to establish what I say. Here is one dated the 13th of August, 1887. The Munster Express of that date says—
  "Kilmacow.—The usual meeting of this branch was held on Sunday, July 31. The Rev. Thomas Kennedy presided. A notice was ordered to be taken of Edmond Cassin's conduct, as a member, in giving assistance to James Kinsella to draw coals, knowing him to be an expelled member, and at the same time having the assistance of a supporter of a land-grabber. Mr. Peter Haberlin, Kilmacow, was then called in and charged with working for an obnoxious party. He admitted all, and promised, if pardoned, he would not offend for the time to come."
  Of course, what I wish to point out hero is that this is simply a way of saying that a man shall not work for anybody who has been expelled from his branch of the League. In The Dundalk Democrat of the 25th of June, 1887, there is a resolution which was passed by the Tallanstown branch condemning as traitors and cowards all persons who did not become members of the League. In The Kerry Sentinel of the 3rd of June, I read that a resolution was passed strongly condemning all persons who have not joined the League.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Give the text of the resolution.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. and learned Gentleman doubts the accuracy of what I have read he can refer back for himself to the newspaper which I have mentioned. On the 12th of June—and this is official information—
  Five men carrying arms entered the house of Alexander Moyinham, of Raheen, put him on his knees, and fired shots over his head. The motive was that he had not paid his subscription to the National League.
  The Tuam News of the 24th of June says that in the Kilcornan branch of the League a resolution was passed expelling all members who had any communication with persons who declined to join the League.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman still reading from the papers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I was reading from was a brief extract of a notice which appeared in The Tuam News of the 24th of June. Here is a resolution in The Kerry Sentinel of the 3rd of June, passed at the Knocknagoshel branch. It strongly condemns all per-

  1855
  sons in the district who have not joined the League. The New Ross Standard, of July 25, contains the following:—
  "Rathmure and Templeudigan Branch.—Mr. J. Redmond, V.P., presiding. It was announced that at next meeting a new committee should be appointed, as the term of the existing one had expired; consequently every member is expected to attend. Another cogent reason for a full attendance is that on that day will close the receiving of subscriptions fur membership, and cards for same will be distributed. All who have not yet subscribed will be good enough to do so at or before next meeting, and the committee are requested to bring a list of the subscribers and non-subscribers in their respective localities. The names of the latter will be kept in the committee room as a record of the number of anti-Nationalists in the district. The charge made against a certain member at previous meeting was postponed, as the accused was absent. John Cullen, Rathduff, smith, came before the meeting, asking pardon for working for objectionable parties, and he promised, if admitted a member, he would never again work for these parties. His conduct in the past being so strongly opposed to the National cause, the further consideration of receiving him was deferred to a larger meeting. A long discussion on the meanness of grass-grabbers or grass sneaks next ensued, and resulted in a cordial vote of thanks to the Bree League for exposing these mean creatures. They also highly complimented Father Sheil for his spirited and very patriotic letter. We find that James Forristal, Grange (Anthony's brother), had cattle on forbidden grass, but he has withdrawn them."
  We all know what is the fate of anti-Nationalists. If hon. Members have forgotten what that fate is, I will read another example. The Midland Tribune of the 11th of August, 1887, says—
  "Kilruane Branch.—A meeting of this branch was held on Sunday last, Mr. Michael Flannery, P.L.G., in the chair. The following resolution was agreed to:—'That we take the earliest opportunity of reminding our members of their duty with regard to the machinery they use in cutting down the harvest this season, and call on them to use no implements that are not the property of Nationalists. The adoption of such a course will have the effect of leaving the enemies of the tenant farmers all alone in their glory and their machines to rot in the field.' "
  Through that you will observe what the fate of the anti-Nationalist is. The next extract, as will be seen from the character of it, is not from a newspaper. I have derived it from official sources of information—
  On the 22nd of January, 1887, the houses of 16 families were visited and the inmates ordered to join the National League.
  1856
  [A Home Rule MEMBER: Where?] In County Kerry. I shall not give the exact locality—
  "On the 7th of February, 1887, the houses of 15 other families were visited in a like manner, the inmates being ordered to join the National League and subscribe Is. in every £5 of their valuation towards its funds."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Visited by whom?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Visited by a gang of men. This advertisement appeared in The New Ross Standard of the 13th of August, 1887:—
  "Tullogher.—Met on Sunday, August 7. We have several times given public notice to those interested that their subscriptions were overdue, and unless defaulters had paid on or before a fixed date their names would be given to the public. When such a list appears people can have little excuse if some may find their names there emblazoned. …The first business taken up was to procure a list of those honourable men in the parish who have not yet paid their subscriptions. It was decided that the best course to be followed would be to invite a full attendance of the collectors at the next meeting, when they would be expected to furnish a complete list of the defaulters in their respective districts."
  Now, in the case of associations in this country, it matters very little whether names are given to the public or not; but let the House recollect that the giving of the names of non-members or defaulting members of the National League to the public means that these men, their families, and their acquaintances are Boycotted. I think I have now given a sufficient number of extracts to prove my first proposition, which was that the recruiting of the National League is a recruiting which is done by intimidation, and that by this fact alone it is separated by an enormous abyss from any legitimate association whose methods of procedure consist of argument and persuasion. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to tell us that, besides being a political association, and on that account worthy of our respect, the National League was in effect a trade combination, and his argument was that it was analogous in its character to trade combinations in this country. What is the essence of trade combinations in this country? It is that persons who have a particular article to dispose of—namely, their labour—combine together for the purpose of seeing that it is disposed of at a price which they think proper, and on terms which they

  1857
  think just. That is the whole essence, as far as I know, of every labour association in this country, and I appeal to the Labour Members in this House to say if I am not right. If that be a true account, I ask is there the slightest resemblance between an association of the character which I have described, and which I will describe in greater detail later on, and the ordinary trade combinations with which we are acquainted in this country? Does the House not see that whereas combinations of tenants not to take a farm would be exactly analogous to combinations in this country, combinations to prevent other people from taking farms which they have a right to take and which they ought to take are upon a very different footing? I imagine that it requires no proof, and I do not think hon. Members opposite from Ireland will deny, after the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) the night before last, that one of the objects and methods of the National League is to prevent men taking farms through intimidation. Is that denied by the hon. Member for East Mayo himself? If it is, would it not be sufficient to show that the Plan of Campaign is under the patronage of the National League, has been supported by the League, and supported through the instrumentality of Boycotting and outrage? ["No!" and cheers.] Is it not sufficient to show that? Even by the hon. Gentleman's statement it is manifest that where the Plan of Campaign in its entirety does not exist, nevertheless intimidation against tenants who have the audacity to pay their just debts prevails to a large extent? I should like to read to the House an extract bearing on this point. This is a resolution passed at Kilmacow, on Sunday, June 26—
  " That we condemn in the most emphatic manner the callous and treacherous conduct of Mr. John Moloney, Thomas Kennedy, Edmond Barry, and Sirs. Lawrence (members of this branch), John Durney, Pat Durney, and Mrs. Hetherington (non-members), all of Skough, in paying rent to Peter Walsh while their brother tenants were being evicted, thereby enabling the exterminator to crush more ruthlessly and effectually his unfortunate victims; and to mark our abhorrence of such baseness we hereby expel the first four"—
  An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
  —"and direct our secretary to demand their cards; while, of course, we regard the last three in exactly the same light."
  1858
  Some hon. Member cried "Hear, hear !" but I should like to tell him that expulsion from the National League means something more than expulsion from a club. The next case I give is not from a newspaper. This happened in County Clare—
  The houses of Pat Morrisey and Mic Murrihy were fired into on the night of the 13th of August. Morrisey had paid his rent on the 26th of July without consulting the other tenants. For this he was denounced by the Mullough branch of the Irish National League. Murrihy had refused to sign a memorial with the other tenants. Shortly before the outrages the band of the Mullough branch of the Irish National League, headed by its president, Father Garry, C.C., marched by at short distance from these houses with the evident object of intimidation.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Whose report is that?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That report I give upon my own authorHy—the authority that would have been the sole authority for the statistics, for not laying which upon the Table the right hon. Gentleman has denounced us during the greater part of his speech. It was also reported in another instance that on the 13th of July, 1887, at the weekly meeting of this branch "a man," who a short time ago was refused membership of the League for not having adopted the Plan of Campaign, was admitted on promising to do so immediately. And here let me say that since the Crimes Act was passed there has been a marked diminution in the number of cases in which the name is mentioned. These cases, I apprehend, clearly show the methods by which the League, which is represented to us as being a legitimate trade combination, on the lines of English trades unions, carries out its behests—namely, by intimidation and outrage. Let me also remind the House that in these cases the National League is using as its tools men who in many cases have cause profoundly to regret the action of the League and its influence over them—men who are quite willing and able to pay their rents, but who are compelled by the tyranny of the League to submit to the extreme penalty of eviction, involving a loss of their homes and the loss of their holdings—and this they are obliged to submit to though they can pay their rents, and avoid it because this irresponsible association says they shall join this combi-

  1859
  nation to rob the landlord. Those men are deprived of all their improvements, of their homes, and of everything they regard as valuable in order to satisfy the demands of tenants who have been sometimes less prosperous, often less deserving, than themselves.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Give an instance.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is the hon. and learned Member not as well aware as I am how many of the tenants, let us say on the Lansdowne estates, would now give anything they are worth to be restored to their holdings?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: They can still redeem if they like.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But they would not be allowed to redeem in consequence of the action of that organization of which the hon. and learned Gentleman is so distinguished a member. Another object of this League, which has been described to us as a legitimate trade union association, is to punish by all the means in its power those whom it is pleased to describe as "land-grabbers." I believe the hon. Member for East Mayo at Dublin two nights ago gloried in that fact.
  MR. DILLON: Would the right hon. Gentleman read what I said?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not the speech by me; and if the hon. Member denies what I say I will withdraw it. It is a matter of small importance to me, and of no importance to my argument. But, at all events, whether he denies it or not, I shall prove by instances that I have here that the National League does attempt to punish what it styles "land-grabbing"—in fact, it is an offence against which it directs all its tyrannical methods. Here is a case derived from official sources.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is in Order for a Minister of the Crown to quote from an official document without laying it upon the Table?
  MR. SPEAKER: It does not follow that every document from which a Minister quotes must be laid upon the Table of the House. Public documents and despatches must, of course, be laid on the Table; but it is possible that a Minister may quote from confidential communications which could not be laid before the House even if moved for. But, of course, if a Minister declines to
  1860
  lay on the Table documents which he has quoted, it so much diminishes the authority they carry, inasmuch as the House cannot judge for itself of their value.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quoting the substance of the official Report—
  In November, 1886, the Mullagh branch of the National League condemned a man named Patrick Kennedy, because in 1879 he took a farm from which the widow Dempsey had been evicted, and he held it still, It was determined to hold a public meeting on the farm, and printed placards were posted through the country. On the 21st of November a meeting was held on the farm. About 3,000 persons were present; violent language was used, and Kennedy was hooted and groaned. He became so frightened, and the people became so hostile to him, that he went before the committee of the Mullagh branch of the National League, on the 6th of December, and promised to give up the farm. He obtained from the branch a ' permit' written by the secretary, stating that, as he had yielded to the League, and asked time till January to sell his stock, there was no objection to people dealing with Kennedy. Kennedy removed his cattle off the farm on the 8th of January, 1887. At a meeting of the Mullagh branch, on the 6th of March, 1887, the committee decided to write a letter to Kennedy, asking him to state whether he had given up the Kylebeg farm to the landlord or not. On the 10th of March Kennedy received a letter from the secretary of the branch, saying that they were informed that he was still in possession of the farm, although he had removed his cattle, and 'that if he did not send some satisfactory account before next meeting they would be under the disagreeable necessity of declaring him still a land-grabber.' Kennedy did not reply, and on the 5th of April he received another letter from the secretary, saying he was again directed to communicate with him, and demanding a reply. Kennedy did not reply. In May the former tenant, Mrs. Dempsey, put some sheep and goats to graze on the farm, and Kennedy was afraid to interfere, although he still pays rent for the farm. Mrs. Dempsey's son is now cutting the meadow on the farm, and Kennedy is afraid to interfere, and states he is waiting for the passing of the Crimes Act before he asserts his rights. The Tuam News publishes accounts of Kennedy's offence against the League and his consequent treatment as described.
  The following report appeared in The Wexford People of July 23, 1887:—
  "Craanford and Monaseed.—League met on Monday the 11th instant. A communication was brought before the meeting asking if this branch had any objection to a gentleman buying out the farm of S. Calloran, from which James Keenan was heartlessly evicted. The committee were unanimously of opinion that no one should have anything to do with this farm."
  The following account is an instance of the action of the League in Galway

  1861
  West Riding for the purpose of compelling a man named Michael Flanagan to give up a farm:—
  On the 10th of November, 1884, Michael Flanagan took the Hollywood farm, which had been surrendered by a man named John Rochford in 1882. On the 30th of August, 1885, Flanagan received a threatening: letter warning him to give up the farm at once or prepare for death. On the 15th of November, 1885, he, in compliance with a verbal summons, attended before the committee of the Shanaglish National League, where he was examined as to the circumstances of his taking the farm. After his examination he was ordered to retire, and, being soon recalled, was told the committee decided that he should give up the farm. Flanagan said he would abide by their decision. On the 29th of November he was again brought before the committee, and asked if he was taking steps to give up the farm. He said he was, but asked for time to sell his stock. He was allowed till the 12th of February, 1886, to do so. He was then admitted a member of the National League. On the 12th of February he had not given up the farm, so on the 21st of February he was called before the committee, and a resolution was passed that he should give up the farm at once. Flanagan then refused to comply. Private information was received that his life was in danger, and he was constantly watched by police. On the 7th of March, 1886, the committee summoned Flanagan before them, and demanded that he should resign his card of membership; but on the intervention of a clergyman he was given time to think over his decision. On the 26th of March the Shanaglish branch passed a resolution pronouncing the Hollywood farm Boycotted and Flanagan a land-grabber. On the 15th of Hay a car-house and a car in it wore maliciously burned, and on the 28th of January, 1887, about 200 yards of a wall round the Hollywood Farm were knocked down. On the 5th February, 1887, at a National League Convention held at Gort, Flanagan was denounced, and all who associated with him were condemned. And so on the 19th March a farmer named John Halloran, who was on friendly terms with and associated with Flanagan, was attacked by four men and very severely beaten. He would have been killed hut for a timely rescue. Flanagan is still in constant danger, and as long as he holds this farm his life will he insecure. Accounts of his case were published from time to time in The Tuam News of the 26th of March, 1886, and other dates.
  After hearing that case, will the right hon. Gentleman still maintain that there is any analogy between the proceedings of the National League and the proceedings of trades unions in this country?
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Was that in 1884?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have brought that case down from 1884 to the present time. I have not quoted from The Tuam News, but from my official information;
  1862
  but I am informed that from time to time notices of the case were published in The Tuam News. Here is another case; it occurred in the Portumna district of the County of Galway—
  On the 27th of December a man named Heagney was brought before the National League committee and charged with having grabbed land. (This land Heagney took 18 years ago.) He refused to give up the land, and on the 15th of February, 1887, threatening notices were posted against him, and he became Boycotted. More notices were posted on the 20th of February, and when he or any of his family go out into the country or to Mass they are hooted and groaned. Heagney's children and a servant man of his have been assaulted, and as their lives are in danger they have been placed under police protection. On the 1st of July a sheep belonging to Heagney's servant was maliciously killed.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the face of those cases, maintain that there is any analogy between the proceedings of the National League and the proceedings of trade unions in this country?
  MR. W. E GLADSTONE: I never said anything about the relations of the National League to trades unionism.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The whole burden of the right hon. Gentleman's song for the last three months has been to draw this very parallel between combinations for the protection of the tenants in Ireland and combinations for the protection of workmen in England. Hero is an instance of a man being Boycotted who took a farm from which a tenant was evicted 41 years ago—
  A meeting of the Killoe branch, County of Longford, of the National League was held on the 22nd of May, and a resolution was adopted and published in the local newspaper condemning a man named Owen Hughes for having grabbed a grass farm from which a tenant had been evicted. The eviction took place 41 years previously. Within the last few years the farm has been held by two other persons, who, in succession, had to give it up owing to the action of the League. Four years ago Hughes' windows were broken and a shot fired into his house, and a year ago, being sorely pressed, he promised the League he would give up the farm, but he has not done so. He is Boycotted, cannot purchase goods, and two men who ventured to speak to him were summoned before the League and censured.
  I cannot conceive that a more remarkable instance of the action of the League can be given to the House.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: From what is the right hon. Gentleman quoting?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is, partly, official information.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: Is there any public notice of it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The resolution which I mention was published in the Weekly News. I hope that will be sufficient. If anyone caves to inquire further into these matters, he may consult the The Leinster Leader and other local papers. In The Tuam News of the 18th of July there was a charge of giving a water supply to a "grabber," and of allowing him a right of way to the well to procure water. The local branch of the League caused a wall to be built, blocking up the passage to the well. I do not know what comments hon. Gentlemen will be disposed to pass on that proceeding. Then, on the 11th July, there was a case of a man taking an evicted farm brought before a branch of the League, and he was compelled to make a public apology for having committed that crime, not against the laws of the land, but against the laws of the League. The Munster Express of the 30th July, 1887, reports that a branch of the League at Kilmacow in the County of Kilkenny had before it the case of Thomas Ryan, who, with his brother, was evicted for non-payment of rent, and who, unknown to his brother, came to terms with the landlord as far as his own share of the farm was concerned. It was stated that—
  "Great interest attached to this case, because some short-sighted people could not see how Thomas Ryan could have done wrong in taking his own land. The committee, however, unanimously condemned him for not having acquainted his fellow-tenant with his action, or sought the advice of the National League, and they ordered his name to be erased from the roll of members."
  On this particular branch of my case I believe I have said enough to satisfy the House of that no punishment is regarded as too severe in dealing with a person who may have taken a farm from which another tenant has been evicted, with a view to carry on a legitimate industry. But there is another offence against what is known as the law of the League, which, I think, specially deserves the consideration of the House; it is with regard to the taking of grazing land. I think this particularly interesting, because it is perfectly obvious, from the nature of the case, that the only possible object of making that an offence against the rules of the League is to injure the landlord, not to benefit
  1864
  the tenant. I can conceive that there are persons who think that they are doing the community a service in punishing a man who has taken an evicted farm; but when you are punishing a man for no other offence than that of taking landlord's grass is it not manifest that you are using the vast power you have taken upon yourselves, not for protecting the tenants, but solely and only for the purpose of injuring, and, if possible, destining the landlords? And yet the proofs that this is an offence against the League, and punished as severely as any other, are absolutely overwhelming and conclusive. Let me give a few cases to the House—
  At a meeting of the Ballyhur branch of the National League on May 22, 1887, a resolution was proposed condemning a farmer named Michael Allen for taking the grazing of some glebe land from Lord Kenmare. This glebe land was voluntarily surrendered by a farmer named Leahy. The neighbouring farmers objected to the land being taken by Allen, as they were in the habit of allowing their cattle to stray over it and get cheap grazing. On May 29 the case of Allen came before the League meeting again. He was accused of grabbing, and condemned. On June 2 Allen had to be given protection. On June 27 a report was received that Allen had submitted to the League, promising to give up the glebe land in November, 1887. Allen informed the police that he required no further protection as he was now safe. On July 31 Allen gave up the land, having been required to do so by the League in writing.
  Here is a man whose sole offence is that he had taken land which the previous tenant had voluntarily given up. That he was acting legally, it might be, even meritoriously, nobody will deny, and yet in consequence of that action he is condemned by the League, and has to receive police protection. But when he finds life so intolerable that he has to give way to the authority of the League he informs the police that he does not require protection any longer. I cannot conceive a stronger instance of the species ox tyranny exercised by an irresponsible body than the action of the League in this matter.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: What is the right hon. Gentleman's authority for that case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Official. Here is a quotation from The New Ross Standard of July 25, 1887—
  " Ramsgrange and button's Parish.—Met on Sunday, the 19th instant, Very Rev. Canon Doyle, P.P., president, in the chair. P. Cahill,

  1865
  steward of Mr. Gifford, came before the meeting and said Mr. Gifford wanted to be a member of the League. Mr. Gifford was not a landlord; he was only a tenant. If he was allowed to be a member he would act up to the rules of the League. The following resolution passed:—'That we accept Mr. Gifford's explanation that he is not a landlord, but merely a tenant, and that, therefore, we deem it reasonable for him to act in all matters, selling grass, &c, as a tenant farmer; and that we further accept his adherence to the rules of the Irish National League, and receive him as a member."
  Because this man is a tenant and not a landlord, therefore the National League permits him to sell his grass to whom he likes, when he likes, and where he likes. If hon. Members will refer to The Wexford People of the 23rd of April this year, they will find two resolutions—the one passed at Cushinstown, prohibiting the taking of demesne lands for grazing, the names of the offenders to be published; and the other passed at Gorey, directing the names of persons who took grass lands contrary to resolution to be read out, and an offender residing in another parish to be reported to the neighbouring branch. Therefore, if any Member of this House was before in doubt whether the authority of the League was to extend to grazing land from which no tenant had been evicted, he can be in doubt no longer. I have now shown the House, by specific instances, the kind of action which the League has taken with respect to the relations of landlord and tenant. But he would be a shallow interpreter of history who could for a moment think it possible that action of that kind can be confined to the individual who commits the offence against the avowed rules of the League. If you allow any body of men to arrogate to themselves the authority which the League arrogates to itself, you must expect to find that that authority is extended till it interferes with every relation of life. But this general truth is specially true of the League in consequence of the special character of the punishment which is the chief sanction of its decrees. It is used for every purpose. You can only Boycott a man by threatening to Boycott a vast number of people who trade or associate with him. Therefore, Boycotting strikes a vast number of persons who have committed no offence against the League, and yet who suffer from the
  1866
  heavy weight of the penalties it has the power to inflict. The Nationalist of the 13th of August, 1887, speaking of the Baltinglass branch, says—
  "A largely-attended meeting of this branch was held at Mr. Byrne's on Sunday. Mr. William Loughlin presided. … Mr. Denis Murphy, of Woodfield, who hires out a mowing machine, came before the meeting to explain about his having mowed Boycotted meadows in county Kildare. He said he was unaware of the Boycotting: but, as it was so extensively published, he should have known of it or made inquiries about it. He would make every reparation in his power, and volunteered to put an apology in The Nationalist and Leinster header of Saturday. This was deemed satisfactory, and the meeting adjourned."
  Can any humiliation be more profound than that? Can anything better show how deeply intimidation has eaten into the heart of the people? Here is a resolution passed, according to The Wexford People, on the 4th of July, at a meeting of the League in Ramsgrange and Sutton's parish—
  " That the conduct of John Quinn, of Tin-nock, is most reprehensible. He came to Ramsgrange on the 19th ultimo, and admitted he had violated an important resolution of the New Ross Convention. Yet since then he had the audacity to attack a respectable member of the baronial committee for having done his duty in reporting it. He is, therefore, required to come before the National League on the 10th instant, and apologize for his conduct, or take the consequences; and that Patrick Stafford, of Boderan, be also required to attend on the same occasion."
  Here is an extract from The Kilkenny Journal of the 13th of August, 1887, as to a meeting of the Dunnamaggin branch—
  " The members of this branch met on Sunday…Letters have been read from the neighbouring branches in answer to complaints from this branch; a member apologized for using a Boycotted machine, and promised not to do so again."
  I am now going to read a case which appears almost pathetic. The Leinster Leader of the 10th of July, 1887, speaking of the Ballyadam and Wolfhill branch, tells this story of what it calls "a repentant sinner"—
  " Abbin Morrin, from Boley, came before the committee, and stated that in an evil hour, and being pressed by extreme want, he drew coals for the benefit of Trench's house wreckers. He was now sorry for having so far betrayed his neighbours and his country, and promised that if the committee would restore him to the friendship of the people he would not offend again. The committee promised, in consequence of Morrin committing the offence before any

  1867
  evictions were carried out, to consider his case next meeting if in the meantime he kept aloof from the landlord party."
  Let the House observe that even, extreme want was not thought by the League to be an excuse for serving an unpopular master. The next case, I think, shows to what depth of humiliation the tenantry have been reduced. The case is reported in The Leinster Leader of August 6. A man was called upon, to explain why he had used a hack-car which belonged to an Emergency man, and replied that he did not know upon whose car he was getting, but that after travelling some distance on the car he discovered where he was. He admitted that he should have got off the car there and then, and he expressed his regret for remaining on the car when the state of affairs became known to him. That is almost a more impressive case than those which tell of National League proceedings of a more violent character, for it shows how every action of life, however innocent in itself, is controlled by the League, and how abject is the position of those persons who come under its wrath. Then there is another case reported in The Leinster Leader of August 13. The committee of the Ballyadam and Wolfhill branch of the League were considering the cases of certain Emergency men in the neighbourhood, and the rev. chairman said—"There is Jack George, with his henchman Larry Dempsey, whose action, it is needless to add, excites disgust." A Mr. Brennan replied that he did not think that Dempsey would have gone to George had he not been unable to procure the necessaries of life, and the rev. chairman thereupon said—"It is no excuse at all." Now, what does the House think of such action, and of the fact that the League that indulges in proceedings finds defenders here? May I just read a few reasons why people are Boycotted? There is an extremely interesting case, which will be instructive to the House as showing how one man's offence is visited by the League upon his relatives and friends. Justin M'Carthy, senior, allowed a land agent to collect rents at his house. That was his offence, and on account of it Justin M'Carthy, junior, is Boycotted. Jeremiah M'Carthy is similarly treated, because he is Justin M'Carthy's brother; another person is
  1868
  Boycotted because he speaks to members of McCarthy's family; a blacksmith is Boycotted because he is Justin M'Carthy's friend; someone else is Boycotted because he voted for M'Carthy at the election of Poor Law Guardians; another man is Boycotted because he swore an information against some members of the League who assaulted and robbed M'Carthy; and yet another because he sold a heifer to M'Carthy; and another because he drank in a tent with a member of M'Carthy's family. This case shows how far-reaching are the effects of the decrees of this irresponsible tribunal, and how large is the amount of suffering that may be caused in one neighbourhood where a violation of its rules has been committed by a single individual.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that imaginative statement has been contradicted? Will he give the House the authority upon which he repeats the statement?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it would be more convenient if the hon. Member reserved his reply to the proper time. As the hon. Member has chosen to throw some doubt on my authority, I may tell hon. Gentlemen who cast aspersions upon these statements that they are on the authority of officials to whoso character the highest testimony was borne by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley). To return to my argument—as the House will recollect, I was endeavouring to show how the National League extends its sphere of operations, and the case to which I am now about to refer is not connected with land. The tenants of whom I am about to speak are not tenants of farms, but of ordinary houses. It is known as the New Ross Workhouse case.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: As a matter of Order, I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay upon the Table of the House the quotations which he reads, and which he calls official information?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House when the Speaker gave a ruling on that point.
  MR. CHILDERS: I was in the House, and the Speaker gave no ruling on that point. The ruling had

  1869
  reference to private and not official information.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I wish to ask, Sir, if when a Minister quotes from an official document it is not the invariable rule of Parliament and the House that the Paper shall be laid on the Table, and that he is not at liberty to quote it without laying it on the Table?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already given a ruling on the point generally, but not on the specific point. What I said was that it does not follow, because a Minister quotes from a document, that it must be laid upon the Table. It might be a confidential document like a Police Report. Such Reports are frequently quoted and yet not laid upon the Table. But when the right hon. Gentleman calls a document official it is not necessarily implied that the document is confidential; and it might be necessary, in order that the House may verify the statements made, that it should be laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To print all these references would only cause a great deal of trouble.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not refer to the extracts from newspapers. What I wish to know is whether, after the ruling of the Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman will lay upon the Table every official document from which he has quoted?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. My quotations have been of three kinds. I have read advertisements that have appeared in newspapers; I have read confidential documents; and I have read notes which I have made of certain cases. I presume the right hon. Gentleman does not want the first of these, and he cannot have the second. When I was interrupted I was reminding the House of a very curious case, which shows how the National League interferes in matters altogether outside the sphere of land and landlordism. The tenants in the New Ross case were householders, not tenants of land, but household tenants from week to week. Under the compulsion of the National League they allowed themselves to be evicted for non-payment of rent in August, 1886. They were taken into the workhouse, and the Guardians of the workhouse, being practically the nominees of the National League, these people were allowed special and un
  1870
  authorized privileges, wholly outside the practice of the Poor Law. The Local Government Board in Ireland thought it necessary to interfere, and, in order to insure that the tenants should be treated like other paupers, dismissed the Guardians and appointed Vice Guardians. These unfortunate house tenants, who, in an evil moment, obeyed the National League, remained in the workhouse for 10 months, and at the end of that time insisted upon going out, as they could stand it no longer. During these 10 months every effort was made to prevent the poor rates being paid, in order to compel the Local Government Board to withdraw from their position. A force of police was required to protect the collector of poor rate in the district in consequence of the action of the National League. These tenants, who had stayed in the workhouse for 10 months at the bidding of the National League, would endure it no longer, and they came out and returned to their homes. They have ever since been Boycotted by the local branch of the National League for not obeying its orders. For my own part, I am unable to conceive any form of tyranny more gross and scandalous and unwarrantable than this case discloses. The people were not farmers at all. The League first compel them to leave their home, to go into the workhouse and to stay there, and finally Boycott them for leaving it. I hope, Sir, that I have now made it clear that the National League, whose branches we have taken powers to suppress, has made itself responsible, by resolution published in the face of day in the newspapers, for urging persons to defy and resist the law, for urging resistance to the payment of local rates, for interfering with the ordinary civil rights of individuals in the matter of taking land, selling and buying goods and cattle, let ting houses, engaging servants, employing professional advisers, the exercise of the ordinary affairs of the Poor Law franchise, and the choice of companions in everyday life. And among the commodities of which it would deprive its victims are the common necessaries of existence—bread and water—that there is a system of espionage established, under which the actions which it condemns are made known by one branch to another, so that a man who is denounced in. one part of a district cannot

  1871
  escape from the tyranny of the League, by fleeing to another. That tyranny overshadows him. Vainly he changes his sky, for tyranny overshadows him wherever he goes. Under this monstrous system, at the present moment some 5,000 people in Ireland are actually suffering punishment, and they represent but a very small fraction of those——
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Stuff!
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is the sort of interruption of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite complains, and to which I have been subjected several times. I should have asked Mr. Speaker to interfere to protect me several times from the observations of hon. Members opposite; but, as a matter of fact, I am personally indifferent to them, although I do not think they conduce to the order of debate, or to the clearness or consecutiveness of my argument. Well, I said that nearly 5,000 persons are actually subjected to Boycotting, and that number represents but a small and insignificant fraction, because others are afraid of being Boycotted, and either do that which they would rather not do, or they abstain from doing that which they would rather do, and which they have a perfect and absolute right to do. And when I hear hon. Members like the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who stated that he prided himself upon the fact that he had opposed outrage and violence, and that the Leaders of the National League had themselves opposed outrage and violence. I say that it is my deliberate conviction that a condition of society in which there is no intimidation, but in which, through failure of the police or other cause, there may be crime, is far healthier than a state of society in which there may be no crime, but in which intimidation so prevails that no man living under its shadow is master of his own actions. About the facts I have stated to the House, taking them broadly, there can, I conceive, be no dispute. The great bulk of them have been taken from the public papers, or from sources the trustworthiness of which, at all events, the right hon. Gentleman opposite cannot complain—they are from sources open not only to this Government alone, but to every other Government. How poor is the plea put forward by the right hon. Gentle-
  1872
  man the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), that the association whose deeds and operations I have described to the House must be considered either as a political association or a legitimate combination in the interests of the tenants. The truth is, the right hon. Gentleman appeals to us in the name of freedom. He always appeals to us in the name of freedom. It appears to me that there is nothing in Ireland that cannot be done if you only give it a sufficiently fine name. The whole object of the Leaders of the Irish Party at the present moment appears to me to be to treat the Irish problem in as histrionic a manner as they can. They desire to take a course of action which will strike the imaginations of the people of England and conceal from them the real nature of the acts which are done in Ireland It is in obedience to that principle that they like to compel landlords to adopt the last resort of eviction. The result of eviction is that some hardships will really happen, and many hardships will be invented; and these are made the most of and figure prominently in speeches made by hon. Members from Ireland and by Radical Members of England. The people of this country little know that the outrages depicted before them in these glowing terms would never have taken place but for the action of the organization which the Government to-night ask the House to give them the power to suppress. As the Leaders of the Irish Party have played this tragic comedy of Irish politics in the matter of eviction, so they attempt to defend, under the seductive name of law and liberty, an association whose very essence consists in nothing else but a negation of law and a negation of liberty. The right hon. Gentleman opposite comes down to the House and tells us that we are straining the law and interfering with freedom when we are trying to put down that system of intimidation which, if it be allowed to prevail any longer in Ireland, will make the observance of law and the restoration of liberty almost impossible. I believe that many hon. Members have not hitherto been aware of the facts I have mentioned to-night; but after what I have now stated I hope there will be no ignorance on the point in future. They may, up to the present, have shut their eyes as to what is the true nature of the so-called political organizations; but if in the future they

  1873
  are blind, their blindness will be wilful blindness. They have made themselves tonight, through the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid to than (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), apologists of intimidation. You cannot be an apologist for intimidation without making yourselves accomplices of intimidation; and on every hon. Member who votes for the Resolution now before us will, in my opinion, rest the guilt of having done all in his power to perpetuate a system which would be a disgrace to any civilized country in the world. I believe the verdict of the House will be in favour of the Government; and I believe that, as the verdict of the House will be in favour of the Government because hon. Members know the facts upon which the Government rest their case, so the verdict of that people whom the House represents will not be the less in favour of the Government when they realize the true nature of the system at which we aim this blow. The political freedom about which you talk is totally and absolutely valueless except in so far as it contributes to personal freedom. That is, and that must be, the basis upon which every superstructure of political liberty in a healthy, free society must rest; and my belief is that the love of individual liberty is so deeply engrained in the minds of the English people that, when they once understand and realize what is the working of that association against which this Proclamation is levelled, they will, without distinction of Party or creed, support the Government in the action which, in the exercise of our responsibility, we have thought it right to take.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONsaid, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had made that night what he was sure would be described by his friends as the best speech of his life. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted from three sources of information which he might say were anonymous. A large part of his quotations consisted of reports from the public Press of meetings of the National League; but he would like to point out that there was no more authenticity as regarded those reports than there was with regard to any other paragraph; and he would have Members recollect with what indignation day after day Ministers had stood up in their places and repudiated the assumption that they should pay any attention to
  1874
  anonymous paragraphs even though they appeared in some of the most important papers. These local papers from which the right hon. Gentleman had quoted were in a great measure dependent upon unpaid local correspondents, who gave more attention to the rounding of a sentence sometimes than to its strict accuracy, and who very often put things into the newspaper which looked big, but which those who were acquainted with the circumstances of the locality know how to estimate at their proper value. It might be said that the editors of these papers ought to exercise more discretion. So they ought, and perhaps under the Grimes Act they would; but the fact remained that many of those items got into the papers in a form which was especially regrettable to those who had the conduct of these newspapers and those members of the National League who were represented to have performed the actions. He did not pretend to deny the general accuracy of the Press reports; but, take them all in all, and take them at the worst, what did the whole statement of the Chief Secretary amount to? After searching over the transactions of all the local branches of the National League—1,800 in number—for many months and years the Chief Secretary had only been able to indicate that in a particular branch they threatened to publish the names of those who had not subscribed, and in another branch they threatened to cut off a member who did not conform to the rules. After all, it was a common thing for any society to threaten to cut off members who did not conform to the rides; and he would remind them that on a former occasion, when the Chief Secretary said certain National League branches had threatened to publish the names of defaulting members, the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. T. C. Harrington) had shown that whenever such a thing came under the cognizance of the Central Branch of the League such action was strongly condemned. Wherever such a course had been adopted by a local branch, not only had the National League in Dublin condemned that branch, but the better sense of those who were in the local branch had always been against such a proceeding. He would challenge the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel King-Harman) to show a

  1875
  single instance in Ireland where the threat to publish the names of defaulting Members was carried out. After all, were they not living in a country which pretended to have a Constitution? Did they not in England day after day hear threats of what the Socialists would do if certain conditions were not granted; and did they not see threats in public papers of what would be done if the Home Secretary persisted in a certain course? Even if such a threat of publication were carried out the parties had their remedy under the ordinary law against the editor of the newspaper, who could be subjected to a severe punishment. They did not object to the Government using the Crimes Act against these isolated cases of individuals or individual branches who had wrongly and grossly violated the law. They maintained, however, that the ordinary law was sufficient to meet these cases, and they now maintained with greater force that the Government having a Crimes Act were able to deal with this violence and intimidation whenever it showed itself. The Government had chosen the time when they had sent what they said was a message of peace to Ireland—as he believed in his soul for the purpose of irritating the people of Ireland—to strike at that organization which their own witnesses declared to be the salvation of the people of Ireland. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had referred to the different editions of General Buller's evidence. It was a matter of common notoriety that that evidence as printed was not as it was given, and that the ordinary course as to proofs was not taken in the case of General Buller. District Inspector Davis, too, had had leading questions put to him in order to make him say what the Government wanted to prove that evening, "The strings of intimidation," he was asked, "are held by the League?" He says—
  "I only know that in a case where it denounced land-grabbers, and those people appealed to the central branch, the local branch was admonished for interfering, and those people held on without trouble over since.''
  The President said—
  "I gather from you that there is less outrage now than in former days, and that Boycotting still prevails, but that rents with abatement are being paid better than they have been?"
  The answer was, "Yes; and in that
  1876
  district abatements were necessary." Being asked whether Boycotting was to be attributed to local action or to the influence of the League, he said—"I would not attribute it to the League at all." He now came to what he thought the gist of the matter. Sir James Caird said—
  "I understand there is no sympathy among the respectable tenants with these outrages?—Yes; there is not.—Then there must be an organisation exercising a tremendous power over them. Have you any objection to state what that organization is?—I do not think that it would be for the advantage of the country that I should say what it is."
  It would be seen from that evidence that the witness was again and again led up to the brink of the statement which the Government desired, and every time he shied at it. The officer of the Government said that there was in those districts an organization to name which might frustrate the ends of justice. It was in districts where the Land League had not established a footing, but whore there were societies which encouraged crime and outrage, that disorder and lawlessness prevailed. The Chief Secretary had mentioned the case of a man named Justin M'Carthy living in a small and obscure village in County Kerry, and the right hon. Gentleman named a list of about 50 or 60 persons in that single parish who were stated to be Boycotted. These names were not read out from 'the local papers, but from "official" sources. Now, taking each Kerry family as averaging six or seven persons, the right hon. Gentleman's list would represent nearly all the population of the parish as being Boycotted. The thing was an utter absurdity; and that preposterous story would excite a hearty laugh among the miserable people of that district at the expense of the Chief Secretary when they came to hear of its being attempted to be palmed off upon the House. It was an insult to the intelligence of those who really knew Ireland to represent, as was done in the official Returns, that 5,000 persons were Boycotted in that country. When any serious accusation was made by the Chief Secretary against the National League, and when they sought to test the ground on which it was based, the right hon. Gentleman said—"Oh, I fall back upon official information and on privileged communications," adding, in his lofty style, that he gave the facts to the House on his word as Chief Secre-

  1877
  tary. If the Irish Members were only supplied with the particulars on which the right hon. Gentleman founded his accusations, they would be able, he was sure, to dispose satisfactorily of every one of them. He believed that Mr. Samuel Hussey, who was the head and tail of all those fabrications which appeared in The Times and the I L P U, and on the official Returns of that House, had been the sole author of the cases mentioned by the Chief Secretary. There might be family quarrels here and there between the inhabitants of a village; they might, sometimes, not interchange good wishes with each other at Christmas time or the New Year; and, occasionally, they might have given one another a good basting; but it was a gross "sham" to speak of those things as aggravated cases of Boycotting. He did not believe that there was a sane man from John O'Groat's house to the Land's End who, if he read what he had now said, and placed it side by side with the speech of the Chief Secretary, would not believe that the Boycotting case of the Chief Secretary was an utter delusion and a sham. As to the interruptions which the Chief Secretary encountered, a great deal of the blame for them attached to the other side, because, when the right hon. Gentleman was quoting from some paper, he all at once made some outrageous charge, as if he were still reading, against that organization whose interest Irish Members had at heart, and when he was challenged to state where he got his facts he said he was relying on official information. The right hon. Gentleman wound up his speech by an accusation against the League. He said that English Radical Members and Irish Members going over to Ireland and finding evictions going on started a tragic drama to excite the pity of the people of England, and he asked the House to remember that it was the National League that was to blame for all. He (Mr. E. Harrington) denied the justice of that accusation; it was almost too much even for a Chief Secretary for Ireland to make. The right hon. Gentleman knew that it was the evictions that necessitated the Land League, which was, according to him, the predecessor of the National League. But he (Mr. E. Harrington) thought it was in many respects dissimilar. It had widened its scope considerably since it
  1878
  succeeded to the Land League. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman what he could verify himself by referring to statistics—he could tell him that there were only two evictions in the County of Kerry in 1878. They rose to 19 in the next year, and from that year onwards the evictions had not been less than at an average of from 350 per quarter in the County of Kerry. He asserted that since the commencement of the trouble in the County of Kerry—since the commencement of what was called the agitation, there had been rendered homeless by evictions in those years as many as 14,000 persons, and while some of these had been restored to their places, he said that there were between 2,000 and 3,000 people in the County of Kerry huddled together by the ditch sides in places where hon. Members would not put their dogs after a day's shooting. Seeing and knowing that that was going on for years, they in self-defence for the protection of the people, and acting on the instincts of manhood, and disregarding whatever the consequences might be to themselves, flung themselves into an organization that was already awake in the country, and tried as far as they could by that organization to stem the disasters brought upon them by landlordism. It was too much for them, therefore, to listen to these accusations, and all this talk about the League inciting to crime, violence, and intimidation. What was the League doing at present? If they wont into the office of the National League in Dublin they would find a large staff—or at least they would when they decided on the Proclamation—engaged in the work of registration in order to keep their political position in the country in the districts where there might possibly be a narrow fight. The Government struck down that which was their political weapon and which was their protective weapon, and which was the shield of their persecuted people, and having done so they still chose to speak of the existence of Constitutional freedom in Ireland. He would not weary the House further; but if he sat down it was not for want of matter—it was not for want of discovering off-hand in the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland sufficient matter which he could show to that House to be wholly baseless. He believed that the Irish Members would be able to show that there was no founda-

  1879
  tion of truth for the accusation made against the National League as a whole, and that if here and there there was a fault on the part of individual branches in obscure localities, or individual member a of that organization, there was no more than would be incidental to an organization of the kind when people had to try and act within the strict letter of a cruel law, and to protect themselves against unjust and harsh evictions, and at the same time to try and educate the country up to that tone of mind which would be useful when the time came to apply themselves to the reconstruction of the Government of Ireland. He challenged the Government to go on with their Proclamations. The Irish Members had told the Government what their purpose was. If they were found to be the abettors or counsellors of violence, then let the Government punish them by all means. But in the absence of this necessary evidence, they ask the Government not to proclaim this organization; not to destroy an instrument fur good. If the Government disregarded their appeal, then so strong would the Irish Members feel it to be their duty to the people of Ireland—believing that the sharpest hour of need was the nearest hour to triumph—that they would adhere to their work in Ireland and not shirk the consequences, cither there or in Parliament.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTONmaintained that the hon. Member had offered no reply to the case of the Chief Secretary founded on the statements of newspapers and of advertisements inserted in them by the local secretaries of the National League. When the hon. Member recommended persons who felt injured by such advertisements to seek redress against editors by means of the ordinary law, he reminded him of a statement made last year by the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow, that for a Boycotted person to try and get redress by means of the ordinary law and from a jury struck from the ordinary panel was a cruel farce. The question before the House was not one of principle, but of expediency. As far as principle was concerned, it was decided by the Crimes Act and by the large majorities who gave their assent to that measure. Those majorities took the course they did, believing that the hands of the Government required to be strengthened in order to
  1880
  deal with the conflict between lawlessness and order in Ireland, and because they felt it was possible that the Government might require the power which they were now demanding in order to deal with the National League. Having voted for the Crimes Act, he was not inclined to refuse to the Government the weapon which they now desired. He trusted that the Government, having decided that it was necessary to use those powers, would not use them in a half-hearted manner. Whatever might be said of the Irish, they were a very bad people to run away from—and he hoped the Government would not flinch from the course they had taken. The House had been told that the National League was the salvation of the Irish people and and that it had done its best to repress outrage. In his judgment, however, it was a somewhat remarkable coincidence that the largest number of cases of Boycotting occurred in the county of Cork, where there were more branches of the National League than in the rest of Ireland. It was also remarkable that in Ulster, where there were comparatively few branches of the League, there was less Boycotting and fewer persons required police protection; but that in Munster, where there were 400 branches of the League, there were more outrages last year than in. any other Province of Ireland. The other night the hon. Member for Longford drew a dreadful picture of agricultural prospects in the West and South West of Ireland. He pointed out that the hay crop was a failure, that prices generally would rise, and that where the people were poorest there rents would be risen. But the hon. Gentleman did not carry his argument to a conclusion, or he would have told them also that when the food of the live stock was exhausted, the animals would necessarily be put into the market and sold for what they would fetch, and the consequent reduction in the price of meat would more than counterbalance a trifling rise in the price of butter or potatoes. When he was told that the National League had been the salvation of the people he remembered that these words were attributed to the officer who would be concerned in enforcing this Proclamation, and he hoped the Government would rely largely upon the courage and discretion of General Buller in carrying out the provisions of the Act, and that; having chosen their policy,

  1881
  as he believed, wisely, they would pursue it with that patience and courage, which alone would render it successful.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, it was quite impossible for any one who had read anything about Ireland to doubt that Boycotting and intimidation had largely prevailed, and had been the weapons largely used by the National League to enforce its decrees; but he also thought the Chief Secretary hardly made fair allowance for the other side of the work of the League. It was in its objects an agrarian society. It had endeavoured to deal with what had been the great evil and difficulty in Ireland—the exaction of exorbitant rents; and in this regard it had undoubtedly been successful in diminishing these exorbitant rents. It had been successful in compelling the attention of Parliament and in securing a limitation of the landlords' demands. They had the well-known evidence of General Buller, quoted by the late Prime Minister, to the effect that the tenants looked to the League for salvation. They had the further fact that in Ulster, where the League was not powerful, there were no reductions. Therefore the Proclamation of the League and this debate must be looked upon as a development of the situation, and as, to all intents and purposes, part and parcel and the continuation of the debates and discussions on the Crimes Act. During the progress of that Bill it was frequently disclaimed by the Irish Secretary and others that the Bill was aimed against combinations, but against crime. The ease for suspending the Constitutional liberties of the subject must be one of overwhelming necessity, of convincing evidence of the wide prevalence and intensity of crime. He thought when the Crimes Act was brought forward they did not find in the speech of the Chief Secretary, or the speeches of other Members of the Government, that a case of this overwhelming necessity was presented. They had now on all sides testimony, including that of the Member for West Birmingham, that Ireland was at present conspicuously free from serious crime, and that that was the case one could see from the evidence of this very Proclamation, because the National League was proclaimed under Sub-section "D" of Section 6—namely, for promoting and inciting to acts of violence and intimidation; and under part of Sub-section
  1882
  "E," as to interfering with the administration of the law. The Proclamation passed over the first three subsections, which dealt with a question of crime. The Government did not say that the National League was framed for the commission of crime, or carried on operations by means of crime; and, more than that, the Proclamation did not even include the second part of Sub-section "E," and did not say that the National League was disturbing the maintenance of law and order in Ireland. That, he thought, was a very serious consideration for hon. Members when they had to determine how they were to vote on this question. The Government had proposed the Proclamation of the League as encouraging Boycotting and intimidation, and hon. Members had to ask themselves was it likely they would succeed in the object they had in view? It would be absurd in anyone to refrain from regretting and denouncing the tyrannical Boycotting and intimidation that went on in Ireland, and no man could view it with greater indignation than he did. But they had really to look at this point. Was the action which the Government were taking likely to succeed in putting down Boycotting? He believed they had ample evidence to the contrary. They had the evidence of Lord Salisbury in his speech at Newport, the evidence of Lord Spencer, the evidence before the Cowper Commission, and particularly that of Captain Plunkett, who distinctly stated that Boycotting under the Crimes Act of 1882 was as strong as it is now. If they were to get rid of Boycotting and intimidation, they must alter the conditions under which they took place. Then they had to ask themselves, was it likely that the action of the Government would diminish the political power of the League? Here, again, he thought the experience of recent history would give a negative reply. The political power of the hon. Member for Cork and his Friends was more than doubled and quadrupled after the Government of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian had put them in prison and proclaimed the Land League. Then there was the further question, was the Proclamation of I the League likely to bring us nearer a final and satisfactory settlement of our Irish difficulties? Would it postpone or hasten it? Here, again, he thought they had only to appeal to recent ex-

  1883
  perience. There were people in this country who were not keen Party politicians, but who were very effective in bringing about decisions at General Elections. He thought these people would look at the question, mainly from this point of view—they would look at what had taken place during this Session—at the time spent on the passing of the Crimes Act, upon the work the House was now engaged in, and upon the future difficulties which would come in the way of the Government in carrying out the policy they were now embarking upon. Because it was to be blind to all their experiences from 1882 not to feel that the difficulties of the Government were just beginning now that they had proclaimed the National League. It was customary to sneer when politicians put the issue that was now before them as an issue between conciliation and coercion. He put it to hon. Friends on that side, and also to Conservative Members on the opposite side, was it not the case that at the last General Election there was a very general repudiation of any desire to return to the old policy of endeavouring to rule Ireland with the high hand; and was there not also this positive resolution at the last General Election, that, however much they differed as to the proposals made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, they all came there with the primary duty imposed upon them of endeavouring so far as in them lay to attain, within certain well-defined limits, under safe and reasonable conditions, a settlement for Ireland which, above all things, should be an amicable settlement? In view of that, what they were now proposing to do, and had been doing, was a fearful commentary. The policy of the Government was not at all likely to bring about any such amicable settlement. He viewed with particular regret the line which had been taken up by his noble Friend near him (Viscount Ebrington) and by several other Liberal Colleagues who, like himself, voted against the Home Rule Bill. They had looked forward as one of their primary duties to arrive at an amicable settlement for Ireland, and they considered that the best means of attaining that would be the influence of these hon. Gentlemen and noble Lords, and particularly of the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Harting-
  1884
  ton), whom they all respected and admired, in carrying out the object which he had so much at heart. He thought it was patent that what was being done now by those hon. Members would hardly tend to increase the power with which they would be able to press their views. He hoped, even at that eleventh hour, that when they were away from the heated atmosphere of that House the noble Lord and his followers would look at it differently, and would yet be found working with the view of obtaining the only satisfactory settlement. He had never before spoken on Irish affairs, but he did not wish to give a silent vote on this question, because it seemed to him that the policy which had been adopted and was being pursued by Her Majesty's Government would undoubtedly indefinately postpone and make infinitely more difficult that amicable settlement for Ireland to which they all looked; because he was convinced the policy of Her Majesty's Government had tended to stir up again the embers of political hatred and animosity, and that spirit of antagonism of which they had so vivid a recollection in the Parliament of 1880. It was for these reasons that he should vote in favour of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian.
  MR.T.W.RUSSELLsaid, that for several reasons he should have preferred to give a silent vote on this occasion; but after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), at the close of which the right hon. Gentleman made pointed reference to a speech which he (Mr. T. W. Russell) made in this House, he found it absolutely impossible to give a silent vote as he had desired to do. Now, the Irish National League did some work of which he cordially approved, although he objected very much to its methods; it did another class of work of which he totally disapproved. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian quoted him as a witness of the good that the League had done in Ii-eland. The right hon. Gentleman called him a hostile witness; and what were the words which he quoted? They were words he made use of in the debate on the second reading of the Irish Land Law Bill, and the substance of them was as follows:—"In the Provinces of Leinster, Munster,

  1885
  and Connaught intimidation and outrage had done their work, and abatements of rent had been given in these Provinces; whereas, in the Province of Ulster, where intimidation and outrage had not been prevalent, little or no abatement had been given." And that was what the right hon. Gentleman chose to call a character for the National League! What did it mean? He had never dared to say that the National League was the author of that intimidation and outrago—that was left for the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman took him a long way further than he went, and upon his shoulders must lie the responsibility for that journey. There was another point on which he desired to join issue with the right hon. Gentleman. If the National League were an organization to protect the Irish tenant farmers from unjust rents, and prosecuted that work by fair means, he should join it and be an active member. Taking it to be an association with that object in view, what were its admitted methods? The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian talked about "exclusive dealing" as the method of the National League. When, and by whom, was this phrase invented? That was not the phrase the right hon. Gentleman used in 1882 when dealing with this matter. For himself, he objected to the phrase. The methods of the National League involved exclusive dealings and very much more. The right hon. Gentleman, in 1882, when he dealt with this very subject, used very different language. Speaking on the 24th of May. 1882, in this House, the right hon. Gentleman asked this question—"What is meant by Boycotting?" They had never heard then of the phrase "exclusive dealing." They had the honest name put upon it—Boycotting. "In the first place," the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "It is combined intimidation. In the second place, it is combined intimidation made use of for the purpose of destroying private liberty of choice by fear of ruin and starvation. In the third place, that being what Boycotting is in itself, we must look to this—that the creed of Boycotting, like every other creed, requires a sanction; and the sanction of Boycotting, that which stands in the rear of Boycotting, and by which alone Boycotting can in the long run be made thoroughly effective, is the murder which is not to be denounced."—(3 Hansard, [269] 1551.)
  That was the way in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke when he, as
  1886
  Prime Minister, had to deal with this very evil. Now, what were the facts which the House had before it to-night? They had it stated by the responsible Minister of the Government that there were 5,000 people Boycotted in Ireland in this inhuman way. What did it mean? Not exclusive dealing alone. It meant what the hon. Member for Cork called it in the town of Ennis when he invented it and set it afloat. It meant moral leprosy. It meant that where it did not mean outrage and intimidation and murder. Now, he was told that the Primrose League in England practised exclusive dealing. It was absurd for grown men to be talking stuff of this kind—literally absurd. He admitted the charge of exclusive dealing as freely as they liked—he would make hon. Gentleman below the Gangway a present of it. But what stood behind the exclusive dealing of the Primrose League? Was there the bullet of the assassin? [A Home Rule MEMBER: Stuff !] Was there the marching of the midnight marauder? Was there the trampling out of all human freedom if one did not obey its orders? Nothing of the kind. He repeated that it was absolutely farcical for grown men to compare the Primrose League or any other political organization in England with the National League in Ireland. He objected to its methods in toto. It was an organization for literally stamping out all human freedom. He did not object to combination; very far from it; but he did object to men combining to prevent him doing what he had a right to do. The National League was an organization the main object of which was to produce a dull level of uniformity by absolute force. It would not be possible to establish such an organization in any part of the Empire where free-born men lived, and it was only possible in Ireland, where the virtue of obedience had been taught as the one supreme duty of life. [An hon. MEMBER: Obedience to authority.] Obedience to authority! He was not going to bow down to any such authority. Let them look at its operations. He would quote some cases from National League newspapers, arid if they were wrong, on the League be the responsibility. The Munster Express on the 9th of July reported the proceedings of a branch of the League at which attention was called to the fact

  1887
  that a Mr. Edward O'Brien had had in his employment for three weeks a stonemason (Paddy Norris) who was one of the most notorious Emergency men in that part; and the secretary reported that he had called the employer's attention to the fact, and had received from him a note stating that the man was prepared to join the League, and if the League would not have him as a member he should be dismissed on the completion of his contract. This stonemason, he contended, had a right to follow his occupation without any profession of political faith being extorted from him. It was this stamping out of human freedom that had kept many from supporting the work of the League in other directions. He was for convincing men that they were wrong; but the League represented coercion of the meanest and most detestable kind. Another instance he would quote would show cause and effect. The Clare Advertiser of the 27th of June last reported the usual fortnightly meeting of the Kilrush branch of the National League, at which Mr. John M. Nagle delivered an impassioned address on the necessity of drawing the line of demarcation between real, puresouled Leaguers and the execrable class of rent-warners, whom the speaker denounced as worse than Judas Iscariot; that was the cause, and the effect was found in The Irish Times of the 19th of August, which stated that printed notices were posted in the district threatening Ned Kennedy, a rent-warner for Mr. J. Vesey Fitzgerald, D.L., that he would be shot if he did not give up a farm from which a widow had been evicted. This was a literal instance of cause and effect, and it was childish to say that the Primrose League or any English association carried on proceedings of this kind. If it did, how long would it exist? The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian had said there were 500,000 members of the League in Ireland, and no doubt he was right; but perhaps the House would like to know how the membership was made up. In June The Munster Express reported the meeting of a branch, at which a resolution was passed to the effect that all farmers' sons already admitted be expelled unless their parents became members of the League. What did the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) think of this stamping out of all human freedom? A Sligo paper of the 9th of July recorded the passing at a
  1888
  League meeting of a resolution that each member of the committee was strictly required to furnish a complete list of those in his district who had not joined the branch, and it was significantly added—"Those outside our ranks will please take note." [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hear !] If the right hon. Gentleman the Monitor for Derby, instead of being what he was, wore an Irish peasant, and had got a notice of that kind served upon him, he was quite certain the effect would be that he would join the League, or, indeed, any League under Heaven; for any man getting a notice of that kind would know perfectly veil what it meant. That was the way the membership of the League was made up, and for the Secretary to stand up in the House and declare that no compulsion was used and that the central bodies saw that none was used was to go against facts piled mountains high.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: Does the hon. Member mean to say that I stated in this House what I did not believe to be true?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that for the hon. Member to stand up in the House and state that no man was compelled to join the National League, and that the central branch prohibited that sort of thing, was to go in the teeth of evidence piled mountains high. He objected to the National League.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: And they object to you.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he had no doubt they objected to him very much. He objected to the National League because it usurped the functions of the law. He had heard it denied that League Courts were held; but The Leinster Leader of the 11th of June last reported the meeting of a branch at which it was resolved to summon to the next meeting some turf-bank grabbers to explain their conduct. [Mr. WALLACE: Hear, hear! A man who was described as a grabber was one who had taken a turf bank and paid for it; and no organization had a right to summon such a purchaser. The hon. Member who said "Hear, hear !" came from the same county as himself, and knew that nothing of this kind would be tolerated in Scotland for a moment. The Wexford People of the 9th of July reported the meeting of a branch at which the conduct of a man was described as reprehensible, because he had violated an important

  1889
  resolution of the New Ross Convention, and yet had the audacity to attack a respectable member of the committee who reported him; and he was required to attend and apologize or to take the consequences. He had quoted these examples out of hundreds he had in his possession, and all had occurred since June, 1887. On every Sunday 1,800 meetings were held in Ireland, and they were attended by men who investigated the affairs of the neighbourhood and pronounced and executed judgment upon the people. He should oppose the Resolution of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, and for more reasons than one. One reason was that he supported the Crimes Bill. He did so because he thought the Government had made out a case for it, because he knew the facts from his own knowledge, and because he believed that Bill to represent the least that any responsible Government could do. But he wished Parliament had not been called upon to give its sanction to this Proclamation. He wished the Government had seen their way to rely upon the Summary Jurisdiction and the other clauses of the Act to repress disorder. He wished they had given the Land Act, such as it was, a reasonable chance, instead of asking the House to take a seat on this switchback railway to be driven Heaven knows where. But the Government asked Parliament for authority to act if it were necessary, and they had larger knowledge than an individual Member, and were responsible for the peace of Ireland. He, at all events, having voted for the Crimes Act, did not see his way Constitutionally to refuse them the powers they asked for. He could not say he should vote in favour of the Proclamation with a light heart; very far from it. He saw nothing but clouds and darkness all around. We had lost a golden opportunity which was granted to us as by miracle, and the Chief Secretary might possibly need this power and more. He, however, gave his vote without any hesitation. He believed the National League to be a competitor with the Government of the Queen in Ireland. We could not have two Governments in any country; the people could not serve two masters. As he was not prepared to hand over the people he represented to the tender mercies of the League he should give his vote against the Motion.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that a great part of the discussion had been, if not irrelevant, at all events superfluous. Too much stress had been laid upon that portion of the debate relating to Boycotting; too little on the connection of that with the present Proclamation under Section 6, sub-sections (d) and (e) of the Coercion Act. So far as Boycotting was concerned, it could be punished under Section 2, and the Proclamation was unnecessary if Boycotting was the evil sought to be reached. Boycotting was not the invention of the National League, nor of the Land League which preceded it. Boycotting was not the invention, of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), as had been alleged. It had formed part of the history of Ireland for a long while, and had been introduced by the English. Not one at all conversant with the history of our connection with that country could fail to know by what varied forms of law we had tried to exterminate the Irish people—by the most scientific processes of legal Boycotting. He was not now referring to the later and most infamous Penal Laws by which Catholics were Boycotted, but to our earlier legislation. We had, for instance, forbidden marriage or trading with the Irish. Boycotting was not quite unknown in England. Since he had been referred to personally in the debate, he might obtrude a personal matter upon the House, and point out that he himself had had some experience of it during the past seven years. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had quoted the case of one Justin M'Carthy, Boycotted because he was the son of another Justin M'Carthy. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) had seen on the Books of the House for months a proposal to Boycott his own two daughters, a proposal to prevent them from earning their livelihood as teachers at, South Kensington, because they were his daughters; and that was actually formally moved in that House. Attempts had even been made to Boycott the voters and traders in the town which he had the honour to represent, because it had returned him to Parliament. Those who had voted for him at Northampton had been Boycotted, and paragraphs had been sent round asking the leather sellers not to deal with his supporters; and yet he

  1891
  had never heard a word of blame from hon. Members opposite with regard to any of these cases, although the effect had been to saddle him with nearly £3,000 of debt. He certainly should not now defend Boycotting; he had suffered too much from it personally. But the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) said that there was a difference between the Boycotting of the Primrose League and the Boycotting of the National League, because there was not the bullet of the assassin behind the former. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary think that the bullet of the assassin was behind the Boycotting of the National League? If he did, why was he so half-hearted, and why did he not proclaim it under Subsections a, b, and c as an association for the commission of crime, or for procuring and abetting crime and outrage? The right hon. Gentleman asked the House to be a party to what, for his (Mr. Bradlaugh's) own part, he would call a criminality against the Irish people; and if they were asked to accept as evidence the statements which had been brought forward, it should, at least, be made clear to them that these things were now being done by the League. The question before them was this—Were they, or were they not, to acquiesce in and endorse the Proclamation which the Government had thought fit to issue at the present moment? The House could not acquit itself of the responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had alleged that the House was ignorant of the facts which, if they existed, and if the House knew them, might warrant such a Proclamation. The Chief Secretary had answered by a statement founded in part upon Press paragraphs, and partly on some Returns to which he had not specifically referred, but chiefly upon official information, the sources of which were peculiar to himself. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that his sources of information were, in the main, accessible to Members of that House; but it was hardly possible for them to obtain all these scissors-and-paste cuttings from various Journals. The evidence which had been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman was not the kind of evidence upon which, as judges by their sentence, they
  1892
  ought to be called upon to take away the liberties of a people. He protested against this light-hearted method of dealing with so great a question. This evidence was not, in the main, accessible to them; it was only accessible to them through the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman told them that if the Returns had been laid on the Table, those Returns would have had the same authority, and would have been the same.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It happened that I quoted certain facts upon official information, and hon. Members below the Gangway jeered. I reminded the House that if the Returns had been laid on the Table, they would have been derived from the same authority as that which had been attacked by hon. Members below the Gangway.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that was practically what he had said. What they now wanted was to examine this evidence at their leisure. It was impossible to follow and judicially weigh it as delivered in the speech of the Chief Secretary. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had made an astounding statement as to a matter which had occurred on the 10th of November, 1884, which he had brought down to the present time. The right hon. Gentleman had used the expression that he had carried the matter through for eight months consecutively; but it was difficult to make out where these eight months came in, according to the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had named no year with regard to this matter except the first; and he thought, also, that the right hon. Gentleman had said that he did not intend to take any case except those of the present year.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the Boycotting had begun in 1884, but had come down to the present date.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that in some cases the right hon. Gentleman went back years before the National League existed. ["No, no !"] The Government had had this information when they wore in Office before, and had declared that they only intended to enforce the ordinary law; therefore they had either kept back facts which would have then warranted a Coercion Bill, or else they had no right to go back to them now. Some of the vague cases he quoted

  1893
  were not sufficient evidence to hang a cat on, much less to take away the liberties of a people. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, referring to the evictions which had taken place, had said some of the hardships were real, some of them invented, but that the evictions themselves had all been the result of the action of the National League.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not all.
  MR. BEADLAUGHsaid, he was sorry that he had not caught the limitation in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. But how many of those evictions were consequential on the action of the League? If only some of them, it would surely have been better to specify the cases so that they might be examined. Why was the League now proclaimed? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) considered that the Proclamation was unnecessary; but he (Mr. Bradlaugh) did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to give effect to his speech in the Lobby, or whether he meant it as a phrase to soften himself with the electors. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham had stated last Saturday that it was an open secret that the Liberal Unionist Leaders—and presumably this included the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale—had protested against the intention of the Government to proclaim the League. The Chief Secretary spoke of the verdict of that House, and of the verdict of the country. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) quite admitted that the verdict of the House of Commons would be against them; but the verdict of the country was declaring itself in an opposite direction. The Times had been pressing for the Proclamation of the League for a long time, and why did the Government proclaim it now? Bight hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench said that they waited until the Land Act had been passed; but did they not rather wait until they had been compelled by certain circumstances to proclaim it? Did the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that the Government would proclaim the League when he said that he did not expect that he should have to make such an announcement? If, when he made that statement, he did expect to make such an announcement, there was certainly a Machiavellian use of language
  1894
  which he (Mr. Bradlaugh) did not anticipate from the right hon. Gentleman. It showed that the right hon. Gentleman's language, to an untrained mind like his, meant one thing, and to the right hon. Gentleman's subtle mind meant something else. He believed that originally the Government did not intend to proclaim the League; and it was not until lately, when elections had gone against them, when they found that the Liberal Unionists did not count for much, but were being rejected one after the other, and that real, true, old-branded Toryism might figure the best after all, that they turned round, and had determined to pursue their present policy. The great Unionist Party was breaking up rapidly; but there were enough of them in that House at present for mischief. The verdict of the House would be, no doubt, what the Chief Secretary anticipated; but the verdict of the people was being formulated. There was no great town in the whole of England, Scotland, or Wales, where they could get a mass of people together—untrained, rough, and poor, if they chose to call them so, but earnest and liberty-loving, as he would declare them—who would not say that the Government had got a measure from the House of Commons under the pretence of preventing crime, and were now using it to try and crush a political organization to which they were opposed, and of which they were afraid.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON): The present position of the debate affords a satisfactory explanation of a problem which must have attracted the curiosity and surprise of those who read the Notice Paper. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has not in his Motion challenged the grounds or the merits upon which the League has been proclaimed. He has not asked the House to assert that there did not exist grounds upon which it ought to be proclaimed. But he has cautiously confined his Resolution to this one point, that no information has been furnished to Parliament to justify the issue of the Proclamation. So far as the terms of the Resolution are concerned anyone would be entitled to vote and might be induced to vote in favour of it who knew by ocular demonstration and by the

  1895
  testimony of his own oars that intimidation and incitement to violence are the daily rules of the National League. It is upon a mere question of etiquette that the Souse is asked to pass this Resolution, or at all events, that weak-kneed Members may be induced to vote for it upon the mere point of ceremony. It happens that in the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman has put upon the Statute he has plainly erred. The right hon. Gentleman has asserted that the Statute entrusted not to the Government, but to the Government conjointly with Parliament, the duty of determining whether a society ought to be proclaimed. That is not the case.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I never said so.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: What the Statute prescribes is that it shall be the duty of the Executive Government to exercise the power of proclaiming a society as dangerous, and that the right of Parliament should be only to intervene by way of protest or veto if and when they are satisfied that the Executive has gone wrong. That, I assert in the presence of any hon. Members who are conversant with the Statutes, to be not merely the Statute Law, but the Constitutional Law of the question, and I mention it not for the purpose of evading what is the ultimate question of debate—the demerits of the National League—but rather because I see that the form of the Resolution has been adopted for a more subtle and definite purpose—the purpose of endeavouring to show that the Government was bound to put on the Table of the House demonstrations of the guilt of the National League, of inducing the House to suppose that unless and until that formal condition of things has been satisfied, the House was not entitled to go on what I will call the notoriety of the case. Now I propose to make good certain definite and grave charges against the League. I shall do so by one kind of evidence and one only, and I shall confine that evidence to one period and one only. The kind of evidence I shall use will be the evidence of local newspapers published in the centre of districts affected by the transactions recorded in those newspapers, some of which newspapers are in the interests of and some under the inspiration of the National League. The right hon. Gentleman has
  1896
  such political relations with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that no proprieties would have been violated if he had endeavoured to ascertain directly the facts of this matter. It would not have been beneath the dignity of a statesman to ascertain whether the concourse of evidence from all parts of the Provinces infected with this crime does not show that week by week it was published, not as matter of contrition, but as matter of pride and proclamation, that the League was actually using these powers of intimidation which the Government now seek to bring home to them, These transactions have been taking place day by day down to date. We do not desire to ransack the period when hon. Gentlemen opposite were using measures quite as stringent against a similar organization; but we need only refer to the records of the last few months. The records of the past few months have a certain element of especial value. The progress made with the Criminal Law Amendment Bill through Parliament before the month of June was such that it was pretty certain what was coming, and it is one of the few features to the credit of the National League that I know of that they continued to let their organs promulgate their decisions. Those who condemn the Proclamation of the League are bound to found themselves upon the facts of the case. They have not done so.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We are not bound to prove a negative.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The National League has been proclaimed upon certain definite grounds. A selection of the grounds on which it might be legally proclaimed has been made, and it has been proclaimed on some of these grounds—namely, that "it promotes or incites to acts of violence and intimidation and interferes with the administration of the law." Will any hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite deny that, week after week, the Nationalist papers contained reports of resolutions enjoining the Boycotting of individuals? The fact cannot be denied, and was, indeed, admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. The accusation against the National League, then, is quite specific, so specific that the League is thereby put upon its defence. The headquarters of the League are in Dublin. Let its resolutions be

  1897
  produced condemning the Boycotting which it knew that its branches throughout the country were carrying out. I have been struck with the remarkable ingenuity of the defence that has been set up by the League, upon which the task of demonstrating its innocence is thrown by the strong primâ facie case that has been made out against it. That primâ facie case having been made out by the puplished records of its proceedings, it is for the League to make out its defence No one knows this better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman with the closest attention, and I was struck with the proportion of time which he allocated to different topics of his speech. He devoted half-au-hour to declaiming against the Act under which this Proclamation is issued, introducing much that was altogether irrelevant to the subject, and he closed with a most eloquent and impressive adjuration to Irishmen to undergo the trials imposed upon Ireland by the wickedness of Parliament, and also with an admonition to Parliament to mend its ways. In the middle of these magnificent passages he interposed 10 minutes devoted to what he apologetically described as "the delicate subject" of the National League. No doubt, it was a very delicate subject to the right hon. Gentleman; but it was the only subject of this debate. The hon. Member for West Kerry (Mr. E. Harrington) next undertook the defence of the League, and what did his defence amount to? The Chief Secretary had brought forward instance after instance of cases where the branches of the National League had passed resolutions recommending the Boycotting of certain persons, and punishing people for not complying with them. The answer of the hon. Member was that the local papers were unreliable.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I pointed out that the Chief Secretary had on previous occasions stated that they were not reliable.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member will not now admit that he said the local papers were unreliable. Then he admitted that they are reliable. The hon. Member, following the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, next attempted to argue that if the National League
  1898
  offended it had a consuetudinary right to offend, and that it had been so long in existence that its defects might be treated with leniency. That was also the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, who was "to its faults a little blind, and to its merits very kind." "Considering the enormous advantages which it confers on the country," the right hon. Gentleman seemed to argue, "you must submit to a little percentage of disadvantage." The next point of defence urged was that certain rebukes had been administered by the Central Body to the county branches. It would be interesting to know a little more about these rebukes—to know in what spirit they were given, and in what spirit they were understood. Then the last resource of a bad case was brought forward, and it was said that "other people do the same." [Laughter.] I am surprised to find the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) resorting to that peculiarly antiquarian form of defence. The Government, I think, had good reason to congratulate themselves that at last, in the full light of discussion in this House, it is admitted on all hands that the National League did incite to intimidation. I have not heard it denied by any hon. Member on the opposite Benches that the National League did incite to acts of intimidation. That is a fact upon which the people of this country will form their judgment; they will be guided not a little by the fact that both sides of the House are agreed that it can be affirmatively asserted that the League does promote intimidation. I challenge any hon. or right hon. Gentleman to deny it. They may say there is only a little of it; that it is more than counterbalanced by the good that is done; that other people do the same thing; that otherwise the League has a most excellent character; but as to the fact itself they must plead guilty. No hon. Member, either above or below the Gangway, has gainsaid the assertion of intimidation. The system of intimidation pursued by the League is this. In the first place, each branch of the League coerces the people of the district into membership with it. Then it coerces those who disobey its rules and regulations. But what of those who stay outside? Their names are read at the meetings of the League. I will

  1899
  show presently that the vague class called "objectionable persons," or "obnoxious persons," constitute a special category. I will make another assertion as to the proceedings of these branches of the League, upon which I challenge contradiction. The meetings are generally held on Sunday. The better the day, the better the deed. They began by a sort of commination service for obnoxious persons. The Wexford People of August 30, 1887, stated that at the meeting of the branch of the National League at Gorey "the usual list of objectionable parties was read, and then the meeting proceeded to business." Now, I will ask the House if that complete separation of the sheep and the goats has not some sort of effect upon persons in the latter category, and whether it does not induce some sort of compliance, and bring them into what the Americans call "the third class," included among the sheep, goats, and alpacas? Accordingly, some further development of the species took place until the transformation was complete. I propose to offer for the consideration of hon. Gentlemen opposite certain authorities in support of my statement. I am dealing with the composition of the National League, and I assert that coercion was the first means by which the National League was recruited. I am going to show afterwards—I hope I am not intruding too much on the attention of the House—what they did with their Members when they got them inside. I should like to offer hon. Gentlemen opposite some evidence in support of what I say. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant brought forward a mass of evidence, as to which I will say that hon. Gentlemen opposite who listened to it candidly must admit that it was very grave evidence. But a cavil has been raised from the Bench opposite upon what is represented as a Constitutional principle, that some of the documents ought to be accessible to Parliament. Encouraged by that, and by the hon. Member for West Kerry, who certifies to the reliability of the local newspapers, I propose, by the citation of two or three extracts, to support the propositions I have stated. In the first place, I maintain that it was by a well-organized system of compulsion and threats addressed to those who remained outside that the National League
  1900
  was recruited. I will give the name of the branch and the newspaper from which the extracts are taken.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is quoting from the newspapers themselves, or from a collection of extracts made by third parties?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am quoting from a collection of extracts from newspapers made by third parties. That is not a matter on which the issue between myself and hon. Members opposite is to be decided by a snap observation of that kind. The country will judge between us. I will in every instance give the date of the newspaper, and hon. Members can look up the extracts. The Munster News of July 13, 1887, says that a resolution was passed at a meeting of the branch of the National League at Ballingarry calling upon Members of the branch who have been previously enrolled to rejoin at once, as a stringent resolution similar to that of last year would be enforced—that is, that the people were not to have any communication or dealing with any persons holding aloof from the National League at this crisis. The next paper I will quote from is The Anglo-Celt of June 18; "Labby" was the name of the branch. A resolution was passed calling on members to pay up the new subscriptions, and adding—"We must regard those who are not with us in the coming hour of trial as against us." Then there is a resolution which has been already quoted from The Tipperary Nationalist of July 23, 1887, to the effect that the branch—
  "Would strongly impress upon its members who may have occasion to employ an auctioneer to give their business to those who are members of the National League,"
  adding that—
  "He is no patriot, and unworthy of the name of an Irishman, who would support the enemies of his country in preference to its friends."
  The Dundalk Democrat of the 20th of June, 1887, contains this passage in reference to the Tallanstown branch—
  "We believe the Irishmen of to-day who in times to come will be unable to show his card of membership for 1887—for the year memorable for campaigning and struggling for life of the unfortunate Irish peasantry—for the revival of priest hunting and the suicide of landlordism—we believe such delinquent must; in future be regarded as a traitor and a coward,

  1901
  as worth being shunned, and unfit to be ever trusted."
  The hon. Member for West Kerry made a suggestion—indeed, the hon. Member assorted nothing, everything was by way of suggestion—that, after all, hard words do not break any bones, and that these resolutions were not followed up; but I want to show what is the effect on the daily life of these persons. I think that hon. Members who heard the speech of the Chief Secretary will not accept that view of the matter. One other instance I will give. In The Sligo Champion of July 2 appeared the following announcement from a local branch of the League:—
  "We respectfully call upon all strangers coming to reside in this parish during the summer months not to lodge with any householder who cannot produce his card of membership for 1887."
  The organization of the League is so zealously worked by those who are at the wheel that it grinds to powder those who come within reach. The League has its Courts which issue citations and treat as defaulters those who do not appear to answer. These Courts copy the subtleties and even the mannerisms of Courts of Law, and they actually have a civil side and a criminal side. On the civil side they fix the rents of holdings, and there is a case recorded in which a Court sanctioned the sale of an evicted farm upon most peculiar conditions. They fix the rents for particular holdings not by arbitration; but the ordinary cursus curœ is to settle the rent and compel payment. [An IRISH MEMBER: Give the figures.] As to that, I shall use my own discretion. On the criminal side these Courts punish as criminals persons who do certain things which the law allows them to do, and they even treat as crimes things which the law not merely allows, but actually enjoins. To take a farm in contravention of the rules of the League is an offence, and it is even an offence to take it with the consent of the evicted tenant. But this system of jurisprudence has arrived at a state of still greater refinement, for it may even be an offence for a man to retake his own land. In case the Central Authorities in Dublin may wish to rebuke those who are responsible for this particular development of the League law I will name the source whence my information was derived. It
  1902
  is The Munster Express of July 30. [An hon. MEMBER: A landlord's organ.] Well, the matter is easily susceptible of a verification. The cases are reported, and it can easily be found out if they are true or not. I will go on with my catalogue. It is superfluous to say that so grave an offence as herding on an evicted farm is heavily punished. It is also a punishable offence to send cattle to graze on the lands of A. B., even when the reasons why A. B. is objectionable are not stated. To use the machine of an obnoxious individual is, of course, a cognizable offence, and the reciprocal act of lending a machine to an obnoxious individual ranks in the same category. Selling cattle to a land corporation is in certain circumstances a cognizable offence, and I find that it is a high crime to drink with the son of a grabber, and equally culpable to court his daughter. My authority for making these assertions are The Kerry Sentinel of August 5, The Kilkenny Journal of July 20, The Munster Express of July 23, The Leinster Leader of July 10, The Tipperary Nationalist of July 16, The Tuam News of August 5, The New Ross Standard of July 25, and The Wexford People of July 9, and a paper which reports the proceedings of the Carrick-on-Suir branch. I have, I think, fulfilled my promise to supply the House with a reference to every case I have cited. It is beyond the power of hon. Members opposite to contend with any degree of success that the cases to which I have referred, and for which I have adduced authorities, are mere isolated eases, or are the result of action unauthorized by the National League. I shall be able by-and-bye to show that not only was the organization between the different branches of the League complete, but that there was constant supervision from aboye—a fact that is perfectly well known to hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. Under such a state of things it can scarcely be denied that personal freedom is, to say the least of it, greatly abridged. Neither can it be denied that the law of the land allows people to do that which the National League forbids them to do. Hon. Members may, perhaps, think that it is a small and trivial thing that a man is forbidden to graze his cattle upon particular land; that he cannot use farm machinery belonging to a particular person; or that

  1903
  he cannot hire a gig unless it belongs to the right people. But these comparatively small and humble matters become of the greatest importance, when they are the beginning and the end of a man's existence, and when the denial of his right to act as he chooses constitutes a total eclipse of his liberty in Ireland. What would have been said if action of this sort had been taken, not by an. anonymous and impersonal association like the National League, but by a tyrant, or, to suppose the most invidious case, by a landlord? I think that in the circumstances I have pointed out it is quite time that the State should interfere to protect the individual. The National League, however, have gone still further, and have forbidden what the law enjoins. The law requires in Ireland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, the payment of rates; but the National League has undertaken to regulate and to determine what rates shall or shall not be paid. The Wexford People of July 23, 1887, tells us that—
  "The Ramsgrange and Sutton's parish branch met on Sunday, the 17th instant, Canon Doyle in the chair. The collection of the rates occupied some attention, and the strictest vigilance is requested from all who make the collection impossible."
  I now come to another and a separate point, which appears to me to be of paramount importance. One of the duties which the law enjoins upon a citizen is that he shall give evidence in a Court of Law when he is called upon to do so; but the National League have felt it necessary to remind the people of a particular district that they have confidence in them that, should the occasion arise, no one will be found who will give evidence, under any circumstances, against any of their countrymen. That is not an isolated case by any means. That is taken from The Wexford People of the 13th of August, 1887, and it is not an isolated case by any means.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I wish to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether, previously to that resolution being passed, a discussion had not taken place with regard to the secret tribunal to be created under the Crimes Act?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am glad to hear that the hoc. Member is so intimately acquainted with the circumstances of the case to which I am re-
  1904
  ferring, as it is proof of the reliability of the newspaper from which I am quoting. In another case, which appeared in The Roscommon Herald of the 13th of August last, the Legan branch of the League appears to have passed a resolution binding its members to refuse to take any sort of oath under the provisions of the Crimes Act. It adds—
  "That any member taking such oath shall be looked upon as unworthy of the cause of freedom."
  [Cheers from the Irish Members.] The importance of those cheers will not be lost upon the House. I understand, then, that it is part of the case of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite that the League does enjoin a refusal on the part of its members to take any oath under the provisions of the Crimes Act. In that case, I think there is ample justification for issuing this Proclamation. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and the remnant of the Liberal Party who act with him, approve of those resolutions of the National League? Is it a fact that the National League, by their branches and their Parliamentary Representatives, have enjoined the peasantry of Ireland not to give evidence before the legal tribunals? That fact alone convicts the National League of being a body which interferes with the administration of the law. I have been struck with the very remarkable absence of any definite expression of opinion as to the grounds on which this resolution is to be supported. I cannot discover whether right hon. Gentlemen opposite are agreed in supporting hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in justifying the National League in these extreme acts, or whether they deny those acts altogether. I suspect that the latter alternative is no longer open to them, and that the evidence brought forward by the extracts quoted, and, most important of all, the cheers just given, show that the facts are past praying for, and that it must be some collateral reason which induces them to oppose the Proclamation of the National League. The Government does not at all shut its eyes to the gravity of the duty which it has undertaken; but, at the same time, we shall look for support in this crisis to a spirit somewhat different from that which animated not the

  1905
  least eloquent part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. The right hon. Gentleman was eloquent; but he put the bridle on the back of his eloquence when he was denouncing the law; he was precise, cautious, guarded, when he was rebuking what was illegal; there was not the slightest tendency to exaggeration or amplitude of statement when he was explaining—what certainly required to be explained—that he was opposed to Boycotting. But no language was too strong for him to inform the House and, let ma add, the people of Ireland, what he thinks of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and also the law as it has hitherto prevailed in Ireland. I was struck when I heard the right hon. Gentleman say of the Crimes Act that it was a most dangerous and a most disgraceful assumption of power. I could quite understand the expression of that opinion at the right time; but it hardly fits in with a pathetic admonition to the Irish people to undergo what is to be put upon them. The right hon. Gentleman said, further, that law itself in Ireland has been made an outrage on the people, and that the law itself has a character to retrieve, as much as the Moonlighters and Boycotters; and he said, further, that in Ireland the law is still upon its trial. Does he wish well to this disgraceful assumption of power, to this outrage upon the people? I confess that I am glad that in the coming crisis the people of Ireland, in their ultimate and highest interests, will have better support than those expressions of a doubtful and half-hearted hope that law will pass through this trial. I believe that the people of Great Britain and this present Parliament will represent the ultimate judgment of those whose consideration will ever be applied to this question in deciding that, not merely by way of resenting an affront on law and its dethronement, but by securing the ultimate welfare of the country, the duty which the Government has undertaken is not only justifiable but indispensable.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have to congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down upon the excellent spirit and the pleasant humour in which he has defended the abrogation of the liberties of the Irish people. The hon. and learned Gentleman has advocated
  1906
  the tremendous and terrible scourge for the country. I must say with regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman that his intervention in the debate rather augments than decreases the question which many of us have been asking ourselves in the course of the last and the present Session. Several times in the course of the present Session there have been Scotch Bills before this House. With regard to these Scotch Bills the hon. and learned Gentleman has been obstinately and modestly silent. Whenever a Scotch Bill has been before the House, the hon. and learned Gentleman has not been satisfied with maintaining silence with regard to it; but, as a matter of fact, he has removed himself as far as the limits of the Treasury Bench would allow from his right hon. and learned Colleague the Lord Advocate, so as to show that he would not have hand, act, or part in the legislation. I do not suppose that the reason for his non-intervention in Scotch debates is a want of self-esteem; hut I would make this suggestion to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he has not even learned to pronounce Irish names. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman ever been in Ireland in the course of his life?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes; I have.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: How long? How many days? How many weeks? Have his visits to Ireland and his residence there even reached the magnificent total of the seven days of the Chief Secretary for Ireland? I would make this suggestion to the hon. and learned Gentleman—that if he should be mute with regard to a country which he does not know, and eloquent with regard to a country which he does know, he would understand his Parliamentary duties a little better. In the course of my observations I propose to take up several of the cases which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to; but I intend first to make a few observations upon the manner and method in which this Proclamation has been produced. I wanted to know why the Proclamation had been so long postponed. Why was it that the Government did not bring their Proclamation forward until the dying days of an already protracted and prolonged Session? There is no necessity for bringing it forward. I will admit the

  1907
  whole case of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and yet say that there was no case made out for this Proclamation. I start with this proposition, and that I admit the whole case which the Chief Secretary for Ireland tried to make, and did not make, and the whole case which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Scotland tried to make, and did not make, and still this Proclamation would remain without cause and without excuse. All the cases of alleged or real intimidation, Boycotting, and interference with juries could be dealt with under other sections of the Coercion Act. So far as the case of the Government is concerned, even if their whole case was admitted, there is no case and no necessity for the Proclamation of the National League. But I will tell the House what was the necessity for the Proclamation of the League. It was a purely political necessity. I cannot give the political necessity better than in the language of one of the organs of the Tory Party. Last week there was published an article in The Saturday Review, and this article said of the Government—
  "It is impossible to deny that the Ministry has both in its earlier and its later tenures of Office disappointed the expectations of its friends and given occasion to the enterprize of its enemies. It is quite true that it has not done much that is particularly bad; it is 'the undone part,' not 'the petty done' which threatens in turn to undo it. The attempts to 'oblige Benson' in a new way by cooking up, or allowing to be cooked up, hybrid Liberal-Conservative measures like the Irish Land Bill and the Allotments Bill were, perhaps, inevitable in the circumstances, for the labourer and the Liberal Unionist are alike worthy of their hire. The miserable blunder of the Cass case, which has been a scandal, and which must, however it ends, almost certainly involve a miscarriage of justice, has been an example in little of the whole conduct of the Government. They form, it may be, a tolerably wise decision at first, then somebody applies pressure on the other side; then they hesitate, then they secede, and then they blunder; the conduct of business, the revision of judicial rents, the insignificant but disastrous matter just referred to, the management of tumultuous public meetings, the Horse Artillery affair, a dozen other things, have all been instances of this wobbling squeezableness."
  It might have been thought that the first maxim of the political copy-book was "Stout sinning is better than ricketty righteousness;" but in the Government copy-book, at any rate, the maxim seems either not to exist or not
  1908
  to have been learnt. The Proclamation of the League was the "stout sinning" which the Government was prepared to adopt. The Coercion Act was a month or two in existence—they had tried two cases of intimidation under it. In one case they succeeded; in the other they failed. The Government have recently issued a summons against one of the most respected Members of the Irish Party. I wish them well of the struggle they are going into. They have issued a summons against my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien), for addressing a meeting in his own constituency. Well, the hon. Member for North-East Cork has struggled with many people in his time, and has never come out second best. If any other public man proves himself as formidable to the Government as my hon. Friend, they could prosecute him under certain sections of the Crimes Act without proclaiming the National League. No case for the Proclamation of the League has been made by the Chief Secretary or the Solicitor General for Scotland. They had all the newspapers in Ireland to quote from, and all the confidential Reports of the Government to quote from, yet all the cases these right hon. Gentlemen could collect to suit their purpose out of an organization with 1,700 branches, and between 200,000 or 300,000 members, were eases of intimidation, real or alleged. Is there any organization in the country in which they can find the proportion of offences so small in proportion to the number of its members? The Chief Secretary has challenged us to make any comparison between trades unions in England and the National League in Ireland. I accept the challenge. The Solicitor General for Scotland read to the House a resolution of a branch fixing the amount of rent to be paid for a certain farm. He considered that the resolution should be received with shouts of condemnation from the Irish Benches. Now, I approve of the resolution. It was a perfectly legitimate and most necessary resolution. Is it a greater crime for a number of tenants to join together and pass a resolution filing the rent they think themselves able to pay for a farm of which they are part proprietors, the house and improvements of which have been made by themselves, than for the men of Newcastle-on-Tyne

  1909
  to fix the wages they consider themselves entitled to? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says that trade unionism in England is not accompanied by the violent intimidation existing in Ireland. I should be sorry to say that intimidation is used mainly and largely by the trade unions of England; but when you have a large organization like the trades unions wrestling with the capitalists, it is inevitable that a certain amount of crime should be committed. I see by the papers this morning that at Cradley Heath, where a chain-makers' strike is going on, two men have been brought up for intimidation, and though the case has been proved against them, they were not disgraced by being sent to gaol, but were let off with a fine, and no one thinks of standing up in this House and branding the union to which these men belong as a criminal association. In Bolton recently there were some severe and bitter riots, which necessitated the calling out of the military; but did the Chief Secretary propose that because, during a bitter struggle between master and man in Bolton there was a certain amount of disorder, that the trades unions of the whole country should be proclaimed—that everyone who called himself a trades unionist would commit an offence against the Constitution, and render himself liable to six months' imprisonment? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the amount of misery endured by a land-grabber in Ireland. In England a "knobstick" is the exact English equivalent for land-grabber, and means one who, in the face of a struggle between master and employer, deserts the cause of his fellow-workmen and goes to work for a lower wage. I can tell the House that it is as bad to be a "knobstick" in England, when a strike is going on, as a land-grabber in some parts of Ireland. When a branch of the League travels outside its proper function it receives the reprobation of the central branch; but a branch is not suppressed because it passes a resolution condemning land-grabbing. The central branch would be untrue to its principles if it suppressed a branch for passing such a resolution. I do not deny that such resolutions have been passed. We glory in it. One of our rules is that no man should take a farm from which there
  1910
  has been an unjust eviction, and at the same time remain a member of the National League. Everyone acquainted with the land war in Ireland should recognize the expediency and justice of such a rule in the organization. What has been the great weapon of the landlords in reducing, with the aid of the Government, the population of Ireland from 9,000,000 to 4,250,000? It was this—that as soon as a landlord evicts a tenant, justly or unjustly, he is always able to find someone else to take the farm. It was not until land-grabbers were put down that the weapon of eviction was a broken weapon, and that the tenants were enabled to live in peace. I could give many instances in which branches of the League which have Boycotted a man unjustly, and otherwise acted illegally or wrongfully, have been suppressed. I observed that the Chief Secretary alluded to none of these. Surely a man in his position should have left mere Nisi Prius advocacy to the Scotch Solicitor General. Where the National League is strong there is very little crime. Where the National League is weak there is much crime. If we had a map showing the proportional strength of the League in Ireland, we could not have a better guide as to where crime is rife; and where crime is rife is Kerry and the portion of Cork next to Kerry, but especially Kerry. Now, Kerry is one of the counties in Ireland in which the National League is least strong; and one of the reasons is that the Central Executive, by way of marking its reprobation of the outrages that have marked that portion of Ireland, have refused to sanction or propagate branches of the League there, and even further grants have been refused to most deserving evicted tenants in Kerry, where outrages have taken place, on the ground that these grants might be tortured by the Government, or by the people themselves in their ignorance, into a mute expression of approval of those crimes. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) has declared, with more than Tory fervour, that it is nonsense to denounce the Primrose League in the same breath with the National League, because the Primrose League does not back up Boycotting by the bullet of the assassin or the marauding of the midnight murderer. I brand that statement

  1911
  as a foul calumny on the National League. It is the kind of statement with which the hon. Member, in his speeches through the country, tries to inoculate the mind of the people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner) and my right hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) can testify. Well, is it the case of the Government that the National League Boycotting is followed up by the bullet of the assassin and the marauding of the midnight murderer? It is not, for they have deliberately omitted from their Proclamation the sub-section relating to crime and incitement to crime. If the Government have abandoned that statement, it should be abandoned in the country by the supporters of the Government. They are disgraceful weapons of political warfare. At the present moment Ireland is the most crimeless country in the world, even under the most terrible provocation. In County Cavan, with a population of 129,416, there were at the last Summer Assizes three offenders for trial. In Donegal, with a population of 206,036, there were four persons for trial. There was not a single person for trial in the City of Kilkenny, with its population of 12,299. In Louth, with a population of 77,000, there were four offenders for trial; and in Mayo, with a population of 245,000, there were in all, great and little, 14 persons for trial. Yet Her Majesty's Government can talk about the bullet of the assassin and the midnight marauder ! In Meath the National League is strong, and yet, out of a population of 87,000, there were only three cases to go before the Assizes, and the Judge congratulated the Grand Jury on the peaceful condition of the country. I take these facts from a pamphlet, "Coercion without Crime," which gives the charges of the Judges in the 32 counties in Ireland, and which I will commend to the attention of hon. Members. The League is strong in the County of Kilkenny, which has a population of 99,000, and at the last Assizes, Baron Dowse, addressing the Grand Jury, said—
  "I am very glad to say there are not many cases to go before you. The number of bills is six, which only represents five cases. I have to congratulate you on the tranquillity of your county."
  In Kilkenny City, where the League
  1912
  are also strong, Judge Harrison was presented by the Grand Jury with a pair of white gloves, and in addressing them he said—
  "I have very great pleasure in receiving this emblem of the innocence of your city, as I may call it. I think it not merely an emblem of its present state, but it clearly represents the general condition of this fair city of Kilkenny."
  This is the country which we are told is overrun with assassins and midnight marauders. Mr. Justice Holmes is partly responsible for the passing of the Coercion Act, and the first place he went to after his elevation to the Bench was Drogheda, where the Grand Jury presented him with a pair of white gloves. Mr. Justice Holmes said—
  "It is indeed a matter to me of great satisfaction on this the first occasion I have been called upon to preside in the Court of Assizes to find the calendar a blank, and to be able to congratulate you heartily on the freedom from crime which exists in the county of the town of Drogheda."
  And yet this is one of the towns which have been already proclaimed under one of the provisions of the Crimes Act, and every inhabitant who remains a member of the National League after a further Proclamation has been issued by the Government will be liable to six months' imprisonment, and I am afraid Mr. Justice Holmes will get no more white gloves. I am going to join my words to those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in counselling the Irish people to refrain from outrage and crime; but, at the same time, I cannot help asking the House whether it is not testing the endurance and patience of the Irish people beyond human power when, in the face of facts like these, the country is represented by paid calumniators to be a pandemonium of intimidation? I will take some of the cases brought forward by the Government. I do not excuse some of the resolutions which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has read; I think they were unjustifiable and unjust. I do not propose to justify every single word and act and resolution passed by an organization of this immense size in these terrible times; but what are the Irish people fighting for just now? Hundreds and thousands of them are fighting for their homes, their wives, and their children. This organization is the great weapon which stands between them and destruction and starva-

  1913
  tion. They are fighting besides what I believe to be the last great fight for their liberties, and I challenge any man to say that in the history of the world there has ever been a people engaged in a struggle so vital who have been so absolutely free from crime. The right hon. Gentleman quoted many cases from the counties of Waterford, Wexford, and Louth. I think he quoted the resolutions of three branches in the County of Wexford. Now, what I want to say is this—that I condemn those Resolutions, and that I consider them unjustifiable and illegitimate; but I ask if the right hon. Gentleman can show that those Resolutions have led to injury of person or property? I say that the National League has a right to expel a member of a branch who violates the rules of the branch, provided that those rules are necessary and legitimate. Now, anyone who has studied the history of Ireland, and who has read John Stuart Mill's work on the cottier tenancy in Ireland, will know that the great evil of Irish tenant life has been that the price of a farm, worth perhaps £40, has been sometimes run up to £240, because the people look to the tenure of land as the one rock in the sea of starvation surrounding them. Any organization, therefore, which will interfere with this recklessness on the part of the tenant will not only protect the tenant, but also work a great economical change in Ireland. The Government were bound to show that the resolutions of the League branches have been followed by outrage on person or property, and I have quoted Wexford, because the worst cases of the Government were taken from that county. What is the state of crime there? There is a population of nearly 124,000, and out of that number there were just two offenders for trial at the last Summer Assizes. I should like to be shown any county in England which has a population of 124,000, and which has only two offenders for trial at the Assizes; and yet this is the very worst case the Government can bring forward. There is, however, no use in blinking the fact. The limit of the National League is conterminous with three of the Provinces of Ireland. Every grown Irishman in those Provinces, with the exception of a miserable minority of Tories, is a member of the National League or an
  1914
  active sympathizer with it. When you proclaim the League, you may talk as you like about the eclipse of the liberties of Ireland, but I say you are pronouncing war against the Irish people. The Government have thrown down the glove; we will take it up. I tell the Government that we are not afraid. You have begun a war already by bringing before a Police Court my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien). Do you think he is going to be frightened with that? I tell you that all your law, and all your prisons, and all your scaffolds, will avail nothing to make a man like him to swerve one jot from the course which patriotism dictates. I tell the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that we have beaten a stronger man than he is, and that we have beaten better men than he is in the hours of the darkest night of our history. I wish to speak in terms of respect for the late Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). He had the courage of his opinions; but we defeated him with the Land League. The Land League organization, as compared with the National League, is as a child compared with a giant. We have more branches, more people, and all the priests of Ireland at our back; we have the Bishops of Ireland at our back. That was not the case in the Land League days, when some of the most violent attacks upon the Land League were made from the Archiepiscopal Palace in Dublin. A very different spirit reigns there now. If the right hon. Gentleman can carry this first line of defence, we have another line of defence which the Government have never had the courage to attack. It is the chapel yard and the sanctuary. But we are stronger than we were in England also; the tide is rising in our favour all over the country. We know that the country would have returned a Liberal Government if they had been relieved of the incubus of the Primrose League. I advise hon. Gentlemen, if they want a case of Boycotting in England, to read The Daily News of this morning, and they will see how a lady was able to frighten all her servants. I say that there is more Boycotting and more intimidation in one county in England than there is in the whole of Ireland; and I say, further, that it is no longer a question whether we have a majority of

  1915
  the people with us, because that is an established fact. The question we have to discuss with ourselves is whether the majority of the constituents will be able to defy the threats and the action of the Primrose League against their property, their employment, and their peace of mind, and give the vote which their consciences dictate. I believe that the people of England are on our side, and that they are more and more so every day; and I say that the reason why we have won the recent elections is because the Government carried their Coercion Act. Does the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland think that we, who contended with Cromwell, with James, with Charles, and with William, are afraid of a niminy-piminy Bismarck of the nineteenth century? If against my countrymen you carry your Coercion Act into operation, I beg and implore of them from my place in Parliament to remember the saying of the greatest of their liberators, that "He who commits a crime gives strength to the enemy"; and I ask them in this struggle to quit themselves like men, and to be buoyed up with the knowledge that coercion is the shortest road to the liberties of a people.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir George Trevelyan.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

ORDER OF THE BAY.

  LABOURERS' ALLOTMENTS BILL.— [BILL 329.]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Secretary Stanhope, Mr. W. H. Long.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 19 th August.]
  [SECOND NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 3 (Acquisition of land for purposes of this Act).
  MR. COBB: The Amendment I have to move is for the purpose of getting rid of the necessity of proceeding by Provisional Order, and having to get that Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament. I wish to take this opportunity of referring to the great inconvenience of having an Amendment of an exceedingly impor-
  1916
  tant character put on the Paper this morning only. We have a lengthy Amendment put down by the Government in place of a new clause which was placed in our hands when we were in Committee, and which very largely differs from that clause. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why it is that this and other clauses have been proposed; and, if so, whether he is prepared to give us a reasonable time for their consideration? When Progress was reported last we had been discussing at some length the cumbersome machinery proposed by the Bill as it originally stood, and we were all glad when the right hon. Gentleman told us that by an Amendment which he would put down, at all events, a great part of that cumbersome machinery had been done away with. I understand that we have done entirely with the Quarter Sessions for the purpose of this Bill. [Mr. RITCHIE: Yes.] We have also done away with arbitration to decide the value under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and the land is now to be valued by a valuer to be nominated by the Local Government Board, if the parties cannot agree. I receive that intimation from the right hon. Gentleman with great pleasure; but there is one difficulty which we have not got rid of—that is, in having to proceed by Provisional Order, which Order is to be confirmed by Parliament. I propose to substitute for procedure by Provisional Order an application to the Local Government Board for its sanction to acquire land by compulsion, such sanction to be in the form of a certificate sealed by the Board to have the force and effect of a Provisional Order, and not to require confirmation by Parliament, but to be preceded by a local inquiry, in which the Local Authority shall produce the necessary evidence. It is said that this procedure is an unusual one. So far as I am concerned—and I believe I am right in speaking for the artizans and labourers—what we want is something different, whether it proceeds on old or new lines. It is absolutely essential that if any system of allotments is to act, the expense must be kept down to a minimum. I said the other night that the labourers wished to have the land under no circumstances by way of charity—that they wished to pay for it, and that if they

  1917
  are to pay for it in the form of rent that rent ought to be as small as possible. Now, the preliminary proceeding proposed by this Amendment is that there should be a Local Government Board inquiry. A good deal was said the other day with regard to the expense which such inquiry would involve; but I am bound to differ from the views then expressed, because, so far as my experience goes, the expense of the Local Government Board inquiry is exceedingly trivial. I am told that the Inspectors of the Local Government Board have no fees of any sort, and that the only money paid to them is for their travelling and the hotel expenses. I have made inquiries, and have been told that there was hardly any case in which the whole expense of the Local Government Board inquiry had amounted to £5. An inquiry, then, by the Local Government Board will be eminently satisfactory to all of us; on the other hand, the expense of obtaining a Provisional Order is very great indeed. I cannot speak with much experience on that subject, but I have made inquiries with regard to it, and I find that it is very difficult to get a Provisional Order, even if unopposed, at a less cost than £90. But, rather than that I should exaggerate, let me say £50. [Mr. RITCHIE: No, no!] The expense of the Provisional Order would cause a very material addition to the rent of the land if you are to add it to the price. Again, the application to Parliament might be a very expensive thing indeed because, as the hon. and learned Attorney General said, we must consider with whom the Sanitary Authority will have to deal; and they will be dealing with those who have been described as unwilling landowners. We must remember that they will be very unwilling landowners, because if we are going to pass this Bill with compulsory powers we cannot blind ourselves to the consequences by saying that we are passing a Bill to meet cases which will never arise. As I have said, the landlord will be very unwilling indeed; he will, in fact, be a man to do everything in his power to prevent the labourers having allotments on his land. It must be assumed that the land will belong to these unwilling landlords, who will have refused to sell voluntarily; and, therefore, when the Bill is brought in for con-
  1918
  firming the Provisional Order it will be opposed, and, if I have read the provisions of the Public Health Act of 1875 correctly as applied to this Bill, the Local Sanitary Authority will be considered the promoters of the Bill, and will have to bear the expense. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that all this is most likely to arise in any case where compulsory powers have to be sought. Therefore, I think I have sufficiently explained—for I have no wish, to detain the Committee—the meaning of my Amendment. I would say that at the end of the Amendment I proposed to incorporate, instead of the section of the Public Health Act proposed in the Bill, only Sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 176, and a Proviso at the end of Sub-section 5, which subsections deal with the incorporation of such parts of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act as will still be necessary, including those parts relating to advertisements. In this way I cut out Subsections 3, 4, and 5, which deal with Provisional Orders. I do not desire to detain the Committee any longer. A great deal of nay Amendment is similar to that of the hon. Member for the Wellingborough Division (Mr. Channing), and I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite may see his way to accepting the proposal which seems to me a simple mode of proceeding.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Amendment is defective in the last paragraph.
  MR. COBB: I propose in the Amendment, in the last line but one, after the word "of," to insert "Section 176 of."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 9, to leave out from the word "authority," to the end of sub-section (4), and insert the words "shall apply for the sanction of the Local Government Board to acquire by compulsion land, whether within or without such district or parish, sufficient for such allotments. Such sanction shall be in the form of a certificate sealed by the Board, and shall, so far as is consistent with the tenour of this Act, have all the force and effect of a provisional order under 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' but shall not require any confirmation by Parliament. Such certificate shall, within seven days after it is scaled, be served upon the sanitary authority and the vendor, and shall be binding upon and enforceable by and against them respectively.
  "The Local Government Board shall, before sanctioning, either wholly or partially, any purchase, institute a local inquiry, and require evidence to be produced by the sanitary autho-

  1919
  rity as to their ability to let in allotments the lands which it is proposed to purchase compulsorily, at rents sufficient to meet the requirements of section two of this Act.
  "Sub-sections (1) and (2), and the proviso at the end of sub-section (5), of section one hundred and seventy-six of ' The Public Health Act, 1875,' shall be incorporated with this Act."—(Mr. Cobb.)
  Question proposed, "That the word ' may' stand part of the Clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): The hon. Gentleman, in the remarks he has made to the Committee, has not alluded to many of the points raised in his Amendment. There are many points raised in his proposal other than those to which he has made particular reference; but as the hon. Member himself has not alluded to those particular points, and has confined his observations to a particular matter, I will also confine my observations, if he will allow me, to those matters to which he has limited himself. The point to which he confined himself, I would remind him, has been alluded to before and decided. The question he has raised in this Amendment, as I understand it, is whether or not the machinery set up, in the event of some sanction being required for purposes other than agreement, should provide for this sanction by way of Provisional Order, or by means of inquiry by the Local Government Board without Parliamentary sanction at all. Now, we have discussed that matter in a previous Amendment, and on the last occasion we deprecated any treatment of the landlord in this case different from the treatment in any other case in England—at least, where land is acquired for what is commonly understood as allotment. Now, the hon. Gentleman said, speaking of the expense, and, I think, very justly, that the expense of an inquiry by the Local Government Board is very small; but, at the same time, he said that the expense of a Provisional Order is very considerable, sometimes as much as £50 and more. Now, the hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that inquiry by the Local Government Board would cost very little—hardly anything at all—but, really and truly, the machinery which would have to be adopted, if the hon. Gentleman's proposal were accepted, would involve a
  1920
  charge hardly less expensive than the machinery of the Bill, provided there were opposition to the confirming Bill. What is the machinery? The machinery is an inquiry by the Local Government Board, and at that inquiry everybody who is concerned is heard, and the expenses of the confirmation of the Order which is granted after that inquiry by the Local Government Board, if there is no opposition, is really, practically speaking, nil, the whole expense being the expense previous to the confirming Bill, which the hon. Gentleman admits is small. Well, then, the whole question is, whether the landowner in this particular case is to be treated differently to a landowner in any other case where land is to be acquired compulsorily, and the view of the Government is that the landowner ought not to be treated in any different manner?
  MR. COBB: Why not?
  MR. RITCHIE: Why should the landlord be treated differently?
  MR. COBB: To make a cheaper allotment.
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes; but in making a cheaper allotment you may be doing an injustice to the landlord. The landowner has a perfect right, so far as I know anything of the practice which exists at present, to have an ultimate appeal to Parliament, and I have seen nothing whatever in the object which is sought to be obtained by this Bill, which ought to put a landlord in a different position to that in which he is now with reference to any other proposal for the acquiring of his land. I would point out that, so far as expense is concerned—so far as the position of the landowner is concerned—there is no reason to expect that after a full inquiry, which is invariably afforded by the Local Government Board, where the landlord is heard, and every reason that he has to give in opposition to the action of the Sanitary Authority is heard, there is no reason to believe that he will on many occasions oppose the confirmation Bill. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to the expense of opposing a confirmation Bill; but I would point out that the expense of that course would be very great, and that the landlord, after having been fully heard before an Inspector of the Local Government Board, would not in one case out of a hundred care to undertake any ultimate appeal

  1921
  to Parliament. It would, even if his taxed costs were paid, be a very considerable expense to the landowner; and that being so, I do not see any reason why the landowner should not have an ultimate appeal to Parliament in this case as well as in every other case in which his land is acquired. It is viewed by a large number of people as a strong order indeed that the landowner should be compelled to sell his land compulsorily, even under a Provisional Order. The Government would take care where the compulsory acquisition of land is necessary to consult the prevailing feeling of landlords; but they think where it would be necessary to compel the landowner it should be done by a simple and easy process. Where the landowners meet the general demands for allotments, we have enabled it to be done in the manner laid down in the Bill; but we cannot go further and treat the landowner under this measure in a different way to that in which landowners are treated under the present law. The whole procedure is simple and inexpensive; and in my opinion and in that of the Government it will not be resorted to once in a hundred times; but we cannot do the landowner the injustice of depriving him of his land without allowing him an ultimate appeal to Parliament, however important it may be to acquire his land, even though it may be necessary for the life of the neighbourhood. I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment to a Division, as the Government cannot in any case assent to it.
  MR. COBB: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to the word "shall" instead of "may" in the clause?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have a very strong objection to the insertion of the word "shall" instead of "may." I find that one of the points to which I have referred, the hon. Gentleman did not allude to in his speech. The objection to the word "shall" is this. In the 2nd clause we lay upon the Sanitary Authority an obligation under certain circumstances of acquiring the land. Well, then we go on in this particular clause, having dealt with the question of the voluntary acquisition of land, to say if the Sanitary Authority are unable to hire or purchase by agreement the necessary land, they may petition the County Authority, who, if they are satisfied that it would be to
  1922
  the public advantage to provide allotments, may make a provisional order authorizing the Sanitary Authority to put in force the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. The 2nd clause will be read with this 3rd clause, and it will be the duty of the Sanitary Authority to apply for the compulsory acquisition of land if the conditions laid down in the clause are in their opinion complied with. If the word "shall" were inserted instead of "may," it would mean that, whether or not the conditions as to recouping to the Sanitary Authority the interest on the money they had spent were complied with, they should be bound to take the land compulsorily. If the word "shall" were put in, it would be the imperative duty of the Sanitary Authority to apply to the Local Government Board for compulsory powers whether they considered that the provisions of the Act were complied with or not. My contention is that it should be the duty of the Sanitary Authority, if they cannot purchase the land voluntarily, to do it compulsorily if the conditions laid down are complied with. We cannot consent to part with these conditions.
  MR. A. J. WILLIAMS: Before this matter is finally disposed of, I would put my simple protest on record against the method of dealing with these compulsory powers proposed in the Bill. The Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend seems to me to be essential if we are to deal with landlords who are not willing to meet the Local Authorities. It is perfectly idle to say that you will in every single instance be able to obtain the land you require at such a price as would justify the Local Authority in going in to obtain land from a landowner who is not willing to sell, if you are to use the machinery originally put into this Bill. We are told by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that we are diverting from the original authority established for the compulsory purchase of land—that in every instance where the purchase of land by compulsion has had recourse to, the landlord has hitherto had, either directly or indirectly, an opportunity of applying to this House. We are told that it is unheard of to deviate from this rule; but we are going to deviate from rules very soon which will cost this

  1923
  country millions of money. If not in this Session and by the present Ministry, at all events in another Session and by another Ministry, we shall one day lay down a much more generous rule, ignoring the desires of the landlords, whilst complying with the claims of those who want to occupy the land of the country. It is idle to toll me that we are going to get a Provisional Order for £25. In every instance where we are going to use this machinery, and where we have to deal with an obstinate landlord, ire shall find that he will do everything which a lavish expenditure of money can do to prevent allotments being taken from his property. It is true that the ordinary Provisional Order can be obtained for £25; but I venture to say that, supposing this Amendment is rejected and no similar proposal inserted to compel a reluctant landlowner to give up 10 or 15 or 20 acres of land in the neighbourhood of a town or village, it will cost a great deal more than £100 sooner or later. At all events, every penny, every shilling or pound additional expense, if we are to make this experiment successful, which is needlessly incurred will tend to retard the operation of the Act; and I say to the Government, if they do not adopt some machinery as simple and effective as that now suggested, this Bill will be a dead letter. In answer to the charge made against hon. Members that they are endeavouring to obstruct the Bill, I would ask hon. Members to make their protest as short and as brief as they can. Let the Bill go with a mere protest and let the country see that it is a mere sham and a delusion.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTON: I do not sympathize with the desire of hon. Gentlemen to transfer the authority in the matter from Parliament to a Public Office. If it were a question between Parliament and the reformed County Authority, which I hope we are to have some day or other, I should be in favour of giving it to the County Authority; for I do think there is very little probability of these reforms being obtained if all of them are to be got through this House. But to make a new departure now, to adopt a new authority in the shape of a Government Office, is, in my opinion, simply absurd.
  MR. CHANCE: I pointed out on Friday night that in Ire-
  1924
  land, under a precisely similar Code of Acts—the Irish Labourers' Allotments Acts—a Provisional Order does not come before Parliament. If a Provisional Order is objected to, the objection is finally decided upon by the Privy Council. Let me point out that this Amendment realty gives the landlord a better chance than the Irish Act does. If the Local Government Board made an absolute Order under the proposed Amendment, their action could be criticized in the House just as freely as if a confirming Order were before the House; every possible means could be taken by the friends of the landlords to make their grievances known, and, in face of that fact, I confess I am surprised to hear it repeated that there is anything new in the principle. There is nothing at all new in the principle.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have not forgotten the remarks the hon. Gentleman made the other night. Of course, we know very well that there are circumstances in Ireland which are in many respects peculiar to the country, and which we do not find in England. I may point out to the hon. Gentleman that if a confirming Bill is not opposed, as it is not opposed in 99 cases out of 100, the effect is precisely the same as the hon. Gentleman says it is in Ireland. If there is no opposition, the Bill goes before the Unopposed Bills Committee, and the expense is almost nil. The Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) referred the other night to the action of the Privy Council, and said, very truly, that if there was a choice between Parliament and the machinery proposed in this Bill and the Privy Council, 99 men out of 100 would prefer the machinery proposed in this Bill.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: Let me say one or two words in reference to this Amendment. The last time the Bill was in Committee I said it seemed to me that these clauses were unworkable, and would be likely to add so much to the cost of the land as practically to render the Act nugatory. In this clause we have to make provision for dealing with obstinate landlords: with landlords who refuse to give voluntarily, allotments to labourers, and who refuse also to help the Sanitary Authority to carry out the work entrusted to them. We really have to deal with the obstinacy of landlords who are willing

  1925
  to spend their money in order to maintain an obstinate objection to the operation of this Bill. The whole history of the enormous amount of money spent on land for public purposes, is a history of obstinacy on the part of landowners, who would not part with their land for public purposes. Now, in the present Bill, we have a public and national purpose much more important than that for which land has hitherto been taken by compulsion. We have to take land for the purpose of saving the peasantry of this country; the peasantry are decreasing by thousands every year because they have practically been kept in a state of servitude. The peasant is the only worker in this country who is unable to get the means to work for himself at his own trade. We want to alter the present system, and these Compulsory Clauses are not strong and not effective enough for our purpose. I believe they will result in adding so much to the cost of the land when purchased under them, that the land will become too dear to be cultivated at a profit, and therefore the whole thing will fall to the ground. I am astonished at hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have been advocating the voluntary principle, being so inconsistent. If the voluntary principle is so powerful, if, indeed, they have no fear of these Compulsory Clauses, but think that these clauses will simply act as a stimulus to voluntary effort, I cannot understand why they should oppose the strengthening of these clauses.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: If I thought Local Authorities would be put to very large expense in the obtaining of Provisional Orders, I should think twice before I supported the provisions of the Bill in this respect. But experience shows that, in a great number of cases, opposition to Provisional Orders is so rare and so small that, practically, it may be disregarded altogether. I think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board is quite right in saying that there is no opposition to Provisional Orders in 99 cases out of 100. But I am not prepared to say that, in the present instance, there should be no appeal against Provisional Orders. It is sufficiently possible to conceive injustice being done even by the Local Government Board to make it desirable to
  1926
  reserve the right of appeal. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) has adverted to the case of Ireland; I take it that the Privy Council there is put in the place of Parliament, and for the very purpose of preventing the expense which would be entailed by parties coming to Westminster—not to prevent an appeal from the decision, but in order to give another kind of appeal. If it were at all desirable to substitute the Privy Council for Parliament, that might be an argument; but no one will pretend to propose that. I think that, on the whole, Parliament would be a better tribunal in England than the Privy Council. The cases would be very rare in which there would be an appeal; and I think, therefore, that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, we may allow this clause to stand as it now is. It may be worth while considering hereafter whether there should not be some simple process of appeal. I should also like to point out that in most cases of appeal—cases of Provisional Orders—Committees have power to give costs if they think the opposition is frivolous; and I cannot help thinking that if landlords were obstructive, and in one or two cases a Committee of this House gave costs against them, we should hear very little in future of such opposition. I therefore think the Committee will do wisely in adopting the proposal of the Government as it stands.
  MR. CHANCE: I have heard many prophecies, but I have something better than prophecy to offer in the case of Ireland, where the Privy Council is the absolute authority. Landlords in Ireland, almost to a man, have taken their appeal to the Privy Council. They have fought their appeals tooth and nail, and they have not been deterred by any fear of costs or anything else. The Irish landlords are comparatively poor, and one would say they could not so well afford to fight in cases such as these as English landlords could. English landlords will give allotments to labourers whose politics agree with theirs, and refuse allotments to those whose politics are not similar to theirs.
  Question put,
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 66: Majority 76.—(Div. List, No. 420.) [1.30 A.M.]
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 9, to leave out the words "the county authority of the county in which this district or parish is situate, and the county authority (after such inquiry and procedure as provided in the sections hereinafter incorporated in this Act) may, if satisfied that it will be to the public advantage to provide such allotments," in order to insert "the Local Government Board to."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. RITCHIE: We propose, by an Amendment, to set up the Local Government Board to exercise and perform the duties of the County Authority under this Act until the new County Authorities are established. When this is done, we propose that the functions of the Local Government Board shall be confined to introducing a Bill confirming the Provisional Orders. I do not gather whether the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the new County Authority acting when they are set up, or whether he is simply opposed to the County Authority in the meantime. If he is opposed to the County Authority altogether, then we must object to the proposal of the hon. Member.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: If we are to have first to go before the Sanitary Authority, then to the County Authority, and then before the Local Government Board, there will be great delay and expense. The objection is to the County Authority interposing between the Sanitary Authority and the Local Government Board.
  MR. RITCHIE: The proposal of the Government is that until the new authority is set up the Local Government Board shall be the authority to issue the Provisional Order, and that when the new County Authority is the representative of the different areas throughout the country, then the Provisional Order shall be issued by the County Authority, and not the Local Government Board; that is to say, that the Sanitary Authority, instead of applying to the Local Government Board to issue the Provisional Order, will apply to the new representative County Authority, who will, by means of a committee or otherwise, make inquiry and issue the Provisional Order. In making that arrangement, the Government believed they were going in the direction of decentralization and granting that ex-
  1928
  tension of local self-government which everyone desires. The Local Government Board will act purely ministerially in presenting the Bill to Parliament.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: That is exactly what I said. The now County Authority will interpose—["No, no!"] I say it will make a new process necessary in order to obtain the Provisional Order. It is clear that you have first to apply to the Sanitary Authority, thon to the County Authority, and then, as has just been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, the County Authority is to go to the Local Government Board, and they will present the Bill to Parliament; and the whole of that process has to be gone through to get two acres of land. Under those circumstances, the Bill is simply waste paper, so far as concerns getting land by compulsion. I shall be obliged to press my Amendment.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing on this Amendment, because I think the Government proposals are far more liberal than that of the hon. Member. Instead of the Petition going before the Department in London it goes into the hands of the representative authority in the county in which we live; in other words, it goes into our own hands. The Local Government Board, in case of need, must present the Bill, and that they will do without expense, whereas, if the County Authority had to do this they would have to bear all the expense. The effect of the Government proposal is, therefore, quite contrary to what the hon. Gentleman presumes. I hope that this matter will not take up any more time. For my own part, I am very pleased to find such a decentralizing proposal emanating from the Government. I should not have thought of proposing anything of the kind, because I should not have expected the Government to accept it.
  MR. CHANCE: I think that probably a misunderstanding has arisen here, owing to the Government having put in lines 19 and 20 that "any County Authority" may apply to the Local Government Board to introduce a Bill confirming the Provisional Orders. To say that "any County Authority" may do this is, of course, nonsense. I trust there will be no Division on this Amendment,

  1929
  because, as far as I can see, there is very little in it.
  MR. CHANNING: I do not understand why the Government have not put an Amendment on the Paper to restrict this clause and make it conform with the distinct promises given to the House. The appeal to the county magistrates, as the Committee is aware, has been got rid of. The clause as it stands is perfect nonsense.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 13, leave out from "if satisfied" to "such allotments," in line 14.—Viscount Wolmer.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The first part of the Amendment standing in my name has already been discussed, with the result that the Government are going to leave it to the Local Government Board to decide in case of any dispute between the seller and purchaser of the land. With regard to the last part of the Amendment, which settles the price as between a willing vendor and a willing purchaser, that can be hotter dealt with when the Amendment on page 35 is reached, and it will therefore save time if I do not move it.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: The object of the Amendment which I rise to move is to give power to the Local Government Board to authorize the Sanitary Authority to take land on lease for the purpose of letting it for allotments. I think in some cases the Sanitary Authority will be loth to raise on loan the money necessary to buy land for putting in operation the provisions of the Bill; on the other hand, I am of opinion that if they can take land on lease they will not have the same objection, and that the result will be that the Act will come into operation in a greater number of cases than it otherwise would.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 18, after the word "agreement," to insert the words—"(3.) The Local Government Board may, by a Provisional Order under this Act, authorise a sanitary authority to take compulsorily any lands referred to in such order for any term of years not exceeding ninety-nine years, at a rent, and subject to terms, provisions, and conditions, to
  1930
  be determined in case of difference in the manner by this Act prescribed for the determining a question of disputed compensation; and the provisions of ' The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' and the Acts amending the same, and of this Act, shall apply as if such compulsory taking for a term of years were a purchase of land otherwise than by agreement. A lease of lands compulsorily taken for a term of years under this Act may be in the prescribed form or to the like effect, and shall be effectual to vest the lands so taken in the lessees for the term and subject to the rent, conditions, and provisoes therein expressed."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAPLIN: This question was raised the other night by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance). He pointed out that its principle had already been adopted in the Bill which applies to Ireland; but even if that is the case I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. It must be generally admitted that this Bill means that the land is to be taken by compulsion. Of course, in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite land which may have been purchased and paid for by the landlord is not his property, and may be taken by them whenever they want it; some of them, at any rate, think that a far more generousrule should be adopted than that of paying for the land. It was pointed out the other night that this might be a very convenient Amendment to adopt, because it was said that the experiment might be tried for a time, and that when the lease fell in it would be taken back by the landlord. I should like to know in what state the land would be when an experiment of this kind had been tried upon it? I am bound to say that when you adopt the principle that the land should be taken by compulsion, the very least you can do is to buy the land outright, and give the landlord what compensation he is entitled to; and unless the terms are left entirely to the landlord, I hope the Government will refuse the Amendment.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I hope the Government will not accept the advice of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I look upon the Amendment as a very important one, and I believe that if it is agreed to the Bill will be a much greater success than it otherwise would be. There are two precedents for this proposal; one is to be found in the Crofters Act, and the other in the Labourers

  1931
  (Ireland) Act. In both Ireland and Scotland it has been found to be a very useful provision, and it has greatly facilitated the working of those measures. I am sure, if the House will adopt it, that it will greatly simplify the operation of the Bill and relieve the Sanitary Authority of the necessity of finding money for the purchase. It is very easy to understand that there might be such a condition of things that the Sanitary Authority would prefer to take the land for a term of years. On the whole, I think the landlord would be placed in a better position by the introduction of this Amendment; and I again express the hope that the Government will not follow the advice of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. RITCHIE: The right hon. Gentleman advanced an argument in this case to the effect that in many cases the landlord would prefer to sell the land if the option were given to him. Well, there is nothing to prevent the landlord doing that if he does prefer it. Under the Bill, land may be acquired by three processes. The Sanitary Authority may lease or hire it, and the right hon. Gentleman may see that the landlord in that way has the opportunity he desires to have to sell his land rather than to let it. Then the landlord has an opportunity of letting his land, and in cases where that cannot be done and it may be desirable to buy it, the landlord may be compelled to sell under certain restrictions. We are asked to still further extend the principle of compulsion and to compel landlords to part with their land for a term of years. As far as I am concerned, that is a proposal which we cannot entertain for a single moment. We consider that it would be open to all the objections which my right hon. Friend the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) has referred to. We consider that it would be wrong to compel the landlord to part with his land in order to enable the Local Sanitary Authority to make experiments to ascertain whether or not it could let the land advantageously to tenants. Apart from that objection, which, so far as the Government are concerned, they think vital, I would point out another objection—namely, that it would have an injurious effect upon the working of the Bill. One can easily conceive that many occasions
  1932
  would arise in which the landlord would be perfectly willing to sell his land voluntarily to the Local Sanitary Authority, but in which, if he were compelled—if there were any power in the Bill to compel him to part with his land for a limited term of years, he would resist it to the utmost.
  MR. CHANCE: Let me point out— I "Order, order!"]——
  MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of speaking after I have done. The landlord might be willing to sell his land, but not willing to let it under the provisions of this clause. If he could not be compelled the operation of the Bill would be perfectly simple, as there would be no question of opposition or compulsory powers or Provisional Orders. There would be no expense whatever. The whole thing would be done voluntarily; but if the Sanitary Authority insisted on hiring the land rather than buying it the landlord would resist it and compel the Sanitary Authority to go for a Provisional Order, and ultimately to appeal to Parliament, and perhaps the Confirmation Bill would be opposed by the landowners, and large expense would be inflicted on the locality; whereas, if the question were one of purchase, the whole thing would be done voluntarily. The Labourers (Ireland) Act has been referred to. I am told that this particular section in that Act does not work by any means satisfactorily, and that the operation of it is exactly as I have pointed out—namely, that the landlords willing to sell are unwilling to let for a fixed period; so that the whole operation of the compulsory powers have to be resorted to. We cannot impose on the landowner the unjust provision of the proposal now made.
  MR. CHANNING: I do not wish to detain the Committee upon this Amendment; but I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire what may be in the recollection of many Members of this House, that the Bill introduced by the present Earl of Winchilsea, when he was in this House last year, which was, in my opinion, a satisfactory Bill—and I am not sure that the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire was not on the back of it—there was

  1933
  one clause that completely met the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. It was this, that when the compulsory power was to be put into operation the landowner was left the option of saying to the Local Authority—"You shall take the land on lease——"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR RICHARD WEBSTER): That is in the Bill now.
  MR. CHANNING: I do not see that it is in this Bill. No doubt when you are dealing with the voluntary agreement stage you can say that it is in the Bill, but when you are dealing with the compulsory stage you can say nothing of the kind; the landlord is bound to sell. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire was singularly significant. He dwelt with complacency on the fact that there was not much compulsion likely to come about or intended to be brought about by this Bill—I am judging from the general tone of his remarks. That seems to be a comment upon what he said on the second reading, in his interchange of compliments with the hon. Member for Bordesley—namely, that this humble measure had no resemblance whatever to that dangerous "Unauthorized Programme," which was the expression of what he once described as the "predatory instincts" of the hon. Member and his Friends. I should like to know if the Amendment before the Committee provides for the absolute protection of the landlord in this matter? It seems to me that it offers a satisfactory means of meeting very serious difficulties. The point which makes me support this Amendment most heartily is just this. Everyone who is in any way familiar with the neighbourhood of large towns must know perfectly well that the great question of the future must be whether we shall give Local Authorities power to buy up and appropriate land around towns, and so appropriate all the prospective building value of these lands. I think myself it would be a great injustice at the present moment to insist upon the compulsory purchase of land in the neighbourhood of large towns at its agricultural value. At the same time, you will defeat the purpose of this Bill, and destroy the value of it to labourers and artizans who want land if you do not provide
  1934
  them with allotments at agricultural value. It, therefore, seems to me reasonable and proper before we settle this question of the unearned increment, which is a question which must be settled in the future, that we should in the mean time introduce some provision of this kind to enable the Sanitary Authority to take lands for a certain definite period. If this Amendment is unsatisfactory on account of the period it fixes, then insert in it some shorter period. That would enable labourers and artizans to obtain land now on such reasonable terms that they can make a fair profit out of it, and then in a few years time the landlord might come into his land, and be able to realize the building value of it, supposing the value of land in that neighbourhood were increasing. In that way, I think, you would be able to guard the interests of all parties, and provide allotments cheaply and quickly. The important thing under this Bill is to secure for labourers an amount of land at agricultural value on which they can exert their labour. If by your procedure you compel the Authority to import into the price of lands in the neighbourhood of towns the building value as well as the agricultural value you would be acting unjustly to the labourer, by making it impossible for him to get land on reasonable and profitable terms.
  MR. CHANCE: There seems to be some misapprehension in this matter, and I point it out for the purpose of easing the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that the adoption of this Amendment would lead to expense and friction and trouble, because he said the landowner would be willing to sell but might not be willing to let, and if the Sanitary Authority insisted on leasing then the landowner would put his back to the wall and fight the thing out. If that were a sound argument it would be fatal to the Amendment, but under the clause we are discussing there is a condition laid down precedent to the use of any compulsory power whatever by any authority, and what is that condition? It is that the Sanitary Authority must be unable to hire or purchase the land by agreement. Therefore, under this clause all

  1935
  the landlords objecting to a compulsory lease has to do is to say to the Sanitary Authority—"I am willing to sell you my land at a fair price," and then if the Sanitary Authority insists on attempting to use the compulsory powers he may go before a higher authority, and make a representation to the effect that he was willing to sell at a fair price, and the Local Government Board would thereupon decide that the compulsory powers could not be put into operation. That surely ought to bias the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire. I pointed out that there was a precedent for this legislation. I asked the House to recollect the date of that Act—namely, the 14th of August, 1885. That Act was passed both by this House and the other House of Parliament by a Conservative Government. I need not add anything more. I want to know, Sir, why a Conservative Government who were willing to do this for the Irish labourers are not now willing to do it for the English labourers?
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: If I thought that this Amendment would facilitate the operation of the Act I would support it, but I think it would have the contrary effect. I quite admit the precedent of the Crofters Act. In that Act it was provided that power should be given for an extension of the existing holdings, and as these holdings were all held under lease it was necessary that the extensions given in the Bill should also be under lease, but in that case no alternative by purchase was given. If it had been possible to give an alternative by purchase in this case, I think it would have been found a much better and cheaper method, because where you have a choice I think it must be clear to everyone that the cost to the Local Authority of the neighbourhood of land which is paid for by money borrowed from the Exchequer would be much less than any fair rent that might be fixed by an impartial authority. Therefore, what is practically proposed by the Amendment is to give to the Local Authority an alternative which would be worse than that of the Bill.
  MR. HANDEL CSOSHAM: I must say I heard with considerable surprise the remarks of the right
  1936
  hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. This Amendment appears to me to be so reasonable that I am astonished that Her Majesty's Government will not accept it. I am afraid that without this Amendment the Bill will be inoperative. I would remind hon. Members that it is not necessary that all the land about which they speak should be purchased from the landowners.
  MR. M'LAREN: I think we must take precautions against the piling up of debt on the part of the Local Authorities. Their obligations are already very heavy, and it is necessary that we should do something to provide an alternative to their development. By the Amendment before the Committee we should obtain land for allotments without further debt on the part of the Local Authorities, and I think that is one very great reason for adopting the proposal. No doubt, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) said, there are cases in which the leasing of the land may be more expensive than buying it out and out, and that should be a sufficiently good reason for the Local Authorities not favouring the course of leasing. I think it a pity that the Government should desire to put England behind Ireland and Scotland in this matter. It is the object of this Bill to create allotments with facility. I do not know if that is the object of all the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite; but as was pointed out by an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, although a Conservative Government passed the Agricultural Labourers Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire, being a Member of that Government and agreeing to all that measure, he is not now willing to pass a similar provision for England. I cannot help thinking that one reason may be that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are not as sincerely anxious to give these facilities for providing allotments for workmen as they make believe to be.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I have no objection to the Amendment, but I fail to see how it can facilitate the acquisition of allotments by labourers. As the Bill stands the Local Authority has power, by voluntary agreement, to hire

  1937
  land as well as to purchase it, and I have no doubt, and have always contended, that once a compulsory Bill is passed compulsion will be very rarely necessary. I have no doubt that in a very small number of cases land will be taken for short terms for purposes of allotments, and it seems to me certain that if the Local Authorities were to put the compulsory powers in force for taking land on lease in their localities they would be opposed, and there would have to be faced all the expenses of that opposition, whereas in the purchase of land such difficulty would not arise. I am a very strong advocate of the community possessing land wherever it can. On the Birmingham Town Council I have never failed to vote in favour of any proposal enabling the Committee to buy land, under any circumstances. We ought to favour as much as possible the idea of land being municipalized, if I may so term it.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I wish to offer a few remarks to show why I shall especially support this clause, which I consider a most important one for the agricultural labourers whom I have the honour to represent. I think that, in the first place, it would be much easier to persuade Local Authorities to lease land than to buy land. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) has told us that this principle is a most unfair one. I cannot see why it should be more unfair in England than it is in Scotland or in Ireland, and we have already had precedents quoted to us from Scotland and Ireland, showing that the principle of leasing land by compulsion is at the present moment adopted in those countries. It seems to me that hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to whittle down the compulsory principle of this Bill as far as possible. It is a most refreshing sight for us on this side of the House to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) in a determined attempt to thwart the predatory provisions of this Bill. As the Representative of a Division which contains as many if not
  1938
  more agricultural labourers than any other represented in this House I do most warmly support this Amendment, and I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Seale-Hayne) will proceed to a Division.
  MR. A. J. WILLIAMS: It appears to me that this clause, with one modification, will be of considerable use. In spite of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire, I may say I do hold a little land. The land is in the neighbourhood of towns. Surely it is desirable that a Local Authority should have power to say—"We will take your land subject to your right of re-entry for building purposes." There cannot be any objection to such a provision, and I think the Government would do well to accept this Amendment.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am not particularly wedded to the principle of leasing, the more so as we on this side of the House advocate the principle of Leasehold Enfranchisement. But I am bound to say that there are cases where it might be very desirable that land should be leased rather than purchased, and it appears to me that in the interests of the good working of this Bill this is one of those cases. I have no hesitation whatever in supporting this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for the Ashburton Division of Devonshire (Mr. Seale-Hayne) only desires to see this Bill made a really useful and workable Bill. I say that fully conscious that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) may very shortly take another opportunity of meeting a few friends on his lawn at Birmingham, and denouncing all of us as personally obstructing a Bill which he says we do not desire to see passed. We have a perfect right to speak upon this measure, because in spite of the taunts of right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, or on the other side, we do happen to represent agricultural labourers. I venture to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that I have probably more agricultural labourers in my constituency than he has in West Birmingham. When this clause is supported by such undoubted Representatives as the two hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken, and also the hon. Members for the Ash-

  1939
  burton Division of Devonshire (Mr. Seale-Hayne) and the Wellingborough Division of Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing) and the Rugby Division of Warwickshire (Mr. Cobb), I think it would be impertinent for a Member for any city or borough in the country to set up his experience in opposition to theirs. What are the arguments which we have heard against this proposal from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) who is in charge of this Bill? He tells us that it is very unfair to the landowners that they should have the land returned on their hands after the Local Authorities have made experiments under this Bill. I want to know why it is unfair? The land, if it is altered in character at all, will probably be altered for the better; it is not likely to be altered for the worse, because we have often heard from right hon. Gentleman opposite that a great deal of this land is not worth cultivating at all at the present time. The effect of a few years, or even of a few months' cultivation, would be that the spade culture of the agricultural labourer would have increased the fertility of the soil in the way that everybody knows allotment culture does as compared with cow culture. I have no hesitation in saying that if anyone were to benefit by a few years experiments of this kind, it would be the landlord if he should have the land returned to him. I am reminded by an hon. Gentleman near me that the landlord could recover damages for any loss under his covenant, a circumstance which certainly adds considerable force to our argument. Another argument which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board used was that the Government would not compel landowners to part with their land for a limited period. Now, I want to know whether is it worse, once you have adopted the principle of compulsion, to compel a landowner to part with his land for a limited period than to part with it for ever? It appears to me that the greater includes the worse, and that if you compel a man to part with his land for ever it is certainly a far less grievance to compel him to part with it for only a limited period. Then he said that in this conclusion the Government have gone to the utmost limit of what they consider necessary. We have heard something
  1940
  to-night of wobbling. Until this Bill is through the House, and through the House of Lords, I shall not believe that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have come to the end of their tether.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: The hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division of Essex (Mr. H. Gardner) has given his opinion as to what the labourers have to say on this question. I have considerable knowledge of agricultural labourers, and I have always found when they argue these questions for themselves, and not through the medium of gentlemen who profess to know a great deal about agricultural labourers, but who perhaps do not know very much after all that agricultural labourers recognize the principle of fair play, and I am sure they would wish to be fair in this matter. The Government are trying to pass a generous Bill. [Cries of "No!"] Generous in the opinion of such hon. Members as the Members for Birmingham, who took an interest in this question before the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division of Essex (Mr. H. Gardner) knew anything about labourers. I should be putting myself in a most difficult position if I were, in this House, to say one word antagonistic to the real interests of labourers. I have been surprised that all these hypercritical Amendments should be proposed in the Committee, because I think that the Government have proposed a generous measure, and that the House ought to recognize that fact.
  MR. F. W. MACLEAN: I am surprised that the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), who is in favour of Leasehold Enfranchisement, should support such an Amendment as this. The hon. Gentleman said that under the circumstances he supported this Amendment, but he did not say what were the circumstances. He is at times somewhat erratic in his courses, and I think he has been so on the present occasion. But I rise principally, Mr. Courtney, to reply to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for the Saffron Walden Division of Essex. I entirely differ from him in the suggestion that he threw out that it was the intention of the Government, or the desire of the Government, to whittle down the principle of compulsion. I

  1941
  venture to submit to the Committee that if this clause were carried it would be extending, and extending not only in a very novel direction, but to a certain extent a dangerous direction, the principle of compulsion. What is the principle of compulsion? It is simply this, that the State interferes and says that a landowner must give up his land for public purposes when it is in the interest of the State that it should be given up for such purposes. It is only on this principle, and on this principle alone, that the question of compulsion rises at all. When my hon. Friends refer to the precedents in Ireland and in Scotland, I ask them to bear this in mind, that the Land Clauses Consolidation Act was passed so long ago as 42 years—it was passed in 1845—and never since that period has it been suggested, until to-day, that Railway Companies or any other Companies requiring land compulsorily, under the provisions of that Act should be enabled to take the land for a limited period. Therefore, if we look upon the question as one of precedent, it is quite clear that, so far from precedent being in favour of my hon. Friend's contention, it is all the other way. Let me point out, however, that if this Amendment is carried, and this principle is sound, it will apply equally to the case of Railway Companies, who would compel landowners to give land for the purpose of Railways. They might take land for seven or 14 years, and after they had speculated with it, and found that the speculation was a bad one, they might say to the landowner—"You must take the land back." I consider that, not only on these grounds, but also on those urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), this Amendment is not only unsound in principle, but it seems to be inexpedient in point of practice.
  MR. CHANCE: I do not see the precise parallel between Railway Companies and agricultural labourers. I cannot help thinking that this clause would facilitate the working of the Act, instead of hampering it, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham thinks it would. As the proposal stands, the position of an unreasonable landlord will be this. He will say—"I will neither lease nor sell
  1942
  voluntarily, and thereby I shall be enabled to weary the Local Authority, and to put them to so great expense and trouble that they will be glad to band me the full fee simple of the land." If this Amendment were accepted what would be the position of the landlord who declined to lease or sell at a fair price? The Local Authorities, as a set off, might say—"If you decline to do anything voluntarily we will apply for a compulsory lease, and will not buy the land at all." This would compel unreasonable landowners to consider what their position was before they came to loggerheads with the Local Authorities; whereas, if a landowner were reasonable he could prevent compulsory power being exercised at all by either leasing or selling willingly at a fair price. In the face of these facts, I do not see how this Amendment could encumber the operation of the Act.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I should like to point out the difference between Ireland and England in this respect. It is asked why we should not apply this principle to England, seeing that a Conservative Government have already applied it to Ireland. In England a man may wish to sell his estate. In those times it may be of great importance to a man to realize either the whole or some part of his estate. If you pass this Amendment you absolutely take away from a landowner the right to realize his property. Do you think that is fair? If the land is taken for 99 years how is it possible for a man to sell it? [An hon. MEMBER: He could sell it subject to the lease.] There is nothing in the clause which bears such a contention out. The case of Ireland is totally different, because there you have passed laws already by which land is compulsorily taken away from the landowner for at least 15 years, and, so far as I have ever been able to understand, in perpetuity. The distinction between the two countries is perfectly clear. To deprive a landowner in England, at the present moment, of the possibility of realizing his property would be as gross an injustice as it is possible to do.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I am extremely anxious we should not go to a Division on the false issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin). Does

  1943
  the right hon. Gentleman contend for a moment that the length of lease—whether it be 7, 21, or 99 years, forbids a man to sell his estate if he is anxious to do so? If a landlord wished to sell his estate he would sell it subject to the compulsory lease and to all the conditions of tenancy existing under any circumstances. I never heard an argument addressed to any assembly of men so contrary to the first principles which regulate the commerce of land.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 135: Majority 85.—(Div. List, No. 421). [2.20 A.M.]
  MR. CONYBEARE: It is now half-past 2 o'clock, and I move that the Chairman report Progress. I hope the Government will now allow us to go home.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Conybeare).
  MR. CHANNING: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist in his Motion. I think the Committee are extremely anxious to go on with the Bill.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that we should spend two hours on the Bill.
  MR. RITCHIE: I trust the hon. Member will allow us to proceed. There is an Amendment in my name, which, I trust we shall be able to reach, and I suggest that we should go on, at any rate until a point is reached at which considerable discussion is likely to arise.
  MR. CONYBEARE: How long?
  MR. RITCHIE: I should like to finish the 3rd clause.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I shall press this Bill forward with all the force in my power. It may be that the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) wants to go home. But if that is so, why in Heaven's name does he not go? I am sure that the absence of the hon. Member, so far from injuring the Bill, would facilitate its progress.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am, under the circumstances, prepared to withdraw my Motion. But I may state, for the information of the right hon. Gentleman, that, personally, I am not at all anxious to go home, nor do I intend to do it. I
  1944
  made the Motion in the interest of Gentlemen on his own side of the House. As I said, I am quite prepared to withdraw the Motion; but I shall renew it at 3 o'clock:
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 32, at end, insert—Provided that—
  "(a.) Any question of disputed compensation, where the amount claimed or offered exceeds fifty pounds, shall not be referred to arbitrators or a jury as provided by 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' and the Acts amending the same, but shall be referred to the arbitration of a single arbitrator appointed by the parties, or if the parties do not concur in the appointment of a single arbitrator, then, on the application of either of them, by the Local Government Board, and the remuneration to be paid to the arbitrator appointed by the Local Government Board shall be fixed by that Board;
  "(b.) If an arbitrator appointed for the purposes of this Act dies or becomes incapable to act before he has made his award, or fails to make his award within two months after he is appointed, his appointment shall determine, and the determination of the compensation shall be referred to another arbitrator appointed in like manner as if no arbitrator had been previously appointed: Provided always, that the same arbitrator may be re-appointed;
  "(c.) An arbitrator appointed under this section shall be deemed to be an arbitrator within the meaning of ' The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845," and the Acts amending the same, and the provisions of those Acts with respect to an arbitration shall apply accordingly; and, further, the arbitrator shall have power to disallow as costs in the arbitration the costs of any witness whom he considers to have been called unnecessarily, and any other costs which he considers to have been incurred unnecessarily."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from lines 2 and 3, the words, "where the amount claimed, or offered, exceed fifty pounds."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 9, after "Board," insert, "which arbitrator shall be resident surveyor in the district."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIE: I think this would be a very unnecessary and injudicious Amendment. It might be, that the most desirable man to appoint does not reside in the county, and yet is very familiar with the value of the land.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I know very well what happens when an arbitrator is sent down by the Local Government Board or by the Board of Trade. The operation is generally a very expensive one, and gentlemen are sent down who know nothing about the value of the land in the district which they are to value. We want some one practically acquainted with the neighbourhood. I can assure the Committee that there is a serious expense incurred when these gentlemen are sent down from London, and I sincerely hope that the matter will be left to the local surveyors.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that, having had considerable experience in matters of this kind, the Board of Trade surveyors are frequently preferred. When I was at the Office of the Local Government Board, applications were made to me from time to time that a person unacquainted with the district should be sent down, because he would be likely to be more impartial.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHANCE: I propose to add, after the word "accordingly," in line 23—
  "But no compensation shall be awarded under this Act in respect of compulsion or for injury done or alleged to be done to the land compulsorily purchased."
  The latter part of the Amendment contains a technical definition from the Land Act of 1845, in which power is given to award damages in the case of what is called severance, which amount to 5 per cent. Now the practice has arisen of awarding 10 per cent to an unwilling landlord. My object is that this custom of giving 10 per cent to a foolish or unreasonable landlord, and 5 per cent by reason of the severance, should be done away with.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
  After "accordingly," in line 23, insert "but no compensation shall be awarded under this Act in respect of compulsion or for injury done or alleged to be done to the land compulsorily purchased."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): When the subject arose the other night I said that, in my opinion, the ordinary rule with regard to compensation should prevail in these cases. The hon. Member says there is some scale or standard of 5 per cent for compensation for severance. But there is nothing of the kind. In all cases of compensation it has to be proved by evidence that the land is damaged or injured. It is perfectly well known that there would be in some cases positive injustice in not allowing compensation for severance. There would be a strong objection on the part of the Government to the instruction being given which is contained in the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. Now, with regard to compulsory sale, for the reasons I shall put before the Committee, we must adhere to to the rule we have laid down. The present rule that rests on our recognized custom is this, that the market value is to be obtained—that is to say, the market value at the time the land is sold——
  MR. CHANCE(interrupting): I withdraw my Amendment in, order that we may discuss the question, of compulsion alone.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I would suggest that we should agree to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and then, report Progress, in order that the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing) may bring forward his Amendment as to compulsory purchase at the beginning of the next Sitting.
  MR. CHANNING: As the next Amendment stands in my name, I would venture to add a word in the same sense as the observations which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). I accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board down to the end of Subsection C. It simply carries out the object of the Amendment I had upon the Paper, which you, Sir, ruled out of

  1947
  Order here, the object of which was to substitute the procedure of the Artizans Dwellings Acts—the more economical arrangements provided under those Acts—for the procedure under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: I rise to Order. What is the Question before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: Of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  MR. CHANNING: When interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, I was saying that I was quite certain that on this side of the House the principle now suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be accepted as a great improvement on the original procedure suggested by the Government. We accept this procedure. Speaking for myself, I am quite willing to go on with ray my own Amendment; but I think that it will lead to protracted discussion, and it really raises such an important issue that I would add my own appeal to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford that this is a convenient point at which to adjourn the discussion.
  MR. RITCHIE: I hope we shall be allowed to go on with the Bill. No doubt, the 10 per cent addition to the cost of purchase, which we have to discuss, is of great importance; but I would point out that the arguments, one way and the other, are very simple, and may be put very shortly. I believe the Committee is desirous of proceeding as far as possible with the Bill to-night. The Session is rapidly coming to a close; and it is evident, if we do not push forward as fast as we can, and make great progress, it will not be possible for the measure to pass into law this Session. Instead of arguing whether or not we should proceed, the time would be much better employed in taking the discussion itself.
  MR. CHANCE: I observe that the Amendment gives arbitrary power to disallow the costs of any witness who may have been called unnecessarily; but I am in doubt whether that will be sufficient to cover persons unwilling to sell
  1948
  voluntarily, and to compel them to pay the whole costs of the arbitration. I would ask whether it is intended to compel the landlord, who is responsible for costs being increased under these circumstances, to pay the whole of those costs?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: This point will not be left to the arbitrator. All that the arbitrator will have to deal with will be with the land which will have to be bought and sold; I have nothing to do with the question of the conduct of the person by whom it is sold. It is nothing to me whether they act reasonably or unreasonably.
  MR. CHANCE: I would point out that there may be an unreasonable refusal on the part of the landowner to part with his land before the compulsory power comes into force at all. If there is such an unreasonable refusal, and compulsory power comes into force, I want to make sure that the Local Authority shall not be compelled to pay costs which his unreasonable conduct has involved.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: That matter must be dealt with by the Authority dealing with the Provisional Order.
  MR. RITCHIE: Might I suggest that the hon. Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing) should now move his Amendment?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It would be competent for the hon. Member for East Northampton to move his Amendment as a subsequent Amendment after this Amendment is agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly, That course could be taken if the hon. Member consents.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I now move that you, Sir, report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. In doing so, I wish to say that I think an Amendment of this importance ought not to be taken at this hour of the morning (10 minutes to 3 o'clock). I have supported the Government on a great number of their Amendments throughout the Bill, and I think I have some right to a voice in the matter of the adjournment of the discussion. I decline, for my part, to go into these Amendments which are to follow at this hour of the night.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know what the decision of the Government will be; but I suppose, under our present Rules, they really have no alternative but to consent to reporting Progress, if that course is insisted upon by any number of Members on this side of the House. If that is the course which is to be pursued, I hope that, at all events, it will be observed that the great majority of the Committee, including all the Members on the other side, and many hon. Members who take a great interest in this question on this side of the House, are prepared to go on with the Bill. We admit that it is inconvenient—personally inconvenient to us—to take a discussion of this kind so late at night, after we have already been in the House for a considerable time; but, looking at the period of the Session and to the chances of this important Bill, we are willing to make this sacrifice, and those hon. Gentlemen who are unwilling to make it must, of course, accept the full responsibility of their action. In case the Government should determine to yield to the pressure put upon them, by those hon. Members who say they are anxious that this Bill should pass, and that they are doing their best to enable it to pass, I should like the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to make some statement as to the future progress of the measure. If the Bill is not to be proceeded with, -we should be made acquainted with that decision of the Government as soon as possible, in order that we need not give attendance and exercise our minds with regard to a measure the fate of which is a foregone conclusion. If, on the other hand, Her Majesty's Government are determined that this measure shall receive the final decision of this House, then I think we have arrived at such a period of the Session that some definite statement of the kind I suggest ought to be made by the Government.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I hope that even yet the right hon. Member for Central Bradford will consent to forego this Motion, more especially as the opinion of the hon.
  1950
  Gentleman in whose name the next Amendment stands is that we should go on. I hope the Government will make it clear that, under all circumstances, however the measure may be opposed by any limited number of Gentlemen in any part of the House, they will carry the Bill before the Session concludes.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have no hesitation in responding to the appeal made to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chamberlain). I think that we should mark the course which has been pursued to-night at all events by a Division, in order that we may find upon the Division List who it is that is obstructing this Bill. There is no doubt that if hon. Members desire the postponement, and resolve to oppose the further progress of the Bill this evening, they can do so. They can stop its further progress as far as this Sitting is concerned; but I wish it to be distinctly understood that no efforts will be spared on the part of the Government to pass the Bill this Session. We will be no party to a Prorogation until this Bill is passed. Whatever facilities our past experience in this House have shown as expedients for us to adopt in order to make progress, we shall certainly in the future apply. I do not think it necessary to say further than that on this occasion—to say more than that we shall lose no opportunity of forwarding this Bill, and that it is our intention of ultimately passing it into law.
  MR. CHANNING: It is true that I some time ago expressed my willingness to go on with the Amendment; but after what has passed, seeing that it is the evident desire of many hon. Members to discuss this question in the only adequate way it can be discussed, at a proper hour of the night, I should be exceedingly ill-advised if I were not to support the Motion of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). I may add that I am heartily glad to have heard the announcement which has been at last elicited from the Leader of the House—the pledge that we shall have this question settled during the present Session of Parliament. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh; but I shall say what I have to say. Those whom I represent are deeply interested in this question; and we shall not only insist that this

  1951
  measure shall be passed, but that it shall be passed, as far as our powers will enable us to pass it, with those principles adopted, and those Amendments added to it, which will render it a useful and workable measure, and a boon to the people of this country.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I am quite willing to take upon myself the responsibility of stopping the Committee on the Bill at this point. It is unreasonable to ask us to proceed further at this time of the morning. I must repudiate the imputation made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham just now, and made a few nights ago against Members on this side of the House. I can speak with more independence on this subject, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have supported the Government on almost every Amendment made in this House. I think that on only one important amendment I have voted against them. Though I disagree in many important matters with many hon. Gentlemen around me, yet we have now arrived at a point of great importance, and to a matter which ought to be discussed, as it affects vitally the interests of men we represent outside this House; and I think, therefore, the suggestion now made is a most reasonable one. There is every desire on this side of the House that the measure should pass into law. I am perfectly ready to stay up in London another couple of days—[An hon. MEMBER: No; weeks]—in order that this Bill may be carried. If the Government is not prepared to give these two days to the discussion of the Bill, then I think the country will perfectly well understand that the reason the Bill is not carried is that too much of the Session has been wasted in the passing of Coercion Acts, that there has been no time to devote to the necessities of the agricultural labourers.
  MR. RITCHIE: The right hon. Gentleman talks about stopping up in London for a couple of days. I have no doubt, from his point of view, he endures a great deal of hardship, and makes a great deal of sacrifice; but I would point out that there is a great deal of Business which this House must transact before it can prorogue. It is not a question of a couple of days; but with the exigencies of Supply, and other matters which the House has to discuss
  1952
  before it can separate, it is essential that if the Bill is to pass into law we should make rapid progress with it while we have time. I would point out that, no doubt, what the right hon. Gentleman has saidistrue—nacnoly, that the Amendment which comes next is very important; but I would point out that the question of compulsory purchase is a question which has been discussed again and again during the progress of this Bill. ["No, no!"] I beg pardon, the question of value has been discussed again and again. But, whether that is so or not, whatever can be said for or against the Amendment can be said within half-an-hour, and I do hope that the Committee will devote at least another half-hour to this Bill, and endeavour to settle this particular question which, I admit, is an important one, but which does not require very much discussion.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: It is evident the great majority of this Committee are anxious to proceed with the Bill; therefore I think that, for that reason alone, we might appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give way to the general wish of hon. Members, particularly as the fate of the Bill depends upon the progress now made. We have been two nights debating this Bill, and have not finished yet three clauses. We have been two hours to-night debating one Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Ashburton Division of Devonshire (Mr. Seale-Hayne); and I think, seeing that the Committee is in good working order and anxious to make substantial progress with the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) ought to defer to the general wish of Members and finish the consideration of this clause, especially as, as has been pointed out incidentally, this clause has been discussed on and off ever since the Bill has been before the House.
  MR. COBB: It has been stated that if the Bill is not proceeded with now, there is a chance of its being lost. There is no chance of its being lost, because the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) has pledged us his word that it shall be carried. I regret very much indeed that; the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) should have taken this mode of

  1953
  introducing matters into which I am not going to enter myself. I regret all the more that this remark should have induced the First Lord of the Treasury to forget the undertaking he gave to the House earlier in the evening. It will be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Bill should be taken for a couple of hours to-night. We have now been debating it for upwards of two hours and a-half, and I certainly think it is most unreasonable we should be asked to go further.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 136: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No. 422.) [3.5 A.M.]
  MR. CHAINING: I now beg to move that—
  "The price to be paid for land acquired by compulsory purchase under this Act shall be such a sum as shall, in the opinion of such arbitrator, be the fair market value of such land, without any addition being made for compulsory purchase."
  I propose to add this as the 4th subsection of the Amendment which has been adopted by the Committee on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board; and I will do so, in consideration of the convenience of the Committee, in as brief a form as possible. I must say, however, that considering the very great importance that has been attached to the subject by many Members of this House who have gone thoroughly into it, and have expressed their opinions upon it as an essential point of this Bill—perhaps the most essential point of this Bill—it really seems to me unreasonable that we should be called upon to discuss such a very vital question at this hour (3.15) of the morning. If the feeling of the Committee is that we should proceed, I wish to say that I heartily welcome the alteration of procedure proposed by the President of the Local Government Board, because it carries out exactly what I have had in my mind, and is practically the same on principle as the Amendment which I laid on the Table of the House some four or live hours before the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) announced his own proposal—namely, the assimilation of the procedure of this Bill. [Interruption.] I hope hon. Gentlemen will do me the kindness to listen
  1954
  to my remarks without interruption, especially as they have insisted upon proceeding with this discussion at this unreasonable hour. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman carries out my own views, and assimilates the general procedure of this Act to the general procedure of the Artizans' Dwellings Acts. Let me remind the Legal Representatives of the Government of the wording of the Act of 1879—the Artizans' Dwellings Act, 1879, amending the Artizans' Dwellings Act, 1868—the 7th clause of which Act distinctly introduces the principle that there shall be no addition for compulsory purchase. The Act of 1882 carries that principle one step further, for it prohibits the arbitrator, appointed by the Local Government Board in the same way I suggested, going into all the circumstances which might increase and add to the expense of the compulsory purchase of land. I therefore wish to point out that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has adopted the principle of the Artizans' Dwellings Acts, and I ask him to adopt those principles in their entirety, and not to treat the agricultural labourers and those who wish to obtain land under this Act in a different spirit from that in which the town population has been treated under the Artizans' Dwellings Acts. It seems to me quite essential that we should adopt some such Amendment as I have suggested. There are many illustrations to be obtained from the most important evidence which has been laid before the House and the country on this subject in the Report of the Royal Commission of 1885, which sat on the housing of the working classes; and I refer hon. Members who may not have examined that Report as fully as I have had an opportunity of doing to some parts of the Report which show the absolute necessity of importing into this Act the principle of my Amendment. Dr. Downes, of Chelmsford, says that the arbitration price of land always enormously expands as soon as it is known that the land is wanted for sanitary purposes. This gentleman further instanced before the Royal Commission the case of a quarter of an acre of salt marsh land in Essex, for which the Sanitary Authority had to pay no less than £244, besides their solicitor's costs. The price alone paid to the owner was

  1955
  £172. On being questioned as to the actual market value of this land, Dr. Downes stated that the market value did not amount to more than £20. I ask the Government, or the majority of the Committee, if they are really in earnest in wishing to enable Local Authorities to buy land without paying for it such an excessive price that they cannot let it without loss to the rates? Dr. Downes was of opinion that where land had clearly no other value, so far as one can judge, but an agricultural value, the price paid should be no more than such agricultural value. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) has dealt with this question very fully; he has dealt with it very fully in the somewhat interesting episode before the Royal Commission. On the Commission there was a sort of duel between the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and Lord Salisbury, who presided over the Commission at that time, in which Lord Salisbury tried to press upon the right hon. Gentleman his principle of compulsory purchase, and in which the right hon. Gentleman maintained successfully his own principle that nothing extra should be paid for compulsory purchase. The right hon. Gentleman went into his own experiences with regard to the town of Birmingham, and he showed that, even with regard to those districts where they were permitted to apply the procedure of the Artizans' Dwellings Act, the loss was exceedingly heavy; but that if the procedure of the Artizans' Dwellings Act had not been invoked the loss would have been still heavier. I sincerely hope, in dealing with this Amendment, that I have shown some ground why the Government should yield to my proposal. It seems to me only reasonable, when you consider that all you want to secure is that a certain number of humble men should add to their income, to the small comforts of their home, and elevate themselves and their children in the way that they can by labour of this kind, that you should really make your Bill a genuine Bill, and enable the Local Authorities to buy land at a reasonable price, at a fair market value, and not saddle the Local Authority with all these fancy values that the practice of arbitration has added, mainly, as is well known, in order to meet the unreasonable fears
  1956
  and prejudices that were raised upon the introduction of the great railway schemes of 40 years ago. These rules of arbitration are largely due to the jealousy of landowners of the railway system. On the 11th of January last year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in a remarkable speech of special moment, pointed out that the country was saddled with £2,000,000 a-year by the introduction of this principle in regard to railways only. If the Government really intend the agricultural labourers and the artizans to have allotments at a reasonable agricultural rent, a rent which would let the allotment tenant live and thrive, I ask how they are to carry that out unless they enable the Local Authorities to buy at a reasonable price? It is monstrous to allow extra values to be imported into the consideration of the purchase. I feel quite sure that in this Amendment I shall have the hearty support of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham. I can hardly imagine that he can refuse to give his support to a proposal carrying out his own principle, to which he attached such vital importance in the speech to which I have referred, and in which he said a good many hard things of the Tory Party for finding fault with him for asserting that Local Authorities should be able to buy land at a reasonable price without fanciful additions on account of compulsory purchase. I should like to know why any landowner should get any more than he would obtain if his land was let to an agricultural tenant? If he let it to allotment holders, he would have to add to the rent, the rates, and tithes, and this would be fair and just. But in this case, when giving up his land to the Local Authority, that he should have additional values paid over to him over and above the actual market value of his land seems to me perfectly monstrous and absurd. But the main point on which I rest my Amendment is this—that if you do not adopt a principle of this kind, you would be acting inconsistently with the principle adopted in the Bill, and render it absolutely nugatory and futile for the purposes intended—namely, to provide labourers with land at an agricultural rent. I would remind the President of the Local Government Board that he

  1957
  himself said, on the second reading, that one of the principles of this Bill was that labourers and artizans should get the land at an agricultural value. I do not believe that is stated in the Bill, and I think that is one of the points where we want further definition; but, however that may be, if he is really in earnest, I do invite him to have the fairness and consistency to adopt my Amendment, and make this Bill a real and a valuable one.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words—"(d.) The price to be paid for land acquired by compulsory purchase under this Act shall be such a sum as shall, in the opinion of such arbitrator, be the fair market value of such lands, without any addition being made for compulsory purchase."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I shall not follow the hon. Member in the somewhat lengthy disquisition he has given; but if he imagines that the terms he demands are corresponding to the Artizans' Dwellings Act he is under a mistake. He has given us a long disquisition as to the price and value of land for railway purposes. There was no necessity for that, because land is now valued at market value; and if no direction were given at all, it would be taken at the fair market value at the time it is taken. The allowance of 10 per cent, or whatever amount be given, for compulsory sale arose in this way. The Act says nothing about allowance for compulsory sale. It is perfectly well known that it was a development of the system of valuation. You may have land that is valuable on account of its growing into accommodation land, or for building purposes, and those who first had to form an estimate under the words "full and fair compensation" decided that an allowance to cover contingencies should be given, and accordingly the custom of giving 10 per cent was introduced until it now prevailed. It is perfectly true, though not in any Statute, that it has been recognized in Courts of Law and by the Legislature on several occasions. It is important to remember that everyone with land bought compulsorily has
  1958
  had the compensation assessed on the same basis as land compulsorily taken for gas works and water works, which are not in the same category. There is one exception made, and that was made in connection with the Artizans' Dwellings Act, which was for the purpose of providing dwellings for the poor. In respect of healthy properties, compensation was given for compulsory sale, but not in respect of unhealthy properties. What I submit to the Committee is this—that if there is to be any alteration in the law, it should be by some general enactment that would apply in all matters where land is taken compulsorily. I submit there is no reason why, when land is bought compulsorily, that either standard of compensation shall be fixed, and we have nothing to do with the fancy values the hon. Gentleman has referred to. The whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) was directed to the fancy values for land taken for railway purposes. [Mr. CHANNING: That was in January, 1886.] No one can suggest, with respect to agricultural land, any such question has been raised, and I therefore simply say that, with regard to market value, there is no dispute and no necessity for the Amendment; and, with regard to the present value, no charge is necessary, or, if there is, it should be made by a general enactment.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to move that you do leave the Chair.
  THIS CHAIRMAN: Probably the hon. Member would be content with moving to report Progress?
  MR. CONYBEARE: Yes, Mr. Courtney; I will move that you report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  MR. CHANCE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Bill will be reprinted as far as it has gone?
  MR. RITCHIE: I hope the Committee will not consent to report Progress. I think the Committee is competent to come to a decision, and I hope they will be prepared to dispose of this

  1959
  Amendment. With reference to the reprint of the Bill, I would point out that, so far as we have gone, there is not much Amendment in the Bill, except the insertion of this provision, which I hope the Committee will assent to, and I hope, in any case, the Committee will not consent to report Progress.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I think it is one more flagrant instance of the way in which the Government break faith. We were distinctly promised we should not work more than two hours. We have now been working three hours, and we could not dispose of the Amendments in two or throe more hours. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen who enjoy themselves on their moors and in their yachts—["Oh, oh!"]—they certainly have not been here, and I take my stand upon the declaration made by the Leader of the House, and I maintain at this hour of the morning, when we have to resume to-morrow, and are sitting six and not five days a-week, it is unheard of and monstrous to ask hon. Gentlemen to go on.
  MR. CHAPLIN: There is no breach of faith whatever on the part of the Government; it is entirely in the imagination of the hon. Member. The hon. Member asked the Committee to consent to sit for two hours, but there was nothing said about not desiring to sit for more than two hours; and, under those circumstances, and after the Division we have just had, which showed that three-fourths of the Committee desired to proceed, why should the hon. Member object to go on? I have had the honour of a seat in this House for a good many years; but I never remember such a course to be pursued as that adopted by the hon. Member. He has contributed nothing to the information of the Committee, and if he would accept my advice he would go home, and allow us to proceed with the Bill.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I do hope the Government will consent to report Progress. ["No !"] I do not think I have unduly occupied the attention of the Committee; but this is a question of very great importance, which we should like to speak upon. Our constituents desire to know what is our opinion on this subject, which they cannot do when the discus-
  1960
  sion is taken at this time in the morning, as what we say is not reported. I think that is a very legitimate reason for asking the Committee to consent to report Progress.
  The Committee proceeded to a Division, and the Chairman stated that he thought the Noes had it; and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Ayes to stand up in their places, and fifteen Members only having stood up, the Chairman declared the Noes had it.
  Original Question again proposed.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I claim to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 28: Majority 101.—(Div. List, No. 423.) [3.40 A.M.]
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 118: Majority 77.—(Div. List, No. 424.) [3.50. A.M.]
  MR. COBB: As the Committee shows it does not wish for any further discussion, I will simply move the next Amendment in my name. The words will, I think, explain the object.
  Amendment proposed, as an addition to Mr. Ritchie's Amendment (Clause 3, page 2, line 32), add—
  "(d.) If the compensation ordered to be paid to any vendor under any arbitration under this section shall not exceed an amount which the sanitary authority shall, before the appointment of the arbitrator, have offered in writing to the vendor, he shall pay all costs, fees, charges, and expenses of every description relating to such arbitration;
  "(e.) The arbitrator shall, in case of difference, decide the amount of costs, fees, charges, and expenses to be allowed in respect of the arbitrator, or any matter arising thereon, and in no case shall any fee or expenses be allowed to more than one surveyor or witness as to value on the part of the sanitary authority and vendor respectively."—(Mr. Cobb.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) : I am afraid that the Government cannot assent to this Amendment.
  R. CONYBEAREIt seems to me that this is a very practical Amendment indeed, and I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman opposite objects to it. I suppose the real explanation is that hon. Members opposite object to everything, and they do not want to discuss this Bill. I can quite understand that probably at this hour in the morning they are not in a condition to discuss it, and under these circumstances, Mr. Courtney, it is perfectly absurd to attempt to go on with anything like serious legislation at this hour.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Speak for yourself.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Well, I am speaking for myself; I usually do. Under these circumstances, I claim to move that the whole clause be now put.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in Order in making such a Motion.
  MR. CHANCE: The last Motion was a Closure Motion, and therefore this Motion would be consequential.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No.
  MR. CHANCE: After a Motion to report Progress has been closured and negatived, the whole clause has been put. That was done several times while the Coercion Bill was before the House.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Just so; but in the interval another Motion was made that certain words be inserted, therefore this is not consequential.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think some hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on this side of the House are taking a mistaken course in regard to Amendments to this Bill. I think it is their duty to press the Amendments on the Government, and to call upon the Government to reject them if they deem it wise to do so. This will expose the conduct of hon. Members who insist on discussions taking place at an hour in the morning when it is impossible that adequate discussion should take place. I therefore propose to move that you report Progress and ask leave to sit again. So far as I am concerned hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway may or may not support me; but I do not in-
  1962
  tend to sit here any longer to support any Amendment which is not seriously intended and is not to be seriously discussed. What is the good of taking part in a sham? I do not see any good in it, and if they do not see any good in supporting or voting for them it would be far better to let the whole Bill pass without further discussion. Here we have hon. Gentlemen who assume to be the friends of the labourers supporting Motions which practically smother discussion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. RITCHIE: The Amendments to Clause 3 not yet dealt with are, with the exception of the one now before the House, of a very trifling character. I therefore hope the hon. and learned Member will not press his Motion for reporting Progress. The Government will consent to progress being reported after Clause 3 has been disposed of, and it ought to take but very few minutes to do that, as some of the Amendments are out of Order, and some relate to very small matters.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I think the Committee having gone so far as they have done might as well finish the clause. I think it is a little unreasonable to expect us to go on with the discussion; but after the way in which the last Amendment was carried, it is only right further discussion should take place, and an opportunity for that will occur on the Report stage. The remaining Amendments to the clause are altogether unimportant, so I hope we will dispose of them, and then adjourn. For my part, I do not intend to stay any longer.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: After what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, I will ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  MR. BIGGAR: I am exceedingly sorry that my hon. and learned Friend proposes to withdraw his Motion. It is a scandal for us to be here taking part in the solemn farce of pretending to discuss important Amendments to a Bill at 4 o'clock in the morning without the slightest idea of the decisions arrived at upon them being

  1963
  influenced by either argument or common sense. If this goes on, the only value attaching to this Bill will be that of waste paper. It seems to me that it is only an electioneering dodge, and not a single allotment is likely to be given in accordance with its provisions. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway should do one of two things: they should either fight this clause in a bonâ fide manner, or let the Government pass the Bill as they passed the Coercion Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 133: Majority 117.—(Div. List, No. 425.) [3.55 A.M.]
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line line 34, after "Act," insert "together with any Act confirming a Provisional Order under this section."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CONYBEARE: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going to move an Amendment without telling the Committee what it is about.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD(Mr. RITCHIE): It is merely a formal Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill) pointed out that, in his opinion, these words were necessary to make the clause clear. On examination we find there is a good deal to be said for the view he takes, so we move the Amendment, in order to secure that the Bill shall not come to an end in the way he fears.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: The object of the Amendment I am about to move is to leave out a lot of surplus words which really have no purpose there. I apprehend that no Sanitary Authority will require to take a park, garden, or pleasure ground, and if the words I propose to leave out are omitted, I think the clause, as amended, will provide ample protection for the landlord.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 40, to leave out from "the following," to "have regard," in page 3, line 4, both
  1964
  inclusive, and insert "regard shall be had."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): We cannot possibly accept this Amendment. If the words are left out there will be no protection of any kind against parks and pleasure grounds being taken. It is necessary that some provision should be inserted.
  MR. CHANNINGI invite my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, as I am exceedingly anxious that the Government should consider favourably an Amendment which stands in my name to extend Sub-section A, so as to include existing allotments.
  MR. CHANCE: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has hardly stated with his usual fairness the result of the Amendment. Under these words all re-sonable rights of a landowner would be safeguarded. We have heard a great deal from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) about the danger of tying the hands of a Sanitary Authority; but now when it comes to the question of giving some reasonable power to that authority, I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will go into the Lobby against it. I submit that there may be eases in which land will be alleged to be park, garden, or pleasure grounds, when it is really only agricultural land, and unless you accept this Amendment the Local Authority will be precluded from taking such ground for allotment. If the clause is allowed to stand as at present in the Bill, it will merely afford an ingenious and simpler method whereby landowners can get out of any operation of the Act; they can plant a few shrubs or sticks in the ground, and say it is a garden, knowing the great elasticity in which the Courts in Ireland interpret such words as "home farm." I am afraid they will only afford a landlord an escape from doing what he ought.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I can hardly think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Seale-Hayne) is serious in putting down such an Amendment as this. The only purpose

  1965
  it can serve is to continue a discussion that we all know is useless; for everyone knows they would not give power to interfere with parks and pleasure gardens. There is no earthly use for such an Amendment, except to take up the time of the Committee.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I think it might frequently be necessary to take a portion of a farm, and I must therefore insist upon it.
  MR. CONYBEARE: We all know there are plenty of parks that extend for mile upon mile in this country, and what does any man want with some hundreds or thousands of acres round his house, except to be selfish enough to hide himself from the gaze of his neighbours? I know of some great parks where you have miles and miles of drive up to the house, and it is absurd to say in all these cases the necessity might not arise for taking an out of the way corner which would not injure the park, and might be most important to the district. There is Chatsworth, for instance, where there is almost a village standing in the middle of the park, and if it was necessary that a portion of that should be taken, I see no reason why it should not be done. I hope, therefore, the Amendment will be pressed to a Division.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I appeal to my hon. Friend (Mr. Seale Hayne) not to press this Amendment. What we want is agricultural land at an agricultural price, and we do not want to interfere with parks and pleasure grounds.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I will not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I wish to move the Amendment standing in my name—namely, to insert the words "or meadow land," and I do so because I think it most important to farmers.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 43, after the words "pleasure ground" to insert the words "or meadow land." —(Mr. Jeffreys.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I hope the hon. Member will defer his Amend-
  1966
  ment until the Report, because I am not quite sure whether the exact words he proposes will meet the case he wishes to bring before the Committee.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I will postpone my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. F. S. POWELL: I will also defer my Amendment in the same place, in order to meet the convenience of the Committee.
  MR. MAC INNES: The Amendment in my name proposes to deal with land owned by Railway Companies, which has not yet been brought into use, and I hope the Government will accept it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 2, after "dwelling-house," insert "or any land the property of a Railway Company which is, or may be, required for the purposes of their undertaking."—(Mr. Mac Innes.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIE: I think it is a very reasonable Amendment.
  MR. CHANCE: I think it would be better if it ran in this form—"or any land already compulsorily acquired by any Public Company for their undertaking." That would apply to other Companies than Railway Companies, and you may require to take land from gas works and water works.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member (Mr. Mac Innes) put it in that form?
  MR. MACINNES: The suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Chance) comes upon me suddenly; but, so far as I can consider it off-hand, it appears to be reasonable.
  MR. RITCHIE: I think the words suggested by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny might be accepted, and we would consider the question between now and Report, and if necessary alter them upon Report.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: The words of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny are not so satisfactory as the words of the original proposal, which applies to the land required by a Railway Company for their undertaking; but the Amendment of the hon. Member for South

  1967
  Kilkenny includes all land in the same category.
  MR. CHANCE: I would propose, then, merely to add "Railway, Gas, or Water Company."
  MR. RITCHIE: It would be better if the hon. Member will allow us to accept the Amendment as it stands on the Paper, and then it can be altered on Report if necessary.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. CHANNING: I hope the Committee will consent to accept the small addition I propose by my Amendment to the clause. I think it most desirable that existing allotments should be excluded from the compulsory powers of the Act. This is a point on which some of my own constituents feel strongly.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 2, after "house," insert "or any labourers' allotments or allotment gardens, whether attached to, or detached from cottages, or any places of worship or education, or any churchyard or burial ground."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIE: I cannot conceive any demand to purchase any churchyard or burial ground, and therefore I think the proposal is quite unnecessary. It is quite possible labourers may have allotments that may be of too high a rent, and it might be necessary for the local authority to apply for power to take the land at a smaller amount.
  MR. CHANCE: They would have to do that on the basis of excessive rent.
  MR. RITCHIE: No doubt. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHANCE: I think it would be very desirable to allow leases to be made for a term not exceeding 35 years, as 21 years is rather a short period. I therefore move that.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 14, to leave out the words "twenty-one," in order to insert the words "thirty-five."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'twenty-one' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. RITCHIE: I think that 21 years is sufficiently long, and it is a term much better known in this country than that
  1968
  of 35 years, which is quite an unknown quantity for a lease in this country. Twenty-one years is a term that is generally understood.
  MR. CHANCE: All I can say is, that legislation in this instance is proceeding backwards. The whole tendency of modern land legislation is to increase the power of the limited owner. I think it is unreasonable to ask people to erect a little dwelling or greenhouse upon land, the term for which will run out in 21 years, and I believe it would prevent the tenants improving the place. In face of the Settled Land Acts, I say that 35 years is not an unknown or unreasonable term at law. I must press the Amendment, which only asks for a small concession, though it is a real one, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman should object to it.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am quite certain the hon. Member would find they would be ready to make any of these improvements on a lease of 21 years.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: If this Amendment is pressed to a Division I shall support it. In the neighbourhood of towns allotments will be largely taken by the better class of labourers, for the purposes of growing fruit and glass culture, and 35 years lease is not unreasonable. It is a small concession, and if you cannot give the 35 make it 28.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am opposed to any limitation of the kind, and I cannot understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to tie down the hands of contracting parties by putting in these words. Why should not the parties be perfectly free to make their own arrangements in point of time as well as in respect of other conditions? It is totally foreign to sound legislation.
  MR. RITCHIE: As it is only an enabling clause, I will accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'thirty-five' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, at end, insert the following sub-section:—"The county or any other authority shall not acquire any right to minerals, nor prejudice the rights to minerals, under such lands."—(Mr. Ainslie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CONYBEARE: I think it would be most undesirable to add those words, and lay down a principle of this kind. As it is, the reservation of mines and minerals by written title is a curse and a burden to the industry of this country; and if there was any excuse by which we could invest is the community at large the rights wrongly taken from the people, we ought certainly to avail ourselves of it. I shall certainly oppose this Amendment, because I consider if you are giving the community a right to the compulsory acquisition of land, everything beneath the land should go along with the surface. That is the principle which landowners themselves act upon, and they would never think of taking the surface without the minerals, or of depriving themselves of the minerals; and therefore I say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In this case, there is every reason why the community should have the benefit of the minerals.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The hon. Member's constituents will be very much surprised at the views of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CONYBEARE: No, they will not.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Then they will not have any chance of obtaining allotments, if they have to pay the price of minerals under them; and I am surprised that the hon. Member should make any such ridiculous and insincere remarks.
  MR. CHANCE: On this occasion I find myself in unexampled accordance with the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham; but I do not think the Amendment goes far enough, as it does not prescribe that the full value shall not be paid; and I would move to add to the Amendment the words, "nor shall compensation be paid by them in respect thereof."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): That would not be the right way to introduce it; it should be done by a Definition Clause, that the land should not include the minerals. It would be ridiculous to buy the minerals when they would have no power to get them; but we will consider the matter between this and Report.
  MR. CONYBEARE: If it should be found that, when the allotments had
  1970
  been taken, there were minerals under them, why should the community he deprived of the benefit of them, and allow a landlord who had sold the land without knowing anything of the minerals, to have the advantage of them? I shall certainly press the matter.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: It has been decided in Courts of Law that minerals include all substances under the soil, and that there is no such thing as land without minerals; therefore, the Reservation Clause would have to be general.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. RITCHIE: I beg now, Sir, to propose that you do report Progress; and upon this question I would say the Government propose to take the Bill again on Saturday, when they rely upon the Committee to render them all the assistance in their power to complete the Bill on that day.
  MR. CONYBEARE: When is it proposed to take the Mines Regulation Bill again?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am unable to speak as to that; but I will communicate with the First Lord of the Treasury as to the course of Business, and due Notice will be given.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  MR. COBB: I wish to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that, as we are at this point, we may as well finish the Bill. We have already been more than double the time we ought to have been, and it would be better now to finish it.
  MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Gentleman has not made that suggestion seriously?
  MR. COBB: I did.
  MR. RITCHIE: He must know that I could not meet him, and that we are under an engagement to report Progress directly Clause 3 was completed; and, therefore, it is necessary we should report Progress.
  MR. CHANNING: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman is not quite correct. The First Lord of the Treasury said we were to go on for two hours in Committee. Then the right hon. Gen-

  1971
  tleman said the Government wished to go on till they reached a controversial point, and then, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) moved to report Progress, it was agreed, after that Motion, to go on until my Amendment was disposed of. I shall take some opportunity of pointing out to the country the action of the Government in dealing with this Bill and that the most important Amendment to-night has been closured by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and that he was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), although the matter under discussion was just that principle to which he had attached formerely such importance.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the Saturday Sitting be subject to the Wednesday Rule?
  MR. RITCHIE: I apprehend that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is under an engagement to apply the Wednesday Rule.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: After our experience of last Saturday, I do not see the use of Members coming down here to do nothing.
  MR. COBB: I shall come down perfectly prepared to finish the Bill, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to let us have whatever Amendments he has now to propose by tomorrow morning.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to give Notice that I shall oppose any Motion to apply the Wednesday Rule to the Sitting of Saturday next.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Saturday.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock in the morning.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Forestry [No. 240].
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Metropolitan Police* (242); Savings Banks and Government Annuities * (213); Sheriff of Lanarkshire* (244).
Second Reading—Conveyancing (Scotland) Acts Amendment (233); Open Spaces (Dublin) (213), negatived; Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts Amendment (238).
Committee—Trustee Savings Banks (221–215).
Report—Stannaries Act (1869) Amendment* (228).
Third, Reading—Lieutenancy Clerks Allowances * (231); Public Works Loans (234), and passed.

CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 233.)
(The Marquess of Lothian.)
CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 233.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time said, he greatly regretted that the Bill had been introduced so late into their Lordships' House. It dealt with a

  1777
  question in which many of their Lordships were greatly interested, and involved technicalities of law which they should have a full opportunity of discussing. Many noble Lords who were now absent, he knew, would have attended had they been aware that the Bill would be proceeded with this Session. However, the measure had in another form been before their Lordships on a previous occasion. The subject was not altogether new, and he could shortly place before their Lordships reasons for giving a second reading to the Bill. Its principle had been approved unanimously by the other House of Parliament. The object of the Bill was to amend the Conveyancing Act of 1874. He might briefly explain the change effected in the law of Scotland by that Act. The system of feus which resulted from the old military system of feudality had existed for a very long period. Lands were held for a tenure which involved the rendering of certain military services, and in course of time these services were commuted for a money payment known as feu- duties, and money payments were taken from the tenants when the lands changed hands under the name of casualties. There were two different kinds of casualties—one was payable by the heir-at-law when he succeeded to lands, and generally amounted to double the annual feu-duty. That was called a relief. The other kind of casualty was paid by his successor, who was not the heir-at-law, but took by bequest, sale, or by any other way in which the lands held in feu were passed. In this latter case the casualty amounted to a much larger sum than that payable by the heir-at-law. It was generally equivalent to one year's rental of the lands held in feu. Their Lordships would see at once that this casualty payable by the "singular successor" was a very heavy burden on the laud held in feu, and in order to avoid and escape the payment to the superior of this heavy burden, a system was devised which, by means of a legal fiction, enabled the singular successor to evade the payment of the composition. It was done in this way:—The singular successor was not entered directly as vassal of the superior, but the heir-at-law was by an agreement entered as the direct vassal, and consequently only double the amount of feu-duty came to
  1778
  the superior, instead of the year's rent of the land in question. It was a question, how far purchasers availed themselves of this practice. By the Act of 1874 the system under which, by reason of the legal fiction to which he had referred, the heir-at-law was able to be interposed as between the singular successor and the superior became impossible, because by operation of the Statute the singular successor held directly of the superior, and therefore there was no possibility of the heir-at-law being interjected so as to enable the singular successor to pay only the smaller instead of the larger casualty. How far the Act of 1874 was intended to make this alteration had been a matter of discussion. Several law cases had been brought in consequence of the doubt cast upon the interpretation of the Statute, and one of these had been before their Lordships' House. Although eminent Scottish Judges differed in opinion on the interpretation, on appeal to their Lordships' House, the decision of the majority of the Scottish Judges was unanimously confirmed—namely, that it became impossible under the clause which this Bill proposed to amend that the heir-at-law should be interposed as between the superior and the singular successor. Although there was great difference of opinion on the subject, he was advised by the present Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland, and he was informed that it was also the opinion of the late Lord Advocate and the late Solicitor General for Scotland, that the effect of this Bill would be simply and solely to restore things to what they were previously to the passing of the Act of 1874. It would simply make now by Act of Parliament that legal which was done before by a legal fiction. He did not mean to say that there was an improper evasion of the law in that legal fiction; because it was recognized as justifiable after the very strong expression of opinion in the House of Commons, and after the view expressed by the present Law Officers of the Crown on the effect of this clause. Their Lordships would agree that they would by this measure do away with an undoubted hardship, and impose upon, the vassal the same duties which had been exacted from him before. After the decision of their Lordships' House, there could be no doubt whatever of the effect

  1779
  of the Act of 1874, and he questioned very much whether those who passed the Act ever anticipated that such results would follow from its interpretation. With regard to the second clause of the Bill, there could be very little doubt of the desirability of passing it. Its object was that trustees should not be liable to the larger casualties which they might be called upon to pay as singular successors whilst they represented the heir-at-law. It was quite possible that trustees might be called upon to pay the larger casualties, simply because they were not the heir-at-law. The purpose of the clause was to do away with the possibility of au injustice of that kind. He trusted that their Lordships would give a second reading to the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he re-cognized the difficulty in which the Government had been placed by the conduct of Public Business in the House of Commons; but he could not help observing that a great number of Peers in Scotland and others interested in this Bill had no idea that it was to be proceeded with so late in the Session. Many noble Lords would otherwise have been present to discuss a measure which affected so large an amount of property. At the same time, he would be reluctant to oppose the second reading, not only having regard to the position of the Government, but to the fact that he agreed with his noble Friend opposite, in at least one-half of his speech. One of the main objects of the Bill it was most desirable to attain. The reform which it proposed to effect was one which he entirely approved of in one respect—that was, the removal of the trustees of an estate from, the position of being accounted, by a mere technicality, singular successors in the estate. That was provided for in Clause 2; but he was compelled to say that he thought the 1st clause was open to the most serious objections in point of public principle, and that it would inflict very great hardship on the proprietors of the land in Scotland. He regretted that it was necessary for him to go back a great way. It was impossible to treat these rights of property without going back to their history and origin. The Secretary for Scotland had touched on the
  1780
  question of the feudal law. There were a great many persons in England who thought it was sufficient to condemn anything to say that it was feudal; but in. Scotland the word "feudal" had no such public prejudice against it. On the contrary, feudal tenures in the modern form were the popular tenures. They were very unlikely in Scotland to have any of the difficulties with which they were threatened in England about the enfranchisement of leaseholders. Most Scotsmen refused to build at all, except on feus which were a perpetual tenure, and feus were popular investments. Trustees continually invested in them, and the property of minors and the funds of widows and children were put into feus. A great many of the burghs of Scotland were proprietors of feus, and a great deal of their income depended on feus and on the casualties arising therefrom. This Bill therefore dealt with a most important subject and with a vast amount of property, touching, as it did, the funds of minors, widows, children, and public corporations, who were all concerned in the present state of the Feudal Law of the country. He ventured, therefore, to say, that if there was any part of this Bill which was not contentious it would be well to proceed with that during the present Session, and to delay the contentious part of the question to a future occasion. He wanted to point out to their Lordships some important objections to the first part of this Bill. In modern times feus were seldom given of agricultural estates, but almost always for building purposes. In ancient times, however, estates were given on the same tenure, and the universal condition of those feus was an annual feu duty, sometimes almost nominal, and sometimes substantial, depending upon the particular occasion. Occasional dues were also required—such as in England, under copyhold tenure, were known as fines, but which in Scotland were called casualties, because they only occurred as particular cases arose. During the Middle Ages great abuses arose in this direction, heavy dues being exacted for marriage and wardship of minors. A remarkable historical change had taken place in these dues owing to the alarm and panic excited by the Rebellions of 1715 and 1745. The alarm passed away, but left some permanent effect. It attracted the attention of Parliament and

  1781
  of public men to the state of the Feudal Law in Scotland, and led to a great reform, principally under the guidance of one of the most eminent and celebrated men that Scotland had ever produced—namely, Forbes of Culloden, long President of the Court of Session in Scotland and one of the greatest lawyers and statesmen of his day. The anxiety to which he had referred gave rise to an Act passed in 1747. It was passed early in the year, and Forbes of Culloden died at the conclusion of the year; but it was his contribution in the main to the future government of the country. He earnestly wished that those Members of their Lordships' House who were interested in this particular question would look at that Statute. They were now dealing with the question of agrarian reform; but, as far as he could see, modern Statutes upon that question were characterized by a total absence of any intelligible principle. At that time there had been no weakness in removing tenures, or incidents of tenure, which were at variance with public policy; they were condemned, and they were swept away. On the other hand, there had been no weakness in refusing to make those alterations compatible with justice and private rights. The principle of the Act of 1747 was to abolish all those casualties which were dangerous to the public interest, but to abolish them by the principle of commutation. Some were abolished absolutely, such as those on wardship and marriage of minors, and all those which were deemed contrary to the interests of the State or to the improvement of land tenure in Scotland. But the superiors whose rights were swept away were entitled to compensasation from their tenants or vassals, and the duty of seeing what should be the commutation price was laid upon the Court of Session—the highest Court in Scotland. This Act, however, did not abolish the payment of the casualty to be paid on a change of family, the ancient principle of Feudal Law being that the superior had given the land to the vassal and his heirs for ever, and if the land was sold a casualty of a year's rent was demanded. From 1747 to the present day casualties upon the succession of a purchaser had been regularly paid, and they were as much part of the income from feus as the annual Feu Duty. He must
  1782
  direct the attention of their Lordships to a singular circumstance connected with these casualties. The casualty did not merge until the death of the seller. Of course the seller of an estate might live for 20 or 40 years after the sale; and during the whole of that time the title of the purchaser would be incomplete under the Feudal Law. He need not tell their Lordships how disagreeable it was to hold an estate with an imperfect title. In order to avoid this a device was set up. A mid-superiority was created. That was the state of things until the other day. For many years he believed this device was never tested. No such case actually arose until 1821 to deprive the superior of his casualty. Then it was found that as it was possible to interpose a mid-superiority between the tenant and the superior, it might be found possible to carry it further, so as to deprive a superior of his casualty. That was the state of matters down to 1838. A Commission of a very powerful character was in that year appointed to look into the question in Scotland. The Commissioners recommended that all these mid-superiorities should be done away with, and the fact of a man being duly infefted ipso facto constituted him vassal of the superior. This recommendation of the Commission of 1838 was never carried into effect until the year 1874. He was then in communication with the then Lord Advocate, and other Members of the Government at that time; and they pointed out to him that the Bill was drawn up in strict accordance with the recommendation of the Commissioners of 1838, that it was in strict accordance with the general course of reform in land tenures in Scotland, and they also stated that it proceeded on the principle of the Act of 1747, and gave the power of commutation to the vassal for these casualties, and fixed the commutation rate. For one and a half casualty every vassal could free his property from liability for these casualties. That was the main hinge of the Statute of 1874, and it was the principle on which Parliament had always acted in the abolition of duties, imposts, dues, or customs. He confessed that in 1874 he thought the commutation rate very low. A year's rent might be obviously due within seven months, and the vassal would escape, and the estate would be

  1783
  free for ever by paying the casualty, which, would be thus due in a few months, and a half more. The then Lord Advocate held that it was a very low rate of commutation; but it was a great object of public policy to get rid of these casualties, and in other respects it was an important improvement of the Feudal Law. He at once assented to these reasons, and was a willing party to the compromise of 1874. Some persons said that there was no bargain in the matter. True, there was no personal bargain. There could and ought to be no personal bargains in questions of this kind; but on the face of the Statute there was that compromise and balance between opposing interests which had marked the progress of all reform in these tenures in Scotland. On the one hand, the vassal was relieved of a great number of legal forms and barriers which it was necessary to go through in order to complete his title; and, on the other hand, a power of redemption was given to him as against his superior. From his own experience, as well as on the highest authority in Scotland—that of the late Lord Curriehill—he knew that the exaction of these casualties were as much accounted a regular part of the feudal duties as the annual Feu Duty. Lord Curriehill was the greatest conveyancing lawyer in Scotland, and had mainly to do with the drawing up of the Act of 1874. Parliament had been told in "another place" that these casualties were easily evaded, and that the Act of 1874 had done a great injustice in closing the door to evasion. That was a mistake. The Judges of the Court of Session on several occasions when these questions had come before them, although with all reserve judicially, had distinctly found that the evasion was one of a statutory obligation. By the Statute of 1747 all these customary obligations became statutory obligations; and the Court of Session had particularly alluded to them as statutory obligations. It was an entire misrepresentation of the fact to suppose that the Act of 1874 was drawn up in contempt of the rights of the vassals. With regard to the general question, how far this was contrary to public policy, he did not profess to say. As matters now stood, as affecting large estates, he did not think a change would lead to the improvement of land. He was, nevertheless, disposed to admit
  1784
  that everything in the nature of casualties should, if possible, be abolished, that all obligations between man and man should be as clear and definite as possible, so that each party might know exactly what he had to pay and what he had to receive. Uncertain duties, merging at uncertain dates, were against public policy; and he would at once consent to the abolition of them on the established principles of commutation. But he earnestly pressed on their Lordships that they should not devise inconsistent principles. They ought not to abolish these casualties by the opening of a side door of a delusive character. By the 1st clause of this Bill they would go back on the great reform of 1874. They would re-enable persons to interject a mid - superiority between the superior and the purchaser of land. They would go back to the simplification of title by menns of collusive titles. It was against public policy to abolish these casualties in that way. He would readily submit to any compromise in this matter which the Public Authorities in Scotland and Parliament, acting under the advice of the greatest lawyers and statesmen in Scotland, would be willing to name as a commutation of these duties. But this clause would not abolish casualties. The object of public policy was not attained. These casualties would remain. His best authority for this statement was the fact that Clause 1, as now drawn up, simply postponed the casualties for one generation, or one death. The heir of the seller might enter, and enable the purchaser to elude the duty. This was true; but then his heir could not again do so. They would then revert exactly to the same state of the law in which these casualties merged on particular occasions. A most unseemly state of the law it was. They would have a man hunting for the possible heir of the last seller, who might be gone to Australia, or be already dead; and the man must make a bargain, or bribe another to lend his name for delusive and collusive purposes. Was that a reform of the law of tenure? On the contrary, it was going back to the system which was abolished in 1874, which was recommended to be abolished by the Commission of 1838, and which was unquestionably against public policy. He would venture to urge that it was the object of the Government not merely

  1785
  to relieve trustees from an unjust interpretation of the law—at least from an interpretation of the law which imposed upon them unjust consequences—and to all that he entirely assented. But if they also wished to deal with the question of casualties by abolishing them altogether, in order to simplify title, they should postpone Clause 1 until another Session. Their Lordships must not suppose that this affected only large estates of agricultural property. But there was a prospect of agricultural estates in Scotland coming into a greater number of hands. One estate which had been held by the same family for 700 or 800 years had this year been unfortunately brought to the hammer, and bought in comparatively small parcels by a large number of persons. These persons and their heirs would, of course, be liable, under the term, of their respective feu-duties, to these casualties; and he was quite willing to admit, and hold strongly, that, while the continuance of these casualties was not a public evil, so long as they were confined to a few large estates, it would be a serious mischief if a great number of persons, holding small parcels of land, were called upon to pay them. He was, therefore, in favour of the principle of abolition on the old principle of commutation. He thought the law ought to be made compulsory. He would like to call the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to the fact that these casualties had been practically abolished, even as regarded small building feus. This clause would not deal equitably with the subject, and would have the result of complicating matters. Legislation on great questions of this kind with reference to a particular case was always rather dangerous. He was not prepared to say that it was always unjust or unnecessary. A particular case might call the attention of Parliament to a grievance which was general. There was no delicacy in referring to a special case which had attracted public attention. That was the case of the son of one of the most distinguished men that Scotland had ever produced. He alluded to Sir Charles Lyell. He believed it was still sub judice. The substance of it, he understood, was that the son, being his father's proper heir, and being entitled to enter on his estate on the ordinary relief duty, was, or might have been, liable to pay the heavy casualty of a
  1786
  singular successor, because the property was under trust, He believed that it was a grievous injustice which arose out of a mere technicality of the law when the estate was left in trust. He entirely agreed with the Bill, so far as the 2nd clause was concerned, which dealt with a real injustice and evil which had arisen by accident out of such a technicality. What he proposed was to push forward that part of the Bill which was not contentious, and leave the remainder, which was not so urgent, to a new Session of Parliament.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he endorsed the views of the noble Duke that the Secretary for Scotland should postpone the contentious portions of the Bill. In his opinion, the 1st clause had been badly drafted, and its language was uncertain. During the Recess attention might be given to the subject, and more statesman-like and satisfactory proposals might be submitted next Session. The effect of the present Bill would be to revive an old device, and to render the new machinery more complex than it was before. It was not his intention to oppose the second reading; but he trusted that when they went into Committee his noble Friend would adopt his suggestion.
  LORD BRAMWELLdesired to express an opinion on this Bill, even, though it related to a question of Scotch law. He might mention the curious fact that there was once a case in which six Scotchmen were equally divided in opinion, and he was left to give the casting vote. He did not quote that case in order to prove that he was right, but to show that he might without impropriety say a few words on the present Bill. His view was entirely in accord with that which had been presented to their Lordships by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll). The title of the Bill was, no doubt unintentionally, misleading. As a question of conveyancing, the 1st section was a retrograde one. That clearly appeared from a judgment given by Lord Blackburn, who, although an English lawyer was by birth a Scotchman. It was manifest that in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord the system of conveyancing, which the 1st section of this Bill proposed to reintroduce, was a complicated system, and open to serious objection. But the Bill was not merely one of con-

  1787
  veyancing; it was a question of a transfer of value. That was to say, the effect of the 1st clause would be to diminish the value of all superiorities, and to augment the value of all feus, because the effect of it would be that the superior would not be able to get his year's value from the purchaser, so that the present feuar or vassal -would be able to sell for a better price. He was justified in that view by a report which had been sent to him by a committee of the Society of Writers to the Signet. That committee stated that the effect of the measure would be simply to enable the vassal to retain money which was really due by him to the superior. There seemed to be an idea that this could only happen once; but that was a mistake. The same thing would recur every time a vassal died after having sold an estate; and there would be no limitation whatever on the time to which the measure was proposed to extend. He had heard no valid reason why the old system which was abrogated by the Act of 1874 should be re-introduced. That Act was really a bargain made by the Legislature between the superiors and the vassals. The superiors obtained the right to enforce payment of a year's value, and got rid of the device by which vassals could avoid paying it; while, on the other hand, the vassals got a right of redemption which formerly they did not possess. If it rested with him to say whether Clause 1 was a just and righteous clause as between superior and vassal, he should say no. But, looking at the state of the House and the period of the Session, when scarcely a Scotch Peer interested in the matter was present, he thought it would be a little hard to force this clause through if the question was even doubtful.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he concurred so far with his noble Friend, and doubted whether it was altogether true to say that this was a Conveyancing Clause at all. It was really a question of the alteration of the law in regard to property, and he doubted whether, in the circumstances, it would be an appropriate exercise of their Lordships' time to deal with property without full notice to those who were interested in the matter. He had some reason to think that those who were interested in the matter were under the impression that
  1788
  this part of the Bill was to be dropped, and he thought his noble Friend in charge of the Bill would do well to adopt the suggestion of the noble Duke, and drop the contentious portion of the Bill, and proceed with the non-contentious portion.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he would acquiesce in the suggestion of the noble Duke. After the strong expression of opinion from all quarters of the House, he felt that if he were to press the 1st clause there would be grave risk, not only of the loss of the clause, but of the whole Bill. Rather than lose the Bill, he would prefer to move that the 1st clause should be expunged. The 2nd clause was a very valuable one, and would deal with a question which had excited a considerable amount of public attention. If a measure for dealing with casualties was to be introduced into Parliament, it had much better come as a Bill treating the subject de novo than that it should be handicapped by the 1st clause of this Bill. Without committing himself as to what the Government would do next Session on the subject of casualties, he assented to the course suggested, and whether it was possible or not to deal with casualties in general, he would move to expunge the 1st clause.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

OPEN SPACES (DUBLIN) BILL.—(No. 213.)
(The Lord Ardilaun.)
OPEN SPACES (DUBLIN) BILL.—(No. 213.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the measure had come up from the House of Commons, and its object was to confer the same powers on the Corporation of Dublin in regard to useless and unnecessary roads as were exercised by the Grand Juries outside the city. It would enable the Corporation to narrow such roads as were unnecessarily wide, in order to save unnecessary expenditure. In the House of Commons it was proposed to insert these powers in the General Open Spaces Bill, which he (Lord Mount-Temple) had charge of in their Lordships' House; but the con-

  1789
  struction of that measure rendered it impossible to insert these provisions, seeing that the Bill dealt only with amendments of the existing law.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a —(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he hoped that their Lordships would not read this most extraordinary Bill a second time. The Bill provided that—
  "It shall and may be lawful for the Corporation to narrow such roads as the borough surveyor may report to be unnecessarily wide, and to stop up any roads which may appear to them to be useless."
  No provision was made in the Bill as to what was to happen to anyone's property affected by such a proceeding. No machinery was provided for awarding compensation, or for dealing with frontages. For the Corporation of Dublin and its borough surveyor to be absolute masters of other people's property, and to have power to stop up any roads which they might choose to consider unnecessary, would be an extraordinary state of things. And that was the whole Bill. If any of their Lordships had had questions affecting the closing up or the narrowing of roads before them at Quarter Sessions they would know what a large amount of consideration they involved—how many witnesses it was necessary to call on the one side and on the other, and how difficult it was to arrive at a decision. Everyone received a hearing. But here, forsooth, it was proposed to settle such matters on the mere ipse dixit of the borough surveyor. It seemed to him, moreover, a strange thing that in a Bill called an Open Spaces Bill, power should be sought for closing up roads. The whole Bill was so crude and devoid of machinery and lacked all protection to the public or to the owners of property that he hoped their Lordships would not read the Bill a second time.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, he quite admitted that the clause to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack took exception was not a proper one. But the Bill had come up with the unanimous assent of the House of Commons, and he recommended their Lordships to consider whether they might not be able to suggest a better clause than the present one in Com-
  1790
  mittee, especially as the principle of the Bill was not objected to. If their Lordships read the Bill a second time, he promised that the promoters would modify the clause and remove the objections to which it was at present exposed. It was a measure which was eagerly desired by Irish Members connected with Dublin, and he could see no harm in giving to the City of Dublin the same powers as were exercised outside of it under similar precautions. He trusted their Lordships would not reject the Bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)said, the Bill only contained one operative clause, and that was stated to be one which they ought not to pass, and so stated by the noble Lord who moved the second reading. If that clause was expunged, nothing would remain of the measure for their Lordships to consider. It contained a principle which everyone objected to, and, instead of reading the Bill a second time, he suggested that it should be dropped, and that the noble Lord should introduce another Bill of a less objectionable kind, allow it to be properly discussed by their Lordships, and send it down to the other House.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, he had not stated that the principle of the clause was objectionable, but that its method was faulty in having no proper securities against abuse or carelessness. He thought that Dublin should have the same advantages in regard to narrowing and closing unnecessary roads as the rest of Ireland possessed.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

TRUSTEE SAYINGS BANKS BILL.
(The Lord Elphinstone.)
TRUSTEE SAYINGS BANKS BILL.

  (NO. 221.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Lord Elphinstone.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS)said, he must take occasion to call attention to a few of its provisions which he deemed objectionable. In the first place, the Bill had come upon some of those who, like himself, were trustees of savings banks with considerable surprise. The Bill, which had not been

  1791
  circulated before it was read a second time, contained powers which were unusual; and although hg believed no trustees of savings banks would object to inquiry into the stability of the institutions with which they were connected, still, looking to the evils of panic unnecessarily excited, he urged that there should be some real provision that inquiry should not be demanded where it was not necessary. The Bill provided that the Treasury might issue a Commission of Inquiry if satisfied, on the representation of such a number of the depositors as they might consider sufficient, that an inquiry was reasonable. There should be some indication of the number of depositors who should have the power of claiming this inquiry; and also there should be some indication of the class of persons to whom the conduct of the inquiry should be intrusted.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he agreed to what the noble Duke had said as to the class of persons to be intrusted with this important duty, and. what he should propose in Committee was, that, instead of the ordering of the inquiry being in the absolute discretion of the Treasury, the function of the Treasury should be to make an application to a Judge of the High Court, who should, on being satisfied that there was reason for making an inquiry, delegate the power of making an inquiry to a Master of the Supreme Court of Judicature in England or Ireland, or an Advocate or Writer of the Signet selected by the Court of Session in Scotland. With those Amendments the difficulties felt by the noble Duke would, he thought, be in great part removed.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly: Amendments, made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed. (No. 245.)

PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 238.)
(The Earl of Crawford.)
PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 238.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was a consolidating and amending measure.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)observed, that this Bill, which, as the noble Earl had said, was a consolidating and amending one, appeared to him to be a useful and practical measure.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE (No. 1) BILL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that on the 31st of January last, when the second reading of the Women's Suffrage Bill was moved, an Amendment moved by the noble Marquess the Head of the Government, that the Bill be read a second time, both at the end of six calendar months or of six lunar months, was agreed to. That period had elapsed. The end of that time happened to be a Sunday. He wished that the Bill should be put down for next Monday or Tuesday; but that was considered by the Clerk of Parliaments to be out of Order. He now desired to proceed with the second reading of the Bill.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)supposing that six calendar months were the legal period, said, he thought that the proceeding of the noble Lord would not be out of Order, and that the Bill could be allowed to go forward.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that he would put the second reading of the Bill down for next Tuesday, when it would take precedence of Motions and other Business.

  TRUCK BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with several of the amendments agreed to, one agreed to with an amendment, and several disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement, and with a consequential amendment to the Bill: The said amendments and reasons to be printed. (No. 239.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.