Sitting of 29 June 1888

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Legitim Law Amendment (Scotland) * [311].
Committee—Local Government (England and Wales) [182] [Eleventh Night]—R. P.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Third Reading—Local Government (No. 5) * [265], and passed.

QUESTIONS

  CEYLON—GOLD DISCOVERIES.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON (, &c.)asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to an article in The Times of Ceylon, of May 31, report-
  1712
  ing the discovery of gold in the district of Sarangalla by Constable Arachichi; whether it is true that the Ceylon Government purchased nuggets from the constable for the Museum in Colombo; and, whether the Secretary of State will advise an inspection of the district by a competent gold-mining expert at the Government expense with a view to ascertaining whether the gold area is sufficiently rich to warrant its being worked in the interests of the Colony?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GROST)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State has seen a reference in the Ceylon newspapers to the subject; but there has hardly yet been time for any Report by the Colonial Government to be received in this country. Such a Report will, doubtless, be made in due course; and when it arrives the Secretary of State will consider the suggestion made in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT— THE BURGH OF TAIN.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON (, &c.)asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to a correspondence which has been proceeding between the Local Authority of the Burgh of Tain and the Board of Supervision regarding an alleged breach of the Public Health (Scotland) Act; and, whether, in cases where the Local Authority omits to put the provisions of the said Act in force, it is within the province of the Board to insist on their doing so?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON)(who replied) said: I am informed that a correspondence has recently taken place between the Board of Supervision and a local complainer regarding an alleged breach of the Public Health Act. As the statements of the Local Authority and the complainer were conflicting, the Board have remitted the case to their Inspecting Officer to inquire and report—when next in the neighbourhood; and, at the same time, informed the complainer that the Act empowered any two householders to take proceedings against the Local Authority, irrespective of the Board. As to the last Question, the Board considered all such cases as this one on their merits; and if

  1713
  satisfied that the public health is not injured by the arrangements complained of, they do not proceed against the Local Authority, leaving it to the complainers to do so if so advised.

  INLAND REVENUE—EXEMPTION FROM THE INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can explain why, and on what principle, one set of tenements should be exempt from House Duty by a concession granted by the Treasury, when other tenements let at similar rents, occupied by working people, are not held to be exempt?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): If the hon. Member would do me the honour to refer to my answer to a similar Question on Tuesday, the 19th, he would see that the principle on which certain buildings divided into tenements of under £20 annual value are exempted from House Duty, and other buildings containing tenements of similar value are not, has already been explained by me. The principle is that exemption is granted where the tenements are structurally separate, so that each is in a sense a house by itself, separated by some clear physical demarcation from other similar houses under the same roof. On the other hand, exemption is not granted where the tenements are merely one or more ordinary rooms in an ordinary house, with nothing to separate them from the rest of the house or to constitute them a distinct and self-contained dwelling. I may add, that relief is also granted in cases where more than one separate tenement is occupied by one tenant, provided that the annual value of the entire and combined holding is under £20.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—IMPORTATION OF DUTCH CATTLE AND SHEEP.
  MR. MONTAGUasked the noble Lord the Member for Lewisham, Whether the latest accounts from Holland show that no contagious disease exists among Dutch cattle and sheep, and that the transit of German sheep has been stopped for some months; and, whether,
  1714
  under these circumstances, the restrictions on the importation into this country of Dutch stock will be removed, so as to place it on an equality with that from Scandinavia?
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAM: The Government are not aware of the existence of any contagious disease among animals in Holland at the present time; but in the first week of May last, German sheep, among which foot-and-mouth disease existed, were brought by railway through Holland and shipped to this country from Flushing. On May 14 last the Government were informed that the transit of sheep from Germany through Holland had been prohibited. The question of relieving Dutch stock from restrictions is one of very serious importance; and an application from the Dutch Government on the subject is under consideration.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—APPEALS AT DUNDALK.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the serious complaints made in The Belfast Morning News of the 14th and 15th instant, as to the great inconvenience of bringing the tenants of the estates of Mr. Sewallis Shirley and Mr. H. H. Shirley, at Carrickmacross, to have their appeals heard before the Land Commission at Dundalk; whether the Land Commission received a Memorial from the tenants pointing out the inconvenience and expense which attendance at Dundalk would involve; whether he is aware that the tenantry on these estates are among the poorest in Ireland, and would not be able to bear the expense of attending with their witnesses at Dundalk; whether he can say what number of appeals from the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners still remain to be heard on these estates; and, whether he will advise a sitting of the Land Commission to be held at Carrickmacross, where there is a suitable and commodious Courthouse, and where there is also good hotel accommodation?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners inform me that in the ordinary course of practice cases from the Carrickmacross Union would

  1715
  be heard either in Dublin or Monaghan, and that they fixed the sitting at Dundalk specially to meet the tenants' convenience and to save expense to all parties. The distance from Carrickmacross to Dundalk is 14 miles only, and there is convenient railway communication between the two places. No remonstrances were received by the Commissioners until within the last week, although the arrangement to sit at Dundalk has been public for two months. There are 150 appeals pending from the estate of Mr. Sewallis Shirley, and 116 from the estate of Mr. H. H. Shirley. The Commissioners state they are satisfied that Dundalk, which was selected with the consent of the professional men on both sides, is the proper place for the hearing of the cases, and they are unable to change the arrangements they have made.
  MR. MAURICEHEALYasked, whether there was any reason that the ordinary practice of the Land Commission should not be brought more into conformity with the convenience of the parties concerned?
  MR. A. J BALFOURsaid, he knew the Land Commissioners were extremely anxious to meet the convenience of all parties engaged.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked, was it not a fact that in this case, and in the case mentioned previously, the Sub-Commissioners were holding the sitting actually outside the county in which the tenants resided?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, it was quite possible that a place outside the county might be the most convenient, taking all the circumstances into consideration.

  INDIA—THE UNCOVENANTED CIVIL SERVANTS—PAYMENT OF PENSIONS.
  MR. KINGasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true, as stated in India, that the Secretary of State recently sent out a despatch to the Viceroy in Council, suggesting that pensions of uncovenanted servants should be paid at a fixed rate of exchange, or anything to that effect; what, if so, was the reply of the Indian Government; and, whether he will lay a copy of the Secretary of State's despatch and the reply thereto upon the Table?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The statement made in India as described in the Question is inaccurate. The correspondence which has passed between the Secretary of State in Council and the Government of India on the subject cannot, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be laid on the Table with advantage to the Public Service.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES BILL)—SUPERANNUATION AND PENSION OF THE POLICE FORCES.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the conditions as to superannuation and pension under which the members of the Police Force, including the Chief Constables, entered the Service, will be in any way affected or modified by the provisions of the Local Government Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The powers of Quarter Sessions as to superannuation and pension of the members of the Police Force are proposed by the Local Government Bill to be transferred to the Joint Committee of the Quarter Sessions and the County Council. Subject to this, those powers will not be affected. The police superannuation funds will be transferred to the County Council under Clause 63 (1) of the Bill; and they will be held by them for the same purposes, and subject to the same conditions, as they would have been held by Quarter Sessions if the Bill had not passed.

  EAST INDIA—MR. TAYLER, EX-COMMISSIONER OF PATNA.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, for the convenience of hon. Members, the Government will lay upon the Table a reprint of the Minutes of Sir Barnes Peacock and Sir Henry Ricketts, with reference to a recommendation of Sir Frederick Halliday, Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, that Mr. Tayler, Ex-Commissioner of Patna, should not be granted the Public Commission of Inquiry for which he had asked, but that the records of a certain case, formerly tried by Mr. Tayler

  1717
  during the Mutiny, should be submitted to the Judges of the Sudder Court of Bengal for their opinion and Report without the presence or further examination of Mr. Taylor; whether the Government would now be willing to submit Mr. Tayler's case to Sir Barnes Peacock for his decision; and, whether, as a fact, Mr. Tayler was ever informed that he was at liberty to demand a Commission, as recommended by Sir Henry Ricketts?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Minutes referred to, which are inaccurately described in the Question, have already been laid before Parliament in No. 308 of 1879. The Secretary of State sees no necessity for reprinting them. The action of the Secretary of State in refusing to re-open the case of Mr. William Tayler has been approved by a large Parliamentary majority, and the Government cannot now reverse that policy. Mr. William Tayler was never entitled to ask for a Commission. In 1859 he was offered, as I before stated, an inquiry by the Sudder Court into his judicial conduct at Patna, which he declined.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE,arising out of the answer of the Under Secretary, asked, whether it was not the fact that Sir Henry Ricketts did recommend that Mr. Tayler should be allowed a Commission, and said that the Commission, if asked for, would be granted?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I must refer the hon. Member to the Minutes, which will speak for themselves.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, What are the names and dates of appointment of the 10 Resident Magistrates appointed by the Government?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)(who replied) said: The following are the names and dates of appointment of the Resident Magistrates in question:—N. L. Townsend, October 1, 1886; John Preston, October 1, 1886; O'Neil Segrave, October 15, 1886; Cecil Roche, October 23, 1886; Ulick Bourke, August 22, 1887; Colonel M. S. Tynte,
  1718
  August 22, 1887; F. G. Hodder, August 29, 1887; Lieutenant Colonel H. Caddell, January 17, 1888; W. H. Joyce, January 20, 1888; and G. H. Shannon, May 5, 1888.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked, whether the House was to understand that Mr. Segrave had been appointed since the affair at Mitchelstown?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; Mr. Segrave was appointed on the 15th of October, 1886; and, if I remember rightly, the Mitchelstown affair was in September, 1887.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— COUNTY COURT JUDGES.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, What are the names and dates of appointment of the County Court Judges in Ireland appointed by the Governments of the Marquess of Salisbury either between June, 1885, and January, 1886, or since July, 1886?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)(who replied) said: No County Court Judges were appointed between June, 1885, and January, 1886. Mr. Kisbey was appointed to Armagh and Louth on April 22, 1887; Mr. Fitz-Gibbon to Antrim and Belfast on November 19, 1887; and Mr. Webb to Donegal on December 27, 1887.

  THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS—THE ISLE OF DOGS—RAIN FLOODS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, Whether it is a fact that, on Tuesday evening last (26th instant), during a heavy rain storm, the basements of many houses in the Isle of Dogs were flooded with sewage, the depths varying from a few inches to two or three feet; whether, though the weather had been threatening for some hours, when the storm burst, the temporary engines at the pumping station were not at work, the engine only registering a 10 lb. pressure of steam; whether neither at the beginning nor during the continuance of the storm was any engineer in attendance at the station; how did the remissness occur; what steps do the Metropolitan Board of Works propose to take in the matter

  1719
  in order to prevent a repetition of the flooding; and, what compensation do they propose to give to those who have suffered from the overflowing due to the non-working of the pumping engines?
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: Several houses were flooded owing to the insufficiency of the local sewers to take the storm waters away quick enough into the Board's main sewers. One of the two powerful temporary pumping engines was at work when the rain commenced, and was more than equal to pump all the water that came to it. The engineer, whose duty it was to attend these engines, was on the spot at the time with his stoker and worked his engine. There was no remissness on the part of anyone connected with the Board. The Board is now erecting permanent engines for preventing floods in future, which it is expected will be completed ready for working next month.

  INLAND REVENUE—REMISSION OF PENALTIES ON STAMPING INSTRUMENTS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can state generally the conditions on which it is proposed to remit the penalties payable on stamping instruments executed prior to the passing of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1888; and, in particular, whether it is proposed that there should be any limit of time as regards the date of the instrument proposed to be stamped; and, when the Memorandum dealing with the matter will be issued?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The question has been considered, and it is thought that the penalties payable on stamping the instruments in question may be remitted; but the concession will not, of course, extend to instruments which cannot in any case be legally stamped after execution without payment of a fixed statutory penalty, nor is it to apply to instruments in respect of which personal penalties have been incurred, or to articles of clerkship. In any case in which a longer period than three months may have expired since the unstamped or insufficiently stamped instrument was first executed, the remission of the
  1720
  penalty or penalties must be by way of repayment. The Board of Inland Revenue, however, will refuse the benefit of this concession in any case in which it may appear that the instrument is not voluntarily presented for stamping, but is presented in consequence of other circumstances—such as, for instance, the necessity of producing the instrument in Court, or of making good the title to property at the requisition of a purchaser. In the consideration of applications for relief from penalties payable on stamping instruments executed prior to the passing of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, and not presented for the purpose until after January 1 next, the Board will have regard to the fact that the liability to the payment of such penalties might have been avoided had advantage been taken of the arrangement in question.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—SENIOR SCHOOL INSPECTORS—APPOINTMENT OF MR. STEWART.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that the recent appointment of Mr. Stewart to the office of one of the Senior School Inspectors in Scotland is the first departure in Scotland from the principle of promotion by strict seniority of service; and, whether any, and what, good reasons existed for doubting the ability of, or for passing over, the Inspector standing next to the vacancy, or the eight Inspectors following him, who were all senior to the Inspector appointed?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I have nothing to add to the answers which were given on the 12th of June to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace) and on the 22nd of June to the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Macdonald Cameron).

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE(IRELAND) ACT, 1887—PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CORNELIUS CURTAIN AND OTHERS—THE DUBLIN COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called

  1721
  to the proceedings in the Dublin Court of Exchequer on Wednesday last, on an application for a conditional order for a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that there was no evidence to convict Cornelius Curtain and 10 others, who had been sentenced to a month's imprisonment by two Resident Magistrates for unlawful assembly; whether the Lord Chief Baron is correctly reported to have said that the order ought to be granted; that the questions raised were fit and proper to be argued before the Court; that it ought to be argued whether the assembly was illegal; that another—
  "Question was whether the real object and meaning of the Plan of Campaign, as developed in the speech of Mr. Dillon in October, 1886, was matter that could be taken judicial notice of by the Judges without evidence, and that he would like to have that question argued;"
  that—
  "The police themselves stated that the people were orderly, and did not use offensive expressions;"
  whether Baron Dowse dissent from the Lord Chief Baron on the jurisdiction of the Court, and whether, in consequence of this division of opinion, no Rule could be made; and, whether the 11 persons accused are thus left without any means of testing the legality of the sentence that they are now undergoing, notwithstanding the view of the Lord Chief Baron that it ought to be argued before his Court, whether the magistrates had taken the evidence required for a conviction?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: The facts are substantially as stated; but I am unable to vouch for the strict accuracy of the report of the Judgment of the Lord Chief Baron. The result of the application to the Exchequer Division, referred to in the Question, is that the accused cannot have recourse to the proceeding by habeas corpus for the purpose of testing the legality of their sentences. This arose from the difference of opinion prevailing among the Judges as to their jurisdiction in such cases, the Court being equally divided in the particular case referred to.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Then, may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he still stands by the statement
  1722
  which he made very recently, which was that so long as the decision in Sullivan's or Brosnan's case—I forget which—stands it is in the power of anyone, so long as he is under sentence of Resident Magistrates, to go to the Court of Exchequer and have the case decided by that Court on a point of law?
  MR. MADDEN: Yes, Sir; I adhere to that statement as regards the full Court of Exchequer; but if the accident occurs that one of the Judges who hold that the jurisdiction exists is absent, there will then be an equal division of opinion, and no Rule can be obtained.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Then, are we to understand that in consequence of an accident happening these 11 persons are to be deprived of any chance of their case being authoritatively decided?
  MR. MADDEN: In consequence of their application having been made at a time when the full Court was not sitting.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Then I will ask the Chief Secretary whether this case is to be left as it now stands?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I suppose they could have gone to the Court of Queen's Bench.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as it is admitted in the answers of the Solicitor General that the Chief Baron stated that he would like to have argued before him the question whether the Judges could take official knowledge of the Plan of Campaign as being illegal without evidence being offered, whether, in the case of Mr. Dillon, no evidence of a conspiracy was offered, and no evidence of the Plan of Campaign was offered; and whether, under these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman will submit a case to his legal advisers as to whether Mr. Dillon is legally detained or not?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not accept the statement of facts just made by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but if he desires any further answer he should put the Question on the Paper.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: Which statement of fact does the right hon. Gentleman not accept?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not agree that no evidence was given.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: As this unfortunate division of the Court

  1723
  of Exchequer affects the liberty of the subject, will the right hon. Gentleman take some means by a test case of obtaining an opinion which shall be binding on all?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no conceivable method of doing that. The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. These prisoners had two methods of obtaining a re-hearing of their case on the legal point. They might have gone to the Court of Queen's Bench, and they refused to do so; or they might have gone to the Court of Exchequer, and they went; but they chose to go at such a time that they did not get the full benefit that they might have obtained at another time. But that leaves the other remedy entirely untouched.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: Has not the Court of Queen's Bench declared that it will not go behind the order of the Resident Magistrates, and will not look into the depositions in a case of certiorari or habeas corpus? Did not the Solicitor General tell us that eight Judges of the Queen's Bench had already declared that?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The point was that they could go to the Queen's Bench to have a case stated.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: But this was not upon a case stated. The magistrates did not state a case.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Are these 11 persons assumed to know beforehand that Mr. Justice Andrews would chance to be sitting at Nisi Prius on Wednesday?
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: Was there any case stated in these cases at at all—was it not an application for habeas corpus?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not apprehend the point, and I shall explain it. The magistrates refused to have a case stated, and counsel for the prisoners might have gone to the Court of Queen's Bench and compelled the magistrates to state a case if they so thought fit. That is the point.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer my Question—whether we are to assume that these persons were to know beforehand that Mr. Justice Andrews would be sitting at Nisi Prius?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I presume the counsel might have known.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—(PERSONS PROCEEDED AGAINST, &c.)
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will lay before the House an analysis of the Return, ordered May 31, 1888, as to "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," stating the dates and places of the several cases; the total number of cases; the number proceeded against under head or description of offence; the totals in each of discharge, acquittal, conviction, appeal, and result of appeal; and also the totals for the aggregate of cases of each description of sentence; under separate heads the number and names of Members of Parliament proceeded against, with the several heads of charge against them, and their classification for the purposes of prison treatment?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): In accordance with a wish expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), I am having the Return, which was ordered on May 31, as to the proceedings under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act modified by the insertion of Provinces and Counties. I do not at present see any objection to giving the rest of the information asked for if it does not require too much clerical labour; and I think it will not, with the exception of the last sentence. I see no reason for giving under a separate head the names of Members of Parliament, which has nothing to do with a Criminal Return, though doubtless it might be used for controversial purposes.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked, if the right hon. Gentleman would object to complying with the last sentence in the Question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he could not give that information in a separate Return in regard to Members of Parliament alone; but he did not know that there was any objection to giving it in regard to persons in general. He should see if it would not require too much expenditure of labour.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman, who had

  1725
  control of the Irish Prisons Board, and who had confessed that he made a distinction in the prison treatment of priests, would give a Return under a special head showing the cases of priests who were in prison and the distinctions that were made in regard to their treatment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, if particulars in regard to the treatment were given in the case of the other prisoners, of course it would also be given in the case of the priests; but he could not give a special Return in regard to the priests any more than in regard to Members of Parliament.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CONVICTION OF MR. JOHN DILLON, M.P. —THE "PLAN OF CAMPAIGN."
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the report of the case of Cornelius Curtain and others on Wednesday last, when the Lord Chief Baron is reported as using the following words:—
  "But the question was whether the real object and meaning of the Plan of Campaign, as developed in the speech of Mr. Dillon in October, 1886, was matter that would be taken judicial notice of by the Judges without evidence. He would like to have that question argued;"
  and, whether, since Mr. Dillon was convicted of conspiracy at Dundalk before County Court Judge Kisbey without any evidence as to the object and meaning of the Plan of Campaign other than that of the speech referred to, he will take any steps to secure that the point of law shall be argued before the Judges, and their decision thereon ascertained without delay?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: Nothing fell from the Lord Chief Baron, in the case referred to, tending to throw the slightest doubt on the sufficiency of the evidence on which Mr. Dillon was convicted. On the contrary, in the course of the arguments he referred to evidence, such as was given in that case, as sufficient to prove the nature of the Plan of Campaign. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] The Government have no power to take the course suggested by the Question,
  MR. JAMES STUART: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman lay on the Table of this House the Evidence and the Judgment in the case of Mr. John Dillon's appeal?
  MR. MADDEN: The hon. Gentleman should put a Motion on the Paper for a Return in the ordinary way.
  MR. JAMES STUART: If I move for it, will the Government give it?
  MR. MADDEN: When the Motion is put on the Paper in the ordinary way I will consider it.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman on what authority he states that the Lord Chief Baron referred to the evidence in Mr. John Dillon's case; and is it not the fact that the evidence which the Chief Baron referred to was that of "Blunt v. Byrne"?
  MR. MADDEN: I did not state that the Chief Baron referred to the evidence which had been given in Mr. Dillon's case. What I stated was that he referred, in the course of the argument that was the subject of the Question, to evidence of the same class as that given in Mr. Dillon's case as being satisfactory. I read from the Report, which I obtained in the ordinary way, in answer to an inquiry sent over as to what really occurred. I am informed that the Lord Chief Baron referred to evidence as to the illegality of the Plan of Campaign as given in the "Blunt v. Byrne" case, and in that respect the hon. and learned Member is accurate; but further on, in the course of argument, he is stated to have suggested to counsel for the prisoner that by obtaining a copy of United Ireland containing a statement of what the Plan of Campaign was, that would tell him all about it. And that evidence, in addition to the speeches which were proved in Mr. Dillon's case, constituted the evidence given in that case, and was the class of evidence to which the Lord Chief Baron referred in contradistinction to the evidence in the case before the Court?
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what is the ordinary way in which the Government obtain Reports of this character; and, further, whether, in order to put an end to the controversy in regard to the terms of the Lord Chief Baron's Judgment, he will lay the Judgment of the Lord Chief Baron on the Table?
  MR. MADDEN: My answer to that is the same which I have already given. We obtain the best information we can as to what has occurred. If the hon. Member wishes for a Return—I am not here to undertake on behalf of the Government—he can move for it in the ordinary way.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I wish to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether it is not the fact that the account which he gives of the Lord Chief Baron's Judgment conflicts with the account given in the public Press?
  MR. MADDEN: No, Sir; I am not aware of that.
  Subsequently,
  MR. SEXTON said: Might I ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if it is not a fact that a reporter in Dublin was engaged by direction of the Government to take a special note of the Judgment of the Chief Baron in the Killeagh case; and, whether the right hon. Gentleman did not quote from that Report in the course of the debate on Tuesday last?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A J. BALFOUR): My impression is that there was no special Government Report at all.
  MR. SEXTON: But did the Government engage a reporter to take a special note of the Judgment on this occasion, and did they quote from it the other night?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no ground for believing that such is the case.
  MR. SEXTON: I will ask the Question again on Monday.

  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS).
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, What steps Her Majesty's Government have taken, and what steps the Government of India have taken, for carrying into effect the Resolution of this House of June 5 with respect to the Contagious Diseases Act and the Cantonment Acts in India?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): A despatch has been sent to the Government of India bringing under their notice the Resolution of June 5. There has not yet been time for a reply to this despatch to be received by the Secretary of State.

  RULES AND ORDERS OF THIS HOUSE— DIVISIONS.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in consideration of the fact that Committees of the House now sit simultaneously with the House itself, and that great inconvenience arises from the difficulty in reaching the House from the Committee Rooms in time for a division, he will consider the advisability of proposing an extension before 4 o'clock of the time prescribed by the Standing Order between the ringing of the bells and the closing of the doors?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH)in reply, said, this matter was regulated by Standing Orders, which left considerable discretion to Mr. Speaker. It was obviously improper to interfere with the Speaker's discretion, and the Government could not make any proposal.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked, if the Government were aware, not only of the inconvenience, but even of the danger to which hon. Members were subjected in having to rush from the Committee Rooms for the purposes of a Division
  MR. W. H. SMITHsupposed that the inconvenience and danger were incident to the position and the duties of Parliament. He was sure it was the desire of the Speaker to remove any danger and inconvenience to which hon. Members might be subjected.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS—THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE—LENGTH OF SPEECHES.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in the Debate on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) on Monday and Tuesday nights, the 16 hours devoted to the debate were occupied by 15 speakers only; and, what steps he proposes to take in order, without prolonging the Sittings of the House, to enable a larger number of Members to take part in the set debates of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, that this was a question in which

  1729
  the Government ought to be exceedingly slow to interfere with the general discretion which must rest with hon. Members themselves. It was for hon. Members themselves to proportion their speeches to the importance of the questions with which they were dealing, and to the claims of other hon. Members to be heard. He thought he could best answer the Question by expressing the hope that all hon. Members would have regard to the claims and rights of other hon. Members and the due despatch of Public Business.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman would prevent the Chief Secretary for Ireland in future taking up all the time of the House on the last night of an important debate?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that in answer to the hon. Member for Northampton, he had promised to state what the Business would be on Monday. The Government proposed to put Reports of Supply and one or two other Reports not yet confirmed by the House first on the Paper; they also proposed that an opportunity should be afforded to the Chief Secretary to bring in his Bills for the drainage of the three districts in Ireland which had been mentioned in the House; and after that Supply would be taken, but no votes as to which the evidence given before the Committee had not been circulated.
  MR. LABOUCHEREinquired, whether the Government intended to take further time of the House from private Members on Tuesdays and Fridays?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, if it should be necessary for the Government to ask for further time for the discussion of the Local Government Bill, he would give the House ample notice. He rather relied to-day, however, on the assistance of hon. Members. [Mr. LABOUCHERE dissented.] The hon. Member said they were not to have the assistance. Of course, that was a plain indication of the necessity which might be imposed upon the Government. The Government would rely upon the assistance of the
  1730
  House to vote the measure now in possession of the House before they made further demands for time. He would see what progress they made to-day; and he hoped the House would render it unnecessary for him to ask on Monday for further facilities.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.— [BILL 182,]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Long.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 28th June.]

  ELEVENTH NIGHT.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

PART I.

  COUNTY COUNCILS.
  Powers of County Council.
  Clause 15 (Entire maintenance of main roads by County Council).
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 7, after "shall," to insert "after the first day of April, one thousand eight hundred and ninety."—(Sir John Dorington.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOHN DORINGTONsaid, he last night mentioned the object of this Amendment, and the President and the Secretary of the Local Government Board expressed their opinion that the view which he took was an exaggerated one. He had reflected over the remarks they made, and he could not help thinking that he was correct in the view he took, and that the time between the period when the County Councils came into effective working, and that when they would have to take over the maintenance of the roads, was far too short for a satisfactory arrangement to be made for carrying out the new work. He, therefore, hoped the Government would assist those who would have the carrying out of this work by granting a longer extension of time than the period to the 1st of April. He did not insist in any way upon the 1st of April, 1890; he

  1731
  only mentioned that date because he thought it would be a convenient date. It was the date on which the present Highway Authorities would cease to exist, and the new District Councils would come into force; it was also the commencement of the financial year. These were the only arguments he had to advance in favour of that particular date; on the other hand, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman it would be a putting off of the work of the County Councils for a very long time. Therefore, he should be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman were to name some earlier date—say, three months after the setting up of the County Council, or certainly six months would be better. The business to be undertaken would be very great in his county, and he could speak better for that than for any other county; they had between 800 and 900 miles of main roads, costing about £40,000 a-year. The setting up of a new organization to manage these roads would certainly tax the capabilities of the County Councils to a very great degree, and would be a very large tax upon their time at the commencement of their existence. It was suggested that they should hand over the management to the present authorities, that they should contract with those authorities to do the work. To a very great extent that would be a satisfactory arrangement, but to a certain extent it would not be a satisfactory arrangement. Take the case of counties where there were no Highway Boards at all, and where the County Councils would have to negotiate with an indefinite number of parishes with regard to the management of the roads. His own county, for instance, was about equally divided between Highway Boards and independent parishes. Some Highway Boards were extremely good, others were quite as defective in management as the others were excellently managed, and if he had anything to do in the matter he certainly would not recommend entering into contracts with some of those Bodies in regard to the main roads. It would take a considerable time to make these arrangements, and he certainly hoped that the proposal he had made, simply with a view of facilitating the working of the Act, would meet with the approval of the Government, or else that the Go-
  1732
  vernment would make some suggestion to meet him half way.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he felt the force of many of the remarks of his hon. Friend, but the difficulty he had was in departing from the date laid down in the Bill. His objection to the date fixed by his hon. Friend was that the new system of finance would come into operation at the beginning of April. He could easily understand that it would entail great complication of accounts if they were to say that for three months, which was suggested as a compromise by his hon. Friend, things should remain as they were. There did not seem really any tangible resting ground between the proposal in the Bill and the proposal of his hon. Friend, which would delay the operation of the Bill, so far as main roads were concerned, for 12 months. His hon. Friend had pointed out that they proposed to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), which would enable the County Councils to arrange with the District Councils to maintain the roads for three months, or six months, or 12 months; or for any period they thought necessary before they got their own organization into effective use. Although the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Sussex only dealt with a delegation to District Councils, the Government proposed towards the close of the Bill in dealing with District Councils to provide that District Councils should include any existing authorities. That Amendment would enable the County Councils to say to the Highway Boards—"We will delegate to you for whatever time we think fit the care of the main roads under certain conditions." In view of the fact that the elections for these Councils would take place in the early part of January, and that the County Councils would not take over the care of the main roads until the beginning of April, he could not but think there would be time for making the necessary arrangements. He, therefore, hoped that his hon. Friend would be content with the power which was given to the County Councils to make arrangements with the existing authorities. That power he thought would

  1733
  be amply sufficient to meet all difficulties the hon. Gentleman had foreshadowed.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he did not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant by existing authorities. By Clause 3 all the powers of the Quarter Sessions had with regard to main roads and highways been handed over to the County Councils. That naturally included all contracts and arrangements now in existence. Speaking for his own county, and he had been a member of every county committee for the last 20 years, he was persuaded that this would upset everything during the first three months. At the present moment the roads were managed and repaired by the overseers of the parishes, and these overseers received the money due to them on the certificate of the county surveyor. In some cases the Quarter Sessions made arrangements with the Highway Board, and in that case they contracted for the maintenance of the roads for one year, and sometimes for three years, and even longer. Therefore, under Clause 3 the County Councils would take over all the contracts, liabilities, and arrangements of the county magistrates. But what was done by the sub-sections of Clause 15 which they were now discussing? They provided that the roads should be well maintained and repaired by the County Councils. It was quite true that the President of the Local Government Board proposed to accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) which provided that the County Councils should, if they chose, delegate their powers to the District Councils, or to anybody else who could do the work better than they could; but the District Councils would not be in operation when the County Councils were first elected, and the real question was whether there would not be utter chaos and confusion during the first three months. He was afraid that under the arrangement which was being made the overseers of the highways during the last three months of the present financial year would scheme to do as little to the roads as possible; they would put very little material on them, and spend as little as possible in repairs; the proverbial stitch in time would not be taken, and the roads would be handed
  1734
  over in such a state that it would take at least three times the amount of money to put them right that would have been necessary to keep them in a state of repair. Of course, the Amendment before the Committee could not be accepted for financial reasons, though he did not think that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) gave any good reasons why it should not be accepted. Possibly, the hon. Gentleman had spoken from his knowledge of Wiltshire; but the authority of the hon. Gentleman (Sir John Dorington), who had the reputation of being one of the ablest Chairmen of Quarter Sessions in England, was in direct conflict with that of the hon. Gentleman. What was wanted was a modus vivendi; they wanted it to be clearly understand that under Clause 3 all the liabilities and contracts would be taken over, and that Clause 15 would not come into force until such time as the District Councils came into existence.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant by a modus vivendi. He understood the right hon. Gentleman advanced arguments against the proposal, and that one of his arguments was that there were contracts now existing. If there were contracts existing there would be no difficulty, the roads would be repaired. The right hon. Gentleman also said that, during the last three months of the present financial year nothing would be done. But that argument would hold good what-ever year was fixed. The argument was not a good one, because the County Authority at present only paid upon the certificate of the county surveyor one-half, and the Government paid one-quarter, so that if the present authorities did not repair the roads properly the county surveyor would withhold his certificate and the Government would not pay their quarter. Therefore, it seemed to him that the contingency which the right hon. Gentleman feared was not one which was likely to arise; but if it was, it was still as likely to arise 12 months hence.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he did not object to the clause in the future, and did not wish that the operation of this provision should be suspended for 12 months. What he wished was that it should be clear on the face of the clause

  1735
  that the County Councils should take over the contracts as they stood, and should administer the roads in the same way as they were now administered, until the County Councils were able to delegate their powers. The County Councils would not have a staff at their command to manage, to maintain, and repair roads scattered over the whole county. He had spoken to several Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and they seemed to be of his opinion.
  MR. ALLISONsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member (Sir John Dorington) would withdraw his Amendment. If the County Councils had to take over the whole management of the roads, he could well conceive that some longer period than was allowed might have been required; but he understood the Government intended to provide that the County Councils might delegate their duties to the District Councils. Under the superintendence of the county surveyor, there would therefore be very much the same system which was now working so well in most counties. He thought that it was simply wasting the time of the Committee to further press this Amendment.
  MR. WHARTONsaid, that all that was asked was that the present authorities should continue to have charge of the roads until the County Councils were able to undertake the duties. Personally, he believed that unless some such arrangement was made, the roads of the county would get into a lamentable state of repair.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)said, it was as well that he should point out that under Clause 124 it was provided that all contracts, deeds, bonds, agreements, and other instruments existing at the present moment should be as binding in every way upon the new authority as upon the existing authority. He, therefore, failed to see how the contingency which his hon. Friend suggested could possibly arise. He could hardly credit that the county surveyor would allow the roads to be improperly repaired. He was convinced that in his own county, as in many others, the surveyor would take every precaution before he granted his certificate. No doubt, some difficulty in connection with financial arrangements
  1736
  might arise as matters now stood; but he thought that if by this Amendment they got rid of one difficulty, the probability was that they would be landed in others much greater.
  SIR RICHARD PAGETsaid, he objected to the word "delegation." There was no power whatever in the Bill to delegate this duty; and even if the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) did not imply delegation. He, however, thought that, on the clear understanding that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet be accepted, his hon. Friend (Sir John Dorington) would do well not to press his Amendment.
  SIR. JOHN DORINGTONsaid, that on that understanding he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WOODALLin moving, in line 7, after the word "shall," to insert "save as to any part thereof situate in a borough," said, that the effect of the Amendment was to provide that those portions of main roads which were situated in boroughs should be exempt from the general obligation of being maintained by County Councils. The Committee would be aware that they were many complications in reference to the maintenance of main roads. The obligation to maintain them had been thrown upon the counties since 1807, but there were, in many places, important thoroughfares which were only distinguished from main roads by a technical difference. In regard, however, to the equity and convenience of the maintenance of main roads, the President of the Local Government Board must be aware that he had made a material difference in his scheme by the further concession to boroughs with a population of 50,000. By this scheme all such boroughs would be placed in the position of Quarter Session boroughs. There was hardly any subject upon which such a variety of considerations prevailed. There were many municipal boroughs in which there was not one yard of main road, while in others main roads were an important feature. He candidly confessed that of all the proposals that had been made for dealing with the question, that of the Government was least satis-

  1737
  factory of all. What was felt, and what he asked the Committee to consider, was that on the whole it would be better to treat all municipal boroughs exactly as they were proposing to treat county boroughs, and in the same way as they had heretofore treated Quarter Sessions boroughs. He wished the President of the Local Government Board to explain precisely how the concession would operate, especially in boroughs where there was a considerable amount of main roads, costing large sums of money to maintain. It would be obviously unjust to draw a revenue from municipal boroughs of large rate-able value for the maintenence of external roads, and to leave to them the burden of maintaining all the other thoroughfares which were hardly distinguishable from main roads. The right hon. Gentleman had placed a number of Amendments on the Paper, from which it would appear that he was desirous of meeting the difficulty and arriving at some amicable arrangement between the Municipal Authorities and the County Councils; but he was not prepared to say that those Amendments satisfactorily met the case of main roads. He, therefore, confidently pressed his own proposal, believing that it was a proper solution of the difficulty, and it simply involved the carrying out of a practice which had hitherto worked well, and which was the only arrangement up to 1878.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 7, after shall," insert "save as to any part thereof situate in a borough."—(Mr. Woodall.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was rather a wide one. He wished, first of all, that the boroughs which remained in the county should maintain their own roads, and draw their own revenues for the maintenance of them. That would mean, although the hon. Gentleman did not say how much, a portion of the duties collected within the municipal area. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman meant the whole of it. At any rate, his proposal went in that direction. Under the provisions of the Bill, boroughs not included within the districts of the County Councils would be able to maintain their own roads in
  1738
  their own districts in their own way, and they would receive a certain sum in aid derived from local taxation. Not only would the County Councils have the power of devolution, so far as boroughs and urban districts were concerned, but they would be obliged to devolve the power to any borough that applied for it. The County Councils would have no authority whatever to refuse the application of a borough to maintain its own roads. Therefore, as far as that matter was concerned, the hon. Gentleman might be sure that the boroughs and urban districts would have a perfect right to maintain their own roads within their own area. The hon. Member said that it would be very unfair to make such boroughs contribute anything towards the maintenance of roads outside their own districts. There he disagreed with the hon. Gentleman, and he was sure the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, would see that that was hardly a fair ground to take up, because the fact was that roads outside the borough district were very largely used for borough purposes, and the heaviest part of the traffic upon them came from the boroughs. In such circumstances it would have been extremely unfair to the farmers of the county, upon whom highway rates fell heavily, to make and maintain such roads at their sole expense. The Government recognized the importance of the question so much that they said, even in respect of the boroughs outside the counties that were to be formed into county boroughs, that they ought to contribute to the small tax proposed to be imposed on vehicles, even when they were taken out of the county for all other purposes. That being the case, he did not think the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was one which would commend itself to the fairness of the Committee. He did not know whether the hon. Member had Quarter Sessions boroughs in his mind. By the Amendment which would be placed on the Paper by the Government, Quarter Sessions boroughs would be entitled to appeal to the Local Government Board to have their main roads maintained by the County Councils, while their main road rate would be very small, and thus they would be placed in an infinitely better position than that which they at present occupied in respect of the maintenance of their

  1739
  roads. The position of Quarter Sessions boroughs at present was that they were not liable to contribute to the county rate for main roads. They maintained three-fourths of the cost of their main roads and received a contribution from the Government. They had never given anything to the county, nor had they received anything from the county. As the Government were now about to impose upon them the liability to contribute, it would be clearly unjust if the main roads were not to be maintained by the county. Therefore it was proposed by the Amendment he had placed upon the Paper that Quarter Sessions boroughs should have the right to have their main thoroughfares declared main roads maintainable by the counties. Under this Amendment he thought the boroughs would be in an infinitely better position than they were now. The County Councils would obtain a vote of money sufficient to enable them to maintain the main roads in the county. The whole cost of maintaining main roads throughout the country was £1,000,000 sterling. Hitherto £250,000 had been contributed by the country. That contribution would cease after the passing of the Bill, but in lieu of it a considerable amount of duties would be handed over to the County Authorities by means of the Horse and Wheel Tax, so that9–10ths or 7–8ths of the cost of main roads would be provided for. The position of Quarter Sessions boroughs would be this, that if they had their main roads declared and maintained by the county, in return they would be liable to pay a rate. Quarter Sessions boroughs would be in a much better position than they were now, and, on the whole, the arrangements made in the Bill would be advantageous rather than otherwise.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, he would point out that in all cases boroughs with a population of 50,000 would be entitled to become county boroughs; but there might be another municipal borough with precisely the same roads intersecting it which would be left out, according to the proposals of the Government. Did he understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that, having carefully considered the circumstances of such boroughs, the new arrangements would be equally and equitably applied to all?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was impossible for him to say that he had considered the relative circumstances of individual boroughs, but his opinion was that the boroughs outside would not be placed in a disadvantageous position. They would have to maintain their own roads, but would receive a portion of the new licence duties levied in the county, and they would receive a certain contribution from the Wheel Tax.
  MR. LLEWELLYNsaid, he objected to the Amendment on the ground that every proposal of the kind would largely increase the expense, and would multiply the authorities who would have to deal with the roads. Some hon. Members were under the impression that certificates in reference to roads were given by competent road surveyors, but in many parts of England they were given by the magistrates themselves, and were not worth the paper they were written on.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, that in most cases Boroughs possessed competent and efficient surveyors, steam rollers and other appliances, and he assumed that whatever arrangements were made under the Bill the roads would be under the superintendence of the competent staff, which in boroughs had now to deal with them.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he should like to know why municipal boroughs should not have the privilege of maintaining their own roads as well as Quarter Sessions boroughs?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the right would be given not only to municipal boroughs but to urban districts.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, the question was one of great importance to the county he had the honour to represent. He understood that under the arrangement proposed by the Government a portion of the licensed duties were to be assigned to the maintenence of county roads even within the boroughs. There were several boroughs in Lancashire which were not Quarter Sessions boroughs, and which contributed in the ordinary way to the county main roads. He wished to know what was to be their contribution in future towards the maintenance of main roads in all parts of the county?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, his noble Friend must remember that hitherto the Quarter Sessions boroughs had never contri-

  1741
  buted to the county at all, but, in future, not only would the boroughs which were not Quarter Sessions boroughs, and which were to be made county boroughs, but the county boroughs, inclusive of the Quarter Sessions boroughs, would contribute to the county roads a certain proportion of the Van and Wheel Tax. In return for the contribution to the county by such boroughs, which were not Quarter Sessions boroughs, the county had hitherto contributed one-half of the cost of the roads, but the contribution would now cease.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHwished to have a clear explanation from the right hon. Gentleman upon this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that all boroughs would contribute in future, by means of the Wheel and Van Tax, to the maintenance of main roads. That was not at all clear. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, had an Amendment to Clause 30 on the Paper which it was rather difficult to refer to now, but which appeared on page 32 of the Amendments now before the House, and was as follows:—
  "In the case of the duties collected by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in respect of the licences for trade carts, locomotives, horses, mules, and horse dealers under any Act of the present session, those Commissioners shall certify the amount collected in each county in like manner as if the county included each county borough specified in the fourth schedule to this Act as situate in that county, and the amount as so ascertained shall be divided between the said boroughs and the residue of the said county in proportion to rateable value."
  In Lancashire, for example, if the tax were treated as a tax upon the county at large, and distributed according to rateable value, about one-half would go to the county outside the boroughs and one-half to the boroughs. That would only be giving to the county what fairly belonged to the county itself, and would not be a contribution from the boroughs to the main roads. It would only be a payment by the wheels in the boroughs which were out the county roads towards the cost of those roads. He must point out that it was necessary for the Committee to consider the fact that in the Bill as it stood, or as it would be amended by the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman himself, the expense of main roads for the county would be very heavy unless the
  1742
  Van and Wheel Tax brought in such a large amount in diminution of the county rate as would really leave only a tenth of the expense to be paid out of the county rate. According to the best calculations they in Lancashire had been able to make, they were convinced that nothing of the kind would happen. They could not make out that they would be receiving much more in aid of the county rates for main roads than they were receiving from the Parliamentary grant. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some more information on the point. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to make a great change in the law with respect to main roads. At present all the Quarter Sessions boroughs were exempt from all payment towards the expense of main roads. The Bill destroyed that exemption, and said that in future all Quarter Sessions boroughs should contribute to main roads. He thought that was a perfectly fair proposal; but instead of being content with this the right hon. Gentleman turned a large number of Quarter Sessions boroughs into county boroughs and again exempted them. Then his hon. Friend who had proposed the Amendment went far beyond the legislation of 1878, applying the exemption to all the boroughs mentioned in the Amendment. This proposal was really a little too strong, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stand firm in resisting the demand.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he thought that some of the Quarter Sessions boroughs would be rather hardly treated by this Bill. At present they did not contribute at all to the main roads of the county, but repaired their own main roads. It was now proposed to make them contribute by means of the Wheel and Van Tax and the Licence Duties, and also to make the rateable property in the boroughs liable to a main road rate. This was hardly equitable. If the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the high street of a large town should be considered a main road, in that case the entire position of matters would be altered. But this, he believed, it was not his intention to do. He did not think the rateable value of the Quarter Sessions boroughs ought to be placed under

  1743
  contribution to the roads of the county in addition to the Licence Duties and the Van and Wheel Tax.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he hoped that the Committee would not regard this as a question between town and county, and he trusted that the President of the Local Government Board would stand firm in his opposition to the Amendment. In his constituency there were main roads for four or six miles between different boroughs which ought to be kept up for the purpose of the traffic which mainly passed from one borough to another.
  MR. TOLLEMACHEasked whether the President of the Local Government Board had read a speech in The Times that day, made by Mr. Hibbert, in which it was said that in this Bill practically half the rateable value of Lancashire would be taken away from the rural part of the county. He wished to know whether the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to appoint a Commission on the subject referred to other counties as well as to Lancashire.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that it did not refer to the county of Lancaster particularly, but it would affect all the counties of England and Wales. He had not had time to read the speech of Mr. Hibbert to which reference had been made, but he had had the opportunity and advantage of hearing Mr. Hibbert speak at the Local Government Board. He had pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that there were two questions raised. In the first place, there was the question whether it was the case or not that the Quarter Sessions boroughs in Lancashire did not at present pay a sufficient amount towards the maintenance of the main roads. The deputation thought not, and that to deal with the question on the present basis would be unfair on account of that exemption. As to that point he was bound to say that he could not hold out any hope that the Government would be prepared to make any alteration. In this Bill they had been compelled to take the law as it stood, and where they found that exemptions existed they could not attempt to inquire whether such exemptions were right or wrong, but were obliged to take them as they found them. That being so, his hon. Friend would recognize the fact that, as a large number of the boroughs in Lancashire
  1744
  were Quarter Sessions boroughs and had never contributed towards the main roads, Lancashire was not being deprived of anything she had previously received as far as the boroughs were concerned. That was one point in connection with Lancashire. In the second place, he had pointed out that care must be taken that a fair and equitable adjustment was made as between the boroughs that were taken out of the county and the remaining portion of the county. On that point he had said that those concerned had good ground for making representations to the Local Government Board, and he had promised that he would consider the matter. The result of the consideration was that he had put down an Amendment on Clause 30, which, however, it would not be right or proper, nor would it be in Order, to discuss now. The idea of the Government was this, that as far as the existing application was concerned, they could not undertake to inquire whether the basis of assessment was right or wrong; but they ought to make provision that the county should not in any way be financially injured by the boroughs being taken out of them. As far as he understood the Representatives of the boroughs, prior to the decision which was arrived at which took certain boroughs out of the county, there was not a single borough Member who did not express entire concurrence with him that whatever provision was made care should be taken to secure that the contribution of the boroughs should continue to be paid. It was said, that it was not so much a question of finance, or whether they would gain or lose, but that they should be left to their own independent action. It was on that distinct understanding that he had enlarged, to so great an extent, the fourth Schedule, and he had no reason to believe that there was any strong feeling adverse to a fair adjustment of the financial relations between the counties and boroughs.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had stated with perfect accuracy and fairness the position taken by the large municipal boroughs in reference to the question, and he did not think there was the most remote desire on the part of the boroughs to depart from the original arrangement. The

  1745
  right hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth), however, had attempted to depart from it in another direction, and to put a burden upon the boroughs which at present they did not bear. He could assure his right hon. Friend that that proposition would be resisted to the utmost. He could quite understand that Lancashire was an exceptional county. For his own part he could understand that there was a difficulty; but, if necessary, it must be dealt with exceptionally by the House. But they should not have injustice done throughout the length and breadth of England simply on account of what was being done in Lancashire. He would recall the attention of the Committee to what the position of these main roads was. Prior to the passing of the Main Roads Act the expense of maintaining the roads was paid by the turnpikes. When the roads were disturnpiked, the counties had imposed upon them by the Act of 1878 the liability of contributing one-half, the other half being paid by the Local Authorities. The Quarter Session boroughs were exempt from that arrangement; but had to maintain the roads within their own area without receiving any contribution from the county. He quite admitted that with regard to small Quarter Sessions boroughs the arrangement would be perfectly fair; but the present legislation was intended to meet the case of the large boroughs. He would give, as an illustration, the case of a main road in Wolverhampton. That road was originally constructed out of the Consolidated Fund, and it formed the main road to Dublin by way of Holyhead. The Act imposed upon the borough of Wolverhampton the entire expense of maintaining that road at a cost of something like £200 a-mile. The borough of Wolverhampton did not ask for any exemption, they would still have to bear that burden, but the roads they had to maintain within the boroughs represented a rate of 1s. Therefore, in any re-adjustment of the burden of keeping the main roads in repair, they maintained that the county ought to make some contribution, which, at present, they did not.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he could not say that his view was entirely that of his right hon. Friend on that occasion. He had always desired
  1746
  that a Local Government Bill which created County Councils should make much of the county, and he wanted, as far as possible, that the boroughs should be part of the county, and that certain representative functions might be devolved upon them. But hon. Members on that side had incurred considerable disappointment owing to so many boroughs having applied, not unsuccessfully, to be taken out of the counties in which they were situate. He thought that these financial questions should be deferred until they had dealt with the constructive part of the Bill, and that they should then be approached with a view to setting them on a fair and equitable basis. He thought they could not advisedly carry further this discussion, so far as finance was concerned. He reminded the Committee that the Amendment on which they were engaged had for its object that the County Councils should have nothing to do with the repair and maintenance of main roads within boroughs. For his part, he was ready to make his acknowledgments to his hon. Friend, who had stated the case of the boroughs very fairly; but to say any borough, however small, should maintain its own main roads and not contribute to the county, would, in his opinion, be unadvisable, and if his hon. Friend were to press his Amendment to a Division, he should be compelled to vote against it.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, there were many boroughs whose position in this matter of main roads was much more strikingly inequitable than anything he had been able to instance. He confessed that he found himself between two cross fires, and, being ready to meet the views of his right hon. Friend on every occasion, as far as he could properly do so, as well as to further the progress of the Bill, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. He must, however, reserve to himself the right to raise this proposal again at a later stage when the right hon. Gentleman's scheme wasmore clearly understood.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  BARON DIMSDALEsaid, the Amendment in his name had for its object to transfer the maintenance and repair of roads from the County Council, as proposed in the Bill, to the District Council, and the proposal, he

  1747
  thought, would probably receive some favour at the hands of the Committee, not only upon its own merits, but because he saw similar Amendments on the Paper in the name of other hon. Members. He ought, perhaps, to explain that the series of Amendments in his name were unanimously adopted by the Court of Quarter Sessions in his own county, and as it was his duty to bring them forward, he would state the case for them as briefly as possible. It was pointed out that the County Council was too large a Body to undertake the maintenance and repair of main roads, and that it would be better that this should be entrusted to smaller Bodies, which should take charge of the roads over smaller areas. In his own county there would be a Council of 68 members, who would meet at one convenient place; but there would be no less than 28 District Councils formed in the county, and it appeared to him that the maintenance of the main roads would be entrusted to them with greater advantage than to the County Councils. His Amendment, then, would provide that the administration and management should reside in the District Council, and the County Council should exercise a supervising power. At the present time, the Quarter Sessions had, by their Committees, undertaken the work, and the system had been found to answer very well, and he ventured to believe that, by the adoption of his proposal, a more efficient and economical administration of main roads would result than from the proposal of the Government.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 8, after "county," insert "district."—(Baron Dimsdale.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'district' be there inserted."
  MR. LONGsaid, he thought his hon. Friend could hardly expect the Government to accept this Amendment, because it would destroy what they believed to be one of the most useful provisions of the Bill—namely, that the County Councils should be directly responsible for the maintenance of main roads. His hon. Friend had stated that the existing arrangement worked extremely well. He did not deny that there had been a great improvement in the condition of main roads in his own county, but he thought that anyone who had taken part
  1748
  in the administration of road work in Quarter Sessions must realize that the existing powers of the Quarter Sessions were not adequate for the purpose in view. Although it was true that the certificate was not issued unless they were satisfied, at the same time it was frequently the case that the surveyor was prevented by his present position either from making any recommendations or from seeing that they were carried out. The Government believed, therefore, that the proposal in this clause was an improvement on the existing system, and for that reason did not find it possible to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, that as he had an Amendment on the Paper exactly identical with that of the hon. Member opposite, he wished to say a few words in support of the proposal to confine the administration of main roads to the District Council. He regretted the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board, because in his own neighbourhood there was a very strong consensus of opinion in favour of the principle embodied in the Amendment. The only difference of opinion was as to whether there should be something in the nature of a permissive system of contract between the County and District Councils such as he understood to be proposed by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). From what he had heard on this subject in the county which he represented, it was obvious to him that a great saving of expenditure would result from the administration of main roads being concentrated in the District Council. There was an opinion in favour of something like an improvement on the 13th clause of the Highways Act, in order to ensure adequate supervision and management of highways. So far as he understood, there was an objection to the Highway Boards on the ground that they were not sufficiently numerous. Their administration was generally approved, and the transfer of their duties to the County Councils would, in his opinion, be satisfactory. He should willingly support the Amendment of the hon. Member, and he hoped there would be an expression on the part of other county Members on both sides of the House in

  1749
  favour of the principle for which he contended—namely, that the highway administration should be concentrated in the District Councils. If the Government could not accept the Amendment, he hoped they would adopt that of the hon. Member for Ashburton (Mr. Seale-Hayne), which would give the same power to the Rural District Councils as the clause gave to Urban Authorities.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER (Hants,)said, he did not know what his hon. Friend meant by concentration of administration; but the meaning appeared to be that the main roads of the county should be parcelled out to the District Councils; which, to his mind, was as unsatisfactory and uneconomical a method of maintaining the roads as could be conceived. The roads in question were the main arteries of circulation through the counties from end to end, and they were now told that they were to be left to Boards of Guardians, every one of which had its own idea of road maintenance, some of them very unscientific, as well as their own peculiar views on the question of using local stone. He was of opinion that this matter must be dealt with as a whole by the County Council. Road-making, to be scientifically conducted, must be done with the best stone that could be procured, and he thought it stood to reason that the County Council would be better able to command the best stone than the District Council. For these reasons, he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Baron Dimsdale)
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he agreed that the Highway Board system was an improvement on the old parish system; but the qualifications thought necessary for surveyors were not always high. He had known a case where the principal recommendation offered on behalf of a candidate was that his brother had held the post before him. He thought that the proposal of the Government, modified by the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), was much more likely to produce good road-making than that now before the Committee.
  MR. A. J. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought that, in framing this new Local Government Bill, it
  1750
  would be wise to borrow from the experience of South Wales, and place the whole of the main roads under the County Councils.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDsaid, that the proposal of the Government meant the establishment of a new staff different from that at present working in the counties. He did not know whether it was implied that the County Councils might maintain the roads in an efficient state by means of contracts with the District Councils; but, if so, he had nothing to say against the proposal.
  MR. LONGsaid, the Government did not propose to entail on the County Council the providing of the machinery for the maintenance of the roads. But power was given them to maintain the roads, and if they believed they could do that more economically and better through their own surveyor they would have the right to do so. On the other hand, if they believed they could do the work more economically and better by contract with the District Councils and the present authorities, they had power to do so; and there would be no necessity for the new machinery to which the hon. Gentleman had referred.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in line 8, page 12, after "situate," insert "and no tolls, commonly called turnpike tolls, shall be collected in South Wales."—(Mr. A. Thomas.)
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he might spare the hon. Gentleman some trouble by pointing out that, under the new condition of things, Wales would in future be in the same position as any other part of the country as regarded main roads. The counties would collect their own Licence Duties, and it would, therefore, seem unjust that the toll system should be continued. It was, he believed, the unanimous opinion of the people that the tolls should be abolished, and the Government were prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. But he would ask him not to press for the insertion of the words here, because they would come in rather awkwardly, but be satisfied with his assurance that he would be prepared hereafter to carry out his wishes either by Amendment or by means of a new clause.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he agreed to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and pointed out that the main roads in South Wales having, with regard to turnpikes, been dealt with in a special manner, it was the desire of the inhabitants that they should now be placed in the same position as the rest of the Kingdom.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEYsaid, he might point out that funds for the roads were provided not only by tolls, but by a county road rate of a special character; that was to say, its incidence is not the same as the ordinary county rate; and the tenant could recover it from the landlord. He rose to express a hope that when the clause of the right hon. Gentleman was brought in, he would see that the county road rate was also abolished.
  MR. A. J. WILLIAMSsaid, that Clause 15, which provided that the cost of maintaining the main roads appeared to him a more appropriate place for introducing the Amendment. At any rate, Clause 46 was not the proper place.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the subject was one which must be dealt with rather comprehensively. It could not be dealt with in a line or two, and his own opinion was that it was a fit subject for a new clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the law with regard to foot-paths was not very clear. An hon. Friend had told him of a case in point; it appeared that the Authorities, owing to the uncertain state of the law, were keeping in repair a path out of Cheltenham rather than run the risk of not repairing it. That was not his view of the case, although he was bound to say that he had spoken with one or two professional men in his Division of Sussex, who said that if they were to take over the main roads in towns they might be liable for the repair of the pavements at the side as well as of the road itself. He believed the Committee would think it unjust that the County Councils should be compelled to pay for these pavements. Again, he might point out that some of the towns might think it right to have wood or stone pavements in the roads, and it would be manifestly unfair that the County Councils
  1752
  should have to pay for that. The right and proper course was to repair the road as it had hitherto been repaired, and maintain it in a condition fit for the conveyance of the through traffic. He believed his right hon. Friend was prepared to accept the Amendment he had placed on the Paper with a certain modification, which, if it met with the approval of the Committee, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was willing to accept; but he would like to hear his right hon. Friend's views on this question, which was of undoubted importance. Some of the foot-paths he had referred to were made for the benefit of a particular parish, or for some special purpose, such as making and raising a path so as to get dry to church, and did not form part of the main road; and it would be very unwise to allow the repair of these to be taken over by the County Councils. For these reasons he begged to move the Amendment he had placed on the Paper.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 12, line 9, leave out "and," and insert "but such main road shall not be deemed to include any footpath or pavement by the side of such road, nor shall the county council be required to maintain or repair a road further or otherwise than is necessary for maintaining the same in a condition fit for the conveyance of the through traffic."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment divided itself into two parts, one of which related to the question of foot-paths, the other to the condition in which main roads should be maintained. His hon. and gallant Friend said truly that the law was not as distinct on this matter as was desirable; but certainly so far as the question of the pavements was concerned he did not think there could be much doubt that no liability rested with the county to maintain those at the side of the main roads in boroughs. With regard, however, to footpaths in the rural part of districts he thought the practice was different, and that the rule had been that the county should contribute towards the maintenance of such foot-paths. He believed the words of the Turnpikes Act were pretty clear—namely, that the turnpike trustees were authorized to make and repair causeways for the use of passengers at the side of turnpike

  1753
  roads; but the following section provided that they were not to make or repair any footpath in a village or town. He should wish his hon. and gallant Friend, therefore, to accept an alteration of the first portion of his Amendment, which would show clearly that no obligation should lie on the County Council to maintain any paved footpath—that he should leave out the words "footpath or pavement," and insert "any paved or pitched causeway or pavement." That he thought would carry out the desire of his hon. and gallant Friend in that respect. With regard to the other portion of the Amendment dealing with the repair of roads, he might point out that the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend amounted to the division of the repair of the roads into two parts—the first related to the part which had to do with local traffic, and the second to that required in the county for through traffic. If the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet were inserted in its present form, he could easily imagine that a conflict of opposition might arise between the District and the County Councils as to the interpretation of local as distinguished from through traffic. It would be extremely undesirable that any such conflict of opinion should arise, and it seemed to him to be a plain duty to maintain the roads in a proper state of repair, no matter whether it was out of repair on account of local or through traffic. But his hon. and gallant Friend said that the Town Authorities might take it into their heads to put down wooden or stone pavement. He would, however, point out to him that by this Bill a Town Council, if it desired to maintain its own roads, would only be able to call on the County Council for a contribution on the same basis as that on which the contribution was now made, so that it did not seem that the case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had suggested was at all likely to arise; and, further, he believed it would be seen that if the road through a town or urban district wore pitched or paved in any way it might cost considerably less to repair—although the original cost might have been great—than would be the ease if the ordinary pavement had to be used, Therefore, he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not think it necessary to press the latter part of his Amendment, but adopt his suggestion
  1754
  with regard to the first part, in which modified form the Government were, as he had said, willing to accept it.
  MR. MALLOCKsaid, he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend, who seemed to think that the footpaths at the side of main roads were not maintainable by the Main Road Authorities. He knew, however, that in the county of Devon the cost of maintaining footpaths, which existed during the time when the main roads were turnpike roads, had always been allowed. It seemed to him that the paths must be kept up by someone; and, therefore, if it were not done by the County Council it must be done by the District Council, and then there would be two surveyors side by side engaged upon the same road. There were many cases of main roads in rural districts running between two large towns, for the sake of which towns only the footpaths were kept up, and it would, therefore, be unfair to throw the cost of their maintenance upon the rural districts. He also reminded the Committee that many roads were declared main roads because they led to railway stations situated outside the urban districts which used them; those roads had paved footpaths—he knew of an instance—and, therefore, the whole cost of them would be thrown upon the rural districts.
  MR. HALLEY STEWARTasked if the right hon. Gentleman meant footpaths wholly pitched and paved, or did he mean to include those which had a curb at the side?
  MR LLEWELLYNasked with whom the maintenance of the footpaths, which were of importance in the localities in which they existed, was to rest?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had not proposed that footpaths should be excluded from the Bill. The Amendment he suggested would only exclude pitched or paved causeways or pavements.
  MR. LLEWELLYNsaid, he took exception to that. Someone must take charge of the footpath, whether paved or otherwise, and the proper authority to do that was the one which had charge of the roads.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid, they were now engaged in transferring certain powers from Quarter Sessions to the County Councils, and he submitted that

  1755
  it would be more convenient not to discuss upon this clause the question of amending the Highways Act of 1878. The only way in which they ought to discuss the District Council was in its relation to the County Councils and their power to discharge the powers of Quarter Sessions. He suggested that his hon. and gallant Friend should withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he considered that this was the most important Amendment that had been considered by the Committee. He might point out that a large portion of the footpaths in county towns were continued a considereble distance beyond the latter. They were often constructed of cement and asphalte, and it seemed to him that they were made for the convenience of the parish people, and, consequently, that it would be a great injustice if the cost of maintenance were thrown upon the County Council. He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would persevere with his Amendment.
  MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, that as the law at present stood no person had a right to make enclosure within 15 feet of the centre of the road; and if the footpaths were left in the condition they would be in under the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet, they would, to a great extent, become of the nature of common land, and adjacent owners would have an inducement to make illegal encroachments upon them. There would then be fences instead of the pleasant strips which now border many roads on either side. He thought that would be the effect of the Amendment, and, therefore, hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not press it.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he thought the Committee would do well not to attempt to amend the Highway Act. He thought the hon. Member who last spoke had exposed one of the objects of the Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought his hon. and gallant Friend would see that the opinion of the Committee was largely in favour of his Amendment not being passed. He sympathized with every attempt to amend the law, but their labours would be considerably increased if they were to attempt to make all the alterations suggested. He thought it was
  1756
  the opinion of the Committee that the law at present provided security for the County Council never being called upon to do more than was necessary in respect of the roads, and he trusted, therefore, that his hon. and gallant Friend would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the Amendment he was about to propose, whilst enabling the County Council to hand over to District Councils the repair of main roads, yet retained in the County Council those powers which he thought it absolutely necessary that they should possess in order to insure that the main roads should be kept in a good and efficient state. The noble Lord the Member for the Petersfield Division (Viscount Wolmer) had said that it would be better if the County Councils could maintain and keep the roads in repair; but he thought the noble Lord would consider that the proposal he made was one which would work well, and be far more economical in its results than a system under which two surveyors would be working side by side. In the interests, therefore, of economy and efficiency he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 12, at end of line 17, insert—"(4.) The county council and any district council may from time to time contract for the undertaking by the district council of the maintenance, repair, improvement, and enlargement of, and other dealing with any main road, and, if the county council so require, the district council shall undertake the same, and such undertaking shall be in consideration of such annual payment by the county council for the costs of the undertaking as may from time to time be agreed upon, or, in case of difference, be determined by arbitration, in manner provided by this Act.
  "(5.) Provided, that in no case shall a county council make any payment to a district council towards the costs of such undertaking as respects any road, or towards the costs of the maintenance or repair of any road by an urban authority, until the county council are satisfied by the report of their surveyor, or such other person as the county council may appoint for the purpose, that the road has been properly maintained or repaired, or that the improvement or enlargement of or other dealing with the road, as the case may be, has been properly executed."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added,"
  MR. SEALE-HAYNEsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect as that of the hon. and gallant Baronet, and would, therefore, say a few words in support of the principle involved. He thought there was a very strong desire in the counties that the District Authorities should have power to retain the control of their own roads. The Rural Authorities desired to be vested with the same power as was proposed to be given to the Urban Authorities, and he was at a loss to understand why they should not have it. He believed it would be productive of greater economy that this should be done, because the District Authorities would have their own staff for the maintenance of the roads; he was perfectly confident that they would repair more efficiently and economically the portions of the main roads which passed through their districts than would be the case under the system proposed in the Bill. Moreover, he believed, the inhabitants of the districts would be the best people to keep watch upon the roads, and to compel the District Authorities to keep them in order; and the public at large would, of course, be protected, because the County Inspector would see that the District Authorities maintained the main roads in proper condition. Under these circumstances, he sincerely hoped that the Government would accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he hoped that if the Amendment were accepted, the word "annual" would be struck out. It was well known that at times it was much more economical to pave old roads than to go on repairing them. It was desirable that the payment for this should not be made by annual payments, but in one lump sum.
  MR. LONGsaid, the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as it stood. The Government, however, could not accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Ashburton (Mr. Seale-Hayne) that the same power should be conferred upon the Rural Authorities as upon the Urban Authorities, because it would not fall in with their proposal that the maintenance of the roads should fall on the County Council. With reference to the point raised by
  1758
  the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, he did not think it necessary to take out the word "annual," because whether the money was spent in one year or three, the authorities must expend what was necessary to keep the roads in a proper state of repair.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he could hardly understand the necessity for the Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIEpointed out that the proposed arrangement would be useful in the case of where a strip of road belonging to a rural area came between two Urban Authorities, the maintenance of which it would be too costly for the County Council to keep in their own hands.
  MR. BRUNNERsaid, he thoroughly approved the Amendment, which was a step in the direction of economy, a principle too often lost sight of in the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Mr. M'LARENsaid, the object of the Amendment which he rose to propose was to do away with a hardship only recently discovered by Local Authorities. By a decision of the Court of Appeal this year an Urban Authority had had to pay out of its own pocket the cost of paving a road with paving blocks, as it was held that that did not come under the head of maintenance. A great injustice had been inflicted, because in this case the work, which cost £80, would have lasted for 10 years, while the cost of macadamizing the road would have come to £10 annually during that time. In this latter case the Urban Authority would get three-fourths of the cost returned to them, and so would really only have had to pay £25 spread over 10 years. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment he was about to move.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 12, line 24, after the word "same," insert the words, "and for the purpose of the maintenance, repair, improvement, and enlargement, and other dealings with such road, shall have the same powers, and be subject to the same duties as a highway board."—(Mr. Laren.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LONGsaid, that the Government were prepared to accept the first Amendment of the hon. Gentleman

  1759
  because it appeared that this section of the clause did not confer on the Urban Authorities quite sufficient powers; that was to say, not quite the same powers that the preceding sub-section of the clause conferred on the County Councils. He did not know whether he would be in Order in referring to the second Amendment which the hon. Gentleman regarded as consequential, but which could not be accepted by the Government as a consequential Amendment. If the Government were to accept the hon. Gentleman's second Amendment the result would be that the County Councils would be liable to be called upon to repay to the District Councils the expenses incurred not merely in repairing the roads, but in the improvement and enlargement of them, and of course the enlargement and improvement would include the widening of streets or the buying up of property. It must be evident to the Committee that it would be impossible to lay on any County Authority any such burden. Of course, the Government recognized that there was some grievance in a case such as that cited by the hon. Gentleman; but it was impossible to render the County Councils liable to the very heavy expenses in question. The Government would accept the first Amendment, which dealt with the powers of the Urban Authority, but they could not accept the second Amendment, which, as he said, threw on the County Councils liability which they could not reasonably be expected to bear.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he now begged to move to insert "improvement or enlargement" after "repair" in line 26. This Amendment raised a very important principle indeed, and it was one he really hoped the Government would see their way to accept. Of course, he did not wish to insist upon the insertion of the particular words he proposed. He was entirely at one with the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) in saying it would be absurd to expect the County Councils to pay for the making of streets or the buying up of property. He had no idea that the words he proposed would bear such a construction, and therefore he was willing to accept any proposal the Government might
  1760
  make to obviate such a rendering. The point he had in view was quite clear and distinct. He had in mind, as he had said, one case—it was one of a great many instances—in which the Leek Improvement Commissioners spent £80 in paving a short piece of road. By that they effected a great economy, they saved an annual outlay of £10 a-year for 10 years. If, instead of doing that, they had gone on expending £10 a-year for 10 years, they would have spent £100 in all. They would have got £75 back again into their own local coffers, and therefore they would have only laid a burden of £25 upon the Leek people extending over 10 years. Instead of that they spent £80, and when they had done so, they had to bear the whole burden themselves. No one knew that was the state of the law until this year. If it was an old and well-established law he would not press this point so very much; but a decision in the matter had only been given so late as the 7th of May. All that was asked was that this defect should be remedied. He would accept any words which would remedy it, and he earnestly appealed to the Government to consider the matter favourably.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 26, after the word "repair," insert the words "improvement or enlargement."—(Mr. M'Laren.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HARRY T. DAVENPORTsaid, that Leek was in the Division of Staffordshire, which he had the honour to represent, and he could confirm what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. M'Laren) had said as to the Leek case. When the street had been paved with blocks the Quarter Sessions, in the exercise of that economy which was one of their greatest characteristics, refused to make their contribution; the case thereupon came before the Courts, with the result mentioned. He hoped that some interpretation of the word "maintenance" or "improvement" would be inserted, which would meet such a case as this. He understood that the hon. Gentleman was prepared to vary his Amendment in any way which the Government might desire, and he trusted that the Government would be able to

  1761
  see their way to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he thought that if they left out the word "enlargement," and agreed to the words "improvement with regard to paving," the difficulty would be met.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought that his Amendment would cover the matter, because it said that the County Councils might do so-and-so, and he thought that that was all that was necessary.
  MR. BRUNNERsaid, that the hon. and gallant Baronet's (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) Amendment did not quite cover what might be an exceptional or temporary provision such as was required in the Leek case. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that provision might be made for an agreement between the County Council and the District Council which would meet such a case as the one in point.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that that was exactly what his hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment which had been added to the Bill did, because it said—
  "The county council, and any district council may from time to time contract for the undertaking by the district council of the maintenance, repair, improvement, and enlargement of, and other dealings with any main road, and, if the county council so require, the district council shall undertake the same."
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that, as he understood the position, they were now dealing with the case of an Urban Authority having elected to take charge of the main roads within its own limits; they were not dealing with the case where the District Council and the County Council had come to an agreement. His hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. M'Laren) had brought to the notice of the Committee a legal decision which, as he understood it, was this—that where the Local Body, instead of repairing a main road in the old style, had repaired it in an improved style, it had been held not to be repaired, but to be a re-making of the road, and that thereupon it had been held that the Local Body must bear the whole cost of such remaking. What had been done might prove an economy in the long run; but still the Local Body had no claim at all for a contribution. He was sure that everyone in the House wished the County
  1762
  Council to contribute a fair proportion in respect to what was necessary for the maintenance of the main roads within the limits of a smaller district. It might be that, where there was a great deal of traffic, paving would, in the long run, be more economical; but whether it was more economical or not, the County Council, according to the legal decision, would get off without any contribution whatever. It was not always easy to find a way, on the spur of the moment, of getting out of a difficulty; but it occurred to him that a remedy might be found by inserting, after the word "repair," in line 26, the words "or reasonable improvement."
  MR. FULLERsaid, that the difficulty might be met if they were to put in the Bill a definition of what was" maintenance." There were may other things besides paving which might come under the heading of "maintenance;" and, therefore, it was as well that there should be a definition of the word.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he understood that the point was that there should be some provision by which a district should have some kind of claim for reasonable improvements made in their roads; and clearly, of course, it would be to the interest of the County Councils, who had to pay for the maintenance of the roads, that reasonable improvements should be made, because in that case the cost of maintenance would be less. If the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. M'Laren) agreed, the Government would accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) subject to future consideration, in case it did not quite meet what was wanted.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he was quite prepared to accept the Amendment suggested by his right hon. Friend, and therefore asked leave to withdraw his original proposal, and he would then move the words suggested—namely, "or reasonable improvement."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 26, after the word "repair," to insert the words "or reasonable improvement."—(Mr. Laren.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had now to I propose to leave out the words—
  "In like manner and on the like conditions as the contribution towards such costs is directed by the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, to be paid."
  The reason ho proposed to omit these words was that he found, from a great many communications he had had, that they were likely to be misunderstood. The Bill only provided for the payment by the county of one-half the cost, and a great many of his correspondents outside the House and inside the House seemed to think that the retention of these words would imply, at any rate, that the contributions of the county should only be the same as were specified. The words were not at all necessary, and he proposed to omit them.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 26, to leave out the words from the word "road" to end of line 28.—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  MR. BRUNNER,in moving an Amendment which stood in his name, said, he supposed he would hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether the omission of words they had agreed to would affect the Amendment?
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 26, after the word "road," to insert the words "to the extent of three-fourths of such cost, but otherwise."—(Mr. Brunner.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was quite evident that the insertion of these words would be a total departure from the principle of the Bill. They had provided the County Councils with what was considered adequate funds; they called upon the Councils to maintain the whole cost of the roads, and the hon. Gentleman nom proposed to relieve them of one-fourth of that cost.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. RITCHIE,in proposing to leave out from "sum," in page 12, line 30, the words—
  "Based on the average expenditure on the road during the three years next before the
  1764
  passing of this Act, or the date of the road becoming a main road (as the case may be),"
  said, it would be seen that in the Bill they proposed to say that the annual sum should be paid on the average expenditure during the three years before the passing of the Act. He had found, from a great number of communications he had received, that this basis was a basis which most of those who were interested desired to alter. Some correspondents suggested that the term should be three years, some five, and some seven. The Government, however, thought, on the whole, that it would be desirable not to lay down any absolute basis at all; and he, therefore, bogged to move the omission of the words.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 30, to leave out from the word "sum" to the second "as" in line 32.—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'based on the average expenditure,' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he thought there was a little misconception in using the word "contribution." He could quite see why the right hon. Gentleman had left out the last three lines of the preceding sub-section. If those lines had remained in the clause, all that the County Council would have been called upon to contribute would have been one-half of the cost of the main roads. "Contribution," which was the word used in this sub-section, was rather like "subscription;" the payment might be a large one or be a small one. He certainly thought that some other word should be substituted for "contribution."
  MR. RITCHIE: Payment.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: The alteration could be made on Report.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. FULLER,in moving the insertion of the words "from time to time" after "as may be," in line 32, said, unless those words were put in, the fixed annual sum would not be alterable from time to time, as the circumstances altered in the different rural districts. The wear and tear on the roads might be increased or decreased in certain circumstances, and the contributions should, therefore, be varied from time to time.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 32, after "as may be," insert "from time to time."—(Mr. Fuller.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. BRUNNER,in moving in the same page to leave out the word "arbitration," in line 33, and insert "the Local Government Board, after inquiry," said, he moved that Amendment at the request of the Association of Local Boards and other Sanitary Authorities, a very important Body which represented such authorities over a very large proportion of the country. They desired him to say they were so thoroughly satisfied with the action of the Local Government Board in these local inquiries that they would very much prefer being left in the hands of the Local Government Board. A good many of them had experience of arbitration, and it was not at all a pleasant experience. When the Local Government Board did its work well, and the authorities over whom it ruled were perfectly satisfied with it, he regretted to find—it might be through an excess of modesty on their part, but whatever it was he regretted very much to find it—that the Local Government Board was disposed to part with this work. He recommended this Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman, and trusted sincerely that he would accept it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 33, to leave out the word "arbitration," and insert the words "the Local Government Board, after inquiry."—(Mr. Brunner.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'arbitration' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. LONGsaid, he thought the Amendment was unnecessary, because if the parties did not agree upon an arbitrator the Local Government Board would be empowered to interfere.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he hardly thought that met the case. Arbitration was really a most expensive proceeding. He was not one of those who advocated denuding the Local Government Board of its powers. He thought that the Board exercised its powers most efficiently and economically, and he thought matters of this kind could certainly be settled in an hour or two by the Board, and at very little or no cost. In the
  1766
  interest of economy he asked the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, they must be very careful in this matter. The Local Government Board were perfectly willing to undertake any duties the House of Commons desired to place on the shoulders of the Board; but if questions of this kind were to be left for settlement by the Board, the House of Commons must be prepared for an increase in the Local Government Board Estimate. There was no Department of the Government whose officers were more hard worked than those of the Local Government Board at present. If the Committee thought it was desirable that this duty should be undertaken by the Local Government Board, it would not shrink from it; but the Board could not be expected to do the work without an increase of its staff.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, he hoped the Government would accept the proposal.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that the other night they were discussing what powers should be transferred from the Local Government Board, and even from the Home Office, to the new County Councils. Now, it appeared, hon. Gentlemen wished to transfer back powers to the Local Government Board. [Cries of"No, no!"] At any rate, they wished to cast fresh duties upon the Local Government Board, which by this Bill they intended to get rid of. The counties were particularly anxious that decentralization should take place; and, if that was so, surely hon. Members did not wish to hand over to the Local Government Board that authority which they thought, in the interests of the country, they should be relieved of. He trusted the Government would not accept the Amendment.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he would remind the Committee that this Amendment referred to disputes between the District and the County Councils, and the only question was whether those disputes should be settled by the costly method of arbitration or by the Local Government Board? What they were discussing the other night was the transference of the administrative functions

  1767
  of the Local Government Board, which they thought would be discharged better by the County Councils.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was his intention, if the Committee accepted this proposal with reference to arbitrations, to propose the insertion of words later on by which the cost of these arbitrations would be very greatly reduced. What he intended to propose was the appointment by the Local Government Board of an arbitrator, under rules and regulations fixed by the Local Government Board. It would not be necessary they should have their own Inspector to do the work, but they might make rules which would prevent the great expense which undoubtedly did attend many of these arbitrations.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he begged to point out to the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) that the arbitration was to take place in cases of disputes between the District and County Councils; and, therefore, it was clear that the County Councils could not adjudicate in their own case. With reference to the appointment of an arbitrator by the Local Government Board, he imagined that the right hon. Gentleman did not suggest that the arbitrator should be under the Board's control. The right hon. Gentleman would merely appoint a professional man, and he would charge very highly indeed for his arbitration work. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) did not wish to see the Local Government Board's Estimate increased, yet he would sooner vote for the addition of one or two Inspectors rather than that the County Councils should be called upon to defray the costs of arbitrations.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Government would accept the Amendment.
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he hoped the Committee would not induce the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. He thought it would be very much to be regretted if the Local Government Board was going to have its finger in the pie more than it already had under the provisions of the Bill.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT,in moving the insertion of the three sub-
  1768
  section which stood in his name, said, the first sub-section was very important, because, as he understood, his right hon. Friend was anxious that the County Councils should have more power than the Court of Quarter Sessions now possessed with regard to main roads; that they should be more liberal, if he might use the term, in accepting and taking over more main roads than had as yet been taken over as main roads. In many parts of the country there were certain parishes and certain districts which had no main roads at all, and yet they were called upon at the present moment to contribute largely to the maintenance of main roads in other districts. As he read the Bill, it was the intention of the Government that if the County Councils thought there was a road which ought to be made a main road, they should have the power to make it a main road. That being the case, he thought everyone would agree that the road should not be taken over and repaired by the County Council, or by the District Council, if the County Council delegated its powers to the District Council, until the road had been put in a proper state of repair. There might be one road in excellent repair and another road which had been absolutely neglected, and certainly the district in which the road was situated ought to be made to put the road in repair before it was taken over by the County Council. The next two sub-sections were to enable the County Council, in the event of the District Council failing to do its work, to compel the District Council to do the work, or to do the work themselves, and charge the District Council with the cost of doing it. He thought these sub-sections were absolutely necessary in the Bill; and, therefore, he begged to move their insertion.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, after line 33, to insert—
  "(6.) Where a county authority order a road to become a main road, such order shall not take effect until the road has been placed in proper repair and condition to the satisfaction of the county council.
  "(7.) If at any time the county council are satisfied, on the report of their surveyor or other person appointed by them for the purpose, that any portion of a main road, the maintenance and repair of which are undertaken by any district council, is not in proper repair and condition, the county council may cause notice to be given to such district council, requiring them to place the road in proper repair and

  1769
  condition; and, if such notice is not complied with within a reasonable time, the county council may do everything that seems to them necessary to place the road in proper repair and condition, and the expenses of so doing shall be a debt of the said district council to the county council.
  "(8.) If any difference arises under this section between a county council and a district council as to what is necessary for the maintenance of a road in a condition fit for the conveyance of the through traffic, or as to the refusal of the county council to make a payment under this section to the district council in respect of any undertaking or road, or as to any notice given to the district council by the county council to place a road in proper repair and condition, such difference shall, if either council so require, be referred to arbitration, in manner provided by this Act."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was inclined to think that this was a very desirable Amendment. It was quite clear that if the county were to pay for the maintenance and repair, and had power to contract with the Local Authority for the repair and maintenance of roads, there ought to be some power by which they could see that the money they paid was properly laid out in maintaining the roads in a proper state of repair. He did not suppose anyone was prepared to take any exception to the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend, which merely provided security that the roads should be kept in a proper state of repair.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he would be glad to support the Amendment so far as the provisions of Sub-sections 6 and 7 were concerned; but he did not think they ought to have Sub-section 8. The County Council surely ought to be the judge of whether the roads were in such a state that they were prepared to take them over as main roads. It would be for the District Council to apply to have the roads taken over, and they must put them in a proper state before they were taken over. If they accepted Sub-section 8 arbitration would be again necessitated.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that if the Committee were disposed to accept the principle of the Amendment, he had one or two small Amendments to suggest. In the first place, "County Authority" should be altered to "County Council;" and, in the second place, he would ask the Committee to strike out the words—
  1770
  "As to what is necessary for the maintenance of a road in a condition fit for the conveyance of through traffic, or as to the refusal of the county council to make a payment under this section to the district council in respect of any undertaking or road, or as to any notice given to the district council by the county council to place a road in proper repair and condition,"
  as the Committee had declined to accept an Amendment in the same sense.
  An hon. MEMBER: And leave out "arbitration?"
  MR. RITCHIE: And "arbitration."
  MR. WOODALLasked, whether there were any means by which the District Councils or boroughs could be compelled to make certain thoroughfares main roads? Under the Act of 1878 there was an implied obligation that certain roads such as those leading to railway stations and directly communicating between two places should be constituted main roads. Did the right hon. Gentleman contemplate that there should be any sort of power given to enforce that obligation upon the Local Authorities?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the matter was one which hardly came under the clause. So far as Quarter Sessions boroughs were concerned, in which the County Authority had no power of declaring thoroughfares to be main roads, a provision would be inserted, in the Bill by which the County Authority would be called upon to make such declaration. But the Government had not made provision in the Bill by which the District Councils would be able to compel the County Councils to declare a road to be a main road. It would be within the power of the County Councils to do that, and he should think they would be prepared to do it.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, it was obviously in the interest of the County Authority to avoid increasing its liabilities by constituting main roads; but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give the matter his consideration, seeing that he was taking such great care that the County Authorities should not make the main roads, except under the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman had set forth.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked, whether it would not be well to follow this precedent in boroughs where streets were declared highways? There was no

  1771
  arbitration or dispute in the matter; but the Local Authority had to decide whether the street was made to its satisfaction before it took it over. He thought that before the County Authority was called upon to take over a main road, such authority should be satisfied that the road was in a proper condition. The County Authority itself, it seemed to him, should be the judge in the matter.
  MR. RITCHIE: The right hon. Gentleman means that that should be so, so far as Sub-section 8 is concerned?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: Yes; I would take that sub-section away altogether.
  MR. BRUNNERsaid, the same rule obtained in the rural districts under the Rural Sanitary Authorities at the present time. The Rural Sanitary Authorities were not bound to accept a road, unless it was put in proper order before being handed over to them.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that in Sub-section 6 it was provided that the County Council should be the authority over the roads, and that the roads should be made to their satisfaction; whereas Sub-section 8, as proposed by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), made provision for disputes arising between the County Councils and the District Councils as to what might be necessary for the maintenance of a road in a condition fit for the conveyance of the through traffic, or as to the refusal of the County Council to make a payment under the section to the District Council in respect of any undertaking or road, and the sub-section provided for the reference of such difficulty to arbitration. But this might be held to apply to what the County Council might have a right to require to be done before taking over a road, and therefore he thought it would be better to leave out Sub-section 8 altogether. He would, therefore, move its omission.
  Amendment proposed, to the proposed Amendment, to leave out Sub-section 8.—(Sir Richard Webster.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 8 stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the substance of Sub-section 8 was practically contained in Sub-section 6, which was governed by Sub-section 7. Under Sub-section 6, the County Authority would determine whether it should order a road to be a main road; and, having satisfied itself upon the point and taken the road over, it would be bound to fulfil its obligations under the Highways and Locomotives Amendment Act of 1878.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, it was because he considered that ambiguity would arise in interpreting Subsection 8 that he moved its rejection. The County Council might say to the District Council or other authority—"We will not take over a certain road until you do something which we consider necessary for its maintenance in the future;" and under Sub-section 8 this might be supposed to amount to a dispute to be settled by arbitration.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that in the event of any difficulty arising between a County Council and a District Council on a road becoming a main road, there would be a sufficient power already in the law to enable a settlement to be arrived at.
  Question put, and negatived.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would consider the advisability of giving the District Councils a locus standi on the question of getting thoroughfares made into main roads? It was necessary to make roads leading to railway stations main roads, and yet in some cases the County Councils might refuse to take them over.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had already stated that this question would be considered at a future stage.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid, there were new powers given under Sub-section 2 of this clause now before the Committee. The County Council, for instance, was to have power to turn a highway into a main road, and to contribute to the repair of a main road within the jurisdiction of a District Council without taking the entire management of such road upon itself. Well, those powers were liable to abuse, and he should like to have some explanation

  1773
  as to why County Councils were to have conferred upon them power not hitherto exercised by Quarter Sessions—power to contribute towards the maintenance of some highway in the county, while they did not take it over as a main road.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that it had been reported to the Local Government Board that there were cases in which roads, though they were not main roads, were to some extent in the category of main roads, and in regard to which it would be advisable to give a County Authority power to make some contribution. He did not think the County Councils would be likely to abuse that power. There might be some cases where County Councils would hesitate to take over the whole responsibility for the maintenance of a road, and yet where they thought they might fairly contribute something towards their maintenance.
  MR. BRUNNERsaid, he thought the County Councils might be trusted to do what was right in the matter. The next Amendment on the Paper was in his name—namely, in line 36 of the clause, after "highway," to insert the words "including any public footpath by the side of such highway." He had the authority of his hon. Friend the Member for the Radcliffe Division of Lancashire (Mr. Leake) to move the Amendment standing in his name—namely, after "highway," to insert "or public foot-path. He would move that Amendment, therefore, in preference to his own. He begged to point out that this was a permissive right to the County Council, and that, therefore, the objection would not apply which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had urged with regard to the Amendment relating to public foot-paths already brought under his notice. It seemed to him a very great hardship that everywhere all over the country, that part of the road which belonged to foot-passengers should have been allowed to become not only less and less in area, but less and less fit for their use every year. He desired, in moving the Amendment, to obtain from the Committee an acknowledgment of the principle that the County Council, no less than the District Council, owed a duty to foot passengers as well as to those who were wealthy enough to travel on wheels.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 36, after the word "highway," to insert the words "or public foot-path."—(Mr. Brunner.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that he saw a similar Amendment to this down in the name of several hon. Members, and having given this power in connection with roads that were not main roads, he did not see why they should not also give it in connection with main roads.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he now desired to move the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse)—namely, in page 13, after line 8, to insert the following sub-section—
  "Notwithstanding anything in the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, contained, county councils may at any time declare that any road now being or hereafter to become a main road has ceased to be a main road and has become an ordinary highway, and section sixteen of the said Act shall apply to such road accordingly."
  MR. RITCHIE: We have already provided a discretion to the County Council.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he was aware of that; but he wanted to do something more than they had yet decided upon. After the Act of 1878 became law, owing to a great deal of through traffic which used to pass on certain roads being diverted by railways, many old turnpikes were made main roads that ought never to have been made so. This had been done very often by the Local Government Board against the wish of the County Authorities, and in such cases as those he desired to give the County Councils authority—he wished them to be able to declare that certain roads should no longer be main roads. When the Highways Amendment Act came into operation in Lincolnshire, they appointed a very strong Committee indeed to examine into all the roads, and they sent in a carefully prepared scheme to the Local Government Board, saying which roads ought to be main roads and which ought not to be main roads. They only recommended that six miles of disturnpiked roads should be made main

  1775
  roads, with the exception of some small pieces of thoroughfares near railway stations, but they agreed that many miles of other roads should be made main roads; but what was done by the Local Government Board? They sent down an Order, declaring that all disturnpiked roads should be made main roads, and did not take the slightest notice of any of the recommendations of the County Authority. The consequence was that in Lincolnshire they had 30 or 40 miles of main roads which had no right at all to be main roads, and that they had other roads which should have been made main roads but were not. He thought that by accepting the Amendment it would be found that they could decrease the main roads in Lincolnshire by one-half.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 13, after line 8, to insert the following sub-section—"Notwithstanding anything in 'The Highways Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878,' contained, county councils may at any time declare that any road now being or hereafter to become a main road has ceased to be a main road and has become an ordinary highway, and section sixteen of the said Act shall apply to such road accordingly."—(Mr. Heneage.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, the right hon. Gentleman probably had not seen that which had been brought to the notice of the hon. and learned Gentleman who was to have moved the Amendment. He referred to the decision in the Court of Queen's Bench, in which it was laid down that the power of deciding the point in question was clearly by Statute vested in the Local Government Board. Where Local Authorities desired to get rid of existing main roads they must apply to the Local Government Board.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he was aware of that decision, and if he had known that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) had not intended to move the Amendment, he (Mr. Heneage) should have himself put down a modified proposal on the Paper. This Amendment had been agreed to by the Lincolnshire Quarter Sessions, who desired that the County Councils should have the power
  1776
  to act in these matters without appealing to the Local Government Board. The Quarter Sessions thought the County Councils, who would be in possession of better information than the Government Department, would be the best judges of what should be done in the matter of deciding that certain roads should cease to be main roads.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth), he begged to move the Amendment standing in that hon. and learned Member's name—to add to line 11, on page 13, "the provisions of this clause should not apply to the county of London." He did not know that the Amendment was absolutely necessary; but it was clear, for many reasons into which he would not enter, that the provisions should not apply to London, and therefore there could be no harm in putting the matter beyond dispute by specific words.
  Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 11, add the words "the provisions of this clause shall not apply to the county of London."—(Mr. Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would point out that it would be much more convenient to discuss the point with regard to London when they came to the London Clauses.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL GUNTERsaid, the next Amendment, which stood in his name, he moved in accordance with the resolution passed by the Quarter Sessions, having jurisdiction over the district to which he belonged. The Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, gave certain powers in regard to local divisions in Lancashire called "hundreds." Well, in Yorkshire similar local divisions existed, but they were called "wapentakes," and as the Act only dealt specifically with "hundreds" it did not apply in the case of Yorkshire. They had therefore the anomaly that in one part of the country one system prevailed, while in a district immediately adjoining

  1777
  and only separated by the county line, through the absence of one word in the section of an Act of Parliament, a different system prevailed. Considerable inconvenience was necessarily the result. They asked in Yorkshire to be put on the same footing as the adjoining county of Lancaster, and as he wished to have the same law applied to other counties where this anomaly existed, he had used the words "all counties," and the words "in any other district."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 13, at end of sub-section (7) add—"Provided that, in construing that section, it shall be deemed to apply to all counties, and that 'hundred' shall include wapentake;' and any hundred or wapentake charged with the expense of the maintenance and repair of all the main roads situate therein shall be relieved from the cost of contributing to the maintenance and repair of any main road, or part thereof, situate in any other hundred, or in any other such district."—(Colonel Gunter.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman would scarcely press the Amendment. He was not sure, in fact, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman knew what the effect of it would be. So far as he (Sir Richard Webster) understood it, the effect would be to break up the counties into small divisions, and give local jurisdiction to those small divisions of the county which really should be dealt with by the County Councils as a whole, a policy which would be adverse to the principle on which the Bill had been framed. He could not see any practical reason for picking out wapentakes and hundreds, and making them subject to a special provision apart from the county at large. Considerable trouble would arise if the latter part of the Amendment were put in force, whereby particular districts, in consideration of their maintaining and repairing their own main roads, should be relieved from the cost of contributing to the maintenance and repair of main roads in other districts.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, that in Lancashire the county was broken up into hundreds, and the care of the main roads was vested in the authorities of each district. In the West Riding of Yorkshire the same system entirely prevailed, but the
  1778
  word "wapentake" was used in place of "hundred," and in consequence of that the Local Authorities there were unable to exercise the powers which the authorities of districts abutting upon their own were able to exercise. It would, perhaps, meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point, if an Amendment were inserted declaring that the word "hundred" should include "wapentake."
  COLONEL GUNTERsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment in the hope that that Amendment would be inserted later on.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Power to County Councils to enforce provisions of Rivers Pollution Act, 1876).
  MR. BRUNNERsaid, he would congratulate the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) on the progress he was making with the Bill; but it was a certain disadvantage to him (Mr. Brunner), as hon. Members who had a fuller knowledge of the subject with regard to which he was about to move an Amendment than he had himself were not in their places, presumably not having expected the Amendment to be reached. His first duty was to make it clear what his Amendment was. The first Amendment standing in his name was in line 15, to leave out the words "so much." The second and third Amendments were consequential. His desire was this—that instead of making it the duty of each County Council to protect against pollution so much of a river as bordered on or ran through the territory over which it had jurisdiction, to provide that each river in the country should be under the protection of a joint committee, consisting of or elected by all the County Councils of the districts through which that river ran. This matter of the pollution of rivers was a very important one. It was a matter upon which the prosperity of the country, and in a large measure the food of the people of the country, depended, as well as the amenities of life throughout the rural districts. Now, this matter of the protection of rivers from pollution ought to be in the hands of a powerful body. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would, he be-

  1779
  lieved, acknowledge that the Act passed a few years ago with the very best intentions had remained practically a dead letter, and he was convinced that it was a dead letter mainly on account of incompetency of the Bodies in whose hands the working of the Act was left. It was no disgrace to any Local Authority to be inefficient in this matter, for the protection of a river from pollution, if it were to be dealt with wisely and well, required a very high degree of scientific knowledge, and it was absolutely impossible that the Local Authorities in a county should be able to employ men of the requisite scientific attainments. His proposal would provide not only for a Body large enough and important enough to secure for themselves the necessary scientific advice, but it would provide for the reconciling of all the interests which were concerned in each river. It was a very frequent thing that a river would go through a mining district to begin with, it would then run through a manufacturing district, and then again run into an agricultural district. Now, if they left the protection of the river—say, the upper portion—in the hands of the County Council, the probability was that there would be on that Council a majority of men interested in mining, and such a Council would be especially careful of the interests of mining, rather than of those of the river. Then, if they went to the district where the County Council represented the manufacturing interest, they would have a majority rather concerned in the protection of manufactures than in the protection of the river; and if they went further, they would find the river in the hands of a Council entirely of one opinion—that was to say, all interested in the preservation of the purity of the river, because the pollution of a river never did good, but always considerable harm, to agriculturists. What he proposed was that the men representing the mining interest, the manufacturing interest, and the agricultural interest should meet together and should act in such a way as not to destroy each other's interest. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, that such a Body as this would never act except reasonably, and when it did act it would act with great power. He himself, though
  1780
  a manufacturer, was happily not a pollutor of rivers, and he was desirous that the Rivers Pollution Act of 1876 should no longer remain a dead letter. He was anxious that the rivers should be protected, but he was no less anxious that rivers should be protected without doing injury to the important industries of the country. What was the ordinary course of affairs under the present Act? The rule was that the Sanitary Authorities cared nothing for the pollution of a river until the nuisance became intolerable. When a nuisance became intolerable it was a very frequent thing for the Local Authority to attack a manufacturer, close his works, and ruin his business, and in cases where they had taken such a course, if one went to the river again a few years afterwards, one would find, as a rule, that not one pennyworth of good had been done by this violent action. Now, rather than an immense amount of money should be spent from time to time in legal proceedings, and that great injury should be done to a manufacturer and to the country through the destruction of industries now and then, he thought it would be well to have the management of the whole of each river in the hands of a joint Body, such as he had described, who would always agree to act reasonably, but with the necessary amount of force. He trusted he should carry the Committee with him in this matter. He did not wish to take up any more time than was necessary, and he would therefore content himself with pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board this one further advantage of the adoption of the Amendment he proposed—namely, that when once they were accustomed to look upon a river as an entity from one end to the other, they would begin to take care of it, not only in the matter of the prevention of pollution, but also in the prevention of floods. He felt convinced that if the Amendment were adopted and the Body he proposed had been in operation a very few months, whenever a flood took place the fact that it was coming would be announced from the upper reaches to the manufacturing and other districts 12 hours beforehand, so that the farmers would be able to get their hay out of the way, the cottagers might block their doorways, and the

  1781
  manufacturers might make their factories secure. By the adoption of his Amendment they would find that the rivers would be cared for in every particular, and that the country would be enormously the gainer, He begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 15, to leave out the words, "so much."—(Mr. Brunner.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he was not at all sure that the Amendment the hon. Member had moved would meet the idea he had put forward; on the contrary, he was inclined to think that it would do something to make matters still worse. His (Mr. Brad-laugh's) objection—which, perhaps, he might raise on that Amendment—was to the clause itself as it stood. They had clear evidence before them that the Rivers Pollution Act of 1876 up to the present time had utterly failed, and that it had failed because in many cases the persons who were the offenders were at the same time the persons who had to administer punishment; it was their duty to punish themselves for their own offences, and naturally they did not do so. Well, he did not see how the Amendment of his hon. Friend was going to meet the difficulty. He did not know whether he should trouble the House with evidence on this point; but there was, at any rate, plenty of evidence very briefly stated and explained in the admirable Report of Mr. Fletcher on River Pollution. Mr. Fletcher gave a number of cases, and his view was clear in his Report to the effect that the power ought to betaken from the Local Bodies and put into the hands of the Local Government Board, through its special Inspectors—namely, the power to enforce against these people that which they would not enforce of themselves. It might be said that they were going to have a higher sense of morality upon the new Local Bodies; but to his mind the question was one of extreme difficulty. There would be a clashing of interests between the different Local Authorities, which clashing of interests had already been found to exist, as Mr. Fletcher stated in his Report. The Act had entirely failed on account of this clashing of interests, and
  1782
  the river pollution question was becoming of more and more importance every day. They had now in our large centres of population a menace of evil which was constantly growing, because of the want of care of the water supply, which was necessary for the people to drink. He thought it desirable to say that on the present clause. He did not know whether the Government would say that under the new authorities to be constituted by the Bill something more would be done to deal with this matter than had been done in the past. He (Mr. Bradlaugh), at any rate, could not support the Amendment, as it seemed to him that it would only aggravate the existing evil.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, if the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had considered what would be the effect of the Amendment if passed, he would have supported it rather than have opposed it. It was quite right to say that the Rivers Pollution Act had failed on account of local interests, and on account of small areas; but the object the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brunner) had in view in proposing this Amendment was to enlarge the administration of the river into a drainage area, and thereby to overcome the local interests that defeated the present Act. The larger they could make their drainage area, and make a combination of interests through a joint committee, the better would they be able to prevent river pollution. They had successfully combated with the fouling of air in various districts, by entrusting the Local Government Board with power to put a stop to the pollution of air by emanations from factories. Well, the principle of this Bill was to take away certain powers from the Local Government Board, and give them to the Local Authorities; but the more they cut up the drainage area and gave jurisdiction to different authorities through which rivers passed, the more completely would they prevent the efficient action of the Rivers Pollution Act. He, therefore, quite sympathized with the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment to get a committee of all the interests in the drainage area to act, because he believed that in that way they would have a much better chance of preventing the pollution of rivers. It was nothing short of a disgrace to the country that

  1783
  we should be so far behind in preventing river pollution. As he had said, we had grappled with the pollution of air, and we ought now to grapple with the pollution of water. Very long ago, ages ago, long before the history of this country commenced, some countries were in the habit of taking measures for the prevention of the pollution of rivers, seeing the importance of such action much more clearly than we seemed to do. In Egypt the Nile was thus protected in ancient times, and he had always felt that Moses made a mistake in not carrying away with him one of the Commandments of the Egyptians, that they should not pollute rivers. Unfortunately, Moses did not add that to the Ten Commandments, and the result was that all rivers had ever since been polluted. This question was of great importance to the agricultural community, and he thought that if the power of preventing the pollution of rivers were taken away from the Central Authority, the more urgent it was to combine Local Authorities throughout a drainage area, which might include several counties, and to make them responsible for the prrity of the common streams.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he hoped the Committee would not adopt the Amendment. He wished to point out to the hon. Member who had moved it that the excellent object he had in view, and to further which he would establish joint committees, could already be attained by the provisions of the Bill as it stood. There was nothing to present one or two, or, in fact, any number of counties, coming together and forming a joint committee. He was acquainted with the Report of Mr. Fletcher, which stated that the Rivers Pollution Act had failed in many respects; but still there were other cases in which that Act had been of considerable use, and he thought it was desirable that they should avail themselves of any steps which could be taken to prevent the pollution of rivers. He agreed that when they were dealing with this question of drainage, floods, or with the river as a whole, it might not only be desirable, but necessary, that the matter should be taken in hand by a joint committee of the County Councils, who would deal with the whole drainage
  1784
  area. But they had also to deal with large and substantial local pollutions. There had been many cases where there had been very serious local pollutions, and it seemed to him that it would weaken the power of the County Council if, in the case of a sudden and serious pollution in their portion of the river, they should possess no power of dealing with it until they had assembled together a committee from the other portions of the river who had no interest in the matter. The County Councils would not be able to act by means of a joint committee. By all means let the hon. Member (Mr. Brunner) put down an Amendment, if he chose, to enable large joint Bodies to deal with pollutions which required the interference of all districts through which the river ran; but he (Sir Richard Webster) could not see why a particular County Council should not have power to prevent pollution in that portion of the river which ran through its own jurisdiction. When the Committee remembered that the clause said that—
  "A county council should have power, in addition to any other authority, to enforce the provisions of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, (subject to the restrictions in that Act contained) in relation to so much of any stream as is situated within, or passes through or by, any part of their county, and for that purpose they shall have the same powers and duties as if they were a sanitary authority within the meaning of that Act,"
  they would be at a loss to see what reason there was for preventing a County Council which might be anxious to do this work from taking it in hand. He quite agreed with the observation—he had already said so—that something should be done to see that the provisions of the Rivers Pollution Act were better observed; but it would not, in his opinion, be a step in that direction to try to prevent the County Councils from discharging this function over that part of the river over which they had jurisdiction. Though he believed that something should be done to prevent the pollution of the water supply, he did not think it would be desirable to accept this Amendment.
  MR. BRUNNERbegged to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Local Authorities were very frequently not to blame if they did not interfere with the pollution of a river, and for this reason—that when a pol-

  1785
  lution took place within their jurisdiction it very frequently did no harm there, and nobody grumbled. The pollution did harm, and was felt as a very severe loss, not in the district where it occurred, but far below. It was just for the reason that, where the pollution was caused, it was not felt as a nuisance, and that it was caused by people who would have a majority on the County Council, within whose jurisdiction the mischief was caused; it was just for that reason that he wanted the County Councils to join together for the purpose of protecting each river from source to sea. He was a manufacturer himself, and had been amongst manufacturers all his life, and had had this question before his eyes for a great many years. He knew exactly where the shoe pinched, and he could assure the Committee, from experience, that it would do right to follow him, and not the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. AMBROSEsaid, he would point out that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had misapprehended the effect of the Amendment. Instead of weakening the hands of the County Council, he took it that the effect of striking out these words would be to enlarge the power of County Councils generally, although it would restrict the power of each County Council individually in the matter of the prevention of river pollution in its own district. He held that if any pollution took place in a portion of the river passing through a district under the jurisdiction of the County Council, that that County Council should have the same power of taking action as that possessed by the riparian owner. The riparian owner was able to take action against anyone fouling the stream, though that fouling took place above his land. If they struck out these words, then a County Council suffering from the fouling of the river in another county would be able to take action under this particular clause; therefore, it seemed to him that instead of narrowing it would enlarge the power of those Councils.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Brunner) had in his Amendment an important provision which would remove the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. Would the hon. and
  1786
  learned Gentleman the Attorney General look at the further Amendment of the hon. Member on the following page—namely, to insert at the end of line 21 the following words:—
  "And in every case where a stream passes through or by more than one county, the Local Government Board shall direct the council of every county through or by which such stream passes, to join in appointing out of their respective bodies a joint committee, which shall, in relation to the whole of such stream, have, all the powers and duties by this section granted to a county council."
  That Amendment described the way in which the proposal would work, and did not take away the power of the County Council, but only added to it. He would ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to what would happen now. They were taking out of the counties a considerable number of large boroughs through which a river passed. The County Councils would not be able to go into these large boroughs and say—"This stream has been fouled within your jurisdiction, and we must take action upon it, to prevent a continuance of the evil," because the borough would have become a county in itself. Therefore, if the Committee wished to make the measure when it became an Act of Parliament an efficient one for the prevention of river pollution, they must form an authority larger than a single County Council, and including, in fact, the drainage area, which would enable them to go into the boroughs and the counties, and to have all the interests combined in order to put a river into a state of purity.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he merely wished to say one word as to this question, because this was really as important a clause as they could have in the Bill. It was notorious that all over England our rivers and streams were polluted, and that this river pollution might be prevented if proper means were taken. He held that the Bill was the measure on which these means might be taken; but he ventured to think that these means were not at present contained in the clause. He did not see how, under the clause, one County Council would have power to deal with another County Council which refused to do its duty in regard to that portion of the river passing through their district; and what he

  1787
  was anxious to see was that some power should be given by which the pollution of a river could be prevented from its source to its outfall. Unless they had some better means of action than that which was proposed by the clause, they would never be able to put an end to river pollution. He knew how much the health of the country depended upon a good water supply; therefore, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would do well if he strengthened this clause in the manner suggested on Report. With the legal advice his right hon. Friend was able to get, he, no doubt, would be able to put words in the Bill to effect all they desired.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, the Government desired by means of the clause to provide a remedy for some of the evils which were admitted to exist with regard to river pollution. It had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) that the offender at present was the very authority for putting the Act in force, and that, naturally, on the part of this authority there was a pardonable reluctance to do so. That being so, the Government were desirous of taking advantage of the larger area and authority they were setting up in the Bill to provide a means by which a remedy might be found in places where the fault lay with the Sanitary Authority itself. Under the power which would be conferred by the Bill, the boroughs would be still charged with the duty of preventing the pollution of rivers; but if they did not perform their duties, the Bill would enable the County Councils to intervene. It was also provided that where a stream was in more than one county a joint committee should be formed for the purpose of taking any action. The only difference between the Government and the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment was this—the Government thought they could fairly rely upon the authority drawn from so large an area as a county to do its duty under this provision; and, on the other hand, hon. Gentlemen who supported the Amendment thought they could not rely upon the County Council, though it were returned from a large area, and though it might be
  1788
  charged with many very important duties, and though they were in hopes of being able to secure an authority powerful enough to put in force the Acts of Parliament with the administration of which these Councils were to be charged. The Government were still of opinion that the County Authority would do its duty in this respect. It seemed to him (Mr. Ritchie) that by adopting the Amendment, and the other Amendments on the Paper by the hon. Member, it would be made impossible, or practically impossible, for one County Authority to act with regard to streams which did not come wholly within its own area—that if a stream passed through three or four counties, it would be impossible for any one county to act by itself for the purpose of preventing pollution within its own area. He understood that was not the view of the hon. Gentleman, and it might be that he (Mr. Ritchie) was mistaken; but, at any rate, it seemed to him that the discussion which had taken place indicated that a much larger provision than that advocated by the Government should be adopted. He would, therefore, recommend the Committee to adopt the suggestion which had been thrown out—namely, that they should let the clause stand as it was, with the view of enabling the Government, with the light which had been thrown upon the whole matter, to consider whether they could insert some words which would make the clause a more effective one.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he rose to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board the point mentioned just now by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair), which the right hon. Gentleman had not noticed. He (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) did not wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to enlarge the Bill beyond what its original drafting would have accomplished; but he wanted to impress upon him the condition of that part of Lancashire with which he (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) was best acquainted—namely, that part drained by the Ribble and its tributaries. That river was polluted by about five districts. As the Bill originally stood, those districts would have been dealt with by the

  1789
  County Council; but the Amendment making Burnley and Blackburn into counties of boroughs had removed two of those districts. The County Councils of Burnley and Blackburn would be supreme in their own districts, and there would be no power for the County Council having jurisdiction over the other three districts to come in and deal with the tributaries of the Ribble as they passed through Blackburn and Burnley. In that way the County Council might find itself powerless to prevent pollutions originating in the districts of Blackburn and Burnley, and injuring the important districts of the county below those towns. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would given some attention to the matter, in order to prevent any difficulty arising in this respect.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had pointed out that the Government did not desire to cut down the powers of the County Councils, but that what was desired was to supplement their powers by a more powerful and more representative Body. If the hon. Member (Mr. Brunner) would withdraw his Amendment, the Government would undertake to bring forward an Amendment to carry out the hon. Gentleman's views in line 21. It would be necessary to alter the clause that dealt with rivers passing not only through one county into another, but through a borough and a part of a county. The subject having now been debated at some length, and fairly well understood, it would be well for the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment, for, either now or on the Report stage, the Government would add to the clause words to enable a joint authority to be constituted consisting of representatives of the Local Authorities, which would best enable the points last referred to to be dealt with.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he thought that to carry out the object of the hon. Member for the Northwich Division of Cheshire (Mr. Brunner) a little more would obviously be necessary than the Amendment proposed; therefore he trusted the hon. Member would accept the suggestion of the Government, and withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. BAUMANNsaid, that neither the right hon.
  1790
  Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board nor the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General seemed to have remembered that by the clause, as it stood, the River Thames outside the Metropolis would be absolutely unaffected, and would remain, as now, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Thames Conservancy Board. The clause, as it now stood, was subject to the regulations of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, in which there was a clause saving the powers of the Thames Conservancy Board. Now, the Thames Conservancy Board was a very bad authority indeed for the protection of the Thames—
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERwished to point out to the hon. Member that the saving powers to the Thames Conservancy Board did not prevent the operation of the Rivers Pollution Act. It was necessary to insert the saving clause, in order that the Conservancy Board might retain the powers they already possessed; but these powers did not override the powers of the Act.
  MR. BAUMANNsaid, that the Thames Conservancy Board was the authority for carrying out the provisions of the Act. He knew that that was the case in connection with the complaints made not long ago as to the pollution of the river by house boats, and the difficulties created by steam launches. It seemed to him that the powers in the case of the Thames should be in the hands of the County Councils of the districts through which the river passed, and should be taken out of the hands of the Conservancy Board. He trusted that the Government, after they had considered this point, if they thought he was right, would on the Report stage introduce such words as would carry out his suggestion.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that if it was understood that the Government intended to give to the County Councils full control of the streams so far as they exercised jurisdiction over the districts through which they passed, and in addition to create another authority, as anticipated by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, then he thought it would be well to leave the matter over till the Report stage, because he thought it would be impossible to agree to the form of words to be adopted now. He was of opinion that the Amendment

  1791
  moved by the hon. Gentleman would deprive the County Council of the necessary authority for dealing with this subject, rather than the reverse.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the hon. Gentleman had stated correctly what the Government proposed to do. Their proposal was that they should be allowed to take the clause as it stood, in order to amend it at a later stage.
  MR. PICTONsaid, he would ask whether the words in the clause "in addition to any other authority" preserved the authority of the County Council? Did the proposal mean that the authority should be exercised under the clause in addition to that exercised by the Sanitary Authority as it already existed? Supposing the Amendment of the hon. Member wore inserted, several County Councils, "in addition to any other authority," would have power to enforce the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act in case of emergency.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. BRUNNER: Yes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, there was likely to be a conflict of opinion between the authorities constituted under the Bill, and the existing Town Councils or Local Boards. There were towns which had Sanitary Authorities, through which rivers passed; and as the County Council would have jurisdiction over such rivers, some Amendment, he thought, should be inserted, in order to prevent the conflicts certain to arise when two authorities exercised similar jurisdictions within the same area.
  MR. BRUNNERsaid, the Chairman had been a little too quick for him—as, indeed, he was too quick for most people. He just wished to ask this question, whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was to be taken as assuring him that the County Councils would include the Councils of boroughs?
  MR. RITCHIE: We will take care that that is so.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Power of county council to make bye-laws).
  MR. HENEAGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board have the clauses already passed reprinted as amended?
  MR. RITCHIE: They have been reprinted.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday 3rd July, at Two of the clock.

MOTION.

  LEGITIM LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Donald Crawford, Bill to amend the Law of Legitim in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Donald Crawford, Mr. John Balfour, and Mr. Buchanan.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 311.]
  It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nino of the clock.

ORDERS OF TILE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

AGRICULTURAL TENANTRY (WALES).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, he should endeavour to be moderate and circumspect and well within the mark in any statement and in any considerations he might urge upon the House. Anyone making a Motion with regard to Wales, and especially with regard to agriculture in Wales, was immediately met by the deplorable want of Parliamentary information on the subject. When he looked at the Diplomatic and Consular Reports on the state of trade and agriculture of the small countries of Europe, and even those of the South American Republics, he felt envious that those countries should have so great a share of attention on the part of the House, while a country not far distant should have so very little attention paid to her in respect of her social condition and agriculture. In

  1793
  1879 an important Royal Commission was appointed; to inquire into the depressed state of agriculture, with regard to which he had to make some general remarks. In the first place, not a single Welshman, or anyone connected with Wales, was appointed upon the Commission, and, as a natural corollary, very few Welshmen were examined before the Commission. For all the counties of South Wales, the only one examined was an extensive land agent; while, for North Wales, the only person examined was Lord Penrhyn, who was much respected, but who was a large landowner, who lived as much apart from the ordinary tenants of Wales as the Olympian gods. The Commission, in their wisdom, appointed a gentleman who for many years had been a Poor Law Inspector to be Assistant Commissioner for Wales; he knew no Welsh; he was an absolute stranger to the Welsh farmers, and instead of examining them and collecting information from them, be sent a number of very carefully prepared inquiries to Poor Law clerks. That was a natural expedient for him to obtain information, but one would have imagined that this gentleman would have taken more care, and have gone, not to the Poor Law clerks, but to the farmers themselves. Now, his Report was practically the sum total of the Parliamentary information upon the state of agriculture in Wales which they possessed. In his Motion he referred at the outset to the special circumstances of Wales, and he saw on the Paper of that morning that the hon. and gallant Member for West Denbigh (Colonel Cornwallis West) had put down an Amendment which practically challenged the first part of his Motion. The hon. and gallant Member asked the House to deny that there were any special circumstances existing in land tenure in Wales. He (Mr. T. E. Ellis) wished to appeal, first of all, to the Report of the Assistant Commissioner with regard to the difference between English and Welsh agriculture. Mr. Doyle, the gentleman to whom he referred, was Assistant Commissioner not only for the 12 Welsh counties but for eight English counties, and he reported that the eight English and the 12 Welsh counties comprised in his district exhibited greater variety and more marked contrast in the distribution of land, as well as in re-
  1794
  spect of inhabitants and the character of agriculture, the condition as well as the habits of the rural population, than would be found within the same limits in any other portion of the United Kingdom. So much for his statement. He now came to the special circumstances over and above this distribution of land as between England and Wales. The first circumstance arose from the special charm and delight of the land of Wales itself; for instance, the Welsh tenant had an attachment to the soil which he cultivated, and to the religious and social community in which he lived, which could not, he ventured to say, be found in any part of England. Lord Penrhyn, although he did not know much about the small hillside tenants of Wales, was examined before the Commission, and being asked if there was in Wales what was called hereditary tenantry, he replied that there was a great feeling about that, they liked to succeed their fathers and grandfathers on their farms. If any further testimony were necessary, he might quote the statement made last year by a large Conservative landowner of Cardiganshire, who said that "landlords in Wales were able to secure a higher rent, because Welshmen loved the soil on which they were brought up, and because the tenants were not true to one another; if there was a farm about to become vacant there were a dozen people applying for it—they would not give the sitting tenant a chance of making terms with the landlord. "Their contention was that the land system, as it existed in Wales at present, enabled the mean and self-seeking to profit at the expense of the industrious and bravely struggling tenant. But not merely did this land-hunger affect the tenantry, it affected purchase. Gentlemen who had made fortunes in large English cities desired to find not merely land and luxuries of ownership, but they wanted to get rest, scenery, and a magistracy and county status. Now, there was no place where they could get those things so easily as in Wales. A Nonconformist might be the leader in his neighbourhood for 50 years; he might be respected and beloved by the community, but he had very little, if any, chance of a magistracy during the whole of his life; but suppose some stranger—some Churchman, or a gentleman of particular political opinions—went to

  1795
  Wales and bought a small estate, he had not to wait many years before he was put on the Magisterial Bench to dispense justice to Welsh speaking people. Those gentlemen bid against the tenant, who himself was so attached to the soil that he was ready to offer what often appeared a foolish price for his holding, first of all in order that he might keep his home, and further, that he might secure the fruits of his improvements and industry. Now, those gentlemen came over with fortunes, they bought land over the head of the cultivator at a fancy price, and then they turned round and applied commercial principles, saying they had paid a certain amount for the land, and must get so much per cent for the outlay. Anyone who knew Wales even superficially must be aware that this statement was well within the mark. Mr. Doyle, in his official Report, stated that in Montgomeryshire demands had been made to raise the rents to pay a fair percentage upon the purchase money. This competition for land was a circumstance special to Wales, was specially adverse to the interest of the tiller of the soil, and placed him at the mercy of the landlord. But this was aggravated by another circumstance, the chasm or social gulf which existed between the landlords and the occupying tenants. He would not dwell upon that point, but merely refer to three great questions which divided the bulk of the landlords of Wales from the bulk of the occupiers. Wherever one went in Wales—except on the borders of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire, and parts of Brecknockshire—it would be found that the cultivator and his family were Welsh speaking, and that his religious services and social communications were carried on in the Welsh language. On the other hand, with the rarest exceptions, the landlord was ignorant of the language of his tenants. That would naturally create a certain amount of estrangement and a chasm between the landlord and the tenant; but it was further aggravated by the fact that at a critical period in their religious and national history the end of the last century, most of the Welsh people built up a religious system of their own, and were separated entirely and completely from the landowners of Wales, who remained attached to the Anglican ecclesiastical system. The division, however, did not stop there;
  1796
  for in the course of the present century not merely had there been a religious divorce, but as complete a political divorce between the landlords and the cultivators. He was glad to see present many of his Colleagues from Wales who were large landowners; but he thought if each one of them were to give an impartial experience of Welsh landlords at election times he would say that 19 out of 20, if not 99 out of 100 were bitterly hostile to the popular cause. It was not without significance that every County Member for Wales, with the exception of the hon. Member for Radnorshire (Mr. Walsh), sat on that side of the House, and they were there not alone, because they were pledged on some burning, question in regard to Wales, but also because there had lately been a gradual but sure and inevitable revolt against the land system of Wales as at present administered. What, then, had been the results of this difference between the landlords and tenants in Wales? He thought there had been two results—first, a want of sympathy between the landlord and tenant, and, secondly, a deplorable want of information and knowledge on the part of the landlord as to the conditions and circumstances of the cultivator of the soil. Not only was there a want of sympathy, but in too many cases the landowner employed his position and his monopoly of the land in order to punish the cultivator on account of his creed. He (Mr. T. E. Ellis) did not want to refer at great length to that point, but if any one in that House conversed with the ordinary tenants of Wales with regard to their past electioneering experiences, he would find that the three General Elections of the years 1859, 1865, and 1868 were not merely well known, but that the memory of the evictions which took place after those elections had burnt itself indelibly into the hearts and consciences of the people, and many a day would have to pass over Wales before the memories of those evictions passed away. It might be said that the passing of the Ballot Act of 1870 had alleviated that condition of things. He did not suppose that there were any people within the four countries that were more thankful for that great Act than the Welsh people, because it had enabled them to exercise their right of suffrage

  1797
  with something like liberty. But even at the present day this want of sympathy between the landlord and tenant worked very disastrously to the social welfare of Wales; for in many parts there was among a certain number of the landowners a set purpose to make it difficult and impossible for Nonconformists or Liberals to obtain farms. This led to the creation of a class of sycophants and spies, the most abominable that infested God's earth, who were ready to watch for the political and religious action of a Nonconformist and Liberal tenant, and not only that, but to oust him from his place and get his farm, because they were ready to take up the political and religious view of the landlords. This feeling was strong in Wales, but he thought that the landlords were beginning to find out that the Churchman and persons of politicial opinions were not always able to pay the rent to the very day. Even during that week there had been a somewhat ludicrous illustration of the tension between the landlords and tenants in Wales. In one of the newspapers published in Wales the following circular appeared that week. How far it had obtained the sanction of any landowner, and how far it would be repudiated by landowners, he did not know, but it was interesting as mirroring the circumstances of the time. The circular was addressed to the clergy, landowners, and tenants, and was to the effect that the Church and all landed property was so seriously attacked, and the spirit of socialism was so rapidly spreading in Wales, that it was becoming necessary for the clergy and the wealthy to know who were their true friends, and to act accordingly; that landowners in particular should be on their guard as to the persons to whom they might let their land, and should ascertain whether candidates for their farms were the friends of order and justice, or of anarchy and confiscation. The circular went on to say that, at the urgent request of certain persons of influence, a Conservative registry had been opened as a medium of communication between the Landowners wanting tenants and tenants wanting farms, and that with the view of carrying out the scheme, Incumbents were requested to inform the writer of any farms vacant or about to become vacant in their parishes, and so on. He
  1798
  quoted this in order that it might serve as a salutary warning to the class of informers he had referred to. He regretted also to have to refer to the fact that during the last few weeks and months in which there had been considerable, if not fierce, agitation in Wales, tenants had been receiving notices to quit because they had taken a certain line with regard to the tithe question. It seemed to him that the very essence of the land system in England was that there should be a thoroughly good understanding and strong sympathy between the landlord and the tenant. The hon. Member for the Bodmin Division of Cornwall (Mr. Courtney) had written a paper lately in one of the monthly reviews upon the subject of occupation of land, in which he referred to the extreme value of the leasehold system existing in Scotland at the present time; but he said that when leases did not prevail there was not unfrequently in the South of England a person who might be called a sort of providential landlord, animated with much the same taste, having the same feelings, and looking forward to the same objects as the persons who farmed under him. It was perfectly clear that such a community did not exist in Wales as the hon. Gentleman said existed in the South of England and in Scotland. But not merely did the state of things in Wales affect the sympathy which ought to be between landlord and tenant, but it led to the want of information on the part of the landlord as to the actual condition and circumstances of his tenants. Many landowners in Wales regarded the payment of rent as the only test of the prosperity of their tenants. Lord Penrhyn was asked before the Commission whether anything like indebtedness had crept in amongst the tenants; and his Lordship replied that he did not know, that they had all paid their rents, and that he had never heard of any complaint of the kind. As if the august and secluded occupant of Penrhyn Castle could hear the complaints of Welsh-speaking tenants on the remote hillsides. But what were the replies which Mr. Doyle obtained from the Poor Law clerks in Carnarvonshire, where Lord Penrhyn was the largest landlord? In reply to the question whether rents were regularly paid, the clerk of one Union re-

  1799
  plied that they were paid, but that many of the tenants borrowed from bankers and friends to pay the rent, and that no abatement or reduction had been made. The reply came from Anglesea that the tenants had paid the rents, but had been considerably assisted by bankers and corn merchants. Another reply was that it was believed that the tenants had paid, although several had borrowed money to pay their rents. One answer from Breconshire was that the tenants were heavily in arrear, that abatements were sometimes made, but not to the extent to which they had been made in other parts of the country. The report from another Union was that rents had been paid regularly, but that bills of sale had been on the increase. Now, those reports were made in 1881, at the time when Mr. Doyle reported that the depression in England was most serious, but that it was not so serious in Wales. It was the last four or five years that had been absolutely ruinous to the farmers in Wales; and if that were true at the date referred to, how much more true was it at the present time? How did this want of knowledge on the part of landowners affect the tenants? In the first place, the landlords would not realize to what a serious pass the tenants had come; they had been deceived by the great competition for small hill-side farms, which were very numerous in Wales; and, whilst the competition for them had been intensified, the standard of rental of good land was made to apply to the land on the rugged hillside. He thought that had it not been for two facts the crash would have come three or four years ago. This had been averted, first, because the holdings in Wales were very small, so that when a large number of tenants had become bankrupt and were sold up, a number of labourers who had saved money were able for a time to take their places, many of them soon collapsing. The second cause which had averted the crash was that Welsh tenants were proverbially thrifty and industrious. Mr. Doyle said that the Welsh farmer, to whatever class he might belong, was more thrifty than an English farmer in a corresponding position, and that the farmer in Wales fared worse than the English labourer in receipt of average wage. From the figures published by the
  1800
  Inland Revenue Commissioners a few years ago, a very instructive comparison was to be made with regard to the rise of rents between the years 1842 and 1879. He found from that Report that rents in England rose during that period 23·5 per cent as against 34·6 in Wales; and yet the reduction and abatement of rent in Wales was incomparably lower than it had been in England, although the fall in prices in Wales had been quite as serious and quite as ruinous as it had been in England. Cattle had fallen in the last four years from 33 to 50 per cent, sheep 33 per cent, horses 30 to 50 per cent, butter 36 per cent, corn 30 per cent, and wool 60 per cent; yet up to last year the average reduction in rents in Wales had not amounted to more than 10 per cent. Some landowners had made excellent reductions, however; from 15 per cent to 25 per cent in some cases. One, if not more of his hon. Colleagues, four or five years ago, who had realized the position of the tenants, had given up steadily 25 per cent on each rent day. There were many landowners in Wales, however, who had only given small abatements of 5 or 10 per cent, and there were others who had made no abatement at all. Even in the present year, with a ruinous fall in prices, the average reduction did not amount to 15 per cent. What had been the effect of this upon the welfare of the people generally? Of course, the first effect had been upon the farmers. He thought he might count by scores farmers belonging to the most industrious and thrifty of their class to be found in England or Wales who had become bankrupt and been sold up. At the present time, without doubt, the majority of the tenantry were involved in debt. They went surety for each other at the banks, and the result was that whenever one farmer got within the grasp of his creditors, he generally took with him six or seven others. Not only was that the case, but the farmers' stock was depreciated, and labourers found little work, rural parts were depopulated, and land had been steadily deteriorating, so that the local burdens of the highway, school, and poor rates were becoming heavier to bear. In order that he might be certain of the ground on which he was going, he would read a short quotation from The Land Agents' Record, which said that

  1801
  there was no concealing the fact that the tenant farmers had been very hard hit, and were using the capital of other parties to meet their payments; that, whilst the supply of manure was ample, the cultivation of the land was going down; that fields were left long beyond their time, and, notwithstanding that there was a general decrease of value each year, the tenants clung to their farms owing to the very great loss they would sustain by selling out, and from their inability to turn their hands to any other trade. It seemed to him that this state of things called for the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government. In good times the majority of the Welsh cultivators lived in fear of increased rents, and in times of falling prices they were subjected to rents which were excessive. Moreover, the yearly tenure was in Wales doubly insecure, because the tenant depended upon the caprice of a landlord who very often hated and detested his religious and political principles. He thought he might say, in reference to the majority of estates in Wales, that the agreements had been so drawn up as to be restrictive and vexatious. Coming from a peasant home himself, and having opportunities to go in and out among the peasantry, he could not but express his keen sense of the anxiety and pain and agony with which hundreds and thousands of honest and thrifty peasants exercised their civil and religious rights of citizenship, and worked from morn till night to keep their homes together, and to feed, clothe, and educate their children. He might be asked what remedy he proposed? It seemed to him that it was not his duty to propose a remedy, but simply to state to the House, as honestly and truthfully as he could, the condition of things in Wales. He had, in the latter part of his Motion, referred to what was most specially and urgently needed in Wales. On that point he would quote, for the second time, an authority very much respected in that House, and by the extreme school of political economists and advocates of freedom of contract. He referred to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bodmin Division of Cornwall, whose views, expressed in a significant article, admirably represented the needs of the tenants in Wales. The hon. Gentleman said, that what
  1802
  they were in search after appeared to be the institution of some kind of intermediate authority which should be able to regulate and supervise the relations between the occupying tenants on the one hand, and the person or community entitled to rental on the other, and who should be able to supervise, modify, or control their relations one with the other, so as to secure the idea of constant and best occupation. On one of the Standing Committees, of which he had the honour to be a Member, some 70 members of the House were discussing a Bill which provided for intervention, to a great extent, between the traders of this country and the powerful railway monopolists; and, in listening to the discussions day by day, he had often asked himself the question, that, if it were necessary that the powerful and almost omnipotent traders of England should have an intermediate authority between them and the Railway Companies, how much more necessary was it for the Welsh tenant to have an intermediate authority between him and the landlord. In some cases, where public authorities were the owners of land, this difficulty had been met. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests had some years ago considered the condition of their tenants, and given reductions of 25 per cent, and even more. Again, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had recognized the condition of agriculture, and they had given not merely a reduction of 25 per cent to the tenants, but also very great facilities for purchase. That was what they were asking for on behalf of the Welsh tenantry. They asked for facility of purchase of farms in Wales, and that, when farms were in the market, there should be some right of pre-emption to cultivating tenants who had spent their lives and industry upon their holdings. They might be told that there were no special conditions in the legal tenure of land in Wales, but law depended on the spirit and temper and circumstances of its administration. They were confronted with the fact that the tenants in Wales were suffering severely; ruin and the blighted prospects of their children were staring them in the face, and he and his hon. Colleagues were only doing their elementary duty as their Representatives in stating their case before the House. They were pledged up to the hilt to do

  1803
  so, and no Member of the House was more deeply pledged to them than the hon. and gallant Member for West Denbigh (Colonel Cornwallis West). They did not speak for English farmers, who could bring their grievances before the House of Commons, but only for the tenants of Wales whose petition was, that the House, and especially Her Majesty's Government, should not meet their grievances with mere legal quibbles or with jeers, as was sometimes the case, or with cold refusals, but should give a serious and sympathetic attention to their grievances; and should devise an immediate, timely, and effectual remedy.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDsaid, he rose to second the Motion of the hon. Member for Merionethshire. He desired to state what he had observed when living in a purely agricultural district in Wales during the last 10 years, and to compare that with his experience as bursar of an Oxford college in the management of property scattered through the North Midlands and South of England. He should only refer to that part of the Welsh problem which he knew, and it was for others to say how far what he stated was fairly applicable to Wales as a whole. He wished to state, in the first place, that in his opinion the land question was very different in Wales to what it was in England; and, in the second place, that the social conditions of the people intensified and increased the difficulty. Taking the case of England, he said with reference to the past 10 years, which had been years of serious difficulty, if they left out altogether questions of seasons, prices, and difficulties between farmers and labourers, and if they restricted themselves solely to the question between landlord and tenant, and especially to the question of reduction of rent, they found that the cases in which the landlord and tenant had come most successfully through the struggle occurred when the landlord and the agent had had the most intimate acquaintance with the circumstances of the tenants. On the other hand, the greatest disasters which had ensued were largely due to the almost culpable ignorance which had led to refusals to grant reductions of rent where they were absolutely essential, which ignorance had led to the ruin of the tenant and sometimes to the ruin of
  1804
  the landlord also. Two principal results had followed in England from this state of things. First of all, in many parts of England the farmers had learned a spirit of independence which they had not before, and in many cases they had the whip hand of the situation. They had also learned to move from one part of the country to another in a way which before was unknown; many West-country farmers had recently travelled to the Midlands and North-country farmers had come to the South. In the second place, where the landlords had dealt fairly with the tenants, they found much of that good feeling on which the whole of the English land system was based. It had been thus with the system in England, where the landlord knew, or ought to know, his tenants well; he met them in the same field, in church, on the Board of Guardians, and in the county town on market day, and in many other respects he made himself the personal friend of his tenants. This had led to an improvement in the good understanding which resulted from the fact that the tenant knew that he and his landlord had borne their burden together. But in Wales neither had there been an increase of independence on the part of the tenants, nor had there been much additional desire to move from place to place, or any improved understanding between the landlord and the tenant. With regard to his experience in Wales, some English Members would say that the Welsh system was the same as the English, because the landlords made the improvements and erected farm buildings in Wales as they did in England, and because the Agricultural Holdings Act applied to Wales as well as to England. He ventured to say that a more shallow statement could not well be made on the subject. There had been, fortunately, good landlords in Wales who had dealt quite as well with their tenants as the best landlords in England, but the question was, had this been the rule? He would make one or two quotations bearing on this subject. His authority was the correspondent of The Times, who he thought ought to satisfy the hon. Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Kenyon) because he certainly wrote, as far as he could, from the same point of view. There was nothing more remarkable than the contrast between the spirit and tone of those letters and

  1805
  the spirit and tone in which Wales was referred to in the leading articles of many English newspapers, which said, that practically Wales was the same as Yorkshire, and if it were not, that it ought to be. The Times correspondent, who did not write as a supporter of the tenants, said nine months ago—
  "The danger of the situation could not be easily exaggerated. Men will not, or dare not, pay their tithe, and the agitation will soon extend, if it had not done so already, to the payment of rent."
  What lay at the root of the difficulty was the competition for farms and the land-hunger to which his hon. Friend the Member for Merionethshire had alluded. "The competition is intensely keen throughout Wales," said The Times correspondent; and he asked how this land-hunger was to be dealt with? A farmer had written to him saying that it was a matter of common experience to have a host of candidates for a vacant tenancy, for which they knew that the rent was too high but which they were willing to take hoping for better times. He was now going to quote a land-agent of as wide experience as any in Great Britain. This gentleman said that his experience was, that Welsh farmers would put up with a very great deal from their landlords rather than be turned out of their holdings; that they were very anxious to acquire a freehold; and that they would borrow the purchase money and burden themselves with the payment of interest exceeding, substantially, the amount of a fair rent; and that it was sometimes as easy to get 40 years' purchase for a farm in Wales as it was to get 30 years' purchase in England. It was well known also that sometimes when a farm was vacant many tenants would offer premiums to agents, and tell them that if they would only let them have the farms it would be worth their while. Another effect of the land-hunger was, that it had lead to a most remarkable punctual payment of rent. This land-agent said the tenants were very reasonable and extremely honest, and that he had never held a rent day without having every penny paid that was due. Could they wonder then, if, under this state of competition and fear of one another, the tenants who paid their rents so punctually had done so by spending the savings
  1806
  which they had earned in other days? The Times correspondent said, that the Welsh tenants were paying their rents with their savings of by-gone years, and he added that the shadow of the mortgagee was over the land; and further that he sincerely doubted whether the tenants could go on in their present position unless their rent was alleviated. As far as he (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland) had seen, the tenants of Wales were the most thrifty people that could be found in the whole country. This was borne testimony to by The Times correspondent, who said that thrift such as was almost unknown existed among them; and those persons who had observed the people of Brittany would be able to picture to themselves the species of economy practised in Wales. If the farmers were thus hard pressed, what was the condition of the labourers? They had in the district that he knew no cottages built for them by the landlords, as was the case in England. As a rule, their labourers were hired for six months or a year; they sometimes lived with the farmers, and they were frequently lodged over outhouses or barns; but they put up with their hard lives because they knew that their masters were living hard lives as well. This remarkable fact also results, that while the master is making no money the labourer is saving some of his wages, and is actually making money which may be brought into competition with the farmer, because the idea of the labourer was to get a small farm even if he had to pay a rent which he could not afford. There were no doubt in Wales some generous landlords who had made liberal reductions of rents. But, speaking of the average landlord, there was a difference between England and Wales. Anyone who had been present at a rent audit in England knew very well that the agent who accompanied the landlord regarded the farmer who came before them with respect, feeling that the landlord, if he was wise, would keep him. The agent knew that if the landlord lost the tenant he would not get such a good one again—that he might get a man of straw, or, perhaps, be unable to get anyone at all. The tenant might say, "I must have additional farm buildings built," or might ask for a reduction of rent, and the landlord would hesitate in refusal. But in Wales the farmer knew that if

  1807
  he made a reduction of rent a condition of keeping his tenancy, there were 10 or 20 men ready and willing to take his place. That, in his (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland's) experience, was the actual condition of facts, although he knew many landlords in Wales who, as well as reducing rents, had constructed new buildings of an excellent character for their tenants, spending a great deal of money in this way. The real, vital difference—amongst many others—between the two cases was this—the Welsh tenants felt the want of a change; they were conscious of the absence of that good understanding between themselves and their landlords which protected the English tenants. Welsh agricultural districts were represented in the House of Commons, and hon. Members were under pledges to those of their constituents interested in agriculture, to endeavour to obtain some change, but the agitators—if they choose to call them so—on the subject of farmers' grievances in England had never very largely succeeded. The English farmer said—"On the whole I am satisfied with the good understanding I have on my farm;" and, therefore, there was not the same demand for change in England that there was in Wales. The state of things which existed in the Principality produced a bad effect on the relations of the classes to one another, a bad effect on the land, and a bad effect on its productiveness. And now he had a few words to say on the second point. He maintained that the social conditions, as he had observed them in Wales, intensified the difficulty. Take first the question of language, to which the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Motion had alluded. The Times correspondent said that—
  "Seven-tenths of the Welsh people habitually use Welsh in their ordinary conversation."
  And he said what he (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland) could bear out from his own experience. He father remarked—
  "The attempt to Anglicize Wales has failed, and always will fail. I suppose that the language will die and is dying. These are the words of nine Englishmen out of ten, but I have never yet heard them from the lips of any man who had a genuine acquaintance with the people. In short, the attempt to Anglicize Wales has only resulted in adding additional difficulties to, and investing with dangerous complications, the problems connected with the
  1808
  Established Church and with property and land."
  The Times correspondent said he differed from Lord Selborne on this subject, and held that the dividing line between Wales and England and the different characteristics of Welshmen and Englishmen were remarkably conspicuous. He (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland) had no hesitation in saying that there were more columns in the Welsh language turned out of Welsh printing presses to-day than had ever been turned out before in the history of the country. What was the bearing of this upon the Land Question? Well, a Welshman had put this matter to him very forcibly only a little time ago. He had said—"Put yourself in the position of being a tenant under a French landlord; you would, I suppose, know as much about the French language as we know about the English language; and if you had to go to the landlord to explain in detail the difficulties of your position, and to appeal for a slight reduction of rent, would you not feel some trembling, and feel that the landlord and his agent had the best of you in the matter of language. That," he said, "is the way we feel in this matter when we have to go before the English landlord." The Welsh did all they could to keep up Welsh traditions and their Welsh language, as was evidenced by the interest they took in their National Eisteddfods, and the honours they bestowed upon those who distinguished themselves in native literature. They were keener about education than we were; their chapels were admirable instances of their sentiments in this direction, many of them being centres of educational life. He did not desire to introduce unnecessary controversial matter, but he must say a word about the religious aspect of the question. As a rule, the landlords and land agents were of one religious persuasion, whilst the great bulk of the farmers were of another, and, certainly, that did not lessen the difficulty. Take the parish in which he lived. There were, he should suppose, 120 farmers in that parish, and be would venture to say that out of that 120 there were not six who attended the parish church, and not three who attended it regularly, and the whole education for 16–17ths of the children was under the exclusive management of the clergymen of the Es-

  1809
  tablished Church. He had sometimes wondered what in an English country parish would be thought of the state of things in which, in a village of Episcopalians, a benevolent Baptist of means had built large schools for the education of the children some time ago, and a Baptist minister had sole charge of the education of the children, 16–17ths of whom were Church children. Unfortunately, there had sometimes been conditions which had added to these difficulties of language and religion. There had been cases in which the farmer had been told that he must go once to church on a Sunday if he wished to hold a certain farm; and farmers had told him that they had been strictly enjoined when they took a farm that they must take no part in politics whatever, and that they had loyally obeyed; but he would ask the House at what a cost must they have obeyed? There, again—even in politics—things were different in Wales to what they were in England. In England the politics of landlords and tenants were pretty much the same, and even if they differed there was a genial sort of way of looking at these things, the farmer recognizing as a sort of principle that the vote and the lease should go together. The old Tory farmer in Yorkshire was like many another farmer in the country, when he said—"Ise blue, but I votes yaller; Ise blue to the back-bone, but I votes wi' my landlord." It was a sort of traditional sentiment with the man to vote with his landlord. This was not the way the Welsh tenantry acted. They would attend the landlord's meeting, when the landlord himself or one of his friends was standing for Parliament; they would come and sit on the platform and look very sheepish. They would sit there like fowls roosting, and they would come away looking very foolish; but the feeling of the people was with them, because it was known that possibly something serious might happen to them if they did not attend these meetings. Then would be heard the cry of "Screw! Screw!" which was a common cry of the Welsh villagers when Tory meetings wore being held, and it had a very significant meaning indeed. All this was very serious. He did not know if blame attached to landlords or agents in the matter; but it was unfortunate that both in religion and politics the landlords and the
  1810
  tenants should be on different sides. And what was the result of all this? Why, in the words of The Times correspondent, the man of business became the intermediary between the landlord and his tenant, and the relations between the man who owned the land and the man who cultivated it became purely commercial; and it was difficult to travel through the country with eyes and ears open without observing that the landlords and agents were cordially disliked. He attached no blame to the landlords for not being able to speak Welsh, nor to the agents for being, as some of them were, Scotchmen, Irishmen, and Englishmen; or, again, for being, as some of them were, captains and colonels. All he said was that there was in Wales an absence of those elements for the solution of the question such as were, fortunately, possessed in England at the present time. Well, what was the remedy? He thought that in all these matters, as in everything else, publicity was a good thing. That in itself went some way towards providing a remedy. If the Government were wise, it would look on the question in a sympathetic spirit; and, considering how little was done for Wales when a Royal Commission sat a few years ago, the Government might fairly institute an impartial inquiry into the whole of the question. But, beyond that, he confessed he thought that some security would be needed for the tenant if he was to be placed in a fairly independent position. For his own part, he should infinitely prefer to see opportunities for purchase provided to any other method of solving this difficulty. But in any case, in order that a purchase system might be provided, it was obvious that rents must be modified. Something would be done if it were settled how many years' purchase should be given for holdings. But, above all, let the Government do something. Do not let them raise a cry against "Agitators." Of course, if hon. Gentlemen liked, they could get up and Quote translations from some of the vernacular papers in Wales, which would, no doubt, make the House laugh, and perhaps tend to make people think that the whole of this case was artificial and a sham. Let them do so if they liked. The vernacular Press of Wales was, no doubt, sometimes wild in its phrases, and fond of quoting Scripture, and it very often exaggerated; but even.

  1811
  if hon. Members could quote passages illustrating these weaknesses, it would not solve the question. Even if they talked about "professional agitators" and the rest of it, they would not have solved the question to-night. They could not get agitators, and an agitation—a strong agitation, as he supposed they would call it—such as was commencing in Wales, unless there was something to account for it and some solid grievance at the bottom of it. The Welsh were a very patient and a very law-abiding people, and they would not get anything to make them excited or excitable unless there was some genuine reason for it. Well, he felt that he had only stated his case in a very fragmentary way, and he knew that any Englishman who meddled in this question ran the risk of being called an adventurer, who knew nothing about the question. But, he had tried to show, at any rate, that he knew more about it than those who only made a short visit to Welsh watering places or made an occasional visit to Snowdon; and he would venture to challenge even the hon. and gallant Member who was going to move the Amendment to say anything but that—though not in relation to his own estate or those of the best landlords—the circumstances which had been related to-night, as applying to the condition of the Welsh tenantry, were not too sadly true in many parts of Wales. Nothing had been said either by his hon. Friend who had moved the Motion or by himself about that much-abused term "Nationality" or Home Rule leading to disintegration. All that talk was utterly without foundation, so far as the Welsh were concerned. He would tell them how to make a Welsh Question if they wanted to make one. Refuse to Wales all idea that the Welsh had any special peculiarity or special circumstances as a race, and tell them that they were like other large districts in England, with no claim to special treatment; tell them, so far as Church matters went—as he was afraid the present Government would be obliged to tell them—that their complaints could not be listened to at all, and there would soon be a Welsh Question. Some leading English authorities on matters of this kind had been too wise to take up such a position. The late Mr. Matthew Arnold knew better
  1812
  than this; and Parliament would do well if it took his advice so far as Church Disestablishment was concerned. The Welsh people were infinitely in advance of us in regard to education, and were asking for some comprehensive scheme of secondary education, and nothing could be more reasonable than to give them an Educational Council of their own to settle these matters their own way. But tell them that their natural aspirations in the matter of education were not to be acceded to, and then tell them that on this Land Question they had no grievance, and then, without difficulty, they would make a Welsh Question. On the other hand, meet them half-way, and he knew no people more easy to satisfy. The Welsh were timid, but tenacious; and, though slow to move, they were excitable when they considered they had just cause for excitement, It had been said that they were prone to take advantage of the stranger; but that was largely due to the circumstances in which they had grown up, and to the suspicious attitude in which they were placed. But this he was sure of, that there was no more kind-hearted people on the face of the earth. There were two things seriously dangerous in any country like Wales. Ono was that it should be strongly felt that there was a great social inequality in the country; a feeling not as people would say of mere envy, but a perfectly reasonable and candid desire to count for something in the community in which they lived; and the other was the feeling that the distribution of property and the conditions of tenure of property were unfair and unreasonable, and pressed hardly upon the common people. Well, he feared that, to some extent, both these conditions were present in Wales. If the Government wished to avoid the evil results that might follow, let them, in a spirit of kindly sympathy, make a certain amount of reasonable inquiry, to see whether those who had stated the case that night had spoken falsely or truly. That would be going a long way. If the Government wished to avoid lawlessness—which was totally unnecessary, and need never come about—and further distress, he could only say let them make a full inquiry as to whether, in part at least, some remedy for the present distress could not be found.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "having regard to the special circumstances of Wales, and the prevailing agricultural depression, and their effect upon the welfare of the Welsh people, this House is of opinion that Her Majesty's Government should pay immediate attention to the subject, and take steps to provide a measure of relief which shall secure fairer conditions of tenure and a re-adjustment of rent, more equitably corresponding to the fall in prices, and make such other provisions as will enable the cultivators of the soil to meet the trying circumstances in which they are placed,"—(Mr. Thomas Ellis,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL CORNWALLIS WESTsaid, he had given Notice of the following Amendment—
  "That this House, whilst fully sympathizing with the distressed circumstances of the agricultural population of England and Wales, is of opinion that no special circumstances exist in the tenure of land in Wales justifying exceptional legislation for that portion of the United Kingdom."
  He believed he was unable to move this Amendment, owing to the Forms of the House; therefore, he would simply make it the text of the few observations with which he should trouble the House. The four points that had been dealt with by the hon. Member who had made the Motion (Mr. T. E. Ellis) were, first, as the hon. Member had stated, the serious condition of the agricultural tenancy in Wales; secondly, the special circumstances of Wales; thirdly, a fairer condition of tenure; and, fourthly, a readjustment of rent. Now, it was not his (Colonel Cornwallis West's) intention to trouble the House with very long remarks; but he thought he might be allowed to allude to a few of the points which had been touched on so ably by the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Motion. The hon. Member had begun by describing to the House what he considered the special circumstances which divided, upon this question, Wales from this country. He had told them that one cause of the great difference which existed between the tenantry in Wales and England consisted in the attachment the tenantry in Wales had for their holdings; and also in the fact that so many of them had been hereditary tenants. Well, he thought that very
  1814
  fact argued in favour of the landlords of Wales. The tenants delighted in remaining on their farms, and if that state of things existed, as he asserted it did, it proved that the tenants were not under that grinding system that many people asked them to believe they were under. This, the hon. Member said, showed a great hunger for land. He (Colonel Cornwallis West) confessed he came from a part of the country where that hunger did not exist. He did not know where it did exist. It might exist in parts of Wales; but, so far as his experience of the Principality went, it certainly was not apparent. The landlords were very thankful to get tenants to take the farms, and he could tell the House that, so far as the county he represented was concerned, there was happily not a single vacant farm in it. This statement applied to the land in Denbighshire. It might be true that it showed that the people were desirous of acquiring farms, but at the same time it proved that the people had the means to take the farms—had the money to take them. It seemed to him to be a hardship to turn round on the men who wished to take farms, and had the money to do so, and who agreed to pay a moderate price for them, and say that they were not to take them because other people could only farm them at a much greater reduction. In the course of his speech the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Motion had stated that to be a rule which, so far as his (Colonel Cornwallis West's) experience went, he denied most emphatically—namely, that Nonconformists were objected to by the landlords. He should like any hon. Member to give him the name, privately, of any great landlord in the Principality who had refused a tenant a farm because the man was a Nonconformist. The hon Member had gone on to state that not only were tenants refused farms, but that people were not appointed magistrates because they were Nonconformists. That might occur in some parts of the Principality; but all he could say was, that he had the honour to make such appointments, and that he had never in deciding upon them for a moment considered whether a man was a Nonconformist or a Churchman. And now he would for a few moments address himself to the point as to the serious position of the tenantry of the Principality. He could assure the House

  1815
  that the tenantry of Wales at this moment were in a better position than the tenantry of England. He possessed a landed estate in the South of England, and lately he had been obliged to let land there at 10 s. per acre; and he appealed to hon. Members who sat around him whether there were any parts of the Principality where land could be said to be worth no more than 10 s. an acre? Whilst land in England in some places let for as low as 10 s. an acre, in the Principality, so far as he was aware, it never let for less than 15 s., and grass land would fetch £1 per acre and upwards. Now, was the tenure of land in Wales so different to that in England as to make it desirable that special legislation should be applied to the Principality? So far as his experience went, the agreements between landlords and tenants were the same in the Principality as in England. There were some exceptions, perhaps, so far as the custom of a county affected them, but they were in the nature of exceptions, and he maintained that it would be impossible to find on any large property in North Wales a single agreement between landlord and tenant which differed in any material point from ordinary English agreements. If that were the case, what was the ground for proposing—as he believed it was proposed—that a similar land measure to that in force in Ireland should be passed for Wales? It was absurd to suppose that the principle of the three "F's" could by any possibility be applied to Wales. He challenged any hon. Member to give the name of a single landowner in Wales who did not do the whole of the permanent improvements and repairs on his property. Under these circumstances it seemed to him absurd to ask for a Land Bill for Wales on the same principles as the Land Act given to Ireland, where the conditions were totally distinct. It had been said that there had been no general reduction in the rents in Wales. Of course, that was a very difficult question to decide off hand one way or the other. He could only say, from what he had heard and what he had done, that he believed the reductions of rent in Wales had been very large, ranging from 10 to 30 per cent. Of course, he could not say that every owner of landed property, great and small, had granted such reductions; but he did say that the majority of them had granted
  1816
  fair reductions of from 10 to 20 or 30 per cent. He believed that if a Royal Commission were appointed on the subject, which he hoped might be the case, it would be clearly shown that the facts were as he had stated. As far as the landlords of the Principality were concerned, they would hail the appointment of a Royal Commission with the greatest pleasure. Thousands of pounds had been spent on the estate of every large landowner in Wales, and he was in a position to say that at the present moment there were hundreds of farms let at a price which did not pay 3 per cent interest on the capital invested by the landlords in farm-houses, drainage, and other improvements. He himself could guarantee that this was the case in his own part of the Principality, and he had no reason to suppose that a similar state of things did not exist in other parts of Wales. He believed one of the principal sources of the present state of things to be that, unfortunately, many tenant farmers had taken farms without having sufficient capital. Only a few days ago he was reading a most excellent pamphlet, written by Mr. Daniel Owen, of Cardiff, who was distinguished as an authority, and who thoroughly understood agricultural questions. Mr. Owen said—
  "Farms are often taken by men with only £3 or £4 an acre, and sometimes even with less. With such men it is a struggle from the first; if a bad harvest comes, the struggle becomes more severe. Still they may manage to keep afloat in the face of one bad harvest, or, perhaps, of two bad harvests; but when it comes to four disastrous seasons, the current is too strong and they are obliged to give way. I cannot too strongly deprecate the evil occasioned by men embarking in farming with inadequate capital. And yet this is constantly done. If a man has, say, £2,000, he should not, as is too often the case, aspire after a farm of 300 or 400 acres."
  He believed that to a great extent what was going on now was the result of men wishing to have large farms, and not having sufficient means to carry them on. There was one point which had been under consideration—namely, as to whether the tenants in Wales did the permanent improvements or not. He had seen this stated to be the case in the Press. Of course, it was a very important question. If the tenants did carry out any permanent improvements, which was very doubtful indeed, he considered that the present Agricultural

  1817
  Holdings Act did not go far enough. What be should like to see, instead of a Motion of this kind, would be the introduction of a Bill dealing with Agriculture both in England and Wales. What he deprecated was to see the subject dealt with piecemeal in relation to one portion of the United Kingdom only. He wanted to see the whole of the country dealt with as one. He did not see why, on a question of this kind, in reference to which the condition of things, as they knew perfectly well, was more or less alike in the two countries, a special Act of Parliament should be required for Wales. The adoption of certain changes in the Agricultural Holdings Act would, he considered, be of much more practical use than the passing of a Motion of this kind. He thought that provision should be made in the Compensation Clauses of the Agricultural Holdings Act for acts of husbandry, due allowance being made for turnip land, fallows, manure, stubbles and seeds, and laying and trimming hedges. Tillages should be definitely explained in the Act, and a valuation scale should also be inserted. If a man, for instance, grazed a field with stock, instead of cutting it for hay, it would, of course, make a considerable difference to him. Compensation might also be given for corn consumed during the last year of the tenancy, and which had been grown upon the farm, due notice being given to the landlord that the tenant wished to consume his own home-grown corn. Such changes, if made, ought to apply to the whole of the Kingdom, and not merely to the Principality. He had been very much surprised at the picture which was drawn by the hon. Member who had last spoken of the condition of Wales, and of the want of sympathy between landlord and tenant which was said to exist there. He had lived in the Principality for his whole life almost, and had never heard of the terrible state of things which the hon. Member had described. He believed his tenants and himself were on the best of terms, and that the same was the case with the landlords and tenants round him with very few exceptions. When the hon. Gentleman said that the whole of the landlords of Wales were out of sympathy with their tenants, his reply was that it was simply not the case.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDsaid, he had not said a word about the whole of the landlords. He had stated again and again that many landlords were treating their tenants as well as the best English landlords.
  COLONEL CORNWALLIS WESTsaid, he was very glad that he had obtained such a disclaimer from the hon. Member. He was certainly under the impression that the hon. Gentleman had said what he had stated. He would appeal to hon. Members from Wales who had any stake in that country as landowners not to be led to give a vote on the Motion from Party motives or a desire for popularity, but to tell the House whether or not it was true that the tenure of land in Wales was so different from what it was in England, and so hard, in its general effect, as to call for any special legislation. There were many in that House who could give the House such information. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. W. Davies) would, he believed, be able to explain what was the case in that county, and two or three other landlords who were men of position in their counties could state that the fearful picture which had been drawn of the relations between landlords and tenants was entirely imaginary. He believed there were some seven or eight hon. Members who were connected by ties of property with the Principality. The remaining Welsh Members were not, as the House knew, connected by such ties. There were some who hailed from the exchange and some who hailed from the Law Courts. He thought that the seven or eight Members who had property in Wales should support him in his contention that the landlords of Wales were not the tyrants they were made out to be by those who spoke on political platforms. He challenged such hon. Members to make out a case for the application of the principles of the Irish Land Act to Wales. If they could show any estate where the tenant had built his house and farmstead, drained or reclaimed land, bought the tenant-right, or fulfilled any other of the conditions of the Irish land problem, they would no doubt make out a case. He said none of these circumstances existed in Wales at the present time, or, if they did, it was in some portion of the Principality with which he was not acquainted. He felt confident that any

  1819
  proposal which would have the effect of withdrawing the capital now so profusely and so wisely found by the landlord on every large estate, and in most of the small ones too, would result in the ruin of all classes connected with agriculture; and in the severance of those ties of mutual regard and reciprocal good feeling which had characterized the relations of the landlord and tenant in Wales for many years past, and which, he believed, would otherwise be maintained in the future.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Denbigh (Colonel Cornwallis West) claimed to represent a constituency which was, perhaps, more interested than any portion of Wales in the Motion before the House, but he did not think his hon. and gallant Friend could point to a dozen men in his own constituency, except, of course, landlords like himself, who would endorse the sentiments to which he had just given utterance. Indeed, he thought that his hon. and gallant Friend himself was a very recent convert to the views he had expressed. Little more than a year and a-half ago, on the 28th of October, 1886, a public meeting or conference was called at Denbigh for the purpose of discussing the basis of a Land Bill for Wales, afterwards embodied in the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for the Eifion Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Bryn Roberts), and which Bill was lately before the House. He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was not present, but he was told there was a discussion lasting for something like four hours on the subject. In the evening a public meeting was held, and Colonel Cornwallis West proposed the following resolution:—
  "That, in the opinion of this meeting, the present depressed state of agriculture deserves the earnest attention of the Legislature, and it is desirable that a measure should be prepared and submitted to Parliament next Session, with the view of alleviating the distress now so generally felt among the agricultural and labouring population of the country."
  This was followed by a Motion approving of the Bill to which he had already alluded. Under these circumstances, his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Cornwallis West) could not quite claim a monopoly of consistency in this matter. He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had taken great pains to arrive at the truth. Some 12 months ago he sent round to a number
  1820
  of his constituents questions as to the present position of agriculture in North Wales. He received a number of answers, which he had handed to his hon. and gallant Friend for the purposes of his speech. As his hon. and gallant Friend had forgotten to return them, he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) could not quote from them, but he could tell the House that they showed the depreciation of farming stock during the last 10 years in Wales to have been enormous. Not only had there been a great depreciation in stock, but there had been a still greater depreciation in the price of wool, which, in a country where by far the greater number of the farmers were sheep farmers, was a very serious matter. The hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis) had stated this depreciation at something like 60 per cont. He himself should have put it at something like 50 per cent. At any rate, the fall had been very heavy. Side by side with the great depreciation in the value of farming produce, there had been an increase in the rates, especially the sanitary rates. The wages of agricultural labourers had been nearly stationary. He should have thought this rather a matter for congratulation, but unfortunately the cause from which it had arisen was that a large portion of the agricultural population had migrated to the already over-populated industrial centres of England. With regard to rents, as far as he could gather, there had been reductions, but, as a rule, they had been spasmodic and temporary, and certainly inadequate. In some cases, no doubt, they had amounted to 20 percent, but the average had been from 10 to 15 per cent. The tithe rent-charge, which he could only describe as a sort of running sore, eating into the very heart of the political and religious life of the people, had not been reduced at all. If matters had stood there, he would have agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Denbigh (Colonel Cornwallis West), that it was difficult to establish adistinction between England and Wales, because, if Wales had suffered much, England had suffered much also. He made his hon. and gallant Friend a present of that admission. He thought it quite possible that the great wheat-growing districts of England, such as those of Lincolnshire and Essex, were suffering quite as

  1821
  much as Wales. His hon. and gallant Friend said he was obliged to let English land at 10 s. an acre. He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was in a worse position than that, because he had an English farm which he could not let at all. But his hon. Friends who had respectively moved and seconded the Motion, had referred to two things which materially distinguished the case of Wales from that of England, and which, he thought, called for the special interference of Parliament. One of these was that extraordinary land-hunger which seemed to be common to all Celtic nations. His hon. and gallant Friend had said that there was not a single farm vacant on his estate. That was extremely probable. But why was that? It was because the farmer had nothing else to do but agricultural work, and nowhere else to turn to. In North Wales, at least, they had no large towns to draw off the surplus agricultural population. Indeed, the Welsh farmer who was deprived of his holding was the most helpless being in the whole world. He could not go to England on account of his ignorance of the English language, and he could not engage in any other industrial employment. He was forced back upon the land. In addition to this, he was strongly attached to the soil. These facts completely disposed of the argument which his hon. and gallant Friend based upon the circumstance, that there was no farm to let upon his estate. There was another material difference between the Welsh and English agriculturists. Between the Welsh landlord and tenant there was a "great gulf fixed." Englishmen did not understand this. They passed through Wales and visited watering places like Llandudno and Rhyl, but they obtained no knowledge whatever of the condition of the people. The barriers that separated landlord and tenant in Wales were almost insurmountable. There were barriers of language, barriers of race, religious barriers, political barriers. The Welsh landlords and tenants lived and moved in entirely different worlds. They spoke different tongues; they attended different places of worship; there was no common ground on which they could meet. Could there be a greater barrier than that which separated them in regard to language alone? Had any of them tried to drive a bar-
  1822
  gain in a language—such as German or Italian—of which they had but an imperfect knowledge? That was the normal condition of the Welsh tenant farmer. People talked of freedom of contract, but it was impossible to have absolute freedom of contract where one of the parties did not understand the language in which the contract was written. The matter was exceedingly well put in a pamphlet written by Mr. R. A. Jones, who pointed out that the prevalence of the Welsh language in itself rendered it impossible for the two classes to be in sympathy one with the other. The result of these differences in language, religion, and politics was practically to place the Welsh landlords and tenants at arm's length. He said advisedly that the condition of Wales in this respect was far more like that of Ireland than that of England. His hon. and gallant Friend had challenged any man to say whether improvements were made by the tenants in Wales. In some cases they were, but it was perhaps difficult to lay down any general rule. He, however, relied not so much upon that point as upon the fact of the existence of the class-wall, as he might call it, between landlord and tenant. This was practically equivalent, in its effects, to absenteeism. As a rule, it was very difficult to convince Englishmen that a Welshman was anything more than a peculiar kind of Englishman, who preferred an Eisteddfod to a horse-race and spoke a language which no one could understand. It was refreshing, therefore, to find an Englishman like the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland), who, if he had lived for 50 years in Wales, could have more accurately stated the condition of the country than he had done in his speech. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Cornwallis West) had suggested that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. W. Davies) should tell the House something about the condition of his county. The hon. Member for Pembroke, however, could scarcely be said to represent Wales at all. Parts of Pembroke was generally known as "Little England beyond Wales," and was an English colony. It did seem to be a little hard that because one, or possibly two, of the counties in Wales were satisfied with the present condition of things, the other 10 counties should be

  1823
  denied the justice they asked for. Of course, the House would be told that since the Union, in the time of Henry VIII., Wales was politically an integral part of England. That was the old argument which one always heard on these occasions, and it was one more worthy of a lawyer than of a statesman. The House of Commons had already knocked a good many holes in the Statute of Henry VIII., and they hoped to knock a good many more. Two or three Statutes had been passed which applied only to Wales, and when the House of Commons, by allowing it to be read a second time, put its seal, as it were, on the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill, it practically recognized the fact that Wales was entitled to distinctive treatment at the hands of Parliament. But, be that as it might, they could no more turn Welshmen into Englishmen than they could turn Englishmen into Welshmen. Say what they liked, the Welsh people were a distinct nationality. If their laws were the same, their customs, their habits of life, their language were different, and if the laws of a people did not correspond to their requirements, the sooner they were altered the better.
  MR. KENYON (, &c.)said, he must congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis) upon the exceedingly courteous and tolerant way in which he had introduced this subject to the House. He felt that the tone of the speech of the hon. Gentleman had been such that it rendered it somewhat difficult for anyone who differed from him in many points to make his views sufficiently heard. Though he agreed up to a certain point with the last words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) with regard to the question of national sentiment, he felt the remarks the right hon. Gentleman made with regard to the want of sympathy between landlord and tenant, as resulting from the necessity of two languages in Wales, were, he would not say overstrained, but exaggerated and altogether beside the question at issue. The right hon. Gentleman had lived in Wales for a great number of years, but had he ever found a landlord in Wales who was not in sympathy with his tenants for the simple reason that he
  1824
  was not able to speak to them in their own language? He (Mr. Kenyon) had lived in Wales all his life, and had been connected all his life with the land.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he did not attribute any blame to the landlords. It was their misfortune, not their fault.
  MR. KENYONsaid, he did not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of doing so. He was about to say that he had lived all his life in Wales, and that he had been connected, perhaps, more closely with land in Wales than the right hon. Gentleman. For 20 years he had been an agent of a large property in Wales. In that capacity he had been brought in contact with the tenant farmers and cottagers in Wales, and now he was a trustee and managing owner of a very large estate in North Wales. Never in his experience had there been any difference of opinion between him and those with whom he had had to deal very largely, on the score of language. There was perfect sympathy as between landlord and tenant, and he had no hesitation in saying, speaking from an experience both as tenant and as a manager of estates—and as a tenant he had no doubt he had, perhaps, as much experience as the Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis), for he had farmed 350 acres for a considerable number of years at a considerable loss, and he was now farming his own land at a larger loss still—he had no hesitation in saying that the question of language or the question of land tenure in general in Wales had had no different effect upon him as a tenant or as a land agent than they would have had if he had lived in Shropshire over the Border. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. E. Ellis) based his Motion upon the statement that there were exceptional circumstances in Wales which required exceptional legislation. Now, what were the exceptional circumstances in Wales to which the hon. Gentleman referred? In the first place, the hon. Gentleman contended that there had been a great fall in prices. Surely there had been no greater fall in prices in Wales than there had been in any county over the Border; on the contrary, the prices in Wales had been less affected by the general depression of agriculture than the prices in the Border counties had been affected, and for this reason,

  1825
  that the great trade which was done by Welsh farmers, was done in mutton and in wool. No doubt the fluctuations in the price of wool were at one time very considerable; but wool at the present time was one of the very few things which had risen in price. Meat, too, had risen in price. Therefore, at the present moment, the two staple articles upon which Welsh farmers depended were actually on the rise, and not on the fall as the hon. Gentleman would lead the House to understand. Cheese was very largely produced in Wales, but, possibly, not to the same extent in the counties which the hon. Member (Mr. T. E. Ellis) was particularly acquainted as in the counties with which he (Mr. Kenyon) was specially concerned. Now, the value of cheese had actually risen during the last two years very considerably, and at the present moment was sold at a higher price in the market than it had been sold at for the last three years. If they took, therefore, the question of price, he thought the average fall in prices in Wales was certainly not greater, but if anything rather less than in the Border counties in England. Then the hon. Gentleman argued that the average reduction in rent had not been commensurate with the fall in prices. He (Mr. Kenyon) happened to know a little about the subject, and he asserted, without hesitation, that the average reductions in rent in the counties in Wales were certainly larger than the average reductions in the Border counties in England. The average reductions in rent in the Welsh counties with which he was acquainted varied from 15 to 30 per cent. In some cases they had amounted to 50 per cent, and many cases within his knowledge there had been permanent reductions in rent amounting to 30 per cent. He thought that if they came to investigate the question carefully it would be found that the reductions of rent in Wales, if not far in excess, were, at any rate, quite as large as the average reductions made in England. If there were no exceptional circumstances with regard to prices and reductions of rent, were there exceptional circumstances with regard to rates or agreements? He did not know what the average rates all through England were; but he knew that in Wales they were extremely reasonable. The average rating of Welsh parishes
  1826
  was 2s. 3d. in the pound, while the rating in many English counties amounted to 3s. 6d., 4s. 6d., and 5s. 6d. in the pound. The Welsh rates, except in some of the mining parishes, where there had been a great deal of pauperism, and where, perhaps, there had been large expenditure on school boards, would be found to be no higher than the rates in the rest of the United Kingdom. Now, they were told that the landlords in Wales bore some resemblance to their Irish brethren, of whom he wished to say nothing evil. They were told that the Welsh tenants made improvements, and that the landlords were such horrible creatures that they sucked up all the improved value after the improvements were made. Now, as he had said, he had had much experience as regarded land in Wales, but he did not hesitate to say that there was never made an observation which was so absolutely and entirely contrary to the facts as that statement. He was well acquainted with a large estate in Wales where, for many years, 50 and 75 per cent of the rental of the property was spent in making permanent improvements upon the property, and that after that time, and ever since, 25 per cent of the rental had been spent upon the property. Upon a very large estate adjoining the one he had just spoken of, they spent for some years the whole rent upon the property, and within his knowledge as a land agent there was not a single case in which a tenant had ever erected any building, or had ever made a permanent improvement upon the property with the single exception of drainage. Some tenants had cut the drains, but the landlords had provided the pipes. To compare the Welsh landlords with the landlords of Ireland was, therefore, unreasonable. He thought he might fairly say that the landlords had done their duty in expending money upon their property, and that they were entitled to be treated with justice and respect. There was one other point to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Denbighshire alluded. In Wales, for some reason or another, a great deal of land had changed hands during the last 30 or 40 years. There had been cases of a certain amount of hardship to the tenants in consequence of this change of proprietorship. Where there was an old established estate, the probability

  1827
  was that the landlord had no desire to get rid of his tenant, and the tenant had no desire to leave his landlord. But there came a change; owing to some reason or other the land changed hands. Land in North Wales, particularly, had recently changed hands. The new landlord, coming in, perhaps from Ireland or Liverpool, might have paid a good price for the land. It had happened that the farms had been re-valued, tenants had been asked to accept the new valuation, and on their refusal to do so had been turned out. That unquestionably was a hardship which the tenants suffered. It was a hardship which, as had been fairly pointed out, was not altogether covered by the Agricultural Holdings Act. Some additional clause might very properly be put in the Act to cover the position of the sitting tenant—say of a man who had occupied the farm for a certain number of years. There was one other matter to which he must draw the attention of the House, and that was the Crown rents. There was a quantity of land in Wales which was subject to certain claims on the part of the Crown. Some years ago the Crown came down upon a little village in Wales, and claimed from the tenants 19 years' arrears of Crown rents. For 19 years the Crown rents had never been asked for; but then the Crown came down upon the people, because they knew the thing was getting far too old. It was very hard upon the owners that they should be asked to pay these rents, of which some of them had never even heard a syllable. The same thing had happened in parts of Merionethshire. He thought the House was entitled to hear from the Government what steps the Crown intended to take in the future with regard to its rents. He did think that, in the interest of the Welsh farmer—and no man had-more sympathy for the Welsh farmer then he had—they ought to do all they could to ameliorate his condition. The Government would certainly do Wales a good turn if it granted a remission of such rents and royalties which existed at this moment. The landlords of Wales had been told that they were out of sympathy with the tenants. He did not believe it. He did not believe that any of the late riots had anything to do with the relations between landlord and tenant. He believed that landlord and tenant were, as they ever
  1828
  had been, one; that they always would pull together if they were not divorced by a foolish and one-sided policy on the part of the Government of the day—Liberal or Tory, as the case might be—and if, on the other hand, they were not led astray by—could he say—agitators? He would not use the term in reference to any friend of his on the opposite Benches, but simply in reference to certain ambitions Gentlemen who, perhaps, had some reason in putting them-selves prominently forward. He maintained that if neither of the two elements he had mentioned prevailed—if the Welsh were treated with reason by the Government, if their just claims to legislation were regarded, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite would refrain from agitation, from stirring up strife in the country, his firm impression was that the traditional loyalty and good sense of the Welsh people would re-assert itself, and that Wales would still remain what it had ever been, the most law-abiding portion of Her Majesty's Dominions.
  MR. STUART RENDELsaid, he did not rise at this late hour (11.20) to interpose at any length in the debate; indeed, he thought that the Welsh Members with whom he acted had very little occasion to elaborate their case. Even the speech to which the House had just listened proved conclusively the justice of the case of the hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis). The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kenyon) began by the admission, which was greatly in their favour, that so far from the hon. Member for Merionethshire having opened the discussion in the spirit of an agitator, he had opened it in the spirit of a young and promising Welsh statesman. The Welsh Members certainly owed the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. E. Ellis) a debt of gratitude for the exhaustive statement he had made on their behalf. The unity of the Welsh Representatives on this question was considerable, and the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Denbighshire (Colonel Cornwallis West) had not given them much alarm or anxiety. That the hon. and gallant Gentleman should move an Amendment at all was a surprise to most of them. He had always looked upon his hon. and gallant Friend as a more advanced land reformer than him-

  1829
  self; he had always supposed the hon. and gallant Member committed to a view of land reform from which he (Mr. Stuart Rendel), with his poor judgment, shrank. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman had given them great hope and satisfaction, for he had pledged himself to the desirability of the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the question of agriculture in Wales. They knew that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not want to give to his Welsh tenants what it was impossible for him to confer upon his English tenants. With that species of opposition they might be well content. His hon. and gallant Friend made some statements, however, upon which he desired to comment for a moment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, and referred with legitimate pride, to the fact that on many large estates in Wales no case arose which would justify an application to the House for its attention. He (Mr. Stuart Rendel) and his hon. Colleagues admitted it; they always would admit it. They believed that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's case was a case in point. But their complaint was not against the large landlords at all. Their grievance rather arose from the fact that Wales was peculiarly a country of small landlords, and, unfortunately, of indebted landowners. It was the case of these which was in question. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had also gently insinuated that if the question rested with the landowning Representatives of agricultural constituencies in Wales, no difficulty would arise. The case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself adduced was one which sufficiently answered that argument. The hon. and gallant Member pointed to the fact that there were only seven landowning Representatives of agricultural constituencies in Wales, though there were at least 20 of such constituencies. The mere circumstance that Wales returned from agricultural constituencies men other than landowners in such an overwhelming degree, the very fact that it rejected its natural leaders, the very men who had the best opportunities for gaining the confidence of the public in such constituencies, was surely a very solid argument, showing that there was something wrong in the relations between the landlords and the tenants in Wales. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed
  1830
  to be under a strange impression. He stated with great courtesy, if he stated it definitely at all, that persons other than landowners were not altogether competent to discuss this question. But it did not present itself to them as an agricultural technical question. Many of them could not pretend to be competent judges on agricultural matters, but to them this was an industrial problem, and he thought that so far from landowners wishing to have an exclusive audience in the House and the country on matters in which they were supreme, it surely was desirable that they should refer such matters, or be willing to refer such matters, not only to disinterested persons, but to those who had an outside experience of the other industries of the country. He thought it was possible to show that some of the errors which had arisen in the agricultural system of Wales were due to the want of elementary knowledge on general industrial questions which the landlords unfortunately displayed. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Cornwallis West) cited a case. He (Mr. Stuart Rendel) would take that case, not because it was a strong one, but because it came from the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said the fact was that the mischief was largely due to the circumstance that so many tenants took farms for which they had not capital enough. Surely a landlord ought not to let his farms to tenants without sufficient capital. Why was a landlord induced to do this? Simply because he regarded it to his interest to have as large a competition for his farms as possible. If a landlord would only see that the competition was narrowed to men he knew to be competent to take the, farms it was quite certain he would get rid of the very difficulties to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Cornwallis West) had attributed so much of the present state of things. There was another and a larger question relating to rent on which a more grievous error was frequently made by landlords. Welsh landlords were too much in the habit of considering that a fair rent was that which a farm would bring. The House knew that that unfortunately was an idea which was a great deal too commonly held as to what was a fair rent. A fair rent was certainly, as his

  1831
  hon. and gallant Friend would agree, not what a farm would bring, but what the land could fairly earn and pay. The contention of the Supporters of the Motion was that for a long period back the tenants of Wales—than whom there were no tenants in the world more thrifty, industrious, and frugal, had been required to pay the price of existence and starvation rents. The result of this had been a more general depletion, a more widely extended condition of agricultural distress, a greater depopulation of whole districts, than perhaps could be instanced in the kingdom anywhere out of the Highlands of Scotland. Now, the idea was entertained in some quarters that the effect of making this Motion would be mischievous rather than beneficial, because it might, to a certain extent, shake confidence in capital, and might disincline investors to come to Wales. But it had been admitted, and admitted by the hon. Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Kenyon)—he believed it was also admitted by the hon. Member for West Denbighshire (Colonel Cornwallis West)—that if there were hardships and injustice in Wales, it was constantly occasioned by investors in land in Wales. Strangers came to Wales, put their money in land as a mere investment, and often acted in the harshest of manners. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were not aware of such cases, he and his hon. Friends could furnish them with plenty of them. No doubt confidence in capital was a very important thing for any industry; but what was wanted in Wales was not to give confidence to capital, but to give confidence to industry. How could there be any confidence in the agricultural industry under a system of yearly tenancy, and of competitive rent exaggerated to the highest point by the necessities of the people? That the competition for rent was exaggerated to the highest point in Wales, the House of Commons could easily satisfy itself upon if it would only take the trouble to inquire. Enough had been said about severance between the people and the landowning class—enough, for this evening, at any rate, but it was as well the House should consider, for a moment, what was the position of a Welsh speaking farmer ousted from his holding. A Welsh speaking farmer had absolutely no
  1832
  other resource open to him in Wales; he could not go out of Wales; he was simply turned out on the road side. If the landlords chose to remit the study of the question of fair rent to agents, if they would not look into the question of rental for themselves, the result inevitably must be that the country must become over rented as it was now. Upon the question of rental it was as well to point out that in Wales the rise of rent had been altogether exceptional. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had said, Wales was a pastoral country, and depended largely on wool and mutton. The opening up of railways in Wales brought the sheep-farming industry very rapidly to the front. Undoubtedly it gave a great stimulus to that industry, because it secured to farmers a sale for their mutton as well as for their wool, and this led to a very large rise in rents. It could be shown, to the satisfaction of the House, that the rise in rents of some hill farms in Wales was nearer 100 per cent than 35 or 40 per cent. He could adduce a multitude of cases where the rise had been far greater than 35 or 40 per cent, but he admitted that they would be isolated cases. All these facts, however, a Royal Commission would soon discover. There was unquestionably in Wales a state of things which required the serious attention of Parliament. If Parliament would not attend to this matter when they had before them clear evidence upon which to go, there was only one course for the people to adopt. If there was no other method of securing an adjustment of rent, and a better system of tenure than that of combination on the part of the tenants, that combination must be and would be sooner or later brought about. He and his hon. Friends liked agitation so little that they did not at all desire to see this combination stimulated, and it was for that reason mainly that they took the earliest opportunity of appealing to the House to seriously consider the case of Wales, and not to invite Wales to become in agricultural revolution a half-way house between Ireland and England.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, that hon. Members had talked of the land-hunger in Wales and of the extraordinary competi-

  1833
  tion for land which prevailed there. But did hon. Gentlemen speak from experience or were they only echoing an old Irish cry? Mr. Doyle, in his excellent Report to the Royal Commission of 1882, said, that restricted competition for farms in Wales compelled owners in many cases to accept undesirable tenants—men without skill, enter-prize, or capital. How, then, could hon. Members speak of land-hunger when persons who had inquired into the subject spoke of the want of competition? Mr. Doyle had shown that the almost exclusive use of the Welsh language gave Welshmen, especially in remote parts, almost an exclusive monopoly of land-holding, and that they entertained a great jealousy of strangers. But the right hon. Member for East Denbigh-shire (Mr. Osborn Morgan) complained that some of the landlords did not know Welsh; he must remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman himself could only communicate with his Welsh constituents through an interpreter. There were two sorts of farmers in Wales—farmers of land and farmers of the platform. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment was one of the farmers of the platform; he had never had anything to do with land; his occupation was of a very different character. The leaders of this Welsh agitation were persons connected with the Press. They had heard a good deal about politics and religion in this debate. A farmer did not make his farm pay by politics, nor yet by religion, but by a knowledge of agriculture. The landowners, who were the real friends of the farmers, had reason to complain that they got no assistance from politicians in anything they did to help the farmers. He did not wish to minimize the misfortunes of Wales, but the reason of their existence was a very simple one. They were due to bad seasons, high rates, foreign competition, and professional agitators. According to the Land Agents' Record, which had been frequently referred to, people were afraid to invest money in land. What was necessary was to restore confidence to all classes of the people, and that could never be done so long as some hon. Members encouraged violence and class hatred. The payment of rent was not the cause of the Welsh farmers' mis-
  1834
  fortunes. There were in Wales a large number of freeholders, some 50,000, and they were a great deal worse off than the tenants. The hon. Member for Merionethshire made a whole string of statements without producing any evidence to support them. He would, however, give a few figures in support of his case. In 1862 the profits of the farmers, as appeared from the returns under Schedule B of the Income Tax, in the 28th Report of the Inland Revenue, were £2,659,000; in 1876 £3,183,000; and in 1883–4 £3,244,000; so that in the course of those years there was a continuous increase. Again, from the local taxation returns 1884–5, it appeared that the rateable value of property had increased in every county but one, and the last Return of agricultural statistics for 1886–7 showed that the number of acres under corn and under green grass had increased, that the number of horses, sheep, and pigs had increased, and that the land under cultivation had increased. In fact, everything had increased but cattle, which had decreased to a small extent. This was an organized and factitious agitation. A year ago there was a great meeting held at Rhyl to inaugurate a Land League for Wales, and placards were issued headed "Farmers, awake!" and calling on farmers to attend. They, however, did not, and one Radical newspaper the next day had to lament that "Farmers were conspicuous by their absence," while another charged Welsh farmers with "cowardice and servility." The fact was that there was only a minority in each constituency in favour of this agitation, but this minority had to be satisfied, and so as to satisfy them hon. Members opposite were bound to make a hubbub in the House. But in so doing they did not represent the majority of the Welsh people. There was a split among the agitators themselves. In Denbighshire a counter association to the National Radical Federation had been started, in which the hon. Member for Merionethshire took a leading part.
  MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, he was not even a member of the counter association.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, at any rate, there was a counter association, and serious differences of opinion

  1835
  existed even amongst the Radical Members themselves on this subject.
  MR. BOWENROWLANDSsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to possess more wrong information on this subject than he could have believed possible; and between this inaccurate information and the tortuous windings of his speech had effectually concealed from the House the course of what he (Mr. Rowlands) supposed was intended for argument. He was sorry that the hon. Member had spoken of a factitious agitation and described the Welsh Members as agitators. He could not see the logic of the argument that their action was dictated by a desire to please their constituents, and that, nevertheless, they did not really represent their constituents in this matter. The hon. Member had made assertions without proving them. He had, it was true, quoted from the Report of Mr. Doyle; but, as had already been shown, the inquiry upon which that Report was founded was conducted by a person who knew nothing about Wales, and who obtained information from Poor Law clerks who were not competent to give it. The difficulties of the situation in Wales could not be settled by mere temporary reductions of rent. In order to inspire the tenants with that confidence which was essential for the successful practice of agriculture, rents must be permanently reduced or the land must be revalued and security of tenure with freedom of sale assured to the cultivators of the soil.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): This has been an interesting debate to those who take any particular interest in the Principality of Wales; but I think it has been shorn of what might have been its most interesting feature, and reduced rather to the position of "Hamlet" with the principal figure in that play omitted. We are all aware that on the Front Bench opposite generally sits that eminent Member of this House best qualified to advise his own followers on the question of land tenure in Wales, and I think we must all regret that the "Squire of Hawarden" has not thought fit to give his followers that advice he might have given on this interesting subject. But in his absence we must do
  1836
  the best we can. I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis), who brought on this Motion in a speech which, I think, was both moderate and circumspect, will understand that on this side of the House, and certainly with Her Majesty's Government, there is at least as full sympathy with all the trials and difficulties that have arisen out of the depression in agriculture as he or any of his Friends can claim to show. I should be sorry it should be supposed that, in opposing this Motion, the Government are acting with any want of sympathy with a class so entirely deserving of it as the farmers of Wales are, no less than those of England. The hon. Member's speech was both moderate and circumspect, extremely moderate in comparison with utterances of advocates of agricultural changes outside this House; and he was extremely circumspect in his instances, for he did not refer to any particular case in the course of his argument, with the exception of one annonymous landlord in Cardiganshire. But the House should not be left altogether ignorant of the sort of language used in connection with this subject by orators who speak with more freedom and less responsibility than Members when addressing this House. I dare say hon. Members on both sides may have seen a letter which appeared in The Times of the 18th of the present month, and signed by Mr. Gee, President of the Land League of Wales, or one of the Land Leagues of Wales, for I gather there are more than one. In this letter the writer defines the attitude of himself and his friends in language which deserves the attention of the House of Commons. Mr. Gee referred to an occasion when he was reported to have spoken about "rotten landlords," and as he was anxious to disclaim this soft impeachment, he wrote to The Times to say that he did not speak of "rotten landlords," but of "rotten land laws." That is a very easy mistake for a reporter to make; but as Mr. Gee goes on to point out that he addressed his audience in the Welsh tongue, it does not seem quite so easy to understand how the reporter fell into the error; and when he further goes on to clinch his argument, or, as I should say, judiciously forgets to clinch his argument, by any reference to the fact

  1837
  that some persons among his audience cried out "Shoot them!" he wisely disregards the consideration that persons who desire to shoot usually select something more tangible to shoot at than laws. However, Mr. Gee goes on to say what was the language he used, and these are the words he employs. He said—
  "The changes advocated by the Welsh Land League will of necessity cause great disturbance among landlords and their families, but that no social revolution of the kind, however grave and unpleasant it might be, is sufficient reason why these reforms should not be effected."
  He also stated, he says—
  "That these changes should be effected by Constitutional means, but should these means fail, the responsibility will rest on our opponents if a revolution of another kind should take place, as it was impossible the country could continue subject to these oppressive laws for many years longer."
  Well, I give this language, not only because it is well that Parliament should be made aware of the sort of propaganda going on in Wales, but to do credit to the very different tone of the hon. Member for Merionethshire, who, in introducing his Motion to-night, "roared as gently as any sucking dove." Mr. Gee goes on to say what is included in his programme. He wants a Land Court established, with a sliding scale of rents, fixity of tenure, compensation for improvements, State aid to tenants for the purchase of holdings by loans spread over 50 years, the abolition of primogeniture and entail, the enfranchisement of leaseholders, the transfer of royalties to the Crown—that has not been, I think, a very popular thing in Wales—the abolition of the Game Laws, the revaluation of tithe rent charges, free rivers, paid Members of Parliament—and, of course what seems to be most important of all, the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church. This is a large programme, and I will not now attempt to discuss the various items in it; but I mention them to show that when the hon. Member comes with an extremely innocent-looking Motion inviting the attention of the Government to legislation to meet the agricultural depression in Wales, a great many people who act with him, and whose spokesman in the House he is presumed to be, attach a great deal more meaning to the Motion
  1838
  than he has given in his colourless speech in introducing it. The hon. Gentleman went, first of all, to the Commission of 1879, and referred to the Report of Mr. Doyle. Now, I do not wish, at this hour, to detain the House by following the hon. Member on the various objections he took to that Report—and, indeed, we have been told by the hon. and learned Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Bowen Rowlands), that the Report is only worthy of consideration when it expresses his view, not when it expresses the view of anybody else—but the hon. Member mentioned in connection with the Report that the late Lord Penrhyn—who we may accept as one of the best landlords that ever filled that position in Wales or any other country—the hon. Member himself did full credit to his memory—that the late Lord Penrhyn used the phrase "hereditary tenantry." What is the meaning of a phrase of this sort? It was taken up by the hon. Gentleman, who made a great deal of it. Does it point to bad relations between landlord and tenant? Does the fact that tenants occupied holdings on which their fathers were born and which their forefathers have occupied for centuries, does that point to the existence of so much, bad blood, the absence of sympathy and want of cordial relations between landlord and tenant, with which, according to hon. Members, land tenure in Wales is cursed? I should say that, as regards the little hill farmers who hang on to their holdings with the most narrow means, with the greatest difficulty scraping together the means for their frugal existence, who cling to their position in times of the greatest difficulty for landlord and tenant, this long hereditary tenure of farms is as good testimony as we can possibly have of the friendly and cordial relations that from time immemorial have existed between landlord and tenant. Then a curious point came out in the speeches of the hon. Member and others who followed him. I always like to see a man's true nature appear through the artificial layer circumstances impose upon it. I believe the hon. Member believes himself to be a staunch Free Trader, yet he actually told us that one of his suggestions for improving the condition of Welsh farmers was that Englishmen should be prevented from competing for

  1839
  the purchase of land in the Principality! [Mr. T. E. ELLIS: Not at all.] Yes. Did he not say that tenants should have pre-emption? What is that but preventing the other side coming in? If you say that two parties may compete, but on the condition that one of them shall secure occupation, you rather neutralize the value of the competition on the other side. I do not think that anyone would care to engage in a competition if he knew that his opponent would be certain to get the lot when the auctioneer knocked it down. We have been told that it is a great hardship that a premium is put upon the purchase of an estate when it comes to the hammer because wealthy Englishmen bid. The hon. Member is a friend to the people of Wales; but he is actually prepared to exclude from residence in Wales, or from the rights of proprietorship and occupation there, the very men who fertilize its barren soil by bringing in English capital and English custom. Well, I never heard from any Gentleman who professed to be a popular Representative a more extraordinary panacea for the ills of his country than this proposal. We were told in one breath that tenants were so anxious to purchase that they were prepared to give fancy prices for property; but then the next moment we were told that the tenants were all, without exception, insolvent. We were told that these men, who were prepared to give for the land more than it was worth, were actually in a position of such universal bankruptcy that they were unable to meet their most ordinary engagements. I leave these arguments to meet each other. I do not see that he can maintain them both, and the hon. Member is welcome to the use of either to the exclusion of the other. We have been told, too, this is not simply an agricultural question, and, in fact, there has been very little said on the agricultural aspect of it. The hon. and gallant Member for West Denbighshire (Colonel Cornwallis West), it is true, did endeavour to treat it as an agricultural question; but although there have been casual allusions to it in the speeches of hon. Members, we have been constantly treated to the old story of the necessary separation of landlord and tenant by language, religion, and politics. Well, of course, I
  1840
  do not deny that it is matter of regret that landlords and tenants in Wales so little speak in the same language, and I make the admission frankly that landlords would do better if they did speak the Welsh language. I think it is extremely desirable that in an age when a greater sense of the responsibility of property is growing up that landlords should be in a position to talk to their tenants in the vernacular. More and more I think this will be done. So, also, as regards religion, it is unfortunate that landlords and tenants should be separated in attending places of worship. But I have always thought that in this there is much that is creditable to both parties. It is creditable to the independence of the tenants who, we are told, on the authority of Radical papers, are reduced to a condition so servile that they have not the courage of their opinions, that they never shrink from following that form of religion which is consonant with their conscientious convictions. Although, as a rule, landlord and tenants go to different places of worship, each deserves equal credit for going to the place which he believes is on the whole best suited to his own form of faith. And then as regards politics. The Welsh are, we know, a very impetuous race, and they take the keenest interest in the events of the day. They are extremely intelligent and quick to follow the political movements of the time. Nothing, then, is more likely than that differences of political opinion should arise. But admitting all these facts, what possible connection have they with agricultural tenure? What in the world is there to connect this question with acquiescence with the Thirty-Nine Articles, the expediency of Free Trade, or even with differences which prevail on the Irish policy; or what is there about the bilingual difficulty which should lead this House to make a new and separate agrarian law in regard to one integral part of the Kingdom? The conditions under which land is held are conditions that have grown out of old custom over a long time, and they are equal in Wales and England. There is a great deal of human nature in the Welshman, and he is not so unlike the Englishman as he is said to be, and I think you will find that there is no practical reason why, if

  1841
  you make a change in the relations of landlord and tenant in Wales, it should not equally apply to the relations between landlord and tenant in England. I believe the House would do very poor service to Wales if it made Wales the second subject of an experiment such as had been made in Ireland, if it were to extinguish what I believe to be the natural, friendly, and reasonable relations between landlord and tenant in Wales by attempting to legislate on lines which have already proved so disastrous in the Sister Island. We were told that until a few years ago rent was held to be as sacred by the tenant as by the landlord in Wales; and I will go further and say I think rent is at the present time as sacred in the eyes of the tenant as of the landlord. I think, in the enormous majority of cases in Wales, the Welsh tenant is quite prepared to pay his rent as far as be can. I think he is extremely honest in his relations with his landlord; and, on the other hand, I think there is an equal disposition to fairness on the part of the landlord, who has been ready and willing to make such abatements as appeared necessary in view of the depressed state of agriculture at the time. I cannot quite accept the speech of the hon. Member for the Rotherham Division of the West Riding of York (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland), who is also, I believe, Bursar of Balliol College, and who, I think, speaks of the relations between landlord and tenant from the point of view of a College Bursar—the most unfortunate phase of the relations that exist in any part of the Principality between landlord and tenant. The hon. Member, who has lived for some time in Wales, gave us with the greatest care the result of his own experience, and he drew a very painful picture of what he believed to be the relations between landlord and tenant. I am quite ready to admit that in the case of Corporations, necessarily an absentee proprietorship, it is impossible to cultivate those cordial and friendly relations that spring up between man and man in the position of landlord and tenant, and it is extremely probable that the Bursar of the College found there was not that spontaneous cordiality that meets any gentleman who acquires property there. I do not myself speak as a landlord in Wales;
  1842
  but I live in Wales, and have lived there not quite so long, perhaps, as my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Osborne Morgan), but very nearly. I know something of the Welsh people from the point of view even of a landlord on a small scale, and I can only say that I never found the slightest difficulty in dealing with my tenants on account of difference in language, politics, or religion. If I may do so without being open to a charge of egotism, I would relate an incident from my personal experience that will illustrate in some degree what are the relations between landlord and tenant, even when the landlord is what some hon. Members call an alien. A few years ago I had a tenant on a small farm, a widow, and she came to me in great trouble and was very anxious that I should put in a distress for the rent. I said—"Surely this is one of the most extraordinary requests ever made. I do not believe the rent is due." "Oh, yes; it is," she said—"it was due last week, and I have come to ask you to put in a distress." Then, when I came to inquire the reason, she told me that the village usurer—he happened also to be a popular Nonconformist preacher—had a bill against them. Years before they had borrowed £20 from him, and, though he had been paid twice over, yet still he made a claim for more than the original sum; "and he is sure," said she, "to put in an execution if you do not protect your tenant." Well, I did what I could. I went to the usurer, and, after listening to some bad language, got him not to press his claim. I only mention this to show the sort of relation that exists in my part of Wales, when a tenant of the poorest, feeblest class comes to the landlord as his natural protector and friend in any difficulty that may threaten him. I do not wish to detain the House further. I only wished to show that there is no want of sympathy on the part of the Government, and those who sit on this side, with the difficulties that are allowed to have arisen from agricultural depression; but we believe, at the same time, that nothing could be more fatal to the true interest of Wales, and especially of Welsh agriculturists, than for us to yield to an agitation got up by two or three incendiary newspapers, however mildly the case may be presented to the House.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,)said, he would only make a very few observations on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes). The right hon. Gentleman admitted to the full the differences of race, language, politics, and religion that existed in the relations between landlord and tenant; but he asked what possible connection could there be between these matters and agriculture? The right hon. Gentleman could not have paid much attention to the speeches delivered, because that connection was shown in the clearest manner possible. The English land system was such that it could not be applied with success unless there was an entire community of feeling between landlord and tenant on these subjects; because the power given to the landlord was so omnipotent that it could be used, and was used, to the injury of the tenant where these antagonisms prevailed. This was the strong ground for land tenure reform in Wales rather than in England. The right hon. Gentleman said he never found any difficulty; but though he actually lived in Wales he was only just within the Welsh Border, where not a word of Welsh was spoken, and where the people were, practically speaking, English, though Welsh by descent, and geographically inhabitants of Wales. Such also was the case with the hon. Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Kenyon), who lived on the Border, where Welsh views, habits, and language did not exist.
  MR. KENYONsaid, he begged to be allowed to correct the hon. Member. He had spoken not of his own locality, but also of the constituency he represented in the very heart of North Wales.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid, he only spoke of where the hon. Gentleman resided. He only wished to say, from what he knew of the Welsh farmers, that they would be satisfied with a Bill of a very moderate character—a Bill that he was certain no reasonable landlord could take exception to. They did not want even complete fixity of tenure, but only reasonable protection against capricious evictions. They would require also fair rents, and this no landlord would object to. No landlord would confess he desired other than a fair rents.
  1844
  A Bill conceding these two points would give complete satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the language of orators out-of-doors; and if strong language was used by a few people, was it not a strong argument for doing something to meet the views of the Representatives of the people in the House, before agitation increased and the violent language of the few was generally adopted?
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 128: Majority 18.—(Div. List, No. 182.)
  Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).

  OBSERVATIONS.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he had given Notice to call attention to a most important subject, the Report of the Royal Commission which was appointed to inquire into Drainage, Harbours, and Railways in Ireland. It was a question of which he might say the Government had lived upon it for the last two years. There was a solemn promise from the noble Lord the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) that great things would be done for Ireland by this Commission, or, at any rate, if the Commission reported the possibility of doing great things, the Government would undertake them. This was 22 months ago, and it was a promise not of the noble Lord as Member for South Paddington, but as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Representative of the Cabinet. Of course, it was not possible at that hour to go into the subject properly; but he would point out that the Commissioners had made a valuable Report recommending that great changes should be made in the railway system; that the present system of guarantees was absolutely futile; that money offered at 2 per cent was not worth more than 1½ per cent; and they also made recommendations for deep sea harbours in connection with railways, and that drainage should form part of the scheme. Of the latter he need not say much, as the Government were going to introduce Bills on the subject. He was afraid they

  1845
  would be useless measures, for the Government were attempting the most difficult task in engineering to drain rivers and make them navigable at the same time. It might be easy to drain a river, not so easy to make it navigable, but to combine the two was one of the most difficult engineering feats in the world. Unless the Government would find a substantial part of the money, it was not likely to be a profitable undertaking for the Irish taxpayers. It was of no use attempting to explain this subject, which was of a somewhat technical character, to-night; but it was the duty of the Government to say at what time would they allow this Report of the Commission to be discussed; would they bring it forward themselves, or allow Irish Members to bring it forward in some fashion? He was afraid the Government were purposely leaving the question of arterial drainage to the end of the Session. Some £3,000,000 or £4,000 000 were to be transferred to the relief of local taxation in England, and what was presumed to be a proportionate amount was to be allocated to Ireland; but he was afraid that various Commissions would try to secure much of the money that ought to go to the relief of local rates as in England. He was afraid that at the end of the Session the Drainage Bills would be rushed through without proper discussion, the engineers' reports would not be properly considered, and this money would be diverted from its proper destination, the lightening of the rates, and turned to some such purpose as this drainage scheme. However, what he desired now was to elicit from the Government a statement of when they would allow this important Report to be discussed, and state what they proposed to do to redeem the pledges of the noble Lord when he held Office as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he scarcely anticipated that the hon. and gallant Member would have raised a discussion on this question, and the time was not favourable to it. As the hon. and gallant Member was aware, he (Ur. A. J. Balfour) proposed to bring forward the Drainage Bills on Monday, and it would then be his duty to submit the Government proposals on
  1846
  this point. But he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman now that the Government did not propose to allocate any part of the sum to be given for the relief of local taxation in Ireland to drainage purposes. As to the other matters dealt with in the Report of the Royal Commission, he must remind the hon. and gallant Member that in the present condition of Public Business it was not possible to deal with more than this portion of public works. If they succeeded in passing three Drainage Bills, that, he thought, was very well for one Session, and they could hardly be expected to do more.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Oh, yes. Railways.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman thought that more could be done than passing three such Bills brought in in the month of July, he was of an extremely sanguine disposition. But he reminded the House that the Commissioners themselves had given some opinion as to the comparative importance of the various subjects on which they reported. Of the three subjects they treated—drainage, harbours, and railways—they were unanimous in placing drainage first. Under these circumstances, the Government did not think they would be justified in running counter to the opinion of the Commissioners, their advisers in the matter; and on that ground the Government had determined to deal with drainage before touching harbours and railways.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONsaid, he appreciated the skill with which the right hon. Gentleman had talked on the matter for a few minutes, and really said nothing about it. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Commissioners made any such distinction in the subjects they referred to. Let the right hon. Gentleman read the Report with an Irish eye, and he would not find any such classification as he represented. True, drainage happened to be mentioned first, but not as first in importance. For his own part, he did not much believe in improvement of land by drainage for the Irish landlords, and he hoped some day to convince his hon. Friends that it amounted to taxing the general community for the benefit of a few indivi-

  1847
  duals. But in the matter of increasing accommodation for the fishing industry, and bringing railways into connection with harbours, there was work that would be of great material benefit to the country. He hoped that the opportunity would come for a more adequate discussion of the subject. He had but
  1848
  inadequately expressed his own view; but in that respect he had only imitated the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  It being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put till Monday next.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Elections (Intervention of Peers and Prelates in Parliamentary Elections), nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks * (193); Reformatory and Industrial Schools * (194).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Consolidated Fund (No. 2)*.
Committee—Companies Clauses Consolidation Act (1845) Amendment (170), discharged.
Report—Timber Acts (Ireland) Amendment (188).
Third Reading—Suffragans' Nomination (176), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Local Government (No. 5) * (192).
Second Reading—Public Health (Scotland) (Kirkliston, Dalmeny, and South Queens-ferry Water) * (177); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland)* (179); Local Government (No. 6)* (181); Local Government (No. 9) * (182); Local Government (No. 12) * (183); Tramways (No. 3) * (191); Gas (No. 1) * (180).

REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD NORTON,in rising to call attention to the urgent necessity of consolidating and amending the enactments relating to reformatory and industrial schools, and to present a Bill, said, that lately, in answer to his noble Friend (Lord Aberdare), the Government promised a Bill before long, embodying the Report of the Royal Commission on Reformatory and Industrial Schools issued four years ago, and that it should be introduced in time to correspond with any treatment of the subject in the Local Government Bill. There was a Bill just now brought up from the other House dealing partially with the subject. He asked for a first reading of the Bill which he introduced in their Lordships' House soon after the Report, which there had

  1675
  been no opportunity of pressing forward. He was anxious that the three Bills should be considered together. The Bill he now introduced claimed to be a consolidation of all existing Acts, which he maintained was most desirable. But it also involved amendments in the law which, to his mind, were quite as desirable. Principally it proposed to place such schools and their teachers and their special inspectorate under the School Department, taking them from the control of the Home Office, and making the punishment of juvenile convicts distinct from their education, which, while under police and magisterial treatment, kept up a criminal character in the children, and hindered their getting the employment they were trained for. Youths convicted of crime should be appropriately and adequately punished, and afterwards disconnected from all criminal associations and educated in reformatory schools as schools. The neglected children who were sent to industrial schools should certainly have no penal or police character connected with their education at all. That was a mischievous folly, and greatly frustrated the object of the State, in loco parentis, sending such children to school. The language of the Acts showed that this was not fully recognized when they were passed, as it was in the Commission's Report. The schooling was made part of the penal sentence, and the assigned term of education which was in the nature of an apprenticeship to a trade was called "a detention in custody." There was really no possible distinction of actual treatment in these schools from that in other national schools, excepting that they were boarding schools and gave an industrial training. But they were damaged by their police character. His Bill enabled any interval between punishment and sending to school to be spent in proper care, and provided that children should never be sent to common gaols. It also facilitated the recovery of payments from parents, and adjusted the at present wasteful Treasury contributions. At the same time, it encouraged philanthropic management and private subscriptions. He hoped that their Lordships would give the Bill a first reading in order that it might be considered with the other Bills.
  1676
  Bill to consolidate and amend the enactments relating to Reformatory and Industrial Schools in England and Wales.—Presented (The Lord NORTON).
  EARL BROWNLOWsaid, that on the part of the Government he should not offer any opposition to the first reading of the Bill, but at a later stage it would be his duty to point out the great difficulty that would arise in carrying out the idea of the noble Lord of transferring the management of these schools from the Home Office to the Education Department. Of the very strong Commission which was appointed to inquire into the subject, the majority held different views from those of the noble Lord. He understood the noble Lord to propose that the Bill should be read a first time and printed and allowed to lie upon the Table in order that it might be taken with the other Bills dealing with the subject. That being so, he had no wish to oppose the introduction of the Bill.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that any opinions of his noble Friend on this subject were, of course, worthy of attention and respect, but he was bound to say that his recommendations were entirely opposed to the views of the other Members of the Commission. His noble Friend entered upon the Royal Commission with his opinions made up, and he did his utmost during the course of a very long inquiry to induce his Colleagues to adopt them—but at the end of the discussion, in spite of the respect they all entertained for his noble Friend, not one single Member of that Commission was, he believed, won over to his side. There was a Bill now before the House dealing with a small fraction of this question, and he hoped that the House would have an opportunity of considering the several Bills together.
  LORD NORTONappealed to the noble Lord, as Chairman of the Commission, to say whether the Commission did not recommend that these schools, so far as education was concerned, should be placed under the Education Department; that their separation was of the greatest disadvantage to the teachers; and that, at all events, day industrial schools were wrongly placed in the Home Department.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, it was quite true that the Commission recommended that the appointment of the masters and the direction of the education should be placed in the hands of the Education Department, but not the general management.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, that as Chairman of the County Industrial Schools in Kent, he should like to see the recommendation of the Commission carried out as to the Education Department being given the control of education, while discipline and general management were left with the Home Office. It was likely that they would have to establish a sort of special department of the Education Office to deal with industrial schools, as the education given there was of an inferior kind, the children being drawn from the least educated classes.
  Bill read 1a. (No. 194.)

IMPERIAL DEFENCE—ORGANIZATION OF OUR NAVAL AND MILITARY SYSTEM—POSSIBILITY OF INVASION.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS,in rising to move—
  "That, having regard to the recent statements of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, of the Adjutant General, and of high naval authorities, as to our defective armaments, and having also regard to the increased armaments of foreign nations on sea and land, this House welcomes the proposal of Her Majesty's Government for an increase of our defensive means, and confidently looks to their forthwith taking such further measures as will give ample security to our Empire and just confidence to the country,"
  said, pace the Lord Mayor, and—since he made that remarkable speech last Wednesday on the Channel Tunnel—pace our late Protean Premier, he was not ashamed to proclaim himself an alarmist, and to frankly confess that he had been an alarmist for 40 years. For nearly 30 years he had been connected with the Volunteer Force, and what were the Volunteers if they were not alarmists? There were 200,000 of these serving at the present time, and over 1,000,000 who had passed through the ranks, and they had served because the state of the defences of this country was not such as it ought to be. This was because Government after Government had not the courage—and he did
  1678
  not believe would have the courage—to enforce the existing law of compulsory service for home defence, which was the existing law of England in the ballot for the Militia. The existence of the Volunteer Force, however, gave rise to a false sense of security, for the inefficient organization of the Volunteers rendered them a force which could not be trusted alone with the defence of this country. There had been alarmists before now. The first alarmist was the great captain of the age, the Duke of Wellington, and it was he who, in that celebrated letter to General Burgoyne, raised the first note of alarm. Lord Palmerston was the next, and he raised £10,000,000 to put our fortresses and Dockyards into a condition of safety. Who were the alarmists now? Among them there was the Commander-in-Chief and the Adjutant General. Recent speeches delivered by the Illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge) and the noble and gallant Viscount (Viscount Wolseley) must be in the recollection of their Lordships. Much was said in disparagement of alarmists and scares, but he was prepared to assert that it was only owing to the scares which periodically occurred that anything was really done in the way of improving our armaments and the defences of this country. The first scare was, no doubt, that caused by the Duke of Wellington's letter in 1847. There was then no Militia and no Volunteers, and only a very small Army. In 1852 the Militia Bill was introduced, which led to the re-establishment and revival of the Militia, and this was undoubtedly due to the letter of the Duke of Wellington a few years before. In 1859 there was the Franco-Italian War, which led to the establishment of the Volunteers. In 1862 there was the Trent affair, which led to the increase of the Army by 35,000 men. In 1870 occurred the Franco-German War, and as the possibility occurred that we might have to maintain the integrity of Belgium, the Government proposed to Parliament to increase the Army by 20,000 men, wherewith to drive out of Belgium whichever of the contending hosts ventured to cross its frontier, and of these 20,000 it took six months to raise 10,000. Following upon this scare, Mr. Cardwell, in 1871, introduced his Army Reform scheme, which was to have

  1679
  put an end for ever to the recurrence of panics. He would not enter into a discussion of that scheme, and would only say that it had certainly not had this effect. In 1878 there was the Russo-Turkish War, which led to an increase in our Army of 50,000 men. In 1882 the war in Egypt led to an increase of 6,700 men to the Army. In 1884–5 we had the question with regard to the Russian frontier of India, when the First Lord of the Admiralty, who brought forward the Estimates, came down to Parliament and asked for £5,000,000 as a supplemental grant for the Navy. In 1886, 9,300 men were added to the Army in India. He did not know whether it would be quite accurate to say that there was a scare just now. Before the speeches of the Illustrious Duke, of the noble Viscount the Adjutant General, and of other distinguished men, the Government, he knew, had been working to improve the military organization, and had done a great deal, but still he hoped that by the force of public opinion they might be induced to do a great deal more. Burke said—
  "Early and provident fear is the mother of safety; for in that state of things the mind is firm and collected and the judgment unembarrassed; but when fear and the thing feared come on together and press upon us at once, even deliberation, which at other times saves, becomes our ruin, because it delays decision; and when the peril is instant the decision should be instant too."
  These words ought to be written up over the doors of the War Office and Admiralty. The state of the Navy was now the question of the hour. So many statements and counter-statements were made upon the subject that it was no easy matter for anyone who was not a naval man to arrive at any very definite conclusions. He had, therefore, taken the pains to obtain as good a naval opinion as could be got—the opinion of Sir Spencer Robinson, some time Comptroller of the Navy—and after submitting that opinion to other naval officers he had drawn up a summary of the views expressed by them and Sir Spencer Robinson, and that summary he would lay before their Lordships. First as to our naval administration. On several occasions our system of naval administration had been shown to be a failure. It was shown to be a failure when Lord Northbrook
  1680
  asked for £5,000,000 extra in 1884–5, and when recently £6,000,000 were asked for to provide guns and ammunition and £4,000,000 granted. It was shown to be a failure now when ships which were ready had to wait for their guns till the Spring of 1889, and when guns having come to grief afloat, others were taken from forts already insufficiently armed to supply their places. He sincerely hoped that the Committee of the Cabinet would mend our system of administration both in regard to the Army and Navy. Now he came to consider the Fleet. What was its duty? Not to defend arsenals, fortresses, and commercial ports, but to blockade an enemy's fleets, capture or sink them at sea, protect our commerce, and secure our food supply in war. What were our means of fulfilling this duty as compared with the means possessed by France? Sir Spencer Robinson said—
  "No blockade will hermetically seal the ports of such a maritime power as France, but a blockade may be largely effective if carried out by a superior force. In addition to an unmistakable superiority outside there will be required a force in reserve somewhere in the Channel equal to the blockaded fleet should it or a sufficient part of it get to sea; while to maintain the coal and other supplies necessary to the blockaders, their numbers must exceed that of the blockaded fleet—say, by 33 per cent, so as to allow for a certain number of ships replenishing their stores in turn. To do this effectively we should require nearly the full number we possess available in 1890—of which four or five will be on foreign stations, leaving none to watch Russian ports or in reserve. To accompany the Fleets necessary for blockade 30 or 35 cruisers over 15 knots would be required (the eyes of the Fleet). We have only 42 or 43 in all, leaving seven to 12 cruisers to watch the 40 French cruisers of the same speed or the greater number of them not with their own iron-clads in port."
  Now, what was the comparative strength of the two Navies in iron battle ships? In 1890 England would have 42, France 38, not all of either Power being fit for all services, but all being fit for defence. It should be observed here that the French boilers were supposed always to be in a better state than ours. Of commerce protecting and destroying cruisers we possessed 121, while the French, including gunboats, had 126. In cruisers, speed was everything; therefore it was important to compare the relative speeds of the cruisers of the two countries. Of cruisers exceeding

  1681
  14 knots in speed England had 52, and, including 12 armoured cruisers, 64. But of these 12 seven had their armour below water. That was very much as if a man were to order a chest protector and wear it upon his stomach. In addition, six cruisers of the Barracouta class were being built of 16 knots, but these were practically obsolete ab ovo. France had 63 cruisers, including four armoured ones, and the speed of some of these was 20 knots and upwards. In England only two had this speed, but 21 more of 22 knots were being built. In France nine of 20 knots and upwards were being built, and one of them would have a speed of 25 knots. Of subsidized merchantmen, England had 20, of which two were of 19 knots, and all of considerable coal endurance. From France there were no statistics relating to this class of vessel. Estimating the comparative protection afforded by the two countries in proportion to the number of their merchant steamers, he found that whereas the relative protection afforded by Great Britain to her merchant steamers was as 1 to 90, in France the protection afforded was as 1 to 10. In the early part of the century the protection afforded by the navy to our mercantile marine was 6 per cent; it is now 1 per cent. Some people would say that our commerce would always be safe under the system of neutral flag protection. Not a very noble way for the Mistress of the Seas to protect our trade in war time. But the system must result in severe loss, as was proved by American statistics. In 1860, before the Civil War, the tonnage cleared in American ports was 12,087,000 in her own ships—nearly equal to our 13,914,000 cleared in British ports from our own ships. In 1870, the United States tonnage was under 7,000,000, while ours was over 25,000,000, and at present the United States tonnage was still lower, while ours stood at 47,000,000. Sir Spencer Robinson said that "if he had to fix our force in proportion to our wants he would say that six additional battleships were imperatively required, 60 first-class swift cruisers of 22 knots, a host of lighters, barges, and vessels to be used for rapid coaling, and an extension of electric cables to many important points now without them, or not in our hands." We further wanted a definite policy and programme; and as to this he had hope in the Committee of the
  1682
  Cabinet. A question had arisen as to the tonnage required for the invasion of this country. The First Lord of the Admiralty spoke of 480,000 tons, but there were experts who said that only 150,000 or 160,000 tons would be necessary; while at Havre alone there were 75,000 tons of shipping and five miles of quays. The Army was admitted to be low in numbers; the illustrious Duke wished to add 11,000 men, and others still more. Whenever we were called upon to send a portion of the Army into the field we had invariably to call for Reserves, for no regiment was kept up to the full strength with men of proper age. Our Army was still unarmed with repeaters, while other Armies had them; and there were many other things that were wanted. One great defect of the Militia was that it was generally somewhat under its nominal strength, and if troops were called out the Army "Militia Reserve" went back to the Army. The idea of General Peel in forming the Militia Reserve was that for every man enrolled in the Reserve another should be put on the strength of the regiment, and that the Militia Reserve should be supernumerary. As regarded the Yeomanry, the idea was that it should be converted into Rifle Cavalry, and made the Cavalry Force of the Reserve Forces, carrying a long rifle. The Volunteers had long been without the organization they ought to have, and there was no reason why they should not have had it any time during the last 25 years, or ever since they had a bonâfide existence. Nothing had been done; they had had no transport and no Artillery; but since the present Government had been in Office artillery was being supplied and arrangements were being made for the supply of transport. The Government, to their credit, had also brought in a Defence Bill. He would not say that the Volunteers were treated harshly in the Bill, but what they dreaded was being sent to serve a long way from their homes. Explanations had been given which would do away with alarm, but it would be well that words should be introduced into the Bill to provide that, except in great emergency, the service should be so arranged by a system of reliefs that it should not press unduly upon professional men and expose those in situations to the loss of their employ-

  1683
  ment, and further, that, as far as practicable, they should be called upon to serve in their own localities. He congratulated the Government upon their having done so much in the right direction. Still formulating what was said by the "man in the street," he should say that we wanted most a small permanent augmentation to the Army, say 20,000 men, so as to have ail our garrisons abroad kept always at an efficient strength, and that we should send no more boys to hot countries to die like flies. When the reservoir of men at home ran low we had to send boys abroad instead—an inhuman and very costly proceeding. Secondly, we wanted the stores and equipments for two Army Corps for foreign service and for one corps besides on a reduced scale for home defence. That was, we should have three Army Corps of regulars for home work, out of which two would always be available for foreign service when required. These seemed to be our imperative requirements in the opinion of those most competent to judge. Whatever was necessary to be done ought to be done quickly, with the decision manifested by Lord Palmerston when he asked for £10,000,000. His Motion was not brought forward in a hostile sense; indeed, it was almost a Vote of Confidence in the Government. It was certainly not brought forward in a Party sense, for this question was above all Party considerations. It was the most vital question that could be submitted to Parliament, involving the security of our Empire and the defence of our homes and the strength of England, which was in itself a security for the peace of the world. In reply to the suggestion that the defence of the country had been sacrificed to Party interests, the Prime Minister had earnestly protested against the idea that for the purpose of making a good Budget any Party would consciously risk the interests of the Empire. But the noble Lord whose speech was thus protested against only said what civilians and military experts were saying. Mr. E. Stanhope and Mr. W. H. Smith were examined before Sir James Fitzjames Stephen's Commission in 1887. Mr. E. Stanhope said—
  "Within recent years Secretaries of State have allowed their stores to be reduced to the vanishing point, with the result of positive danger to the country."
  1684
  Mr. W. H. Smith described the way in which his Estimates were dealt with by his Cabinet. He said—
  "His Colleagues when he presented his Estimates said to him You must take off half a million' and this was effected by doing without guns, reducing the number of men, and diminishing stores, &c."
  Our ships were now waiting for these guns and our fortresses were unarmed. Lord Wolseley before the same Commission said—
  "We are not in the position, military speaking, we ought to be in, nor do I believe we are in the position we should be in if the English people were told the whole truth."
  This scare or panic, call it what they pleased, and the speeches of the Illustrious Duke and his noble Friend behind him (Viscount Wolseley) and other experts in the Navy and Army, would open the eyes of the Nation to the true state of things. He might define panic as the temporary waking up of the nation from that deep, chronic sleep into which it was thrown and kept by the mesmeric passes of Ministerial manipulation. He ventured to think that upon such a question as this the opinion of experts and of men belonging to the professional classes should receive attention, and he was certain that his noble Friend at the head of the Cabinet trusted in the patriotism of the nation—of the nation as a whole composed of all classes—and not as narrowed by Mr. Gladstone, who excluded from the nation what he called society—professional men—literature and science; and so, trusting the nation, he hoped he would show that, whatever may have been previously the case, it should now be said that under his administration loyalty to Party Budgets was little short of treason to the State. He, therefore, trusted that the Government, backed by public opinion, which he believed was thoroughly with them, would take such steps as would once and for all give to the nation with regard to its armament ample security for the safety of the country. In conclusion, he moved the Resolution which stood in his name.
  Moved to resolve,
  "That having regard to the recent statements of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, of the Adjutant General, and of high naval authorities, as to our defective armaments, and having also regard to the increased armaments of foreign nations on sea and land,

  1685
  this house welcomes the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for an increase of our defensive means, and confidently looks to their forthwith taking such further measures as will give ample security to our Empire and just confidence to the country."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  VISCOUNT WOLSELEY: My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Earl by discussing all the very interesting topics which he has raised, but I may be permitted to make a few observations upon one point to which reference has been made in the public Press of late, and which, in my opinion, is one of very great importance—namely, the liability of this country to invasion, and more especially the size of the fleet which would be necessary to bring across our short Channel a small army, which, it is believed, could be landed easily on our shores with the intention of a rapid march on London. This subject of invasion can be discussed with advantage and without giving offence to even the most tender susceptibility on the part of any nation. I should be sorry to discuss this subject if I thought it would give the least offence to Foreign Powers with whom we have been so long on the most amicable terms. The reason I bring this subject before your Lordships is that on a recent occasion when I spoke in this House, I quoted evidence which I gave a year before with regard to what I believe to be a well-known fact, and one which has been brought forward by men of the greatest eminence in this country—namely, that this country is at all times liable to invasion. The question of invasion has been studied most deeply by all the greatest soldiers and sailors of the century, and notably by the great Napoleon, by the Duke of Wellington, and by the distinguished Admirals and Generals who have succeeded since the Duke of Wellington's death. The question has been so frequently considered that it would require courage amounting almost to temerity on the part of anyone to stand up either in this House or in any other public assembly and express views contrary to those held by men of the eminence of those to whom I have referred. In the speech to which I referred, it may be remembered that I mentioned the possibility of 100,000 men being landed on our shores in a very short time from across the Channel for the purpose of
  1686
  capturing London. A short time after I made that statement, the First Lord of Admiralty, in "another place," on the 4th of June, made a statement, I suppose with the very best possible intentions, which elicited a good deal of criticism in the Press. The noble Lord wished to show the absurdity of the men who impressed on the nation the imminence and possibility of this invasion, and he stated, in the clearest terms possible, as Minister at the head of the Board of Admiralty, that it would be necessary, in order to transport this army, to have a navy of 480,000 tons gross burden. This is a point to which every General and Admiral has given a great deal of attention, and I am justified in saying that none have given it more attention than myself. I can most positively assert that when the noble Lord stated that a Fleet of 480,000 tons would be required, he exactly multiplied by three the amount which would be actually necessary for the purpose described, I was so astonished in reading that statement, that my first impression was that either he or the reporters had made a mistake. I thought he meant to say 180,000 tons. I waited for a couple of days to see whether a contradiction would be made, but none appeared. Meanwhile the newspapers very commonly—especially those that consider it very desirable and wise to always expect fair weather and to anticipate no danger—dilated very strongly on the absurdity of men like myself venturing to talk of invasion when no invading army could come unless provided with an enormous amount of tonnage. I then gave the most unqualified contradiction to what I thought to be the most erroneous and most misleading statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty. I stated that a fleet of from 150,000 to 170,000 tons would be able to bring over an army of 100,000 men intended for the capture of London. I thought that that statement would have been generally received, and that the noble Lord would have consulted his distinguished Colleagues and expert advisors upon the point. I knew that if he had done so he would have obtained front them a full statement that he was entirely wrong and that I was correct. Instead of doing so, within a very short time afterwards he seems, by means of a friendly question addressed

  1687
  to him in the House of Commons, to have availed himself of his position to reiterate the fallacious figures he had previously given. Nothing is further from my intention than to impute to the noble Lord the wish to mislead the English people by false calculations. I am quite certain that nothing is further from his mind. But I cannot help thinking that it was a very serious thing if, as I believed was the case, he made the statement without having duly consulted those provided for him by the nation to advise him on these important points. I wish now to repeat that an army of 100,000 men intended for the invasion of this country and the capture of London could be transported across the Channel with the greatest possible ease in a fleet the size of which was 150,000 or 170,000 gross tonnage. I wish to emphasize that statement by saying that there is now, at this moment and every day of the year, in the ports of France ample shipping and tonnage to bring that army across the Channel. What is more—and this bears very directly on the point of the possibility of invasion—remembering that the permanent peace establishment of the French Army is nearly 500,000 men. I contend that it would be the very easiest possible operation for the French Authorities, if they wished to do so, to collect 100,000 men, with an Artillery consisting of 300 guns, in the ports bordering on the Channel in one night, without even informing the men who were to be embarked as to their destination; and your Lordships are well aware how short a time it would take to cross the Channel. The noble Lord who represents the War Office, when he answers the remarks made by the noble Earl in front of me, will, I hope, afford us some information as to whether this serious question has been considered by Her Majesty's Government; whether it has been put to the experts of the Army and Navy to say whether they think those statements that I have given as to the tonnage required for such an army of invasion as I have referred to are correct; or whether the statement of the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty is correct. The question is too important not to receive an answer; and I think it is due to your Lordships' House that we should have a statement made here and that we should be told whether the noble Lord
  1688
  at the head of the Admiralty is correct in the statement which he made in "another place" or whether the statement I have ventured to make this evening is true or not. My Lords, I regret very much to have had to make these remarks at all, and I regret still more that an official of Her Majesty's Government, a Cabinet Minister holding the position which the First Lord of the Admiralty occupies, should on his own motion or initiative, without consulting the experts whose place it is to advise him in such matters, have made—although not willingly, I am sure, on his part—a wild and extravagant and a misleading statement on a subject of the most vital importance to the country.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS)said, that with regard to the point raised by the noble and gallant Viscount, it was one which had far better be dealt with by a Cabinet Minister; but as his Lordship had put a direct Question to them—namely, whether the question of the possibility of transporting or as to what was necessary for transporting an army of 100,000 men from the Continent to England had been referred to the Military Authorities for their opinion—he answered unhesitatingly that it had.
  VISCOUNT WOLSELEY: Perhaps the noble Lord will kindly state what was the result of that inquiry or reference to the Military Authorities.
  LORD HARRISsaid, that that was a point which had better be dealt with by a Cabinet Minister; it was not one with which he was acquainted. The noble Earl who had moved that Resolution was always prepared cap-à-pie on those occasions and came down with Horse, Foot, and Artillery, but he never remembered his having previously added Marines to his force. He thought, however, that the Government had no reason to be dissatisfied with either the form of the Resolution, the quarter from which it came, or the time at which it was made. He construed that Resolution as one of rational criticism, combined at the same time with confidence in Her Majesty's present Government as regarded what they had done and also a belief that they would do their best in future to make the Army efficient. Now he thought they might hope that the first spasm and premonitory symptoms of panic had passed away, and that they

  1689
  now were all, whether they were pressing for expenditure or were on the side of the economists, ready to look at questions affecting the protection of the country in the future in a calmer frame of mind. The noble and gallant Viscount had already in that House expressed very much the same sentiment of confidence in the present Government as the noble Earl now did, and considering the tone that had been assumed in the public Press in respect to the military administration of the country, he thought he was justified in quoting the expressions used some weeks ago by the noble and gallant Viscount in that House. The noble and gallant Viscount then said—
  "But even if I were (i.e., a politician), I could not with any honesty attack Her Majesty's Government for neglecting to attend to the interests of the Army and Navy. From the position which I occupy in the administration of the Army, no man is more thoroughly aware than I am of all that the present Secretary of State for War has done and is doing in order to render the navel and military forces of the Crown efficient in every way and worthy of the nation."—(3 Hansard, [326] 94.)
  And again—
  "I know how sincerely and deeply the Secretary of State for War desires to make the Army efficient. I have already alluded to what he has done in the short time he has been in office to improve not only the efficiency and organization, but also the discipline of the Military Forces."—(Ibid. 97.)
  And again—
  "Since Lord Cardwell introduced the great reform of the Army, and changed the basis of our military organization, no Administration has done so much as the present Administration for the Army, or has introduced so many beneficial changes in the short time they have been in power."—(Ibid. 96.)
  The noble Earl had opened his speech by confessing that he had been an alarmist. Now, he trusted that he should not be accused of official optimism. He thought there was a happy mean between the two, and that the Government were justified in resisting unreasoning pressure for extravagant and ill-considered expenditure, with the right object of taking care that what money was voted should be properly spent. Money voted in a hurry was usually spent in a hurry, and in all probability those who so spent it would have to repent at considerable leisure. The noble Earl had acknowledged that one step taken by the Government was
  1690
  not the result of what he had called the panic of the other day. The Secretary of State for War had laid before Parliament at the commencement of the year a Memorandum in which he clearly pointed out that during last year a Committee had been sitting which took into careful consideration what was necessary to complete at once the armament and the works of our coaling stations, also what was necessary for the works and armaments of our Imperial ports, and what the Committee thought it was advisable should be spent on our commercial harbours. That Memorandum went into detailed statement, and said clearly that it was the intention of the Government to ask for a considerable sum outside the Estimates and for a loan in order that those works should be proceeded with as soon as possible. That document was laid before their Lordships and the other House certainly two months ago or more, and many of the articles recently published in the Press read as if no idea of that Memorandum had been before the writers at the time they wrote. The sum for which the Government had asked under the Imperial Defence Bill was no small one—it was £2,600,000. The Secretary of State in his Memorandum did not pretend that that was all that was necessary. He acknowledged that it was not, but said distinctly that he asked for that sum because from the opinions of his expert advisers and of those who appeared before the Committee last year, he believed that was as much as could be spent within the time. That, he hoped, was a well-considered scheme of expenditure, not a hasty and extravagant one. And, if he might say so with deference to the noble and gallant Viscount, he would observe that when he made his speech in the House, in which he did ample justice to the Government, he thought that justice was done somewhat tardily, and the noble and gallant Viscount had until then omitted in his speeches in different parts of the country to notice that the Government were asking from the nation very large sums to complete its defences. The noble Earl had alluded to the question of guns having been removed from men-of-war owing to the necessity of relining or owing to some failure of the lining and to their having been replaced through the land service. That had been done to his

  1691
  knowledge in two recent cases. He did not attempt to defend it, but he had only to say that in both of those cases the guns were taken from the second land line of defence, and that it had been the invariable policy of the War Office to give way in everything to the Navy, recognizing to the full that it was the first line. Then the question arose, what was the condition of this country at present with respect to the provision of armament? That undoubtedly was a most important question, touching, as it did, both Services. Undoubtedly there had been recent failures in guns, which had been brought before Sir James Fitzjames Stephen's Commission and had been reported in the newspapers, and that might lead those who studied the question to have very grave fear whether this country would be able to keep up its title to be a great manufacturing country. Many of the statements on the subject, however, had been greatly exaggerated. If a crack was reported in the lining of a gun, it did not necessarily follow that if the ship were on service the particular gun would become inefficient. It was a fact that many rounds had been fired from guns after the lining had been cracked, and that the shooting of the guns had not been spoilt. But it was absolutely necessary that the manufacturers of this country should, by study and experiment, produce guns as little liable to those accidents as possible. He doubted, however, if they could evolve, without experience, any better system than at present existed in this country for studying the science of gun-making. They had on the Ordnance Committee now sitting not only two officers of the Navy and a distinguished engineer, but within the last five years what were called specially associated members had been added—a member from the Armstrong firm, a member from the Whitworth firm, General Maitland, the head of the Ordnance Factory, and Lord Armstrong himself. They sat first of all on the question of ordnance construction in 1883; they were called together after the failure of the Collingwood guns in 1885; and they were now sitting on two important questions connected with the rifling and lining of guns. The Government were occasionally pressed from outside that if they could not get good enough guns in this country they should
  1692
  go abroad. But what security was there that the Krupp guns would be better than our own, or would be supplied more quickly? That was a question which had been looked into at the War Office, and it was his decided opinion that if you went abroad you would not get guns any quicker or any better. From the evidence taken by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen's Commission there was no doubt that there had been failures in Krupp guns as well as in ours; but in the case of foreign nations there was not the same publicity given to such matters as in this country. He wished their Lordships distinctly to understand that the Military Authorities—those in a political position—had recognized as clearly as possible the absolute necessity of advancing as rapidly as possible in the manufacture of perfect guns, and they believed they were doing what was best for the country and for the efficiency of the two Services at this moment. The noble Earl alluded to the fact that in every regiment of the 1st and 2nd Army Corps there was a certain number of young recruits, and if the regiments were sent on foreign service those young recruits would have to go out or to be replaced by older men from other regiments. As long as we kept up our present system of recruiting, we must have a number of men under age whom we should not wish to send to India. But if you wished to send on foreign service only those who were not above 20 years you would have to increase your Army. That was a question which it was not possible for him to discuss. It was only those in the position of Cabinet Ministers who could consider the whole matter from the financial and other points of view. You could not separate responsibility for the size of the Army and the efficiency of your military arrangements from financial responsibility. The Cabinet had most distinct responsibility to the nation, and it would be impossible to withdraw that responsibility or any other responsibility which rested on it. The noble Earl referred to the fact that we had not a magazine rifle at present in the British Army. Now he was under the impression that there was no Army on the Continent completely armed with the magazine rifle.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Completely,
  LORD HARRISsaid, he believed there was one Army with a good number of those rifles; but he had it on the authority of a gentleman recently on the East Coast of Africa that he had an opportunity of trying the Martini-Henry carbine against the repeating carbine, and the Martini-Henry beat it in every respect. In the matter of rifles, he trusted the country would not press the Government. It was said, no doubt, that they had been studying this matter a great number of years, but that was not actually the case. It was only in the summer of last year that the calibre of the rifle was adopted. That was an important change, and it resulted that they had not been able to perfect the magazine rifle, which was now about to be tried, in all respects, as quickly as they originally supposed. He did not believe we had lost anything by that. They had gained, as other nations had bought a dear experience owing to being in a hurry. He was happy to be able to say that rifles for trial had now been issued to troops in England; some were being sent to Egypt this week, and he hoped a further assignment would be sent to India and to Halifax next week. Their Lordships must remember that the British Army had to fight in every climate in the world, and that every arm and every kind of ammunition must be tried in every climate, and that it required time for proof. The noble Earl referred to the Militia Reserve. At the time when the Militia Reserve was started, it appeared, from the noble Lord's own speech, that the country had not that magnificent force of Volunteers which it had now. That must distinctly affect the question of our Home Army; and in the presence of the Military Authorities he challenged the assertion that the Militia Reserve would be withdrawn from the Militia if an attempt at invasion was made. Under those circumstances he believed the Militia Reserve would stay with their Battalions. At this moment we were not able to recruit the Militia up to its full strength, and, therefore, the idea that for every Militiaman who joined the Reserve an additional man should be added to the Militia would be difficult to carry out. Owing to the greater demand in the labour market or to the greater attraction of the Volunteers, they had not been so successful in
  1694
  getting men for the Militia last year as in the two or three preceding years. Personally, he was entirely with the noble Earl in his view that the Yeomanry should become mounted rifles, but that was a change which required trial. If the regiments expressed a desire to try a long rifle, no objections would be taken to such a course at headquarters. The noble Earl said that the Volunteers had no organization and no artillery. In the last two years, however, the Government had done everything in their power to improve the organization of the Volunteers and to supply them with artillery. The whole of the 84 guns promised to the Volunteer Corps had been issued and were now in their possession; and with regard to 16 and 20-pounders the Department was now in communication with officers of the artillery Corps as to their willingness to accept them, but those officers had to look for a place to store them in. The noble Earl referred at some length to the Defence Bill. About that he would say nothing, as it was now before the other House, and when it came up to their Lordships' House the noble Earl would have an opportunity of moving any Amendment he thought proper. The noble Earl also brought forward his old friend, "the man in the street." He did not know whether the noble Earl expected the Government to accept the figures as really reliable. The Government would not be satisfied with the expression of opinion of "the man in the street; "but, as they had done in the case of the armaments and the works for our coaling stations and for the Imperial ports and commercial harbours, they would insist upon a careful examination of the figures, so that when they put their figures before the House of Commons and the country they could say that they had carefully looked into them and could guarantee their accuracy. The present Government had done their best to make some changes which would benefit the Army, and he had brought forward the hon. and gallant Viscount's evidence of that fact. They had been working under an abnormal pressure. There had been sitting Sir James Fitzjames Stephen's Commission, the Estimates Committee of the House of Commons, Sir Matthew White Ridley's Commission on the Civil Services, and the Committee on the ques-

  1695
  tion of the Defence of Imperial Ports and Coaling Stations. There had also been tremendous pressure put on the War Office in elaborating the mobilization scheme. In all these circumstances, he thought it would have been excusable if the Government had been unable to take up any great changes as regarded the Army. As regarded the Volunteers and Auxiliary forces, they had been enabled to introduce beneficial changes, and as regarded the organization of the Services, although it could not be laid down as a matter of fact that the changes they had introduced were beneficial, at least they could say that they believed them to be so. It was impossible to say in the moment whether a change in organization would in the course of six or seven years prove to be beneficial. It must, however, be acknowledged that the principle the present Government had introduced, that weapons, stores, and equipments for the Army should be examined, proved, and tested in a department different from that which purchased or supplied them, was a right principle. As regarded the changes at the War Office and in the Army, the Government were entirely responsible, and they were responsible for the changes introduced in consequence of the inquiry into the system in vogue at the War Office, and he believed they had no reason to fear what the finding would be whenever a verdict was passed upon them.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, although I am in no way personally responsible in the matter now before your Lordships, yet as I gave evidence before a Committee, and as I feel that a certain amount of responsibility rests upon my shoulders, I hope in these circumstances your Lordships will allow me to offer a few words on the question before the House. My noble Friend who brought forward the Motion has named me in that Motion, and rather implied that a scare was produced by what I said and by what the noble and gallant Viscount behind me has said. I can assure your Lordships that I had not the slightest intention in anything I have said of producing a scare, because I consider scares to be the most dangerous and objectionable things that can possibly be imagined. The whole subject arose in this way. I was called before a Committee of the other House
  1696
  to answer certain questions referring to the Army, and, of course, I answered those questions to the best of my ability and conscience. I did not frame those questions; they were framed by the Members who sat around. My business was to answer them. Among other questions I was asked whether I considered that at the present moment the Army was in such a condition that a certain proportion of one Army Corps could be immediately withdrawn from Aldershot or elsewhere and embarked for foreign service? My answer was, "No." "What do you want?" was one of the questions. I said that I believed that about 11,000 additional men would, upon our present system, carry out the object the question implied. I was asked what I meant. My meaning was exactly what has been stated in this debate—that under the present condition of enlistment and service, you are obliged to engage a very large proportion of very young men; and that, as there had been laid down a rule as regards hard foreign service in the field, that a man under 20 years of age ought not to be employed, if you have a large body of recruits in every regiment, unless you have some means of leaving a portion of them behind, you cannot embark the number of men you want. The 11, 000 men to which I alluded was simply to give a margin, so as to leave behind, not useless men, but men who for the moment cannot be made available, and by that means to fill up what I consider the vacancies created by the system. That is the meaning of what I said about the 11,000 men. I hope, however, it will not be understood that those are my views as to all that is wanted. I believe that more is wanted; but that was the ground on which these remarks have been made. No doubt, the subject has been very largely ventilated; and I then ventured to think, and I think so still, that it is very desirable that the country should understand exactly the position in which it is placed with regard to these questions. Hitherto the country has been asleep. I do not think the subject has hitherto attracted the attention of the people, and I believe that the cause of that has been that there has always been a great difficulty connected with it—namely, the financial difficulty. But now it has been brought prominently before the country,

  1697
  and, that being so, I consider, without reference to any attack upon the present or any other Government, that it is the duty of any man who is in a position to know how the matter stands and what ought to be done to state frankly what he thinks; and if he does not do so, I do not think he is doing his duty to himself, and much less so to his country or his Sovereign. There has, my Lords, been some talk about danger, and it is said that I used that word. I did use the word "danger," I believe; but I did not use it in the way which has been implied. The word "danger" can be taken in two senses. There is, first, imminent danger. There is, I believe, no imminent danger, and I do not consider there is any danger in that sense. But there is danger in this sense—that the country ought to be efficiently protected, and in a condition to hold its own with reference to other nations. In that respect, in my humble opinion, there is decidedly danger unless you have your Services in a condition to be able to perform the duties which may be required of them. I believe Her Majesty's present Government have done everything they could to accomplish that object. It cannot be done in so many days, or perhaps in so many years; but the object to be attained is to ascertain what is really wanted. We have never fully ascertained that. We have lived from hand to mouth, and if danger arises everybody immediately cries out for the Services to be prepared for anything that can be required. Sometimes it is a small scare, sometimes a very considerable one; and the result is that we are never really prepared either for a small or a considerable one. Now, I think Her Majesty's Government ought to lay down absolutely what they consider to be the object and duty both of the Navy and the Army—and not only that, but also the relative duty of each; because there is a great deal in the connection between the Army and the Navy. The Navy is, of course, the first line of defence; but the Navy requires the assistance of the Army, and unless the Army is in a position to assist the Navy, we cannot expect to hold our own with other countries. I am told that this country is not a military one, and that it does not want to vie with other nations in that respect. I entirely agree; but what is the real
  1698
  condition of things? Every other European country at this present time has been arming to the teeth; and what have we done? Comparatively nothing. [The Marquess of SALISBURY dissented.] I see my noble Friend the Prime Minister shakes his head; but for the last few years we have certainly not done what we ought to have done relatively to what other countries have done. If we are not in as good a position, relatively, to what they are, we must be in a disadvantageous position; and all that we have asked for, and all that we have put forward, all that I personally have put forward, whether in public or private, has always been this—that we should relatively hold the same position to other countries now as was the case before these vast armaments were introduced. I, for one, deplore these armaments. I think it is a most unhappy thing for the world, and I wish it did not take place. But it is not for me to say whether these armaments are necessary or not, however much I regret to see them. Every country judges for itself, and we must judge for ourselves relatively to what other countries do. I believe that Her Majesty's present Government have done an immense deal to meet the requirements of the country; but I do not think the subject has over been treated in former years in that spirit, and the result is that we have had this scare. I believe that if we have our Services in such a condition—not extravagant, by any means—that they can really carry out whatever is really laid down as the principle on which every Government should act, we should be in a much better position than we are now. When he dissented from what I said, the noble Marquess seemed to overlook the fact that in many respects changes have taken place. Take, for instance, the arming of the coaling stations. That is a question which was never thought of until within the last year or two. If you have coaling stations, which are necessary, they must entail an additional number of men, because the Fleet could not take charge of them alone. There must be troops to defend them, and without troops they would be worse than useless. At the same time, what I would like to see, and what every soldier would like to see, is that some fixed principle should be laid down which would define better

  1699
  than has hitherto been the case the relative duty of the Army and the Navy, and also the relative requirements as to the strength of the two Services. That would be an immense point, and I am rejoiced that we have a Cabinet Committee sitting on the matter; for I cannot but think that that Committee will produce some good result in that direction. If something sudden comes upon us, you may depend upon it you have not got the Services in that position that you would wish and that the country requires. I am most anxious to assure your Lordships that I have no desire to see any extravagance in the Army. My object has been to let the Government feel I am supporting them to the best of my ability; and in making these observations I have endeavoured to support what I believe to be the right thing in the interests of the State. I hope that this explanation will be satisfactory to your Lordships, and will show that what I have said on the subject has certainly not been with the object of producing a scare, but merely to make the country feel what was required to be done.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he agreed with the illustrious Duke as to the inadvisability of sending young soldiers under 20 years of age out to India to reinforce regiments. It might have been better, in the interest of the Army in India and also at home, if the increase in the number of the British troops in India which was made a few years ago had not been made, for it would be preferable to have the Reserve at home rather than in India, where it was exposed to a worse climate, and where its maintenance was also more costly. He had, however, risen to make a few observations on account of the references that had been made to the strength of the Navy. He could not accept some of the figures that had been used by the noble Earl who introduced this Motion; and as the present strength of the Navy was due, not to the action of the present Board of Admiralty, but rather to the action of previous Boards, he felt bound to point out the inaccuracy into which the noble Earl had been led. The figures quoted by the noble Earl had been supplied to him by Sir Spencer Robinson and others; but he (the Earl of Northbrook) ventured to think that the state-
  1700
  ments of responsible experts on the question of the relative condition of the British and other Navies were of more value than those of experts who had no responsibility, such as Sir Spencer Robinson. The noble Earl had stated that from the figures submitted to him he was in a position to state that in 1890 the number of battle ships would be English 42, French 39, giving us a preponderance of only three. These figures gave a very erroneous impression. In 1884, when at the Admiralty, he had a careful examination made as to the respective strength of the English and French Navies. The Naval Members of the Board went carefully into the matter, and upon their authority he in that year was able to inform the House that the number of armour-plated ships was English 46, French 31. From that time to the present we had been building armour-plated ships at twice the rate of the French. Upon the authority of the present Senior Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Arthur Hood, who was an expert with responsibility, he was able to state that the number of such ships added to the two Navies by 1890 would be, since 1884, English 22, French 10. The figures, therefore, stood as follows with regard to armour-plated ships of all classes. In 1884, English 46, French 31; in June, 1888, English 54, French 35; in 1890, English 68, French 41. His noble Friend would see that these figures, given by a responsible expert, Sir Arthur Hood, entirely differed from the figures given to him by Sir Spencer Robinson. He was corroborated in these figures by the authority of a noble and gallant Friend, Lord Charles Beresford, who, he regretted, had left the Admiralty, and who could not be regarded as a particularly favourable critic of the present Board of Admiralty. Speaking to his constituents in November last, Lord Charles Beresford said that in 1890 we should have 38 ships of the first-class against 31 of two combined Powers, of which France was one. In 1879 the present First Lord of the Treasury, who was then at the Board of Admiralty, added to the number of ships laid down, but fortunately did nothing of the kind recommended now by Sir Spencer Robinson. If the right hon. Gentleman had decided to build 60 ships all at once they would have been obsolete by this time. But the right hon. Gentleman

  1701
  began to make good the want that existed, and the Board of Admiralty over which he himself presided followed in the same direction, with the result that in the years beginning with 1880 twice as many ships of the first-class were being built in England as in France. The public failing to understand what was going on, there was a scare in the Autumn of 1884, and Mr. Gladstone's Government, thinking it right to take advantage of the opportunity thus afforded, proposed an addition of £3,000,000 to the Shipbuilding Estimates of the Navy. The result had been most satisfactory, and at no time since the introduction of the screw in ships of war and of armoured plate had the Navy of this country been in a superior position than it was in now as compared with foreign nations. In fact, it had never been in so good a state. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) had especially referred to fast cruisers, and stated that the French possessed 63 vessels of this class, many of them over 20-knot speed.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Some 25-knot.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he thought there must be some error on the part of the noble Earl; he knew of no such fast-going cruisers in the French or any other Navy, and when he was at the Board of Admiralty the French had none, and had none building. The present condition of the two Navies, as far as these cruisers were concerned, was this on the authority of Sir Arthur Hood—we had 21 unarmoured cruisers of 16 knots and upwards, while the French only possessed six cruisers of that great speed. Our superiority, therefore, over the French in unarmoured cruisers of high speed was very considerable indeed. It was true that in the last year or two the French had begun to build a substantial number of fast cruisers; but he believed the present Board of Admiralty were taking the wise and proper steps to meet that increase by a relative increase on our side. The Admiralty had begun to build a large number of these vessels, of which no less than five would, he understood, have a speed of 20 knots. Eighteen or 20 were being built which would have a speed of more than 16 knots. He dissented altogether from the view of the irresponsible expert quoted by the noble Earl that we
  1702
  ought to build 60 fast cruisers and four more line of-battle ships. Our number of battle ships, as compared with the French, was sufficient for the present; and it would, in his opinion, be an unwise and extravagant policy to build at once an enormous number of ships of any class. The cost of Sir Spencer Robinson's scheme would be no less than £12,000,000. Those who wished to precipitate the country into such expenditure would do well to recollect what occurred in 1859. The question was then raised whether we had as many screw line-of-battle ships as the French, and many old sailing ships were at once converted into screw line-of-battle ships. But a very short time afterwards the era of iron-clads began, and these vessels were either converted into indifferent iron-plated ships or were now rotting in the harbours of the country. That showed the danger of any large, sudden, simultaneous operation in shipbuilding. The speed of our ships launched and completed during the last four or five years he considered very satisfactory, notwithstanding the adverse criticisms of a portion of the Press. Most of our recent iron-clad vessels had a speed of 16 knots, and some of our armoured cruisers had considerably surpassed the speed contemplated by their designers. He believed that the Orlando, in her trial trip to Gibraltar, had made a faster passage than had ever been achieved by any commercial steamer. He was prepared to rest his defence of our naval administration on the present position of the Fleet. He believed the Board of Admiralty was now engaged in making fit for sea a very considerable squadron in order to show what the position and organization of the Navy were. There never was a greater mistake than to suppose that the Board of Admiralty was not prepared to meet any difficulty, or to do any work which it had to do in respect of sending ships to any part of the world, manning them quickly, and fitting them out properly. On these points evidence was furnished by the two Expeditions to Egypt, and he was not aware that they were attended by any failure as to transport, organization, or equipment. And their Lordships could appeal for testimony to the noble and gallant Lord who commanded the Naval Forces (Lord Alcester), and who

  1703
  afterwards joined the Admiralty, and presided over a Committee which had worked out the whole organization for manning our ships. He believed it would now be found that 22 armoured battle ships, 18 cruisers, besides torpedo boats and gunboats, could be in a short time manned, equipped, and made quite ready for service without taking a man from the Reserves. It was impossible to over-estimate the importance of protecting our commercial marine in time of war; but to discuss the best mode of effecting this would be to take up more time than he would venture to occupy on the present occasion. He would, therefore, only observe that he was aware that the Board of Admiralty were paying particular attention to the subject. As to invasion, he was not going to discuss how many men per ton could be put on board ship and brought across the Channel, because that did not go to the root of the matter, which was that the command of the Channel should remain with our Fleet, so that there should be no possibility of sending a hostile expedition across it. The idea of invasion was preposterous so long as we had command of the Channel, and of this we had absolute certainty in the present condition of the Navy, and should continue to have it whatever Government had the responsibility of its administration.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that during that debate they had heard some very important, very interesting, and very startling statements, and it must be generally satisfactory to their Lordships to have heard a speech of a reassuring character. He would not prolong the conversation; he desired to obtain some information on a matter of detail, but an important detail; he wished to know what was the policy of the Government with regard to Dover Harbour? [A laugh.] The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) laughed; but the unanimous result of past discussions and inquiries was that the enlargement of Dover Harbour was an essential element in the defence of this country, and expenditure had been incurred with the object of carrying out the work by means of convict labour. It now appeared as if the project that had been formerly approved by the highest authorities had been abandoned;
  1704
  and it certainly did seem to be inconsistent to display so much concern about the defence of the Empire while neglecting an essential part of our home defences.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I have to apologize to the noble Earl if I seem to think too lightly of the grave subject which he has brought forward. But I have heard him bring it forward so frequently in this House, and at such long distances of time, that it impresses me very much as a favourite Motion of Mr. Smith in the House of Commons on the question of foreshores. There is something in the frequent repetition of an argument which comes to no practical effect which, I am afraid, diminishes the solemnity of the occasion. But I still think that the noble Earl's speech must be looked upon rather in the light of a confession than a complaint, because the story, as I understand it, is this—that about the year 1873 Mr. Gladstone's then Government, with the assistance of Mr. Cardwell and the noble Lord, had come to the absolute conclusion that Dover Harbour must be enlarged. A change of Government took place in 1874, and no doubt that very grave feeling of the Government was not continued. In June 1880, the noble Earl came into Office again and remained for five years, and yet, though staggering under the conviction that this was an absolute necessity, not a single stone towards the improvement of the harbour was laid. It evidently was necessary that the Government of which the noble Earl was a Member should consider the question for five years. We have only considered it for two years. With that answer to the noble Earl, I confess that I am not competent to deal with the matter from a strategic point of view; but if he will give me Notice I will tell him what our experts think of its relative importance to the numerous claims on the Exchequer for the purposes of defence. There is so much to do, that the postponement of works does not mean that you disregard or disbelieve in the value of the work, but simply that you think there are other works which are of more importance. I was anxious to say a few words with reference to the speech of the noble and gallant Viscount (Vis-

  1705
  count Wolseley) who spoke early this evening, and of the charges he made against my noble Friend Lord George Hamilton. I must say I regret that he should, in his position, have made charges of that kind without having taken some trouble to ascertain that they were correct. He charged my noble Friend, if I did not mistake his words, with having given an opinion on a very important matter of naval and military strategy simply from his own lights and without instructing himself by the advice and knowledge of his proper Departmental officers. The statement is entirely without foundation. My noble Friend, before he made the statement that he did, consulted the proper authority in his Department—namely, the Transport Department—and it was on their authority that the statement he made was put before the world. Whether it is right or wrong I will not undertake to say; but there is absolutely no ground whatever for the blame which the noble and gallant Viscount has thrown upon my noble Friend.
  VISCOUNT WOLSELEY: I did not refer to Departmental officers, but I said I was under the impression, so utterly erroneous was the statement made by the First Lord, that it was not possible he could have consulted the able Admirals who were his Colleagues on the Board of Admiralty.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I confess I do not see what more he could have done. He consulted the able Admiral or Captain whose duty it is to consider the question of transport, because that was the question which was under discussion. There was one other remark made by the noble and gallant Viscount of which I also desire to take notice. He intimated, in the form of a question, his belief that we had not consulted the authorities of the War Office, or of the Navy, with respect to the danger of an invasion on which he had insisted so strongly. That danger the noble and gallant Viscount has re-stated in fuller terms to-night. If I understood him rightly, he stated the danger to be that 100,000 men might be collected in a single night at the French ports of the Channel, placed on board the shipping that would be found there, and transported that night to the shores of England as a surprise. I can say that the matter has been under the anxious
  1706
  consideration of the Government in communication with the authorities of the War Office and the Admiralty. Stating the problem as the noble and gallant Viscount has stated it, I can safely say that we have received from no authority any indication that a danger such as he states it exists. I have heard of authorities, not of the War Office or the Admiralty, who have thought that a small force could be carried across in the way the noble and gallant Viscount suggests, as a matter of surprise. I have also heard—and I think it is the belief of the authorities of the War Office—that if we lost the command of the Channel by a great naval disaster, then such an invasion as the noble and gallant Viscount suggests might be possible.
  VISCOUNT WOLSELEY: I never suggested that 100,000 men could be embarked on board any fleet in one night. I certainly had no intention of suggesting that.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That sets the matter right at once. It certainly startled me very much. But the difference, I believe, between the Admiralty and the War Office is really a question of definition. What is a surprise? Such a surprise as that we were talking of just now, a surprise in a single night, is a thing against which no naval pre-eminence could contest if such a surprise were possible. A surprise of that kind I believe to be simply impossible; and I venture to form the opinion, even against any indication of military opinion—because it is not a military matter—that it would be perfectly impossible that any such movement could be organized in France and that we should not know of it. After all, there is the telegraph. If the wires are cut we know there is something wrong; if they are not touched the news must come over them. Such a force could only be concentrated at the ports of the Channel by means of the railways. In order to concentrate forces of that kind by railway you must seize and use a vast quantity of rolling stock. The companies do net keep that rolling stock idle; it must be withdrawn from the ordinary commercial traffic of the country. Do you suppose you can withdraw rolling stock to carry 100,000 men without calling attention to the fact that you are doing it? You would paralyze

  1707
  all the lines in the neighbourhood of Paris. There is another point on which the authorities of the two Offices differ, and again it is a difference of definition as to the nature of the equipment which these forces, suddenly thrown from France to England, are to carry. When my noble Friend Lord George Hamilton spoke of 480,000 tons as being necessary to carry 100,000 men he was thinking, as the transport officers advised him in thinking, of a thoroughly equipped force for the purpose of landing in the face of a hostile army, equipped with boats, horses, guns, and everything which such an army would require. Of course, if you do not add all these equipments, and pack them like herrings, I think it very possible that 180,000 tons would carry 100,000 men. But the making of such a rush pre-supposes the possibility of such a surprise as is involved in its being done in a single night. If you had not that surprise, if there was any notice or any possibility of bringing up any naval force to meet any expedition of that kind, the expedition must necessarily be destroyed The truth is that there has been a good deal of misconception caused by that phrase—losing the command of the Channel. What is meant by losing the command of the Channel? It is that our Fleet should be defeated, a contingency which we hope is impossible, but which it is yet right that we should take into consideration. But that we should so lose command of the Channel that every port should be sealed up, and no ship of any kind should be able to creep out to interfere with such an invading force as the noble and gallant Viscount portrays—I do not believe that it is within the compass of possibility or the gloomiest fears that England would ever be reduced so low as that. I think it is taking into consideration contingencies which cannot possibly occur. May I hope that, now we have threshed out what the meaning of the two Departments is, this duel will end? I do not think it is desirable that We should discuss in all its details for the benefit of our neighbours the precise mode in which we expect them to attack us, and in which we intend to defend ourselves; and I should be very grateful if the noble and gallant Viscount would use his official knowledge rather to guide us than to correct us. I am
  1708
  afraid that if chastisement is the proof of love, the love of the noble and gallant Viscount overflows all bounds. I will only say one word with respect to the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss). That speech follows the regular type of such speeches, and consisted of an unlimited laudation of experts, and of a contemptuous estimate of the two Front Benches. The popular view of persons of the mind of the noble Lord with respect to experts seems to be this—that they are a college of exalted persons who always have the same opinions, who always express them in perfect agreement, and who never have any doubt as to the accuracy of what they say. But the expert of actual life is very different. The experts, I regret to say, of the War Office and the Admiralty, as we have seen often on this vital question of invasion, are not actually at one. I believe I am violating no official discretion when I say that the great experts of the Admiralty whom the noble and gallant Viscount has so justly lauded look upon his apprehensions as little short of ridiculous. But, no doubt, they may be wrong, and the noble and gallant Viscount may be right. Experts do differ much more than people who are not experts differ, and you have only to go into a Committee of this House to hear experts on opposite sides swear with a hardihood of opinion which laymen can never rival. I object to having the experts thrown at my head in this way. If they were agreed upon matters which they know—I do not say upon all matters they are all agreed about spending more money—but if they were all agreed upon what they know the case would be different. But their differences on every point are enormous; and, however carefully we must weigh their opinions and them as against each other, I think the day has not yet arrived when the Parliament of England will surrender itself on this vital matter to the absolute guidance of experts. I would remind my noble Friend of a story of our distinguished neighbours, the French, with respect to the hunting field. A Frenchman was riding so fast that he got among the hounds, and on being asked whether he was going to catch the fox he answered, "My friend, I will try; I will try." Now, that is precisely the position of the despised persons

  1709
  whom the noble Lord speaks of as the two Front Benches. He will only ride down the hounds if he tries to do the hunting in our stead. We may be corrupt—we may be animated by every motive that is unlike those by which Englishmen are usually guided; we may be the very type of Party corruption; we may be paragons of incompetence; but still it is only we, the Front Benches, to whatever Party we may belong, we, the Ministers of the Crown, who can do the thing which you want done, and it is of no use for you to try to take it out of our hands. It must be done by the political and civil officers of the Crown, taking the advice of experts; and any attempt to force them or to push them, or to taunt them into abandoning their own opinions, yielding them entirely to what are called the opinions of experts, will only have the effect of paralyzing those who may do something without giving the power to any others to do it in their place. I earnestly hope that the noble Earl will revise the opinion that he has as to the two Front Benches. After all, does it not occur to him as rather odd that the people who are likely to know most of the inside of the Offices, to whatever Party they belong, or whatever prepossessions they begin with, always come to similar conclusions? Does it not occur to him that there may possibly be some facts and some sound reasons which lead to a result that à priori you could not expect? The noble Earl, I think, in his speech, which contained many good things, injured his case by adding to it these suspicions and these reproaches in regard to those who hold political Office. This perpetual repetition of the formula that they are neglecting the highest interests of their country in order to make successful Budgets against Ministry after Ministry, no matter what may be their political opinions, or their moral character, or their intellectual capacity, does seem to condemn itself, and it shows that there must be something weak in the cause which is constantly appealing to prejudices of such a description. I would ask the noble Earl to believe that we, and noble Lords opposite, are animated by as pure a desire to serve the public in the recommendations that we give as he is—that we are as sensible as he is of the stupendous magnitude of the interests
  1710
  committed to our care; that we feel as deeply as he can do the enormous responsibility which the protection of this vast Empire carries with it; and that we are devoting all that we have of knowledge, of industry, or of capacity to carry that task successfully into effect.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSbriefly replied, thanking his noble Friend for what he had done, and only expressing the hope that the view which his noble Friend took of all those questions would lead to the Government arriving at some wise decision which would result in giving greater confidence and security to the country.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, that after the speech of the noble Earl the late First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook) it was unnecessary for him to detain their Lordships with any remarks. His only object in rising was to say that the figures which that noble Earl had quoted were substantially correct. The following (omitting coast defence) was a statement of the relative strength of the Navies of Great Britain, France, and Russia:—In 1888 Great Britain had 34 armoured battle ships, France had 23, and Russia 2. In 1890 the numbers would be respectively 40, 24, and 7. In 1888 Great Britain had 6 armoured cruisers, France 4, and Russia 6. In 1890 England would have 14 armoured cruisers, France 4, and Russia 3. In 1888 we had 1 torpedo ram, while France and Russia had none. In 1888 England had 73 unarmoured ships, with a speed of 11 to 16 knots, while France had 51, and Russia 26. In 1890 we should have 78, France would have 37, and Russia 26. In 1888 England had 21 unarmaoured ships of 16 knots and over (exclusive of gunboats), France had 6, and Russia none. In 1890 England would have 39 ships of that class, France 21, and Russia 4. In 1888 England had 4 torpedo gun vessels, with a speed of 19 to 21 knots, France had 8, and Russia 1. In 1890 England would have 13, France 8, and Russia 2 of that class of vessels. That list did not include the two protected cruisers, the Blake and Blenheim, of 9,000 tons and 22 knots, and capable of steaming 15,000 knots at 10-knot speed. Nor did it include the Vulcan, protected cruiser, of 6,600 tons and 20 knots, and capable of steaming 12,000 knots at 10-knot speed. The battle ships Mino-

  1711
  taur, Achilles, Hector, Valiant, and Defence were not included in the list, because it had not yet been decided to repair them. It should be noted that three iron-clads were on foreign stations. Therefore, as he had stated, the figures given by the noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) were substantially correct; and, that being the case, he would not detain their Lordships with any further remarks.
  Motion agreed to.

  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Acts, 1883—Was presented by The Earl of Onslow; read 1a (No. 193.)

  ELECTIONS (INTERVENTION OF PEERS AND PRELATES IN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS).
  Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

  L. Chancellor

  L Colchester

  M. Salisbury

  L. Esher

  E. Milltown

  L. Macnaghten

  E. Granville

  The Committee to meet on Friday the 6th of July next at Twelve o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.