Sitting of 5 June 1891

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, that they have power to insert Clauses providing compensation from local funds, or rates, or contributions from shipowners or certified masters or mates, for any persons whose interests they may deem to be affected by this Bill."—[Mr. Llewellyn.)
  MR. COURTNEY: Since this Instruction was originally placed on the Paper, the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. Llewellyn) has enlarged its scope. To the first part, which is in accordance with the Rules of the House, I have no objection. It is—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, that they have power to insert Clauses providing compensation from local funds, or rates, for any persons whose interests they may deem to be affected by this Bill."
  But the hon. Member goes on to add—
  "or contributions from shipowners or certificated masters or mates."

  1711
  Now, shipowners or certificated masters or mates are not before the Committee, and I submit that it would be abnormal and quite out of order to empower the Committee to grant compensation to persons who have no locus standi to appear before the Committee. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will strike out that part of the Instruction.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: If the Instruction is out of order, I beg to omit the words to which the right hon. Gentleman takes exception.
  Question,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, that they have power to insert Clauses providing compensation from local funds, or rates, for any persons whose interests they may deem to he affected by this Bill,"
  —put, and agreed to

QUESTIONS.

  MANIPUR.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether there is any record in the India Office of the acceptance, by Rajah Chandra Kirti Sinh, of Manipur, in 1852, of the "very material alteration in the relations of the Government of India with Manipur," described in the Despatch from the Court of Directors of the East India Company of 5th May, 1852, which has just been presented to Parliament; and (2) whether there is any official correspondence to show what action was taken by the Government of India in 1885, on the death of Chandra Kirti Sinh, to secure the recognition by the new Rajah, deposed last year and now living in Calcutta, of the position assumed by the British Government of "pledged protectors of the Rajah"?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the negative. The answer to the second is in the affirmative. There is a Despatch of the 23rd of June, 1886, from the Chief Commissioner of Assam to the Government of India, and their reply of the 23rd of July.
  MR. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman produce these Papers?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes, Sir; if the hon. Member will move for them they will be given as an Unopposed Return.

  MRS. GRIMWOOD.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the only British ladies who are eligible for the Imperial Order of the Crown of India are the Royal Princesses and the wives and other female relations of former or actual Secretaries of State for India, Viceroys of India, and Governors of Madras and Bombay; and (2) whether he will consider the advisability of rendering all other British ladies who may, like Mrs. Grimwood, have performed distinguished services in India eligible?
  SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first question of the hon. Member is in the affirmative. In reply to the second, I have to say that my noble Friend the Secretary of State does not propose to suggest any alteration in the Statutes of the Indian Order of the Crown of India; but when the full official Reports of the attack on the Manipur Residency are received, he will gladly consider whether it is open to him to make any recommendation on Mrs. Grimwood's behalf.
  MR. MACLEAN: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will be advised to confer a special mark of favour on this lady who, at a time of great personal and public peril, upheld the dignity and honour of the British name?
  SIR J. GORST: I am sorry to say that there are two difficulties in the matter. One is that no official Report has yet been received; and, secondly, as to the order or distinction which can be conferred upon this lady. There is an order for conspicuous bravery. I do not know whether that order is restricted to males or not, or whether the circumstances of the case are such as to bring Mrs. Grim-wood within the purview of the conditions of that order. All I can say is that the Secretary of State, as soon as the official Report is received, will consider whether there is any mark of distinction which can be conferred upon Mrs. Grimwood.

  PUBLIC HOUSE LICENCES.
  MR. SHIRESS WILL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been directed to the fact that a keeper of a public house, called the Black Horse Inn, in Montrose, having applied for an extension of his licence to an upper flat of the same building previously unlicensed and entirely separated from the inn, the Licensing Authorities omitted to give any public notice of the application by advertisement, and further that, on the meeting of the Court in April last, although no one appeared in support of, or to ask for, such licence, the Magistrates granted the same; whether, in all such cases of application for extension of licence to portions of the same building not previously licensed, public notice by advertisement is necessary under the statute; whether it was lawful for the Magistrates to grant the application in the absence of the applicant or any one representing him; and whether, in the circumstances, there is any remedy or redress open to persons who were desirous of opposing the extension of the licence to the upper flat, and who, but for the absence of public notice of the application, would have opposed the same?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I have no information at present, and must ask the hon. Member to give a longer notice of the question.

  STRIKES.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Hawkins, Taylor, and Smith, who were tried at the Middlesex Sessions on 21st May for alleged intimidation, and sentenced, the two former to three months', and the last to two months' imprisonment with hard labour; and whether, in view of the evidence tendered at the trial on behalf of the prisoners, he will inquire into the case, and consider whether the sentences may be reduced or remitted?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to this case, and I
  1714
  have asked the learned Judge to report to me upon it. He has not yet had time to do so, but will report in the course of a few days, and I will inform the hon. Member of the decision in due course.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS—MESSRS. SAMUDA & CO.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Messrs. Samuda and Company are carrying out a Government contract; whether, in carrying out the work in connection with the contract, they have declined to comply with the ordinary trade conditions of work in force among the engineers and joiners; whether, in consequence, the members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers have struck work; and whether the Admiralty intend to take any action in the matter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Messrs. Samuda are building two second-class cruisers, the Sappho and Scylla. I am informed that members of the Society in question have struck for the purpose of enforcing certain demands with respect to work on board the Sappho. I am not in a position to say whether these demands are reasonable or not, for I have no information on the subject.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Will the noble Lord take means for discovering what the state of matters is.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No, Sir; it is no part of my duty to do so.

  PARK KEEPERS.
  MR. MACLURE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is true that the park-keepers in Kensington Palace Gardens and Hyde Park are kept on duty from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. during the summer months; and whether he will consider how the hours of duty may be diminished?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): There are no park-keepers in Hyde Park, and with Kensington Palace Gardens I have nothing to do; but, assuming that my hon. Friend's question refers to Kensington Gardens, I have to say that it is true that in two of the

  1715
  summer months—June and July—the park-keepers in every alternate week of those two months go on duty at 6 a.m. and come off at 9.30 p.m.; but between those hours they have four and a quarter hours for meals—i.e., two hours for breakfast, an hour and a half for dinner, and three-quarters of an hour for tea. Their case is, I think, not at all a hard one, and I have no reason to suppose that they are dissatisfied. In every alternate week of those two months the men go on at 8 a.m. and come off at 9.30 p.m., having two and a quarter hours for their dinner and tea. During the other 10 months the hours vary according to the time of year, the minimum being seven hours at midwinter. I wish we were as well off in the House of Commons.

  SEA WALL AND PROMENADE AT TEIGNMOUTH.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board why, in reference to the re-construction of the sea wall and promenade at Teignmouth, Devon, which was injured by the storm of the 9th of March last, a period of 11 weeks' delay has taken place from the date of the application of the Teignmouth Local Board (25th March), for sanction to borrow £1,700 to re-construct the wall, and the holding of the official inquiry by the Local Government Board fixed for the 11th instant; and whether, having regard to the great importance to the amenities of Teignmouth as a watering-place of the speedy restoration of the sea wall and promenade for the use and benefit of visitors during the approaching season, he will take steps to expedite the requisite official sanction of the loan required by the Local Board?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): For some time past there has been considerable pressure on the Engineering Inspectors of the Local Government Board. I may, at the same time, observe that although the application for sanction to the loan was made at the date mentioned, some time elapsed before the Board was furnished with the plans and other particulars in respect of the proposed works which were requisite. The notices for the Inquiry were issued on the 29th of
  1716
  last month, and there will be every desire to communicate promptly to the Local Board the decision on their application after the Inquiry has been held.

  BRITISH GUIANA.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, since the Royal Proclamations of 1886 and 1887 relating to the interior of the Colony of British Guiana, any surveys have been made thereof, or steps taken to exploit and develop the same by means of railways or other means of communication, with a view to its colonisation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,) (for Baron H. de WORMS): Extensive surveys have been made on the Rivers Amacoora, Barima, and Barama, in the North-West District of the colony, during the past two years. A scheme for combined railway and river communication between Georgetown and the gold districts in the interior of the colony was recently submitted by the Colonial Government to the Combined Court, but was rejected by that Body. The Governor has appointed a Commission to investigate and recommend the adoption of railways or tramways, or other means, to give greater facilities for reaching the gold fields. This Commission is now at work.

  HOURS OF LABOUR FOR CHILDREN.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House what is the minimum age at which children in the countries represented at the Berlin Conference may be employed for hire in factories and workshops, and the number of hours per diem during which children of the minimum age may be so employed; and in which of these countries there is a staff of Factory Inspectors charged with the duty of enforcing the law as to hours of labour in industrial establishments?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The information desired by my hon. Friend in the first part of his question will be found on pages 68 and 69 of the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, 1891. As regards the second paragraph,

  1717
  I am unable to-day to reply to my hon. Friend, as the Reports which would give the information have been sent to the Home Office, and I have been unable this morning to obtain access to them. The Reports which were called for as to legislation abroad to carry out the recommendation of the Berlin Labour Conference are nearly ready for presentation.
  MR. MACLEAN: What I asked for was information of a later date than that contained in the Report.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is probable that the information the hon. Gentleman wishes for is in the Reports I have referred to. If my hon. Friend will repeat the question on Monday, I shall be able to tell him.

  BIRSTAL CONVICT PRISON.
  MR. E. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will explain why the lodging allowance of one of the night watchmen at Birstal Convict Prison has been stopped since 1st June, 1891, although he is unable to occupy the quarters assigned to him, owing to their dirty and dilapidated condition?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Directors of Convict Prisons that they have no knowledge of the matter referred to, which would not, in the ordinary course, come under their review till the end of the month. In the meantime, however, a Director will be -visiting the prison, and he will investigate the complaint.

  THE MEDWAY RIVER.
  MR. E. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is necessary to keep the moorings which have not been used since H.M.S. Hydra left the Medway River; and whether, if they are required, the Dockyard authorities will cause a lighter to be placed at them to indicate their position, and thus prevent great and continuous loss to the fishermen by injury to their nets?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): The question of the hon. Member only appeared on the Paper this morning. I must therefore ask him to defer it until Tuesday next.

  PRISONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. CHAINING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the admitted desirability of exempting certain classes of prisoners from the rules of prison treatment drawn up for ordinary criminals, he will assent to the Second Reading of the Prisons Act Amendment Bill, subject to any amendments, legal or administrative, which the Home Office may think necessary?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I regret that I do not feel able to assent to the Second Reading of the Prisons Act Amendment Bill, which makes changes in the law larger and more sweeping than have ever been admitted to be desirable by myself or by my predecessors in office. I can only refer the hon. Member to an answer I gave on March 15th, 1889, to a similar question from the hon. Member for the Spalding Division.

  EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the following passage in the recent Report of Mr. Giffen on Statistics of Emigration and Immigration—
  "The difficulties of obtaining a Return of the number of foreigners proceeding from this country to European countries, it may be pointed out, can only be overcome by legislation … The alien lists now dealt with, it must always be understood, relate to one side of the account only:"
  —and whether, having regard to the importance of accurate information on the subject, the Government would be prepared to legislate during the present Session with a view to supply the omission above referred to?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): My attention has been called to the passage quoted by the hon. Member. It appears from the Report itself that very full information has, in fact, been obtained with existing means, and there is little doubt practically as to the extent of the immigration in question, although the statistics are formally incomplete, and are not obtained under statutory sanction. The question of applying for further legislative powers is now engag-

  1719
  ing my serious attention. I should not hesitate to do so if I was convinced that any practical good would result from such powers. But I do not think it would be advisable to do anything which might interfere with the ordinary passenger traffic, and generally interrupt trade, without materially adding to the information on the subject.

  EDUCATION GRANTS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, considering the great hardship and disorganisation of education that would arise from the immediate enforcement of the recent decision of the Committee of Public Accounts with regard to conditions of education grants in Scotland, he will be prepared to take such steps that that decision shall not come into force during the year now current, so that it shall not have a retrospective effect, and so as to give the School Boards concerned time for the reorganisation required in consequence of the new interpretation of the law?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The Report of the Committee of Public Accounts to which the hon. Member refers has only been in our hands for a short time. The Treasury is awaiting a communication which has been asked for from the Scotch Education Department as to the effect of the recommendation of the Account Committee, and as soon as that has been received we shall be in a position to determine what course to take upon the Report of the Committee.

  EMIGRATION TO BRAZIL.
  MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the shocking treatment of certain British subjects, natives of Bradford, in Brazil, they having emigrated to that country; and whether Her Majesty's Government can take any steps to put a stop to the fraudulent action of emigration agencies which appear to be responsible for this state of things?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The attention of this office has not been called to the specific cases referred to by the hon. Member, but many complaints as to the
  1720
  harsh treatment of certain British subjects, emigrants to Brazil, have been received, and statements of the distress in which many have fallen, in consequence of which a caution to intending emigrants was issued by the Emigration Information Office last April, and it is understood that this warning has been widely circulated. A caution of a similar nature has been published in the Board of Trade Journal. The most recent reports show that the great mass of British and Irish emigrants to Brazil find the circumstances distasteful, and do not become reconciled to them, although Italians and Portuguese, in large numbers, thrive there, and also, to a less extent, Germans.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he proposes to take the Factories and Workshops Bill next week; and, if so, on what day?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I desire to give as full notice as possible of when the Bill will be taken. I am afraid the Bill cannot be taken next week, but I have great hope that it may be taken on the Monday in the following week.
  MR. ROBY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will be able to afford facilities for the discussion of the Motion in favour of an eight hours day for miners on Tuesday the 9th, or any subsequent day?
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the Bill which stands upon the Paper promoted by the Trades Union Congress and standing in my name, will interfere with the discussion on the hon. Member's Motion?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There can be no doubt, if the Bill is on the Paper, it will most seriously interfere with the discussion of the Motion.
  MR. ROBY: There are two Bills on the Paper dealing with the hours of labour; one is general, and the other applies to miners only.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Bill to which I referred is the Bill which provides for an eight hours day for miners. No

  1721
  Motion could be entertained by the House prior to the Debate on the Second reading.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Will the Bill which stands in my name and which is general be a bar to the Motion?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is not for me to say what the ruling of Mr. Speaker would be, but I am speaking of the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Then I must ask your ruling, Sir, on the question whether the Bill promoted by the Trades Union Congress to enforce eight hours in all trades would prevent the discussion of the Motion?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Bill which deals specifically with miners would be a bar to the Motion, but not the Bill which deals with the hours of labour generally.
  MR. ROBY: I understand from two of the Members whose names are on the back of the Eight Hours Bill that it will be withdrawn. Under these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for the discussion of the Motion on Tuesday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I should be glad if the Motion could come on, but I am afraid I cannot give any special facilities. The Land Purchase Bill must be passed through the stage of Report before I can do so. The House will see that I cannot again postpone the consideration of the Land Purchase Bill. If, therefore, the Land Purchase Bill still stands for consideration on Thursday the other matter cannot be taken.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is there any truth in the rumour that the Government contemplate an Autumn Session?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: May I ask what arrangements the right hon. Gentleman contemplates in order to carry out the assurances he has frequently given that the House will have ample time to discuss the Estimates?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Her Majesty's Government contemplate that they will receive the cordial co-operation of the hon. Member and hon. Gentlemen behind him in securing that the Government measures are discussed for a reasonable time, and a reasonable time only, in which case I feel satisfied
  1722
  there would be ample time for the discussion of the Estimates. As to the question of the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) I should have thought that the very fact that those reports are circulated would have shown the hon. Gentleman that there was no foundation for them.
  MR. JOICEY: Is the House to understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no Autumn Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member has been a Member of the House for some years. Does he suppose that it is possible for the First Lord of the Treasury to say on the 5th of June what will happen in November?

  THE THREATENED IMMIGRATION OF RUSSIAN JEWS.
  In reply to Mr. BYRON REED,
  MR. W. H. SMITH: A Despatch has been received from Her Majesty's Consul at Riga, stating that the reports as to the emigration of Russian Jews to England have been greatly exaggerated. The emigration from that port is extremely limited, having been only 35 persons all told. I will, however, make further inquiry.

  COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS.
  MR. LAWSON: I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any definite arrangement has been made with regard to the County Council Elections for England and Wales?
  MR. RITCHIE: No arrangement can be made except by Act of Parliament.
  MR. LAWSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to bring in a Bill?
  MR. RITCHIE: I hope next week to introduce a Bill to postpone the County Council Elections.

  WRITS OF SUMMONS.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if, when granting the application to stamp deeds in Belfast, he will grant a like application to stamp and seal writs of summons (out of the Superior Courts), thereby saving considerable time and expense to the public, and placing

  1723
  Belfast in the same position to Dublin as Liverpool and other cities hold with London?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that it will be useless to extend the stamping facilities at Belfast to writs of summonses unless such writs are sealed there also, but there exists in Ireland no machinery for the creation and maintenance of a district office of the High Court of Justice outside of Dublin.

  POSTAL FACILITIES IN COUNTY ANTRIM.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a Memorial from the residents at Loughmorne, Ballyvallough, and Ardboley, near Carrickfergus, County Antrim, relative to improved postal facilities in those districts; and if he will be able to recommend the adoption of the required improvement?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): No such Memorial has reached me; but from a resident at Loughmorne I have received an application for an official letter box at Blackwoods Cross Roads, and it will give me pleasure to comply with that application.

  CROSS-CHANNEL MAILS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, with reference to his reply to a deputation from Londonderry on the 27th of January last, whether it will be considered, in determining the question of the cross-channel mails, that the only acceleration serviceable to Derry would be by Holyhead, Kingstown, and Porta-down?
  MR. RAIKES: The whole system of the Mail communication between London and the North of Ireland, which involves many considerations of importance, has for some time (as the hon. Member is, no doubt, aware) engaged the careful attention of Her Majesty's Government; and though I am not yet in a position to announce their decision, as negotiations with the Railway Companies are still pending, I can assure the hon. Member that the representations of the deputation in question have not been overlooked.

  IRISH DISTRESS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the Electoral Division of Meelick, Swinford Union, County Mayo, where the poor rate is 3s. 1d. in the pound, and great congestion and distress exist, the poor have had no employment on relief works since March; and what steps will be taken to assist them?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Member who puts this question appears to be under some misapprehension, for while it is a fact that no relief work has been opened in the Electoral Division named, a number of persons belonging to that Electoral Division are employed on works in adjoining divisions. Inquiries are also proceeding as to the eligibility of others there for such employment. I may mention that the poor rate in the division is 2s. 11d., not 3s. 1d., in the £1.
  MR. SEXTON: My information comes from the Chairman of the Poor Law Board, who says that the relief works do not supply adequate relief for this particular division.
  MR. COLLERY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received copy of resolution, passed at a meeting of the Cliffiony Dispensary Committee 13th May, 1891, in which they urgently petition the Chief Secretary for Ireland to start at once some public works in the electoral divisions of Cliffony North and Cliffony South; and represent that if such works are not started, deaths will occur from starvation; and if it is his intention to take any action in the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A copy of the resolution referred to does not appear to have been received; but the districts mentioned have had the attention of the Government. Many families in Cliffony North are already receiving aid from the Irish Distress Fund, and the cases of others are at the present time the subject of inquiry.

  THE IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. COLLERY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware of any intention

  1725
  to remove from Easky, the Quarter Sessions town of the Barony of Tireragh, County of Sligo, the headquarters of the Constabulary to the village of Dromore West?
  MR. A. J.BALFOUR: No, Sir; there is at present no intention of adopting the course referred to in this question.

  EVICTED IRISH TENANTS.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he 'will consider the desirability of including in the proposed Bill for the benefit of long leaseholders provisions for the benefit of evicted tenants? In consequence of what occurred last night, I should like to vary the question by asking whether, in view of the adoption of the clause of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) providing for the case of evicted tenants where the landlord is willing to sell, the right hon. Gentleman will have any objection to consider the propriety of introducing a clause dealing with the case of evicted tenants where the landlord is not willing to sell? It will be in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that I put down two clauses on the Committee stage of the Land Purchase Bill which I was unable to move, because the Chairman informed me they were out of order. One of those clauses was practically added to the Bill on the Report stage last night on the Motion of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The remaining clause is one which applies to the case of tenants where the landlord is unwilling to sell, and I beg to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to these circumstances.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will take into account the great danger of doing anything to hinder the passing of the Leaseholders' Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I entirely agree that there is a danger of overloading the Bill, seeing that if any additional elements of controversy are introduced it would be impossible to pass it. With regard to the question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork, he has accurately stated that the clause adopted last night coincides in all its main particulars with the suggestion he
  1726
  threw out at an earlier stage. I am afraid it will not be possible for the Government to pledge themselves to go further in the direction in which they have already gone.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the decision of the Lord Lieutenant, as to the modifications proposed by the Irish Board of Intermediate Education in their new rules, will be announced?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Lord Lieutenant is at present in communication with the Intermediate Education Board His Excellency's decision will be come to at the earlist date practicable, and then will be announced without delay.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it was the intention of the Board of Intermediate Education in Ireland, in framing their new rules, to restrict the benefits of intermediate education to students intended for Universities, and whether they intend to modify their rules, so as to meet the complaints which have been made, that their new curriculum, owing to its largely literary and classical character, tends to seriously injure commercial schools? Also whether the attention of the Board of Intermediate Education in Ireland has been called to the general complaints which have been made as to the tendency of their new rules to restrict the benefits of intermediate education to students of the better class who obtain a classical education at Board schools to the prejudice of the poorer class of students who by the operation of the system as previously administered were enabled to obtain a good commercial education in the various day schools which sent forward pupils for examination, and whether they will reconsider their recent rules so as to secure that the public moneys which they administer will benefit the poorer class of students who most need education assisted by the State?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer these questions until a later day.

  THE LAND PURCHASE BILL.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he will state in what cases it is proposed that the Land Commission should purchase holding's under Section 18 of the Land Purchase Bill; and whether any express enactment is necessary to enable holdings to be so purchased?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The Bill will enable the Land Commission to purchase holdings. The sub-section appears to me sufficient to carry out the provisions of the Bill.
  MR. M. HEALY: Is it only intended that the Land Commission shall purchase where the case is a compulsory sale?
  MR. MADDEN: They can purchase where the sale is compulsory.

  IRISH EMIGRATION
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what amount is still unexpended of the sum of £200,000 voted for emigration in Ireland by Section 20 of "The Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1882," and Section 12 of the Tramways and Public Companies Act, proposed to be repealed by the Land Purchase Bill; and whether the Government propose, as promised in Committee, to hand over any unexpended balance to the Congested Districts Board?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that of the grant of £150,000 for emigration purposes a sum of £16,827 9s. 10d. is still unexpended. The sum of £50,000 for migration grants is still available. Nothing would be gained by handing over this unexpended balance to the Congested Districts Board.

  THE CRIMES ACT
  COLONEL NOLANI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is correctly reported to have pointed out in a public speech that in by far the greater portion of Ireland there is no longer any necessity for such provisions in the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act as are not embodied in the Scotch Law; and if he will give substance to these remarks by recommending His Excellency the
  1728
  Lord Lieutenant to remit the unexpired portions of the sentences on the hon. Members for Cork and Mayo Counties?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to say that it is the fact that I recently stated that in my judgment there was no longer any necessity for retaining the Proclamations of the greater portion of Ireland under certain provisions of the Crimes Act, notably those under that portion of Section 2 which deals with summary jurisdiction in cases of criminal conspiracy. I never suggested, however, that any action of the Government in this matter should be retrospective.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Government have made up their minds to withdraw the Proclamations of these districts?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The general policy I have indicated will very shortly be carried out.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time release such prisoners as have not been convicted by a jury?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The fact that the Crimes Act is no longer necessary in certain parts of Ireland does not prove that it was not necessary at the time it was applied, or that the persons convicted under it were wrongly convicted.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I asked a plain question, and I should like to have a definite and direct answer to the question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought I had given the hon. and gallant Gentleman a direct answer. It is not the duty of the Government to advise the Lord Lieutenant to exercise the Prerogative of mercy, and it never has been done by the Government. If anyone desires the Prerogative of mercy to be extended to him he should memorialise.

  IRISH ASSISTANT TEACHERS
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, under the rules of the Board of National Education in Ireland, ordinary assistant teachers are paid the same, no matter to what class they belong; whether assistant teachers in model schools and training schools are, notwithstanding this rule, paid according to class and also for extra duty; whether

  1729
  Sir Patrick Kerran has frequently represented the injustice of the rule in question to the Treasury without effect; and whether, in allocating the funds available this year for education in Ireland, provision will be made to enable this rule to be modified so as to treat ordinary assistant teachers on the same footing as those in model schools and training schools, and thereby give them some incentive to rise to a higher class?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Assistant teachers in ordinary National schools are not paid salaries according to classification. Their salaries are at a special rate. They each also obtain a share of the results fees equal to one-half of the amount awarded to the principal teacher. Assistants in the model and training schools are, in consideration of the important functions exercised by them in connection with the instruction of monitors, pupil-teachers, and candidate teachers, awarded salaries according to their class.

  SWAZILAND CONVENTION (MR, HOFMEYER'S REPORT).
  Address for "Copy of Mr. Hofmeyer's Report on his recent mission to Pretoria in connection with the Swaziland Convention."—(Mr. Whitley.)
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 342.)

    CONSIDERATION.
    As amended, further considered.
    MR. LEA: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name—"Powers of Land Commission." I was moving this clause when the Debate stood adjourned last night. I wish to ask why, under this Bill, we should incur the expenditure involved in the appointment of Special Commissioners, with a separate staff, when, by judicious management, we can avoid such expenditure? I do not intend to make an attack upon the Commissioners. The two gentlemen who have had charge of the Ashbourne Acts have worked well, and I desire to give them every credit. I know there have been complaints of delay and of the employment of
    1730
    too many solicitors; but such complaints would, I am afraid, be incident to any system of legislation. It is, however, an important question that neither of them pretend to have any special knowledge of agricultural land, and, in my opinion, that fact depreciates their value as Land Purchase Commissioners. Since the Act of 1887 the Land Purchase Commissioners have had power to make rules and regulations for carrying out the scheme of land purchase, but I do not think that it was really intended when the measure was passed that these two gentlemen should have such power exclusively, and, therefore, by my clause I propose to give the power of making rules and regulations to the whole of the Land Commission. The present mode of administering the Acts relating to land purchase is not always satisfactory. I will give an example. Three or fours years ago a landlord and tenants agreed for the purchase by the latter of a townland in Antrim. The Land Purchase Commissioners sent a valuer to view the land in February, when it was covered by three or four inches of snow. The valuer simply asked to see the boundaries, and then made the usual secret Report, with the result that the Commission declined to advance the purchase money unless the holding was sold for three years' less purchase than the landlord and tenant originally contemplated. The valuer in this case had acquired experience in Mayo, and it was ridiculous to send him to value land in Antrim, where quite a different state of things prevailed. Undoubtedly the system works badly. Cases of this kind show the necessity of granting an appeal, and it is to provide an appeal in such cases that part of my clause has been framed. If by a better administration of the land purchase scheme the costs incurred by tenants could be lessened it would be a very good thing. Not very long ago some glebe purchasers in my own constituency complained to me they were mulcted of £25 for legal expenses, the sum involved in the transaction being only about £100 to £150 Hon. Members may say that some of the objects which I have in view would be accomplished if a new Commissioner is appointed under this Bill. But why incur the expense of this new appoint-

    1731
    ment when the Commissioners who are at present administering the fair rent clauses of the Land Acts can be utilised to do the work? In a year or two the great bulk of the fair rent cases will be disposed of, and the appeals, we may hope, will have been cleared off long before any appeals under my clause would be ready for hearing. The Fair Rent Commissioners had had practical experience in all parts of Ireland; and to utilise their services would certainly be wise. The Sub-Commissioners on the staff of the Land Commission could be used just as well as any staff of valuers sent down by the Land Purchase Commission; and if only on the ground of economy, I think it is desirable that course should be adopted. I am not going to say that Mr. Wrench is regarded with the same popular sympathies as the late Mr. Lytton and the late Mr. Justice O'Hagan, but he has the traditions of the office to guide him. The Commissioners will know that if they make any serious mistake in the administration of the Act they will be held responsible. I am sure these gentlemen will rise to the occasion, and make the Bill as great a success as they can. If Mr. Wrench and Mr. Fitzgerald are fit to fix fair rents they are fit to work this Bill. On the ground of economy and of efficient administration I beg to move the clause now on the Paper.
    New Clause—
    (Powers of Land Commissioners.)
    "Nothing in section seventeen of 'The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885,' shall be deemed to limit the jurisdiction of any member of the Land Commission under Part V. of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' and the Acts amending the same, and anything done by any member of the Land Commission in carrying the said Acts into effect shall be as valid and effectual as if it were done by the Land Commission: Provided that any person aggrieved by the decision of any Commissioner acting alone in carrying the said Acts into effect, may require his case to be re-heard by three Commissioners, of whom the Judicial Commissioner shall be one, but none of such Commissioners shall be the Commissioner before whom the case was originally heard.
    All rules to be made by the Land Commission for carrying into effect the Land Purchase Acts, as amended by this Act, shall be made by a majority of the Commissioners, which majority shall include the Judicial Commissioner,"—(Mr. Lea)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second, time."
    MR.SEXTON: By this modest clause of seven propositions a private Member of the House in a Debate upon a Government Bill proposes to overturn the whole administrative system of the Irish Land Commission, and to substitute something altogether different. This proposal is made by a private Member with regard to the one solitary Department of State in Ireland which in six years of administration has gathered to itself the general approval of the country. I challenge denial of that statement. That is the Department which the Member for South Derry, who appears on this occasion as the agent and instrument of the Irish landlords, proposes to overturn.
    MR. LEA: The landlords oppose the clause.
    MR. SEXTON: I very much doubt it. I ask why the Government have not proposed this clause themselves? They have sent out a four-lined whip calling on their friends to support the clause, which they describe as most important. If so, why did they not propose it? Every year the Land Commission, which, by its constitution, worked in two Departments—the Rent Department and the Purchase Department—made two Reports, nominally to the Lord Lieutenant, but really to the Chief Secretary, who had the best opportunity of judging. The right hon. Gentleman introduced last year a Bill which related to the Land Department as well as to the question of purchase; why did he not include this clause?, Then the right hon. Gentleman brought in another Bill, and had another year's experience. Why has not the House heard a single word until the hon. Member brings it forward of a matter which is one of capital importance? Is it fair that the Representatives of Ireland, who have a right to expect notice, and to get time to confer with their constituents, on a subject which has been on the stocks for two years, should have to wait for the Report stage of the Bill before the matter comes up? The Government have abstained from the discharge of a manifest duty if they think this clause

    1733
    is required. The history of the clause is very peculiar. By a very convenient and very economical arrangement the Government have a subsidiary administration on the Opposition side of the House. On the Front Opposition Bench they have two Ministers without a portfolio, and on the back Bench two Under Secretaries without responsibility. One of those unavowed Under Secretaries undertook to move this clause; the other was to have moved it previously. In his absence the Member for South Derry moved it in Committee before the holidays, but withdrew it, and did not bring it up after the holidays until it appeared on the Report stage. Am I not entitled to say that there is something extremely tortuous in the proceedings with regard to this clause? The hon. Member said last night that administration was as important as legislation. There is another Bill which we expected until a few days ago. Whenever that Bill comes on, as it will next year, that will be the time for discussing this clause. What case has the hon. Member attempted to make out for the clause? He said some things so marvellously irrelevant that I cannot think they sprang from the hon. Member's own intelligence. The hon. Member spoke of the utility of the Sub-Commissioners in determining the value of land. There is nothing to prevent the Sub-Commissioners from assisting the Chief Commissioners. The first point the hon. Member made was that Ulster is not represented in the Land Commission.
    MR. LEA: What I said was that Ulster is not represented on the Purchase Commission at all, and on the Land Commission very inadequately.
    MR. SEXTON: But Ulster will not be represented if the clause be carried. Mr. Justice Bewley, a Dublin Judge, will not represent Ulster, neither will Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald, a barrister from the Munster Circuit, and a County Court Judge of Leinster. Mr. Wrench, some time a land agent in Leinster, cannot be said to represent Ulster. But has Ulster suffered at the hand of the present Purchase Commissioners, or has it any cause of complaint? In the last five years the two Purchase Commissioners have sanctioned loans amounting to £7,300,000. How are they distributed in the four Provinces? Con-
    1734
    naught receives £400,000, Leinster £1,800,000, Munster £2,300,000, and Ulster £2,700,000; so that Ulster receives considerably more than a third of the whole amount. Out of 13,700 loans Ulster receives more than a half of the loans sanctioned. I maintain that on every ground the Purchase Commissioners must be regarded as more competent men for the administration of purchase than the men who constitute the Rent Department. Mr. Lynch and Mr. MacCarthy have six years' service and are senior to the Rent Commissioners. Mr. Lynch has enjoyed an unrivalled experience in the sale and purchase of land before he became a Commissioner, while Mr. MacCarthy was for 30 years a solicitor in practice dealing with the purchase and sale of land, and no two men can be found whose experience is greater or more diversified in this particular branch of administration. But the proposal of the hon. Member is to supplement the ability of those two men in dealing with questions of purchase by allowing the intrusion into their department of men who have no experience and no particular knowledge in fixing the capital value of land. Surely it is not necessary to be a tiller of land to acquire a knowledge of its capital value; and yet it seems to me that the proposal of the hon. Member in its naked deformity is to humiliate those two officials, and in my judgment to degrade them, after six years' service, in the course of which they have conducted themselves with unexampled success, by disturbing them in the discharge of their functions, by thrusting upon them the services of three men, juniors in point of service, inferiors in point of experience, and of no experience at all in fixing the capital value of land. There are two departments of the Land Commission. One is sound and the other is unsound. The hon. Member proposes to leave alone the department which is unsound and to tinker the department which is sound. The Rent Commissioners are greatly in arrear with their work, and I should not have been surprised had the proposal been to call in the aid of Mr. Lynch and Mr. MacCarthy to assist those Commissioners in making headway with the arrears. A Return of the Land Commission shows up to February last the

    1735
    condition of fair rent appeals. By the last year's Report it appears that the number of appeals lodged before the Fair Rent Commission was actually in excess of the number they were able to deal with during the year, and this shows that the arrears are increasing from day to day. In February last the number of appeals heard by the Rent Commissioners during the month was 233, and the number lodged was 211; and yet the hon. Member proposes to add new functions to that body, that they should be taken away from their own work and should be asked to give assistance to the Purchase Commissioners. There are indeed 6,400 appeals in arrear before the Rent Commission. At the rate at which they are discharging them it will take nearly three years to clear off those arrears, while at the same time new arrears are coming in as rapidly as they are being dealt with. The truth is that the inspiration of this clause is to be sought for in the cupidity of a group of greedy vendors, who hope that if the control is taken away from Mr. Lynch and Mr. MacCarthy they may be able to find a more pliant and more favourable authority for the reception of their claims. I wish to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary to a very significant sentence in the last Report of the Commissioners.
    "We anticipate that many of the more recent applications rejected by us will be renewed on the basis of a reduced advance."
    I have no doubt that if these Commissioners are deprived of the control of the matter many thousands of these applications will be renewed, either on the basis of a reduced or on that of the original grant. I am entitled to speak of the success of the Purchase Commission, for I find that in six years the Purchase Commissioners have issued 13,731 loans to tenants in the four provinces of Ireland, representing an aggregate of £5,700,000. Last year the arrears did not exceed £2,000; only 27 farms have been offered for sale, and 24 sold. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to mention any other Department of Irish administration which can come forward with such a record, and I resent and condemn any attempt to cast a slur upon the diligence and public virtue and efficiency of these Commissioners. I protest against any proposal to cast in on top of
    1736
    them men who have proved themselves to be, if not inefficient, incompetent to discharging diligently their own work. The work of the Purchase Commissioners will be easier for the next five years to come. They will have nothing to do with the Guarantee Fund, or with levying money on a county. And in regard to the congested districts, the duty of making Reports to the Lord Lieutenant will net much trouble men like Mr. MacCarthy and Mr. Lynch, whilst after the Reports have been once made the work will be clerical, and it will only be a question of having an adequate staff. The hon. Member appears to think it would be an improvement if the rules were made by the five Commissioners, including the three who know nothing about land purchase, but until the hon. Member makes out some concrete case, I decline to consider that part of the proposal as worthy of serious consideration. I contend that no case has been made out on behalf of this clause. While the work of the Purchase Department has been efficiently transacted, the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that he is often troubled with questions as to tenants being kept waiting for months and for years for the decision of the Land Commissioners. His attention has been drawn to cases where the Land Commissioners have put tenants to unnecessary expense by making them travel long distances. For instance, they compelled many tenants to travel from Wexford to Dublin to have their appeals tried, whereas the Court might just as well have sat at Wexford. Again, if the Land Commissioners are to undertake this work, it will be much interrupted by the constant necessity of travelling from one end of Ireland to the other to discharge their present functions. Instead of the adoption of the proposals contained in this clause leading to speed and economy, delay and infinite expense will be the outcome, and the result will be disastrous to both landlord and tenant. My impression is that even if the clause is carried the three Land Commissioners will not endeavour to interfere with the ordinary practices of the Purchase Commissioners. So long as the latter do not offend the prejudices of the former, they will not be interfered with; but immediately they give a decision of which the Land Com-

    1737
    missioners disapprove, then the three Commissioners will step in and act as a Court of Appeal, and the Purchase Commissioners?will be overpowered. The clause ingeniously provides that when a re-hearing is granted the Commissioner who first heard the case shall not sit, while of the Court of three Commissioners only one may be a Purchase Commissioner. The Land Commissioners are bound, consequently, to have a majority on the bench. Therefore, I say that the appeal which the hon. Member proposes is the most grotesque of which I have ever heard. It is an appeal from seniors to juniors, an appeal from those who have done their work to those who have failed to do it. It is an appeal from men who, after six years' experience, have proved their diligence and competence, to men whose administration has provoked discontent, and whose own work is hopelessly in arrear. I contend that if anything is necessary to be done it should be by appointing another Purchase Commissioner. I say the Purchase Commission is quite competent to do the work, and if it requires assistance, the Land Commissioners are not the men to give it. On these grounds, the Representatives of the Irish people must offer a resolute resistance to the clause.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLThe hon. Member for West Belfast commenced his obserations by expressing surprise that this new clause should have been brought forward by one who ostensibly represents tenant farmers. It has been proposed by the Representative of an agricultural constituency, and opposed by an hon. Member for an urban constituency, and I think the House is entitled to believe that the hon. Member for South Deny is more entitled to speak for the tenant farmers than the hon. Member for West Belfast. I support the clause on behalf of the tenant farmers of South Tyrone. So far from the landlords approving of it, they are exceedingly anxious to get an entirely different thing. One of their Representatives has put a notice on the Paper as an amendment to the clause. During the whole time I have been in Parliament, I have never said or written one word hostile to the Purchase Commissioners. On the contrary, I have over and over again, in this House, before my constituents, and in newspapers and
    1738
    magazines, declared my belief that these gentlemen have carried out the experiment fairly well; but I have always held that if any large scheme of land purchase is to be placed before the country, it will be necessary to extend the machinery and quicken the pace, and that is exactly the position I take in regard to this clause. I say that the tenant farmers will not be willing to wait on the convenience of Messrs MacCarthy and Lynch; and unless the operation of the Bill is to be spread over 30 or 40 years, it will be absolutely necessary to extend the machinery and quicken its pace. I do not quite understand why the two Purchase Commissioners should have the extraordinary objection they seem to have to the assistance of the three Fair Rent Commissioners. Under the Act of 1885 they can, if required, be made Fair Rent Commissioners themselves by an Order in Council. The original Commissioners under the Act of 1881, who are now called Fair Rent Commissioners, were originally appointed to deal with purchase by right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Bench below me. It is true that in 1885, when a larger measure was carried, the machinery for carrying out land purchase was extended, and two additional Commissioners specially appointed to deal with it. I now support the clause of my hon. Friend because a still larger measure has been introduced. We may be told that the Fair Rent Commissioners are in arrear to a colossal degree. I will call the attention of hon. Members to the latest figures in this respect. Since 1881 they have fixed over 300,000 rents. Up to the 31st of May, 1891, there were 5,766 notices of appeal pending; that, however, includes cross appeals, which amount to about 20 per cent. of the entire number; the actual appeals to be dealt with number, therefore, 4,600. Now, during last year, up to April 30, 1891, these Fair Rent Commissioners heard 3,912 appeals; but during two months of that time Mr. Justice Litton was ill, and no appeals could be heard. The 4,600 appeals, therefore, really represented only a year's work. Now, taking the figures of fair-rent cases at the end of April, 1890, there were outstanding 37,811 cases to be heard; at the end of April, 1891, there were only 21,000 cases outstanding; most of these

    1739
    had been inspected, and, as a matter of fact, there are only 6,590 fair rent cases unlisted at the present moment. Practically speaking, there is but one year's work before the Fair Rent Commission. That Commission has been made a permanent one; its members receive large salaries (£3,000 a year), and I maintain that it is reasonable that these Land Commissioners, upon whom the duty was originally cast by the Act of 1881, should be called in, their own work being nearly exhausted, to assist the Purchase Commissioners, whose work is about to begin. The hon. Member for West Belfast has had a good deal to say about I the way in which the Purchase Commissioners have done their work. I repeat I have never publicly said one word against them: but other people have. I do not want to weary the House by going into details. Here is a case from County Antrim. The sum involved was £350, the case has been pending for three years, and when it is finished the costs will add seriously to the amount of the purchase money. Yet titles on the same estate had been settled in previous cases. I have heard of numerous other cases in which expense and disappointment have been caused that both parties have regretted they ever went into the Court. Now I come to the question of appeals. I think that a good deal may be said about the necessity for having an appeal from the judgment of a single Purchase Commissioner and his valuer. In order to make land purchase go on prosperously, we must have a Court in which both the buyer and the seller have confidence. I am not arguing that Messrs. MacCarthy and Lynch would not command the confidence of both parties; I only want to establish the need of a Court of Appeal. And in doing so I will mention the case of the Sullivan Estate in County Cork. Mr. Sullivan, who was originally a butter merchant in Cork, purchased the estate in 1878 for £27,000, the rental then being £1,142. Some years subsequently, after the Commissioners had inspected the estate, the judicial rents were fixed at £852, the Government valuation standing at £541. Mr. Sullivan in one year paid to his tenants £2,000 for butter alone. When a sale was proposed the price agreed on between landlord and tenant was £8,785, reducing the judicial
    1740
    payment to £351 or £200 below the Government valuation. Surely that was an enormous reduction. But the case came before the Commission. A valuer was sent down from Cork, and on his Report the Commission declared that this annuity of £351 was too much, and that they would not sanction it unless it were reduced to £295. I am not affirming that the Commissioner was wrong; my point is that there must be confidence on the part of the seller as well as the buyer, and I have mentioned this case as one in which an appeal ought in fairness to have been possible. The only difference between hon. Members opposite and ourselves is that while we want justice, we also want to give the other side justice. But I have a much more serious case to bring under the attention of the House. I hold in my hand a correspondence which I very much regret to read. It is between Mr. John George MacCarthy, one of the Land Commissioners, and a representative of Lord Fermoy, whose estate was in the Court. The correspondence has been before Mr. Justice Monroe. Lord Fermoy some time ago sold an estate in the County of Cork. The transaction was sanctioned; the advance had been made, and the whole thing satisfactorily arranged, when Mr. Saunders, the Receiver under the Court on the estate, received the following letter from Mr. John George MacCarthy, who the House will remember, being a Purchase Commissioner, is a judicial person:—
    24, Upper Merrion Street, Dublin,
    27th October, 1888.
    Dear Sir,—I have been surprised to learn that, taking advantage of a clerical error in our office, proceedings have been taken in Lord Fermoy's name for large arrears of rent or interest against his farmer tenants after their holdings had become vested and the purchase money placed to the credit of the estate. I am sure you will see that, whatever may have been the previous equities as between the parties, such a proceeding is an evasion of one of our most important rules and is gravely detrimental to the public interest, inasmuch as it tends to overweight the new proprietors with a double burden, and thus prevent the discharge of their duties to the State. Mr. Commissioner Lynch, in whose chambers the matter arose, has written to Lord Fermoy's solicitor and suggested the discontinuance of the proceedings. Permit me to add my request to his and to address you personally. I hope you will not be offended by my adding that if advantage is taken by your firm of a mere clerical oversight all future transactions between our Department and your firm will become impracticable."
    [Cheers.] I am not astonished at the cheers of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I am astonished at the cheers of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), although I have long ceased to be astonished at anything the right hon. Gentleman does or says.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: There is no English Judge who would not have done the same thing.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I say that even if the facts had been as Mr. MacCarthy put them—and they were not —no English Judge would have said, as Mr. MacCarthy said, that any future case coming before him in the hands of that solicitor would not be judged on its merits, but would be prejudiced. No English Judge would say it, or would be warranted in saying it. No judicial person has a right to use such a threat. What are the facts? It is a fact that Lord Fermoy discharged every farthing of arrears up to the date when the agreement was signed, and he never made a claim for arrears. The Land Commission had the case 2½ years in Court, and what Lord Fermoy did, or rather what the Court did, was to sue the tenants for the interest accruing during those 2½ years. They went before the Recorder at Cork. The Recorder held that he was entitled to interest at 4 per cent. Judge O'Brien, on appeal, held the same thing; in another case, Chief Baron Palles held the same thing. This House in 1888, when it passed the Ashbourne Act, enacted the very thing that Judge Monroe insisted upon, namely, that interest at 4 per cent. should be paid on the purchase money from the date the agreement was signed until the Land Commission had finished the work. That is a fair thing. What was done on behalf of Lord Fermoy was not to sue for arrears of rent. Every farthing of those arrears was discharged under the 55th rule of the Land Commissioners. What did the Commissioners do? On the 1st of November, three days after Mr. MacCarthy'sletter was written, they made a new rule to prevent landlords recovering more than six months' interest. It was for the violation of a rule that was not in existence until this correspondence took place that it was sought to hold
    1742
    Mr. Saunders and Lord Fermoy up to odium.
    MR. SEXTON: We had no notice that these matters were to be brought forward. Will the hon. Member allow us to read the correspondence?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The whole of it. The least the House of Commons can do when such friction arises, and when one of the Purchase Commissioners shows his hand in such a plain way, is to give an appeal. Then, as to the question of the substituted tenants, last year Mr. MacCarthy gave a deliverance on the subject. It was àpropos of nothing at all. He went into his Chamber one morning and delivered an address, in which he announced that he would never sanction a sale to a tenant who had been put in place of an evicted tenant. That may be right or wrong, but I repeat there was no case before him. There are substituted tenants on the Luggarcurren property. They have purchased. I presume that Mr. Lynch sanctioned the purchase. In a matter of this kind there ought not to be two rules, one rule governing one Chamber and another rule governing the Second Chamber. I have put this case strongly, not out of any hostile spirit to the Purchase Commissioners. I know both gentlemen personally, and, as I have said, I have always considered that they have done their best to carry out the Act of Parliament fairly. I have heard a great deal about the Land Commissioners. I have heard Mr. MacCarthy and Mr. Lynch praised as the embodiments of all virtues. It is not my wish to take anything from them in that respect. I am perfectly certain they will do their best according to their lights to carry out this measure. But when I come to the Fair Rent Commissioners what do I find? Who are they? Is anyone prepared to say a word about Mr. Justice Bewley? Every one knows him to be a most able lawyer. The only objection I ever heard urged against him is that he is Lord Ashbourne's brother-in-law.
    MR. MAC NEILL: That was never raised here.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: That is the only objection against him. He is not only a most able lawyer —? probably the most able that could be selected for the work—but he is an able

    1743
    and honourable man, who will neither turn to the right or to the left hand unless he considers it proper to do so.
    MR. SEXTON: I never said a word about Mr. Justice Bewley; and I should certainly accept the judgment of the Attorney General for Ireland as to the learned Judge's competency.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am only showing that these men are competent for the work. There is Mr. Commissioner Fitzgerald. I objected to his appointment because of some proceedings of his in the County of Armagh many years ago. Who was it who defended Mr. Fitzgerald in this House? Who was it who declared that, although he had been guilty 10 years ago of these things, it was a very good appointment, and he was doing very well now? It was the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). Then who is it who is objected to? It is Mr. Wrench. There is a curious thing about Mr. Wrench. I find he is just about as much objected to by the landlords as he is by hon. Members below the Gangway. Landlord after landlord have protested to me against Mr. Wrench's action; and when I find hon. Members below the Gangway and the landlords in Ireland attacking Mr. Wrench, I am forced to the conclusion that at all events Mr. Wrench is trying to do his duty. But even if Mr. Wrench were what hon. Members describe him to be, he is only one of five. He cannot have his own way; he is not likely to have his own way. I have watched Mr. Wrench for some time, and I do not think any man can find any fair or reasonable objection to his work on the Land Commission. These men will be idle, and what I object to is going to further expense when you have these men idle in Dublin. I urge that the clause of the hon. Member for South Derry should be accepted. I believe it will extend the machinery and quicken the pace. In the name of my constituents, I am bound to express a hope that the pace should be quickened, and also to express as much confidence in the Fair Rent Commissioners as in the Purchase Commissioners.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I cannot help thinking that this is a very ill-advised clause. Last night we had the most satisfactory
    1744
    discussion I have heard in the House since I became a Member. It was a discussion in which Members in all parts of the House attempted to approach the subject in a spirit of compromise and fair play, and to avoid anything like Party feeling. The very subject dealt with in that discussion is one that will have to come before the very body whose constitution we are now discussing. I believe the result of last night's work will be very valuable in Ireland, but that the value of that work will be very largely diminished if this clause is carried. Is it worth while to run the danger of, in any degree whatsoever, diminishing the value of what we did last night by insisting upon a clause which those interested in the tenants greatly object to? I do not think we have been very fairly dealt with by the Government. Last year they introduced a Bill for land purchase and a re-organisation of the Land Department. The proposed reorganisation of the Land Department was strongly opposed, and the Bill was withdrawn. This year the Bill has been divided into two parts in order that land purchase might not be clogged by the objections urged to the proposals with regard to the Land Department. In the Land Department Bill there were some provisions of considerable value to the tenants, but it has been abandoned. By this clause it is proposed to take out of the Land Department Bill the most objectionable provision of all, and put it in the Land Purchase Bill. The main arguments in favour of this clause are that it will save time, promote economy, and provide for appeal. How can it possibly save time to impose fresh duties on men who are already overburdened with work? They have got more work than they can possibly get through in the next few years, and in the next few years they will have a large amount of additional work. Again, as to economy, there is no economy in getting men to do work under the Land Purchase Department when they are already unable to perform the work in their own Department; and if you are going to place the Land Purchase Commissioners and the other Commissioners all in one Department and make them one body, you must place them in a position of absolute equality and pay them the same salaries; and if you pay

    1745
    them the same salaries, you will have to raise the salaries of the Land Purchase Commissioners. I do not think the Government can escape the dilemma. The whole weight of the argument of the hon. Members for South Derry and South Tyrone relates to the question of appeal. At the present moment cases are heard in the Land Purchase Department by one Commissioner, who does not value the estates that is to be the subject of sale and purchase. He derives his information from witnesses and Inspectors, and if he decides for or against the purchase there is no appeal. That is a real and substantial grievance. But if you want to provide an appeal from one Land Purchase Commissioner why do you introduce a totally different body and bring into the Court of Appeal gentlemen from another Department of the Land Commission, who have nothing to do with land purchase and who have had no experience of it? I think I can show the House that there is a special reason why you should not introduce any gentlemen from the other Department of the Land Commission for an appeal of this kind, at any rate as regards the question of value. All appeals at Fair Rent Sessions are heard by the Chief Commission, one member of which is supposed to have some knowledge of the value of land. The other is a Judicial Commissioner. As regards the question of value, the Court of Appeal would be largely guided by the opinion of the non-judicial Commission. Questions of law, I think, rest entirely with the Judicial Commissioner. In a case of any property where a fair rent is fixed coming before the Land Purchase Department, you have a guard in the interest of the British taxpayer; you have a guard to prevent the amount of purchase money being estimated solely on so many years' purchase of the judicial rent; you have got, as it were, a revision of the value. The Land Purchase Department will not advance money unless they are satisfied the holding affords bonâ fide value for it. To that extent you have got a check on the judicial rents. Do you require that check? The real object of this clause is that the judicial rent shall be made the whole basis of the calculation for purchase, and that there should be no regard to the question whether the land is worth the sum
    1746
    advanced or not. That was stated in so many words as the object of the clause at a meeting of the Liberal Unionist Association in Dublin. The other day I alluded to the case of the Glenshannon property in County Limerick. Years ago the Land Commissioner fixed judicial rents on the property, but owing to the action of the tenants, the Court of the Land Judges entered upon the management of the estate. The Court appointed a receiver, and refused to give the tenants any reductions; or, at any rate, if they offered any reductions, they were very trivial. After a series of combinations on the part of the tenants, the Land Judges Court sent down their chief valuer; and, on his Report, they offered the tenants a reduction of 30 per cent. on the judicial rents, and wiped out nearly all the arrears. Supposing the judicial rents had been taken as the basis of value in that case, the result would have been that the tenants would have been forced to pay an exorbitantly high price for their holdings. If you are to exercise a check on the judicial rents, if you are not to accept those rents as a basis of purchase, if you are to exercise the right of having an independent valuation of the holdings, it is most necessary that you should not give that Department of the Land Commission, who deal exclusively with the fixing of rent, any power whatsoever in fixing the price of land purchase. There is one member of the Land Commission who is not directly engaged in fixing the value of the land under fair rent, and that is the Judicial Commissioner. If you want an appeal from the decision of one Commissioner in the Land Purchase Department you can very easily form a proper tribunal for the hearing of the appeal by allowing the two Land Purchase Commissioners to sit with the Judicial Commissioner. That would provide a properly constituted body to hear appeals against the decision of one man; a body against whom the objection could not be made that is made against the body proposed to be constituted under this clause. I commend this suggestion to the Chief Secretary. I ask him would it not be worth his while to recommend his Friend the hon. Member for South Derry to accept a suggestion of this kind, that is to say, that, upon any question on which an appeal is desired against

    1747
    the decision of one Commissioner, the case should he re-heard by the Judicial Commissioner in conjunction with two Land Purchase Commissioners. That would be following out the lines which have been accepted in other Departments dealing with the Land Question, where, upon the action of one Chief Commissioner, either party has a right to have his case re-heard by two lay Commissioners, sitting with the Judicial Commissioner. I commend this to the acceptance of the Chief Secretary as a compromise that will meet the case completely, will give protection against the possible mistakes of one man, and will enable us to carry on the Debate in the spirit that, happily, animated all sides last night.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: This new clause or Amendment in whatever shape for the time being it has been before the House, for it has had many shapes, has attracted from the first a great deal of attention; but I do not think that anyone was prepared for the enormous gravity which it has assumed to-night. In the hands of the hon. Member who moved it, its importance did not seem to assume large proportions, and I must own that, personally, I was unable to elicit from his speech the reasons why he proposed this great administrative change. But it was quite another matter when, after the powerful, exhaustive, and, to my mind, absolutely unanswerable, speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast, there arose the well known rhetorical voice of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). The Member for South Tyrone—and it is impossible that anything which even the Chief Secretary with all his ability can say can alter it—the Member for South Tyrone gave to the proposal the form of a Vote of Censure on the present Land Purchase Commissioners. Such the clause became in the hands of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and such it remains. The speech of the hon. Member reminded me of nothing so much as those attacks which the present Prime Minister, in all good faith and with great ability, directed against the Endowed Schools Commissioners in old days, and we well know the result of those attacks. This has been made by the hon. Member for South
    1748
    Tyrone a personal question on behalf of those he wants to introduce into the administration of Land Purchase, and those he wishes to excludeor override, and everyone who has examined the clause knows whom he wishes to substitute for the present Purchase Commissioners, and so we have had much personal invective and much more serious insinuation against the present Purchase Commissioners, who so little deserve these attacks. I shall not enter very deeply into the defence of these Commissioners. I prefer to leave them to the different panegyrics they have received at the hands of their responsible official superiors in former Debates in this House, but I am bound to say this, that so flimsy a case for such a purpose was never brought in the House of Commons in an attack upon any administrative or judicial official, as on this occasion has been brought against Mr. John George MacCarthy; for I do not know that anything has been alleged against his colleague. Let me point out the flimsiness of the attack which consisted for three charges. Take the first charge put forward, that under a misapprehension—for that is the worst that can be said of it—of what had been done by a firm of solicitors—
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Not a firm of solicitors, but a Receiver under the Court.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Commissioner, then, in consequence of what he supposed had been done by the Receiver of the Court, gave utterance to doctrines which, if the impression of the Commissioner had been correct, were doctrines any Judge ought to have been proud to express, and which it would have been his duty to express. The second charge related to a very queer estate, and which the mere description of the hon. Gentleman shows to have been one of the queerest pieces of property that ever came under the cognizance of any body. With a rent of £1,100 to begin at, reduced to £700 or £800, and then bounding down again to an equivalent of £350 or £400, is it a wonder that Mr. J. G. MacCarthy and Mr. Lynch should have declared after all that the annuity should be but £295? Is that a dereliction of duty on the part of officials who are our only defence against the greed of the seller and the helpless-

    1749
    ness of the man who is the so-called buyer? The third charge is that Mr. J. G. MacCarthy has spoken very strongly against making substituted tenants owners. Now, on that point I can only say it is exceedingly necessary that the Purchase Commissioners should, in the interest of the State, at any rate look very closely into the condition of these tenants, who are not the class of men for whom land purchase was originally instituted. For the old holders of the land, for those who are part proprietors in the value of the holding, this House is prepared to make sacrifices to convert them into proprietors—sacrifices which it does not make for the farmers of England, because they are not part-proprietors of the land. It is for the interest of the State that the Purchase Commissioners should look closely into the position of these substituted tenants, because, as will be admitted, there is primâ facie a probability that they will not be such good cultivators, will not have had the experience, and will not be so likely to be so successful on the holdings as the ordinary tenants of Ireland. "Well, these are the three charges on the strength of which a Vote of Censure of the most cruel and biting sort has been moved, and this House is asked to pass a condemnation of the conduct of a public official upon utterly flimsy and frivolous ground. If I speak with some heat I do not think that hon. Members opposite will resent that, but I now drop into a different tone, and, speaking from the point of view of one who has had some part in administration, I ask the House to regard this proposal apart from point of view of tenant or of landlord, and simply as it concerns the public interest. This is essentially a question of division labour. The Fair-Rent Commissioners have already plenty to do. In alternate weeks they are supposed to be in the Four Courts or travelling about Ireland. In addition to their work under the Land Act, they have upon their backs a great deal of work under the Labourers Act in the way of the collection of statistics, and the latter part of the Bill now before the House will place upon them considerable work with reference to the congested districts. They have a great deal to do, their work requires special knowledge, and they cannot be taken
    1750
    from it without the greatest detriment to their work. It is idle, too, to try to explain away the great burden of the appeals. There remains the great fact that these appeals number thousands, and that each year there are between 1,500 and 2,000 such disposed of. Then, when five years hence appeals are disposed of, will come the gigantic task of the re-revision of all the rents in Ireland, and it is quite certain that the full powers of these gentlemen will have to be given continuously to that work for many years to come. Their duties are essentially different from the duties of the Land Purchase Commissioners. The duties of the Purchase Commissioners are to advance public moneys, to investigate the security, to ascertain the rights of owners and encumbrancers, and to distribute the proceeds of the sale between the different persons interested. To undertake such administrative duties requires the possession of great ability. To adequately perform this work great experience is required—a knowledge of the business can only be learnt by long experience, and this clause proposes that, when that experience has been gained, those who have obtained it should have their functions interfered with by those who are without such experience. Here you have a public office with great duties to perform divided by a sharp line into two parts. Would the House of Commons ever sanction such a method of dealing with a public department as is here proposed in relation to any other public office? Would the House sanction a proposal by which the functions of the officers in one department of the Treasury should, after an experience of five or six years, be transferred to officers of a wholly different branch of the department? Would it not be an extraordinary proposal if in the Admiralty the official whose duty it is to superintend the purchase of dockyard materials should be suddenly entrusted with the duty of giving out contracts for ironclads? But here is a similar proposal by which the officials in the two branches of the Land Department of Ireland are called upon to change their functions. And again, in the Act of 1885, Parliament deliberately confirmed the decision arrived at in

    1751
    1881, that appeals should only be on questions of law, not on questions of fact, but this proposal is, in matter of appeals, to confuse the administrative and judicial functions. No doubt the motive of the hon. Member who brought forward this clause is excellent, but the motives of those who are supporting him outside are not so excellent. The change is really proposed in the interest of disappointed vendors. I have seen the reasons which the Liberal Unionist Association in Ireland have given for the change, and some of these seem to me little short of libellous. It is stated that the Purchase Commissioners have had no experience in land value, and, on account of their own incompetency, have to rely upon a valuer for the practical experience they want. The Purchase Commissioners are quite right in sending their valuer down. They are quite right in not accepting, without a fresh investigation, the basis of a judicial rent fixed some eight years ago. They have to make a bargain which shall be safe for the taxpayers of this country, while conferring a benefit on the tenants of Ireland, and I cannot conceive that a better method can be devised than that by which for the last five or six years the Commissioners have so satisfactorily carried out their work, and I cannot consent to pass a Vote of Censure on those Commissioners in the interest of those few landlords who have been unable to sell because the prices they demanded have been too high.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Those Members of the House who have followed the policy of the Government in the matter of land purchase will not be surprised to hear that we are prepared to support this new clause, which, in fact, is a portion of the scheme of the Government embodied in the Land Department Bill, which considerations of time have compelled the Government to drop. In defending the proposal, I shall endeavour to pitch my remarks in the key which characterised the middle part of the speech of the right hon. Baronet who has just spoken rather than that in which he began and ended. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that to accept the Amendment would be to pass a Vote of Censure of a biting kind on
    1752
    the Land Commissioners appointed in 1885.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: Only so after the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; after the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). My hon. Friend used his undoubted right to condemn what he thought were unjustifiable proceedings of certain gentlemen connected with land purchase, just as the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) used his Parliamentary privilege of making an attack upon Mr. Wrench and his colleague, and I wish to know, if we, by accepting the clause, pass a Vote of Censure upon the Commissioners appointed under the Act of 1885, do we not equally accept the conclusion that not to accept the clause would be to pass a Vote of Censure on the Commissioners appointed in 1881? This Amendment is resisted principally by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the definite ground that they think the Land Commissioners of 1881 are favourable to the landlords, that they have not got what they are pleased to term popular instincts; that they twist the law and twist their duty, using their functions in favour of the landlord, not of the tenant; that they have done this though appointed as Judges, and required to exercise their jurisdiction without fear or favouritism. Now, I want to know, if these accusations are to be levelled, are we not to draw the conclusion that if accepting this clause will be a vote of censure upon the Commissioners of 1885, equally to reject the clause will be to censure the action of the Commissioners appointed under the Act of 1881?
    MR. SEXTON: As the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned my name in this connection, I may be allowed to say that from beginning to end of my speech I never referred to favouritism as between landlord and tenant, but dwelt on the question of diligence and efficiency of administration as proved by records.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that this has been the staple of attack in the many preliminary discussions we have had in relation to this question, and I think the hon. Gentleman did make an illusion very much in that direction in regard to Mr. Wrench's

    1753
    character and performances. But I am sure the House will not expect me to follow the example set by those speakers who have preceded me in criticising the conduct of these Commissioners. For my part, I believe that both the Commissioners of 1881 and the Commissioners of 1885 have deserved well of their country, and have done their duty to the best of their ability in an impartial spirit. It is not, therefore, because we have any want of confidence in the Commissioners of 1885 that we accept this clause. It is not intended, in the slightest degree, to suggest that any of these five gentlemen to whom we propose to entrust the duty of carrying out the policy of land purchase are not deserving of the fullest confidence. With this preliminary observation, I pass to the arguments against the clause. The hon. Member for West Belfast has complained of our permitting a private Member to propose the introduction of such a clause as this. Now, it may be observed that when an hon. Member below the Gangway makes a proposal to amend the Bill we never hear of such a criticism. The acceptance of an Amendment then is evidence of a conciliatory spirit and desire to meet a general wish; it is never suggested that the Government are going outside their duty if they accept such an Amendment. When, as in this case, the proposal is identical with a portion of our plan for the amalgamation of the various branches of the Land Department, surely, then, to refuse the proposal, when made by a private Member, would be to reverse the traditions and ordinary procedure of the House. The hon. Member for West Belfast has told us that by this clause it is proposed to interfere with the one department in Ireland concerned with the land which has hitherto escaped criticism. Well, I do not say that the Land Purchase Department has never deserved criticism, and this Debate has proved that it is sometimes open to criticism, but I do not dwell upon that. It is quite true that the Land Commissioners have been the subject of criticism to a far greater extent than the Land Purchase Commissioners, but the work of the Land Purchase Commissioners does not bring them into collision with public opinion, whereas the Land Commissioners have to fix rents, and an
    1754
    archangel performing such a task in Ireland would not escape criticism and attack. The functions of the Land Purchase Commissioners do not concern the great mass of the tenants. They cannot raise the price against the tenant; they can only lower the price in the interest of the Exchequer and whenever they interfere in the bargain between landlord and tenant, it is to lower the price the tenant will pay, the interest of the Exchequer being the interest of the tenant. The result of the interference is that the tenant buys at a cheaper rate.
    MR. SEXTON: Or he does not buy at all.
    MR. A.J. BALFOUR: I apprehend that in a very large proportion of the cases where the Commissioners do not accept the original terms, fresh proposals are made. The strongest argument which has been brought against the proposal of my hon. Friend—a proposal for which there is an obvious primâ facie case—is that the Commissioners to whom we are going to entrust the new funds are not in a position to carry out their new functions, that arrears have accumulated and are accumulating, and that' by giving them appeals besides, we shall be hampering rather than promoting the rapid discharge of their work. I do not think the matter has been properly stated to the House, as far as I understand it. It is perfectly true that there have been large arrears of appeals. It is not true that they are increasing; indeed, they are diminishing at a rate which makes it quite clear that the Land Commissioners will be able to devote their energies to the daily increasing work of land purchase. The Returns show that appeals are being disposed of in a greater ratio than they are put down, and that, therefore, the number to be heard is getting less. The number disposed of by August, 1888, was 200; in the year ending August, 1890, it rose to 3,G66, while in the year ending April, 1891, the number was close upon4,000.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the number that are now waiting to be decided?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is a little over 5,000.
    MR. MACNEILL: 6,000.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The larger number includes a number of cross-appeals, and allowing for these the total is nearer the lesser number. These appeals, irrespective of new ones to be put down, will be disposed of in little more than a year.
    MR. SEXTON: Is it not the fact that new appeals are as numerous as ever?
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that is the case. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the month of February, 1891. In that month the number of appeals lodged was 211, and the number heard and withdrawn was 421, so that the number disposed of was nearly twice as large as the number listed.
    MR. LEA: Has the right hon. Gentleman got the Return for March?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I chose February, 1891, because that was the month selected by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). In March the number lodged was 108, and the number disposed of 390; in April the number lodged was 199, and the number disposed of 363. I think, therefore, it may be taken that these appeals will not be such a serious burden as to prevent the Commissioners undertaking the additional labour the clause will impose upon them. Let me now call attention to the advantages that will accrue from the acceptance of the Amendment. It will give the Purchase Commissioners the assistance of the existing legal Commissioner, Mr. Justice Bewley. When you talk of the two 1885 Commissioners being able to discharge the duties created by this Bill, I think you hardly appreciate what those duties are. This Bill is much more than a mere addition to the Ashbourne Act of 1885. No doubt this Bill is rooted in the Act of 1885, but the system created by it is a new system; it is a very elaborate system, and it will throw upon those who administer it duties very different from and more onerous than the duties imposed by the Act of 1885. There will be a large increase of actual business. It has taken six years to get through about £6,000,000, but does anyone suppose that land purchase is going on at the same rate in the future? If the Bill succeeds—if it is allowed to succeed— land purchase will, I am convinced, go forward at a rate incomparably more
    1756
    rapid than anything we have hitherto bad experience of. It is quite plain that the two gentlemen who have hitherto been able to keep abreast of their work will not be able to do so without assistance when the Bill comes into operation. In carrying out this Bill they will have to do many things they are not required to do now. They will have to carry out elaborate financial arrangements, to collect a much larger body of annuities, and to advise the Lord Lieutenant whether to extend the five years during which the 80 per cent. is to be paid. They will have to fix the annual value of land, and I dissent from the proposition that that is essentially different from fixing fair rent. I want to point out that you have compelled the Land Commissioners to fix the annual value of the land, and if you say they cannot do both, you ought to throw the duty of fixing the annual value, not on the Purchase, but on the Fair Rent Commissioners. They will have to determine matters connected with distress. Under the measure as it stands, it will be in the power of any purchaser to bring, as an excuse for non-payment of annuity, facts to show that he is unable to pay through undeserved misfortune. The consideration of such matters will be a duty entirely different to any duties conferred on the Commissioners by the Act of 1885. It is a duty not very analogous to any performed by any branch of the Commission; but if it is a duty that should be performed by a branch of the Commission, surely the branch best fitted to perform it is that established under the Act of 1881. So as to distress. The Lord Lieutenant can be set in motion by the Land Commission, and on their advice he can declare that general distress exists in a district of such a kind that the Reserve Fund may be called on partially to meet it, and when that is called on loans will have to be made out of that fund to defaulting tenants. Can a more elaborate and delicate process be conceived, and one which would require a stronger Commission to deal with, and which would make a greater call on the whole judicial strength of those who administer the Act? I should weary the House if I were to go on to point out the new functions thrown on the Commissioners by the labourers and the congested district part of the Bill;

    1757
    but I think, after the discussions we have had, it will be seen that in reality we are calling upon those who administer the Act of 1889 to discharge functions entirely different in character, and largely exceeding in amount any functions imposed by the Acts of 1885 and 1888. At present these two Land Commissions have a staff partially in common, and each has also a staff of its own, and these staffs are largely occupied in similar operations. There may be different examinations of holdings—such as examinations to ascertain the fair rent value, and examinations to see if there is adequate security for an advance; but the staff ought to be the same, and it is ludicrous to have two separate staffs carrying out functions that are closely analogous. If you want to carry out these functions in the best manner, and with the greatest economy of time and money, there should be only one staff, and it should be at the disposal of one undivided body. To sum up, the existing Commissioners under the Act of 1881 are carrying out functions which are diminishing; the Commissioners under the Act of 1885 are carrying out functions that are not only increasing but will go on increasing by leaps and bounds. If you want to organise the Department you must amalgamate the two branches. If the House wants to make the new Department equal to the enormous work thrown upon it by this Bill, instead of breaking it up by introducing fictitious divisions of labour, it ought to give every opportunity for organising the staff to the best advantage, and it ought to give those who have to fix capital values all the assistance they can derive from those who have been fixing fair rents, and from the legal experience of the gentleman at the head of the Commission of 1881. I am almost ashamed of having taken up the time of the House in making so long a statement on what appears to me so obvious a policy. The policy is not carried so far as I should like to see it. I say it is really ludicrous that in Ireland at this moment there should be the Fair Rent Commission of 1881 determining one set of questions relating to the land, that there should be the Commissioners of 1885 determining another set of questions relating to the land, that there should be the Landed
    1758
    Estates Courts performing other functions in connection with the land question, and that there should be still other bodies also engaged in matters relating to the land. By the Land Department Bill these various bodies were to have been amalgamated. Unfortunately, that measure cannot be passed this Session. I hope, however, that the House will not be so foolish as to reject half a loaf because it cannot at once get the whole loaf.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman, with an assumption of innocence, spoke of the clause and the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone as emanating from a private Member. The hon. Member for South Tyrone, we know, is the organ of the Triumvirate who sit below the Gangway opposite. When a Motion is to be proposed which it is not convenient for them to propose, the hon. Member chosen for the purpose is the hon. Member for South Tyrone. Betting is sometimes done by commission, and when the Government want a thing done they know where to find a commissioner ready to lay out their money for them as they think fit. That commissioner is the hon. Member for South Tyrone. Now, Sir, quite apart from the administrative character of this clause, or the effect it will have in Ireland upon the acceptance or the rejection of the policy of this measure—and this from a statesmanlike point of view is a most material question—I ask, if the Government thought this clause expedient and necessary, why in the world did they ever commit it to or allow it to fall into the hands of the hon. Member for South Tyrone?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It is not my clause.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: It is not his clause. The hon. Member put up another man. The betting commissioners to whom I have referred know that device also. But the speech and the Amendment and the policy are those of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, or rather of those by whom he is inspired. What was the object of the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone? To attack the character and destroy the credit of a Purchase Commissioner. The speech was a violent, bitter—I had almost said malignant—

    1759
    attack upon Mr. MacCarthy. And what was Mr. MacCarthy attacked for? For doing that which any Judge in the Chancery Division in this country would have done in similar circumstances. Everybody knows that in Court or in Chambers a Judge relies upon the honour and good faith of those who practice before him. If he were not to do so, business could not be transacted. Mr. MacCarthy believed, rightly or wrongly, that a practitioner had been guilty of sharp practice, and he said to him, "If you continue this sharp practice you will make business as conducted by you impracticable." That is what he said, and that is all he said. For that he has been attacked in this House, and thrown over by the Chief Secretary.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has misrepresented what I said. The idea of throwing over the Purchase Commissioners never entered my head.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Perhaps I used too strong an expression. Instead of "thrown over" I should have said "dropped." The right hon. Gentleman attributed some observations as to the unpopularity of Mr. Wrench to the Member for West Belfast, but the Member for West Belfast did not make those observations. It was the hon. Member for South Derry who expressed regret that Mr. Wrench was not a person of more popularity. That is all I heard against any of these Commissioners; therefore, when the Chief Secretary got up to apologise for the bitter attack, intended to destroy the credit and position of Mr. MacCarthy, we know very well what the object of the attack was. The fact is Mr. MacCarthy was attacked because he has done his duty towards the English taxpayer. The Unionist landlords are dissatisfied with him; that is the reason why the hon. Member for South Tyrone has been put up to blacken—I had almost said calumniate —Mr. MacCarthy, who has had the courage to defend the English taxpayer against the landlords, and to prevent English money being wasted in unfair bargains between vendors and purchasers in Ireland. Mr. MacCarthy is the bête noire of landlords who want to get too large a price for their land, and therefore this clause is moved with the intention of casting a slur upon him.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not intended.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman is not the mover of the clause. The whole object of the clause, as expounded by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, was to attack Mr. MacCarthy, and to introduce Mr. Wrench to overrule him. The clause, if carried, will destroy the credit of the Land Commission in both its branches, because it is intended to set one branch of the Commission against the other. The clause is put forward because the landlords do not trust Mr. MacCarthy. The mass of the people of Ireland have confidence in him; therefore, it is proposed to associate a number of other Commissioners with him to overrule him. That is the interpretation which, in my opinion, will be put on this clause, and, in my opinion, it will discredit the Commission in both branches, because it has been introduced in a spirit of hostility. I say it is most unfortunate for the success of the Bill and for the credit of the Commission that the Government should have accepted this Amendment from the hon. Member for South Tyrone. If the Government really think that the clause is necessary as an administrative measure, why have they not had the courage to bring it forward themselves? They have said it is part of the Land Department Bill. Well, it is a curious proceeding—an inconvenient and, I should have thought, hardly a regular proceeding—that when there are two Bills before the House one should be taken and practically incorporated in the other by an Amendment on the Report stage. If you want to amalgamate two Bills there are forms well known by which it can be done, and by which Second Reading and Committee Debates can be given. But here, nothing could be more likely to injure the prospects of the Bill than the course which has been pursued. A clause embodying a policy which ought to be well considered is thrust forward at the last moment on the Motion of a private Member—a most unstatesmanlike way of dealing with the matter. What is the hurry? The Government say they do not consider this a satisfactory solution of the question. I admit that, in dealing with a great measure like this for land purchase, it may be necessary to

    1761
    revise your machinery; but I think that when a scheme for revising the machinery is submitted, it should be laid before us on the responsibility of the Government. You are going to incorporate in the Purchase Commission three gentlemen of ability and integrity. What is the hurry? Why can you not bring in your Land Department Bill next Session? You. know that the Rent and Purchase Commissioners have to get rid of their arrears, and that you have time to bring it forward with the full authority of the Government. Therefore, there is really no necessity whatever for this Amendment, except to destroy the position of Mr. MacCarthy. Do Her Majesty's Government think that after such a speech as that of the hon. Member for South Tyrone the people of Ireland will be well disposed towards this measure? We heard in the speech of the hon. Member those tones of class animosity of which he is the representative. Let the Government next year bring forward a well-considered plan, and they will lose nothing in the meantime. If we proceed with this Amendment, we will be pitting one section of the Commission against another, one man against another. When Mr. MacCarthy has given a decision, another Commissioner will endeavour to overthrow it; we will introduce a spirit of class animosity and class hostility which we ought to endeavour to get rid of. The advice which I offer to the Government is not hostile advice; their Bill will not suffer, but will gain, if we accept it. Here are £30,000,000 to be placed at the disposal of this Commission; and here is an Amendment which will be regarded in England, as in Ireland, as a change made in the Commission for the purpose of allowing and encouraging inordinate prices to be given for the land. Mr. MacCarthy has been guilty of refusing to allow what he believes to be an improper sum to be given as between the vendors and the taxpayers. Therefore, whether we regard the matter from the point of view of the Irish tenant or the British taxpayer, who is ultimately responsible for the money, this Amendment is injurious to the Bill. It is utterly unnecessary, because the Rent Commissioners have got more than enough to do, and there is ample time for introducing that com-
    1762
    plete measure which the Chief Secretary told the House is necessary. In this Amendment, proposed in a spirit of injustice and class animosity, no man will have confidence; and I hope it will be resisted by every means in our power, and take care that the people in Ireland and in England shall understand the spirit in which it has been brought forward.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I begin to believe that the Education Bill will after all be postponed to next Session, and that it is the intention and desire of the Government to do so, because at the close of the Debates on this Bill they have sanctioned an Amendment which, more than anything else the Government have done, is calculated to prolong Debate and embitter passion. There can be no doubt of the intention and purpose of the Member for South Tyrone—he wants to stab Mr. MacCarthy, and he does so openly; but the Chief Secretary, "willing to wound, but yet afraid to strike," does the same work furtively. Here for the first time is the betrayal by the Chief Secretary of a faithful public servant.
    MR A. J. BALFOUR: Not a single word did I say against Mr. MacCarthy, and after the contradiction I gave to the right hon. Member for Derby I must say the hon. Member seems to have deliberately misquoted me.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman charges me with deliberately misquoting him. I charge him with deliberately betraying his official subordinate, not by speech, but by deliberate silence. The right hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunities of washing himself clean if he can. The Member for South Tyrone accused Mr. MacCarthy of deliberate misconduct in several cases. The right hon. Gentleman, ignoring the whole attack, gave the sanction of his silence to that bitter and malignant attack. If the right hon. Gentleman was ignorant of the facts of the case, why did he not get the facts from the Attorney General for Ireland, who knew them? Because the right hon. Gentleman did not want the facts. I will tell the whole secret. Mr. MacCarthy and Mr. Lynch refused to sanction applications in 1,064 cases for a sum amounting to £507,000. The applications were made a second time, and then all that was

    1763
    asked was £420,000, and it was because Mr. MacCarthy forced the landlords to accept that proper and just amount that other vendors are now taking revenge by the open attack of the Member for South Tyrone, and the furtive attack of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman was not able to defend Mr. MacCarthy with regard to some of these cases. The hon. Member for South Tyrone was not courteous enough to give the particulars of the attack he was going to make on Mr. MacCarthy; he said he would not give them unless he was compelled to do so; and yet he comes down to this House with all his armoury in his pocket and at once proceeds to make use of every weapon. Why did he not give the Chief Secretary notice of what he was about to do? If he intended to attack Mr. MacCarthy for his official administration, why did he not in courtesy and honesty tell the Chief Secretary he meant to do so, in order that the right hon. Gentleman might have had the means of replying to him? We understand the relations between the hon. Member and the Chief Secretary. They are of that demi-semi-official character which is avowed or denied as occasion requires. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a strong and violent Protestant, and I admit the contrast between the violence of his attack and the attack on the other side; but I ask the hon. Gentleman, was it fair to attack Mr. MacCarthy without giving the least notice either to him or his official superior?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I spoke of two cases, and I did so deliberately, for the sole purpose of showing that where there was so much divergence of opinion there ought to be a right of appeal from a single Commissioner.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I understood the hon. Gentleman's purpose from the method of his attack. The misfortune of Mr. MacCarthy is that he is an honest Purchase Commissioner, and not a dishonest one, and that he will not help the dishonest landlords against their tenants. The right hon. Gentleman gave us an account of the additional duties of the Land Commissioners; but he said nothing as to those of the Assistant Commissioners. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether they have not all had additional duties imposed upon them? Mr. T. P, O'Connor
    1764
    Why, Sir, one of these Commissioners is to be a member of the Congested Districts Board, and will consequently be taken away from his other duties, the extraordinary part of the business being that a department which is not in arrear with its work is to be helped by a department that is already heavily in arrear. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the rent fixing Commissioners were only a year's work in arrear. Even if we take the figures from the right hon. Gentleman, and accept the statement that these Commissioners have only a year's work to bring up, why does he not wait for another year and bring in his Land Department Bill, when we shall be the better able to see who is right. If the year's arrears were then overtaken, the right hon. Gentleman would then have a right to say that the work might be taken up by these persons; but if it were found that in the meantime the arrears continued to accumulate, it would then be clear that the Purchase Commissioners should not have further work thrown upon them. The right hon. Gentleman puts himself in the position of prophesying what the new Bill is going to do, whereas what he ought to do would be to wait until next year and see whether he is right. 'The hon. Gentle man the Member for Tyrone has put for ward propositions which you could see by his very face he did not believe. Here is the charge against Mr. Mac Carthy
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It was not against Mr. MacCarthy.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the readiness with which he says that. Why, Sir, here is the very man who makes charges against Mr. MacCarthy denying that he does so, and at the same time pouring all this thunder and lightning upon Mr. MacCarthy's head because he made a mistake.
    MR. SINCLAIR: Mr. Speaker, I rise to order. I wish to ask whether the hon. Member has any right to say that the hon. Member for South Tyrone has made a charge against Mr. Mac Carthy, when the hon. Member for South Tyrone says he has made no charge?
    MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members will put their own interpretation on what was said.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: We are told 'that the transaction was not on the part of Mr. MacCarthy but of Mr. Lynch. At any rate, the original rent of £1,142 was reduced to £852 by the Sub-Commissioners, the Government valuation being £541. In another case, where a man came before the Purchase Commissioners, Mr. MacCarthy was under the impression that Mr. Saunders had taken advantage of a clerical error. I am told that it turned out that Mr. MacCarthy was under a false impression, and I accept that statement for the moment, although I do not know whether it will bear examination or not. An hon. Member on my right says it is not true; but I will take it that it is true. If Mr. MacCarthy were under the impression that an officer of the Court had taken advantage of a clerical error for purposes of extortion, was he not called upon to use the language he did? I now come to the third charge, which is that Mr. MacCarthy declined in some cases to sell to substituted tenants. Now, Sir, I put it to the House—supposing the hon. Member for South Tyrone were to become a Purchase Commissioner—not at all an unlikely thing to happen: in fact, I should be disappointed if when the Government go before the constituencies in another year's time, knowing very well that they are not likely to come back to power, they do not make provision for the hon. Gentleman. But, Sir, was not Mr. MacCarthy justified in refusing to sell to substituted tenants? Here is a loafer or a "corner-boy," brought from Belfast with money put in his pocket in order to make a bogus purchase, and instead of his paying for the use of the land he is paid to stop on the land. Would anyone be justified in giving to that itinerant loafer a full claim to the property? I would not trust him to pay for 49 days, let alone 49 years; and yet because Mr. MacCarthy refuses to take these substituted tenants, down come the friends of the landlord party and make attacks upon him. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was quite justified in asking what effect this clause would have in Ireland. The man who stands most in the way of the successful working of this Bill is the Chief Secretary himself. He never did an uglier or worse piece of work than when he gave
    1766
    an authoritative sanction to the attack on Mr. MacCarthy. What will be the result? There are to be five Commissioners—three supposed to be on the side of the landlords and two on the side of the tenants. These men are to fight as in a cockpit the question of landlord versus tenant. The Bill, we know now, is intended to be in the interest of the landlord. The three landlords' Commissioners are to be placed in a position of superiority over the two Purchase Commissioners. I do not think anything more effectual could have been done to destroy any confidence that might have been felt in Ireland in this Bill. The measure is only intended to last until the General Election: it is a piece of pedantry in politics, and not genuine statesmanship.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I do not propose to touch on many points which have been raised in this Debate, for I think it is quite possible to arrive at the conclusion suggested by the hon. Member for Derry, without dealing with these personal questions. It would be impossible for any body of Commissioners occupying a. responsible position to entirely satisfy public opinion on a question like this: but there is no reason why the subject of appeal should not be raised and discussed apart altogether from the manner in which those gentlemen may or may not have succeeded in satisfying public opinion. It is no discredit to the Purchase Commissioners if they have failed to satisfy public opinion. I hold that the appeal is necessary to the administration of this Act, and it is undesirable, while extending the scope of land purchase in Ireland, not to grant appeal even in the interests of the Purchase Commissioners themselves. As to the question of the nature of the appeal to be given, I admit that that is a question open to a great deal of argument. I am far from denying that there is great force in the points raised by the hon. Member for West Belfast. I would prefer, however, to see the appeal transferred in the manner proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for North Down, because under it there will not be any possibility of friction arising between the Commissioners of the Land Department and those of the Purchase Department. It would also have the advantage of

    1767
    obviating any presumption that a point in dispute was being taken from one Commissioner who was supposed to be friendly to one class in Ireland, and decided by other Commissioners who were supposed to favour the interests of another class. A phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in his peroration was extremely misleading. There cannot, in a question of appeal, arise any question of hostility between landlord and tenant. There may be hostility between landlord and tenant on one hand and the English taxpayer on the other, but that is the only possible hostility on which the Court may be called to adjudicate. Remember that before the appeal stage is reached all questions between landlord and tenant must have disappeared, and, therefore, the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in relation to this hostility has in it no substance. I do not think it necessary to argue this question at any great length. The principle which underlies the clause will remove a great anomaly which exists in Ireland at the present time. At present you have an elaborate machinery for dealing with appeals in cases in which rents are fixed for a period of 15 years, which may be but a trifling question, but now you are going to deal with the permanent realisation of the capital of the landlord. You provide no machinery for adjustment or re-adjustment. I hope that the House will consent to give a Second Reading to the clause, which I believe introduces a great and valuable improvement in the administration of the Act. Take the case of a farm on an estate on which the rents have been judicially fixed. These rents have been fixed by two experts who sit in Court to assist the Land Commissioner. But the Purchase Commissioners, if the case comes before them, may send down a valuer, who may, or may not, be a person of experience, and he may fix the capital value of the farm at a sum absurdly out of proportion to the annual value fixed by the Land Commissioner. I believe that to be a great anomaly, and for the reasons I have stated I hope the House will give a Second Reading to this clause. At the same time, I do not pledge myself to adhere to the particular form of appeal sketched out by
    1768
    the hon. 'Gentleman the Member for South Derry.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member for West Belfast used words indicating his opinion that the adoption of this clause by the Government would upset the system and policy of land purchase hitherto existing in Ireland. That raises a question of the policy of transferring to the occupying tenant the interest of the landlord. But this Debate has turned more upon personal matters. It is true that the Land Purchase Department has been administered by Messrs. MacCarthy and Lynch in a satisfactory manner on the whole, but it does not necessarily follow that they may not have committed some error of judgment. The proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derry is to create a power of appeal in cases where the decisions given may be wrong. It is in no way intended—nor should I support it if it were intended—to cast any slur upon Messrs. MacCarthy and Lynch. It 'is, to my mind, little less than scandalous that this clause should have been treated as an attack on those gentlemen, who. I believe, have in the past done their duty to the best of their ability. Those of us who support the clause strongly and strenuously repudiate any such suggestion. The clause is no more a slur on those gentlemen than is the power given to a Court of Appeal to hear appeals from decisions of the Lord Chief Justice of England a slur upon that eminent judicial dignitary. I trust that the line of argument which has been adopted by hon. Members below the Gangway will be dropped, and that those who address the House will deal with the real question before the House, and disprove, if possible, the necessity which we say exists for a Court of Appeal in cases of this kind.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I do not know what, in the mind of the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, constitutes an attack; but if there has not been an attack on the administration of the Land Purchase Department in the course of the present Debate, I should like to know what all the talking has been about. From the commencement no speaker has resumed his seat without alluding with greater or less fervour to

    1769
    the alleged conduct or misconduct of Mr. J. G. MacCarthy.
    MR. LEA: In moving the clause I said distinctly I had no intention of attacking either Commissioner.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I quite admit that, but the hon. Member for South Tyrone came down to the House briefed for the occasion. And what was his brief? It consisted of a series of letters and charges connected with the administration of the Purchase Department. It was alleged that one or both of the Commissioners had been guilty of some inexplicable misconduct in connection with two properties. I will pass by the case of the Sullivan Estate, which, I believe, is not yet out of the Court, and I will merely say that there are facts in regard to it which, if brought forward, would place a considerably different complexion on the attitude of the Land Department as depicted by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. But I will deal with the case of the Fermoy Estate. The charge that Mr. MacCarthy voluntarily went out of his way to interfere in this case is absolutely devoid of foundation. The hon. Member was evidently not properly coached. The facts are these: The estate of Lord Fermoy was for some years in the Court. Delays occurred, which Lord Fermoy charged as the fault of the Department, although subsequently he admitted they were due entirely to difficulties connected with the ascertaining of the title and to applications which he himself had made from time to time to delay the sale of the estate. In the meantime certain arrears had accumulated. The law at that time was in doubt; it was not known whether a landlord in such a case should sue for rent or interest. Lord Fermoy sued in the alternative. The negotiations were carried on in the month of August, just before the Long Vacation; and, owing to the pressure of clerical work, the Land Commission failed to get Lord Fermoy to sign a certificate under Rule 55, which entitles the Land Commissioners to satisfy themselves that all arrears of rent had been either released, or discharged, or paid. The Land Commission not having obtained that certificate, Lord Fermoy proceeded to assert his claim for arrears. Mr. MacCarthy having called his attention to the matter, Lord Fermoy at once
    1770
    expressed his willingness to sign the certificate. The charge made against Mr. MacCarthy is that he unwarrantably interfered in the affairs of his fellow-Commissioner. The interference was, however, with Mr. Lynch's consent, and the tone of the letter was far more moderate than the language used by Mr. Lynch in open Court in regard to the proceedings of Lord Fermoy's agent. It was the conduct of that agent in suing unjustly for arrears that brought about an alteration in the rules that rendered it necessary, as Mr. Lynch said, for
    "The Court to guard itself against any invasion of Rule 55…. In one case where the agreement was in the old form, proceedings were taken for a year and a half's rent, or in the alternative, for interest in. lieu thereof, while in another case we found that while we had approved a conveyance more than six months since it had not been executed, and when an explanation was asked for we found it had been held back in order that proceedings might be taken and a decree obtained for arrears of rent. It would militate against the successful working of the Act in future if claims of this character were capable of being made, and we have ordered—"
    Then follow the new rules. The hon. Member in reading the correspondence carefully gave only that which suited his own case, but if he had read the letter of the 5th November, closing the correspondence, he would have thrown a different light on the case. In that Mr. MacCarthy says (to Lord Fermoy's agent)—
    "Surely it must be plain to you it is our manifest duty by leaving all parties free up to the date of the advance to see that the landlord does not, at the very time he receives the advance of State funds, reserve demands against the new proprietors, which, if exacted, would render it impossible for him to discharge his obligations to the State. This plain and clear duty you may be well assured we shall always discharge without fear or favour to anyone."
    The hon. Member for South Tyrone appeared to think it was a very grievous piece of misconduct on the part of Mr. MacCarthy to threaten Lord Fermoy's agent, who himself is a receiver in the Landed Estates Court.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Mr. Saunders, the agent, was alone responsible for this action, and yet Mr. MacCarthy threatened the entire firm.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: He is a member of the firm. The Court of Chancery cannot appoint a firm—it can only appoint a single individual; and if the position of the hon. Member were a sound one,

    1771
    it would be possible for a receiver to grossly misconduct himself by getting his firm to do that which he personally dare not do, and then to escape scot-free as against the Court of Chancery. Both Mr. MacCarthy and Mr. Lynch are bound to be strict in their dealings with these men. The Land Commission have express power under their rules to deal not only with receivers, but also with solicitors, whom they may suspend even for trivial offences. I think the Court's action towards Mr. Saunders was extremely moderate. I look with the utmost alarm to the future of the Land Commission if the practice hitherto recognised is to be departed from, and the two sets of Commissioners to be intermingled, so that those who in the past have fixed the rent will, in the future, be called upon to fix the capital value of the same holding. I say that such a plan is grossly unfair, for a Commissioner who has once fixed the rent would not have a free mind to deal with the question of capital value, as he would be tied somewhat by his previous decision. I say the present system of dividing the work is the only fair and logical one, and that to disturb it will be productive of unfortunate results. The hon. Member for South Tyrone says that the Lord Lieutenant, by Order in Council, can transfer the Purchase Commissioners to the fair rent side of the Land Commission. It is true he may do that, but he has never done it. Furthermore, when such power was conferred on the Lord Lieutenant in Council, care was taken not to give the converse power of transferring the Land Commissioners to the Purchase side. You are proceeding to do that, and by so doing you will, I believe, render the working of the Land Department in the future excessively difficult. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary regarded this Amendment as so important, why did he not stick to a portion of his Land Department Bill? It has been said that preparation must be made for the increased work that will be thrown on the Commissioners. I deny that any increased work will be thrown on the Commissioners. Unless you increase the area of Ireland, it is absurd to imagine that the annual amount of work to be discharged by the Commissioners will be in any way increased. Experience
    1772
    has shown that £10,000,000 for land purchase lasts over six or seven years. It is fair to assume that land purchase will not go on at an accelerated rate in the future. I venture to predict that, so far from its going on at a greater rate in the future, the tendency of the present Bill will be to retard it. The additional functions thrown upon the Land Commission will be so extremely simple that in no instance will they consist of anything more than signing their names to the documents placed before them, and recommending to the Lord Lieutenant, from time to time, whether the five years over which the guarantee extends shall be continued or not. All the additional work will be performed by Inspectors, and not by the Land Commissioners themselves. The whole tendency of the new Bill is to throw obstacles in the way of purchase, and, that being so, the argument that provision must be made for the additional work to be thrown on the Land Commissioners falls to the ground. There are no arrears in the Purchase Department, but lots of arrears in the Fair Rent Department. I would ask how, under the circumstances, can it be supposed that the Commissioners under the Act of 1881 can lend the slightest assistance to the Commissioners under the Land Purchase Act? I believe myself that the two Purchase Commissioners will be perfectly equal to any work thrown on their Department. In the cases referred to by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), and especially in Lord Fermoy's case, there would be no appeal. You propose to give power to determine points of law on appeal to gentlemen who are not lawyers at all. Not only will the hon. Gentleman's clause not improve the administration of the Land Department, but I think it will be positively mischievous. I think that if the hon. Gentleman would publish the whole of the correspondence in the case of Lord Fermoy it would be seen that Mr. John George MacCarthy was not only justified in everything he said, but that he only fulfilled his manifest duty in calling attention to the culpable misconduct of Mr. Saunders, and to the action which Lord Fermoy subsequently agreed to withdraw from. I think that, under all the circumstances, the charges

    1773
    that have been made against the Land Purchase Commissioners fall to the ground. It is said we must have representation for Ulster, and the hon. Member for South Tyrone, speaking for his constituents, said he supported the clause in their name. Speaking for my constituents, who belong to the same class as the constituents of the hon. Gentleman, I believe they will be alarmed and shocked that any Member, especially the hon. Member for South Derry, should introduce a clause which will have the effect of materially injuring the interests of land purchase in Ireland. The great body of them are quite prepared that land purchase should be left in the hands of those who deal with it at the present time. I regret extremely the Chief Secretary has determined to accept the clause. The Land Department Bill proposed to deal with this matter in a different way. Whether we approve of the Land Department Bill or not, its provisions were certainly much more equitable and much more advantageous than the new clause proposed by the hon. Member. (8.25)
    MR. MAC NEIL: It is unusual to find Irish Members engaged in defending Government officials against the attacks of false friends. I have recently come from the turmoil of a contested election, and I have stated on every hustings my opinion that the policy of the Government has been inimical to the interests of the British taxpayers, that the policy has amounted to the taking of money from the pocket of British working men, applying it to the relief of worthless Irish landlords. I have also stated that the whole course of administration in Ireland has been to convert, possibly indirectly, that administration into a species of rent office for the landlords. These are serious allegations, but during the course of this Debate, and from speeches from friends of the Government on either side of the House, these allegations have been justified. I have had some years of Parliamentary experience, but I cannot remember in any measure, great or small, an Amendment going to the very root of the matter largely affecting the whole administration of a great and comprehensive measure being brought in on Report ostensibly by an indepen-
    1774
    dent Member, but really by the Government itself, in the manner this Amendment has been proposed. It is ridiculous to regard the hon. Member for South Derry as the author of this proposal, when we know that a four-lined Whip has been issued to the friends of the Government to support this proposal. The purpose of the Amendment is to cast a slur upon, to degrade so far as it is in the power of the Government to do so, the two Land Purchase Commissioners, and the Land Purchase Commissioners themselves view it in that light. But even for Dublin Castle it is too strong a step to take to censure officials appointed by themselves. It is an amusing thing that these officials were appointed by the present Government to administer the Ashbourne Act, upon which they set great store. Mr. J. G. MacCarthy and Mr. Stanislaus Lynch were nominated by the Government as the best men that could be found to administer the Act, and how have they performed their duties? They have behaved as trustees, as guardians of public money; they have refused to become mere Castle tram horses. They have not degraded their position; they have administered the £10,000,000 entrusted to them judiciously, having regard to the British taxpayer and the community at large, and their real offence is that they have not converted a temple of justice into a thieves' kitchen for the Irish landlords. The Chief Secretary has said that he defended Mr. J. G. MacCaithy, but who attacked him? No one but the agent of the Government, the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and the defence of the right hon. Gentleman was but a "damning with faint praise." I have often admired the loyalty with which the right hon. Gentleman has defended the conduct of his subordinates, even when I have thought it wrong for him to do so. But how different has been the faint and lukewarm defence of Mr. J. G. MacCarthy, who has refused to consider these £10,000,000 as so much plunder to be divided among Irish landlords. Contrast this with the defence of petty officials in bygone years. Two years ago, from my place in this House, I held up the certificate of dismissal with disgrace from the Caps Force of the right hon. Gentleman's Resident Magistrate, O'Neil Segrave, a man whose conduct was the

    1775
    cause of the murder of three men in open day in cold blood, and yet the right hon. Gentleman defended this man as he has not defended Mr. J. G. MacCarthy. He defended Dr. Barr, who was found guilty by a coroner's jury of having caused the death of John Mandeville. These things come to our remembrance in contrast to the right hon. Gentleman's action now; but we will defend this gentleman and his colleague Mr. Lynch, because we believe they have acted justly, honourably, and well. Long ago I foresaw the course the Government would take in reference to these gentlemen. That Return to which my hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) has referred, shows how these gentlemen have saved the Exchequer £83,000 by not permitting unconscionable bargains between rich and poor, and I knew then that their doom was sealed by the present Government, and we know the Government have done what they could to degrade the position of these Commissioners. They were given £1,000 a year less than the two pets of the Government, the two handy men who are ready to do as the Government wish, and the shameful, shabby pretence for this present action would be amusing but for the gravity of the consequences. The hon. Member for South Derry, who acts in concert with the hon. Member for South Tyrone, has made this Motion, but it is in reality that of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. It was down originally in the name of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, bat then comes a little shuffling of the cards, and with a new deal the motion appears in the hands of the hon. Member for South Derry as a less notoriously prominent partisan than the hon. Member for South Tyrone. We contend that these two Commissioners should be continued in the position which they have filled with honour to themselves and advantage to the public. I wish the hon. Members for South Derry and South Tyrone were in their places. It is said that the Land Commissioners have had a larger experience, but I say that statement is false. I do not say false to the knowledge of the hon. Gentlemen who make the statement, but I do say they are guilty of surprising negligence in putting the statement forward. There is a Return before the House, moved for on February 23 by the hon. Member for Mr. Mac Neill
    1776
    South Derry, which shows the qualifications of the Land Commissioners and Purchase Commissioners, and I invite attention to this Return. What are the qualifications of these gentlemen, as compared with the qualifications of the handy men of the Government who are to try the cases on appeal? What are the qualifications of Mr. Lynch? He is nearly 20 years older than the solicitors to whom his cases are to go on appeal. He has had practical experience in land in no fewer than eight counties, and is a gentleman of the highest culture. He was educated at Stony hurst. He kept his terms for admission to the Bar, and had no fewer than 14 years' experience in the Landed Estates Court in Ireland, becoming acquainted, as Registrar, with all the complicated questions and details of title, and displaying conspicuous and splendid ability. He has farmed 1,500 acres of land, or 300 more than Mr. Wrench. The hon. Member for South Derry (Mr. T. Lea) said the Land Purchase Commissioners had less experience than the persons to whom the appeals would be taken. I will not say that what the hon. Gentleman stated was untrue to his knowledge, but I say he was unpardonably negligent, as the Return moved for by himself shows that the Purchase Commissioners have 10 times the experience of the others. I now come to Mr. John George MacCarthy. I do not wish to understate or overstate his qualifications. He had one disqualification in the eyes of the Government. He was elected by the voice of the people, and sat in this House for six years. I find that he has had practical land experience in no fewer than nine counties. He is a gentleman of good education. He was educated in Dorset-shire. He was a land agent, was Legal Assistant Commissioner for four years, and was promoted straight from being Legal Assistant Commissioner to be a Purchase Commissioner. As regards the persons to whom the Appeal is to be taken, when the proper time comes, which I should imagine will be on reaching the clause giving these people their positions, I shall be prepared to state in the plainest language what their qualifications are. At present I decline to do so. I want, however, to say in reference to Mr. Justice Bewley, that his is such a good appointment, and

    1777
    he is such a meritorious man in every way, that I have a strong notion the Government appointed him by mistake. I shall on a future occasion refer to the qualifications of these gentlemen, because when this Act has passed I shall have an opportunity of speaking about them again. Our mouths are now closed. If I mentioned one of these gentlemen, you, Mr. Speaker, in the exercise of your authority, would call me to order, for the only means of expressing disapproval of anything they may do is by an Address from both Houses of Parliament. Mr. Wrench is not even an Irishman; his previous occupation was that of a land agent, he had an experience in only five counties, and his age is only 37. Mr. Gerald FitzGerald was Legal Assistant Commissioner in 1881 and 1882, and the Return says of him: "He never farmed land or acted as a valuer or surveyor." He never dealt with as much land as would support Noah's dove when it left the ark. It is said that there is no one on the Commission to represent Ulster, but the Ulster case is now played out, and in a few plain words I will state the meaning of this. The Government want to take a leaf out of the book of a bad class of tenants, and to divide this swag amongst their own supporters. These gentlemen for five years have administered public funds economically, and that is their great offence. They have said in effect: "We were appointed by a Conservative Government; we are not grateful to them for the appointment; if they appointed us in order that we might favour them we ought to throw the appointment in their faces; if they appointed us to do Party work on the Bench the appointment is a disgrace to them and to us. We took office as public trustees, and we say that no less than £83,000 has been saved by us from the maw of the landlords by our stepping in and saying to them 'the bargains you propose are unjust and inequitable having regard to all the circumstances of the case.'" I very much object to officials, especially judicial officials, being promoted. It would be a shameful thing if a person appointed to a judicial position were to keep his eyes fixed upon the Treasury Bench in the hope of being promoted. Mr. MacCarthy would not consent to allow bogus tenants to
    1778
    become mere conduit pipes through which men like Lord Clanricarde might get the money of the taxpayer, and the object of the Amendment is to destroy the independence of men who have acted independently, and put in their place gentlemen on whom the Government have more reliance. The Government want to rig the Irish Bench and get the Land Commission in the hands of the supporters of the Government. These are grave charges if they are not true—as I believe them to be. The Government will say: "We cannot stigmatise our own nominees;" but there are wheels within wheels, and they get their friends on the other side to do that which they cannot do themselves, and then, by means of a four-line Whip, they bring in their supporters from the smoking-room and the tea room to vote for a policy which they would not vote for if they understood it. Their desire in this clause is not to keep their friends on the Land Commission from the influence of the times, but to keep them from the influence of the House of Commons and the Executive Government, and fence them round by the House of Lords, knowing that they themselves will not be in power when the Land Commission as re-organised gets into proper working order. I think, having regard to all these matters, that the public opinion of this country may be affected, and people may see that in Ireland not only are meetings and juries packed, but that by this Land Purchase Act even the Bench of Justice will be packed by the supporters of the Government. It is said that there should be an appeal, but why should there be an appeal under this Act when there was none under the Ashbourne Act? The reason there was no appeal, and why there could be none, under the Ashbourne Act, was that there was no compulsion either on the landlord to sell or the tenant to buy. The Purchase Commissioners, according to theory, are simply trustees of the public purse, and no appeal should be permitted from them, unless on a point of law. The tenant, who is a poor man, is not on an equal footing with the rich landlord in the matter of appeals, and it seems to me that it will be a very hard thing to allow the discretion of the Land Commissioners to be interfered with,

    1779
    Mr. Justice Bewley for legal purposes is an admirable selection, but the Bill altogether is an after thought in the interests of landlords. Its object is to put a check on the honest discretion of Mr. John George MacCarthy and Mr. Stanislaus Lynch, and to give Mr. Wrench authority in the Court—and this gentleman, like the Resident Magistrates, will do just what he is told either directly or indirectly. Of all the shameful incidents which have occurred in Ireland during the last five years, I think the most shameful is the way in which every judicial tribunal and Court of Justice is tampered with. The Courts of Justice are simply machines of the Government—and I am glad that we are here now defending Government officials. We Irish Members will take right good care that Mr. MacCarthy and Mr. Lynch do not suffer from being honest to the British public, and when we can do so we will try and offer them some atonement for the gross insult the Government have passed on them.
    MR. WEBB: This clause is at first sight a very simple and innocent looking clause, bat I think it is seldom that simplicity and innocence covered up a more insidious principle than in this case—a principle which would have passed unnoticed by the majority of the House if it had not been for Members sitting on these Benches. It appears to me that all legislation in regard to Ireland follows a very distinct course— directly opposed to what it should be, having regard to the history of the country, and to the small minority in which we find ourselves here. When legislation like the present Bill is intended, there is no consultation with the Irish Members, and vital Amendments brought forward by us are outvoted—and outvoted by hon. Members who have not even heard the Debate or the reasons on our side. The next course is that care is taken that in its application legislation of this kind shall operate against the mass of the people. We have had all these principles strikingly illustrated on the present Land Bill. There was no real consultation with the Irish representatives as to what the legislation should be. I think it will be admitted that there are men on this side of the House, and belonging to our Party, who are quite as able to take a statesmanlike
    1780
    view of any system of legislation as any Members in any part of the House, and yet I do not think that they have even been cousulted of late years on any question of important legislation. More than this, our Amendments have been constantly outvoted, although they are often very important Amendments. It is difficult to imagine anything more likely to stir the blood of the Irish Party than the way in which we have been outvoted by the majority who are just kept in leash for the purpose. This Bill has been pressed through day after day, it is a measure of great complications, requiring the greatest ability to understand all its details and bearings, and I may say that, but for the extraordinary ability and the iron constitution of two or three Members who have been able to hold out in a period of great sickness, we should have had no real discussion whatever. I consider that the style in which the Government had sought to force 'on the Bill was absolutely indecent. They had had the extraordinary spectacle of the Bill being forced on at the time when the two men who were most responsible for the present agitation in Ireland, and whose views it was most important to obtain—namely, Mr. John Dillon and Mr. William O'Brien—were in gaol.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the clause before the House.
    MR. WEBB: This clause is introduced to prevent the Irish people from getting the full benefit of the Bill, and I am surprised at its being backed as it is by Representatives of the tenants of the North of Ireland. With reference to the relative merits of the gentlemen whose different Departments we are now considering, it cannot be denied that one Department has practically no work to do, and that the other is always in arrear, and it does appear extraordinary that the gentlemen in the Department which is in arrear with its work should be chosen to have additional duties imposed upon them. The Purchase Commissioners, Messrs. Lynch and MacCarthy, have done their duty fairly and openly; they have not done it in the spirit of ascendancy, in the spirit of coercion which influences too many of the officials of Ireland, or by truckling to popular clamour. This clause has, to a certain

    1781
    extent, come upon us by surprise. There has not been time for the country to express its opinion upon it. It has not been introduced in a straightforward manner. On all these grounds we ought to give it the most strenuous opposition in our power.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I cannot doubt that the action of the Government, in giving their support to a proposal which has been sprung upon the House by an hon. Member evidently in agreement with them, is most unusual and most unfortunate, and will certainly tend to prolong and embitter the discussions not only on the clause itself, but on the other remaining parts of the Bill. It will have, also, a most unfortunate effect on the future of the Bill when it passes into law, for undoubtedly the change will be regarded as one made in the interest of the landlords, and with the object of enhancing the price of land. The Chief Secretary has said that the proposal now before us is identical with that contained in the Bill to which I refer.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said that I regretted that the Government could not make it identical, but that it was better to have half a loaf than no bread.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: At all events, the right hon. Gentleman should have pointed out the important respects in "which the clause differs from his Bill. I have referred to that Bill, and I find that the proposal for re-constructing the Land Commission is in every most important respect essentially different from that now before us. The scheme in the Land Department Bill, whether we may approve it or not, was a carefully considered one, and complete as a whole. It proposed that the five Commissioners should be of equal rank and equal pay. The proposal now before us will continue the existing inequality of pay and rank, and will virtually place the Land Purchase Commissioners in an inferior position. Then, again, under the Land Department Bill the distribution of duties is to be made in a very formal manner by the Lord Lieutenant with the assent of the Privy Council. In this proposal a majority of the Commissioners are empowered to make rules in the future for the guidance of the Land Purchase Commissioners. In other
    1782
    words, the three Land Commissioners are empowered to make rules in respect of that branch of the Department of which they know nothing over the heads of the two Land Purchase Commissioners. Lastly, as regards appeals, the procedure is totally different. Under the Land Department Bill every question affecting the amount of advance is to be made by two Commissioners, and only in the event of their differing is there to be any re-hearing, and then the re-hearing is to be by three Commissioners—one of whom is to be the Judicial Commissioner—and I presume the other two Commissioners will be, or may be, the two who heard the case before. Under the present proposals a single Commissioner is to decide these matters, and if any party thinks himself aggrieved there is to be an appeal to three other Commissioners, of whom one is the Commissioner who first heard the case. For my part, I very much prefer the procedure of the Bill to that now proposed to us. What I desire to point out is the essentially different character of the proposal to that in the Bill, and that the Chief Secretary has entirely misled the House by saying that the are identical. The Chief Secretary defended the proposal mainly on two grounds: the first the necessity for providing machinery for greatly extended operations under the Bill now before us, and he seemed to think that the Bill would necessarily result in a vast increase in business in the direction of purchase. I venture to think he is entirely mistaken; the Bill before us gives no additional facilities or inducements to purchase, but rather the reverse, the only extension is of the actual aggregate which may be advanced; any other change has been in the direction of restricting the two Ashbourne Acts, and, in the opinion of most of us, the 5th clause with respect to tenants' insurance will have a most injurious effect in restricting purchase. If under the Ashbourne Acts purchases have been effected at a rate a little over £1,000,000 a year it is safe to predict that under this Bill the rate "will not be increased, but will be reduced. But the Chief Secretary said that the Bill imposes other duties on the Commissioners; they are, however, of a very contingent and remote character, namely, to report on cases of distress, and the

    1783
    like. Surely it would be wise, before changing the constitution of the Commission, to obtain some experience as to the working of the new Act, and the effect it will have on the work of the Department. On the other hand, it is perfectly clear from the figures quoted by the Chief Secretary that, for one and a half years at the very least, the other three Commissioners will be amply and fully occupied in clearing off arrears of their own work. What, then, can possibly be the motive for taking them from their present duties? The other question raised is the necessity on appeal and the necessity for bringing into re-hearing the decisions of the Commissioners. I need not remind the House that the Act of 1885 expressly prohibited any appeals and re-hearing, except in matters of law. We are now asked to allow appeals, on any and every point in which any person may think himself aggrieved, and that the appeal shall be from a Commissioner who is thoroughly acquainted with the whole subject of land purchase to three others, who may be wholly ignorant of the business of land purchase. If there is to be an appeal or re-hearing in any special case it should follow the direction of the appeal in legal points, as provided by the Act of 1885—to be to the two Land Purchase Commissioners and a Judicial Commissioner. The real fact is, that this clause is for the express purpose of humiliating the Land Commissioners. The bitter attack of the hon. Member for South Tyrone made this abundantly clear. It is undoubtedly the fact that the Land Purchase Commissioners by their care and their zeal for Imperial credit, and their determination not to allow money to be advanced on bad security, have given mortal offence to many landlords. Mr. MacCarthy has also offended by refusing to make advances in the cases of the planters and emergency men, who have taken the place of evicted men. What is now proposed is to overrule Mr. MacCarthy by bringing on the other Land Commissioners who know nothing about land purchase, who have heard nothing of the previous proceedings, and have no knowledge of what is done in other cases to overrule Mr. MacCarthy, and the undoubted effect will be to tend to raise the rate of purchase, especially in the
    1784
    case of small holdings, to risk the credit of the State, and to make the measure unpopular with the country.
    MR. JORDAN: I oppose this clause mainly because I think the Land Purchase Commissioners have done their work fairly well and should not be superseded. I think also that the functions of the two classes of Commissioners should be kept distinct, the Purchase Commissioners fixing the capital value of the land, and the Land Commissioners the fair rent. The fixing of fair rent is not nearly so important as the fixing of capital value. The Land Commissioners have the fixing of fair rents for 15 years only, and any mistake they make is only applicable to that term, whereas the Purchase Commissioners have to fix the full value of the land for 49 years, or nearly half a century. I think their functions are much more important than those of the Land Commission. The hon. Member for South Tyrone has admitted that the Purchase Commissioners have done their work fairly well. If so, why should they be superseded? But, says the hon. Member, the transactions are enlarged, and the machinery should be quickened. If we want to quicken the pace, who are so likely to do it, or to do it as well as the present Purchase Commissioners? When the land purchase experiment was new, with all its initial difficulties and intricacies, the Commissioners did so well that we may fairly ask why should they not, with all the experience they have since derived, be able to do as well or even better in the future. I believe they are capable, if necessary, of doing double the amount of work they have done under the Ashbourne Act. On the other hand, you have the rent-fixing Department, where all the officials, except Mr. Wrench, are novices and know little of the land question. Beyond this, Mr. Wrench has only been in office a very short time. The Chief Secretary has not in his able speech to-night disproved the figures put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). The hon. Member for South Tyrone has told us that the work of the rent-fixing Commissioners is almost exhausted. I would put it to the House whether this is really the case. In my opinion, there must be a

    1785
    considerable prolongation of the rent-fixing process, which must necessarily go on, at least, for several years. If the rent-fixing Department will require even five years to clear off their work, how foolish is it now to mix them up with land purchase. Wait until their present work is exhausted, and if you then find the rent Commissioners are idle men you can legislate as you wish to legislate now, or you can pension them off; but until then why overweight the rent-fixing Commissioners with work for which at present they have not time or fitness? Why mix them up with these dual functions? The old adage is applicable, "Let the cobbler stick to his last," let each set of Commissioners stick to the work they know best, let those who have been doing their work well continue to do it. I have nothing to say personally against the rent-fixing Commissioners. Mr. Bewley is, I am informed, and I do not doubt it is a fact, a highly respectable man, and it is not my tendency to detract from the merits of any man. I am ready to say a good word when I can, even for Members of the present Ministry. Mr. Bewley, deservedly respected as he is, is simply a Judicial Commissioner, a high and dry Chancery lawyer. Lawyers are all fairly dry, but driest of all is a Chancery lawyer. I hope I am saying nothing offensive to learned limbs of the law who are also Members of this House. I do not see how the qualifications of a Chancery lawyer fit a man for deciding questions in dispute, which turn upon the decision whether a piece of land is worth 12 or 13 years' purchase, or the judicial rent. I do not know why the hon. Member for South Tyrone should have imported such heat into this discussion if he and those with whom he acts have no animus against Mr. J. G. MacCarthy and Mr. Lynch. I am willing to suppose he has no such animus, because I think we may say of the hon. Member that his "bark is worse than his bite," and it may be that his manner is assumed, in his character of special advocate for a class. Anyhow, his case against Mr. J. G MacCarthy has hopelessly collapsed. I think that Mr. Commissioner MacCarthy wrote as expressing the opinion of the Department, and with the assent of Mr. Commissioner Lynch. If Mr. MacCarthy, in
    1786
    expressing that opinion, was under a misapprehension, yet believing as he did, the letter he penned did honour to him as a man and as custodian of the interests committed to his charge, both of the tenants and the State, and had he dismissed Mr. Saunders, instead of reprimanding him, he would not have exceeded his duty or strict justice. I supported the hon. Member for South Tyrone last night, and, at the risk of giving offence to my Party, I would support him still if I thought in this he was in the right, but I do not think so, and I take the liberty of earnestly advising him not to press this Amendment. If such an exactment should in the future appear desirable let it then be introduced. Are we not to have a Land Department Bill next year? Is the bringing forward the Bill a mere piece of hypocrisy—are the Government fooling the House? I will think better of the Ministry than that, and will suppose that it is their intention to bring forward the Land Department Bill if they should be in office. The Chief Secretary says this clause is part of their scheme in that Bill. Then leave it to be settled with the Bill. Why make the hon. Member for Derry the putative father of the proposal? The right hon. Gentleman found great difficulty in making out the semblance of a case. Would he not be wiser in leaving the thing alone now and letting the Purchase Commissioners continue to do the work which it is not alleged they are unable to do? Why should you anticipate a dead-lock in the purchase transactions? When a difficulty arises deal with it. Why should you degrade these Commissioners from the position they now hold, in which you admit they have done their work well, by associating with them other Commissioners who, from the fact of their drawing higher salaries, will assume a superior position? If it would remedy any defect in the working of the scheme of land purchase, I would support the clause, but the business of the rent-fixing Commissioners is largely in arrear, and likely to be for many years to come.
    MR. M.HEALY: This is by far the most important issue raised since the Second Reading of the Bill. The clause proposed by the hon. Member for South Derry appears to me to endanger the very existence of the Bill, and strikes a blow at the whole policy of land pur-

    1787
    chase. I am amazed 'that the Government should act in this perverse way, giving countenance and support to such a pernicious proposal. We have heard from hon. Members on this side of the House a great deal about the interests of the British taxpayer, and many of our hon. Friends from England have felt constrained to differ from us in the position we have taken up upon this Bill, and they have voted against the system of land purchase embodied in it on the ground that the interest of the British taxpayer is endangered thereby, but we have steadfastly supported the policy of the Government. Yet I am bound to say that if this clause passes into law, I, for one, will begin to think that those Irish Members who have supported the Bill have not been entirely wise, and if, indeed, there is any danger or possibility of the British taxpayer suffering loss by the proposals in the Bill that result will be brought about by the clause now proposed. I do not, however, pretend to oppose the clause in the interest of the British taxpayer. The interest: I have in view is that of the Irish, not the English, taxpayer, because, as hon. Members will remember, the Irish taxpayer is interposed as a barrier between the English taxpayer and any possible loss to him under the Bill, and it is the Irish taxpayer who will first have to bear any loss or injury this clause may cause in bringing about the sanction of improvident bargains and consequent failures to meet the purchase annuities on the part of peasant proprietors. The risk of danger falls first upon the Irish taxpayer, and in his interest, primarily, I oppose the clause. This proposal, if adopted, will compel many hon. Members to totally change the point of view from which they have regarded the Bill. Land purchase administered by two men in whom we have confidence is one thing, but administration by five men in the majority of whom we have no confidence is quite a different thing. I, for one, will claim the liberty of re-considering the position I have hitherto taken in regard to the Bill if this clause should be adopted, and, instead of being its supporter, I shall think that, far from it being a benefit to Ireland, it may be the worst curse inflicted upon our country for many years. This clause has had a peculiar history. I do not say
    1788
    it has been brought forward in any breach of technical Rules of Order, but if no Rule of Order has been distinctly violated, I do suggest that the Procedure of the House has been abused by transactions in relation to this clause. It is admitted to be a capital clause of the utmost importance, and is it fair treatment to Members to capture their support to the Second Reading of the Bill on false pretences, to induce them to believe that the administration of the Bill would be in the hands of the two men who have administered the land purchase system in a way to command general confidence, and then at the fag-end of the Report stage to import a provision handing over the administration to a body in the majority of whom we have no confidence? It is introduced not in Committee, where it could be properly discussed, but on a stage when the facilities for properly discussing such a clause are greatly curtailed. It is introduced not on the responsibility of the hon. Member who makes the Motion, but as a Government proposal. When we consider, too, that just before the Whitsuntide vacation many hon. Members were induced to withdraw their Amendments from Committee, I say the House has not been treated fairly in this matter, and though, technically, there may have been no breach of Rule in the proceedings, I say that if we have many more instances of this kind the House will be driven to seriously re-consider its Rules on the ground that there has been an abuse of our Procedure in the manner in which this clause is put before us. This Bill involves a proposal for advancing £30,000,000; it is a scheme carefully matured by the Government; it is introduced for the second time, and yet we are not told until now that there is to be a change in the administration of these funds, and the selection of the Commissioners is left to a private Member. It is an unreasonable, an unconstitutional, proceeding, and this Conservative Government has added one more to the many instances given of their utter disregard for constitutional precedents hitherto governing procedure in this House. For the first time the Chief Secretary has had the co-operation of Irish Members in a Government measure of importance, and so perverse is his action that I am driven

    1789
    to suppose that he has become tired of his unwonted position, and is determined that no act of his whole administration shall be one of which Irish Members can cordially approve. This proposal is part of that policy of packing which has from time to time appeared in his administration. We are familiar with jury - packing, we have seen the packing of the Magisterial Bench, and now the proposal is to pack the Land Commission. Having regard to the enormous sums of money the Commission will have to administer, I venture to think that this is probably the most serious of the tamperings with the constitution of Departments which from time to time has characterised the administration of the right hon. Gentleman. What are the pretexts upon which the clause is introduced—for of course they are not the real reasons for which it is promoted? In the first place, the hon. Member for South Derry, its putative father, does not appear to be very strong on the grounds for introducing the clause. He spoke vaguely of the work of the Land Purchase Department and the expense to litigants; he contented himself with vague generalities, not advancing a single instance in support of the proposal. Now, there is no Court in Ireland where the tenant has to pay less in the shape of costs than the Land Purchase Commission. I have had a good deal to do in the management of affairs for the tenant class in the Land Court, and I know that the whole cost of the proceedings has usually been borne by the landlord, very unwisely sometimes, for there are many matters before the Court upon which the tenant ought to be represented. Then it is said there have been great delays in the Court of the Land Purchase Commissioners, and here, again, the hon. Member was judiciously vague; he attempted to give no instances of such delay. Now, this Court has been in existence for six years, and during those six years there have been perpetually questions raised in this House commenting upon, and criticising the administration of, almost every Department in Ireland; but I challenge the hon. Member to examine the Records of this House and find any single criticism in debate or question reflecting on the history and proceedings of the Land
    1790
    Purchase Department. The hon. Member for South Tyrone mentioned one case in which he was able to allude to some delay. It was a case we never heard of before, in reference to which no questions have been asked, and as to the history of which I know nothing. It may have been that the delay was caused by the professional men engaged in the case. Then, again, stress has been laid upon the amount of knowledge of agricultural values. Upon this I will say that, in my opinion, the two Purchase Commissioners have, at least, as much knowledge as the three gentlemen who are to be added. The hon. Member for South Derry seemed to think that the three rent Commissioners must necessarily have acquaintance with agricultural matters, qualifying them to decide as to the value of land; but the fact is, fair rent appeals are decided, like every other judicial case, not on the personal knowledge of the Judges, but on the evidence given before them upon the reports and evidence of their valuers. It does not follow, because the three rent-fixing Commissioners have been going about hearing appeals, that therefore they have acquired agricultural knowledge, and the two Purchase Commissioners are probably as well qualified to decide the questions that arise before them as any Department in the United Kingdom. Of course, the real fact is — and it is practically admitted—that the three Fair Rent Commissioners are to be introduced not because they can give any assistance in the working of this Act, but for the sole purpose of serving as a Court of Appeal on questions of value from the decisions of the two existing Commissioners, Messrs. Lynch and MacCarthy. It is admitted that these Purchase Commissioners have work cut out for them in the way of appeals that will last them at least a year. For 10 years the Fair Rent Commissioners have been hearing appeals without having ever overtaken the mass of work which has accumulated on their shoulders. It is now said that in the course of another year they will have done so. I am exceedingly glad to hear that information. It will be very comforting to the great mass of the tenants in Ireland. I am professionally concerned for tenants whose appeals have been 2½ years pending, but have never been

    1791
    listed, and are not likely to be listed for six months or 12 months. Under the circumstances, it is idle to tell me that these three learned Commissioners are likely to render any efficient service in the practical carrying out of the Act. It is to be observed that these gentlemen have other administrative duties. They have important duties under the Labourers Act, and they have administrative duties in regard to the Church Temporalities Fund. It is on these gentlemen, who have been for 10 years, and are still, in arrear with their work, that it is modestly proposed to dump down the additional work created by this Bill. It is perfectly plain that the real reason for this proposal is the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt). This clause is a vote of censure on Mr. John George MacCarthy. It would be throwing water on a drowned rat to allude any more to the ridiculous mare's nest which was discovered by the hon. Member for South Tyrone in reference to the estate of Lord Fermoy. The hon. Gentleman brought his allegations forward in such melodramatic tones that one would have naturally expected to find on the Paper a Notice of Motion calling on Her Majesty to remove Mr. MacCarthy from his position. It all amounted, however, to this: that some gentleman concerned in the Court had been accused of being guilty of sharp practice, and that Mr. MacCarthy wrote and asked him if it was correct. My own complaint in reference to the Purchase Commissioners in the matter of Lord Fermoy's estate is that they ever sanctioned the sale. The sale took place in the early days of the Land Purchase Act, at 20, or more than 20, years' purchase. It was a sale which the tenants afterwards made desperate efforts to get out of, and it was pressed on the tenants as the result of a long struggle with their landlord to obtain some reduction of their enormous rents. The transaction reflects no discredit on Mr. MacCarthy, and, if it could be examined, the person who would come badly out of it would be Mr. Saunders, the hero whom the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) comes forward to defend. What is still more remarkable than the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone is the sinister silence of the Chief Secretary.
    1792
    For the first time during his administration an attack upon an Irish official has been passed over in silence by the right hon. Gentleman. If it happened that the meanest Resident Magistrate in Ireland, from Mr. Cecil Roche down to Colonel Caddell, was attacked, the right hon. Gentleman had his defence ready cut and dried. He was always ready to pour the vials of his wrath on anyone who ventured to impeach the competency of any of his officials. To-night, however, the head of an important Department, the Member to whom the Government in their own Bill propose to hand over the administration of £30,000,000 sterling, has been attacked, and we have heard no word of reproof from the right hon. Gentleman. This is, in effect, a proposal to change the men who are working the machinery of land purchase in Ireland, to give an appeal on the question of value from Mr. John George MacCarthy to Mr. Wrench. The hon. Member for South Tyrone argued that the Land Purchase Commissioners at present are the Court who have the confidence of the tenants, but that a Court ought to be a body who have the confidence both of landlords and tenants. He, therefore, proposes to introduce Mr. Wrench and the other gentleman as a counterpoise to Mr. John George MacCarthy and Mr. Lynch. The Land Purchase Department is an Executive Department administering the funds of the State, and it is a Court to carry out bargains between landlord and tenant. It is not a question of landlord and tenant having confidence in the Land Purchase Department; it is a question of the Irish and English public having confidence in the Department, and that alone is the issue in this case. The hon. Member for South Derry gave an example of a sale in Antrim, in which case the landlord and tenant agreed to present their agreement to the Land Purchase Commissioners, and the Commissioners sent down a valuer, who saw the farm when snow was on the ground, and induced the Commissioners to reject the sale. The hon. Member says there ought to be an appeal from one man. Applications for loans are frequently made to the Treasury, who, after due consideration, announce their decision. What would be said if we proposed there should be an appeal from the Treasury?

    1793
    It is ridiculous to speak of an appeal from the Treasury or the Land Department. The practice of the Land Purchase Commissioners in doing their work through valuers has been sneered at. Does the hon. Member for South Derry expect that Mr. John George MacCarthy and Mr. Lynch are going to visit the properties themselves? Does he suggest that these three Commissioners will go through any process of the kind? No; they must act just as the Land Purchase Commissioners are acting. It is on information derived by Inspectors that the Land Commission, however constituted, must in the end decide, and therefore it is idle to suggest that the three Commissioners, when they are invested with authority under the Bill, will be a whit more competent to pronounce on a question of value than the two Purchase Commissioners. However an application comes before them, there is only one way in which they can satisfy themselves that the security is adequate, and that is by sending down a valuer, who will decide whether it is or not. The way in which the Court of Appeal, which has been put forward as a model, does its work is by this despised system of valuers, and it is the boast of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that since they adopted the system of valuers they have done twice as much work as they did in the whole of their past history. Reference has been made to the case of Mr. O'Sullivan. So far from the action of Mr. Lynch in that case reflecting any discredit upon him, it was the highest testimony to his integrity. The principal member of the firm of solicitors who applied to Mr. Lynch for a loan was a near relative of his own. Mr. Lynch had the strongest interest in making an advance if he could. This is an attempt to degrade the Purchase Commissioners in salary and jurisdiction, and by being attacked in the House by a supporter of the Government, and having that attack passed over in silence by the Chief Secretary. There was something to be said for the proposals in the Land Department Bill. Those proposals were, at any rate, well considered and well matured. Whilst this clause imports into the working of the land purchase system a body of men in whom the Irish public have no confidence, on the other hand that Bill contained a great many
    1794
    excellent proposals which, to some extent, would have mitigated the objections which we take to this particular proposal. That Bill put the Land Purchase Commissioners on a perfect equality with the existing Land Commissioners. This clause will have a most mischievous effect. It 'will vitiate the whole Bill; it will render the Bill as hateful in the eyes of the Irish public as it appears it has hitherto been in the eyes of the English public.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I should like to say a word or two from what I may call a practical point of view. I can quite understand the action of the Chief Secretary and the Government in bringing in the Land Department Bill. Anybody who has the slightest acquaintance, even on this side of the Channel, with judicial administration in Ireland—the very lavish scale on which it is based, and the very easy manner in which it is worked— must say that the Government were right in proposing that there should be a thorough re-construction of the Land Department when there were very large and increased duties handed over to the Commissioners. I can also understand that, looking at the state of Public Business and the vast complexity of this measure, the Government should abandon for this year their Land Department scheme, and should content themselves with proposing to the House the land purchase scheme really as an extension of the Ashbourne Act. That was an intelligible policy, and one which apparently met with the approval of Parliament. But what I do not understand is this: that having decided to abandon the Land Department Bill, and having decided to omit all reference to the working of the Commission in this Bill, they should, on one of the last nights of the Report stage of the Bill, accept from one of their supporters, who is charged with no official responsibility, and who does not possess much official knowledge, a clause which has been provocative of the greatest difference of opinion in the House, a clause which must naturally very much impede the working of the Act. I ask the Chief Secretary what is the practical advantage to him and to the Irish Government and to land purchase in forcing this clause at this moment? I quite agree

    1795
    you must re-construct your Land Department. I do not believe it is possible for the Land Purchase Commissioners to work out this scheme; they must have help, perhaps more than we contemplate. In the next 12 months nothing can be done by the aid of the clause you are now going to pass into law; and by passing this clause you will practically deprive yourselves of the power of an intelligible and statesmanlike re-construction of the Department. Let me recall the Chief Secretary's attention to the figures relating to business as stated in the Report of the Land Commissioners themselves. In their Report, presented to Parliament up to the end of August last year, the Commissioners say that 2,381 appeals from the Civil Bill Court and re-hearing of decisions of the Sub-Commissioners were disposed of by them during the year. They say the number of appeals lodged during the year was 2,781, that is 400 more than were disposed of. The number of appeals pending was 6,400. In January of this year the number of appeals lodged was 326, and the number disposed of 156. There we see the tendency is for the arrears to increase. In February last, 333 appeals were disposed of, while only 211 were lodged. My argument amounts to this: that even if they were overtaking their work, and I think it is probable they are, it would be absolutely impossible for any Land Commission to devote half of their judicial time during the next 12 months to the work of land purchase. How can they do that without neglecting their other duty? I think I am not straining the point when I say it will take two years before they can overtake the business. Mention was made last night of the conciliatory manner in which all sides of the House approached the difficult question of dealing with the evicted tenants. I do not suppose the Chief Secretary is so silly a man as to wish this great Act of his should not be a success. It is his interest that this great measure of land purchase should work with as little friction as possible, and with as satisfactory result as possible. It is evident that some time must elapse before the friction caused by this Debate will pass away. Possibly Mr. MacCarthy may feel aggrieved, and so also may Mr. Lynch, but certainly you have by this clause
    1796
    introduced an element of discord into an otherwise pacific measure. You are devoting an enormous sum to the pacification of Ireland, and surely it is in the interests of both landlords and tenants and of good government as well, that you should avoid introducing anything irritating and likely to provoke controversy in the working of the measure. If you pass this clause the Bill will be a dead letter for at least 12 months, and it may be for two years. For six years you have divided your Commissioners into two classes—three of them being appointed to settle fair rents, and two to deal with purchase questions. You are now going to throw an apple of discord into that Commission, with no practical result, for there will of necessity be great delay in dealing with the cases arising. It is inevitable that there must be a reconstruction of the Land Department. The Chief Secretary rebuked me when I said the Purchase Commissioners were coming to the end of their duties. He said that the period during which the judicial rents were to be in force would shortly expire, and that that would bring a large access of work. It is quite evident, too, that there will be a large amount of work to be done by this Land Commission. We persist in opposing this clause, which has not been introduced on the responsibility of the Government, which forms no part of their scheme, and which emanates from hon. Members who are not conversant with the difficulties which the proposition involves. I think the wisest, safest, and best course will be to let the Amendment stand over on the understanding that the Chief Secretary will at the earliest possible period introduce a Bill for the proper re-construction of the Land Department, and for the utilisation of a greal deal of the existing spare judicial power. That would, I think, tend to secure the working of this great Land Purchase scheme on satisfactory, peaceful, and, I hope, successful lines.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The speech of the right hon. Gentleman has been distinguished by a tone of moderation which was absent from some of the other speeches delivered earlier in the evening. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary recognises the spirit in which the

    1797
    right hon. Gentleman has addressed the House, but in the observations he has made the right hon. Gentleman has indicated reasons which must induce the Government to adhere to the course which was indicated by my right hon. Friend earlier in the evening. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out in strong, distinct, and clear language that as a permanent arrangement it would be impossible to leave the two Purchase Commissioners to deal alone with the great duties which would be placed upon them.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I mean that two men cannot permanently discharge them.
    MR. GOSCHEN: In other words, then, the Court would have to be re-constituted and placed on a proper basis. The right hon. Gentleman suggests as a measure of conciliation that the matter should be postponed until next year, when the Chief Secretary can re-introduce the Land Department Bill, and then take steps to place this Court on a proper footing. But the question to be considered is whether this delay might not risk the re-constitution of the Court being undertaken at all, and that re-constitution, as the right hon. Gentleman has very properly pointed out, is essential for the working of the scheme. Some hon. Members have spoken from the British point of view. If my right hon. Friend desired to pass the Land Department Bill early next Session, I do not know whether it would be possible to subordinate the other important British measures with which we have to deal in order to do it, and then we should be landed precisely where the right hon. Gentleman does not wish us to be. On the admission, therefore, of the right hon. Gentleman, the Government say it would be impossible to continue with safety to leave those important duties in the hands of two men, notwithstanding the manner in which they have conducted the business of their Department hitherto. Are the Government to run the risk of depending upon an opportunity of passing the measure next year, looking to all the chances of dealing with a large number of important questions? The sole object my right hon. Friend has in view is to strengthen the Court, not for want of confidence in the members of it, but on account of the increase and complication of their duties which will
    1798
    result from the passing of this measure. I have heard it suggested that it is somewhat of a degradation to those gentlemen that they are to be associated with other gentlemen receiving a different salary. I do not think it is any degradation for gentlemen to work together, even supposing they are on different sides, and receiving different salaries. That happens even in the case of Cabinet Ministers. Those Ministers, who have varying salaries, do not at all feel it to be a degradation to work together, and therefore I ask the House to put aside this question of degradation or slur on the present members of the Commission. My right hon. Friend disclaims in the strongest manner that anything he has said reflects in any way upon Mr. MacCarthy. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that Mr. MacCarthy may claim to be heard, but has not language similar to that complained of as having been used towards Mr. MacCarthy been used nearly a whole evening with regard to Mr. Wrench? It may equally be said, therefore, that Mr. Wrench has a claim to be heard. I trust that both these gentlemen will have the common sense to know that in no way has the House of Commons as a body reflected upon the way in which they have performed their duties. I trust that the heat which has characterised a portion of this Debate will pass away. I feel strongly with my right hon. Friend that if we are to have full confidence in the Court that it will do its work honestly and to the satisfaction of the country at large, it is necessary it should be re-constructed as proposed by this clause, and, in passing the clause, as I hope the House will, we must disclaim any intention to cast the slightest reflection upon any member of the Land Commission.
    MR. CRILLY: We now know where we stand. The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hand is the hand of Esau—the clause, which has emanated from supporters of the Government on these Benches is the clause of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I think we have some justification for feeling heat in this matter. Why, if it was so necessary at the end of the discussions on this Bill to introduce a clause entirely altering the complexion of this Bill, was the clause not brought forward

    1799
    by the Government? Why is the measure to be turned topsy-turvy by the hon. Member for South Tyrone and his Friend the Member for South Derry? I represent a large body of poor people in the West of Ireland who might have been benefited by this Bill, and I have a right to protest against the acceptance of this clause by the Government. I was one of those who from the first looked favourably upon this Bill. I regarded it as a measure which would be of benefit to the poor tenants in the West of Ireland, and I now join with the junior Member for the City of Cork in protesting against the introduction of a clause the sole object of which is the aggrandisement of the landlords. It is because I sympathise with the poor people in the West of Ireland, because I know that the introduction of the clause will unhinge and spoil and maim the Bill, that I give it my strenuous opposition. The hon. Member for South Tyrone has honestly avowed the purpose of this clause. He never minces matters. If he wants to fight the Plan of Campaign he fights it like a man, and when he wants to tell the truth about Mr. MacCarthy he does it in the same way. Undoubtedly, in supporting this clause, he is fighting Mr. MacCarthy and Mr. Lynch, the Land Purchase Commissioners, and it is because those gentlemen have the confidence of the Irish people that we protest against the acceptance of that clause. This is not a matter of mere sentiment. We have lived among our constituents, we are familiar with their sufferings, we know which way their sympathies tend, and therefore it is that we sometimes import a little heat into our speeches. If, by the acceptance of this clause, we thought it would be possible for justice to be meted out to both parties we would, of course, look on it with favour; but we believe that the tenants will not receive justice under it. I am amazed at the action of the Government in to-night throwing over the two Purchase Commissioners. When the hon. Member for South Tyrone attacked Mr. MacCarthy did the Government remember that his appointment was made by a Conservative Minister? When the Chief Secretary of the day, the Member for the Dartford Division of Kent, was introducing the Bill of 1885, he and the then Attorney General (now Mr. Justice
    1800
    Holmes) both guaranteed that the two Commissioners appointed would be men in whom the country at large would have confidence. Well, the Government did appoint two such gentlemen. I contend that Mr. MacCarthy and Mr. Lynch have gained, and have deserved, the confidence of Irishmen and Englishmen, and I object altogether to this insidious attempt to undermine their authority and destroy their position. We shall, therefore, oppose the clause to the bitter end. I have gone to the trouble of analysing the Returns issued by the Land Purchase Department, but the hon. Member for West Belfast has forestalled me. But I may point out that during the five years Messrs. MacCarthy and Lynch have been administrating the Department they have had 23,348 applications before them for advances out of the British Treasury to the gross amount of £9,217,380. Of these they have rejected — because they have conscientiously attended to their duties— claims to the amount of £964,702. What a howl of delight would have gone up from the landlords of Ireland if these men had not exercised their power of supervision in such an active and efficient way, and had passed all these claims! But although they have had such an enormous number of claims before them, they have been able to get through their work so well that in August, 1890, they had provisionally sanctioned advances to 17,550 applicants. I want now to point the contrast. These two gentlemen had in their hands the distribution of £10,000,000. They received applications to the extent of £9,217,000. They actually issued a sum practically amounting to £6,000,000. In view of the insidious character of this clause, I would ask hon. Members to observe how these two men have watched over the Public Purse. On the 21st of August, 1890, upon this enormous sum of £6,000,000 the only arrears owing amounted to £7,657, and by the 31st of October this amount had been reduced to £2,554, and the Land Purchase Commissioners say that, with the exception of £611, the whole of these arrears were due in respect of the half-yearly instalments payable on the 1st of May, 1890. The experience of the Commissioners is that all they have to do is to give some little notice and the great bulk of the arrears comes in. So that to-day these gentle-

    1801
    men have acted so faithfully to the trust reposed in them that, as a result of their large expenditure, there is a sum of something like £700 or £800 only due to-day. This fact may be due either to the honesty of the Irish tenants or to the vigilance of the Land Purchase Commissioners or to both. We have had cause for many years to believe in the honesty of the Irish tenants, whose spokesmen we are in this House. I would only refer to one little fact more, and I have finished. The last Report of the Land Commissioners showed that in 1890 the purchase price of land in Ireland amounted to 16.7 of the annual rental, whereas this Bill permits the Land Commission, if necessary, to advance 20 years' purchase. We hold that it is necessary for the interests of the Irish people, and for the interests of the British taxpayer, that the faithful service of these gentlemen should be recognised, and that we must resist to the very last, and as bitterly as we can, any attempt to weaken or undermine the authority of these experienced and trusted men. I hope, therefore, that the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) will be accepted. Despite the—shall I use an Irish phrase and say—soft-sawderizing speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we think this clause should be delayed. As one who hopes the Bill will do some good among the poorer class of tenants in Ireland, I would ask hon. Members to resent and resist as far as they possibly can the introduction of this clause, which has not been put down until the eleventh moment. It is a clause which will make the Bill inoperative in Ireland, which will place the Irish tenant at the mercy of his landlord, and will, in consequence, re-open the whole agrarian war in Ireland. By accepting this clause the Government, instead of holding out the olive branch to the Irish people, are sounding the note of war. I trust the House will realise the fact that we below the Gangway, as representing the Irish tenants, unanimously oppose this clause, and we trust that if the Government have been actuated by fair and honest motives in introducing this Bill they will, even now, re-consider their decision and refuse to accept the clause.
    MR. P. J. POWER: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) clearly showed that this clause, even if it passes, will be inoperative for some time. He said he considered that the Commissioners would not have much to do, but then he recognised that he was misinformed on that subject, and that they would have a great deal to do. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stood up to answer the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, but he did not allude to that branch of the subject at all, and he said it was necessary, if this land purchase was to go on in Ireland, that additional assistance should be given to the Department. Well, I venture to point out that for the first year or 18 months there will be no great crowding of work in the Land Department, in fact, that the rate of purchase will be what it has been for some time past. The working of this Bill will be slower than that of the Ashbourne Act, owing to the local guarantees. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was necessary to give further assistance to the Land Commissioners, and that if it was not given it would lead to the choking of the department. I say that that is not the case. The working of the measure will depend on the men to whom the work is entrusted, and if you appoint the Land Commissioners and make them Commissioners in the Land Purchase Department, you will have to cancel the appointments before long. The arrears will become so great that you will have to appoint new Commissioners, and if you do that you will create vested interests, which you will find it difficult hereafter to interfere with. I cannot see what hurry there is for making this change. I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton is correct in his forecast that this clause will prove inoperative. More than that, I am against it in principle, believing that in voting Supply we have a right to debate the views of those who dispense it. In this clause you are taking out of our hands what we believe to be the right of the House of Commons to inquire into the way in which these men perform their duties. To my mind there is nothing urgent in this, and you will only bring about per-

    1803
    plexity, and make the working of the measure impossible, and prejudice the Irish people against it, if you adopt this clause. Even from the Government point of view the wisest thing would be to take time in the matter.
    MR. COLLERY: I do not wish to prolong the Debate, but I listened attentively to the speeches from the Treasury Bench, and from the hon. Gentleman who introduced the clause, and I am bound to say I heard no valid reason given why these three additional Commissioners should be added to the present Land Purchase Commission. I listened to hear whether it could be shown that the two Land Purchase Commissioners had not fully and adequately discharged their duties. I thought I should hear some arguments brought forward to show this, but none have been advanced. There have been many additions made to the Bill at the instance of the Government, but it seems to me they will only tend to complicate it. It seems to me that the Irish tenants will derive very little consolation from the measure. The hon. Member for South Tyrone declared that he spoke in the interest of the Irish tenant farmers, but I should like to know where be has studied the interests of the Irish tenant farmers? If he had ascertained their feelings he would have known that they are not in favour of this clause, and will not be willing to be drawn into the net prepared for them. The Chief Secretary has tried to make a great measure, but he has only succeeded in making such a measure that very few people in Ireland will be able to take advantage of or understand. I honestly confess I do not understand its difficult and complicated clauses. The three Commissioners about to be added to strengthen the Land Purchase Commission are three gentlemen who, to my own knowledge, have so delayed their own work that cases have been erased from the lists without having been heard, owing to the death of one of the parties. A case of this kind occurred within my own experience in Sligo. The case was thrown back, owing to the Commissioner starting away at 1 o'clock in the day in order to catch a train to Dublin. There was then a long delay, and an old woman
    1804
    who was one of the parties in the case died. The Commissioner has not returned yet, and when he does he will find the case erased from the list. These three Land Commissioners are to be introduced into the Land Purchase Court to do work that has hitherto been well done, and I think, under the circumstances, it would be to the interest of the country at large that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary should re-consider his decision, and postpone the clause for the present.
    (11.50.) The House divided:—Ayes 136; Noes 83.—(Div. List, No. 268.)
    Clause read a second time.
    It being after Midnight, Further Proceeding stood adjourned.
    Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND CHARGES BILL.—(No. 252.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  GLEBE LANDS BILL.—(No. 109.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.)
  Sir JOHN MOWBRAY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged Mr. Theodore Fry from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Stamp Duties Bill and the Stamp Duties Management Bill, and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Samuel Montagu.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask what business is to be taken on Monday?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Motion for the introduction of the Assisted Education Bill will be taken as the first Order, and the Land Bill will appear on the Paper as the second Order.
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

BRINE PUMPING (COMPENSATION FOR SUBSIDENCE) BILL.—(No. 131.)
Referred to the Examiners.
BRINE PUMPING (COMPENSATION FOR SUBSIDENCE) BILL.—(No. 131.)
  FORGED TRANSFERS (NO. 2.) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, read la; and to be printed. (No. 147.)
  SEAL FISHERY (BEHRING'S SEA) BILL,
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed, and to be read 2a on Monday next; and Standing Orders No. XXXIX. and XLV. to be considered in order to their being dispensed with. (No. 148.)
ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEERS.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH,who had upon the Paper the following Notice:—
  "To call attention to the position of the Corps of Royal Naval Volunteers as it will be affected by the proposed action of the Board of Admiralty,"
  said: My Lords, I am afraid that by a misunderstanding of mine I may have caused inconvenience to some noble Lords who may have wished to come down and speak on the position of the Royal Naval Volunteers. I understand that the document to which I was about to refer not having been laid on your Lordships' Table, I should be out of order if I were now to refer to it. The course I propose to take, therefore, is to ask the noble Lord who represents the Admiralty whether he would object to lay on the Table of the House the Report of Sir George Tryon's Committee upon the subject of the Royal Naval Volunteers.
  LORD ELPHINSTONE: There is no objection whatever to laying on the Table the Report to which my noble Friend alludes.

MUSEUMS AND GYMNASIUMS BILL. (No. 57.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD THRING: My Lords, this Bill has passed through the House of Com-
1694
mons without any opposition. It is approved by the Local Government Board, and I am sure its purposes will commend it to your Lordships. The first part relates to museums. At the present moment both Rural and Urban Authorities have power to establish museums free of charge. The object of this Bill is to allow Urban Authorities—not Rural Authorities—to establish museums, and to charge during a part of the week for the use of those museums for the purpose of giving lectures, or other purposes of education. The Bill reserves free of charge three days of the week; during the remainder of the week a museum may, as I have said, be used for lectures or other purposes of instruction. In a great many small towns, where they have not sufficient facilities or room for such purposes, this will be a very useful measure indeed; and, further, the expense of establishing museums which shall be free of charge is very heavy. The object of this Bill is, first of all, to encourage the smaller towns to establish museums by enabling them to earn something in those museums; and, secondly, which is a very good object to afford, as I have said, a place in which the inhabitants may meet, and where lectures may be given and instruction afforded for a small charge. The second branch of the Bill is of wider scope. Gymnasiums can be formed at present, but oddly enough only under the provisions of the Baths and Washhouses Act, which allows swimming baths, used for that purpose during seven months of the year, to be used as a gymnasium daring the winter months. That is the only way in which a gymnasium can be formed. I need not impress upon your Lordships the great advantages of gymnasiums. We all know how much drill and athletics have come into vogue, and how greatly they have been encouraged both in the army for the purpose of expanding the chests of the younger soldiers, and in schools for improving the physical condition of the children. The Swedish drill is, I believe, now used in all our elementary schools. I need not, therefore, insist upon the necessity for gymnasiums, and the object of this part of the Bill is to enable Urban Authorities to establish them without having necessarily to make them out of

1695
swimming baths. As in the case of the museums, the gymnasiums are to be open free of charge for not less than three hours a day on five days a week; and the Bill further provides that during 24 days in the year these gymnasiums may be let. Therefore, the second part of the Bill is somewhat different in its scope, though its objects are similar to that comprised in the former part of the Bill. Shortly stated the object is, as I have said, to enable the smaller towns to form gymnasiums, and to maintain them without having the whole amount of the expense thrown upon the rates. It has passed so far without opposition, and I trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Moved "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Thring.)
THE MARQUESS OF BATH: Will the noble. Lord State to the House what the rating powers are under this Bill, and what is the maximum of the rating it is in the power of the Local Authority to impose for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Bill?
LORD THRING: The rate is not to exceed a halfpenny in the £1. I should also state that the Act may be adopted without a poll. Under the existing Acts Urban Authorities are required to take a poll; but they may, by resolution, adopt this Act without taking a poll.
LORD HENNIKER: Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say one word on the part of the Government. The noble Lord who has charge of the Bill has explained its objects so fully— and it is a very simple measure—that it is, I think, quite unnecessary for me to make more than two or three remarks upon it. All I have to say is this: it has passed through the House of Commons with the approval of the Local Government Board. The President of the Local Government Board, and those who advise him, approve of it in its present shape, with one or two small exceptions. Some small amendments have been put before the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill. I believe he accepts those amendments, and under those circumstances, on the part of the Government, I have nothing to say except that I approve it.
On Question, agreed to.
Bill read 2a (according to order) and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL CHILDREN BILL.—(No. 125.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, this is a Bill which has been successfully piloted through the House of Commons by my hon. Friend Mr. Howard Vincent. The Bill is very short and simple, but the changes it proposes to make in the law are great. They are changes, however, which I think your Lordships will unanimously agree should be carried out. The Bill proposes to abolish the right of parents of children in Industrial and Reformatory Schools, where they have been maintained and educated for a time, to have those children home again at the end of their period of detention, which, in the case of Industrial Schools, is until they are 16, and, in the case of Reformatory Schools, until somewhat later in life. Your Lordships will observe that this Bill does not in any way interfere with the wishes of the children themselves. There is nothing in it to prevent children going home if they wish to do so. The only object of it is to prevent parents compelling children, against their wish, to go back to homes where, possibly, they will be taught extremely bad habits, and be placed in circumstances which will lead to their relapsing into crime. The principle of this Bill has been already conceded in a Bill which has passed this Session, namely, the Custody of Children Act; and the measure is substantially a reproduction of certain clauses in the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Bill, which was passed by your Lordships' House last year. I need scarcely say that the present state of the law is really a matter of despair to the managers of schools. They too often see that the care they have taken in the instruction and moral education of the children who have been in their charge has been absolutely lost in the present condition of the law. I observe that in the memorandum to this Bill statistics are given from the well-known Reformatory School at Feltham,

1697
and I may say that I know something of that school, as I am Chairman of the Committee of Management. It is an exceedingly large school, containing over 900 boys. Two hundred of the boys are out on license. I may point out that the statistics put forward from this school are valuable, because we have special opportunities of finding out the future career of the boys for three years after they have left the school. We have an officer whose duty it is to follow up the boys for that period, and there are hardly any of them who escape his vigilance. The statistics are, therefore, absolutely truthful. We find that out of 1,000 boys who are sent back to their homes after the expiration of their period of detention, 169 relapse into crime; whereas of the same number of boys who are sent to some employment by the managers of the school, or are sent elsewhere, and thus preserved from the contamination of their homes, only 69 relapse into crime. That is to say, the law itself in its present condition deliberately makes criminals of 100 out of every 1,000 of those boys who are sent home from that school. Under those circumstances, it is, your Lordships will admit, stating no more than the fact to say that the law itself, after having provided for these children being taken out of the gutter, and for their being fed and clothed and educated at great expense to the public in these schools, obliges them to go back into the gutter;' where so many of them relapse into crime. In Great Britain there are about 1,500 boys sent back every year to their homes from industrial and reformatory schools; that means that the state of things which I have described, namely, sending boys back to become criminals against their own wish, putting them into temptation which they would gladly themselves get out of, affects as many as 150 boys a year. That is to say, the law itself deliberately makes 150 boys into criminals, who, if the law was altered, would be converted into respectable citizens. You may do three things with the boys going from these schools—you can either send them home to their parents, who have, in too many cases, driven them to commit petty thefts in order to get them boarded, lodged, and educated at the expense of
1698
the State; you have parents who get rid of all responsibility towards their children in that way, and who only ask to have them back again for the purpose of getting money—directly the children are able to contribute anything towards the family exchequer they are taken home again. The second thing you can do is to send the boys to places which may be found for them elsewhere than at their homes, that is, into some employment which may be found for them by the managers of the schools, employment where sometimes they can be got at by their old associates. There are some statistics quoted here to which I should like to refer your Lordships. Out of the boys sent to employment otherwise than to their homes from Feltham School who relapsed into crime, the great majority did not relapse into crime while in their employment, but had left their situations at the solicitation of their former companions. Their old associates find them out and entice them away from their employment, and then it is that they relapse into crime. Another thing which you may do with boys is to emigrate them, and so prevent them being contaminated by their old companions and associates. That, I venture to think, is the best plan to take with these boys, and the statistics bear me out as to that, for out of 76 boys emigrated to Canada during the last three years, only one has relapsed into crime. But even here the law does all it can to thwart and baffle us in our endeavours to give these boys the opportunity of making a better future for themselves, for the consent of the parents has to be obtained, and we find that in only one case out of four will the parents consent to the emigration of these boys. There will be no difference of opinion, I think, among your Lordships, as to the beneficial effect of this Bill. I have only spoken as to boys, and I do not propose to say anything about girls, because I have no special knowledge of reformatory and industrial schools for girls; but it must be very evident that the same arguments apply with even stronger force in their case as to the extreme undesirability of sending them back to their old associates. This Bill will undoubtedly do a great deal of good, and there may. on the other hand, be said of

1699
it what cannot be said of many Bills, it is perfectly certain it will do no harm at all, and I hope, therefore, your Lordships will read it a second time. There is only one further observation I have to make: my noble Friend Lord Camperdown has suggested that the Bill might be applied to Scotland. So far as I am concerned, I should be very glad if the Bill could be applied to Scotland; but if there is any danger from delay, or of the Bill being wrecked in the House of Commons by any addition of that kind being made to it, I should ask your Lordships to pass this Bill without amending it as the noble Lord suggests.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Monkswell.)
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: As the noble Lord has stated that the Earl of Camperdown has suggested that the Bill should be amended by being made applicable to Scotland, I would make the same suggestion with regard to Ireland. I am not very well acquainted with any such schools in that country, but unless the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill objects, it appears to me that what is desirable to be done in England and Scotland would also be desirable for Ireland.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The Bill appears to me, from what I understand of it, to be a very good one, but I confess I do not know what is meant by the saving clause that the Bill is not to apply to Scotland or Ireland. I should be very sorry to do anything to imperil the passing of the Bill, and if it is stated that embodying any Amendment of that sort would be fatal to the Bill, I should not press it; but I own that at the present time I think some reason ought to be given why a Bill, which appears on the face of it to be a good one, and to be equally applicable to other parts of the three Kingdoms, should not be extended to Scotland.
EARL STANHOPE: I think this is a most useful Bill, but I deprecate its being extended to Scotland and Ireland. As my noble Friend Lord Camperdown will see, there is a very long list of measures waiting for consideration in the House of Commons, and I think even such a small Bill as this would, if any delay arose, run the risk of not being passed this Session. There-
1700
fore, though I agree with my noble Friends who have last spoken that this Bill should be extended to Scotland and Ireland, I think it would be better for this Session to allow it to apply only to England. As a manager myself of an Industrial School in Kent, I may say that I think this is a most valuable Bill for the purpose of enabling managers of these institutions to apprentice boys, without their parents having power to exercise a veto on their being apprenticed, and also for enabling managers to emigrate boys to Canada or elsewhere. I am sure this is a most useful measure; and I am confident that every manager of an Industrial School will hail the Bill with pleasure.
LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, the Secretary of State assented to this Bill in the other House on the distinct understanding that if it were found possible to introduce a Government measure dealing with Reformatory and Industrial Schools, this Bill should stand aside so that the subject might be dealt with as a whole; but, unfortunately, the chance of passing such a measure appears to be a rapidly diminishing one, and this Bill being virtually a reproduction of the 17th clause relating to Reformatory Schools, and the 21st clause relating to Industrial Schools in the Government Bill, the Government hope that this Bill may be read a second time. It is only part of a measure which it was hoped would be a very valuable one, but to obtain a part of it is better than having none at all. The clauses mentioned are based on the Report of a Royal Commission, and the principle of them has already been assented to by your Lordships. With regard to extending the measure to Scotland there is no objection whatever if it is thought well to apply it to that country; but as regards Ireland I hope the noble Earl who made the suggestion will defer the question until a further stage.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I do not press it.
LORD DE RAMSEY: Under these circumstances, I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, agreed to.
Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

HABITUAL DRUNKARDS.
LORD HERSCHELL,in rising to call attention to the punishment of habitual drunkards; and to move that it is expedient that an inquiry should be instituted to ascertain whether some better method of dealing with such cases cannot be substituted, said: My Lords, somewhat more than a year ago, in calling attention to the subject of inequality of sentences, I referred incidentally to the treatment of habitual offenders convicted of drunkenness. Naturally enough the observations of my noble Friend on the Woolsack were on that occasion entirely devoted to the main topic which I then introduced to the notice of the House, and no reference was made to this subject. I think, therefore, that I need make no apology for calling attention to it now, especially in connection with the facts stated in a Petition which I have to present from the Reformatory and Refuge Union and the Central Committee of the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies of Great Britain and Ireland. It appears that the number of commitments every year amount in the United Kingdom to 250,000, and those commitments are distributed between the three countries in this proportion: 160,000 in England, 47,000 in Scotland, and 44,000 in Ireland. For some reason, I do not know exactly what, the proportion of commitments in the three Kingdoms differs very considerably. In England the ratio of commitments per 1,000 of the population is—males, 4·1, females, 1·5; Scotland, males, 6·8, females, 4·2; Ireland—which stands between the other two countries in number of commitments—males, 5·5, females, 3·3. In other words, that is to say, in England there is 1 commitment to 190 of the population; in Scotland 1 to 80: in Ireland 1 to 100. The 250,000 commitments are believed to represent, according to an approximate estimate, only about 145,000 individuals —viz., 112,000 men and 33,000 women. That is on account of the very numerous commitments which occur in individual cases. Of the 33,000 women, who represent 77,000 commitments, 11,000 had had 10 imprisonments and upwards recorded against them; of the 112,000 men 16,250 had a like number of imprisonments, that is more than 10 times,
1702
so that it will be seen that the proportion of the repeated convictions is much greater in the case of women than in the case of men—in fact, it is over 60 per cent. more in the case of women than it is in the case of men. Of those commitments of females your Lordships ought to know that the great majority are in respect of drunkenness. In fact, over 50 per cent. of the total commitments of women were for drunkenness alone, and 80 85 per cent. for drunkenness and closely-allied offences, such as disorderly conduct and breaches of the peace. When we turn to individual towns we find that the same results are to be seen on a survey of the commitments throughout the whole country. There are cases where, in a single year, the same person is committed to prison for drunkenness as many as 52 times. A considerable number are committed from 30 to 52 times yearly: that is to say, there are persons who are brought before the magistrates and sentenced to imprisonment—the same persons—every week in the year. During the past year in Glasgow, where the number of commitments to prison of women exceed that of any other town in the Kingdom, there were 10,500 commitments. Of those 10,500 commitments, 450 women alone were responsible for 4,000; they had been committed, many of them from six to a dozen times, and some of them as often as 34 times. So that out of that very large number of commitments, it will be seen that a very limited number of persons are responsible for a very large proportion of them, something like 40 per cent.; and it is a very common case with many of these women that they return to prison on the day they are released or the day after. At Millbank during the past year this was the experience. I have some particulars from Millbank Prison also, where it appears that during the past year there were imprisoned under short sentences 105 women, all of whom had been convicted more than 40 times, and there were 56 of them who had been convicted upwards of 50 times. Those were the numbers of women undergoing sentences in one prison alone, Millbank, in a single year. I will only trouble your Lordships with one or two

1703
other facts. The Chaplain of Millbank Prison, who gives these particulars, states that one woman had upwards of 400 convictions against her; but as her husband, a small landlord, had paid nearly £200 in the shape of fines on her behalf, she must have been taken to the Police Court more than 600 times. I give your Lordships these facts and figures, which are really of a very startling, and I may say, appalling nature, because one knows that in the case of these women they not infrequently become the mothers of children, and when your Lordships remember that, unfortunately, proclivity to alcohol is now believed to be to a considerable extent hereditary, it will be seen at once that the disaster to the country is not represented merely by the effect upon the unfortunate people immediately concerned, of whose committals I have just been speaking. The object of punishment may be either that it shall act as a deterrent or as a preventive, or for reformatory purposes; but whether the punishment inflicted be regarded as a deterrent or as a preventive, or for reformatory purposes, in whatever light it may be regarded, I do not think it can be doubted that the facts to which I have called your Lordships' attention show that the existing system has completely broken down, and is really a disastrous failure. We are continually inflicting these punishments without producing the slightest effect, without benefiting the individuals who are thus dealt with, without deterring them from repeating the conduct which has led to their imprisonment, and without in the slightest degree its acting as a deterrent to others. And I do not think it is at all wonderful that these short terms of imprisonment are not productive in the case of habitual drunkards of any beneficial result. The truth is they are not long enough. The persons committed are not long enough under any kind of control, or subjected to the necessary moral teaching. No one can expect that any sort of beneficial moral result is likely to be obtained by such short commitments, and we cannot expect that by the present system we shall ever really do any better than we are now doing. I am not, however, prepared to suggest what change is necessary. I am not going, myself, to lay down the principles
1704
upon which we ought to proceed, because I admit that a great deal of consideration would have to be given to the matter before ultimately determining upon any change in the present administration of the law, or in the law which is at present administered. But I do think that the facts to which I have been calling your Lordships' attention, justify the Petition which I have to present from the authorities I have mentioned, who have devoted themselves to questions of this description and to the welfare of persons of this class, that there may be an inquiry into the matter in order to see whether we cannot make some change in the system which will produce better results. One suggestion made is that the only chance of success in the case of habitual offenders is to have a longer period of detention, in order that time might be given for the formation of better habits and for moral influences to be brought to bear upon those persons, as to whom, in many cases, it should be recollected this evil is more a disease that a crime. That seems to be the only hope of bringing about a better state of things. Of course, one sees at once that there would be a difficulty in sentencing persons to any considerable term of imprisonment for such an offence as this, even in the case of habitual offenders, for the reason that there would perhaps be a sentiment or feeling of inadequacy, a sense of disproportion between the punishment and the offence. But I do not think the same reasoning would apply, or that there would be the same sentiment at all, if it were frankly recognized that these people were to be detained really for their own good, and in the hope of curing them of an evil habit which is disastrous to themselves as well as to society; and I do not think, therefore, that if, instead of the present short sentences of imprisonment, there were a somewhat lengthened period of detention in an institution for the cure of inebriates, or in a department of our ordinary places of confinement which might be allotted specially to the treatment of these cases, there would be the same objection. That is one of the remedies which has been proposed, and which it has been said has been found in many cases to be successful. Although it is impossible to produce any beneficial

1705
result by a short detention of two or three days or a week, it has been found that, where you can keep these persons from obtaining the means of becoming intoxicated for a longer period, and can bring moral influences to bear upon them, in very many cases the result has been eminently successful. As I have said, I am not now laying down the principles on which a change should be made, but that is one suggestion that has been put forward. All I am now urging is this: that the facts I have brought before your Lordships are sufficient to justify an inquiry whether something cannot be done to replace a system which it must be admitted has entirely broken down and proved a lamentable failure. As to the form which such an inquiry should take, I do not feel any particular concern: that I should be quite content to leave to Her Majesty's Government. What I should suggest as perhaps the simplest and least cumbrous form would be a Departmental Committee appointed by the Home Office, but I do not myself lay any stress upon the particular form which the inquiry should take. I do think it is not desirable that we should let the present state of things continue any longer, without at least making an effort to see what is best to be done, getting all the advice we can possibly get, and all the experience we can possibly get upon the subject in this and other countries, for the purpose of seeing whether some steps cannot be taken to amend the present truly lamentable state of things, which is not only disastrous and mischievous to the country, but calculated to impair respect for the law itself—a system whereby these persons can be sentenced to only short terms of imprisonment, without apparently producing the slightest advantage to themselves or anybody else. I beg to move for the inquiry stated in the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved to resolve—
"That it is expedient that an inquiry should be instituted to ascertain whether some better method of dealing with such cases cannot be substituted."—(The Lord Herschell.)
LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has touched upon a most difficult and complicated
1706
subject. Legislation upon this subject has been rendered more difficult by the very evident intention of Parliament a few years ago to allow no compulsion whatever in the treatment of inebriates. The Act of 1879 really only passed the House of Commons on the distinct understanding that nothing in the shape of compulsion should be in the Bill. It was, therefore, virtually a tentative measure, and to a certain extent I must thoroughly agree with the noble and learned Lord, that it has not fulfilled the wishes of those who brought it in. The noble and learned Lord has given us some eloquent and terrible statistics of repeated, one may almost say continual, convictions. The Act of 1879 gives no power to increase the penalties for continued offences under that Act. The powers under that Act have been very much limited in the matter of inflicted penalties. But, my Lords, the great difficulty in this matter is that when an inebriate is taken to the home—or rather I should put it in this way, that when he or she voluntarily goes to the home in the one case, or is committed to it in the other—they are taken away from their usual employment. The only idea seems to be to keep them away from drink, and then they are turned out from the home again after perhaps a very short period of detention, or at all events a period not exceeding 12 months, probably without employment of any sort, and without any kind of supervision to keep them away from their old enemy. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that an inquiry may do good in this matter. As lately as 1888 the Inebriates' Act was passed, which was intended to help previous legislation, and if possible to better it; and it may interest your Lordships to know that in the Report of Mr. Hoffman there is this statement—
"The new Inebriates' Act"—
that is, the Act of 1888—
"Is working much more smoothly than the old one did, and when it becomes more generally known and appreciated, many, I presume, will avail themselves of the great advantages it affords."
Then he goes on to mention that other retreats are being opened upon the same lines as the Dalrymple Home, and he evidently, from his general remarks, anticipates that a larger number of indi-

1707
viduals will avail themselves of these refuges. Bat, my Lords, the numbers of persons as we have them before us now upon these figures are really but drops in the ocean, and if any means could be devised, although this matter has already been thoroughly looked into by a Committee, if some suggestions could be brought forward which would by means of such changes as the noble and learned Lord has mentioned, or otherwise, without throwing a heavy cost on the rates of this country, enable inebriates to be dealt with in refuges where they would be looked after, and by some means brought back again to the condition of civilised beings, we should feel that we had obtained a valuable result for the time and trouble devoted to this subject. With regard to the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, I beg to say that there is no objection whatever to an inquiry.
On Question, agreed to.

BETTING AND LOANS (INFANTS) BILL [H.L.]—(NO. 141.)
Amendments reported (according to order); and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

SAVINGS BANKS BILL.—(No. 142.)
On Report of Amendments,
LORD HERSOHELLsaid: My Lords, there is a question which I should like to ask the noble Lord who has charge of this Bill with regard to a matter to which my attention has been called. Under the 16th section of the Trustee Savings Bank Act, 1863, there was power to make what were called "special investments." The 10th section of this Bill puts certain restrictions upon special investments being so made, and the last sub section (i), of the clause is this—
"The power to make special investments shall not be exercised by any bank unless the bank has exercised the power before the 20th November, 1890."
My attention has been called by the Trustees of an important savings bank to the fact that under the existing Statute, and in accordance with their own Rules, they have made special investments subsequent, and very shortly, I believe, subsequent to that date; and they do not see why that hard and fast line should be drawn at the 20th Novem-
1708
ber, 1890, and why the time fixed should not be "after the passing of this Act." Of course, it is reasonable enough to make any regulations you please to come into force after the passing of an Act which it is thought expedient to make, but it does not seem reasonable to draw a line which is not drawn by the passing of the legislation, and to say here that all banks which may not before this-arbitrary date have made these special investments shall not only be under restriction in making them in future, but shall not be authorised in having done so under the existing Statute, and under their rules. I do not know what the noble Lord may be able to state as to what reason there may be for fixing this particular date.
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH); The reason for the clause is this: The power of making special investments has not in all respects worked very satisfactorily, and investments have been made in securities and in ways which are not properly, in the opinion of the Treasury and of the National Debt Commissioners, in pursuance of the powers and within the proper province of bankers—I mean investments which cannot be quickly realised with certainty at the prices paid for them when the investments were made. It is thought-that no encouragement should be given to those investments in future. The object of putting in this date—the 20th November last year—was that any bank which had then exercised the power should not be arbitrarily interfered with; and the reason for not accepting the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, and letting the time run up to the passing of this Act, is the fear that banks which have not found the necessity of making these investments in the past might take alarm at the proposal to take the power away from them, and for the purpose of keeping the power might make investments between the bringing in and the passing of the Bill. The idea was that any bank which has not done it within the last seventeen years to' the 20th November, 1890, is not prejudiced if the power is taken away as at that date. There is, of course, no Amendment actually before the House, and I sincerely hope the noble and learned

1709
Lord will not press an Amendment of that kind, to do away with the period which has been fixed, without very careful consideration.
LORD HERSCHELL: I do not know when this Bill was brought in, but I should have thought it is not likely that banks would have rushed purposely into these investments because this Bill had been brought in. In fact, it was not noticed by the officials of this particular bank to which I have referred, until it was too late for any steps to be taken in the House of Commons, that there was any such prohibition. It was in consequence of that that they were led to make an appeal, which has induced me to make this intervention. I will wait for the Report to be received, but I shall then ask to have leave to move the Amendment I have proposed.
Report received.
LORD HERSCHELL: I propose now to amend Clause 10, page 6, by leaving out (" 20th day of November, 1890,") in order to insert the words (" passing of this Act.")
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I think it would be better, as we have no difficulty in this House at the stage of Third Reading, if the noble and learned Lord would give us notice of his Amendment. I should like to inquire a little more about this. I confess it sounds to me a very strange provision, and I should like to know a little more about it.
LORD HERSCHELL: Then I propose to move it on Third Reading.
Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

PRESUMPTION OF LIFE LIMITATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 143.)
Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3r on Thursday next.
EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]—(NO. 144.)
Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
HERRING BRANDING (NORTHUMBERLAND) BILL.—(No. 92.)
Amendment reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

INDIA (MANIPUR).
Address for—
"Translation of the Conditions entered into by Rajah Gumbheer Singh, of Manipur, dated the 18th day of April, 1833; and of Correspondence between the Government of India and the Court of Directors in 1852 as to the relations between Manipur and the Government of India."—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
Paper laid before the House and to be printed. (No. 149.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes past live o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.