Sitting of 17 April 1891

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
QUESTIONS.

  INDIAN AGRICULTURE—MR. VOELCKER'S REPORT.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India has received a Report from Mr. J. Augustus Voelcker, Ph. D.; B.A., B.Sc, recently deputed to inquire into and report upon the agriculture of India, containing his main conclusions and recommendations concerning the improvement of Indian agriculture, more particularly such improvement as might result from the teachings of science; and when the Secretary of State expects to be able to make Dr. Voelcker's Report public?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA(Sir J. GORST,:We expect to receive the full Report of Dr. Voelcker in the autumn; and the Secretary of State does not anticipate that there will be any. difficulty in making it public.
  MR. SCHWANN: After it has been received how long will it be before it is made public?
  SIR J. GORST: If the hon. Member will move for it after it has been received, I have no doubt that I shall be able to give it at once.

  MANIPUR.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if his attention has been drawn to the statement in Thursday's Times, that all villages in Manipur which offer resistance are to be burned; if the

  787
  Secretary of State for India will enjoin on Commanders of Columns that no village shall be burned for offering resistance unaccompanied by cruelty to wounded or to prisoners, or by treachery on the part of that particular village; and if it is the custom, in waging war in the Frontier States of India, to depart from the usual customs of civilised war without the personal sanction of the Empress of India?
  SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State has not received any official information as to the statement in the Times that all villages in Manipur which offer resistance are to be burned, or in regard to the operations of the troops at Manipur. He has the fullest confidence that the Government of India will in any Proclamation they may issue act with due regard to those principles of justice and mercy which have always been observed in our Indian frontier wars.
  COLONEL NOLAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more explicit. Is he prepared to deny that the statement gravely and officially given in the Times is founded on fact; and, if so, is he going to leave it to chance whether villages may be burned down or not, the people probably being engaged only in defending their houses? Will the Government give orders that villages are not to be burned unless there is an absolute necessity for so extreme a course under the rules of civilised warfare?
  SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State will not assume that the Government of India will act with impropriety, and, therefore, there is no necessity to direct them to act properly. He will rather assume that they will act properly, and will take no steps unless there is direct evidence that they have not done so.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Will the Under Secretary explain whether a British Column will be allowed to act differently in this expedition from the way in which a German Column would act against France in a European war? Is he not of opinion that that would be improper?
  SIR J. GORST: Certainly, Sir.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Is it the fact that the troops put to death women and children?
  SIR J. GORST: I have seen such a statement in the newspapers, but there is no official information of the kind.

  CHARGE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the case of two men who were tried in the Sheriff Criminal Court, Glasgow, on the 30th of March, and found guilty of criminal conspiracy, on the ground that the accused, being members of a Trades Union, called out, or said they would call out, their fellow-members unless a non-unionist fellow-workman was dismissed; whether his attention has been called to the comments of the learned Sheriff on the novelty of the charge, and his statement that its legality had been ascertained by the trial; and also to the ruling that the exemption from the Common Law of Conspiracy contained in"The Conspiracy and Protection to Property Act, 1875," does not extend to trade disputes between workmen; and whether, having regard to the great importance of the issues involved, he will consent to lay upon the Table an authentic Report of the proceedings, including the Sheriff's charge to the jury?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: These men were convicted by a jury on a Common Law charge of conspiracy to deprive a man of the means of earning his livelihood as a dock labourer by making threats to his employers that if he was retained in their employment the accused would withdraw from their employment all members of the Trade Union. The man who was thus persecuted was a member of the Union, who had a difference with some of the office bearers, and declined to pay some fines which they had imposed. The accused followed him about wherever he got employment and compassed his dismissal in each place. The statements in the second paragraph of the hon. and learned Member's question are inaccurate. The learned Sheriff, I believe, remarked that the case was, he was glad to say, unusual in Scotland, and that all concerned would be made aware through the trial of the illegality of such proceedings. He also directed the jury that there was no evidence that the illegal acts were done in furtherance of

  789
  a trade dispute between employers and workmen, and that, therefore, the exemption in the 3rd section of the Act of 1875 did not apply. There is no official record of the learned Sheriff's Charge, and the official record of the proceedings is merely in the usual form. I do not propose to lay any Papers on the Table.

  MILITIA COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION.
  MR. D. SULLIVANI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the result of the Militia competitive examination, held on the 17th, 18th, and 19th of last month, will be communicated to the candidates?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,: The result of the examination will be made known on the 21st of this month.

  POISONING AT CRIEFF.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the recent case of wholesale poisoning at Crieff; how many persons were affected with symptoms of poisoning, and in how many did fatal results supervene; whether any official investigation has been made into the occurrence, and by whom; and whether, as reported, the poisoning has been traced to the use of impure sugar; if so, whether the nature and origin of the poisonous impurity have been determined?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am sorry to learn that about 100 persons were affected with symptoms of poisoning, and that two of them have died. An official investigation is being conducted by the Procurator Fiscal, and is now almost complete. The poisoning seems to have been due to the persons affected having partaken of sugar, the bags conveying which had (Some in contact, in course of transit in a railway waggon, with a case containing several tins of a preparation called" Climax Weed Killer," a substance which contains arsenic. The case was leaking, and samples of the sugar have been analysed and found to contain arsenic in dangerous quantities.
  DR. CAMERON: As the matter is one of very great public interest, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the
  790
  propriety of obtaining such a Report as he can make public?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: There will be a special inquiry, and Papers will be called for.

  SALMON FISHERIES ACTS.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I had intended to ask the President of the beard of Trade what are the Salmon Fisheries Acts and the sections thereof relating to the placing of gratings in watercourses, millraces, or other channels for conveying water for working mills; and whether there are any special provisions relating to mills worked by turbines; and, if so, if he will state the Acts and sections containing these special provisions? At the request of the President of the beard of Trade, I beg to defer the question until Monday.

  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT POST OFFICES.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General when the Overseers of the Metropolitan District Post Offices may expect to receive a detailed answer to their Petition of November, 1889, or whether the new scale of pay recently adopted is to be considered an answer; if so, whether he is aware that the Overseers are paid in many casts at a lower rate of wages than sorters over whom they exercise supervision; and if he is prepared to recommend a scale of pay more in accordance with the nature of their duties?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: The decision of the Treasury dated the 16th February, 1891, fixed the scale of the Overseers referred to as follows:—First Class, 56s. by 2s. to 66s., in lieu of 52s. by 2s. to 62s. , Second Class, 40s. by 2s. to 56s., in lieu of 40s. by 2s. to 50s. It is not the case that a scale of wages has been fixed for Overseers lower than that given to the sorters whom they supervise, although it may be the case that a sorter of long service on his class may receive through special allowance more than an Overseer Class II. of short service on his class. I may mention that new allowances of 5s. a week are given to 83 Second Class Town District Overseers in addition to their wages, in order to mark the distinction between

  791
  the two classes. I am not now able to say if the Treasury would be disposed to re-consider a decision so recently arrived at, and which has scarcely had time to come into operation.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  MR. BALLANTINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, by the terms of the Agreement between Great Britain and France, submitting to arbitration questions relating to the lobster fishery on the Coast of Newfoundland, it is open to the arbitrators to decide that the French are entitled to erect permanent lobster factories on the so-called French shore; and whether the names of three Foreign jurists, selected to act as arbitrators, were suggested by the French Government; and, if not, in what manner were they chosen and their qualifications ascertained?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS(Sir J.FERGUSSON,: The first Article of the Agreement between Great Britain and France says that the Committee of Arbitration shall judge and decide all the questions which shall be submitted to it by either Government or by their delegates concerning the catching and preparation of lobsters on the Coast of Newfoundland. But it will be seen, on reference to the Correspondence, that the French Government have never attempted to claim a right to erect permanent factories, their argument having been based on the statement that their factories are temporary erections. The terms of the Treaty of Utrecht are quite clear as to forbidding permanent buildings of any kind by the French. For the purpose of the selection of the jurists, several Foreign Governments were requested to suggest names of properly qualified persons, and the choice was then made by common consent.

  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  MR. PICKARD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now able to arrange a day to continue the Debate on the Second Reading of the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I am unable to arrange a day for the continuance of the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill.
  MR. PICKARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able in the course of the Session to grant a day?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It will depend entirely upon the progress of Public Business. 1 am certainly not encouraged by the present progress that is being made at the present time.

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS IN WEXFORD.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the increase of labour which the recent change in the local postal arrangements entails upon the letter carrier from Gorey to Killnerin, County Wexford, the Post Office will allow him an increase of pay sufficient to enable him to keep a cart?
  MR. RAIKES: I find that the wages of the postman referred to by the hon. Member have already been raised in consideration of the recent addition to his work. As a matter of fact, the circumstances did not warrant a mounted service; but as the postman had for several years voluntarily used a pony and cart in performing his official duties, I sanctioned, as a matter of grace and favour, an allowance in aid of the keep of the pony. I think the hon. Baronet will be of opinion that the postman has been justly and even liberally treated.

  ILLEGAL FISHING IN LOUGH DERG.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that fishing with an otter has been declared illegal on Lough Derg, County Tipperary; and if he is also aware that licences have been already taken out this season for otter fishing on that lake; and, if so, whether those who have paid for those licences will be allowed to make use of them?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries report that the use of the otter is illegal everywhere in Ireland under statute. Licences have not been issued for otter fishing on Lough Derg, County Tipperary. They have been issued for cross-

  793
  lines, but this would not authorise the use of the otter, which, as above stated, is expressly prohibited by statute.

  THE LAND PURCHASE BILL.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what does he estimate to be the number and acreage of the holdings in each province in Ireland which will be excluded from the operation of the Land Purchase Bill by Clause 6, (a) as pasture, and (b) because the tenant is non-resident; and what are the sources of the information upon which his estimate is based?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have hot got the figures with me to-day, and I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman an account. Perhaps it will be more convenient to defer the question until I am able to obtain the figures.
  MR. KNOX: If I put down a question for Monday, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to answer it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think so.
  In reply to a question by Mr. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.),
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no doubt that" pasture" includes beth dairy pasture and stockland. I will endeavour, if possible, to obtain particulars in regard to each.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that his Bill is really more stringent than the Land Act of 1881.
  MR. M. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Committee stage of the Land Department (Ireland) Bill will be proceeded with immediately after the Purchase of Land and Congested Districts (Ireland) Bill has passed through Committee?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it is desirable at this stage to make any definite promise.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will it be taken before the Third Reading of the Land Purchase Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be prepared to answer the question when we reach that stage.

  IRISH RELIEF WORKS.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of
  794
  Ireland whether any, and if any what, relief works have been commenced in County Cavan; and whether the contemplated reads in the barony of Tully-haw, for which presentments were refused by the Grand Jury (although the County Surveyor declared them to be works of great public utility) on account of a letter received from the Under Secretary, will be made as relief works?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No necessity has so far arisen for the opening of relief works in the County Cavan. The case stands in this way: In every district in Ireland where it has been thought likely that relief works would be required the Grand Jury have been asked if they would permit the services of the County Surveyor to be utilised. A letter has been written to every county to that effect, perhaps not so well expressed as it might have been.
  MR. KNOX: The right hon. Gentleman admits that the letter was not well expressed. It certainly conveyed a fake impression to the County of Cavan; and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will consider the desirability of directing such relief works to be made as are urgently needed. MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that any misapprehension can have been created in the minds of the Grand Jury of Cavan. It is rather a matter for the Guardians than for the Grand Jury.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any relief works wore recommended by the Local Government beard (Ireland) Inspectors in the Ballyvourney and Kilnamartyra districts, in the County of Cork; and, if so, why such works are not being proceeded with?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The districts mentioned are receiving the careful attention of the Government. But I, am glad to say there is no present necessity to open relief works in them.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not the fact that seeing the absolute destitution which is almost impending it was promised some time ago by the Local Government Inspectors that two roads should be opened?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am unable to answer that question.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the proposed Donoughmore and Blarney Light Railway has been commenced, and how many labourers of the district have been employed on the works?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the proposed line of light railway has been all surveyed, but that the works have not yet been commenced.
  DR. TANNER: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say two months ago that the works had been commenced, but the information given to the right hon. Gentleman appears to have been misleading and false. Is there any chance of the works being commenced soon?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman should apply to the promoters of the line for that information.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what relief works are in progress in the Tuam and Glenamaddy unions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No relief works are in progress in either of the unions mentioned. I do not think the necessity has yet arisen.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Did not the right hon. Gentleman state a month or five weeks ago that works were in contemplation and almost in progress in one of the districts? How does he reconcile that statement with his present answer?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In consequence of representations made, partly by the hon. Member and partly in other quarters, works were started in one of the unions at the ordinary rate of payment.
  COLONEL NOLAN: How much?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was at the ordinary rate, but the people refused to work for it.
  COLONEL NOLAN: How much was it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURI believe it was about 5s. a week.

  MAIL SERVICE IN THE NORTH OF IRELAND.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, with regard to the establishment of an accelerated mail service to and from the North of Ireland by Larne and Stranraer, and in consideration of the fact that the matter has now
  796
  been under the consideration of the Government for some 12 months; that public meetings have been hold in Belfast under the presidency of the Mayor, and in other large towns; that Memorials have been forwarded from numerous Public bodies, as well as one signed by Her Majesty's Lieutenants for the Counties of Antrim and Londonderry, and by the Members of Parliament for those counties; and that a large and representative deputation waited on the Postmaster General in June last, all in favour of the route being subsidised without delay, he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the matter?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: The question of an accelerated mail service to Belfast and the North of Ireland has been receiving the most careful consideration of the Postmastar General and the Treasury. At this moment the Postmaster General is considering a suggestion recently made to him to send a portion of the mails by Greenore so as to give a later hour for posting in certain districts. The information obtained appears to point in the direction of an acceleration which could be obtained by utilising for a large portion of the mails the service by Kingstown. The estimated cost of the Larne and Stranraer route is very large. I am aware that my hon. and gallant Friend believes that an increased expenditure of about £15,000 a year would suffice. No proposal, however, in any official form, has been made for less than £25,000. I am inclined to think that it would be impossible to have an improved service to all parts of the North of Ireland at a less cost. I shall be glad to tell the hon. Gentleman anything further if he will speak to me.
  In reply to Mr. LEA (Londonderry, S.),
  MR. JACKSON said: It is the duty of the Government to consider in what form and at what cost the best service can be provided. There is every desire to improve the mail service to Belfast and the North of Ireland, but it is necessary that certain communications should take place before a conclusion is arrived at. I hope very shortly to be able to make an announcement.
  COLONEL WARING: Are we to consider that the question of con-

  797
  veying the mails by way of Greenore has been seriously considered?
  MR. JACKSON: My hon. and gallant Friend is to understand exactly what I said. I stated that a suggestion had been made to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General, that a certain portion of the mails might be sent by that route which would enable letters to be posted at a later hour than is possible by any other route. My right hon. Friend is endeavouring to ascertain if it is possible to make a selection.

  LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he will consent to commit the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Bill to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: The suggestion is one that is deserving of careful consideration, and I shall be glad to confer upon it with hon. Members on beth sides of the House who take an interest in the question.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: In the preparation of the Bill was Leach's Report taken into consideration?
  MR. MADDEN: As a matter of fact the Bill is, in substance, identical with that which was introduced last year, which was proposed before the Report referred to by the hon. Member was published. In revising the Bill of last year, before re-introducing it, I had regard to this Report, as well as to various suggestions which persons interested in the measure were good enough to offer me.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  DR. CLARK: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the desirability, in consequence of so many Members sitting on Grand and Select Committees, of still further modifying the Rule as to Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays, by having the Morning Sitting from 3.0 to 8.0 and the Evening Sitting from 8.30 to 12.0? [Cries of"Oh !"]
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not believe I could make a more unpopular proposition to the House than that indicated in
  798
  the suggestion of the hon. Member. I have considered, so far as the means at my disposal have allowed me, the suggestion made yesterday with regard to the alteration of the Standing Order affecting the Evening Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays, when following Morning Sittings, and I intend to put a Motion on the Paper for Monday at 12 o'clock —that is to say, after the ordinary business has been disposed of—for the consideration of the House. If the House is disposed to accept it I should be very glad to move it, but it is one which is entirely for the House itself to decide. It is not in any way a matter which the Government would think it right to press upon the House. The Motion I should make would be that the Sittings on Tuesday and Friday evenings shall be held subject to the rules which regulate the ordinary Day Sittings. The result would be that the Debate would be suspended at 12 o'clock, and that any Opposed Business could not be taken after that hour. If it were possible to dispose of any Motions which are not opposed, or to go through the Orders of the Day for the purpose of fixing them for a future day after 12 o'clock, that I think would be a convenience to hon. Members generally. It would also afford facilities which the present rules deny to hon. Members, to get the stage of an Unopposed Bill, or to get an Unopposed Motion accepted by the House. I make this statement by way of explanation, but I trust the House will understand that in putting the Motion down for 12 o'clock on Monday, I do not wish to urge the House to accept it then if further time is desired for its consideration, or if there is any considerable feeling against it. It would be obviously in the power of any hon. Member to object to the Motion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether the rule as to Unopposed Business or General Business between 12 and 1 would be different from the present rule?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Precisely the same rule which takes effect at 12 o'clock at an ordinary Sitting will apply.
  MR. CAUSTON: Do the Government intend to take the Report of Supply on Tuesdays and Fridays?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly, Sir.
  MR.J. E. ELLIS: As several Bills have been referred to the Standing Committee on Law may I ask when the Committee will sit?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no official information, but I believe the Committee will sit on Thursday next.

MOTION.

  FIRE BRIGADES (EXEMPTION FROM JURY SERVICES) BILL.
  On the Motion of Viscount Curzon, Bill to exempt Members of Fire Brigades from service on Juries, ordered to be brought in by Viscount Curzon, Sir Edward Birkbeck, Mr. Dixon-Hartland, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Gully, Mr. Baird, and Sir Albert Rollit.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 281.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN WRITS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [Lords.]-(No. 272.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee,)
    (2.45.) Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.]
    Preamble.
    Motion made, and Question proposed," That this be the Preamble of the Bill."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to move that the Committee do not agree to the Preamble unless we Can have it fully explained by the Lord Advocate. As it is drafted, it is unintelligible and meaningless, and it is impossible to understand it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is unnecessary to move the rejection of the Preamble. All that is requisite is to say" No" to the Question that the Preamble stand part of the Bill.
    The House divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 55.—(Div. List, No. 137.)
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    Bill read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS(IRELAND) BILL— No.III

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 2, at the end of the Clause, to add the word,—"Provided that no Guaranteed Land Stock shall be issued by way of advance in any county for the purchase of any holding unless the making of such advance in that county shall have been previously approved by a resolution of the connty council elected to represent the county in which the holding is situate, under an Act of this or the next ensuing Session of Parliament."—(Mr. John Morley.)
    Question proposed,
    " That the words 'Provided that no Guaranteed Land Stock shall be issued by way of advance in any county for the purchase of any holding unless the milking of such advance in that county shall have been previously approved' be there added."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
    In line I, after the word"that," to insert the words" after the establishment of elected county councils in Ireland."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question again proposed," That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    MR. SEXTON: It appears to me that if this House is sensible of its agrarian or financial obligations to Ireland we should not be troubled with this question of local control. You are not established in that country as the friends of the Irish people. The land system has been a fearful curse to the Irish people and a frightful source of misery and crime. If you are now proposing not to put an end to the system, but to modify it, you do so primarily, not for the good of the Irish people, but to rescue the Irish landlords from an untenable position, and secondly, for the greater ease and tranquillity of the Imperial State. It is only ultimately and incidentally that you contemplate the good of the Irish people. The measure is one of Imperial policy, and therefore the responsibility should be Imperial. I have spoken of financial obligations to Ireland. When I remember that you have invested Ireland with full responsibility for your National Debt and that you have been exacting from her for

    801
    many years a contribution to the Imperial revenue double what she can afford, I say that, far from taking of the favour you confer on us from your Imperial credit, if you were to make Ireland a present of the £30,000,000 it would go a very little way to rid you of the financial obligation you owe to her. I protest against the language employed by the Chief Secretary last night, when he spoke of Imperial credit as being yours in a sense distinct from ours. It is ours as well as yours and ours much more than yours. Ireland gives one-sixth of her earnings to the Imperial credit, while England only gives one-twelfth. The speech of the Chief Secretary in regard to this matter shows the hypocrisy of the theories of Unionism. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to imagine that he was establishing an equipoise by putting a burden upon the Irish people and the credit upon the English people.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: My statement last night was to the effect that without the aid of Imperial credit the scheme of the Bill could not be carried out, because it would be impossible to work it if it were based upon Irish credit alone.
    MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to establish an equipoise of credit on one side and of burden upon the other. He put one against the other. There could not have been laid down a clearer line of demarkation and division. But I maintain that the credit to be pledged is as much Irish as English, and, therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman offers to the Irish people resolves itself into the old formula of"Heads I win, tails you lose." But if you follow the simple rules of equity and common sense an Imperial Guarantee will be unnecessary. If the price given for the land is merely the value of the tenant's interest, plus that of the landlord, there will be no necessity for the scheme to be backed up by Imperial credit, because there will then be a security approximating to double the value of the advance in the value of the land itself.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member appears to be re-opening a question that was determined last night. The question before the Committee is whether the approval of the County Councils shall be
    802
    required in each case before the purchase takes place.
    MR. SEXTON: Last night the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was allowed to roam over the whole field of public policy.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Only in connection with this question. I must repeat that the question now before the Committee is solely as to whether the approval of the County Councils should be required in cases of land purchase.
    MR. SEXTON: I will close the matter in one sentence by saying that the personal guarantee would be absolutely sufficient except in the event of a public calamity. The argument is that in case of a deficiency arising in Ireland under the provisions of this Bill, which the Government appear to have arranged for, it is proposed to take the control of the matter from the House of Commons, and to hypothecate money which has been guaranteed to Ireland, and is absolutely her property under statutory contract, for the purpose of meeting it. If that argument is to hold good then at this moment Ireland is entitled to have her own Parliament, because the Act which gave it is older than the one which took it away. To hypothecate such money for such a purpose without the consent of the Irish people is an act of plunder which is only to be accomplished by-superior force. If by hypothecating the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund the Local Taxation of Ireland is increase 1, we should be committing an outrage upon the constitutional rights of the Irish people. In the next place, the security is illusory so far as the British taxpayers are concerned, because the Irish cesspayers would never consent to a levy being made, the proceeds of which are to be applied to purposes over which they have no control. I object in principle to hypothecation of Irish moneys under any circumstances whatever, but if the Irish moneys are to be hypothecated, then the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Morley) would mitigate the hardship of the proposal by directing that the transaction out of which liability might arise should be subject to elective popular control. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) in his speech last night entered into a general criticism of the Liberal programme, but as I regard

    803
    such a topic to be outside the scope of the present discussion I shall not refer to it for this reason, among others, that the arguments of the hon. Member last night were most conclusively answered by his previous speeches. In my judgment the Irish question is unaltered, and the only change in the political situation that I can perceive is that the point of view of the hon. Member for Cork has altered. The hon. Member for Cork has asked why it is that one of the Representatives of the Irish Party has not moved this Amendment, instead of the right hon. Member for Newcastle. In reply to the question I may say that the hon. Member for Cork has often been glad of the cooperation of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. PARNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has often been glad of my co-operation.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Order, order !
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member for Cork declares the right hon. Gentleman has often been glad of his co-operation. The right hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, be glad of the co-operation of the hon. Member in any sphere and to any degree in which circumstances would allow the Member for Cork to render useful service. The Irish Members are still glad of the co-operation of the right hon. Gentleman, than whom, in this House, Ireland had never found a more capable and a more zealous friend. If the hon. Member for Cork, who in dark, critical, and trying times was glad to avail himself of the services of the right hon. Gentleman, means to convey to the Committee that those services have not an equal value at the present moment, I must respectfully say that the hon. Member for Cork is not expressing the opinion of the majority of the Irish Members, and of the vast body of the people of Ireland. I cannot help remembering that it was upon almost this day 12 months ago that the hon. Member for Cork moved the rejection of a Bill, in some degree absolutely identical with that now before the Committee. [An hon. MEMBER: It was a better Bill.] Yes, in some respects a better Bill—on the ground that it did not sufficiently provide for local control. Last year local control was everything, and was regarded by the hon. Member for Cork as being an indispensable safe-
    804
    guard, and the one crucial point. Last year without local control in every transaction, to use his own graphic language, was nothing but a swindle. This year the Bill is everything. In the matter of local control the hon. Member has become a Laodicean, and he is content to accept that which last year he denounced as little better than a swindle. The hon. Member spoke last night as though the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Newcastle was about to be carried, and he altogether ignored the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who opposed the Amendment. The hon. Member contended that the proposal of the right hon. Member for Newcastle would involve delay in carrying into effect any scheme for land purchase; but, in my opinion, it would not involve any delay at all. There is a balance of £1,000,000 under the Ashbourne Acts, and the Chief Secretary has [promised to introduce words to make it available. That balance would keep the Commissioners going for another year. The Chief Secretary has also promised that the repayments under the Ashbourne Acts should be available; they now amount to a considerable sum, and the balance and repayments together would probably give £2,000,000 available for land purchase, and sufficient for two years to come, by which time the utmost delay alleged by the right hon. Gentleman would have expired. How, then, can the Amendment lead to delay if County Councils are established this year or next?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bill does not permit of the repayments under the Ashbourne Acts.
    MR. SEXTON: Did not the right hon. Gentleman promise that these repayments should be so applied?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I forget exactly how the matter stands; but I came to the conclusion that the re-lending of the £10,000,000 advanced under the Ashbourne Acts would be a new loan incurred by the Guarantee Fund.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman announce that change?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: 1 think I announced it last year.
    MR. SEXTON: Then I invite the attention of the hon. Member for Cork to the fact that the present Bill is much worse than the measure which he opposed

    805
    last year. It can be proved by Hansard that last year the right hon. Gentleman was willing to allow repayments to be made available, and now he says they are not to be so applied. The right hon. Gentleman's acquiescence in the application of repayments to fresh advances is to be found a dozen times in Hansard, and afterwards, on a copy of the Bill of last year being handed to him, he read a sub-section of a clause authorising the re-lending of the repayments, provided the aggregate of these additional advances did not exceed for the time being the amount to be repaid on account of the advances authorised.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I told the hon. Gentleman I was not quite sure. I had for the moment forgotten that that provision was in the Bill; but it was pointed out in the course of the Debate that it involved an additional pledging of British credit.
    MR. SEXTON: If the hon. Member for Cork wished to prevent delay he could not more usefully apply himself than by reinstating in this Bill that provision of the Bill of last year. That would be better than trying to emasculate the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Newcastle. The Tory Party promised in 1886 to give Local Government to Ireland. That promise has remained unfulfilled ever since. If the Amendment is adopted they will be compelled to carry it out either this year or next. For this reason I think it is deserving of the support of every man who desires the extension of Local Government to Ireland. If the Amendment is rejected the Tory Party will not be eager to give County Government this year or next. For the specific and binding words of the Amendment the hon. Member for Cork wishes to substitute words which are no more than the expression of a pious opinion: and if the hon. Member for Cork succeeds, the Tory Party will be under an irresistible temptation to postpone a measure of Local Government, even if they come into power after the General Election. This view is emphasised by the exposition which has been already given of the probable conduct of County Councils, who, in the belief of the Chief Secretary, would materially embarrass the policy of land purchase. The Tory Party would say they believed
    806
    that, with the expansion of land purchase, national aspirations would die out. [Colonel SAUNDERSON: Hear, hear! and a laugh.] I regard that cheer of the hon. and gallant Member as showing what is the view of the Tory Party, although that view may be a palpable delusion. The Tory Party believe that the establishment of County Councils would kill land purchase, and that will be the argument of the Chief Secretary before English audiences. Is the hon. Member for Cork willing to put such an argument in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman? It will not bind him to establish County Councils, but is merely a declaration that a certain thing is to be done after they are established. I do not know whether the hon. Member has realised what the effect of his Amendment would be. Whilst the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Newcastle would cause no interruption, that of the hon. Member for Cork would have an effect which he never intends, and even if the Tory Government came in again it would postpone indefinitely, and for as long a period as the Tory Party might remain in power, the concession of Local Government to Ireland. For these reasons I cannot support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork. Even if the Amendment be defeated it will serve a useful public purpose. It will have a salutary effect on the operation of the Land Act by foreshadowing what is to come, and it will have a useful effect in binding the Liberal Party to a specific policy of rapid development of this phase of Local Government in Ireland, and it will stand on record to guide and direct the House of Commons at no distant date. Though now it may be a barren declaration, hereafter it will be an important help and assistance. Now, the hon. Member for Cork fell into an error of fact when he said this question had been left to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, though I say if it had been left to him it would be left in very competent hands; but let me point out to the hon. Member for Cork that there stands on the Paper for discussion at a future day an Amendment in my name which proposes to deal with this very question in a manner I hope will not be objectionable either to the right hon. Gentleman the Member

    807
    for Newcastle or the hon. Member for Cork. That Amendment, it will be seen, is in the following terms as an additional sub-section to the clause:—
    " (4.) No Guaranteed Land Stock shall be issued by way of advance for the purchase of any holding, unless the making of such advance shall have been previously approved—

    (a.) until elective county councils shall have been established in Ireland by a resolution of the hoard of guardians of the poor law union in which the holding is situate;

    (b.) after elective county councils have been established in Ireland by a resolution of the county council elected to represent the county in which the holding is situate."

    The Amendment provides for local control, and provides against any delay in the operation of the Act. I admit that beards of Guardians are not perfect bodies. I admit that they are very imperfect bodies for the purpose; but in this matter we have merely" Hobson's choice," and the beard of Guardians, I may say, is the only body in rural districts which has an elective element upon it. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary complains of beards of Guardians because five years ago they passed resolutions in reference to the qualifications of a Parliamentary candidate, or expressing approval of the conduct of a public man, criticising matters of public policy or condemning the action of the Executive, if they have gone somewhat beyond their functions in those and other matters let it be remembered that they are the only bodies outside the towns which have any element of popular representation, and when the Chief Secretary attacks beards of Guardians he forgets that they are composed half of ex officio numbers, Justices of the Peace, and landlords. [" No, no !"] I think I may say that every Justice of the Peace in a rural district is a landlord or an agent to a landlord. ["No, no!"] There may be a. few exceptions, but 99 from every 100 are of that class. Now, if beards of Guardians do sometimes act in a manner objectionable to the taste of the right hon. Gentleman, is that not due to the neglect of these ex officio members to all matters in connection with their office, and that landlords are indifferent to all local matters except those in connection with rent? I submit that the right hon. Gentleman cannot object to
    808
    Boards of Guardians in this connection, seeing that fully half of the members of those beards are landlord representatives, and by the plural vote that class no doubt exercises influence over the election of the remainder. To the hon. Member for Cork I say if the beard of Guardians in any case were to allow a transaction under this Act we should be none the worse, and when they veto a transaction it will be because an unusually excessive price is charged for the holding. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Cork thinks, and I agree with him, that the absence of local control is one of the greatest blots on the Bill, he will no doubt give his support to an Amendment which secures some form of local control in the interim before the establishment of County Councils. County Councils cannot be established in a day, and meanwhile I invite the hon. Member for Cork to agree with me in preventing the delay in the operation of the Act by the use of the only means of local control which the state of Irish life renders available to us at the present moment. I shall oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork and support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle in its original form, and I respectfully invite both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cork to consider this Amendment of mine in a friendly spirit.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The Committee will, I think, not deny me the right to occupy a few minutes, seeing that up to the present only one other Irish landlord has taken part in these discussions, and because the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle strikes at the very existence of the Bill and opens a very large scope of criticism as to the effect it will have on the policy of Her Majesty's Government, which we hope may endure for many years to come and have an influence on the Empire at large. The hon. Member for West Belfast has made one statement of which I must take notice. The hon. Member called the Bill a landlords' Bill, a Bill having an Imperial object, and a Bill to satisfy the wishes of the Irish people. I quite agree with the latter part of the definition, but I utterly deny that this is a landlords' Bill. Stating my opinion as a landlord, I

    809
    should say that I dislike the Bill. If I were asked to state the effect I believe it will have upon the landlord class in Ireland, I should agree with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who, to my surprise, the other day took up the cudgels on behalf of that class he is in the habit of cudgelling. I believe this Bill will not have a good effect upon the interests of the class to which I belong. I believe the effect of the Bill will be that the incomes of landlords will be diminished by one-half, and sometimes by two-thirds. As a landlord merely, I should oppose the Bill; but I support it for Imperial reasons and for Irish reasons. The first duty of every Irishman is to assist legislation which will benefit his native land, and as I firmly believe that the Bill under discussion will benefit Ireland, I support it. The Imperial reason which will mainly induce the House to pass the Bill—because it will not be passed out of sheer love for Irish landlords or tenants —is that by its operation it will build up a class who will array themselves on the side of law and order. The hon. Member for"West Belfast complains that the Bill will throw a burden on the Irish people; but I have never heard of a people who regarded themselves as burdened by having £30,000,000 placed on their shoulders. If a plébiscite were taken in Ireland, there would not be a single county which would not wish to have the Bill in operation within its borders. A strange attitude is taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Last year an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for the Rush cliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. J. E. Ellis), an Amendment which most of the Irish Members on the other side supported, and which was to the effect that so long s coercion existed no Imperial advances should be made to Ireland; but now it seems that hon. Gentlemen are so persuaded that coercion is only a term, that they adopt the policy of Her Majesty's Government—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment and not to the policy of the Bill.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I take the Amendment to be this—the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle—that pending the esta-
    810
    blishment of County Government in Ireland, this Bill should not be effective. The hon. Member for Cork has informed us that he is in favour of the policy initiated by this Bill, and I conceive, therefore, that the more simple and straightforward course on the part of the hon. Member would have been, instead of putting his emasculating Amendment —as the hon. Member for West Belfast has termed it—to speak and vote directly against the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Newcastle. Now what is the meaning of this Amendment? It is a destructive Amendment, which, if carried, will destroy the Bill. Practically, it postpones land purchase in Ireland to the Greek Kalends, because to decide that the policy of the Bill shall not have effect until County Government is established in Ireland is to indefinitely postpone the Bill-to postpone it indefinitely, absolutely indefinitely. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear !] I do not understand why the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian cheers that statement, because the Government do not intend the Bill to hang in any way upon Local Government. The Bill is to be judged, and accepted or condemned, upon its own merits. If the Government and. the House were to accept the Amendment and carry the Bill with it, I should like to ask what would be the effect if at the next General Election the Unionist Party were defeated and the Separatist Party came into Office? We are told that dealing with the land is one of those subjects upon which all the Nationalists of the Irish Party are agreed, whether they belong to one faction or the other, and therefore if we pass a Home Rule Bill—as may be possible if the House of Commons ever goes mad—the result will be that we shall establish a Parliament in Dublin which, in dealing with the land question as it pleases, may upset the system of Local Government introduced by the Amendment and upset what is supposed to be a guarantee for the British taxpayer, and all previous legislation by this House in reference to land purchase will not he worth one rush. All our guarantees founded on County Government will not then be worth a straw. As to the interest taken by Irish ratepayers in the contingent guarantee afforded by the Irish rates, it

    811
    is absolutely illusory. In the Irish mind there is not conceived the remotest possibility that that guarantee will ever be touched. The Irish people have proved by the way in which they have paid their instalments under the Ashbourne Acts in the past that there need be no anxiety as to their paying in future, and I believe hon. Members opposite are entirely mistaken if they think they will be able to raise any great opposition to the Bill in Ireland on the ground of this possible contingency. Hon. Gentlemen last year did not say so much about this guarantee; they opposed the Bill at first, but they supported it at last because they found the overwhelming voice of their constituents was in favour of it. If they go back to their constituents again they will find they are opposing a measure to which the Irish people look as conferring the greatest benefit to the country and to all classes—except, the landlord class. Let me point out what will happen if we carry this Amendment. It will afford limitless scope to the capacity of Debate displayed by the hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Keay); he will be able to point to the possible action of the Irish County Councils, and again influence the House by the glamour of his eloquence on financial affairs, showing how absolutely worthless is the guarantee in view of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. The point of importance in considering this Amendment, and upon which hangs the very existence of the Bill, is, what is really the view of the Irish people on the subject. We are legislating for Ireland and the Irish people, and I am sure we all hope that our legislation will conduce to their happiness and prosperity. It is important, therefore, to ascertain what are the opinions of the Irish people on this matter. But who represents the Irish people in this House? Only last year hon. Members above the Gangway opposite turned to the hon. Member for Cork to learn the opinions of the Irish people. Now we are informed by his former colleagues that the hon. Member for Cork represents neither the opinions of the people of Ireland nor even those of his own constituents. Then to whom are we turn? Are we to turn to the hon. Member for West Belfast or to the hon. Member for North Longford? But,
    812
    as far as I know, those hon. Members represent only themselves.
    MR. SEXTONOur constituents.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The hon. Member for West Belfast says that he represents his constituents, but he certainly will not do so long. Why, there is no place in Ireland at the present moment where either of those two hon. Members would be able to address a meeting in the open air without police protection. Then we come to the hon. Member for Londonderry, but he represents the Irish priests, not the Irish people. Well, on the whole, I think that I myself speak in the name of the largest part of the Irish people. I represent, at any rate, that part of the Irish people who are in favour of law and order, and I believe those are the majority. And I feel perfectly convinced that there is not a county in Ireland which, if asked its opinion of the Bill, would not give overwhelming decision in its favour.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Go to Sligo or Kilkenny.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Well, I should have thought the hon. and learned Member had had enough attendance at Irish elections. I think I know the feeling of the Irish people as well as hon. Members opposite, who though they represent Irish constituencies live in London. I know as a fact, and can assert without fear of contradiction from any one who knows anything of the desires and feelings of the Irish people, that no measure has ever been introduced into this House which has received in every part of Ireland, North, South, East, West, more approval than the present Land Purchase Bill.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: But what about the Amendment?
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I say as I said at the outset of my remarks that I support the Bill against the interest of the particular class to which I belong. A rough definition of statesmanship is the making use of past experience embodying it in useful legislation. Past experience, at any rate during the last 30 or 40 years, has shown us that in dealing with the Irish people and successfully governing them, two attributes are required—firmness and justice—and I believe the policy of the Government, which, I repeat, would be destroyed if the Amendment of the right hon. Mem-

    813
    ber for Newcastle were carried, is teaching the Irish people at the present time that if we are just we can also be generous. This is proved by the reception which the Chief Secretary and other Members of the Government met with when they recently travelled through the country, notwithstanding that they had been described in it by Irish Members as persecutors and exterminators; while, on the other hand, the so-called Nationalists cannot hold an open meeting in Ireland without police protection. That fact leads me to believe that our present efforts will be attended with success in Ireland, and, believing that the Bill will conduce to the welfare of the country, I heartily support it. The hon. Member for West Belfast hit the right nail on the head. I believe he struck the right key-note when he said the effect of the passing of this Bill will be to permanently destroy Home Rule. I believe it will. I believe it will erect in Ireland a great class independent of Irish demagogues and agitators, that it will create in Ireland a class which realises at last who their true friends are, and recognises that the Union with this country has been to Ireland a great blessing, and not a curse. I oppose the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, because I believe it would, if carried, continue in Ireland that political fermentation which is really the foundation and basis of the separatist policy, and I believe the Bill as it stands will be for the good of the Empire at large, that it will bring peace in its train, and that it will hold out the hopes of prosperity to my native country.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Committee has now really under consideration three separate Amendments—the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), and the alternative Amendment submitted by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton.) The Committee is aware, from observations I have made on this subject upon previous occasions, that I agree very much with the object which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle has in view, but it will be no disappointment to my right hon. Friend when I say that I can-
    814
    not support the form in which his Amendment is put. It is a misfortune of that Amendment that it lends itself to the suspicion that it is a destructive and a dilatory Amendment, intended to prevent the speedy operation of the Bill. Knowing as I do the opinions which my right hon. Friend has formed on the Bill, as a whole, I confess I do not think I am doing him an injustice when I say I think if his Amendment had a dilatory and destructive effect be would not regret it. In that matter I differ from my right right hon. Friend. I believe the Bill to be a good Bill. I accept it most cordially, and, although I should like very much to make it better, still I would infinitely rather have it as it is than not have it at all. Consequently I cannot support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, although I desire to secure some of the objects he has in view. Then there is the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork. To that exception is taken by the hon. Member for West Belfast, because, he says, it would have the effect of postponing Local Government for Ireland. That seems to me a very extraordinary objection. It is only true, if it be the fact, that Local Government is hostile to land purchase, and it is my point in this matter that the introduction of Local Government into a Land Purchase Bill would strengthen land purchase, and consequently that the Government would have no object whatever in postponing Local Government if they carried the Land Purchase Bill first. But I have a different objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork, which I take also to the new Amendment which has been suggested by the hon. Member for West Belfast. What are the objects we may fairly have in view in suggesting the intervention of the Local Authority? There were three objects. In the first place we desire that the Local Authority, or the constituencies which the Local Authority represents, should have given their assent to the pledging of their credit. To mortgage their securities without their consent is, at all events, a very strong piece of legislation. As regards that object, it would undoubtedly be secured, not only by the Amendment of the hon. Member, but also by the Amendment suggested by

    815
    the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland—that there should be a plébiscite taken of the district before the Bill is put in operation to obtain its consent to the pledging of its credit. But there are two other objects which we ought also to keep in view, and which the suggestion of the Chief Secretary does not secure, and therefore I take this opportunity of saying, as the suggestion was kindly made by the Chief Secretary, to some extent in the hope of satisfying the objections I made to the Bill in its present form, that it does not satisfy me, and that consequently, if I am unable to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to go a little further, as far as I am concerned, I do not think the introduction of the proposal by itself would be a sufficient improvement to justify a separate Amendment on the subject. The other objects, however, which I want to keep in view are these: In the first place, I say we want to give an interest in land purchase to every class in Ireland, not, as has been said, to a limited proportion of a limited class, and the advantage of all sections of the community would be secured by the intervention of the Local Authority under circumstances which would give to the Local Authority a large interest in the successful administration of the scheme. Further than that we must all feel there is a possibility, although we all hope a distant one, that at some future time, when schemes of land purchase have been largely developed, there may once more be an agitation which would be directed, not against the payment of rent, but against the payment of the instalments, and the best security against Such an agitation would undoubtedly be the existence of a healthy public opinion in favour of the honest fulfilment of obligations. What we have to regret in Ireland at the present time is that there is so large an amount of public opinion which justifies the non-fulfilment of obligations. How can we create the public opinion we desire to see in Ireland better than by introducing the locality, through the Local Authority, into the administration of the Act? What I have always thought would be a possibility, and what I have always desired to impress upon the Chief Secretary is a plan of this kind, that the Local Authority should not merely have the right of
    816
    vetoing or of consenting to the application of its credit, but that after the transaction had taken place, and after the land had been agreed to be bought and sold, the Local Authority should stand in the position of landlord for 49 years until the tenant became the absolute freeholder; that during that period the Local Authority should collect the rent, that it should pay over to the Central Authority the amount due for instalments and interest, and that the whole of the remainder, which would be a very considerable sum, should be for its own use—that is to say, for the advantage of the constituency whose affairs it represented and administered. If that were the case—and I will deal with the objections directly—if you could secure a state of things of that kind, consider how it would necessarily affect public opinion. In that case you would have a Local Authority which, in the course of a short time, would have all the instincts, and perhaps some of the prejudices, of a landlord, and you would have this Local Authority acting on behalf of the whole community with a distinct interest that rent should be fairly and fully paid, knowing that every deficiency in the payment of rent on the part of any tenant would be followed at once by a deficiency in the sum it had to apply to public purposes. What is the objection to it? The objection is one that does apply to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork and the hon. Member for West Belfast. The Chief Secretary says two things, as I understand him. He says, in the first place, that there would be a possibility, if you gave this power to the Local Authority, that, acting under the influence of some class of agitators, they would prevent altogether the adoption of the measure which Parliament is now passing. Well, as to that point I really think a moment's reflection will show that any such action on the part of the Local Authority is absolutely impossible. What have we just heard from the hon. and gallant Member opposite, and what have we heard from hon. Members on this side of the House? More than that, what do the actions of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House prove but that every class in Ireland is prepared to accept the benefits of the Bill, and will look askance at any one who interposes.

    817
    to prevent it? I say what proof have you? Why, just look at the action during the past few days in Committee of such Members as the Member for Longford and of West Belfast in a less degree. The discussions of the past few days has shown perfectly clearly to hon. Members with any intelligence that these hon. Members and some of their friends hate this Bill, and would like to destroy it. ["No."]"No" says one. What did the hon. Member for West Belfast say in the course of his most interesting speech this afternoon? He said that the action of the Tory Party in this Bill was to rescue Irish landlords, and to pour millions into their pockets.
    MR. SEXTON: So it is.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, if that were the object of the Bill, do you not suppose the hon. Member for West Belfast would oppose it? And am I not justified in saying that the Bill which be describes in these terms is a Bill which, if he could, he would destroy? But what is his position and the position of his friends? The position of hon. Members is this: that they are" willing to wound, but afraid to strike," and they dare not oppose the Bill because they know public opinion in Ireland is strongly in its favour.
    MR. SEXTON: What I say is this, that though no doubt the main object of the Tory Party may be to rescue the landlords, the effectuation of that object by the Tory Party does not limit the effect of the Bill. There may be other effects which I value.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I submit gladly to his statement, but when he speaks again I trust he will balance these various effects and give the Committee his conclusion on the whole subject. One effect of the Bill says the hon. Member is to rescue Irish landlords. What I ask are the effects of the Bill on the other side, which the hon. Member sets against it, and the conclusion he arrives at on the whole subject? What I say in the meantime is that the action of the hon. Member and his friends during the last few days has been directed to delay the Bill—I will not say to obstruct it though I think I might say so; and if he does not go farther it is only because the vast majority of his constituents are of a different opinion. If that is the case I say there is absolutely no fear that under
    818
    any circumstance it will be in the power of the Local Authorities to prevent the Bill coming into operation, and to interpose between their constituents and the benefits the Bill proposes to confer. But there is another objection taken by the Chief Secretary which I think is a more serious one. He said that it would be possible for the Local Authorities to act unfairly and unjustly under the influence of personal or political motives—and from past experience we have no reason to suppose that such a possibility might not arise. Well, that is perfectly true, and that would be the objection to the Amendments of the Members for Belfast and Cork, because, as I understand it, they propose that every separate transaction should come before the Local Authority to be discussed and to be approved by them. I quite admit that would leave room for intrigue and political prejudice, and that it might be open to the most serious objection. But that is not my proposal, and I do not think the suggestion I have made is open to a similar objection. I have suggested that after the Bill has come into operation, whether by the Resolution of the Local Authority or by plébiscite as proposed by the Chief Secretary, then the separate transaction should go, as proposed in the Bill, to the Land Commission — that is, the tenant and landlord, having agreed as to the terms, should go to the Land Commission, who would complete the transaction; and it is only after the Land Commission, who would be an impartial body not open to the objection which I have referred, has decided that the matter would come back to the County Council or other Local Authority, which would then be placed in the position of temporary landlord for 49 years, collect rents and so on. I say, then, that while I admit that there might be serious objection to allowing such Local Authorities as are seen in Ireland, or, indeed, any such Local Authority as it is possible we can hope to create for a considerable time to come, to deal with matters of such deep personal issues as the question of Land Purchase, I think it might be possible to leave to them the first origination of the Act—the decision as to whether or' not it shall be applied to a particular district—and the administration of it after the Act of Purchase has

    819
    been completed. I am not very sanguine that I shall be able to persuade the Chief Secretary to accept any such suggestion as that, because it would involve more than a single Amendment in the Bill. Probably it would involve one or two new clauses in the Bill to carry it out effectually. All I have to say in sitting down is that I have explained why I cannot support the Amendment of the Member for Newcastle, although I desire some of the objects he has in view. If they can be accomplished, I believe the Bill will be improved, that the security of the taxpayer will be increased, that the chances of peace in Ireland will be improved, and that a better feeling will be created between landlord and tenant, because if the tenants of the Local Authority paid regularly, it would have a very considerable effect in inducing the tenants who had not purchased to pay regularly also. While I believe in all these good effects, still I am grateful for the Bill as it stands; and if the Chief Secretary does not see his way to make the alterations suggested, I can only hope that experience may show that the right hon. Gentleman has judged the situation more correctly than I myself have.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I rise for the purpose of asking a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as to a matter of fact raised by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I warned the Chief Secretary last night that his plébiscite proposal was one of the considerations that would still affect the minds of Members in voting for or against my Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham gave reasons why he could not support my Amendment, though he is aware of the object in moving it, and, on the whole, agrees with it. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham gave amongst other reasons that the Chief Secretary was about to bring before the House a plebiscitary proposal, but I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham has entirely misunderstood the proposal of the Chief Secretary. His interpretation of the plébiscite is quite different from that of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. He imagines it to mean that
    820
    the vote ,"aye" or" no" will be taken as to whether or not the Act is to be applied. That is not the case. The inception of the operation of the Act is not in the view of the Chief Secretary to depend on a vote. That is not the question submitted to the ratepayers by plébiscite. According to the proposal of the Bill the Act is to come into operation without any assent from the ratepayers. Then the advances are to be made up to the total amount of 25 times the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund, and then when that is exceeded, £8,000,000 in all the county constituencies will be consulted as to whether they will sanction any further advance. I will ask the Chief Secretary whether my interpretation is right or that of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLrose, but there were loud calls for the Chief Secretary.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should have preferred to wait until I had heard observations from other parts of the Committee on the subject. The hon. Member for Cork expressed a hope that before the Debate closed I should make a statement as to my intentions as to the proposal for a plébiscite. As the Committee knows, the action of the Government will largely depend upon declarations from various parts of the House. So far I have not heard any distinct demand from below the Gangway.
    MR. SEXTON: We do not know anything about it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Nothing in support of it fell from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    MR. PARNELL: I said I thought it was an element of local control, though deficient.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg the hon. Members pardon. He did give a qualified support to the proposal. A qualified opinion has been advanced, but nothing more. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Saunderson), who spoke on the general question just now did not say anything to make me believe that he and his friends in the North of Ireland) looked on the proposal with favour, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, if he rightly understood it, would not receive.it

    821
    formally. My proposal never went the length of giving immediate power to the localities to reject the Bill. I did no more than suggest that at a certain stage the locality should be given the opportunity of saying that no further hypothecation of its funds should be allowed. Therefore I am not specially encouraged to make any proposal on paper with regard to a matter which I only threw out as a method of compromising the differences that seem to be in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I say that to explain the attitude of the Government on the question. As I am on my legs I may say one word as to the proposal of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. On that part of it which I dealt with last night I will not add a word to what I then said. Let me make this one remark which is to express my entire concurrence with the right hon. Gentleman in one matter. If we had funds at our disposal to. enable us to give a large bonus to the localities to collect the rents and to interest them, in some substantial form, in the payment of the annuities, I should rejoice as much as the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. I entirely agree with his desires on this matter. The only reason why the Government have not adopted that plan is that we have been forced to the conclusion that we have not money to do it with. We could not give the Local Authorities 5s. per cent. without taking money from the tenants, and we thought that to do that would be to interfere with the proper working of the Act. It was not because we differ from the general principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, but because we could not propose a scheme which would give all the necessary benefits to the tenants, and at the same time confer these benefits on the Local Authorities, that we had to content ourselves with what I admit to be the less satisfactory proposals of the Bill before the House. But on the subject on which I am specially called on to give an opinion, I hope I have adequately explained what is the nature of the suggestion I have thrown out, and what are the views of Her Majesty's Government upon it.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I wish to point out to the Committee
    822
    that there are now being discussed no fewer than four distinct propositions, each of them involving the principle of local control under the operation of the Bill. There is first of all the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, and, secondly, that of the Member for Cork; thirdly, we have the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast; and, finally, there is that hazy proposal in reference to a plébiscite which has been informally advanced from Members sitting on benches in different quarters of the House. I will deal first of all with the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do? The first thing he proposes is to arrest land purchase in Ireland. [" No, no."] I say that there can be no dispute on this point. The hon. Member for West Belfast has tried to prove that this is not so, and that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork is not necessary, the reason he advanced for this contention being that there was still a residue of something like £1,000,000 under the Ashbourne Acts, which would be sufficient to carry the Government on until County Councils could be established in Ireland. It is easy to say there is a residue of £1,000,000 under the Ashbourne Acts, but I want to know how much of it has already been applied for? Not less than £9,000,000 out of the £10,000,000 have been sanctioned up to the present time, as I understood from the Chief Secretary, but if that he so the balance of the whole £1,000,000 may have been applied for already so that there may not be a £1 sterling to carry on operations with during the interval between now and the establishment of County Councils. According to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, we are not to have Land Purchase until County Government comes into operation. He and other hon. Members on this side of the House blame the Government for delaying passing a County Councils Bill. Yes, but it should be remembered that more Governments than one are responsible for that delay; ever since I can remember the question of the reform of the Grand Jury Laws in Ireland has been a practical political question, and one Government after

    823
    another has given that political and burning question the go by. I do not think, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle is justified in simply charging the present Government with delaying County Government in Ireland. The charge is one that applies to every Government in England during the last 25 years. My contention is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle by his Amendment proposes to hang up the whole operation of the Land Purchase Department and prevent another sale taking place until it is sanctioned by the Local Bodies to be set up under the intended County Government Act. If I take the interpretation put upon the Motion by the hon. Member for West Belfast, the Amendment is one intended to enforce and compel Local Government, and to hang up Land Purchase until that is obtained. Supposing the County Government Bill were passed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle hinted last night, Irish Members on the other side of the House are opposed to granting Local Government in Ireland. For my part I am not hostile to that proposition, on the contrary I am anxious to see it. I shall support and vote for it when the time comes, but at the present moment, because I am disposed to give to Ireland the same measure in principle as has been conceded to England and Scotland, I am not fool enough to imagine that even after we get Local Government in Ireland, we are going to have the millenium. What is the proposal before the Committee? Before you set up County beards, and know what kind of beards they are to be, and the work that will devolve upon them, you are prepared to submit to those bodies a question involving an appeal to every passion and prejudice and selfish interest on the part of the whole body of the farmers of Ireland. We used to hear a great deal in bye-gone days of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian having committed a great constitutional question to an entirely new electorate; but if you pass this proposal, you will be committing to an unknown body in Ireland, without any experience of what it has to do, one of the greatest risks which any Government could possibly allow. What would happen amounts to this: that a
    824
    landlord and tenant may agree for the sale and purchase of the holding, they may be perfectly satisfied as to the terms of the transaction, and consider them fair and reasonable. The Land Commission may have investigated the whole of the circumstances and be satisfied as to the security being ample, and yet, after all this has been brought about, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle proposes to bring each individual transaction before the County Council, which will be fiercely political and selfishly agrarian, case by case, farm by farm, leaving those men subjected, as I have said, to political passions and prejudices the right of vetoing every sale and of absolutely arresting the entire process of land purchase in Ireland. In other words, he proposes to give one party to the bargain, namely, the farmers of Ireland, who will themselves be the purchasers, the absolute right in their position as County Councillors of themselves fixing the price and the managing of the sale. I say that I cannot assent to anything of the kind, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will stand firm in resisting any such proposal. It may be, and probably will be, said that this objection would come more appropriately from the other side of the House. All I can say is that ever since this question of local control was mooted in Parliament—and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham consulted me about it a few months ago—I have taken pains to inform myself in Ireland as to what is the existing state of opinion on the subject in Ulster. I have spoken to the farmers on their own farms, and ascertained their views. Indeed, we have lately had a sort of Ulster land demonstration here in the Lobby of this House when a deputation of Ulster farmers came up upon this question. I say that those farmers are willing to pay a fair price for their land, and that they do not look upon this measure as a landlords' Bill. To call it a landlords' Bill is all very well for an English platform, before those who know no better, but the Irish tenant farmers do know better; they consider this Bill to be the greatest boon ever offered to the Irish tenants by the Imperial Parliament, and they are willing to accept the boon, paying a fair price for the land. I speak on this in the name of the Pro-

    825
    testant tenants of Ulster, whose representatives 'I saw in the Lobby. My hon. Friend immediately below me saw them, hon. Members below the Gangway saw them, the Chief Secretary for Ireland saw them, and not one of those practical agriculturalists, not mere citizens of Belfast, but farmers working on their own land every day of their lives, are unanimously opposed to this County Council arrangement being allowed to come between them and their bargains as to the purchase of their holdings and retarding progress. I have authority for saying that the Gladstonian candidate for North Antrim at the last election is as anxious as any man living that this Bill should be passed, and is giving it as loyal and hearty support as any man in the North of Ireland. With regard to what has been said as to a plébiscite, so far as I understand it, the principle it is proposed to adopt is this: that before this Bill comes into operation, a vote something similar to what takes place under the Borough Funds ct is to be obtained as to whether the funds of the county shall be mortgaged for the purposes proposed, the county being in this way consulted as to whether its funds shall be so used or not. This is not open to the same objection as the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. It does not bring every case into the County Council. There are hon. Members of this House who are also members of English County Councils. What, I ask, would they think of having the sale of every holding in England brought before them? I oppose this Amendment because my constituents oppose it. I have consulted them, and they have given me their directions on the subject. Let us take the case of a county where the majority of the voters are not farmers but labourers. These men are not ratepayers, or rather they do not pay the main portion of the rates as the farmers do. I put it to the Committee what would be likely to happen if this plébiscite were dependent upon such a body? What is likely to be t he result if a question regarding the Contingent Fund were submitted to the labourers, whose interests are not only not the same as those of the farmers, but fre-frequently are diametrically hostile to the farmers' interests? They might
    826
    regard land purchase as not being in their interests, and might consequently put the management of the whole business into the hands of men who would act in direct opposition to the wishes of those who are desirous of this boon and who are responsible for the payment of the rates. I do not say that this would be so, but I say that it is a possible case. Now, apart from all this, what is to be said of the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle? If he were here, I should say much more willingly what I am going to say now, that he re too much accustomed to assume the rôle of Jeremiah. As regards the Irish question, he is eternally on the lament. He wishes the Irish Local Authority to come between the English Government and the Irish farmer, as a kind of buffer. He fears a period of distress, and he conveniently ignores the Insurance Fund which provides against it. He walks past it as if it were not in the Bill. Then he fears what will take place in the time of tumult. I prefer to go by the experience we have had rather than look forward to those evils. The right hon. Gentleman need not be so much afraid. The British taxpayer will know how to recover his money just as well as the Irish landlord, and 1 do not believe the British taxpayer is in the slightest danger. I believe the money will be honestly and cheerfully paid. The Irish farmers know perfectly well what a boon they are getting, and they are not going to throw it away in any reckless scheme of repudiation. I think the Imperial taxpayer, and especially the British taxpayer, is morally bound to pledge his credit for this purpose. He tore out by the roots the Irish land system, and he planted the English system of tenure with the disastrous results which followed; he planted the Irish landlords where they are, and, therefore, I think the British taxpayer, if he recognises his moral obligation, ought to come to the rescue. But in the case of a general settlement like this, and in face of the general desire to let byegones be byegones, and have this interminable land question disposed of, it is not too much that the Irish taxpayer should be willing also to do his small share of the work—a share which involves no risk to him. I

    827
    hope the Chief Secretary will resist I this proposal, which would hinder the practical working of the Bill.
    MR.MAHONY: I find myself for once in agreement with the hon. Member for South Tyrone, in his concluding observations, wherein he pointed out that the present position of the land question is due to the British taxpayer. If he has any influence with the Government I would ask him to use it in inducing the Chief Secretary to omit from the guarantees at any rate the most irritating of them—some of those called the contingent guarantees. The hon. Member says that the Irish taxpayer should take his share because this is a final settlement. I do not think it is.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I said a general settlement.
    MR. MAHONY: Well, a general settlement. It is not a general settlement, because it is only going to settle a portion of the question. It was significant last night that the Chief Secretary should say that it was out of the range of practical politics for any Government to propose to advance British money without having Irish security for it. If that is the case we have the Chief Secretary and his supporters to thank for it, because of the speeches they made in their anxiety to oppose the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) in 1886. I ask—What are you going to do when this £30,000,000 is exhausted and you have no further Irish securities to fall back upon? That is a very strong argument in favour of dropping some of these securities, and relying, at any rate to some extent, on what ought to be the real security, the value of the land sold and purchased. Then if, as I hope, this land purchase scheme works well, and you have to come to Parliament again for a further advance, you will still have some Irish securities to fall back upon, and you will find the Irish people very ready to give these securities. As regards the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast says it will bind the present Government to bring forward within a definite period a Local Government Bill for Ireland. I think it is exceedingly unlikely that the present Government will ever bring in a Bill
    828
    which the hon. Member for West Belfast would care to accept, but if he supports this Amendment, he would be to a certain extent bound to support a Local Government scheme he did not like, in order that land purchase might go on. I believe that the Irish people desire land purchase, and I do not see my way to voting for any Amendment which would endanger the continuance of that system of land purchase in Ireland. We are told that the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) would practically do away with the whole value of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. I cannot agree with that; I do not think any Amendment you could pass in this House would bind the Government more than they are already bound in honour, by their declarations, to bring in a Local Government Bill. If they break through their obligations, their opponents will know very well how to take advantage of their breach of faith. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast were passed, it would in spirit do all that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork proposes to do. It would prevent delay in putting this Act into operation, because there were no County Councils in existence, and that is all that the hon. Member for Cork wants to do. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham is anxious that the Local Authorities should have some power of giving or withholding their consent to the use of their securities; but he also wishes that they should derive some direct benefit from the operations of this Act in return for pledging their securities. That appears reasonable upon the face of it, but you cannot get out of this—that if you give to Local Bodies in Ireland a considerable portion of the annuities which are to be paid year by year by the tenants— you must either increase the amount to be paid by the tenants or diminish the amount to be received by the landlords— I would suggest to the Chief Secretary that it is possible to give the Local Bodies some sort of interest in the working of this Bill by continuing some small payment from the purchasers to the Local Bodies after the 49 years have expired. Several hon. Members have objected to giving Local Bodies control

    829
    over every transaction, on the ground that Local Elective Bodies are not bodies particularly fitted to deal with the exceedingly delicate matters involved in bargains of the kind contemplated, and I admit there is very great force in the objection. In fact, those who ask that Local Bodies in Ireland should have power to consider each individual transaction, ask that these Local Bodies should have more power given to them in return for their security than the Imperial Parliament has ever required, it should have in return for the security it has given in the past. The Imperial Parliament has had another security and a very important one; it has had security in the fact that it has had under its control the body charged with the examination of the security for the advances under the Act—namely, the Land Commission. No one would propose to set up a number of bodies for the administration of the Act under the control of the Local Bodies. The control of the administration of the Act must remain under the Land Commission, but I want to suggest to the Chief Secretary a compromise, which I think he might very fairly accept. As I understand his proposal it is that by a plébiscite localities should have the power of saying whether the Act is to operate in their localities or not, but that they shall only have that power after the" cash portion of the Guarantee Fund is exhausted. The concession I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make is to alter that so as to make it immediately applicable. The cash portion of the Guarantee Fund belongs to the localities just as much as the contingent portion. Whether there is any default in payment or not it is proposed to take away £40,000 of the Contingent Fund for a period of years, and the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do that at a time when local taxation is pressing very heavily on the people. In Kerry, my own county, I have to pay at the present moment in county cess alone about 5s. in the £1, and in poor rate close on 3s. in the £1. And yet, whether there is any repudiation or not, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take away £40,000 a year. That is his idea of generosity towards the Irish people. I ask him to re-consider that scheme for locking up this £40,000.
    830
    Another proposition I make is that the right hon. Gentleman should, in the first instance, allow the people of the locality to decide by plébiscite whether they would pledge the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund, and then if they decide to pledge that which guarantees about £8,000,000, then after the sum has been expended, they should be asked whether they would pledge the contingent securities. The advantage of that would be that when the £8,000,000 were exhausted the localities would be in a position to judge whether the Act had been fairly administered or not. If it had been fairly administered, they would have no difficulty in deciding by a fresh plébiscite to pledge their other securities. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh said land purchase is so popular that there is not a single county in Ireland where the people would not decide to pledge their securities. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House have asserted that they also are in favour of land purchase. Under such circumstances, I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should hesitate to give the people the control I suggest.
    MR. PINKERTON): The hon. Member (Mr. Mahony) is much surprised to find himself in accord with the hon. Member for South Tyrone. I am not surprised at that, seeing that the hon. Members are supporters of the present Government. In fact, I myself am very strongly in sympathy with the major portion of the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The hon. Member alluded to the deputation from the North of Ireland which waited upon the Government upon this question. I met that deputation, and I can assure the Committee that while that deputation was intensely in favour of land purchase, it was very strongly opposed to all guarantees. Every member of the deputation, with one exception, was a practical farmer, and every practical farmer in Ireland knows that there is no necessity whatever for any guarantee. It is proposed to pledge both the tenants' interest and the landlords' interest for the repayment of the money, but everyone who has spoken to-day has advanced a fresh theory. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham has suggested that

    831
    some bonus should be given to the Local Authority for collecting the rents, but the hon. Member for South Tyrone has gone far beyond that, for he practically says the guarantee scheme is humbug, and there is no necessity for it. I am anxious that land purchase should be carried, but carried upon lines which will confer benefit to the tenant, and not seriously injure the landlord. I do not for a moment advocate a system of landlord robbery in Ireland. I believe it is possible to benefit the landlord and also to benefit the tenant at the same time; bat, so far as delay is concerned, I hold that you may pass county government and Home Rule before purchase is carried out. I hold in my hand a statement with regard to an estate in the North of Ireland, where an agreement was signed by landlord and tenant four years ago, and the bargain is not yet completed. An Inspector was sent down from the land purchase authorities to inspect the holdings, and the objections put forward were of such a character as to indefinitely postpone the settlement on that particular estate. I am particularly interested in the matter, as I am a tenant upon the estate. It was cast in my teeth that I had signed an agreement to purchase years ago, and had opposed land purchase. If land purchase is to be carried out on the principle suggested, I am prepared to oppose it, because it is only a palpable attempt on the part of the authorities to fill the mouths of the tenants with an empty spoon. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh said that, as an Irish landlord, he is opposed to land purchase; but, as an Imperialist, he is prepared to risk British credit to promote land purchase. 1 hold that this measure is framed so as to benefit the landlords in the South of Ireland, where rents are not regularly paid.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order! So far the hon. Gentleman has not said anything about the Amendment.
    MR. PINKERTON: I admit I am out of order; but I am only following the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must remember that the hon. and gallant Member was rebuked.
    MR. PINKERTON: As a farmer I object to be taxed in order to guarantee
    832
    the repayment of the annual instalments of, it may be, an improvident neighbour. If I accept responsibility for a neighbour I ought to have a voice in the making of the bargain. It is a fact that men who have no intention to pay are the men who rush in and express a readiness to give 25 and 30 years' purchase. The men of Ulster are men who are prepared to pay 20s. in the £1, and they are most anxious that bargains are made on such a basis that no repudiation will be necessary. The purchase scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton was opposed in the North of Ireland because of the baronial guarantee. Seventeen years was the average number of years' purchase last year. Tenant right in Ulster is selling for 20, 24, and sometimes 25 years' purchase. Can any man imagine that the Government would allow tenants to run 16 or 17 years in arrear even if they were foolish enough to wish to do so? In the tenant right alone the Government have ample guarantee, so anxious are the people for land purchase that in spite of all its shortcomings nine-tenths of them will support this scheme; but is the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh prepared to put his sincerity to the test by offering his tenants an opportunity of purchasing? It is all very well to talk of general principlesx2014;
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order !
    MR. PINKERTON: I am most anxious the measure should be passed, but I am strongly of opinion that it should be passed in no half-hearted fashion; I appeal to the Government to pass the measure in such a way that it will put an end, as far as possible, to the agrarian difficulty which has disturbed Ireland in the past.
    COLONEL NOLAN: The hon. Member for Galway has said a great deal with which I thoroughly agree, but I must say it was a case of very valuable matter in the wrong place. We have already discussed the question of guarantee. All Irish Members are agreed in preferring that the guarantee should come from the Consolidated Fund or from money voted by Parliament, rather than from local resources. We have a strong argument in the enormous taxation we pay. But that is not the question at issue. If the Front Opposition Bench accept the Amendment of

    833
    the hon. Member for Cork the issue will be a very simple one; it will be that when County Councils are created, they shall have the right of vetoing any purchase. There is a great deal to be said on both sides of the question. There is a great deal to be said for the view of the right hon. Gentleman of West Birmingham. He did not like a general veto. The only objection to that is that perhaps there would be too much red tapeism. On the other hand, it would provide complete local supervision over all sales. Supposing the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Cork is not adopted by the Front Opposition Bench, in what position shall we be placed? We shall hang up the Bill for an indefinite time. Fifteen years ago I proposed the establishment of County Boards. County Boards are not yet created, and I am afraid we may have to meet many years before we see them in Ireland. Are we to hang up this purchase scheme until County Boards are set up? Why do my constituents and farmers and small tenants in the West of Ireland generally desire most to be proprietors of the land or to have County Councils to manage their affairs? I unhesitatingly say they prefer to be proprietors of their farms and to take the chance of County Boards.
    MR.MACNEILL: I rise to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. I think that Amendment would give the Government an opportunity of redeeming their character; it would compel them to fulfil their promise to bring in a Local Government scheme for Ireland. They won the last General Election with a promise to set up a Local Government system in Ireland; but from that day to this they have made no effort to redeem their pledge. A very interesting observation was made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland last night. Replying to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle the Chief Secretary said—
    "This machinery of land purchase is a costly-one; it cannot be made cheap, and the whole expense of this machinery is borne, not by the localities in Ireland, not by the ratepayers whose cause hon. Members opposite plead, but by the British ratepayer for the purpose of settling a question which, moreover, directly affects only a small corner of the United Kingdom."
    834
    As an Irishman I would be the last person in the world to object to the mulcting of the British taxpayer, and for the reason that I know if a debtor and creditor account were prepared, Ireland would be enormously on the creditors side. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the last General Election was won upon the promise of Her Majesty's Government to redeem their pledge of bringing in a Local Government Bill for Ireland. They also undertook that they would not relieve the Irish landlords at the expense of the British taxpayer, and yet now they are bringing in a Land Bill unchecked and uncontrolled; and if this Amendment be not adopted, the British taxpayer will incur very heavy liability. I should like to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to some observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—observations to which surely he ought to attach much importance. That right hon. Gentleman said, and said truly, that he had always supposed that the establishment of Elective County Authorities in England and Scotland would be associated with a similar measure for Ireland. I should like to know how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham can at all reconcile that announcement of his with the vote he is now going to give. I do not desire to trouble the House with any lengthened observations; but before I sit down I should like to remark upon the regret with which I, in common with many other Members, notice the absence from these Debates of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington. I have not the honour of the noble Lord's personal acquaintance, but still we all regret his absence, because we know that in the course of these conversations he would have played the part of a candid friend of the Government; and when he found Her Majesty's Ministers obstructing the proposal to join Local Government with land purchase, he would have said a good deal in condemnation of their conduct. I have often thought that Hansard's Debates form very interesting reading to those who are in the know, and I never was more pleased with the reading than when I commenced the perusal of some of the noble Lord's own observations in reference to his pledge made when he

    835
    was leader of the House on the question of Local Government for Ireland. I say that you are' simply obstructing Irish Local Government in the interests of Irish landlords. I say, also, that the plan of the Government in giving £30,000,000 for land purchase in Ireland is simply a cover for a proposal to divide that sum of money among their own supporters. They know very well that if the operation of the Bill were made dependent upon the adoption of Local Government for Ireland popular veto would prevent the distribution of the money in the channels they desire, and would make it utterly impossible to do as was done with the sum of £1,000,000 provided under the Ashbourne Acts and distributed amongst five supporters of the Government, one of whom was a brother of a Cabinet Minister. Now, I have before me a speech made by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington three years ago, on the 5th April, 1888, in which he said that he adhered in their integrity to the pledges he made at the time he was leader of the House of Commons, in favour of a large and liberal measure of Local Government being granted to Ireland. In one of the speeches he delivered about the same time, the noble Lord remarked that in 1886 the Chief Secretary for Ireland had opposed a measure of Local Government brought forward from the Irish Benches on the ground that Ireland was in a disturbed state and unfit for it. The noble Lord added—
    " But whether Ireland he disturbed or not, it is a fundamental principle of our policy that Local Government should be granted."
    In conclusion, I can only say that the Government obstruction of this Amendment is really a sacrifice of principle in the interests of the landlords. The Government never intended that the money to be advanced under the Act should go to the tenants, but always have treated it as a largesse for the landlords and their friends.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: No doubt the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork has good ground for complaining of the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. I should have imagined that the Amendment moved by the hon.
    836
    Member for Cork to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle was exactly in the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, because it would have committed the Government to the expression of nothing but a pious opinion in favour of a general abstract principle of Local Government, and it would still have left at large the question of its final consummation. Yet, for some extraordinary reason which the right hon. Gentleman did not explain in his speech he has left the House in the dark as to whether the hon. Member for Cork will have his support in the Lobby. I rather take it that he will not, because if the hon. Member for Cork, with his corporal's guard of six Members, are found to be the only supporters of the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would cut a remarkable figure as sergeant of the guard. The hon. Member for South Tyrone has declared that there was no value in recalling the pledges given in favour of Local self-Government, because every Government for the last25years has been steeped up to the chin in Local Government pledges, and it really was no matter whatever at the present time whether they combined to fulfil those pledges. It is true that every Government for the past 25 years has promised Local Government to Ireland, but no Government except the present Government has passed Local Government schemes for England and Scotland, and has got into Office on a declaration of simultaneity and similarity for the three Kingdoms; and, therefore, we have as against the present Government objections and arguments which cannot be urged with equal force against any Government which has sat at any time upon the Ministerial Benches since the Act of Union was passed. I say, therefore, that as against the present Government we have a peculiar grievance, and that the argument of the hon. Member for South Tyrone will not hold water. I was also much surprised that the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not secure more gratitude from the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. Even the hon. Member for Cork was more complimentary to him. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was more adroit

    837
    than the hon. Member for Cork, but I think he might have been a little more effusive in his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Nobody has greater admiration for the abilities of the Chief Secretary than I have. In the case of this present Bill, he has managed to load it with every principle objectionable to Irishmen so as to make it difficult for us to accept it, and, at the same time, to give the Tory Party every species of temptation to support him. My hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast dealt very properly with one branch of the Chief Secretary's devices when he said that by pledging local control in Ireland the right hon. Gentleman was setting up additional arguments against the establishment of County Boards. In my judgment, the Chief Secretary gratified both branches of Tory sentiment; Home Rule is staved off by the Imperial guarantee, and Local self-Government by the local guarantee. I have been waiting to hear some explanation of the new enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Cork and his Colleagues for this measure. It cannot be denied that this Bill is a less boon to Ireland than the Ashbourne Act. We know it has been the great boast of the hon. Member for Cork that it was he who in 1885 induced the Government to bring in that Act. That was immediately before the Home Rule Bill was brought in. Three years later the fund out of which the Act was worked required replenishing, and so in 1888, when another £5,000,000 was required for the purposes of that Act, I find that the hon. Members for Cork, Galway, and Meath, who now declare that it is undesirable to postpone this Bill in order even to have a pledge of Local Government, voted en bloc against the proposal to grant the additional sum. What are we to think of gentlemen of this sort? We have heard of the fox who has lost his tail, but we who are not in that predicament stand exactly as we stood in 1888. This new enthusiasm wants explanation. Even in 1890, on the 21st of April, the hon. Member for Cork moved the rejection of the Chief Secretary's Bill of last year; he opposed the Bill, not on a single ground, but firstly, secondly, thirdly, fourthly, fifthly, just like one of those"souping Protestant parsons" he is so fond of denouncing.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I rise to order. I ask, Sir, what right has the hon. Member to call any Protestant minister a souping parson?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Member for South Tyrone does not see my point. It is a quotation from the hon. Member for Cork himself, and I quoted it for the purpose of denouncing the insult.
    MR. MAHONY: In the absence of the hon. Member for Cork, may I take the liberty of saying that the hon. Member for Longford has misquoted him?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order ! I think it would be convenient if the hon. Member for Longford would approach the Amendment.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Imitation is not unnatural. I shall be able, if permitted to do so, to verify this interesting quotation which gives such offence both to the Liberal Unionists above the Gangway and to the Tory Unionists below it. Last night the hon. Member for Cork delivered a very strong speech in favour of this Bill, unfettered by any pledge of Local Government for Ireland, but he opposed the Bill of last, year on the grounds of the absence of consent of the locality to the security, and of local control over the application of the money. His words on the 21st April were:" My next objection to the measure is that it exhausts our local credit without our consent." Surely that objection has just as much force to-day as it had in 1890. The hon. Member for Cork also said that the Bill, in the absence of local control,"was a parody on land purchase and a swindle on the British taxpayer." He objected first that the Bill was not an honest Bill; secondly, that it afforded no solution of the question; and, thirdly, that it would lead to farther agitation. I declare that the explanation which the hon. Member has attempted to give of his change of attitude this year is"a parody on Parliamentary Debate and a swindle on the Irish public." He admitted in principle his anxiety to give some amount of local control; he put the infant idea before the House, but no one seemed to like the look of the child presented for sponsorship. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh said it was no child of his; the hon. Member for South Tyrone would

    839
    not be godfather, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham refused his blessing, and the only person to whom he could look for sympathy and comfort was the hon. Member for Cork—"faithful among the faithless only he." But, for my part, I would thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to give us some fuller explanation of his scheme than we have yet had. He may have confined it to the hon. Member for North Armagh; he may have told it in secret to the hon. Member for South Tyrone, to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, or the hon. Member for Cork. But we who are outside the charmed circle of Government confidence are at least entitled to be told what is to be this system of a plébiscitum he proposes to invent. We have had in former times some schemes containing remarkable proposals. We had the Drainage Bills, in which it was proposed to expend a million or two and to call for some local contribution. That local contribution would have amounted—I speak offhand and subject to correction—to a few hundred thousand pounds; but the Chief Secretary felt so strongly the necessity of some local opinion upon the expenditure that he invented a species of local representation. Are we not entitled to have to-night, before we proceed further in regard to this clause, some statement of whether he refuses such representation to the people of Ireland with regard to the advance of £30,000,000 and with regard to the hypothecation of all local resources, and, furthermore, the taking away from the localities the grants for education, medicine, pauper lunatics, and a number of other local purposes? Are we not entitled to be told why that which was granted in those drainage questions is to be refused in this far more important matter? It may be that the Chief Secretary does not altogether believe in the sincerity of the support of the Member for Cork—perhaps he has been reading some of the speeches of the hon. Member upon land nationalisation. I do not know whether he has perused these remarkable addresses; but if he has, that would be sufficient ground, perhaps, for the Chief Secretary taking up an attitude of doubt as to the amount of real and effective support that will be given to him by
    840
    that hon. Gentleman and his supporters, for so recently as the 14th of March last he told the people of Dublin he had always believed in the principle of the nationalisation of land. That being so, it seems to me very remarkable that on an occasion of this kind, when the Government are only asked to insert a proposal to the effect that the Irish people should have over local affairs and local taxation some amount of control, that the gentleman who believes in the nationalisation of land, which involves the giving of local control over this entire land system apart altogether from the question of purchase, should refuse to vote in favour of local control disconnected with nationalisation, and connected only with peasant proprietorship. On these grounds we are entitled, having regard to the present action of the hon. Member for Cork, to vote down his Amendment. I do not believe in the sincerity of his Amendment, I do not believe in it from a gentleman who spoke six weeks ago in favour of land nationalisation. [An hon. MEMBER: Oh ! Leinster Hall]—who spoke 12 months ago against this Bill, and three years ago voted against the advance of £3,000,000 under the Ashbourne Act. For my part I am inclined to doubt the sincerity of the Amendment, which, I believe, is put down for the purpose as it were of drawing a red herring across the trail without any effective intention, and accordingly I shall cordially give my support to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle.
    MR. PARNELL: I wish to make some reply to one or two remarks which fell from the hon. Member for West Belfast, and which were taken up and repeated, with the acrimony to which we have become accustomed from him, by the hon. Member for Longford. These hon. Gentlemen have called attention to the vote which I gave in 1887 against a grant of £5,000,000 and the vote I gave in 1890 against the Second Reading of a similar Bill to this, and to my action upon the present occasion and this year, in the preceding stages of this Bill, and they have asked me what has happened in the interval to make me change my action in reference to this Bill. I have to say to both these hon. Gentleman that they should first

    841
    have asked their own leader, the hon. Member for Londonderry, why he has changed his action also before they address that question to me. And they should have first asked themselves why they have changed their action. Those two hon. Members and their present leader, the hon. Member for Londonderry, also voted in my company, and under my protection, against the grant in 1887, and against the Second Reading of the Bill in 1890. Did the hon. Member for Longford vote against the Bill in 1891? And if he did not have the courage of his convictions of 1887 and 1890—if they were convictions—what has happened in the interval to change the convictions and the mind of the hon. Member for Longford?—
    MR. T. M. HEALT: Your misconduct.
    MR. PARNELL: And the mind of his leader? And why is it to-day that, instead of having the courage of 1887 and 1890 to openly oppose this Bill, he joins in a combination of the Liberal and Radical Members below the Gangway and above the Gangway, to do that by stealth and by disguised methods which the hon. Member and his leader have not the courage to do openly, and which they know perfectly well their constituents would not allow them to do. I have done with those hon. Gentlemen and their consistency, and I await knowledge of the reasons for their change. Now, let me say to the House why I supported, and was not afraid to support, the Second Reading of this Bill. I did not sneak out of the House to avoid expressing any opinion—aye or no—on the vote for the Second Reading; I did not run away from the Second Reading like the hon. Member for Longford; I voted for the Second Reading because I believe that the Irish tenant farmers want this Bill to pass. They have viewed with disfavour, and will continue to view with disfavour, your attempts to obstruct it. I believe, further, that the method which has been devised by the Chief Secretary of counter-guarantees, although it is glaringly and grossly unfair to us, has satisfied the scruples of the English taxpayer. I do not believe there is any reality in the opposition of the Liberal
    842
    Members below the Gangway, or that their constituents care two straws whether the Bill passes or not. So much for my reasons for voting for the Second Reading. Let me go on to say, regarding the present Amendment, that the hon. Member for West Belfast has misrepresented the substance and the effect of the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Newcastle. The hon. Member stated in defence of his conduct in voting for an Amendment which, if carried, will destroy this Bill, and which he knows well will destroy it, that the Amendment, if carried, would pledge the House and the Government to introduce Local Government for Ireland in this or in the next Session. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman does nothing of the kind. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, so far from compelling or pledging the House or the Government to propose or carry a Local Government measure for Ireland this Session or next Session, would effect this—that if, owing to any circumstances, it is impossible to pass a complicated measure like a Local Government for Ireland Bill in this or in the next Session of Parliament, and if the House failed in this or in the next Session to carry such a measure of Local Government for Ireland, this Bill would be absolutely destroyed, and never could be brought into operation. So that under the guise of voting for an Amendment to secure local control, some of the Irish Members—and let it be known to their constituents — are voting, in an underhand way. it is true, but nevertheless in an equally effective way, for the destruction of the principle of this measure, and—unless an impossibility can be brought to pass, unless a Local Government Bill for Ireland be passed this or next Session—to prevent this Bill, enabling the reduction of rents of one in every three of the tenants of Ireland by from 30 to 40 per cent. being passed, keeping it inoperative for all time. I do not know whether the Committee will accept the Amendment I have proposed or not, I am tolerably certain they will not. The Amendment which I have proposed will probably have very small support, but it was designed to make the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Newcastle carry out what it pretends to carry out

    843
    and does not, and what its supporters among the Irish Members have suggested and urged that it does carry out. If they choose to take the responsibility of voting it down, as announced by the hon. Member for Longford, they can do so. It has been said by the hon. Member for West Belfast that I am fighting a shadow in arguing against the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. If I am doing this, then is not the hon. Member for West Belfast supporting a shadow in supporting that Amendment? It appears to me that if one statement is true the other is true. If I am wrestling with a shadow he is supporting a shadow—
    MR. SEXTON: If the hon. Member will allow me to explain, it is, in my opinion, idle to argue against this Amendment as if it were about to be adopted; but, on the other hand, as I said earlier, it is useful to vote for the Amendment, though it may be defeated, because it will place on record a declaration binding the Liberal Party. It may thus be of future use to the people of Ireland.
    MR. PARNELL: In the history of Parliaments no more original excuse has ever been heard for voting for a pernicious Amendment. The hon. Member votes for it because he knows it will be defeated! I should have said that it would have been better not to support the right hon. Member for Newcastle in wasting the time of the Committee in arguing for an Amendment which the hon. Member knows is bound to be defeated, and which he would not vote for if he knew it was going to be carried. If the hon. Member votes for the Amendment, then he will vote for an Amendment which would be destructive of the Bill. He is taking a course not calculated to facilitate the progress of this Bill or to advance the wishes of the great majority of the tenant farmers in Ireland. Our time would have been much more profitably occupied if, instead of discussing this inoperative Amendment, we had gone on to the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for West Belfast—a similar Amendment to mine, and against which every argument the hon. Member has advanced against my
    844
    Amendment can be used with more crushing force.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not know how far the hon. Member for Cork represents Ireland, but he takes very much upon himself when he speaks for the English constituencies. The hon. Member has-told the Committee that our constituents do not care whether this Bill is passed or not. If the hon. Member had known anything of what took place at the General Election in England he would be aware that Home Rule was lost because a Land Purchase Bill was-brought in by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. It is to that Bill that the Conservative Party owe their seats,. and to the fact that they protested against it. We have always been opposed to land purchase, and we shall continue to be opposed to it to the end. But I did not rise to take notice of the observations of the hon. Member, but to say that we shall vote for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. The Bill is a bad Bill, but it will be made slightly better by the adoption of the Amendment. But I wish it to be clearly understood, and I think I am not speaking for myself alone, but for many Members on this side of the House, that in voting for the Amendment we in no kind of way pledge ourselves to any land purchase scheme for Ireland with an Imperial guarantee, whether approved or disapproved by the ratepayers of Ireland. I do not want to detain the House from a Division for & moment longer. I only want to make our position clear that neither directly or indirectly do we support an Imperial guarantee for land purchase.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I asked a question with reference to the reason of the change of view in 1888, 1890, and the present year. The hon. Member for Cork has not answered that question. I would like to hear him on the point.
    MR. PARNELL: I merely wish to say in reference to my Amendment that it has been pointed out to me by the hon. Member for West Belfast that my Amendment may interfere with that of the hon. Member if it is negatived

    845
    and not withdrawn. I think many Members will agree that both the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Newcastle and my own might be withdrawn, and then the Committee might proceed to divide on the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast, which practically seeks to carry out and does carry out the principle which the right hon. Gentleman has argued for in his Amendment, but which goes a great deal further.
    MR. SEXTON: I take the liberty to point out that my Amendment ought to satisfy both the hon. Member for Cork and the right hon. Member for Newcastle, because it provides for local control and no interruption in the proceedings of purchase. I certainly have a preference for my own Amendment, but it is a matter entirely for the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. PARNELL: Under the circumstances I ask leave of the Committee, and withdraw my Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I may point out that, on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman being put last night, the first words only were submitted to the Committee, involving the principle of local control, leaving out the specific way in which that control is to be exercised. If those first words are negatived, the proposed Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast, as well as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork, will also be negatived. Is it your pleasure the Amendment to the Amendment be withdrawn? [Cries of" No."]
    Question," That the proposed words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
    MR. SEXTON: In view of your ruling, Sir, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle whether in view of the fact that my Amendment provides for a continuing control pending the passing of a Local Government Act, he proposes to take a Division on his Amendment, or will he consent to take a Division upon mine?
    MR. J. MORLEY: In answering the question I may remind the Com-
    846
    mittee that last year I placed on the Paper an Amendment to the Land Bill making the assent of the Board of Guardians a condition of the operation of the Act. In substance, therefore, I am perfectly willing to assent to the hon. Member's view. While the hon Member was speaking I felt that there would be no difficulty on my part in allowing the hon. Member's Amendment, to which in substance I have no objection, and which coincides with my view last year, to be accepted. My object would, therefore, be served by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member instead of my own, and I am willing to withdraw my Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Member.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Is it your pleasure the Amendment be withdrawn. [Cries of"No."]
    Question put,
    " That the words ' Provided that no Guaranteed Land Stock shall be issued by way of advance in any county for the purchase of any holdings unless the making of such advance in that county shall have been previously proved ' be there added."
    (6.30.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 170; Noes 247.—(Div. List, No. 138.)
    The next Amendment on the Paper was in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) as follows:—
    Clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end, add"In the construction of the Land Purchase Acts for the purposes of this scheme, ' landlord' shall include a mortgagee with power of sale.
    The purchase in the name of the Land Commission of a sum of Guaranteed Land Stock, equal in nominal amount to a purchase annuity, shall be a good discharge of such annuity.
    Immediately after the passing of this Act the Land Commission shall ascertain as to each county what estates are for sale in the Chancery Division, the tenants upon which are willing to purchase their holdings under this Act, and the Land Commission shall within the limits prescribed by this Act purchase the same for resale to the tenants, and the Guaranteed Land Stock provided by this section shall be applied to such purchases in the first instance.
    Where, under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts, the Land Commission purchase land from the Land Judges of the High Court of Justice in Ireland (Chancery Division), the purchase-money may be paid by the issue to the Accountant General of the said Court of a sum of Guaranteed Land Stock equal in nominal amount to the purchase money.
    THE CHAIRMAN: This Amendment really contains three Amendments, none of them appropriate to this clause. The first is relative to the Interpretation Clause, the second to the 2nd clause, and the third ought to be brought up in the form of a New Clause altogether.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, at end of Clause, to add the words," Half-yearly returns, ending on the thirtieth day of April and thirty first day of October respectively, shall he presented to Parliament by the Land Commission, giving the following particulars respecting cases of default in the payment of any purchase annuity: — Name of purchaser; province, county, and townland in which the holding is situate; date of purchase; area (in statute acres) of holding; tenement value of holding; rental of holding when purchased, and whether judicial or non-judicial; amount of purchase-money; amount of instalments paid; amount of instalments in default; proceedings taken for recovery."—{Mr. J. E. Ellis.)
    Question proposed,"That those words be there added."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no objection to urge to this Amendment.
    MR. KNOX: The Amendment is defective, so far as I can see, in many particulars. It does not give that which would be the most valuable information—that is to say, the name of the landlord whose land has been sold under the Act. I, therefore, move as an Amendment to insert, after" Name of purchaser," in line 5 of the Amendment, the words '" Name of vendor." I think it can hardly be denied that this information would be most desirable, for we know it may be difficult in cases of default to find out the particular landlord who has sold his land, for he may withhold his name through modesty or some other cause. I am sure that no vendor who effects a sale to his tenants fairly will object to allowing his name to be known.
    (6.46.) Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to insert after the words"Name of purchaser," the words" Name of vendor."—(Mr. Knox.)
    Question proposed"That those words be there inserted."
    MR. FLYNN: I hope the Government will raise no objection to this Amendment.
    Question," That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR, M. HEALY: I would suggest that particulars should be given showing how far the guarantee deposit has been called upon to supply the default in the payment of the annuity; whether or not any attempt has been made to sell the holding, and whether or not such attempt has been success ful—
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS].—(No. 259.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: May I ask what course the Government propose to take with regard to this Bill?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I will tell the right hon. Gentleman the course we propose to take with reference to this Bill and the Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Bill. We have considered this matter with the single desire of carrying out those matters which are generally agreed upon. I do not think it would serve any good purpose to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The result, I am afraid, would be to lose time, and the matters upon which there is agreement are sufficiently numerous, I think, to enable us to satisfy general opinion in favour of reform of the Fishery Board, and in regard to the alteration of the law as to mussel beds.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: In regard to this Bill, we cannot accept the Second Reading without discussion, and I would ask the Government to give us a day for the purpose of discussion. I shall always object to having the Bill passed sub silentio.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

    TRUSTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 209.)
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 66)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    MR. KELLY: I beg to move that Progress be reported.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: On that Motion I would point out the position in which we stand. In consequence of the opposition of the hon. Member for North Camberwell and some other hon. Members, the Irish Members find it absolutely impossible to pass any Bills through the House, even those which the Government do not oppose. I warn the hon. Member opposite that the Irish Members will in future allow no non-contentious measures promoted by private Conservative Members to pass.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I would point out that in this matter the Irish Members themselves have set a very bad example by the frequent objections which they have made.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Both sides of the House ought to act on the principle of give and take.
    DR. TANNER: No measure brought forward by an Irish Member has been allowed to pass either this or last year.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

    EAST INDIA (FACTORY ACT).
    Address for" Copy of Act No. XI. of 1891, of the Governor General in Council, being an Act to amend ' The Indian Factories Act, 1881.'"—{Sir John Gorst.)

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Sir JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and LegalPro-
    850
    cedure, the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Public Health (London) Law Amendment Bill and Public (London) Law Consolidation Bill), viz.: Mr. Boulnois, Mr. Causton, Earl Compton, Sir Walter Foster, Sir Guyer Hunter, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Lafone, Mr. Loder, Mr. Montagu, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Ritchie, Mr. James Rowlands, Mr. Stuart, and Mr. Webster.
    Sir JOHN MOWBRAYfurther reported, That they had added Sir Charles Hall to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in substitution of Mr. George Cavendish Bentinck, deceased.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    NAVAL DEFENCE ACCOUNT.
    Copy ordered—
    "Of Return showing for the years 1889–90 and 1890–91, the sums paid into the Naval Defence Account, with the dates of payment; also the sums issued out of the Naval Defence Account for the purposes of ' The Naval Defence Act, 1889,' with the dates of issue, and the balance remaining on the Account on the 31st March, 1891."—{Mr. Jackson.)
    Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 187.]

    IMPERIAL DEFENCE.
    Copy ordered—
    " Of Return showing, to the 31st day of March, 1891, the Issues from the Exchequer to the War Office and Admiralty under the following Acts:—Imperial Defence Act, 1888; Naval Defence Act, 1889 [in addition to amounts provided in ordinary course out of Revenue]; Barracks Act, 1890; together with the manner in which provision has been made for such Issues."—(Mr. Jackson.)
    Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 188.]

EVENING SITTING.
  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed," That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    ADMINISTRATION OF THE POST OFFICE.
    EARL COMPTON: I do not think I need offer any apology for having brought my Motion before the House asking for a Select Committee to inquire into the administration of the Post Office Department. I have made my Motion as broad as possible in its terms, for I am anxious that the proposed Committee of Inquiry should embrace all the subjects connected with the Post Office, not only the internal working of Post Office machinery itself, but also the relations of the Post Office to the general public, and also in regard to all postal reforms which are necessary. I am anxious that postal reform should be inquired into, and also the whole of the machinery of the Post Office, as—having given this matter some consideration in the past 15 months—I am of opinion that this machinery requires over-hauling and setting in order. It was impossible for me to state in a Notice of Motion every one of the details which require attention; it was impossible for me to define, for when I began to define I found that a definition would limit the scope of the inquiry I believe to be absolutely necessary. As regards the extension of benefits to the general public as a question of postal reform, this may, perhaps, be considered a Treasury question; and as I see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his place, and not the Postmaster General, I shall direct the first part of my remarks to that point which I think affects the Treasury principally. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will allow me to say I am one of those who think that perhaps the Treasury may have too great control over the Post Office. I believe that the Post Office, and the chief intention of the Post Office, is to serve the public. But the chief interest of the Treasury is to provide a good Budget, to look after the Revenue much more than the efficiency or good order of the Post Office. Other Members, I am aware, intend to speak on the subject of postal reforms. I had intended to bring forward in my Motion the question of"Boy Messengers" and the relations between the" Boy Messengers Company" and the Post Office; but I am glad to say—very
    852
    glad to say—that that matter has been already settled. I cannot, however, help expressing the suspicion in my mind that perhaps the fact of my Motion having been on the Notice Paper for a month may have facilitated the arrangements that have been arrived at by the Postmaster General with the" Boy Messengers Company." I do not think anyone can doubt the fact that the Revenue has reaped advantage from each successive reform which has taken place in our Postal Service. Still there remains much to be done. This, I think, will be acknowledged, for instance, that the postal communication with the West Coast of Scotland and to the North of Ireland, decidedly requires improvement, and I am in hope that Members who come from that part of Ireland, and who are at the moment distinctly friendly to the present Government, will support a Motion for more direct communication by the Larne and Stranraer line, which has been a burning question for some time, and is not yet, I believe, settled. Then, also, there is the question of postal reforms as they affect the Savings Bank Department, already alluded to during the Session, and which requires, at all events, inquiry to see what can be done. Many of us believe that the Post Office Savings Bank might be extended with great advantage to the public, more especially to the working classes who use the bank for their savings. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not share that view, and is rather friendly to private banks as against the Post Office Bank. Still, I think this is a matter that might fairly come within the scope of the inquiry I am now asking for. I do not think it is at all necessary to refer to the large extension of the postcard system, and the further facilities asked for, or to mention the question of postal facilities for communication with the colonies, which interests a large number of those who reside not only in England, but in every part of the British Empire. But I think it is necessary I should state at once that it is the general opinion — it may be a wrong opinion, but it is generally entertained that there is some hindrance in the way of extending postal facilities—I do not know whether at the Treasury or at the Post Office. If a lever is wanted to effect a movement in the direction

    853
    required, then this inquiry I recommend will supply that lever. If it is an idea of economy which prevents many extensions the public desire, I believe it is a false idea of economy, because experience has shown that every extra facility has led to an increase of Post Office revenue. But even if it did not increase the Revenue I certainly lay it down as a principle that the huge surplus we get under the Post Office accounts might be used to give additional facilities to all who reside within the British dominions. The increase of revenue has been most remarkable. During the last 15 years I believe the increase of net revenue has been something like £1,500,000 in the Post Office Department alone, excluding the telegraph and other branches. I believe the increase of telegraphic net receipts has been something like £600,000 per annum in the same period. In all these matters I feel that I, perhaps, shall have the sympathy of the Postmaster General for it seems to me he is more or less"under the thumb" of the Treasury. The Treasury seems to keep a tight hold of the Post Office Department, and in some respects it seems to me the Treasury has prevented the Postmaster General from carrying out what he at all events would like to have done. I am aware the Treasury has laid down what seem to be rather stringent rules as regards applications from the various branches of the Department; as, for example, when the claims of one class of postmen were considered the Lords of the Treasury officially declared that further claims of other classes of postmen could not be entertained. A rather sweeping declaration without limit of time or circumstances. However, there are other hon. Members who will address themselves to this part of the question, and I will at once proceed to suggest those points in the organisation and administration into which I think inquiry is necessary. The Post Office Department has practically, like a growing boy, out-grown its clothes. I admit that many new suits have been ordered, but they have been so long in the making that the clothes never fit. I have no intention of making a personal attack upon the Postmaster General. He has been very much attacked in the public Press throughout the country,
    854
    and has been nicknamed the San Sebastian of the Tory Government. I have no intention of making a personal attack, but I think it is only right that when I bring forward this Motion that I should state truthfully what has really occurred when the Postmaster General has granted privileges and advantages to those employed in the postal service. Where such have been granted they have not been granted, unfortunately, with that ungrudging graciousness of manner that might have been expected, and therefore he has not received such thanks from the recipients as otherwise he would have received. I also wish at once to say that I do not intend to make any attack on the officials of the Post Office. They are not here to answer for themselves, and it would be wrong for me to do so. I look on the Postmaster General as the Member of the Government responsible for all that goes on in the Post Office, and therefore I shall be careful to avoid as far as possible allusions to the officials of the Department. I may say at the same time that I have not had brought to my notice any complaint as regards particular officials the complaints principally are against the system not against individuals. We have had this Session what has been termed a"labour" Session. We have had the question of the employment of railway servants discussed on the appointment of a Royal Commission; we have had Government contracts discussed, and we have had a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the relations of capital and labour, from which, I am sorry to say, the Post Office has been excluded by Her Majesty's Government. Let me add, that I should far prefer to have a Royal Commission for the inquiry contemplated in my Motion, rather than a Select Committee, but as a Commission was refused when I asked whether this question was to be submitted, I felt that it would be absurd for me to move for a Commission, and so I move that the inquiry shall be by Select Committee. We are about to have inquiry into the status and condition of the servants of many private employers and public bodies, and I do not, therefore, think I can be very far wrong in asking for inquiry into the status and condition of servants of the State. Is such an inquiry required? will be asked

    855
    by many who have not investigated the conditions of service in the Post Office. I have no doubt the principal argument against my Motion will be that no such inquiry is necessary, but the matter had better be left to the management of the Postmaster General and his Department, and that inquiry will be out of place. But we have, and this the Postmaster General will admit, a large amount of discontent, not limited to a few persons, but permeating the whole service. [Mr. RAIKES expressed dissent]. I am sorry to find the right hon. Gentleman is not well informed on this point—that does permeate to my knowledge the whole service, every branch and every section, not only in London, but throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had received half the evidence I have received since I put my notice on the Paper. If he had, it would have opened his eyes to the fact that this discontent undoubtedly exists, not the personal discontent of individuals, but a discontent throughout certain branches of the service as to what are regarded as most serious grievances. But surely the Postmaster General will admit that he has received a very large number of Petitions? Not that he has received all the Petitions that have been sent to him, for in some cases they have been refused and not put before him, but he must be aware that a large number of Petitions have been drawn up asking for certain remedies. I am aware that a Departmental Committee is sitting at this moment inquiring into one point, and there may be others, but these are absolutely useless for the purposes for which I ask inquiry. A Departmental Committee may be all very well to gain information, but the right hon. Gentleman must be well aware that under present conditions he will never get before a Departmental Committee such information as he would from an independent inquiry. He must be aware that at the present moment a large number of men, not junior men but senior men, would not come forward and give evidence not liking to render themselves liable to be marked as discontented and perhaps, as has occurred in some cases, marked for future punishment in case of trivial offences. There is friction, there is irritation within the
    856
    Post Office Department, and the general public know this as well as possible, even if the Postmaster General does not-A good deal of growling is going on, and it seems to me the statesmanlike way of dealing with this is to inquire what is the cause, and obtain information by the appointment of an independent Committee. Now, I go at once to the internal working of the Post Office. Who isitor what is it that works the Post Office? There is a Department within the Department—the Secretary's Department, and there is a very able man at the head of it. I have not the slightest doubt that every man in that Department is doing everything to carry out the wishes of the Postmaster General and working for the public interest; but I have been informed—and I believe this is the kernel of the question—that everything that is connected with the various branches of the Post Office has, first of all, to go through the Secretary's Department before it reaches the Postmaster General. If any branch Department wishes to approach the Postmaster General, its communication must filter through the Secretary's Department, and I am sorry to say that one complaint is that a good many of the communications proceeding from the heads of other Departments stick half-way and do not reach the eyes of the Postmaster General. I am not blaming individuals; but I do say that that the Postmaster General ought to be in communication with the heads of the various Departments, and it ought to be out of the power of a few officials in one-Department to stop that communication. I take, for example, the forwarding of Petitions. I will not go into all the examples, I take one. The Association: of the London Sorting Department, representing some 2,500 men, held a meeting and drew up resolutions, which they begged the chief officer to forward to the Postmaster General. This was refused be cause it is non-official to forward resolutions to the Postmaster General, whereupon they drew up a memorial, and in that memorial asked for an inquiry into the Medical Department—a very harmless request, I should think; but that memorial was refused to be forwarded, because, as was stated, it must first of all be proved that an inquiry into the Medical Department was necessary before such an inquiry

    857
    was asked for. Now it seems to me that in such a case it is desirable that such a Petition should reach the responsible head of the Department. I daresay the gentleman who stopped it acted in pursuance of regulations, but upon this point of difficulty of access between the Postmaster General and the various branches I think inquiry is desirable. And now I come to a Department about which the public have heard a good deal lately, the Savings' Bank Department, and here at once we enter on a question that requires investigation, and a good deal more at the hands of the House of Commons. I mean the question of overtime. I asked the Postmaster General a question on the subject some time ago, and gave certain details which he acknowledged to be correct. It is a fact that the 531 members of the staff in 1890 worked overtime to the extent of 268,000 hours, which is equivalent to the work of a staff of 129 men all the year round. Now the Savings Bank Department has an excessive amount of work to do for, say, three months in the year, when overtime is said to be a matter of necessity; but take the other nine months and we find the staff worked 90,000 hours overtime, equivalent to the ordinary work of a staff of 65 men. I am told these figures are substantially correct. In 1890 the overtime amounted in some cases to four hours a day. I am told that the day's work in some circumstances was from 13 to 16 hours, that the sorting staff averaged 12 hours a day, that one boy worked 16 hours in one day, and another an average of 12¾ hours a day during a whole month. When I brought these facts to the attention of the Postmaster General, he said he thought the work was excessive, and he would, therefore, make additional appointments to the junior staff; but it is not a question of these things having gone on for a year, they have been going on for years. What was the recommendation in the Report of the Ridley Commission? That steps should be taken to reduce the hours of employment for the clerical staff to seven, not 13 or 14 hours, but seven: and the Commissioners go on to say that apart from the question of health of the clerks employed for 11 hours a day, they were less capable of giving good work
    858
    than if they were employed for more reasonable hours. Sir Arthur Blackwood, in his evidence before the Commission, said that the overtime in the Savings Bank was imperative for six weeks in the year—I say for three months—and that temporary clerks could not do the work. The Postmaster General, he said, discouraged overtime. When the Postmaster General was questioned on February 5th, he replied that overtime was not limited by regulations, but the requirements of the Public Service must be provided for. But the requirements of the public service can be provided for by an additional permanent staff, and so this necessity for overtime work can be got rid of. Owing to this practice of overtime, disturbances have occurred in the Savings Bank Department from time to time, and such occurred last year and in the beginning of this year. Why? Because an order was issued by the Postmaster General that the clerks should work two hours overtime daily until further notice, and that any disobedience to this order would be treated as an act of insubordination. During two Sessions I have asked the Postmaster General, time after time, whether the overtime work in the Post Office was voluntary or compulsory, and the right hon. Gentleman assured me over and over again that it was voluntary. I am glad to give him another opportunity of explaining the meaning of the simple English word voluntary, in the face of such an order as this. I can imagine it might be more economical for a pressure to employ temporary or overtime work; but when I find that for the number of hours overtime, the cost is, for overtime work, 1s. 1d. per hour, and that the ordinary pay is 8d. per hour it becomes an expensive matter over some 8,000 hours. The clerks in the Savings Bank Department number 520, but I find in the Estimates they are set down as 552. Where does the extra salary go to? Does it go to the temporary clerks, or where? Then I come to the Telegraph boy messengers. They are about 15 or 16 years of age, and the day-staff work 10 hours a day—sevenhours was the time laid down by the Ridley Commission—but nine-tenths of them work 10 hours a day. The night staff of boys work on alternate nights from 8 to 8, and from 6

    859
    to 10 or 11 o'clock, and they have to stand from 10 to 4, why, I do not know? There is a case of a boy of 14 being compelled, for a trifling offence, to work two hour's overtime after having worked 10 hours, and he had to walk five miles to his home afterwards. These boys—I daresay it was very imprudent on their part—petitioned for extra pay; but though this was nine months ago they have had no answer yet. I do not know whether the Petition reached the Postmaster General. I doubt it very much. Then I turn to another branch of the Service, the mail cart drivers. I do not know whether the Postmaster General is aware that the mail cart service is contracted for by Messrs. Macnamara & Co. (Limited). The drivers work from 4 o'clock a.m. to 8 o'clock p.m., and their wages begin at 24s. a week. Now, we have laid down this Session what our contracts ought to be. Of course this is an old contract—I understand that—still we know it is possible to put on pressure by threats that the contract will not be renewed—and I believe this contract ends this year—unless the contractors pay their servants decent wages and do not overwork them. Then I come to the postmen. We are told that there is no systematic overtime except in the Savings Bank Department, but the postmen have a grievance in connection with what is called" split" duty, which extends over 14 hours or 16 hours. Though this service is divided over intervals during the time, yet they are away from home for the period I mention, for it is too expensive for them to return home during the intervals of duty. It would cost each man on an average 2s. 6d. a week to travel backwards and forwards twice a day. I believe the Postmaster General, in 1888, admitted that this"split" attendance should not extend over 12 hours daily, but three-fourths of the postmen still continue to perform duties during 14 or 16 hours a day. Then, again, the auxiliary postmen work from 5 to 9.30 or 10 o'clock, and are paid at the rate of 4d. an hour, overtime work being paid sometimes at 3d. an hour. Then the telegraph staff, numbering 3,461 in London, have been doing excessive work since 1887, doing three and five hours a day overtime. I mention these details to show that overtime is a system, and
    860
    is not confined to the Savings Bank Department. The Comptroller, in an answer given last January with regard to holidays, confessed there was an excessive amount of overtime. Let me say at once that these men who are working in the Post Office are ready and willing to volunteer to do a certain amount of overtime; but when you have a system all the year round of what is called" voluntary overtime," which is really compulsory overtime, that by degrees breaks down the willingness of the men, and in some cases they have refused to do it. Then there is the whole system of temporary labour, paid at from 18s. to 20s. a week, a system which must be bad both for the men and the Department. There is auxiliary labour in the newspaper department, both inland and foreign; there is a temporary mail staff and what is called the"permanent temporary staff," the meaning of which, perhaps, the Postmaster General will explain to the House, and there are also season substitutes. Then I come to the question of the female staff. I have been informed by several Members that there has been a statement in the Press that I am going to attack female labour. I have never had the smallest intention of doing so. On the contrary, I am one of those who have always advocated the employment of female labour; and I believe that no man in this House goes further than, or as far as, I do with regard to the rights of women to compete with men in all employments. I have not found that there is any hostility among the Post Office employés to the female staff; but, at the same time, when there is decided over-work for the men, and decided over-work for the women, and when the male staff see large additions being made to the female staff and none to their own, there is perhaps a little discontent, and that may have given rise to the false reports that have appeared in the Press. There has been a good deal of overtime work going on in the female staff. In two divisions, in which about 190 persons are employed, of whom one-third are females, they worked something like 27,000 hours overtime last year. I believe there is one section which worked in three months something like 3,600 hours overtime. In another, where four-fifths

    861
    of the staff of about 100 are females, something like 22,000 hours overtime were worked last year. There are also many complaints from the ladies who are employed in the news Department. There has been a most erratic system of promotion with regard to the female branch, and they will be glad if their case can be included in the inquiry. With regard to female temporary clerks, when a lady in the Department marries, the order is that she has to leave, but her new name and address are taken, and when temporary work is required she is taken back again temporarily. There are cases of ladies who have been receiving 35s. a week before being married, and who have gone back to do temporary work at 20s. a week. It is impossible for me to mention every case in every branch which in my opinion deserves some consideration at the hands of the House of Commons. I cannot deal with the question of the provincial Establishments, but I am glad to say that the seconder of the Motion will do so. Let me pass now to the question of the reasonableness of the request for an inquiry of some kind. We have already had a Commission, known as the Ridley Commission, to inquire into the question, but it has been impossible for it to go into the whole working of the Post Office. I wish, however, that their recommendations had been carried out. I am told that there is no precedent for a Select Committee inquiring into such a question. To that my first answer is that there is no precedent for such general discontent in a State Department as at present exists in the Post Office: it is an exceptional case which demands exceptional treatment. In the Egyptian affair, when the Commissariat broke down, a Select Committee was appointed by the House of Commons to inquire into the matter, which is a proof that when something has gone wrong in a Department a Select Committee inquires into the matter. That something has gone wrong with regard to the Post Office was, I think, proved the other day, when we had before us a Savings Bank Bill, and a clause was put in it to extend the time for preparing the Savings Bank Returns, in order, I believe, to get the Postmaster General out of a difficulty with regard to the' Savings Banks De-
    862
    partment. That, however, is not a way in which things ought to be done. On April 20, 1888, the Postmaster General said that he did not approve of boys working overtime, and that arrangements were being made for its discontinuance. It seems to me that the whole organisation and administration are carried on in rather a makeshift fashion. There are, under the present system, extraordinary inequalities of condition, treatment, and position amongst the various branches of the Department. Until that system is inquired into and changed there will, I believe, always be discontent. In the face of that discontent the policy of the Post Office has always been a policy of suppression. I acknowledge that the Postmaster General has done much for those who are serving under him, and I believe he would have done much more if he had not been so fettered by the Treasury. At the same time I think it only right to point out that this policy of suppression has been followed, and that it is a very dangerous policy. The Department has acted in a spirit of hostility to the combinations of its servants; their right of meeting has been suppressed, even when they undertook to notify the time and place of meeting, and admit the official reporter; and they have been told that their meetings would be treated as acts of insubordination. In my opinion the hours of labour are excessive. I believe that overtime is the rule, and not the exception. Promotion is slow, and the temporary employment system does harm to those who are employed under it, and also to the permanent staff. The work is of a harassing nature, and is rapidly increasing in amount, while the permanent staff has not increased proportionately with the labour. I therefore ask that this question shall be inquired into by the House of Commons. I appeal to the Postmaster General to allow an inquiry to be held in order that the great State Department, of which he is the head, may be made thoroughly efficient, and put into good order. I also appeal to the Government who have this Session intervened in questions between employer and employed, and have said that excessive overtime ought not to be allowed, to sanction an inquiry. If these appeals are refused, I appeal to hon.

    863
    Members on both sides of the House. This is not a Party question in any degree whatever. I do not say the defects I have pointed out are the fault of the Government or of the Postmaster General; they are the fault of the system, which can only be remedied by full and proper inquiry. Such an inquiry as I ask for cannot do any harm, and I believe it will do much good. I appeal in the interests of good government, and of the efficiency of a State Department, and I also appeal on behalf of a large body of hard-working and deserving men for an inquiry into the whole system of a Department which is a source of large public revenue. I believe there is nothing which would tend to create good feeling and efficiency in that Department, so much as an inquiry into the grievances which have so long existed, and I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word"That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words" in the opinion of this House it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Administration of the Post Office,"—[Earl Compton,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed," That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. LOCKWOOD: In seconding the Motion, I wish at the outset to say I cordially agree with the statement of my noble Friend that this Motion is in no way directed at the administration of. the present Postmaster General. It would be most unfair, having regard to the complex system which is involved in this Department, to make one particular individual responsible for the very serious condition of things which now exist. My noble Friend has said more than once that he has no wish to make the present Postmaster General responsible. We do not wish to endeavour to fix responsibility upon any individual Postmaster General who preceded the right hon. Gentleman who now holds this very important position, and, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman holding the position he does should not be one of the first to court this inquiry. I do not know how long the right hon. Gentleman anticipates that he
    864
    may personally hold the office he now occupies, but if he has any idea of that period being a lengthened one, let him have inquiry for selfish reasons and for his own comfort, but, if not, let him consent to this inquiry in order that the comfort of those who follow him may be enhanced. This House has on more than one occasion this Session been brought face to face with the accumulating difficulties between labour and capital. They have already troubled the House, and in all probability they will trouble the House still further. The House has always professed itself anxious and willing to throw itself into any inquiry upon matters relating to labour and capital if it can be shown that anything like a substantial grievance exists. How can any Government possibly endeavour in any way to frustrate inquiry into a Department over which they have control, and at the same time be willing to grant or order inquiries into matters for which they have no direct responsibility? The Postal Department is, fortunately for the country, a great paying Department. It is one of the few Departments of the State which has been remunerative, but none the less, nay all the more, ought we to see that no grievance can properly be put forward by those who assist us in the work. I do not propose to trouble the House at great length, because my noble Friend has gone into great detail. He has, however, dealt more especially with the case as presented by the Metropolitan offices, and I desire to ask the House to devote its attention for a few moments to the case as it exists in the provinces. Let us consider the nature of the employment of these men and women. They hold very responsible positions; the work subjects them to great mental strain, and the work is done frequently under conditions which makes it extremely arduous. In the first place the public expect from the Post Office servants accuracy in the-discharge of their duty, they necessarily impose upon the servants great trust, and expect from them in return an honest discharge of their duty. Above all the public expect that the men will bring to bear on their work an unfailing intelligence. It is a very high standard of work that we require at the hands of these people. At the outset they prove

    865
    themselves efficient by passing, I think in all cases, a competitive examination. Clearly this class of labour is one which is deserving of the very greatest attention, and any grievances the men may have ought not to be ignored. The first fault I have to find with the system is that the organisation works in a most unequal way. Take the case of the special services which are rendered by the servants of the Post Office. It may surprise some hon. Members to know that when the Telegraph Department is called upon to render special services in connection with public meetings, race meetings, and other events, the rule of the Central Office, according to a Minute of the late Secretary to the Post Office, is that the nearest available office shall render the assistance required. But for some reason, which it is not very difficult to understand, those who are responsible for the working of the Central Office have been anxious, in view of the minute investigation of Post Office procedure which has been going on of late, to reduce the amount of overtime at the Central Office; for it appears that when special assistance has been needed in what I may term the home circuit, instead of application being made to the Central Office, in accordance with the Memorandum, men are brought from long distances for the purpose. For example, at a recent race meeting at Epsom, it was necessary to provide telegraphists to do the special work, and instead of assistance being obtained from the Central Office, which was the nearest available office, one man was brought from Leeds, two from Derby, one from York, three from Manchester, three from Southampton, one from Northampton, and three from Birmingham to do the work. Where is the economy to be found in that? What thinks the House of a system under which such things can occur? What does the Financial Secretary, with his great business knowledge, think of it? Would he permit such a state of things in his own business? The assistance required was obtainable at the Central Office. The Memorandum said it should be obtained from that office. Why was it not so obtained? Because you dare not face the amount of overtime it would involve, and so you bring men from North, South, East, and West, in
    866
    order to distribute the overtime over other offices, and to avoid the criticism which would inevitably ensue. Another general objection is the inequalities in the Regulations. It will doubtless be admitted by the Postmaster General that there is great objection, whether rightly or wrongly, to the system of classification—the system of dividing the employés into two or three classes. That is, I understand, one of the main grievances that exist in the Department. The system may be good, but let me show the right hon. Gentleman how unequally it works. In some places the length of service in, say, the second class is eight years; in other places it is 12 years, so that in some towns a man equally capable will have to work four years longer in the second class than another man in another town before getting into the first class. Surely inequalities of this kind ought not to exist in the system. But there is even a greater evil in connection with this system, and it is that of the classification of towns for the purpose of fixing the maximum weekly salary. I have a list before me, and it is impossible to understand the basis on which it is arranged. I am speaking now of the Telegraph Department. In the list there are groups of towns. I will take the first group. Manchester heads the list, and Birmingham is at the bottom. The maximum remuneration of the group is fixed at 56s. a week. There are 531 employés in the Manchester office and 253 in the Birmingham office. The casual observer will at first suppose that it has been determined by the authorities, for some reason or other, which it is hard to imagine, to make the amount of wages in a particular place depend upon the number of persons employed. Let me test the working of this grouping system. In group one Birmingham, with 253 employés, has a maximum wage of 56s. But when I come to group two, I find that Newcastle heads the list with 260 employés and a maximum wage of 54s. Last down on the list of group two stands Sheffield with 73 employés, but in group three Cardiff stands first with 138 employés, Hull has 87, Aberdeen 82, Plymouth 82, Bradford 82, and-Exeter 78, all with a maximum of 52s. I fail to understand upon what

    867
    intelligible basis this grouping is placed. It is, however, clear that very great discontent must be caused by such an unequal system. The late Mr. Fawcett, in his scheme of 1881, made the maximum remuneration uniform, and a great deal is certainly to be said in favour of that view. I believe that in his Report he urged that labour should be paid what it was worth, and that the remuneration should not depend on the strength of the company in which the individual happened to be engaged. I think that this is a blot on the Post Office system, which may fairly be made a subject of inquiry. Yet another subject of great complaint is that of the system of overtime, for overtime in the Post Office is not an exception: it is a system. A few days ago, when the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire brought forward a Motion about overtime worked by railway servants, the Government agreed to appoint a Committee to inquire into the misdoings of the companies in that respect. How, then, in face of that fact, can they refuse an inquiry in regard to similar evils in the Post Office? Though I cannot make the case stronger than the noble Lord has put it, yet I wish to give a few figures on this point. I find that in 1890, in Dublin, there were 90,000 hours of overtime worked; in Liverpool, in the same year, 67,000 hours; and in Manchester 57,000 hours; and it must not be forgotten that most of this overtime is worked in the summer months, and is consequently more harmful to those engaged in it. Another point is that this work is chiefly done by the persons of the junior or lower ranks, probationers and substitutes, and the object of this doubtless is to get the work done cheaply. But the system prejudicially affects the Post Office servants, the Service itself, and the public. It affects the servants because it interferes with promotion; the Service, because the work is not done so efficiently as it might otherwise be; and it affects the public because the duty cannot be so accurately performed as if done by persons in higher ranks. I venture to assert that by employing this class of labour the Department is not carrying out fairly the responsibilities which are entailed upon it with regard to the public. This matter of overtime is one of the utmost importance. Another subject to which I
    868
    wish to allude is the question of promotion. Now, with regard to promotion in the Post Office, two systems are observed—that of selection and that of seniority. Doubtless much is to be said on behalf of both; but should not an opportunity be afforded of inquiring which of those modes is the best in the interests alike of the Service and of the public? We have recently had a revision scheme which no doubt has done something for the upper grades of the Department. But it has practically left the second class untouched, and this, naturally, has given rise to discontent. Let me call attention to the case of the rural postmen—a hard-working class of men who discharge their duties under trying circumstances, but who for some reason appear to be outside the pale of the Post Office, and not to be on the same footing as the other employés Why is it? I will give the House one instance which has lately been brought to my notice—the case of a postman who has a long service, and who is paid at the rate of 4s. a week.
    MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: Four shillings a day.
    MR. LOCKWOOD: No; it is 4s. a week. Two years ago he had four or five miles added to his beat, and was promised an increase of pay, but as yet he has not received it. He now walks 12 miles three days a week, and nine miles on the other three days. In the month of January this year this man delivered 1,221 letters; in February, 1,035 letters. I have no doubt there are hundreds of such cases. This is a pitiable case. What do hon. Gentlemen think of a system which is capable of such things as this? Yet I am told with regard to a system which is capable of this that there is to be no inquiry. We shall very likely be told that the Postmaster General is perfectly satisfied, and that there will be no inquiry. It is in no unfriendly spirit towards the administration of the right hon. Gentleman that I have made these remarks. It would be most unfair if the House were to consider these matters as in any sense reflecting on the personal administration of the right hon. Gentleman. I can only say for myself that whenever I have been brought into personal communication with him, I have met with unfailing courtesy. But there is no

    869
    doubt the time has now come when this great overgrown system should be overhauled, and overhauled by impartial persons. What good could a departmental inquiry do into such a matter as this? The employés would not believe that it could take an unbiased view of the question. It is for these reasons that I second the Motion, and I hope to have a favourable answer from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to it.
    MR. AMBROSE: The noble Lord who moved this Resolution told us that the Motion on the Paper was intended to deal not only with the machinery of the Post Office, but also with its working, as it affected the general public. That, too, was the view I took of the Resolution itself, and I confess that I expected to hear from the preceding speakers something as to the deficiency of the Post Office with regard to the general public. I do not know, of course, what Members who may follow will have to say, but certainly not one single point has been made, either by the noble Lord or by my hon. and learned Friend who seconded the Motion, showing that the Post Office has in the letter or the telegraph department failed in the discharge of its duties. So far from cursing the Post Office, indeed, the hon. Members have blessed it. To pass the Resolution submitted to the House would be an affront to the management of the Post Office.
    EARL COMPTON: NO.
    MR. AMBROSE: I assure the House that I think it would. The noble Lord comes forward, however, as the best possible witness, for he says the Post Office has outgrown its clothes. Why? Because it has been successful; because it has been a profitable Department; because it has served people well, and the public have appreciated the services the Post Office has rendered. What would have been said if the Post Office had established a great and expensive staff for whom there was no work? Such things have happened. Take, for instance, the Registry of Land Department. A great outcry was made in this House with reference to the expenses of that Department. Provision was made for a staff for that Department, a number of well-qualified officials were appointed, and then it was found that there was very little work for them to do. But the
    870
    Post Office is a paying Department, showing a surplus on the year of £1,500,000. It has a monopoly which is the property of the nation. But directly you attempt to conduct it on different lines, to pay wages on fancy lines, the surplus will soon disappear. What is the true meaning of the Resolution? It has been said truly that this is a labour question, and I should have thought that it would have been better to have left this struggle to be fought out in the usual way, without taking sides by a Motion in this House. As to the boy messengers, what did my noble Friend say about them? That was a question in which the Government were asserting a monopoly which belonged to the nation, and I hold that the Department were bound to assert the national right, irrespective of sympathy with one side or the other. My noble Friend said that he was glad to hear that that question had been settled, and he took credit to himself—credit that his Motion being on the Paper had had something to do with procuring that settlement. If that is so, all I can say is that it is a very great pity. Questions between capital and labour and between the Government and its employés should not be influenced by Motions in this House. We are all subjected as Members of this House to all manner of whips from employés of the Civil Service and the Post Office, and I know that when the status of the Civil Service clerks was being settled some time ago there was among Members generally a feeling of disgust at the telegrams and letters being received almost every minute from people seeking to influence our votes on some particular question of interest to them. I hope I shall always be sufficiently independent to do my duty in these matters, and not to allow myself to be dictated to on any question of the kind. The noble Lord, after giving us a number of instances of the overtime to which some of the clerks in the Savings Bank Department had been subjected, stated that the Ridley Commission laid it down that no clerk should be bound to work more than seven hours a day. Has the noble Lord read the Report of the Ridley Commission? The fact is, that the clerks were working only six hours a day, and the Commission said that instead of working six they should work

    871
    seven hours—that is to say, that they should have an hour's additional work.
    EARL COMPTON: I beg the hon. and learned Member's pardon. I have read the Report of the Commission, but I do not think he can have paid much attention to the paragraph, which states that the evidence given by some of the clerks of the Government Office showed that the average amount of overtime work was five hours per day per man, and expresses the opinion that it cannot be right or desirable that such a system shall continue.
    MR. AMBROSE: If the noble Lord would have waited for a moment I would have dealt with the question of overtime, which is a totally different question. The question of overtime arises mainly out of the attempt of the clerks to make their own terms. What I, wish to point out is that the regular time of the Savings Bank clerks, and I believe of a good many of the Post Office clerks also, was six hours a day, and what the Commission said was that, instead of working only six hours, they should work seven. From that time to this there has been a struggle on the part of the Heads of Departments and the Treasury to get the hours increased accordingly; and the result has been that, so far as the Receiver General's and Accountants Departments are concerned, the men have acceded to the new arrangement, and with an increased pay—I think £30. But the Savings Bank clerks have refused the terms, and the consequence is, there has been a difficulty in getting through the work, and there has necessarily been a resort to overtime. As regards the question of compulsory overtime, the rule is this: the Post Office claim a right, when the Service requires it, to compel every clerk to work overtime, of course, with increased pay; but in practice the increased pay is always sufficient to attract men who will volunteer the labour. The noble Lord said he did not intend to make a personal attack on the Postmaster General; but has he seen a pamphlet published by his clients headed" Mr. Raikes and the Sweating System in the Post Office?" I think the noble Lord might have hesitated before attempting to act as the champion of the author of that pamphlet.
    EARL COMPTON: May I be allowed to state at once that I have no knowledge whatever of the authorship of any such pamphlet?
    MR. AMBROSE: I am very glad to hear it; but it is a fact, nevertheless, though the noble Lord does not know it, that in the pamphlet all sorts of motives are imputed to the Postmaster General and the Financial Secretary. The noble Lord says this is not a Party question. Is it not? Does the noble Lord think the Service of the country can be conducted if the servants of the Government are to be encouraged in rebellion against the Government as these Post Office clerks have been encouraged? [Cries of" Oh!"] Well, what can you call it? Can discipline be maintained with a Select Committee sitting, with the Postmaster General and the Secretary and the Financial Secretary of the Post Office and the Head of every Department standing by, to hear all the servants called to give evidence as to their grievances for years past—
    An hon. MEMBER An hon. MEMBER: The Ridley Commission.
    MR. AMBROSE: Well, that Commission is over, and we do not want another. At all events that Commission was general and not directed to any one Department. What would you think of the Great Northern Railway Company or any of our great Railway Companies if they appointed a Select Committee to consider the conduct of the Directors, and to inquire into the grievances of the men, and, if the workmen had votes, in the selection of the Directors? It seems to me that this Resolution is aimed at the Government, and that, whether intended or not, its effect must inevitably be to weaken the Government in the conduct of an important Department—a Department which can only be conducted successfully by maintaining discipline; and I shall certainly, therefore, vote against the Resolution.
    MR. NEVILLE: I will not go into the grievances which the servants of the Post Office are subjected to, as I think they have been explained well enough to the House. But I want, as one of the Representatives of a great city, to emphasise the statements which have already been made as to the widespread discontent which does exist in the Postal De-

    873
    partment. For my part I always think that it is not a wise course, when a spirit of discontent exists, to avoid going into the question whether or not there really is a grievance at the bottom of it. As I understand the Motion to night, it is simply that this matter shall be inquired into, and I shall most heartily support an inquiry because I think it is one which, in the interests of the public as well as the interests of the Service, ought to take place. My hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Ambrose) wanted to know why the Service would not be satisfied with a departmental inquiry. I confess I am surprised at such a suggestion coming from such an intelligent Member of this House. The reason is that it is the Department generally that is called in question, and it is a recognised principle that it is not wise to put the accused person in the position of Judge, because the probability is that he will find the case not proved, and that is why we want an independent tribunal to inquire into the charges made—into the general administration of the Department. My hon. and learned Friend expressed great indignation at a suggestion which he says emanates from some of the servants in the Postal Department, that the Department is guilty of the adoption of the sweating system, and in an early part of his speech he wondered how business could be carried on if we interfered in any shape or way with the laws of supply and demand. I wish to point out to my hon. and learned Friend that if the Government were to depend upon the unimpeded course of the law of supply and demand, if higher wages were never to be given than are demanded in the labour market, we should have the sweating system in full force. I feel that that is not the position that should be taken up by the Government of a country like this. The country should see that its servants are remunerated, not at the lowest rate at which labour can be obtained, but fairly, so as to enable them to maintain themselves and their families in decency and comfort. I cannot see any real hope for the working classes of this country if it is to be understood that the Government are to purchase labour at starvation wages rather than interfere with the law of supply and demand. I am afraid that, however good the inten-
    874
    tions of the Postmaster General may be, he is not in a position that permits him to carry those good intentions into effect. When the Postmaster General, some 12 months ago, held out hopes that the second-class telegraphists at Liverpool would have their salaries increased, for some few weeks afterwards those men received increased pay. Then, as I understand, a Treasury Minute was issued, and not only was the increased pay of those unfortunate men stopped, but they were compelled to refund that which they had already received. After that, we cannot rely much on the good intentions of the Postmaster General, because we cannot believe he has sufficient authority to carry them out.
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: The only doubt I have on this question arises from the fact that I think it is most detrimental that the Service should be interfered with, and the public put to inconvenience by agitations such as have recently taken place. Still, I agree with the noble Lord opposite that we should have an inquiry into the grievances of the staff. I beg most respectfully to submit to the First Lord of the Treasury whether it would not be possible to have an inquiry into the administration of the Post Office very much on the lines of the recent inquiry by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury into the working of the Customs House. That inquiry brought to light several grievances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, went exhaustively into the complaints that were made, and ascertained that there were grievances to be redressed. The Postmaster General has done something for the Post Office, but I feel that he has not gone far enough. I do not consider it is right for this country to employ its servants at a low rate of wages. No private employer would do what the Government have done, but if the Government encourages overwork, private employers will do the same. I appeal to the Government to assent to an inquiry of the nature I have mentioned, without any reflection on the Postmaster General whatever.
    SIR E. J. REED: The right hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down remarked that it was un-

    875
    desirable to encourage agitation among public servants, and with that observation I entirely agree; but I think it is a pity that public Departments are so conducted as to render such agitation inevitable. At a large meeting of the Post Office employés it was my fortune to attend, I ascertained that undoubted grievances did exist among them. I think the Postmaster General himself and his principal advisers do not make sufficient allowances for the feelings, the expectations, and the disappointment of their own officers. Twelve months ago when a similar Motion to this was brought before the House I had to take considerable notice of the case of the Cardiff telegraphists, and I am bound to say that on every occasion, when I put the Postmaster General to the trouble of speaking with me on the subject, he answered me most fairly and considerately. I believe he has tried to do, and I do not doubt he thinks he has done all that could fairly and reasonably be expected of him. But what is the state of things? I venture to think that the group of Cardiff telegraphists, having been distributed about the country, are the nuclei of agitation and dissatisfaction that will never be stopped until something like what they regard as justice is done to them. Here we have a number of zealous and excellent officials, for no proved complaint or even declared suspicion, sent away at the briefest possible notice from the town in which they resided, and subjected to several serious disadvantages, all of a penal character. I doubt whether the Postmaster General has ever understood the real feeling which exists in the breasts of these men, and of the whole telegraphic staff of the country, because of the treatment they have received. I should have no justification for reviving this question if the grievance were limited to some half-dozen gentlemen. But it is a burning cause of complaint throughout the whole telegraphic service, and I believe it will continue to be so until redress is given to these innocent men. It is quite true that some of these officers have been promoted to the 1st Class, and are more or less approximately contented. But the Post Office seems to think that if it sends a man into 2nd Class from one town to another, and keeps him in the same class, it will do
    876
    him no injury. But what is really done in many cases is to snatch a man away from prospective and imminent promotion, and to send him to another town where he goes to the bottom of the list in the same class and is thus deprived of a reasonable expectation of promotion. I feel, however, that in all these personal matters we shall be more likely to get individual grievances set right by appeals to the Postmaster General, and to his good sense and good feeling than in any other way. If I may make a criticism on the Debate of the evening, I must say I should have liked to see it extended to a statement of the shortcomings of the Post Office not only in relation to the personal staff, but to the growing necessities of this country and this Empire. I believe the reason of much discontent is that the Treasury absorbs the earnings of the Post Office in too great a degree. I remember having a conversation with the late Mr. Fawcett when he became Postmaster General, and I believe he entered the Post Office with the idea that he was about to undertake the charge of one of the most successful and praiseworthy Departments of the State. I took the liberty of telling him that I held the contrary view. I said I thought the Post Office the most inefficient Department that I ever knew, and pointed out to Mr. Fawcett that in many of the remote parts of Japan they had a better postal service than we have even now in many of the rural parts of this country. I do not advocate an inquiry with any view of casting discredit upon the Government, but there is only one way that I know of to improve the Service generally, and that is to strengthen the hands of the Postmaster General against the demands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Fawcett, I remember, told me that he had informed Mr. Gladstone that unless he allowed him to retain in the coming year at least £200,000 out of the profits of the Post Office for the purpose of developing the Service, he should not feel justified in continuing in his office or attempting to conduct the Department. There can be no doubt that the profit appropriated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is greater now than it has ever been before. [Mr. GOSCHEN: No.] At all events, it is to the appropriation

    877
    of that profit I attribute much, of the disadvantage under which the Postmaster General labours. I appealed to the Postmaster General to give further consideration to the cases of the gentlemen I have mentioned, because it is a burning shame that, in any great Department, there should be men, not convicted and not even charged with a fault, suffering for the rest of their lives disadvantages to which they never ought to have been subjected.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: The strained relations which have existed between the Postmaster General and myself during the last few years render it extremely difficult for me to take part in this discussion. I regret that the Resolution is not framed in a manner to commend it to the House and the public, because it does not embrace the grievances of the public, and it is concerned only with the grievances of the staff which it is well known have been recently alleviated at an annual cost of £250,000. It is perfectly well known that the Treasury embarrasses the Postmaster General to a considerable extent. I am debarred from voting for the Resolution because it does not refer to the grievances of the public. The first point of the public interest involved in these questions is the relation between the Post Office and the Treasury, for it is the Treasury that impedes the Postmaster General by appropriating the £3,000,000, out of which must come the cost of extending the postal facilities. During the last few years great reforms have been carried out, but unfortunately in the teeth of opposition from the permanent officials of the Post Office and from the Treasury, and the present Postmaster General will retire from office without getting credit for any of them; they were forced upon the officials, and he had to fight the Treasury during the whole period. There are certain grievances, the ventilation of which will interest the public; and some of these affect newspapers. Of late the permanent officials, through the mouth of the Postmaster General, have been issuing edicts against newspapers which contain too much news of general interest as distinct from news of current interest. If less than one-third of the contents of a paper is news of current interest then it
    878
    is not carried by the Post Office at newspaper rates. A more miserable and unworthy edict was never issued. The edicts of the Postmaster General in this respect have caused great dissatisfaction among the thinking portion of the community. Another great trouble to the people of the country is as regards circulars. In Continental countries circulars are sent in open envelopes; in this country the Postmaster General imposes a heavy fine on any circular which is included in an open envelope. This is an irritating restriction. A circular must be gummed across, or have a piece of string round it, and be open at both ends. If the Postmaster General would adopt the simple experiment used in America, of sending circulars in open envelopes, he would give great satisfaction to the trading community. Such a plan would permit of easy action. Another grievance is with reference to re-addressed letters. If a person sends a letter re addressed from Birmingham to London, a fine of one penny is imposed. Some hon. Members may not be aware that in the Postal Union if a letter is carried here from France, it is carried free of charge; the Government of France get the whole postage, and we do the work without any charge whatever. But in the case of a letter posted from Birmingham to London, the English Government get all the profits of the stamp, yet they charge the public for re-addressing it to another part of England. That is one of the other small reforms which we have asked from the Postmaster General, who always replies that the Treasury stands in the way. Another grievance is the refusal to allow type-written letters to go through the Post Office as ordinary circulars. The Postmaster General will soon learn that he will have to give in with regard to this. Another small reform which is needed has reference to postcards. When will the Postmaster General grant the request of the whole people of the country to buy them at the face value of ½d.? Every Member of Parliament wants this reform; yet when I have asked for it two or three times, the Postmaster General has refused, or referred me to the Treasury. Again, why should not the hour of collection be stamped on the letters as well as the date? Two hundred Members of the

    879
    House of Commons have signed a Requisition to the Postmaster General asking that the plan adopted in America and on the Continent should be put in force here, by which the hour of collection is stamped on the letter as well as the date. It would cost no more, and it would be a protection to the public from unnecessary delay in delivery. But that reform has not yet been carried out. There are other reforms which have been continually put before the Postmaster General, and for which a favourable consideration has been promised, although that promise has never been carried out. One of the great troubles of the public is the Postal Guide. A more confusing document could not possibly be issued. It is issued in the interests of the Department, but is so complicated a work that only an expert can understand it, and, beyond this, the Department are continually puzzling the public by the issue of new copies, so that the public are totally unable to understand how to carry on their correspondence in the best manner. I now turn to the Telegraph Department. There is no doubt that the question of reforms in this Department is really engaging the attention of the public, and I think that the sooner we carry out the necessary reforms the greater will be the advantage to the public and the higher the honour that will be conferred on to the Department. We are told that the Telegraph Department is already beginning to pay, and we think we have a right to ask that the addresses on the telegrams shall be sent free, as well as the telegram, on condition that the address does not exceed eight words. There are other miserable and irritating annoyances in connection with the Telegraph Department, to which I will direct the attention of the Postmaster General. One of these is the charge made for the receipt of telegrams. Under the present arrangement 2d. is charged for the receipt for a sixpenny telegram, whereas if I were to give a receipt for £100 I only have to pay 1d. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General to remedy this grievance. I may remind him that he promised to do so three years ago; but last year he wrote a most humiliating confession, that although he had asked the Treasury to enable him to
    880
    carry out this reform, they had refused to accede to his request. The whole thing would not amount to the loss of £10 a year, and yet the right hon. Gentleman is unable to persuade the Treasury authorities to carry out this small reform. The public also complain of the worry and annoyance occasioned by the rules of the Telegraph Department with regard to compound words in telegrams. The names of places are often charged as two and three words in place of one word. For example,"De Vere" is charged for as one word, while" Da Vere Gardens" is charged for as three words. Again, the word"won't" is charged for as one word, while"shan't" is charged for as two." Upstairs" is charged for as one word, and"downstairs" as two words." Baron de Worms" is charged for as one word, while" Orr Ewing" is two words. There are many other anomalies of this kind which might easily be remedied with very little loss to the Revenue. There are no fewer than 100 places in England which are charged for as two words, but which ought only to be charged for as one, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that all compound words should in future be charged as one word only. That, at any rate, is the common-sense view to take of the matter. IN doing this the Postmaster General would be conferring a boon upon the public which would be fully appreciated, and which could be granted at a very small cost. I hope that the result of these annoyances from which the public suffer will be the appointment of a Committee, not composed of members of the Postmaster General's Department nor of the Treasury, but of Members of the House-of Commons, in order to see whether or not the reforms I have indicated could be carried out in the interests of the general public. I have only further to thank the House for the attention with which it has listened to my remarks, and to express my earnest hope that some such reforms as I have suggested will speedily be carried out.
    MR. CAUSTON: Notwithstanding the long list of grievances which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury has brought forward against the Post Office, I gather from what he has said that, notwithstanding the strained relations

    881
    between the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General and himself, the hon. Member does not intend to vote for the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Barnsley (Earl Compton). We have heard the speech of the hon. Member for the Harrow Division (Mr. Ambrose), and I am sure we shall all deplore the inconvenience that he has suffered by the great pressure that has been brought to bear upon him by discontented Post Office officials; but, at the same time, we cannot but congratulate him on the noble independence he has displayed in the resistance he has offered to these attacks. My noble Friend (Earl Compton) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lockwood), and the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Neville), have made out a very good case for inquiry. I do not desire to prolong this discussion by going into many details, but, at the same time, I cannot see why an inquiry should not be held into the administration of this great Department. We have had inquiries relating to the Army and Navy, and I want to know why we should not have an inquiry into this great business Department—the Post Office. It is said that this question ought not to be made a Party question, and in that remark I cordially agree. We are all interested in the success of the Post Office and its good conduct, and I do not see how the inquiry can detrimentally interfere with either. It is not only a question of labour, but there are various other matters which would have to be inquired into, such as have been referred to by the hon. Member for Canterbury, one of them relating to the charges made for the service rendered and the regulations enforced with regard to parcel post, book post, and letters. There is no doubt that our commercial interests suffer greatly from the anomalies in connection with these matters. The hon. Member for Canterbury has said that he has for three years been attacking the Postmaster General without any good result. Therefore I think that the hon. Member ought to vote for the proposed inquiry. With regard to labour, there is discontent among the postmen and telegraphists, and postal and savings banks clerks, and their grievances have been pressed forward not only by the officials themselves, but by the public at large, who take an interest in
    882
    deserving public servants. If everything is right the Department has nothing to fear; if there is anything wrong it ought not to be left without investigation. The Government on this question ought to desire that their followers should give an independent and not a Party vote. Without occupying further time I would earnestly press upon the Government the desirability of granting a Select Committee or a Royal Commission on this question. It ought not to be a departmental inquiry, because a merely departmental inquiry would not give satisfaction. If we desire to give satisfaction alike to the Post Office officials and to the public by all means let us have an inquiry with which all persons interested are likely to be satisfied. I can only further express my sincere hope that the Postmaster General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree to the Motion of my noble Friend.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): In the first place, I wish to recognise the very kindly and conciliatory tone towards myself personally which has pervaded all the speeches in support of what is practically a Vote of Censure upon my' administration. But having said that, I am bound also to confess that I have listened with a great deal of surprise—I may say of astonishment—to very much that has been said to-night. The noble Lord who brought forward the Motion, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who seconded it, and other hon. Members, have talked of the"widespread discontent throughout the ranks of the Postal Service," of the" general dissatisfaction," and of several things of that sort. I beg to traverse those charges. There is no" widespread discontent," no" general dissatisfaction." I will go further, and say that at no time of late years has there been a more general feeling of content and satisfaction among the employés. One would think that the speeches made by the noble Lord and others who followed him had been rehearsed last year, when, no doubt, there was considerable discontent and dissatisfaction; but in not one of those speeches was there one word as to what has been done to allay that discontent and remove that dissatisfaction. The noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman who supported him have been silent

    883
    about that. I do not wish to detain the House by dwelling upon the steps which have been taken, particularly as I had an opportunity eight or ten months ago of imparting to the House what had then been done to meet the demands and satisfy the requirements of the Post Office officials. But it is due to the House, after what has been said, or rather has not been said, to state that what has been done comprises the following changes: Overtime, as far as postal clerks and telegraphists are concerned, is now paid at a rate and a quarter. The cost of that payment is estimated at £11,000 per annum. Extra pay for Sunday work, which in the provinces amounts to double pay, comes to £53,000 a year; the improvement in the wages in the provinces, £47,500 a year; in the London Central Telegraph Office, £13,000 a year; and in the Metropolitan district to £5,500 a year; extra pay, given upon Bank holidays, £22,000 a year; the revision of the superintending classes throughout the Kingdom now in progress, and about half completed, is estimated to cost £41,000 a year, and the sick pay additionally granted comes to £15,000 a year. The total amount of these additions to wages and the improvements in the condition of sorting clerks and telegraphists amounts to no less an addition to the annual charge on the country than £207,000, and to all this not one single reference has escaped those who have spoken.
    EARL COMPTON: The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that I alluded to the benefits which have recently been granted, and I thanked the right hon. Gentleman for them.
    MR. RAIKES: I think the noble Lord has done so in a very perfunctory manner, and has referred to these things only to dismiss them. When this question was under the consideration of the Government last year they laid down a clear policy, namely, to increase the numbers of the staff so as to reduce overtime, to deal with those various financial changes to which I have referred, and to improve and adjust the position of the superior officers. All that has been done, or is in the course of being done—the whole of the machinery for carrying out that policy is in working order. Overtime, with the one exception of the office to which so much reference has been made, is not exces-
    884
    sive, and all that is required is to leave these reforms to bear their natural fruit, and to test by experience how far they correspond to the just anticipations which have been formed. I think that when the noble Lord commenced his remarks he must have rather disappointed many of those who came here to-night expecting to hear from him a general and comprehensive indictment of the administration of the Post Office. I think that they must have been a little surprised when they found that the noble Lord dealt merely in the way of putting them aside with the various questions which he enumerated, such as that of communication between the Western Highlands and with the North of Ireland, further facilities with regard to postcards, and with that question of colonial postage which is so dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Canterbury, and, in fact, many interesting topics to which he referred only to put them aside. I will only refer to one other of those extraneous matters which the noble Lord has mentioned in more than one sentence, namely, the recent controversy with the Boy Messenger Company. For my own part, I have no wish to drag the House into a discussion on that point, which would be outside the general course of this Debate; but as the noble Lord has-been good enough to take credit to himself for supposing that his having put down this Motion has accelerated the settlement, I may say that it never crossed my mind that the noble Lord could possibly have dragged that question into the Debate which he proposed to originate to-night, and I must regretfully disabuse the noble Lord of any of the prestige which might possibly attach to him that he had contributed in any manner to the settlement of that question. The noble Lord talked about Petitions to the Postmaster General, and said that there had been a great many. For my own part I suppose that no Postmaster General has ever received so many or has answered so many, as myself, and I can assure the noble Lord that, if he thinks that these Petitions were burked on their way to me, he is entirely mistaken. There might be some irregularity in the form of a Petition, or some impropriety in its expressions which might lead the head of the branch of the

    885
    Department to send it back to the petitioners, informing them that it was not in proper form; but even in such a case, as far as I can say, I believe I am always made aware of the fact that a Petition has been presented, and the reasons for its being sent back. In the case of the Petition of the London sorting force with regard to the Medical Department, they were told that that was a Petition which their superior officer would not be justified in forwarding, at least as far as that branch of the Department was concerned, and I do not think they were the people whom the Postmaster General could gain by consulting as to the constitution of the Medical Department. Although I am always ready to take notice of any specific complaint made in any particular case against any medical officer, it would be almost impossible to conduct the business of the office if the Postmaster General had to take into his confidence all the sorters of the office as to who was best fitted to be a medical adviser to the Post Office. I have, however, been informed of the Petition, and have endorsed the action of the officer who told them that it was an irregular Petition, and one that could not be presented. With regard to the Petition of the Savings Bank clerks, which it is said had been intercepted by the Financial Secretary to the Post Office, it is perfectly true that the Financial Secretary had referred that Petition back to the memorialists, intimating that it was a document which would not serve their interests, and advising them for their own sakes not to present it. What followed? They did present it, and it reached me through the Comptroller of the Savings Bank instead of the Financial Secretary. I believe that the head of the Department is kept perfectly informed as to every Petition, or suggestion, or memorial that emanates from any class or any branch of it. The case which has been made most of, and which I admit is a serious one, though not one which, in my opinion can in any way be elucidated by a Parliamentary Committee, is the question of overtime in the Savings Bank. I desire to point out that during the sitting of the Ridley Commission, to which so much reference has been made, the staff was not recruited, and it accordingly declined in numbers. The status of these men was being inquired into, and the staff, not
    886
    being increased, diminished. Thus overtime necessarily grew. It is to be regretted, but it could not be avoided. Till last year, however, overtime was very popular, and officers who have left the Savings Bank Department and been removed to other Departments volunteered for overtime at Christmas. When the period of compulsory overtime expired, only the other day, 138 out of 531 came forward and voluntarily offered to continue overtime. I mention this to show that overtime is not regarded by the staff as an unmixed evil, as is sometimes supposed. The noble Lord said that 531 men had worked 268,000 hours overtime, and that this amounted to the services of 150 men all the year round. I cannot accept that computation, because if you divide 268,000 by 531, the proportion is a trifle over 500 hours, and I cannot see how the proportion of 500 hours can require the services of such a staff as 150 men. But the staff has now been increased, and the Department is in a position to dispense with excessive overtime. Some time ago I stated in the House that overtime in the Post Office was voluntary. Exception has been taken to that statement, but I was perfectly justified in. making it at the time. No difficulty had ever been experienced in obtaining volunteers, and it was not thought that at any time it would be necessary to have recourse to compulsion. Certain men in. the Department, however, conceived the idea of putting the Government in a position of embarrassment, from volunteering for overtime, and declined to work themselves. Then it was that it became necessary to resort to compulsion and to exercise that inherent power which resides in the head of every Department, as in every place of business, to insist on the necessary work of the country being done and to insist upon the servants of the Department assisting in performing their duty to the State. Now, what were the grievances of those 551 clerks? Their position had been improved—they had received a substantial addition to-their salaries, and the maximum salary had been raised from £300 to £350. They had also received assurances that their prospects of promotion would be-most jealously safeguarded. Yet they were not satisfied. Why was this?

    887
    Because, in my opinion, and in that of my principal advisers, it was undesirable at present to increase the numbers of a staff which showed a disposition to give trouble. Accordingly the Department resorted to the alternative of bringing in female instead of male clerks. To this the male clerks objected. They said that they always expected that, as the business of the Department grew, the number of male clerks would increase, and that the number of superior appointments would also be increased—that they not only expected that their prospects of promotion would remain as good as when they entered, but that they would improve by reason of the increase of the clerks. That was an attitude which no one responsible for the Department could recognise. They were entitled to just and considerable treatment; but they could not be permitted to assume that the Department existed for their benefit. These clerks further said that their prospects of promotion were threatened because it was possible that under the new arrangements the number of superior appointments might diminish. I do not deny that there is something to be said for that contention. All I can say in answer to it is that I have determined, and so have those who are engaged on the permanent work of the Department, that in so far as in us lies we will protect the interests of all the men now in the service as far as their prospects of promotion go. And I would point out that, as they are now all members of the second division, their prospects of promotion are not limited to the particular branch in which they serve. Having now given what I hope is a perfectly fair and candid account of the question raised between the clerks in the Savings Bank and the authorities of the Post Office, I hope I have, in the opinion of the House, really exploded the only thing which looked like a substantial grievance. The noble Lord also touched upon one or two points. He referred to the long hours which telegraph boys have been called on in some cases to work. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said as to the desirability of not employing boys for such long hours. I very much deprecate their employment for such long hours; but I think it would perhaps have been more useful to the boys themselves, and fairer to me,
    888
    if the noble Lord had supplied me with the instances to which he referred, and, by writing to me, given me an opportunity of redressing any particular grievance. I would like, however, to point out in this connection that it has been made during the last few weeks a matter of great complaint against the new Post Office Express Service that I did not send out boys at all hours of the night. The noble Lord has also referred to the drivers of mail carts. He said they got 24s. a week and worked from 4 in the morning to 8 o'clock in the evening. I cannot suppose that their work is continuous; there must be considerable intervals; but I do not see that I am called upon to interfere in the private conduct of their business by the contractors now serving the public unless some serious known grievanceis brought to my notice. I have done my very best in the course of the last three years to cut down the long hours during which the postmen work, and there is hardly an important town in the country in which I have not succeeded, with the full assent of the Treasury, in reducing their hours to 12, or at the outside to 13. And the House must remember that I do not mean by that, continuous work. Those are the extreme hours over which the work is spread. As regards the rural postmen, I shall always be very glad to deal with any question of hardship in any special case. Since last year the Government has taken a very important step in suppressing the class of unestablished London postmen at 18s. a week, whose grievances formed so fertile a topic in the discussion which took place in 1890, and all the men it was possible to take into the Service are now established postmen. I think the noble Lord might have informed himself on that point before referring to the matter in a manner which led the House to imagine that the unestablished force still existed. With regard to the question of temporary employment of female telegraph clerks at lower wages, where should the Post Office go for it if not to their old servants? There is many a former female clerk whose matrimonial venture may not have been altogether successful, and who may have been left a widow with children to support. She is, at all events, in a position to claim the sympathy and consideration of the Department. As to the wages given, it is

    889
    not possible to give temporary assistants anything like the wages earned by the regular servants, but I believe that in many cases 20s. a week is most thankfully received and most usefully applied. The hon. and learned Member for York drew attention to the question of the Epsom telegraphists. I think the hon. and learned Member is misinformed if he supposes that the whole of the Epsom staff is composed of men drawn from York, Manchester, Derby, and other places so far away; but I would point out that it is not desirable entirely to complete the temporary staff at Epsom from the Central Office, because every telegram from Epsom has to pass through the Central Office, and that is, therefore, not a time when the Central Office can afford to be depleted. With regard to the grouping of offices, I am not surprised that that should be a subject of criticism outside the Department. I am not certain now that we may not have gone a little too far in that direction; but the groups have in every case been based upon the character of the work, a matter upon which it is impossible for an outsider to form any opinion. The local authorities are undoubtedly the best judges of the nature and character of the work that passes through their hands. I am very much afraid that if one dead level maximum had been fixed it would have been impossible to fix it at a high point, and that, instead of the telegraphists of Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham earning 56s. a week as a maximum, they would more probably have had to be content with 50s. It is more than likely that the House and the Treasury would have said,"If we are to have one maximum only, we shall level down instead of up." The hon. Member for Liverpool, who apparently spoke chiefly with the object of denouncing the laws of supply and demand, took exception to an unfortunate incident that has affected some of the telegraphists at Liverpool. It is quite true that there was a mistake in an official document, and that by the document as printed it appeared that the Treasury sanctioned salaries of £155 instead of £150. The mistake—I do not know who is responsible for it, possibly the Queen's Printers —unfortunately escaped notice. If £155 had been retained as the amount of the salaries, it would have been necessary to give the same sum to all the men in
    890
    the same position in the future, and to allow it also to the clerks in Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, and other towns. An unnecessary expenditure would thus have been involved which we did not feel justified in asking Parliament to sanction. I am extremely sorry for the disappointment caused to the gentlemen concerned, but I hope that when they obtain their next annual increment they will forget not only the disappointment, but give the Department credit for not having attempted to perpetrate anything like a cruel hoax. The hon. Member for Cardiff has aired again the grievances of some of his interesting constituents. Having already discussed the question fully in this House, and having obtained from the House last year an express ratification of the course which I thought proper to take on the occasion referred to by the hon. Member, I must, with all respect to the hon. Member, decline to go into the question now. Discipline is discipline, order is order, and the Postmaster General must be given some little discretion, and when he thinks that certain clerks will be better employed at one office than another the personal interests of those clerks ought to be subordinated to the public interest. I am happy, however, to be able to inform the hon. Member that three of the seven clerks whom he has in his mind have been promoted to the first class in the offices to which they now belong, a promotion which they could not have obtained if they had remained at Cardiff. The hon. Member for Canterbury will forgive me if I do not follow him through the wide field which he has traversed. I wish the hon. Member would give the Government generally the credit which he is good enough to give to me. There is no reason why any distinction should be drawn between myself and my colleagues, who are equally desirous to do what can be done to improve the Postal Service. I appeal to the House not to encourage by any uncertainty in their decision to-night any recrudescence of that unfortunate feeling of discontent and dissatisfaction which at the present moment is almost at vanishing point in the Service. The noble Lord opposite is doubtless not aware of it, but he is being put in motion by the expiring Committees of the old agitation, and they do not represent any general feeling in the Service. I think I have shown to the House

    891
    that the Post Office, the Treasury, and Her Majesty's Government have given the most careful, most exhaustive, attention to all the grievances which have been brought before them, and have afforded most substantial and, as I believe, complete relief. It would never do if, in order to encourage the vapourings of three or four of those gutter journals which disfigure the Metropolitan Press, Members of this House were to make the grave mistake of throwing discredit upon a body of men like the permanent officials of the Post Office, of whom any country might be proud, with whom, I believe, any Minister would be delighted to work, and of diminishing the authority in his own Department of a Minister who, whatever may be his personal deficiencies, at least believes that he has done nothing to forfeit the confidence of this House.
    MR. THEDOREFRY: I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the question of the opening of private letters presumably at Post Offices in Ireland. This subject was raised many years ago, and questions have been put to predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman, the invariable answer being that such things never occur. But further cases have recently come to my notice, for letters of mine to Father O'Connor, a priest of Achill, have been opened before they reached my correspondent, and letters to me from Father O'Connor have been similarly treated. A political leaflet was abstracted from a letter which was sent to the rev. gentleman, and a photograph was abstracted from a letter sent to me. I sent a second letter and asked Father O'Connor to look carefully to see if it had been tampered with. He found it had. I then sent a third, and asked him to return it to me unopened. He did so, and I then found it had been re-opened and re-sealed. A railway official in Ireland told me that he believed a great proportion of his letters were opened. I have heard of other cases in which private letters have been opened, and whether this is done from curiosity or by official orders, it is a matter which demands the serious attention of the Postmaster General.
    MR. RAIKES: If the hon. Member will send me the envelopes of any letters which have been opened, I shall be glad to institute inquiry. Of
    892
    course, the Post Office cannot open letters; it would be a legal offence for any one in the Post Office to open them; and, therefore, they cannot be opened under official orders.
    MR. FLYNN: If it is an offence against the law, then unfortunately the law is very frequently broken in Ireland by high officials, and with the connivance of the authorities. We have brought numerous cases under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, and in fact it is quite a customary practice. There are certain Post Offices in my constituency in which it is done invariably, and if I am sending a confidential letter to a priest or to a well known Nationalist, I have to send it under cover to some one else. That is a common precaution nowadays. We do not charge the right hon. Gentleman with knowledge of the practice, but we say that the tone which he assumes in regard to our complaint is calculated to encourage the Post Office officials to look upon this as a trifling matter. I can only repeat that if the opening of letters is an infraction of the law such infractions of the law are committed daily in Ireland.
    MR. SEXTON: Tear after year I have complained of the practice. I wish the hon. Member joy of what will follow from sending envelopes to the Postmaster General. After a decent interval there will come a reply stating that searching and exhaustive inquiry has been made without any result. I can tell the Postmaster General that private letters are habitually and daily opened by his officials in Ireland. I have made complaint of it to him without result. I say that of all the mean devices by which Government is carried on, this mean and sneaking system is the worst, and we shall denounce it if it were proved against the meanest Government in Europe.
    (12.15.) The House divided:—Ayes 163; Noes 93.—(Div. List, No. 139.)
    Main Question proposed,"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    SUPPLY. — Committee upon Monday next.

    FALSE MARKING PREVENTION (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 187.)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,"That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. T. M. HEALT: What explanation are we to have of this Bill?
    MR. HOWARD VINCENT: This is a simple amendment of a sub-clause in the Merchandise Marts Act, 1887. Last year evidence was given before the Select Committee showing that two inconsistent facts have to concur to constitute the offence of blind marking, and the enactment is thus rendered nugatory. The evidence of the Cutlers' Company before the Select Committee showed that the Sub-sections B and C of Subsection 3 of Section 3 are utterly inconsistent, and the Bill simply proposes that the superfluous Sub-section B shall be omitted, in order that the law may be enforced. I hope that the House will not object to the Second Beading, on the ground so fully stated in the Memorandum that I need not further detain the House at this late hour.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I think that the matter required more consideration than has been given it in the hon. Member's speech. The question is whether the Sub-section really requires any Amendment. It appears to me that the Sub-sections which are said to be inconsistent may in certain cases have to stand together, and I think some explanation is necessary. I should like to explain in a few words what would be the effect of their standing together. I join issue with my hon. and gallant Friend as to what would be the state of things if they were read separately. Sub-section 3 requires, that in order for it to be an offence, the false or improper naming shall be identical with or a colourable imitation of the name of some other person carrying on a similar business. Take the case of a well known firm, such as Parkins and Gotto, one condition of an offence would be that that name should be taken fictitiously, or used by some persons not bonâ fide carrying on business in the class of goods dealt in by Parkins and
    894
    Gotto; and the two conditions must coexist together. It is not intended to prevent a man from trading in his own name, and also in an assumed name so long as he does not thereby do injury to another person. It is a matter for grave consideration, whether or not the two conditions ought not to exist together, namely, imitation of a rival trader and no justification for the use of the name in your own business. There are names used which are fictitious, but well-known in trade such as"Waukenphast," which everybody know is not a man's name, but merely a corruption of"Walking fast." It would be ridiculous to propose to stop the use of that name because it is fictitious, when its use is doing no harm to anyone. I do not wish to express a final opinion on the hon. and gallant Member's proposal. It is rather a question for hon. Members who are acquainted with trading matters, and I do not pretend to indicate to them what should be the decision of the House on the subject. I did think, however, it might be of service to the House to point out what is the effect of the conditions if they are read together, and what will be the effect of the change proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    MR. HALDANE: I certainly agree with the view presented to the House by the Attorney General on the part of the Government. This Bill seems to me to be another of the series of attempts that have been made by traders from time to time to commit a robbery on the English language. They want to secure a monopoly in names for trading purposes. The attempt has been made over and over again in the Civil Courts, and it has failed as often as it has been made. The doctrine laid down by the Courts comes to this: that a person may trade in whatever name he pleases, so long as he does not infringe a trade mark or is not guilty of a fraud, and what the hon. and gallant Member wants to do is to secure to the traders rights that they have not got at present. He is trying to invoke the Criminal Law to do what he knows the Courts, in the exercise of their equitable jurisdiction, would never do. He wants to make it an offence to carry on business under a fictitious name, though that name is used bonâ fide as a kind of advertisement.
    MR. HOWARD VINCENT: No; because a trading name can be registered.
    MR. HALDANE: What difference ought that to make? The question is, whether anyone has the right to appropriate and enjoy a monopoly in a part of the English language. Under the circumstances, the House ought to consider carefully before extending privileges which are not in the interest of the public, but of particular traders.
    MR. HOWELL: I may say, in regard to this matter, that there does not appear to be present at this moment any Member of the Select Committee which sat upstairs to consider this subject. It seems to me that the object of the Bill is to satisfy the desires of someone in Sheffield, but the subject appears to me of such importance that, if dealt with at all, it should be by the Government. I beg, therefore, to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word" now," and, at the end of the question, to add the words" upon this day six months."—(Mr. Howell.)
    Question proposed," That the word ' now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. CHANCE: I would point out that if the Bill passed in its present form, it would be absolutely ineffective. As the law stands at present, the use of a fictitious name is only forbidden when a fraudulent purpose is manifest. If this Bill is carried the question of fraud disappears, and the use of a fictitious name is forbidden it it is not registered as a trade mark; but if it is so registered, it will be in order. All a person wishing to use a fictitious name will have to do will be to spend £2 in having that name registered.
    MR. HOWARD VINCENT: The hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) says this matter was considered by the Committee on the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887. A Select Committee, of which I was a member, sat last year to inquire into the operation of that Act since 1887, and the Master Cutler, of Sheffield, in giving evidence, said—
    " I think the Merchandise Marks Act ought to prevent the use of fictitious names unless they are registered. We were under the impression that it would, but it does not do so."
    896
    The Deputy Clerk of the Cutlers' Company, in his evidence, dealt strongly with the same point, and showed that the section, as it stands, does not facilitate the identification of fictitiously-marked goods. I would ask the Attorney General if it would not be possible to introduce some Amendment which would meet the cases he raised as to the legitimate use of a trading name.
    SIR R.WEBSTER: The question put by the hon. and learned and gallant Gentleman seems to me simply to raise the whole principle involved.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: We may take it now as a privilege clearly asserted and vindicated by the Attorney General that men may use names that are not their own.
    (12.42.) The House divided:—Ayes. 16 Noes 89.—(Div. List, No. 140.)
    Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for six months.

    DIVORCE BILL.—(No. 281.)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed," That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. J. R. KELLY: The Bill has never been printed, and I object to proceeding with so important a Bill at this hour of the night. I beg to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
    MR. HUNTER: I would point out that this is a one clause Bill, and that it would be quite as easy to take the discussion oh the Committee stage as at present. One point is to enable a divorce to be obtained in case of desertion.
    MR. F. S. POWELL: I hope the House will not continue a Debate on this important subject at this hour, The-Bill has not yet been circulated.
    Debate deferred till Friday, 1st May.

    DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 66.)
    Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
    It being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
    House adjourned at One o'clock, till Monday next.

SAT FIRST.
The Earl of Carnarvon, after the death of his father.
NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES BILL.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My lords, I wish to ask my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies a question of which I have given him private notice. I have looked at the precedent quoted by my noble Friend the other night with regard to Procedure in the House of Commons in hearing Petitioners at the Bar of that House, and I find that in 1838, upon the Canada Bill, they pursued what seems a very singular course — namely, that although the principle of the Bill was objected to by the Canadians, they read the Bill a second time without Debate, and then Mr. Roebuck was heard on behalf of the colony, and afterwards the Debate, as it was distinctly laid down, took place upon the principle as if the Second Reading was not past, upon the question that the House should go into Committee. But I have been informed that there has been found some precedent in this House the other way. If that is so, I am sure my noble Friend will be glad to take advantage of it, and enable us to pursue the more rational course of hearing the Petitioners if they should think fit to Petition the House first, and read the Bill a second time afterwards, when we are in full possession of their case. I desire to ask the noble Lord whether, if it be found on the further consideration of the matter, that that course can be taken, he will put off the Second Reading of the Bill for a reasonable time?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): I am much obliged to the noble Earl for bringing this question under consideration. When I made some remarks a few nights ago about the invariable practice of having the Bill read a second time before Counsel were heard against
  778
  it, I confined them strictly to the House of Commons, but since that time I have found that in the Jamaica case in 1839 in this House Counsel were heard upon the Order for the Second Reading. When the Order for Second Reading was read, Counsel were heard and then the Second Reading was taken. Therefore, in hearing Counsel before the Second Reading, we should be acting strictly in accordance with the precedent of 1839, which was the last time that Counsel were heard at the Bar of this House. Moreover, since I made those remarks my attention has been called to the fact that the Procedure of the House of Commons has been altered since 1839, and, whereas formerly after the Second Reading of a Bill there was an opportunity of further Debate on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair—and that is the Motion to which my noble Friend has referred, and on which the Debate took place—that has now been swept away, and the consequence is that the Speaker leaves the Chair at once on the Bill going into Committee. Therefore, it is probable in the House of Commons, under the altered procedure, if the representatives of Newfoundland desire to be heard in the House of Commons, they would be heard before the Second Reading. In view of that fact, and considering also that it is desirable that there should be uniformity of action between the two Houses, I propose not to move the Second Reading of the Bill on Monday, but to put it down for Thursday or Friday, and that will give plenty of time for the Petition, which I believe is nearly if not quite ready to be presented, and for the Motion to be made that Counsel be heard before the Second Reading.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Perhaps it would be convenient to your Lordships that I should take this opportunity of saying that I shall have a Petition to present from the Legislature of Newfoundland praying to be heard by Representatives at the Bar of your Lordships' House with reference to the legislative proposals of the Bill which has been introduced by the Government. I shall, therefore, on the Second Reading of the Bill, move that the prayer of the Petition be granted.

THE AUSTRALIAN CONVENTION.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD NORTON: In asking Her Majesty's Government whether they would lay upon the Table of the House Papers relating to the draft constitution agreed to by the Australian Convention, said: My Lords, I know that the Draft Bill for the Constitution agreed to by the Convention for the Australian Colonies has appeared in extenso in the newspapers, and it is for that reason, and because of the comments which have been made upon it in the Press, and in general conversation, that I think it would be most desirable that the noble Lord should, as soon as possible, give what I may call an authoritative correction of a very false impression which has become prevalent of the nature of this Bill, and which, for the great interests involved, requires information before the discussion of the Bill in the Imperial Parliament, and before its ratification by any of the individual Australian Colonies. It seems to be considered by many that the Bill shows an intentional departure from the Constitution of the Mother Country, and that its framers have preferred for its model the more democratic version of that Constitution, which a blunder in policy led our most powerful old colonies, now the United States, to adopt in actual separation from us. I believe that more authoritative information, and the presentation of Papers upon this subject, will show precisely the reverse, that the closest possible reproduction of the Home Constitution has been aimed at by the Australians as far as possible in a distant colony. The circumstances of a new and offset community are, of course, such as not to admit of an actual fac simile of the ancestral Constitution, but as far as they could adhere to it it seems to me they have. The double House of Legislature was at once adopted by the Convention, without any Debate whatever. This point, indeed, is universally agreed upon. It was long ago exhaustively discussed by the founders of our first great colonies, and the celebrated lessons drawn from their English experience, and recorded in the Federalist, have left no rational question as to the necessity, in the interests of freedom, of a Second Chamber in the
  780
  Legislature to check the tyranny of sudden impulse or inconsiderate changes emanating from the single action of the first. That being conceded without any difficulty, and at once adopted, the principal Debate of the Convention was upon the status of their Senate and its composition, and I think it is clear, as far as we can gather from their Reports, there was a wise consensus that, in imitation of the House of Lords, the Senate should be as differently composed as possible from the Representative Assembly. The object clearly was, and wisely so, to make the two Chambers supplement each other, as the centripetal and centrifugal forces combine in mutual regulation, and to avoid anything like rivalry or conflict which might be caused by similarity of composition. The difficulty, of course, was in a new Assembly to make such a distinction. This old country has the enormous advantage of old-established and long-accustomed emanation of one of the Chambers from the Crown, and of the election of the people, or rather, I would say, the managers of the people, for the constitution of the other. There is a difficulty in that extent of distinction being imitated by a new community. The utmost they can do is to make two Chambers by as different kinds of election as possible. but no difference of election can completely succeed in constituting such an unconflicting partnership as we enjoy in the old country. The Australians seem, as far as possible, to have followed the example of the United States, which adopted, as far as they could, the model in this respect of the Constitution of the old country. I think the Australians in the Convention have shown an anxiety to keep their country within what I may call the popular Monarchy of the British realm, and avoid any appearance of separating themselves from it, or of substituting for themselves a pure Democracy. It is in the hope of this being made clear while the Bills for this purpose are still under discussion that I put the question; and as the subject will soon have to come before this House for discussion, it is desirable that there should be no prejudice from the American terms in the Bill. Therefore I beg to ask the noble Lord if he will furnish these Papers, and, if so, as soon as possible, for I think it is important

  781
  that they should be presented at an early date?
  LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, it is not the practice to present to Parliament unauthenticated newspaper reports of proceedings, however important, and at present the Colonial Office has only received, two or three days ago, two numbers of the Official Record of the Debates, and those two numbers carry the account of the proceedings only up to the third day. It would be very undesirable, nor do I imagine that the noble Lord would wish it, to present the Papers1 in an incomplete form, that is, giving each number of the Record as it comes over here. I propose, therefore, to wait until we have the whole of the Official Record. When complete, I see no objection, on the contrary, I see every reason, why the Papers should be presented to Parliament. The noble Lord asks me to give an authoritative statement as to the point which he has raised. I can conceive nothing more unwise than that the Secretary of State for the Colonies should give his view upon Debates which have recently taken place in Australia. I can give, however, if I may be allowed to do so, an" authoritative statement" of my opinion upon one point, and that is that every one who reads the Debates, even as they appear in the newspapers, must be sensible of the good commonsense judgment and ability with which the proceedings in the Convention have been conducted.

PUBLIC BODIES(PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL.—(No. 74.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD THRING: My Lords, this is a Bill to remove a doubt which exists as to certain provisions with regard to the application of borough funds under the Borough Funds Act and the Local Government Act of 1888, when considered in relation to the Railways and Canals Traffic Act. The question, though a very small one, is this: Under the borough Funds Act and the Local Government Act, Local Bodies are given the power of opposing, at the expense of the rates, any local Act. Under the Canals Traffic Act, the Local Government
  782
  Board had power to make Provisional Orders, but, instead of calling them Local and Provisional Orders, they have been called Public Acts; and some weighty authority in the law has declared that there is a doubt whether under those circumstances Local bodies can oppose these Provisional Orders under the Canals Traffic Act. I need not tell your Lordships that there cannot be a shadow of doubt they are more than within the mischief of the Acts. These are provisions which affect all Local bodies. It was obviously intended that the provisions of the borough Funds Act and the other Act I have mentioned, the County Act should apply, and that the Local bodies should be allowed to oppose those Acts which involve matters that may be prejudicial to them. I therefore ask your Lordships to allow this Bill to be read a second time, so as to settle the doubt by placing for this purpose the berough funds under the provisions of the Canals Traffic Act.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

EVIDENCE BILL [;H.L.]-(NO. 71.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD DENMAN: I have to trouble your Lordships with a few observations upon this Bill. This is a very great change in the law, and the Grand Committee will have considerable trouble in arriving at a conclusion in respect of it. We have had Law of Evidence Amendment Bills passing first in this House and then in the other House, but no decision come to upon them. By this Bill any person accused of murder may be allowed to swear to his innocence—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him in order to prevent his speaking under a misapprehension? This Bill contains no such provision as he imagines; it is simply a Bill for the consodidation of the existing law.
  LORD DENMAN: I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for correcting me, and I will not trouble your Lordships with further remarks.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

TRUSTEE BILL [H.L.]-(No. 72.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, this Bill deals with a very important subject. For the protection of Trustees a Bill was brought in on a former occasion saving them from all liability if they had invested money of cestius que trusts in undertakings without limited liability, and that was a great step in advance. There is also a very important alteration in this Bill in reference to the Law of Breach of Promise. My noble Friend who generally sits on the Front Opposition Bench wished to entirely abolish all such actions, and there is a provision this Bill, as far as I read it, by Which these actions will not go forward, This may be just, and probably will be So In regard to taking evidence, I fear that perjury has greatly increased in County Courts by the admission of parties as witnesses in their own cases. I have watched this as a Magistrate, and I have seen that in certain cases there is almost sure to be unblushing perjury committed, and the persons implicated seem to glory in it. I trust that the Grand Committee will take these few observations of mine into consideration as I am afraid I shall not be able to attend upon it, and I very heartily wish success to this Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Lest any misapprehension should be caused in the mind of any of your Lordships by the remarks of the noble Lord, I wish to say that this also is purely and absolutely a Consolidation Bill. There is not a single alteration in the law proposed by it, and as I have said, it is simply for consolidating in one Act what is at pre sent spread over a great number of Statutes.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

MIDDLESEX REGISTRY BILL.—(No. 87.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  LORD DENMAN: This Bill is certainly a very necessary one, because a very important office has been discontinued, and now there is a power given to the Lord Chancellor to arrange everything under this Bill. The noble and learned Lord will have a most difficult task in arranging how those who have really to do the duty shall be remunerated in future; but in case his Lordship's alterations should not meet the approbation of the country, I do think the country and beth Houses of Parliament ought to have an opportunity of seeing what those alterations are. Therefore, I venture to move that this Bill should only be for the space of one year. That cours3 was adopted with regard to the Ballot Bill, and it has been a continuance Bill from year to year. I do not believe that any inconvenience would arise from the adoption of this Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I cannot acquiesce in what the noble Lord suggests. Practically, the effect of this Bill is to put into the coffers of the State what has hitherto gone to the holders of a particular office I may remind your Lordships that the history of the Middlesex Registry has been rather a curious one. From time to time its numbers have been altered. By a Statute of Anne it had consisted of four Registrars. The number was then reduced to two; but, though there was then power to appoint in respect of two, the good feeling of those who had the right of appointment induced them not to exercise that power, and only one was appointed. The effect of the present Bill is that, there being an existing staff in the Registry office which exists for the purpose of registering titles, there shall be amalgamated with it the Middlesex Registry, which for all purposes will have the same staff and be worked in the same manner as formerly, except that there will be a real head actually working. Under those circumstances I cannot recommend to your Lordships that the improvement should only last for one year, the whole

  785
  object of this Act being to amalgamate the two systems together and to nominate one person as the responsible head for the administration of the office. I must, therefore, ask your Lordships to negative the noble Lord's Amendment.
  LORD DENMAN: I am quite satisfied with having been the means of obtaining from the noble and learned Lord an explanation of what his views are upon this question.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

ELECTORAL DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 85.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Bill is to supply a defect which has been found to exist in the Act with reference to persons exercising the franchise. By a particular. decision it has been adjudicated that persons absent, although away on public duties, during the qualifying period, were deprived of their franchise. That has been considered to be unjust, and therefore the object of this Bill, which has passed the other House, is to remove that difficulty by providing that persons absent in the performance of public duties during the qualifying period, not exceeding four months, should not on that account be deprived of the franchise. Your Lordships will no doubt consider that they should be permitted to exercise their right of franchise notwithstanding their absence for that period.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

HERRING BRANDING (NORTHUMBERLAND) BILL.—(No. 92.)
  TAXES (REGULATION OF REMUNERATION) BILL.—(No. 93.)
  Brought from the Commons; read la, and to he printed.

  REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN WRITS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]-(No. 61.)
  Returned from the Commons; agreed to.
  House adjourned at five minutes before
  Five o'clock, to Monday next, a
  quarter before Eleven o'clock.