Sitting of 12 June 1891

DEER FORESTS (SCOTLAND).
Return ordered, "of particulars of all Deer Forests and lands exclusively-devoted to sport in Scotland, under the following heads:—
County.
Name.
Proprietor.
Estimated extent.
Whether formed since 1883.
Greatest altitude above sea level, in feet.
Lowest altitude above sea level, in feet.
Rental prior to afforestment.
Present rental.
—(Mr. Fraser Mackintosh.)

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS' INCOME).
Return ordered—
"Showing by counties (being derived from Parliamentary Paper, No. 403, of Session 1890) the number of voluntary schools according to their denomination, having (1) no income from subscriptions or endowments; (2) no income from subscriptions but possessing an endowment."—(Mr. Summers.)

BRITISH IMMIGRANTS (BRAZIL).
Address for—
"Copy of any Reports from Her Majesty's Representatives in Brazil concerning the condition of British Immigrants."—(Mr. Byron Heed.)

QUESTIONS.

  THE EXECUTION OF THE TONGUL GENERAL.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the telegram in the Times of June 11th, stating that the execution of the Tongul General has been postponed, as he may be required to give evidence, is correct; and whether, if so, this involves a commutation of the capital sentence; and should that not be so, whether there is any English precedent in recent times for reprieving a condemned prisoner in order that he may give evidence, and then executing him afterwards?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The Secretary of State has received no information which corroborates the statement referred to in the question of the hon. Member. The Tongul General has been sentenced to death, and the sentence has been confirmed by General Collett, but the execution is not carried out, pending the sending of the record to the Government of India for orders.

  SURGEONS OF THE VETERINARY STAFF.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he would be prepared to extend the substantive rank (medical officers) to the surgeons of the Veterinary Staff?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Yes, Sir; this will necessarily follow the grant of combatant titles to medical officers.

  NORFOLK AND THE PROBATE AND LICENCE DUTY.
  MR. S. HOARE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received a copy of the award of the Commissioners as to the division between the County
  280
  of Norfolk, and the City and County of Norwich, of the sums received for Probate and Licence Duty granted under the provisions of "The Local Government Act, 1888;" whether the award governs the adjustment of funds for a period of seven years, (namely, from 31st March, 1889), and further places the City and County of Norwich in a worse financial pssition than it would have been in had it formed part of the County of Norfolk; and whether such award is in accordance with the provisions of "The Local Government Act, 1888?"
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have received no copy of the award from the Commissioners, but my hon. Friend has been good enough to show me a copy. The award governs the adjustment for the period of five years from its date. As to the effect of the award on the County and County Boroughs of Norfolk, I am unable to express an opinion; but I do not doubt that it has been made in strict accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act. The Commissioners are acting under the express directions and authority of the Act. Their award is final; no power of review rests in the hands of the Local Government Board or any other Department.
  *MR. S. HOARE: If it can be proved that the financial position of the County and City of Norwich is made worse than it would have been had it formed part of the County of Norfolk, are there any means of getting the matter reconsidered?
  *MR. RITCHIE: No; none whatever.

  PUBLIC HOUSE LICENCES.
  MR. SHIRESS WILL&c.): 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 Magis-

  281
  trates 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 anyone 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 am informed that the premises in question have been for a long period licensed as a public house, and not as an inn, as the name would lead one to suppose. The original premises, which consisted of two storeys, were burnt down last year. The present holder of the licence re-built the house, but only asked for a certificate for the lower part of the premises. Finding this insufficient, he applied last April for a certificate for the whole building, and the Magistrates, looking to the fact that the original building was of two storeys, rightly or wrongly treated this application as one for renewal and not for a new certificate. The Licensing Acts do not appear to require public notice to be given in cases of renewal to the same holder, nor are applicants required to attend unless required by the Court to do so. If the view taken by the Magistrates is correct, there does not appear to have been any illegality. In these circumstances, I am not aware of any mode of testing the validity of this licence except possibly by action in a Court of Law.

  FORTIFICATION OF PORT DARWIN.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any communication has been received from the Government of South Australia with reference to the statement made in this House on 9th April last, to the effect that the South Australian Government considered it unnecessary to fortify Port Darwin; whether the Australian Federal Defence Commission, recently appointed, has obtained the sanction of the Secretary
  282
  of State; and whether, provided the Commission Reports as to the necessity, for the complete defence of Australasia, that Port Darwin should be made a coaling and Naval station, Her Majesty's Government will favourably consider such Report?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTAIENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,) (for Baron H. de WORMS): The hon. Member has not correctly stated the effect of the answer given to him on the 9th of April, which was that it was not considered necessary to erect fortifications at Port Darwin at the present time. A Committee appointed by the several Colonies has visited certain Australian Ports to report on the measures of defence necessary. At the request of the Secretary of State, a naval officer of great experience, Captain Moore, was sent out by the Admiralty to assist the Committee with his advice. The Report as regards Port Darwin has not yet been received; but it is believed that the recommendations of the Committee will be found to be in accordance with the views of Her Majesty's Government which have already been conveyed to all the Australasian Governments—namely, that all that is needed at Port Darwin for some time to come is the defence of the landing place of the telegraph cables.

  BRITISH GUIANA.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the increase of population which has taken place since 1850 in the Colony of British Guiana; whether he can state the total area of the Colony, and what proportion is now under beneficial occupation; and whether any steps have been taken since the Royal Proclamations of 1886 and 1887, to survey and colonise the vast tract of country lying between the Essequebo and Cuyuni on the North and West, to the Brazilian Frontier?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY (for Baron H. de WORMS): The population in 1851 was 127,695. It is now estimated at about 290,000, but the Census Returns have not yet been received. The total area of the Colony may be roughly stated to be about 120,000 square miles.

  283
  The Blue Book Returns show 172,522 acres, as under beneficial occupation exclusive of Georgetown and the mining districts. As regards the last paragraph of the question, no steps have yet been taken beyond those mentioned in the reply given to my hon. Friend on the 5th instant.

  ROYAL SMALL ARMS FACTORY, BIRMINGHAM.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received any representation respecting the discontent of the workmen employed at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Small-heath, Birmingham, in consequence of the reduction of their piece prices; whether it is true, as stated, that reductions of from 10 to 40 per cent. have been made, to the great diminution of the weekly earnings of the men; and whether he will grant an independent inquiry into the complaints of the workmen, and guarantee the men coming forward as witnesses against future injury to their position or prospects in consequence of their action?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It is true that certain piece prices at Sparkbrook have been reduced in some cases to the extent of from 10 to 40 per cent. It is not true that the rates of wages now paid are not perfectly fair rates for each class of work. The men can earn a fair week's wages for a fair week's work; and, unlike most private factories, there is no sub-contracting at all at Spark-brook. The charge brought against the superintendent of the Small Arms Factory at Sparkbrook is that of "sweating" his men. If I am advised that an action at law will lie in respect of it, I am prepared to test this statement in the most satisfactory way, by authorising the superintendent to bring an action against anyone who has made it, and in that case I will undertake to guarantee any man in the factory who may give evidence against any future injury to his prospects in consequence of his evidence. I am not prepared to institute an independent inquiry into the working of the factory.

  WALNEY LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of
  284
  Trade whether he is aware of the complaints made as to the danger to cross-Channel and other steamers through the want of a fog signal at Walney lighthouse, near the entrance to the harbour of Barrow-on-Furness; and whether he will consider the desirability of having a fog signal established there?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): This light is under the control of a Local Authority, the Lancaster Port Commissioners, and not of the Trinity House. It is therefore not for the Board of Trade to take any action in the matter. No complaint of the want of a fog signal there has reached me.

  POSTAL AND TELEGRAPHIC FACILITIES, ARRAN ISLANDS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has considered a Memorial addressed to him by inhabitants of the Arran Islands, drawing attention to the inadequate and irregular character of the Postal Service (which has recently allowed a period of nine days to elapse without a delivery of letters), and also to the need of a Telegraphic Service for the convenience of the inhabitants at large, and particularly for the magisterial, police, coastguard, and other official establishments in the islands, as well as for the fish-buyers who transact business there and the numerous tourists; and whether the requests of the Memorial will be granted?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I have received the Memorial in question, which relates to subjects requiring careful examination. I have called for the necessary information, and when I have fully considered the matter, I will lose no time in sending a reply.

  SALVATIONISTS AT EASTBOURNE.
  MR. J. STUART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that between 30 and 40 more Salvationists are being proceeded against at Eastbourne for marching in procession with music, a right which has been conceded to Salvationists in other parts of the country and confirmed by the Courts

  285
  of Law; whether he is aware that the clause in the Eastbourne Improvement Act under which these and past prosecutions and imprisonments are taking place is identical with the clause in the Torquay Harbour Act, which was repealed in the Session of 1888; and whether, under these circumstances, he is prepared to remit the penalties which may be imposed?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Yes, Sir; I am told that informations have been laid against 33 persons for an offence against the Local Act, which forbids processions with music on Sundays. I am aware that a similar enactment was in force at Torquay, but was repealed in 1888. As long as this clause remains on the Statute Book I hold that I should not be justified in setting myself against the will of Parliament, which has sanctioned exceptional legislation for Eastbourne, and in preventing the Magistrates from giving effect to that legislation. It is for the Local Authorities or those who are opposed to the law to take steps for its repeal.
  MR. J. STUART: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take any steps to procure the repeal of this clause?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; I am afraid I could not undertake myself to propose the repeal of the clause.
  MR. J. STUART: I beg to give notice that on Monday I will ask leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the clause in question of the Eastbourne Improvement Act.

  THE OMNIBUS STRIKE.
  MR. C UNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate advising Her Majesty to express an opinion on the omnibus strike?
  The question was not answered.

  EDUCATION.
  MR. SUMMERS: I had intended to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of Mr. Fitch, from which he quoted in his speech on Monday last? but, at the request of the right hon. Gentleman, I will postpone the question until Monday.

  THE SCOTCH EDUCATION CODE.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have considered the financial results of the change made in the Scotch Code, 1891, at this late period of the year current; whether he is aware that School Boards in Scotland have made their financial arrangements upon the footing of the exemption from school fees being restricted to the compulsory standards, whilst the alteration just made in the Code giving exemption to children between 5 and 14 years of age will involve many School Boards in Scotland in considerable loss of Revenue; and whether the Government have made, or intend making, any provision for recouping School Boards the loss which they may sustain?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I have been requested by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. The Government have had under consideration the financial results of the change in the Code proposed in the Minute laid upon the Table, and we think that the large assistance to the rates to which, as I recently indicated, we shall ask the approval of the House, is not without an important bearing upon any estimate of these results. We have also had in view the fact that in a large number of schools free education has already been carried beyond the compulsory standards. In those cases no additional burden will be caused; and while it is inevitable that the financial effect of the process whereby fees are relieved should vary widely in different localities, we think that any adjustment must be dealt with in connection with the allocation of the Scotch grant already indicated for next year. Meanwhile, the funds available under the Local Government Act have so far exceeded the estimate as to warrant the expectation that the capitation grant payable during the current financial year will be 12s. instead of 11s., as in the year ended 31st March last, and if this anticipation is realised it will go far to alleviate any additional burden.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scotch Education Department has taken into consideration the effect of the change on

  287
  the Scotch Code 1891, made at this late period of the year current, in suddenly depriving children under five years of age, and presently attending school, of the right to free education; whether it is intended to discourage the sending of such children to State-aided schools by the reimposition of school fees; and whether the complaints in Scotland have been rather of the late than of the early age at which children are sent to school?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Should the Minute yesterday laid upon the Table be approved, we are confident that the change which it involves will be carried out with due consideration of the circumstances. But considering the extension of relief in another direction afforded by that Minute, it is thought that this restriction will commend itself to those who have the best opportunities of judging, and will prevent the heavy cost which might be caused by the large influx of children at an age earlier than that at which education can generally begin. While the Department has frequently urged the necessity of school attendance in the earlier years prescribed by the Education Acts, this does not apply to children below these years, with regard to whom parents are under no compulsion, and for whom it cannot be said to be a hardship that a small fee should be charged.

  ARCHATTAN AND MUCKAIRN SCHOOL BOARDS.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will inquire whether it is the case, as stated by the School Board of Archattan and Muckairn, that there are only four children of Episcopalian parents belonging to the district attending the episcopal school, exclusive of the teacher's children; is he aware that the School Board have intimated to the Scotch Education Department that, unless the episcopal school is withdrawn from the list of State-aided schools, they will again resign, and leave the management of the educational affairs to the Scotch Education Department; whether, under "The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872," no school established after the passing of that Act can be placed on the Annual Grant List unless the Department shall, after due inquiry, be satisfied that no sufficient provision exists for the children for whom the school is in-
  288
  tended, regard being had to the religious belief of the parents, or that it is otherwise specially required in the locality where it is situated; whether the Board school has been at any time overcrowded or been insufficient to accommodate the combined average attendance at the Board school and the episcopal school; whether the Board school is conducted under the conscience clause as regards religious teaching; whether there is any such distinction in the religious beliefs of Episcopalians and Church of Scotland Presbyterians as to justify the necessity for separate schools; and under which alternative of the Act was the episcopal school in question placed on the Annual Grant List?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I understand that the number of children of Episcopalian parents attending the school has decreased since the date when it was placed on the Annual Grant List, and the School Board have been informed that the Department must be guided by the experience of an adequate period in regard to the retention of that school on the list. But it must be noted that if the attendance continues to be so small as is asserted, the effect of the school upon the public school is thereby minimised. I am aware that the School Board have intimated their intention of again resigning should the action of the Department under the Education Acts not be in accordance with their views. But they are mistaken in supposing that the management of the educational affairs in the district will thereby pass to the Scotch Education Department; and they have been informed that should the public schools of the district cease to be represented by the School Board as managers, it will be necessary to suspend the grants to these schools. I do not understand that the public school has been overcrowded, but the number of children on the registers of both schools, as returned by the Board in 1889, was in excess of the accommodation at that school. I have no reason to think that the public school is not conducted under a conscience clause, as required by the Education Acts. In placing the school upon the list, the Department had regard to both alternatives of the section of the Act quoted by the hon. Member, and while a sufficiently wide line of demarcation would appear to exist between the

  289
  tenets of Episcopalians and Presbyterians, I fear that an exhaustive definition of the differences would extend beyond the limits of a Parliamentary answer.

  SCHOOL BOARD FEES.
  MR. SUMMERS: I had intended to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is the intention of the Government, by Clause 5 of the Elementary Education Bill, to give School Boards power to remit the fees of all children under five and over 14 years of age? I beg to postpone the question until Monday.

  THE BULKHEADS COMMITTEE.
  MR. FURNESS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the Report of the Bulkheads Committee to be ready, and whether when ready, he will lay it upon the Table of the House?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I received the Report of the Bulkheads Committee yesterday; but until I have had an opportunity of considering it, I am not prepared to say whether I shall be able to lay it upon the Table of the House.

  AFRICA.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELLpostponed until Monday a question to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in defining "Sphere of Influence" in International Agreements in regard to Africa, Her Majesty's Government interprets the declaration as giving to the paramount European Power the right to bring under its authority the Native Races or States within such district, even against their will; or whether Her Majesty's Government interprets the phrase to mean that the other European Powers bind themselves to abstain from attempting to set up their own authority within such district?

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
  SIR J. PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state the number of cases of outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia in Great Britain, the number of diseased cattle slaughtered, the number of healthy cattle slaughtered, and the amount of compensation paid
  290
  and salvage received for slaughtered animals, since the carrying out of the orders has been in the hands of the Board of Agriculture; and whether he can state the similar figures for the corresponding period of last year, when the execution of the orders was in the hands of the Local Authorities?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): From September 1, 1890, to May 31, 1891, 216 outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia were dealt with by the Board; 892 diseased cattle and 8,820 healthy cattle were slaughtered. The amount of compensation paid was £150,488 1s. 8d., and the amount of salvage received was £60,146 4s. 9d. The complete Returns for last year will be published directly in the Annual Report of the Veterinary Department of the Board of Agriculture; but I am afraid it is impossible to obtain from the numerous Local Authorities who are concerned the information as to the period of the year that he specifies.

  THE ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the time likely to be consumed in attempting to pass, and the difficulty of passing, the Elementary Education (England) Bill this Session, the Government will follow the precedent of "The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889," by a clause distributing the fee grant for the current year
  "In such manner and in accordance with such conditions as may be set forth in a Minute of the Education Department to be forthwith laid before Parliament,"
  leaving the question of permanent or future legislation to be dealt with next Session?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I do not think the House would be prepared to relegate to a Public Department a matter such as this, in which it takes so wide an interest.

  TYPHOID FEVER IN CLONMEL PRISON.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether prtients suffering from typhoid fever in Clonmel Prison have been or are being treated in

  291
  the ordinary prison hospital; and, if so, whether the hospital is a portion of the building and under the same roof that the governor's, clerks', and prisoners' necessary offices are situated, also with the chief warder's dwelling; and whether the milk for prisoners is daily tested in these offices?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The General Prisons Board report that the prisoners suffering from typhoid fever in Clonmel Prison are treated in one of the prison hospitals specially set apart for them. The roof of this building is continuous with that over the portions of the prison mentioned in the question; but these portions are distinct from the hospital, and have no communication with it, each opening into different ground. A small quantity of the milk supplied by the contractor is daily tested in the Governor's office.

  COLONEL CADDELL, R.M.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether (as stated in the Irish newspapers) Lieutenant Colonel Caddell, R.M., has been appointed as Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks in succession to Mr. O'Shaughnessey; and, if so, what are the necessary qualifications for the position in question and the annual salary; what is the date of Colonel Caddell's appointment; and what are his qualifications for the position?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already answered this question.

  IMPRESSING STAMPS.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the new arrangements for impressing stamps at the Inland Revenue Office, Belfast, whether, considering the convenience of having deeds and memorials for registering same stamped at Belfast, he will see that provision is made there for impressing stamps on parchment as well as on paper?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The impressing of stamps on parchment at Belfast would entail some expense to the Revenue, being of such a nature that it could not be performed by the clerks. The Board of Inland Revenue, however, are anxious
  292
  to afford the facilities asked for, and will endeavour to make arrangements to give effect to the hon. Member's wishes.

  WEST DONEGAL RAILWAY.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the working plans of the West Donegal Extension Railway, covering a distance of only 18 miles, and a survey of the lands required for that railway, which must be lodged, together with a valuation of such lands, in the offices of the Board of Works and Clerks of Union affected before an arbitrator can be appointed to settle the compensation for same, were commenced nine months ago and have not yet been so lodged; whether, in the month of December last, the company obtained lands under the exceptional provisions of the Transfer of Railways Act by tendering compensation which all but four of the occupiers considered insufficient, and commenced work thereon, thereby causing great inconvenience and the loss to the occupiers of the use of their lands for this season for cropping and other purposes; whether his attention has been called to the fact that in consequence of the delay in completing and lodging the working plans and valuations the appointment of an arbitrator is deferred and the making of the railway postponed; and whether he can take any steps to secure that the relief which will be afforded by these works may be shortly secured to the distressed population of a congested district?
  MR. JACKSON: The working plans, drawings, and designs of the West Donegal Extension Railway have now been completed. Having to provide special plans for detached portions in order to afford work during winter delayed the completion. An arbitrator will, it is anticipated, be appointed on Monday next. The company obtained, in December last, portions of land absolutely necessary to enable as large a number as was necessary to be employed. No inconvenience, other than that attendant on every such work, and no loss whatever have accrued to the occupiers who refused to accept the valuer's award, as they will be paid interest on whatever sum they are awarded by the arbitrator from the date on which the

  293
  contractor entered on their lands, and they pay no rent for the portion taken from the same date.

  TRANSFER STAMPS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the complaints made as to the insufficient number of transfer and other stamps kept in stock at Belfast; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter, and give directions to have a larger supply in stock at Belfast?
  MR. JACKSON: I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will put this question on Monday. I have not been able to obtain the information yet.

  DISTRESS IN ROSCOMMON.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, towards the close of last year, it was reported officially to the Irish Government that relief works would be needed to prevent starvation in the parish of Loughglynn, County Roscommon, and especially in the Liscaul district of the parish, bordering on the County Mayo; whether an Inspector inquired recently if men in the parish would work for a stone of Indian meal per day, and was informed that they would gladly do so as starvation was imminent in the district; and whether works will now be started to provide the destitute with means of subsistence for the next two months, until the new crop becomes available?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The condition of the district mentioned has been carefully watched by the Government, but until recently no necessity has arisen to start relief works. Upon that necessity arising works were ordered in the electoral divisions of Ballaghaderreen and Coolavin to serve the district, which will be forthwith, if indeed they are not at the present moment, put in operation.

  ELECTION OF POOR LAW GUARDIANS IN IRELAND.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the supplementary notice for election of Poor Law Guardians in Ireland is delayed this year much beyond the usual period?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. The general supplemental election order was duly issued under date May 29 last, the Return to be made on July 7.

  ILLEGALLY SELLING ETHER.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a prosecution for illegally selling ether, hoard at the Maghera Petty Sessions on 31st May, when the defendant pleaded ignorance of the law as his excuse; whether he will have a copy of the Order scheduling ether as a poison issued as a handbill, and left at the shops throughout the districts where ether was sold as a beverage, as indicated in the evidence given before the Select Committee on British and Foreign Spirits; and if he will have a copy of the Order exposed in front of each Police Barrack in these districts?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My attention has been called to the prosecution referred to, and I have also received the newspaper report of the proceedings which my hon. Friend has been good enough to send me. The police have already personally warned people concerned against the sale of ether other than as a poison, and the recent conviction and caution administered by the Magistrates, which have been reported in the newspapers, have further published the law on the subject. The suggestion of my hon. Friend with regard to exhibiting a copy of the Order in Council which prohibits the sale of ether other than as a poison is a good one, and steps will be taken to have a copy posted on the notice board at each constabulary station in the districts concerned.
  SIR W. LAWSON: May I ask if compensation has been given to the man who has been prohibited from selling ether?
  The question was not answered.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman inform me?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.

  MR. AGNEW.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a Mr. Agnew has recently been appointed a Local Government Board Inspector in Ireland; whether he was previously manager of the Provincial Bank at Strabane, and an accountant in the same bank at Sligo; and whether inquiries were made as to his competency and other qualifications from his official superiors in each case before his appointment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is the case that the gentleman mentioned was previously employed in the Provincial Bank as stated. Before his appointment as a Local Government Inspector the Government satisfied themselves as to his qualifications for that position. It is not usual to state what confidential inquiries the responsible Minister may make with regard to the qualifications of candidates for appointments in the Public Service.

  DOWNPATRICK BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board in Ireland has been called to the fact that at a meeting of the Downpatrick Board of Guardians on the 30th May, the clerk reported that the requisition forms in the case of cottier tenants were not filled up, and that he had been unable to prepare his Parliamentary lists; and whether the Local Government Board will instruct Boards of Guardians as to their duties and powers for the enforcement of the law in such cases?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The clerk of the Union reports that he merely mentioned at the meeting for the information of the individual Guardians that the requisition forms were not being returned with the usual regularity, and that unless they were duly returned the lists would not be as accurate as was desirable; but that it is not the case as alleged by the hon. Member that he said he was unable to prepare his lists. The clerk also reports that he published a notice in a local paper, requesting the return of the forms within the specified time, and that they are now coming in.
  296
  In these circumstances, the Local Government Board do not see any necessity for further action in the matter.

  EVICTION IN COUNTY DOWN.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. J. B. Glover recently evicted one George Foster, of Ballywalter, County Down, without serving the statutory notice on the relieving officer; and whether any steps have been taken to enforce the penalty in this case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Local Government Board had the subject-matter of this question under their notice last month, and called the attention of the Guardians to the case. The landlord has given to the Guardians as a reason for the non-service of the notice that Foster had asked for time to arrange about getting another house, and undertook to remove without giving trouble. It further appears that there were no Sheriff's officers present when Foster removed. Whether the case is one for the Guardians to proceed to recover a penalty rests with them to decide.

  THE LAND PURCHASE BILL.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the sum of £40,000, described in the Land Purchase Bill as the Exchequer Contribution, is to be carried for the next five years to a reserve fund, and after that period to be allocated to the erection of labourers' cottages, the Treasury will consent during those five years to advance money under the Labourers' Acts, to be repaid out of the said annual sum of £40,000 after the expiration of the five years?
  MR. JACKSON: I shall be glad to consult my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. I am anxious to carry out the policy which he suggests; but he will see that the matter requires very careful consideration, as the £40,000 is already used as security for advances under the Land Purchase Act, and there are obvious difficulties in throwing another charge upon it.

  SUBSIDIES TO MAIL STEAMERS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of the subsidies or contracts paid to Steam Companies starting with Foreign or Colonial Mails from English ports, and what is the total amount paid to Steam Packet Companies starting from Irish ports?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The total amount paid to Packet Companies under contract to sail with Foreign and Colonial Mails from English ports amounted in the financial year ended March 31, 1891, to £689,777. No Foreign or Colonial Mails are sent by steamers starting from Irish ports, though, of course, many mails are put on board steamers which have started from England in Irish ports.

  FREE EDUCATION.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state on what Returns he has based the relative proportions of 80 and 9 per cent. allotted to England and to Ireland for free education?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Let me refer the hon. Member to the Return presented last year, No. 144, in which he will see percentages worked out, giving as a result a contribution of 81·5 for England, 10·2 for Scotland, and 8·3 for Ireland. The figures in the Return will indicate to him the manner in which the original percentages were arrived at. The Committee to be appointed to inquire into the Financial Relations between England, Scotland, and Ireland will have the whole facts before them.

  LAND COMMISSION—COUNTY MEATH.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of fair rent appeals from County Meath still undisposed of; the date on which notice the first of these appeals was sent to the Land Commission; and when and where the appeals will be heard?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Irish Land Commissioners report that there are 163 appeal cases from the County Meath awaiting hearing. The earliest of these was received by the Commission
  298
  on February 20, 1888. It has been arranged to hear some of these cases on July 8 at Dublin.

  DR. J. T. RYAN.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Dr. J. T. Ryan, of Portumna, County Galway, was on the night of 13th October, 1890, called in by Dr. H. O'Farrell, acting medical officer to military stationed there, to assist in an urgent surgical case which could not be treated without extra surgical aid; and that Dr. Ryan paid several visits to the patients; and if the very moderate fee duly applied for by Dr. Ryan on the form supplied by the principal medical officer will be granted by the War Office?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: This is hardly a question for this House. If Dr. Ryan will make an application in a regular way it will receive attention.

  JOSEPH MULLET.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Joseph Mullet, who was recently transferred from Downpatrick Convict Prison, is in bad health, and that continued imprisonment is likely to cause his death? whether he will have inquiry made with the view of ascertaining if there is any immediate danger to his life; and whether, under the circumstances, he will without delay permit a medical examination of him to be made by an independent doctor named by the mother of the prisoner?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board state that they have not yet received the information. I must, therefore, ask the hon gentleman to repeat the question on Monday.

  COURSE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury what will be the course of Public Business on Monday?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: We have, first of all, to complete the Report stage of the Irish Land Purchase Bill, and to take the Third Reading. After that we shall be prepared to fulfil the promise I made to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in regard to Manipur. If

  299
  the House concludes the Land Purchase Bill to-night, as I hope it may, we shall he prepared to give Monday for the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman; otherwise we shall have to go on and conclude the Land Purchase Bill on that night.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea as to when Supply will be taken?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Not at present.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is there any intention of taking the Third Reading of the Purchase Bill tonight? If the Third Reading is postponed until Monday, I hope the Bill will in the meantime be reprinted.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: As I stated yesterday, we are under the impression that in all parts of the House there is a desire to conclude the Bill to-night, but if there is any strong feeling against the Third Reading being taken to-night we shall not press it. But I would appeal to hon. Members to have some regard for the convenience, not merely of Her Majesty's Government, but of hon. Gentlemen who have been taking an active part in the past discussion of the Bill.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to state definitely that the Third Reading will not be taken to-night. The right hon. Gentleman says that if there is any strong feeling against taking it to-night it will not be taken, and I think a good many Members would stay in the House in order to show that there is a strong feeling against that course. I really think the right hon. Gentleman had better put the Third Reading off.
  *SIR J. PEASE: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, under any circumstances, he would propose to take the Third Reading of such an important Bill as this on the same night as the Report stage?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I should not attempt to take steps in opposition to any strong feeling against the course which I propose. At the same time, I think it would be for the convenience of the House that the Third Reading of the Land Bill should be taken without delay.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the views which have already been given
  300
  expression to show that there is a strong objection to the course which he proposes?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am aware that there is a strong feeling amongst some hon. Members against taking the Third Reading of the Land Bill on the night which sees the conclusion of the Report stage. I am aware of that feeling, and I bow to it.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make the Motion, of which he gave notice last night, for obtaining special facilities for the furtherance of Government Business?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Probably on Monday. I hope I may be allowed to express a desire that, if the Third Reading of the Land Purchase Bill is taken on Monday, and the Debate does not last beyond 8 or 9 o'clock, it will be found possible to take the Debate on Manipur. [Cries of "No."] I express that wish with a desire to forward Public Business, and I understand that there are only a limited number of Members who wish to take part in that Debate.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: In the absence of the right hon. Member for Derby, I must say that he always understood that a whole evening would be devoted to the Debate on Manipur. Moreover, there are a great number of Members on this side of the House who are exceedingly opposed to the Land Purchase Bill, but who have thought it their duty as Members of Parliament to leave the discussion in Committee and on the Report to those Members on both sides of the House who were on the whole in favour of the Bill, and I think it very likely that those Members to whom I refer will wish to take the opportunity afforded by the Third Reading of the Bill to protest against it.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Very well; I will arrange that the Third Reading shall be taken on Monday, on the understanding that the Report stage is concluded to-night. The Manipur Debate will then be taken on Tuesday, and the Factories Bill on Thursday.
  MR. ROBY: Will the Government proceed with the Committee stage of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill on Monday?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope to do so.
  MR. J. STUART: When will the Bill in relation to County Council Elections be taken?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am unable at present to say.
  *SIR J. SWINBURNE: Now that the Convention between Portugal and England is signed, will the First Lord of the Treasury have a map of South-East Africa, showing all the latest information in the possession of the Government, placed in the Tea Room?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I believe it will be possible to do so.

  POLLEN FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 91.)
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—Presumption of Life Limitation (Scotland) Bill, with Amendments.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.)
Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Campbell-Bannerman to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in the place of Mr. Salt.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER.)
Ordered, That the proceedings on the Purchase of Land and Congested Districts (Ireland) Bill, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this day, be not interrupted under the Standing Order Sittings of the House.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
MOTIONS.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) REINSTATEMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Parnell, Bill for facilitating the Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parnell, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Mahony, Mr. Carew, and Colonel Nolan.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 362.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 342.)

    CONSIDERATION.
    As amended, further considered.
    MR. KEAY*(4.18.) MR. KEAY (Elgin and Nairn) moved, in Clause 1, page 2, line 18, to leave out the words—
    "As a temporary advance out of the Consolidated Fund, and every such advance shall be repaid to the Consolidated Fund."
    The hon. Member said: I must remind the House that I was speaking in support of this Amendment when the Debate stood adjourned last night, and I was endeavouring to support the Amendment by a reference to the Report of the Royal Commission which sat in 1887 upon the Ashbourne Acts. The object of the Amendment is to provide that in ease of the Land Purchase Account being insufficient to pay the stipulated dividends and payments to the Sinking Fund the deficiency should be made good out of the Guarantee Fund, and not by a temporary advance out of the Consolidated Fund, as proposed by the Government. I have pointed out that the Government have brought in this gigantic measure, which involves the guarantee of the British taxpayer for 49 years. It is only fair to the Government to admit that a partial answer has been given to our representations, namely, that these payments will be payments of a much smaller character than the rent with which the Royal Commission on the Ashbourne Acts dealt. There is every likelihood of considerable default on the part of purchasers in paying their annuities, and I have proved that the reason why there has been defaulters under the Ashbourne Acts is that too high terms of purchase were sanctioned. I will take the Poor Law valuation as the only foundation on which we have to go, and I will endeavour to prove not only that defaulting tenants, but tenants who may be expected to default have been subjected to extortion in other parts of Ireland as well as in the south. In some instances the tenant has been made to pay upon a Poor Law valuation of 38 years, and the Chief Secretary told me in Committee that in Cork and the South of Ireland——
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUE,): I rise to a point of order. I wish to know if it is in order to discuss now a reply which I made to the hon. Member in Committee on the Bill?
    *MR. SPEAKER: I am waiting to see how the hon. Member proposes to make it applicable to the subject before the House.
    *MR. KEAT: I apply it in this way. I have proved from Returns that certain tenants have become defaulters in consequence of the way in which they have been "extortionized." Therefore, I contend that when I mentioned the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the Poor Law valuation was too low, I was introducing a matter which is germane to the subject.
    MR. SPEAKER: I fail to see how it is applicable to this Amendment.
    *MR. KEAT: It has been shown that in Cavan a man named Dermody "defaulted" in consequence of having given 25 years' purchase; in Kildare Samuel O'Neil was made to give 30 years' purchase; in Londonderry James Neil 31 years' purchase; in Queen's County W. Shirley 37 years' purchase; in Armagh a landlord named Cope obtained 42 years' purchase, not of the Poor Law valuation, but of the rent; and in Londonderry a landlord named Morrison was able to secure no less than 45 years' purchase of the rent, I do not allege that all this money came out of the British Treasury, but I do allege that the instalments to the State were levied side by side with the instalments to the landlord, and, therefore, the purchasers became defaulters. In the case of the last man I have mentioned, the yearly payment, instead of being reduced from £100 to £68, was increased from £100 to nearly £200 a year. In instances such as these solvency in the purchasing tenant is impossible. Even the few restrictions which existed under the Ashbourne Act have been removed by this Bill, and therefore all the facilities, not only for extortion but for default, have been increased. The only other argument I would urge in support of the Amendment is that the present clause contains an arithmetical impossibility. How can the advance out of the Consolidated Fund be a mere temporary advance? The
    304
    clause says that the dividends and payments to the Sinking Fund shall be paid out of the Land Purchase Account, and that if there is a deficiency in that Account it shall be met by a temporary advance from the Consolidated Fund, every such advance being repaid out of the Guarantee Fund. Now, I find from a Return lately laid upon the Table that in the 30th year there will be due to the Land Purchase Account from the tenant purchasers £1,725,000. That means 2¾ per cent. interest and 1 per cent. for the Sinking Fund, or 3¾ per cent. upon £46,000,000, which will be the amount of the advances then made, and which are all in process of repayment. The Land Purchase Account having received £1,725,000, has got to pay out exactly the same amount. It has to do that, if it can—that is, if the tenants pay the full amount into it. If not, the words which I propose to leave out provide that the Consolidated Fund shall step in and make good whatever the Land Purchase Account is deficient in. The last three lines of Sub-section 3 provide that all such temporary advances out of the Consolidated Fund shall be repaid to that fund out of the Guarantee Fund. Now, assuming that the tenants are in default to the amount of £1,725,000, that is the amount which has to be paid by the Consolidated Fund as a temporary advance. According to the sub-section, the Guarantee Fund has to repay that amount to the Consolidated Fund. But the Guarantee Fund has a fixed annual income of £1,125,000 only, and supposing it pays to the Consolidated Fund the whole of its income, there will be a residuum of £600,000 unre-paid to the Consolidated Fund for that year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in reply to me in Committee, that while it is true that £46,000,000 will have been advanced in the shape of Land Stock, yet during the 30 years which have elapsed before the default occurred, there have been payments into the Sinking Fund and accumulations which will give the Sinking Fund an asset of £16,000,000 sterling, and that he will make up the difference by appropriating the income arising there from. But what right has the right hon. Gentleman to rob the Sinking Fund in this way in order to pay up a portion of the defaulting annuities? Moreover, even

    305
    if he does so, how will this clause be complied with? The clause says that the Guarantee Fund shall pay back the money; but the right hon. Gentleman says that it will pay as much as it has, and that the Sinking Fund will make up the rest. But, so far as I can make out, the clause does not say that; and, therefore, I consider that the terms of the clause are not drawn according to the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and that they enact an arithmetical impossibility. Moreover, what is the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, except a statement that the payments into the Sinking Fund shall be paid out of the Sinking Fund? I have heard of robbing Peter to pay Paul; this explanation seems to me to be a scheme for robbing Peter to pay Peter himself. I maintain that it is absolutely incompetent for the right hon. Gentleman under the Bill, and according to the declarations made during the past 12 months by the Government, thus to rob and beggar the Sinking Fund and then to turn round and say, "We have paid our deficits from the Guarantee Fund." If the Government take the income accruing in the Sinking Fund to pay off defaulted instalments they will be using the Sinking Fund to perform the function of a Guarantee Fund in repayment of advances which have been defaulted. The Government have given 20 or 30 different pledges on this point from time to time. On December 8 last I put a question to the Chief Secretary as to
    "Whether the Government had provided that the Sinking Fund should perform the function of a Guarantee Fund to secure the repayment of advances; and, if so, what means had they provided for the repayment of Land Stock in the event of failure on the part of tenant-purchasers to meet their yearly instalments? "
    The Chief Secretary replied that—
    "The Government had not provided that the Sinking Fund should perform the function of a Guarantee Fund for insuring the repayment of advances."
    Yet here we have the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming forward and telling us that in order to meet this £1,725,000 he is going to take £1,125,000 from the Guarantee Fund of that year, and then to make up the difference by appropriating an asset of £443,000, being
    306
    the accrued income of the Sinking Fund for the same year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on another occasion gave the Committee an alternative. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government would use the £16,000,000 which had accrued in the Sinking Fund——
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise to a point of order. I wish to ask whether the hon. Gentleman, in examining the whole of the financial operations of the Bill on the subject of one small Amendment, is not abusing the privileges of the House?
    *MR. SPEAKER: I had great hesitation in interfering with the hon. Member, who is a new Member; but if every hon. Member were to make use of the privileges which are accorded to him in the way the hon. Gentleman is now doing the progress of business would be impossible. I have endeavoured to understand the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, and I say it with great pain that, as far as they are intelligible to me, they are not very relevant.
    *MR. KEAY: Of course, Sir, I must be guided by your ruling. But I do not know which of my arguments is irrelevant. My view of the Bill is that it involves a risk to the British taxpayer, and, therefore, my impression is that all remarks are relevant which show that it is arithmetically impossible to apply the clause, which says that all the so-called "temporary" advances from the Consolidated Fund are to be repaid by the Guarantee Fund. But, as the Chief Secretary has always shown the greatest delicacy about his arguments being traversed, I will avoid doing so as far as I can. On January 26 I put a further question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the Guarantee Fund should provide for the payment of the whole of the purchase annuities if default is committed."
    I think the House will now see why I have taken the 30th year for the purposes of my argument, inasmuch as the Consolidated Fund will then have to advance £600,000 more than the Guarantee Fund can possibly repay. I do not see, then, how the wording of the clause can be complied with; and even waiving that point, I do not see how the deficit can be taken out of the Sinking Fund

    307
    unless the Government are prepared to admit either that they have broken their pledges, or have entirely abjured the intention announced to the taxpayers——
    *MR. SPEAKER: I have just told the hon. Gentleman that his remarks were irrelevant. I have warned him with as much forbearance as I possibly could. I am bound to say that he has repeated his arguments over and over again, and I am unwilling at this moment to put in operation the Standing Order, but if this kind of argument is continued I shall without hesitation apply it.
    *MR. KEAY: I think the complexity of the subject will stand me in some stead as an excuse for having transgressed the ruling of the Chair. I will now simply move my Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 18, to leave out from the word "as" to the word "Fund," in line 19, inclusive."—(Mr. Seymour Keay.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 21, to leave out from beginning of line to end of Clause.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)—Agreed to.
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I should have been glad if it had been possible for me to refrain from moving it; but the Chief Secretary will see that, although this question was discussed in Committee, the proposal I am now making is a new one. It has been criticised as calculated to be destructive of the Bill. But I cannot admit that, for so recently as five years ago the Government pledged themselves in the Queen's Speech to do something similar. If the Amendment is adopted, you will have from the day this Bill is passed machinery for the purpose of considering advances, and that machinery will serve the purpose until County Councils are established. You planted the land system in Ireland; you have kept it there by law, and propped it up by force; it has inflicted great misery and the greatest wrong on the unfortunate people of Ireland; you have maintained it for two centuries, and now the time has come when you can no longer maintain it in the interests of an alien garrison. This Bill has been introduced in the interests
    308
    of a certain desperate class of landlords; chiefly for their advantage, and at their request. Your land system is part of an Imperial policy. This Bill has been introduced to save the Empire from discredit and trouble. Ireland is as much a part of Great Britain as England or Scotland; indeed, in proportion, it contributes more to the Imperial Revenue than England; and on that ground, I say that the burden you are now imposing should fall not on the local funds of Ireland, but on the Imperial Revenue. Under the Bill you are going to spend £30,000,000. By this you will benefit, perhaps, 2,000 Irish landlords out of a total of 9,000, and about 100,000 out of 500,000 real agricultural tenants. The remaining landlords and tenants will have no benefit from the Bill, while the elected Representatives of the Irish people in Parliament will have no voice in the transactions under the Bill; and yet, if default occurs on the part of those who have entered into the contracts purely for their own advantage, a levy is to be made on the farmers who have bought and paid for their farms, on the farmers who have not taken advantage of the Act, and on nearly the whole of the urban and semi-urban population of Ireland who have no interest in the Bill at all, except their liability for default. This proposal is not only unjust; it is grotesque. The cardinal axiom of Local Government all over the world is the control of local taxation, and yet in this vital matter of local taxation the Local Bodies in Ireland will be entirely helpless. It is not Local Government, it is local farce and general tyranny; and if you are going to keep it on these lines, we must look to some other statesman to put it on a working basis. I have rejected the Chief Secretary's proposal of a plébiscite because the only effective local control would be that which could take cognisance of individual transactions. There are in all three grounds for objecting to it: firstly, before it could be taken, an extensive liability would already have been incurred; secondly, it might be taken at a time when sufficient experience had not been obtained to justify a final judgment; and, thirdly, because it would be unfair and unreasonable to allow the tenants to deprive themselves and their fellows of the benefits of the Act under

    309
    such circumstances. I therefore propose to give the power of veto to the Boards of Guardians which have local knowledge. The Boards of Guardians are equally composed of representatives of the landlords and the tenants. The ex officio Guardians represent the landed class, while the elected representatives only partially represent the tenants, because of the cumulative vote. If these Boards are allowed to consider whether in any case a transaction under the Bill is safe for the county, the decision will be left with a tribunal which has a strong and natural tendency to encourage land purchase. When County Councils have been created, I propose that they shall take up the work. It is said that County Councils would try to bring down the price of land; but by the time they have come into existence the lines of land purchase will have been laid down, and the average price of land will have been ascertained. It will be difficult for any County Council to attempt to repeal the policy of their predecessors; for every farmer will have an interest in purchase as being himself a possible purchaser, and this interest will outweigh that created by the liability to a levy in case of default. Then the interest of the labourers in every county will be directly in the encouragement of purchase, because the county percentage is to go to the erection of labourers' cottages. Out of every £1,000,000 of Stock issued under this Bill the labourers will get £2,500 a year for the erection of dwellings. They will be induced to take an interest in the County Council elections, and nobody with such an interest would dare to stand in the way of the completion of a fair or even tolerable land purchase transaction. The second reason is that land purchase will mean more employment for labourers, and better wages. The labourers know that when the farmers become owners—when the stimulus of ownership is applied to the possession of the soil—the market for labour will be a dearer and a better one. It is impossible, therefore, to say that County Councils in Ireland will be hostile to land purchase. I regard the hypothecation of our rates without the consent of an elected body as a wanton violation of our constitutional rights, and I regard the withdrawal of the local grants from the
    310
    Exchequer without our consent as a violation of the Parliamentary contract between Great Britain and Ireland upon which our contributions to the Revenue are founded. I should like to see you trying such an insolent policy on the humblest locality in Great Britain. Why, you have brought about a revolution and beheaded a King for less. I say for my colleagues and myself, and for our constituents, that we here declare ourselves to be clear of all responsibility, and that on Her Majesty's Government, and the majority who support them, the sole responsibility must rest for whatever may occur.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, at the end of Clause 1, to insert the words—"(4.) No Guaranteed Land Stock shall be issued by way of advance for the purchase of any holding, unless the making of such advance shall have been previously approved—

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

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

    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Nobody, I think, will deny the importance of the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Gentleman, nor the perfect right which he has to move it. The Amendment is one which strikes at the very root of the Bill, but, at the same time, it is one which raises a question which has been brought up on so many occasions before, and has been so often discussed by me, that I am afraid I am not able to offer any new arguments in favour of the position taken up in the matter by the Government. The hon. Gentleman has told us, and with perfect truth, that this Amendment is different in substance from any of those put upon the Paper previously, that the Bill will not be stopped by the acceptance of this Amendment, and that land purchase will not be deferred until such time as the House has established County Councils in Ireland. Well, that is an improvement, no doubt, upon the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Mem-

    311
    ber for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), which proposed to defer all land purchase until County Councils are established. I would point out, however, to the hon. Gentleman that, although Boards of Guardians have the advantage over County Councils that they are in existence, they are not really suitable tribunals to deal with this question, because, although the constitution of Boards of Guardians is such that the owners of land have a large voice in their affairs—an advantage they do not always avail themselves of by attending the meetings—unions do not coincide with, or approach coincidence with, the boundaries of the counties in which they are situated. A union is frequently in two counties. Again, a union seldom covers more than a small fraction of any county, and the funds hypothecated are the funds of the whole county, and, therefore, even those who hold the views of the hon. Gentleman opposite must feel that it could only be as a temporary expedient that we could adopt Boards of Guardians as the machinery for carrying out the objects of this Act. With regard to County Councils, which I hope will be established when there is time on as full and extended a franchise as County Councils in England and Scotland, I do not think that the duty of determining the propriety of each case of purchase is a duty which ought to be thrown upon them. I pointed out on a previous occasion that to give intending purchasers the right to determine what purchase shall take place is practically to give them the power to lower the price of land. That argument I still consider to be sound, in spite of the contention of the hon. Gentleman that the intending purchasers will resent any interference with the machinery of purchase which the representatives may interpose.
    MR. SEXTON: The will of the landlords is supreme, and they might stop purchase altogether if they chose.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is true. The consent of the landlord is necessary for purchase, and if it becomes clear that the transactions are regulated by the purchasers no landlord will enter into negotiations with his tenants. But, at the same time, it appears to me that the desire to lower the price of an article of purchase would always out-
    312
    weigh the more remote consideration, because the tenants would always think that the necessity of the situation will compel the landlord to sell. They would think that if they restricted the price of the land the landlord would not only have to sell, but to sell at a lower price. With regard to the question of the labourers, I wish I could think that the labourers of Ireland will be large gainers by this land purchase scheme. I believe certainly that they will be gainers in consequence of the general tranquillity which will result, because increased tranquillity brings greater enterprise and greater expenditure of capital upon the agricultural industry. I fear, however, that it may prove to be the fact that the sale by the landlords of their estates, however directly it may benefit the tenants, will not, as an immediate effect, improve the position of the labourers. The Government, as well as hon. Members opposite, have done their best for the labourers by introducing provisions of a liberal kind for the improvement of their dwellings, but I am afraid that it is true that the labourers value much more a direct increase of labour than an improvement in the houses in which they live. I certainly do not consider that a certain number of new dwellings will at all compensate them for the loss of employment which I fear may follow—though I hope that it will not—the sale of their properties by the landlords. I think that the arguments which have been brought forward by the hon. Gentleman are not such as will induce the House to alter the decision to which it came on the Second Reading and in Committee. In my opinion, the Amendment would fatally hamper the working of the Act, and might be productive of serious injury to the whole system of land purchase.
    (5.18.) The House divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 175.—(Div. List, No. 286.)
    Other Amendments agreed to:—Clause 2, page 3, line 10, after "shall be," insert "paid out of that fund to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account and;" line 11, after "cottages," insert "under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1886."—(The Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Amendment proposed after the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "or 'The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890.'"—(Mr. Mahony.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Another Amendment made.
    MR. KEAY: In proposing the next Amendment which stands in my name, I beg to say that I wish by it to secure the same facilities for impounding the landlord's contribution as exist under the Ashbourne Acts. The Bill as it now stands provides that only one-half of it shall be impounded even in the case of an irrecoverable debt. I ventured to indicate on a former occasion that there could be no sound reason for the change, which is obviously made solely for the benefit of the Irish landlords. The Chief Secretary replied that the reason was that as a new security, namely, the Guarantee Fund, was now added, it was only just that the landlord should be relieved of half his former liability. But it has been persistently asserted that the additional securities put into the Bill have been added solely in the interest of the British taxpayer, and not for the advantage of the Irish landlord. I therefore believe that the right hon. Gentleman's admission that these fresh securities are inserted for the purpose of partly relieving the landlord from his liability will be received by the country with surprise and reprobation.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 30, to leave out from the word "debt," to the word "shall," in line 32, in order to insert the words "such sum."—(Mr. Keay.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. SEXTON: Under the Ashbourne scheme the whole of the landlords' guarantee deposit is made liable in case of default. I have looked into the working of the scheme during the last six years, and the result is rather curious. £6,000,000 has been advanced, 14,000 farms have been purchased, and in only seven cases has the guarantee deposit been come upon. Probably, the
    314
    loss to the landlords has not exceeded £200. It may be said that under this Bill there will be more risk by reason of the large number of transactions. I say it is not a question of risk, but it is one of convenience and public feeling, and I hold that this proposal to relieve the landlords' guarantee is extremely objectionable. You seize the whole of the tenant's property, you take every penny that he has in the world, but when you come to deal with the landlord's deposit you take only one-half of that. I think the fairer plan would be to levy on the tenant to the full extent, then on the landlord to the full extent, and then, and not till then, come on the local funds. Unless you do this I fear there will be great trouble in Ireland hereafter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman raises this question on the general discussion on the Third Reading of the Bill, I think I shall be able to show that the evils he fears are not likely to arise. Surely our proposal is a fair one. There is nothing in the nature of land purchase which requires that the landlord should give a guarantee at all. The hon. Member says the selling landlord is the one party who will benefit by the passing of this Act. I do not go that length. I agree that it is an undoubted boon to find for him a market for his land; but when full allowance is made for that boon, I still remain of the opinion that the great benefit is conferred on the tenant. Under these circumstances, it appears to me that there is nothing unjust in this clause as it stands; on the contrary, it is just and most natural.
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I think that the Government, in insisting on this provision in the Bill, differing as it does from the arrangement under the Ashbourne scheme, have been responsible to a great degree for the feeling on this side of the House that Parliament has not been sufficiently taken into their counsels in regard to this Bill. It appears to me that a very strong case has been made out in support of this Amendment. It is a most unfortunate arrangement on the part of the Government that now, directly a fault is committed, you come down at once upon the rates. There is nothing between the

    315
    rates and the necessity of making good the very first default on the part of the farmers, and this is very much aggravated by the fact that the ratepayers have no means of controlling the advances. The right hon. Gentleman says there is nothing in the nature of things to justify the House in making the landlord actually responsible. But I think an exact analogy may be found in commercial life. One man draws a bill, another accepts it, and then the bank cashes it. In this ease the landlord draws the Bill, the tenant accepts it, and the British Treasury cashes it. In the former case, if the acceptor of the bill cannot meet it, the drawer must; and surely the same should be the policy in regard to those land purchase transactions. The Ashbourne Act recognises that principle as just. After the tenant has been sold up and paid everything he has, the landlord is come upon. He is not indeed sold up, but he loses his deposit of one-fifth of the purchase money. The Government in the present Bill has reduced his responsibility very largely by placing an equal responsibility upon the rates of the county. I think we are bound to make a protest by going into the Division Lobby against this unfortunate proposal.
    (5.46.) The House divided:—Ayes 176; Noes 102.—(Div. List, No. 287.)
    MR. KNOX: The next Amendment on the Paper in my name was discussed in the Committee, and the Attorney General expressed an opinion that——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Amendment appears to be out of order, inasmuch as it contemplates dealing with a charge on the Consolidated Fund. That cannot be done at this stage.
    MR. KNOX: The object is to save the Consolidated Fund; it would allow the Land Commissioners to make an order for a reduced annuity, at the expense of the landlords' guarantee deposit. I have looked into the matter, and I find it is the fact that the Land Commissioners have sold holdings subject to reduced annuities. It is evidently very desirable they should have power to do so. In many cases it would be almost impossible to get anything like the value of the farm as a capital sum.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 34, after the word "Commission," to insert the words "whether on account of interest or principal."—(Mr. Knox.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,)said the words were unnecessary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTON: I think it is requisite that there should be some provision made for the application of money paid in arrear, and therefore I beg to move to add at the end of Section (3)—
    "Suma carried into the Guarantee Fund under this sub-section shall be applied in the same manner, and subject to the prescribed regulations, as the sums carried to the Land Purchase Account in respect of the current half-yearly instalments."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    *MR. MADDENaccepted the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. SEXTON: In the Bill of last year there was a provision relating to the £5,000 which is now paid to the Royal Dublin Society, for the Improvement of the Breed of Horses and Cattle. No such provision is made in the present Bill. If a specific provision was necessary in the Bill of last year, it is necessary now. I therefore beg to move to insert, after "grant," in line 6, the words "and the grant to the Royal Dublin Society for the improvement of the breed of horses and cattle."
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 6, after the word "grant," to insert the words "and the grant to the Royal Dublin Society for the improvement of the breed of horses and cattle."—(Mr. Sexton)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Squared): If the hon. Member will turn to the Act of 1888, he will find the £5,000 included in the Probate Grant. I have investigated the matter to-day, and my investigations confirmed my opinion in that respect. It is unnecessary,

    317
    therefore, to make any particular allusion to the grant in this Act. The draftsman of the Bill also takes that view.
    MR. SEXTON: There is no use in pressing the Amendment, but I am at a loss to know what is to become of the £5,000 in the future.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: It is to be used precisely for the same purpose as it is used for now, subject to the guarantee. If it is not wanted for the Guarantee Fund it will be distributed as other money which goes to local taxation—will be distributed for local taxation purposes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTON: I have now to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the House some explanation in regard to the sum of £40,000, which is called the Exchequer contribution to the Guarantee Fund. We all know that under the Local Government Act of 1888 the Government, on the one hand, ceased to make certain local grants, and, on the other hand, they handed over to the Local Authorities the produce of local taxation from licences. That produce is greater than the local grants, and, therefore, the advantage is in favour of the counties. According to the last accounts of Inland Revenue, the licences produced £3,000,000 in England, £300,000 in Scotland, and £185,000 in Ireland. I do not exactly know what local grants were discontinued, or whether there were corresponding local grants made in Ireland. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us information on that point. And another point to be borne in mind is that under the new arrangement England began to derive benefit at the year ending the 31st of March, 1890, while Ireland did not get any benefit until the year ending the 31st March, 1891. There is, there-ford, a year's arrear, and I think in equity, some arrangement should be made to make good that arrear.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot say offhand what grants were discontinued. As the hon. Gentleman correctly states, in England and Scotland certain grants were discontinued and certain licences handed over, and that led to profit to the localities. Owing to that profit to England and Scotland it was necessary to give Ireland
    318
    £40,000. Ireland gets that £40,000 as compensation for loss of revenue. As regards licences, Ireland stands in precisely the same position as before. It receives £40,000 to compensate it for the advantage given to England and Scotland. Ireland is not taxed as England and Scotland are taxed; but, nevertheless, I thought it right that Ireland should receive a sum proportionate to the advantage given to England and Scotland. I cannot help thinking it would be very unwise for the hon. Member for West Belfast to set up a debit and credit account between England and Scotland on the one hand, and Ireland on the other.
    Amendments made.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 17, at end to insert—
    "(3.) The money paid to the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund shall from time to time during every financial year so far as not required to meet charges on the fund already accrued be forthwith paid to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTON: I understand this Amendment is intended to meet an engagement the right hon. Gentleman made in Committee. The money is, in the first instance, to be paid into the Guarantee Fund. How long is the money to remain in the Guarantee Fund? Is it to remain there until there is default in any county? Is it intended to pay the first year's over, and if default arises in the first year to meet it in the course of the second year?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The intention is that there shall not be a moment's delay in paying over to a county any money to which it is entitled. Let us assume that money is due on the 1st of May. If there is no default on the 1st of May the money will be paid over in its entirety even though it is anticipated that on the 15th of May there will be default.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to move, in Clause 4, page 6, line 7, to leave out from "named" to. "made" inclusive, in line 9. As a

    319
    matter of fact, presentments made at the Summer Assizes in July are not dealt with by the County Treasurer probably until the month of August, and in that month he will affix his seal to the warrant. The actual collection will not be commenced until December, and most probably January. Much the same thing takes place with regard to the Spring Assizes. The County Treasurer will not affix his seal to the warrant in the ordinary course until the first week in May, and the collection will not take place until June, and no return will be made until July. As the clause now stands an entirely new system will be set up and will give rise to a great deal of unnecessary discontent.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 7, to leave out from the word "named," to the end of line 9.—(Mr Macartney.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. SEXTON: I think this part of the clause needs some attention. It is provided that the Treasury may take the money out of the Gurrantee Fund, but it is not stated what is to be the procedure. Is the Lord Lieutenant to have time to make the levy before the Guarantee Fund is touched? Is the Guarantee Fund to be the last resort, or is the money to be first taken out of the Guarantee Fund and then repaid after the levy is made? The hon. Member for Antrim thinks there is some objection to the period named—two months after the next Assize. The hon. Gentleman speaks from experience, and the probability is he is right.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The intention of the Government undoubtedly is to give the Lord Lieutenant reasonable time to collect the money before the Guarantee Fund is disturbed. Our hope and confident expectation is that the contingent portion of the fund never will be come upon, but even if it is, there will practically be no disturbance of local expenditure. Therefore, it is an essential part of our scheme that the Lord Lieutenant should have time allowed him.
    MR. MADDEN: I think there is a good deal in what has fallen from the hon. Member for Antrim and the hon. Member for West Belfast as to the
    320
    fixing of the period "two months after the next Assizes." But I would suggest that my hon. Friend should amend his Amendment so that the clause would read—
    "And for that purpose he shall send to the Secretary of the Grand Jury of the county a requisition for the payment of the sum therein mentioned, as the Lord Lieutenant, with the consent of the Treasury, thinks reasonable,"
    and I think the following words:—
    "but not later than two months after the next Assizes at which presentments can be made"
    might be dispensed with. Instead of the word "those," in line 10, I would suggest that "the next," be inserted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 14, after "collection," to insert "at the ordinary rate."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. MADDEN: I do not think the words are necessary, but, if they are, I will have them inserted in another place.
    MR. SEXTON: I prefer to have them inserted here, and, if they are not necessary, struck out in another place.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. KNOX: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. The point raised by it is of so much importance that, although I do not think it necessary to raise a long discussion upon it on the Report stage of this Bill, I am, nevertheless, of opinion that I am justified in bringing it forward once more in the hope that the Government may see their way to the acceptance of my proposal. Formerly we proposed that the charge should fall in the same manner as in the case of the poor rate, that is to say, that in the case of occupiers rated at less than £4 the charge should be met by the owner. But that proposal was rejected, and it was urged that, for instance, in the County of Donegal, where the majority of the occupiers are rated at less than £4, they would not feel the burden levied on the county at all. We had to admit that there was something in that contention, and that it was only fair that the burden should fall upon all classes. With a view, therefore, to meet the objection

    321
    then raised, I have framed this provision, and in doing so have used the language employed in the Land Act of 1870, with certain modifications. The law as to rating in Ireland divides the poor rate between occupier and owner. The county cess is similarly divided in the case of any tenancy created after the year 1870, in consequence of a clause inserted in the Land Act of that year. It was considered desirable in the interests of the public that in future tenancies the burden should be equally divided; but, at the same time, it was deemed unjust to divide the burden in respect of past tenancies, because in those cases it was assumed that the rent had been fixed as between occupier and owner on the understanding that the owner would not have to bear any part of the county cess. In the case of some of the later burdens put upon the counties it has been specially provided that they should be shared between the owner and the occupier. It was urged by the Chief Secretary that if the charge were placed on the owner as well as on the tenants injustice would be done; but it is evident that the landlords who take advantage of this Act, and sell their "states, will derive a certain amount of benefit from it, while the landlords who do not sell will also derive benefit from the general tranquillity which is expected to be the result of this legislation. I say, therefore, that if they do get these benefits they ought to contribute their quota of the charge to be incurred; and, therefore, I propose that those landlords who remain in the counties shall bear their share of the burden as well as those tenants who do not purchase. To put it shortly, the effect of my proposal will be this: In the case of the tenant who takes advantage of the Bill and buys, the tenant will have to pay the whole rate under my Amendment as under the Bill, while the landlord who takes advantage of the Act and sells will pay nothing. In the case of the tenant who does not take advantage of the Bill, and does not buy, under the Bill as it now stands the whole of the burden will fall upon him, whereas, in my opinion, he should only pay one-half. In the case of the landlord who does not take advantage of the Act, and does not
    322
    sell, one-half of the burden will, under my Amendment, have to be borne by him. I say it is unfair that, in the case of those tenants who could not buy, they should have to bear a share of the burden that would fall on the county as a consequence of the default of the other tenants who take advantage of the Bill. It was argued by the Chief Secretary that it would be possible for the non-purchasers to prevent these men from falling into default. I think that that argument is very farfetched. We know that the Irish tenants have successfully combined for purposes common to them all, but it is too much to expect that they will be able to combine to force those who take advantage of the Bill to pay their instalments. Therefore, I say that on these grounds my proposal is a reasonable one, and as I have endeavoured to frame it so as to meet the objections I have thought it possible to urge against it, I venture to hope that it will be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 16, after the word "presentment" to insert the words—
    "Any person who is liable to pay a rent in respect of any premises in such county may deduct from such rent, for each pound of the rent which he is liable to pay, one-half of the sum which he has paid under any such presentment or order in respect of each pound of the rateable value of such premises, and so in proportion for any less sum than one pound: Provided always, that it shall not be lawful under this Act for any such person to deduct from the rent payable by him for such premises, a larger sum than one-half of the amount of the cess which has been paid by him in respect of the same under such presentment or order."—(Mr. Knox.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The House is aware that this question could arise only if by the amount of default in any county the contingent portion of the Guarantee Fund was affected. I am quite unable to conceive of any circumstances in which a result so extreme could occur without there being something in the nature of a conspiracy. If there were any conspiracy on the part of purchasing tenants it will be admitted it must form some part of a large political agrarian combination. If there were such a combination it would be hard that any

    323
    part of the consequent penalty should fall on the landlords, who would be the victims, and not the authors of it. The tax would be levied at the instance of the Lord Lieutenant in lieu of the contingent portion of the Guarantee Fund, and it ought, as far as possible, to have the same incidence as that fund, which fell almost entirely upon the occupier. For these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.
    MR. SEXTON: If the right hon. Gentleman conceives that men who have under the Land Purchase Act acquired the substantial rights of ownership of the land they occupy are likely to conspire together for the purpose of destroying that ownership by refusing to pay the annuities which give them their title to the property, he must have formed a very peculiar notion of the character of the Irish people. If such a conspiracy could by any possibility occur, it is not the landlords who would be the victims. A conspiracy against what? Against the payment of the annuities. Due to whom? To the landlords? No: due to the State. How, then, could the landlords be the victims of any such conspiracy? Therefore, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman clearly falls to the ground. The incidence of the tax ought to follow, as far as possible, the incidence of the contingent portion of the Guarantee Fund. The facts do not bear out the right hon. Gentleman's pretension. The Guarantee Fund is drawn merely from the class who pay on the county cess, and so far as the argument goes I think it is more in support of the Amendment of my hon. Friend than of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. I think it is a great hardship that this burden should be thrown on the county cess. You cannot say that you have a right to levy upon a tenant because you are complying with some demand of the tenant. The tenant could struggle on somehow, while this Bill is the only means of escape of many landlords from ruin. It is not only the fortunes of certain landlords which are concerned, but the interests of the whole class, because the sale of these estates will greatly tend to tranquillise the country by settling the agrarian question in Ireland. I say that by this clause the interests of the landlords are served more directly and in a more important
    324
    decree than the interests of the, tenant.
    (6.50.) The House divided:—Ayes. 89; Noes 161.—(Div. List, No. 288.)
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendments made.
    MR. SEXTON: I have given-notice to move the omission of Subsection 1 of Clause 5, and I shall, if necessary, divide against it. The right hon. Gentleman in advocating this scheme said he anticipated there might be a rush of applications for the £30,000,000, and he desired by this clause to discourage the applications and reduce-their number. But the effect of this provision will fall heavily on the small farmers, while large farmers will be encouraged. Inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman has numbers on his side I will not now attempt to fight out the question, but I do appeal to him to modify the plan. I do not suggest that there should be any change in the case of transactions at 19, 18, or 17 years' purchase, but when the period is below 16, then the tenants' Insurance Fund will be above the annuity, and therefore in such a case I would have an alternative plan accepted by inserting in the clause, in line 11, after the words. "annual value," and "or 20 per cent. in excess of the annuity, or 4 per cent. on the purchase money, whichever shall be the lesser amount." That, I think, would meet the difficulty, and at the proper time I shall be prepared to move such an Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 7, to leave out Sub-section (1) of Clause 5.—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 5 down to the word 'first,' in line 10, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I venture to make an appeal to the Chief Secretary on this point. I cannot but think he would act wisely in accepting some such compromise. For my part, while this Bill has been before the House I have endeavoured to support every Amendment which would have the effect of confining the operation of the Bill to purchases by small holders. It seems to me that the policy of the Bill should be

    325
    mainly in that direction, and rather against purchases by large tenants. The effect of the clause as it now stands would be to discourage the purchase of small holdings. I have not met a single Irishman who thinks the clause would have any other effect than seriously limiting the number of such purchases. I cannot but think the Chief Secretary has failed to appreciate that. From a passage in a speech of the Chief Secretary's I gathered that it was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a sufficient tenant's insurance if one year's instalment were laid by to meet bad seasons. I fully appreciate the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to have some insurance fund. I think he will admit that I have uniformly supported him in all matters connected with the credit of the State. I would support the right hon. Gentleman now if I did not think that the clause would undoubtedly have a very serious effect in discouraging the purchase of small holdings. It will do so by putting money into the insurance fund in excess of the amount which appears to be necessary. I hope, therefore, he will accept some modification which will secure that the sum shall not exceed more than one year's instalment, instead of one and a half, as will be the case in regard to many small holdings.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite have habitually talked as if the tenants' insurance clause inflicts a great fine and a hardship upon the purchasing tenants in Ireland, and any one who has not looked minutely into the matter would suppose from hearing them that for the privilege of becoming owners of their land the tenants are required to pay a great deal of money which they would otherwise keep in their pockets. What are the facts? The money which the tenants had to pay as insurance is never taken away from them, except in case of default, and it ultimately either gives a lesser annuity or makes the tenant the freeholder of his land, without any annuity to pay, at a much earlier date than otherwise would have been the case. So much for the use to which the tenant fund is to be put. Now what sacrifices are asked of the tenants in order to contribute to this tenants' insurance fund? The sacrifice which the
    326
    tenant is asked to make consists of holding his farm at at least 20 per cent. less rent than that at which he had been holding it previously. Can that be described as inflicting an injury on the tenant? I think that even in the language of strong rhetoric that can hardly bespoken of as extorting money from an unwilling purchaser; it is to be regarded as enforcing insurance on the part of the tenant against a rainy day—insurance the full benefit of which he gets himself, and of which the Government get not one penny. The tenant ultimately gets, with interest, all that he has to put by before the end of the 49 years during which his annuity is to run, and, therefore, it is absurd to describe this as a hardship. What are the benefits? They are great. It will lessen the primary difference between the annuity paid on holdings which are bought, and the rent paid for holdings which have not been bought. One great point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, in the Second Reading Debate last year, was that a landlord's position will become intolerable if he remains on his estate and does not sell. The hon. Member for West Belfast has attempted to meet that argument by contending that the difference between rents and the annuities under the Ashbourne Acts has not produced the consequences which might have been feared. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right; I have received Reports from time to time indicating that the immense reductions on holdings sold at a small number of years' purchase has rarely led to difficulties on the estates of neighbouring landlords, and undoubtedly where there is plenty of money going, as there will be under this Act, considerable pressure may be put on a landlord who did not wish to sell by his tenants. If the whole benefit of the reduction is to come upon the tenants at once, it will place the landlord who does not wish to sell in a position of difficulty, and may lead to some local disturbance. Those evil consequences will be greatest in the very cases where, by this Amendment, hon. Members opposite wish to minimise the effect of the tenants' insurance. On an estate, the present rent of which is £100, the annuity at 12 years' purchase would be £48, and at 10 years' purchase, I sup

    327
    pose it would be about £40. If in the West of Ireland a reduction of 50 per cent. on the old rent was suddenly made on an estate, so immediate a fall must produce difficulties on neighbouring estates. For the reason stated I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment. I should deeply regret if this provision was found to interfere with the rapid sale of land, but if the purchaser is not to consider in the slightest degree the fact that he becomes an owner of land, then we must absolutely give up all hope that what has been called the magic of ownership is to produce any marked effect upon the cultivation of holdings. There is good reason, however, to believe that the fact of ownership will produce such an effect, and if it does, it will be proved conclusively that they are animated by something more than the mere desire for an immediate annual reduction, and value the privilege of being owner in fee simple of their holding, and if that be so it is not much to ask that this privilege should be obtained by some sacrifice. I hope the House will not reverse the decision they came to in Committee.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman recognises the very serious nature of this clause. He has pointed out that if the Bill were put into operation without some such clause, it would have a very injurious effect on those landlords who do not sell, because their tenants would dislike to see their neighbours making smaller annual payments than their own; but I want to know what is to happen at the end of five years. Surely, if it be necessary to put in a provision of this kind to protect the landlords on neighbouring estates, the protection which the Chief Secretary pretends to afford them must be a very imperfect one if it is only to last for five years. The Chief Secretary says the Insurance Fund belongs to the tenant, and it is no hardship to ask them to pay a large sum, because it will ultimately be applied to their own benefit. That is perfectly true, but does he not see that under this Bill be will be dealing with a number of men to whom a very small extra annual payment will be of great importance. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded
    328
    to districts in the West of Ireland where land may be sold for 10 years' purchase, and he has referred to the position of landlords on the neighbouring estates, where the tenants may be paying 60 per cent. more than those who have purchased. I fancy that in those districts there are many landlords who would have been glad if they could have received 40 per cent. of their rents during the last five years. I am afraid that on many estates there are landlords who have not been able to get anything like 40 per cent. of their rents, and lam confident that if this clause is maintained and applied to the congested districts, it will inevitably lead to a large amount of repudiation, not necessarily brought about by conspiracy, but as the mere result of absolute inability on the part of the tenants to pay the instalments. One very objectionable feature in the clause is that it proposes to make purchasers under the Act, for 20 years, pay a larger amount annually than they are paying under the Ashbourne Act. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the estate of the Glensharold Estate. Now, supposing that a few years ago that estate had been sold at 20 years' purchase under the Ashbourne Act, the tenants would have got a reduction of 20 per cent., but it would have led to a repudiation on their part, because they would not have been able to pay.
    (7.40.) The House divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 51.—(Div. List, No. 289.)
    Clause 5.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I beg to move in Clause 5, page 7, line 10, to leave out "first." The object of this Amendment is to give the purchaser time by cutting off two years. The Chief Secretary will know that many tenants are embarrassed by reason of the bad season—the cold weather which we have experienced having led to a bad state of things. In many cases the farmers have been obliged to put the cattle into meadows, having no more food to give them; and this, added to the fact that the price of butter is low, has really had a very serious effect upon the farmers. It is therefore that I wish to give them an opportunity to recover before being called upon to make this extra payment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 10, to leave out the word "first."—(Mr. Mahony.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'first' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I see and appreciate the object of the hon. Member, but I do not think that his Amendment will produce the effect which he anticipates, and I must, therefore, give it my opposition.
    MR. PIERCE MAHOHY: I will not press my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: In moving the insertion in page 7, line 10, after "purchase-annuity," of the words "or until a sum equal to the amount of one year's instalment have been accumulated," it is not necessary for me to make any speech in support of the proposition, though I may say I do not think the Chief Secretary has answered my argument in the observations he made in his last speech.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 10, after the word "purchase-annuity," to insert the words "or until a sum equal to the amount of one year's instalment shall have been accumulated."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre)
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    (7.55.) The House divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 89.—(Div. List, No. 290.)
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: The Amendment 1 now have to move is one to which I think the Chief Secretary will have no strong objection. It only provides that in the event of the Land Commissioners being of opinion that the 80 per cent. would be more than a tenant could reasonably pay in the year, then the Commissioners shall have liberty to fix the payment at a lower rate, but even then the sum must be in excess of the annual instalment, so as to provide for the Insurance Fund. Unless the Chief Secretary has made up his mind to make no concession, I do not think he can object to this. The whole matter will be left in the hands of the Land Purchase Commissioners, and if they decide that the tenant is able to pay the 80 per cent., then the tenant will have to pay it, while if they decide that he cannot pay it, then they may reduce the sum. The
    330
    reasonableness of the Amendment appears on the face of it, and I hope it may be accepted.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 11, after the word "value," to insert the words "unless the Land Commission shall certify that, in their opinion, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, 80 per cent. of the annual value would be in excess of a fair and reasonable annual payment for the holding, in which case the annuity shall be such lesser sum as the Land Commission shall direct, not being less than 5 per cent. in excess of an annuity of 4 per cent. on the advance."—(Mr. Mahony.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can hardly conceive circumstances arising such as the hon. Gentlemen contemplates.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: Glensharrold.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Glensharrold, no doubt, supplies a case in point, but an altogether exceptional case. The great mass of tenants occupy a totally different position. Only in those cases where a judicial rent has been fixed, at a rate now thought excessive, in the early years of the Fair Rent Act of 1881, can such a case possibly arise. In reference to the extreme case of the Glensharrold Estate, the hon. Member earlier in the evening made a speech in which I understood him to say that the Land Judge had allowed a permanent reduction of 30 per cent. on the original fair rent, so that according to the opinion of the Fair Rent Judge, the amount would be 70 percent. of the original fair rent. The tenant, therefore, would have to pay 10 per cent. more than the fair rent fixed by the Judge. That is an exceptional case, but even there I do not think the difficulty of 10 per cent. for five years is a serious one. I do not think that, in any case, we can proceed on the theory that the rents are wrong, and I should not be willing to throw on the Land Purchase Commissioners the burden of revising judicial rents, and that is what this Amendment amounts to.
    MR. SEXTON: In order to carry out a doctrine based on a belief in the inveterate folly of the Irish people, the right hon. Gentleman will insist on exacting 80 per cent. of the annual value, even when the Land Commission

    331
    and Mr. Wrench, his own particular Commissioner, certify that this would be an unfair and unreasonable payment for the holding. There is little practical good to be derived from the Amendment, but there is something. It was almost worth while to move the Amendment to extract from the Minister in charge of the Bill the declaration that his Insurance Fund must be filled up, even though his own department may be of opinion that it will inflict an unfair and unreasonable burden upon the tenant.
    (8.10.) The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 87.—(Div. List, No. 291.) (8.15.)
    MR. WEBB: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. Knox.)
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 11, after the word "value," to insert the words "or such less sum as would not be greater than the average annual amount actually paid by the tenant or his predecessors in title, as rent to the landlord during the ten years next preceding the date of the advance, unless such less sum shall be less than four per cent. on the advance when the annuity shall be such sum as the Land Commission may determine."—(Mr. Webb.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. MADDEN: I think there is one fatal objection to the Amendment. Supposing there had been a strike against rent on an estate, if you took as the test the amount actually paid by the tenant or his predecessors in title, great injustice would be done.
    MR. KNOX: I hope that, in some form or other, this point may be dealt with. While I do not want to press the Amendment in any pedantic fashion, I would point out that there has been nothing like a strike against rent in Ireland, although there has, no doubt, been during the last few years some irregularity in payment. Unless some modification is made in the clause, the effect of purchasing may be to make a tenant pay more than he has been paying for some time past. I think there are not many cases in Ireland where the tenants have successfully evaded the
    332
    payment of rent throughout the whole of the last 10 years. If it were otherwise, it would not be much of a tribute to the effectiveness of the rent - extracting machine which Her Majesty's Government have been employing in Ireland. What I want to provide against is the exaction of a larger sum from the tenant after he has purchased than he has been accustomed to pay in the past. There are numbers of cases where landlords have allowed the tenants abatements year by year to prevent them going into the Land Court. There is another class of cases where the rent was fixed in 1881 or 1882 by Commissioners who adopted a high standard of value. It is well known that at the beginning of the fixing of fair rents there was a great inequality in the decisions of various Sub-Commissioners. In these cases the landlord has usually allowed abatements, and the tenants have got to regard the abatements as a matter of course. If such tenants bought under this Bill, they would pay more than they had been in the habit of paying. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment, he may accept an Amendment to the definition of "annual value."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. KNOX: The next. Amendment which stands in my name is in a more complete form, the suggestion I brought before the Committee, and which the Chief Secretary advised to re-introduce in a more carefully drafted form. I have drawn it very carefully, so as to exclude any suspicion of fraud. The Land Commissioners' valuer may find in any case that, although a holding would be good security for 13 years' purchase, it would not be good security for the full amount of 80 per cent. of the nominal rent, and he might report that the advance could be sanctioned if some provision were made for half of what the tenant would be called upon to pay during the first five years. It might be that the landlord would be very ready to pay a certain sum in order to get the sale through, and in that case the proviso would be of advantage to both parties.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 22, after "holding," to insert the words "(2.) If, after application has been

    333
    made for an advance, the Land Commission by order declare that an annuity equal to eighty per cent. of the annual value of the holding would be more than the purchaser could pay without impoverishing the holding, and that the advance can only be sanctioned if the landlord pays to the Land Commission, or allows the Land Commission to retain out of the purchase money, as purchaser's insurance money, a sum in such order mentioned, and the landlord agrees to so pay or allow the Land Commission to retain such sum, the Land Commission may sanction an advance for the purchase of the holding on condition that such sum be so paid or retained. When an advance has been made for the purchase of a holding on such condition, the sum be paid or retained, with interest at the prescribed rate, shall be applied by the Land Commission in part payment of the purchase annuity during the first five years of the term, and the annuity actually payable by the purchaser during such five years shall be such Bum as will be sufficient to make up the annuity to eighty per cent. of the annual value of the holding."—(Mr. Knox.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I object to the Amendment as tending to promote collusion between landlord and tenant. I do not think it would be in favour of the tenant at all. If in favour of anyone it would be in favour of the landlord by enabling him to get more than he ought.
    MR. MADDEN: I also take that view and must oppose the Amendment. I think it would lead to unnecessary complication, and I do not think it would tend to the advantage of the tenant.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. SEXTON: I have an Amendment on the Paper to omit Subsection 2 of Clause 5, but I do not propose to move it. I desire, however, to move an Amendment to the subsection. The subsection runs thus:—
    "All such reductions shall be made by the Land Commission on the application of the proprietor for the time being of the holding charged,"
    and so on. I would move to insert after "application" the words "by letter or otherwise."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not see any objection to the Amendment.
    MR. MADDEN: I would suggest that the words should be "in writing by letter or otherwise."
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 24, after "application" to insert "in
    334
    writing by letter or otherwise."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question "That those words be there inserted" put, and agreed to.
    Other Amendments made.
    MR. KNOX: The next proposal I have to make is to apply the Chief Secretary's principle the other way about. The Chief Secretary proposes that where purchase is unusually rapid, the term of the extra annuity shall be extended. I propose that where purchase is very slow, the Lord Lieutenant may declare that the purchase annuity shall not continue for the period of five years to be 80 per cent. of the annual value. I think this might be found to be a very useful provision, and I hope the Government will accept it.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 37, after the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "or if one thirtieth part of the capital sum available for land purchase in any county under this Act shall not have been advanced within two years alter the passing of this Act, and it appears to the Lord Lieutenant on the report of the Land Commission, that it is expedient that the purchase annuities to which this section applies in the county should continue for less than five years to be eighty per cent. of the said annual value, and he so declares by publication in the prescribed manner."—(Mr. Knox.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the Amendment were accepted it might have the effect of stopping land purchase in a county.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Other Amendments made.
    MR. SEXTON: Sub-section 5 is intended to enable the Lord Lieutenant to use the Reserve Fund either for the purpose of voting money in distressed districts, or for the purpose of saving the county from a levy. I do not think that more than one purpose is provided for. If you wait until the deficiency arises, that is to say, until the date for the payment of the annuity has gone by, you will be too late, I should think, to assist the persons liable to pay. Why should the power given in this section be only put in force when a deficiency has been reached?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Would not the view of the hon. Gentleman, with which I heartily sympathise and agree, be met if, everything after the word "interest" were left out of the clause?
    MR. SEXTON: I have no doubt if the learned Attorney General will undertake to see that the two cases in which the fund can be applied shall be clearly defined in another place, that will be sufficient.
    MR. MADDEN: We will do that.
    MR. KEAY: I have to propose the Amendment that stands on the Paper in my name. Sub-section 2, which I wish to omit, entirely changes the character of the Bill, and is in itself of the most enormous importance in regard to the amounts of the advances which will take place under it. If the Sub-section were omitted, the Bill would be a Bill for the advance of £30,000,000 to the tenants or landlords of Ireland, and the advances would in every case begin to be recouped after the first year, so that the risk imposed upon the taxpayers would grow less and less as time went on. By this Sub-section, however, the whole position is changed. The result may be shortly stated in this way, that the advances to Irish tenants or landlords during the first 49 years of the operation of the Bill with this Sub-section included, will amount, not to £30,000,000, but to no less than £74,000,000. The Bill, as it stands, is a perpetual Land Purchase Bill, and if my calculation be correct, the amount of lendings which would take place in the second 49 years would amount to no less a sum than upwards of £200,000,000 sterling. The present state of the House does not altogether encourage one to deal with the enormous question raised by this clause, and I do not propose to do other than simply suggest how this sub-section will operate to vitiate what would otherwise be a consistent policy throughout the Bill. The first effect, then, of this re-lending, as it is called, is to reduce the Guarantee Fund to a state of bankruptcy. It also has a similar effect on the Sinking Fund. Assuming that default takes place at the end of one year, or 10 years, or 20, 40, or 49 years, the result is to drain the Sinking Fund in case of default perfectly dry, so that the whole payments into the Sinking Fund will have
    336
    to begin again, and the British taxpayer will have to go on guaranteeing loans under the Bill not for 49, but—in case of default in the 40th year—for 89 years. Now, of course, these matters are very recondite, but the Bill has been framed—whether purposely or not—in such a manner that it is a very difficult matter to explain clearly and succinctly the effect of this new and unparalleled experiment in what is called re-lending. The reason why the Guarantee Fund is bankrupted in the very first year, as I have already said, is obvious. Assuming that the £30,000,000 are lent at once, according to the Return supplied to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the first re-lendings which will have taken place at the end of the first 12 months will amount to £300,000. Well, new instalments will, of course, arise as due from the new tenant purchasers in consequence of this re-lending, and these instalments in the very first year at 4 per cent. will be £12,000; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now admitted that this £12,000 will not be provided for in the Guarantee Fund—that is to say, that the income of the Guarantee Fund for that year will be overdrawn to the extent of that £12,000. Of course, the amount will increase in almost geometrical progression every year. Not to detain the House, I will only mention that at the end of the 49th year the excess of tenants' instalments over the income of the Guarantee Fund for that single year will amount to £1,700,000. The only answer which has been given by the Government to this is—and I will state it as succinctly as I can—that undoubtedly there do arise these tenants' instalments outside the pale of the Guarantee Fund; but they say, "We shall use to cancel them the accumulations which we have acquired in our Sinking Fund during all the years preceding the default." All I have got to say is—and the Government I may say admit this—that if the course here suggested is taken, instead of a 49 years' obligation resting on the British taxpayers to guarantee these loans, the obligation—assuming defaul to take place in the 40th year—will begin all over again, so that the British taxpayers will have to guarantee the whole of the debt

    337
    not for 49, but for 89 years. The Government, of course, have given us plenty of assurances to the contrary. They have told us that the Guarantee Fund will be able to recoup these defaults shilling by shilling. This, I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will admit, must have meant year by year; for it is absurd to say that the Guarantee Fund could pay up default shilling by shilling, if the default of the shilling were to occur in one year and to be met only 49 years after it was due. We were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer also that any deficit in the Consolidated Fund, which will arise under this re-lending process—and no such deficit would arise if the subsection were struck out—we were told that any deficit arising in the Consolidated Fund, from its making the advances which are called temporary in the Bill, will be "at once recouped from the Guarantee Fund." I need not remind the House, especially as I have had an opportunity of making some remarks upon this subject before, which, not repeating, I will now only summarise—that the idea that these temporary advances can be thus at once recouped is absurd altogether, because the Guarantee Fund will be overdrawn. In consequence of the re-lendings to which I have called attention, the Guarantee Fund will have no money to repay the advances, which will have been made to an enormous extent. I might, perhaps, within the limits allowed me, venture to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman how his Sinking Fund is to be kept up under this re-lending operation? We know there is to be 1 per cent. for the Sinking Fund, year by year, until advances are repaid, and that when Stock is cancelled, such cancelment does not diminish by one jot the obligation to collect the same amount yearly for the Sinking Fund payments. We know, further, under the principle which is the very A B C of Sinking Fund finance, that, if part of the Stock is cancelled by the application of the accretions to the Sinking Fund, that fact does not diminish the obligation to pay yearly into the Fund not only the annual amount of the Sinking Fund contribution, but also the amount of all the dividends which are saved
    338
    from the public in consequence of the cancelment of the Stock. I know that the subject is difficult, and I am not going to detain the House by any elaboration of it. I have, however, stated the broad principle which, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows as well as I do, or better, forms the A B C of all Sinking Funds, that if the Sinking Fund is to be preserved, it must continue to receive these fixed payments which I have humbly endeavoured to describe, and that it will be impossible for him to carry the 1st clause into effect if this sub-section in regard to re-lending is not struck out. I may be pardoned if I allude to what I thought might possibly have been the intention or view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when I made my Motion last night in regard to a verbal alteration in Clause 1. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the alteration without assigning any reason, but that the words "nominal amount of the capital" were the usual mode of expression. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman intends to represent his view of the Sinking Fund payments to mean that they should be 1 per cent. on the amount of Land Stock which may be outstanding at any time. I do not know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do me the honour of giving any indication of his view "Yes" or "No" to that; but if he will make the calculation for himself, he will find that such a position is utterly untenable, inasmuch as the Government Tables themselves provide that these 1 per cent. Sinking Fund payments with all their accumulations of compound interest are necessary to redeem the Stock in 49 years; and if he were to allow the annual payments to be diminished below 1 per cent. on each and every advance which had been made, then in no case would the Government Tables for 49 years' redemption be complied with at all. If he were to reduce the Sinking Fund payments from the fixed point, if he were to say that 1 per cent. should be paid only on the Stock outstanding—that is to say, that after he has cancelled part of the Stock the 1 per cent. should only be paid on the remainder, then in no case could the tables be complied with, for it would require 58 or 59 years, instead of 49 years, to cancel the Stock. I merely

    339
    throw out the suggestion. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman desires thus to transgress the ordinary rules of Sinking Funds, and allow payments to be diminished. But I assume that he will not do so, and that he will adhere to the A B C, as I have called it, of Sinking Fund payments. If he does this, then I assert most boldly that the Bill necessitates the right hon. Gentleman receiving such payments from the tenant purchasers as will be fixed payments, and so will pay off the Stock in 49 years after issue; and that if the tenants' default under the relending operation, there is no money in the Guarantee Fund to pay at all, and that the only resource which he has got is to destroy the Sinking Fund absolutely, and begin again, using the Sinking Fund for the unlawful purpose of meeting the default of the tenants, and then declaring that the loss of £38,000,000 of interest which will thus take place on the 30th year is no loss to anyone. I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that on the 26th January he was good enough to assure the House, in reply to the question to which I have already referred to-day, that it is the intention of the Government that the Guarantee Fund shall be able to pay off the whole of the purchase annuities if default is committed. I will only add this further remark. It appears to me, although I am not a lawyer, that according to the arrangement of his own Bill the right hon. Gentleman has provided that this Sinking Fund shall be honestly kept up, and if there is a flaw in some way in the Bill which will enable him not to keep it up according to the ordinary rules of Sinking Funds, but which will enable him to destroy the Fund by meeting defaults from it, then I think we are entitled to some explanation as to how the Bill provides for this, and also how this wholesale destruction of the Fund would consist with all the assurances of the Government that the taxpayer would only be asked to guarantee the Land Stock for 49 years from date of issue.
    Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 23, to leave out from the word "not," to the word "exceed," in line 24.—(Mr. Keay.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I do not propose to enter at length into the discussion of the question raised by the hon. Member. I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the effect on his re-lending clause of the words he last night introduced into Clause 1 of the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman introduced words into the 1st clause which, in my opinion, make it more certain than before that all money borrowed for the purpose of this Act must be repaid through the operation of the Sinking Fund at, or before, 49 years from the date when the loan was issued. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will not deny that he has inserted words to this effect. It is absolutely clear now that every amount borrowed must be paid at the end of 49 years. On the other hand, it is admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there must be great retardation in the event of defalcations occurring some years after the re-lending process has been in operation. The subject is somewhat difficult to explain, but, as I understand the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answer to what has been put before the House by the hon. Member for Elgin and others as to the re-lending clause, is that if defalcation occurs at any time after the re-lending clause has been in operation it will be open to him to use the Sinking Fund for the purpose of cancelling debt to the extent to which it exists, and the right hon. Gentleman then contends that the effect of this will be that the outstanding debt will be reduced to £30,000,000. He then contends that he is entitled to commence a new Sinking Fund from that date, and he says the Guarantee Fund will be sufficient to meet the interest and Sinking Fund of this £30,000,000. But the effect will be to retard the full repayment of the original Stock by a certain number of years beyond the original term. If that retardation is possible under the Bill, then I admit there is no objection from a financial point of view; but the question arises whether the retardation is

    341
    possible under the special terms of the Bill, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit that if the retardation is not expressly allowed under the terms of the Bill, if he is bound by those terms to repay the money within 49 years from the date when it was first borrowed, then the guarantee cannot be enforced years after the period when the Stock ought to be repaid. I should like to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the terms of Clause 1 as amended yesterday, and I ask whether he is not bound to maintain such a Sinking Fund as will repay the original sum borrowed within 49 years from the date of borrowing? If so, it appears to me that the scheme of retardation is not possible for him, and that the guarantee, if he attempts to enforce it after 49 years have expired, will not be legally binding, and it will be open to those against whom it is enforced to raise the legal question against him. Let us suppose that a defalcation has occurred, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has used the Sinking Fund for the purpose of cancelling debt, and that the outstanding debt is reduced to £30,000,000. Let us suppose it is extended over a period beyond the original 49 years, and that the Lord Lieutenant issues a precept for calling from the ratepayers £1,200,000, it would be open to the ratepayers to question the legality of that precept, and on this issue would arise the question whether, under the terms of the Act, the process of retardation is permissible. Now, it appears to me that under the special terms of Clause 1 retardation is not permissible, and that the Government are bound to repay the original sum borrowed within 49 years. That is a legal question, and I have not felt justified in simply expressing my own opinion. I have had the opportunity of putting the point before one of the ablest of lawyers specially qualified to express an opinion in relation to questions of a financial character. Mr. Fletcher Moulton, and he after carefully considering the Bill, has expressed the opinion, which he has authorised me to quote, that there is no power under the Bill as it now stands providing for this retardation, and that the Government will be bound, should the Bill become law as it stands, to pay the sum
    342
    borrowed within 49 years of the date of borrowing. If, then, the retardation process is not possible, the guarantee cannot be enforced beyond the date when the original sum ought to have been repaid. The point is one of considerable importance, and I hope, before the Bill passes, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give it his attention; and if the opinion of the able lawyer I have quoted should be confirmed, it will be desirable to omit in another place this sub-section. It is a question upon which I do not express an opinion without hesitation; but I certainly do think there is no power in the Bill allowing the Government to retard the process of repayment beyond the specific term of 49 years. The guarantee is, then, bad, and the scheme of re-lending unsound.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I can assure the hon. Member for Elgin that, though he has repeated his arguments over and over again during the course of these discussions, it is in no spirit of discourtesy that we abstain from continually making a reply to speeches which have-already been fully dealt with in the earlier stages of the Bill. Evidently this question exercises the mind of the hon. Member very much, and we have endeavoured time after time to convince him of his errors, apparently without success, for the only effect is that he quotes them at length in every speech, and then asks us again to reply to his arguments, and I see no end to this, so we must leave the matter as it stands, and the House must decide. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has raised a point, and in support of his own opinion quotes that of Mr. Fletcher Moulton, and he hopes that if this opinion is confirmed we will have the matter put right by dropping the sub-section. But we-should take a precisely different course. If we find that Mr. Fletcher Moulton is right in his interpretation of the words of the clause, and that the words as drawn do not give us the power sought to be obtained, the Government will change the language so as to obtain that power, because it is clear that it can be given with safety to the taxpayer. I know the value of Mr. Fletcher Moulton's opinion, but I know from experience that the opinion of a lawyer very much depends on the manner in

    343
    which the case is put before him and the arguments used, and I should not be surprised if Mr. Fletcher Moulton qualified his interpretation if I had the opportunity of putting my views before him by the side of those of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman says we are absolutely bound to pay off in 49 years, but the right hon. Gentleman does not quote us quite correctly. The words provide that for the purpose of such redemption a Sinking Fund shall be established. All that we have done is to indicate, but not to pledge, the redemption of annuities within 49 years. I carefully indicated to the draftsmen of the Bill that no words should be used which should pledge the Government to the period of 49 years. The whole arrangement of the Sinking Fund is such as not to give any positive pledge to that effect which, if we were to violate, would bring us into conflict with the law. I regret the idea that there is going to be a general repudiation. The hon. Gentleman's theory is that in every county on a given day there is to be a universal strike. Even in that case we are perfectly safe: we have in the Sinking Fund and the accumulations ample security. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford agrees that there is no possible loss of capital.
    *MR. KEAY: A postponement for 49 years.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: A retardation of payment only will take place. But, assuming a general strike to occur, the advances will be met for 12 years by the ¼ per cent. local contribution. The hon. Member suggests, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford suggests, that we should go on lending after a default takes place.
    *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I never made any such suggestion. In Committeee I said I thought the Treasury would stop re-lending whenever a default took place.
    *MR. KEAY: I also should like to say that not one of my remarks to-night was based on the supposition that re-lending would take place after default was made.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Then we can go on comfortably until 1910; the ¼ per cent. contributions will cover us till then.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I do not understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) disputes that the operation of re-lending may be perfectly safely conducted. As I understand, the situation is this: that we are going to spend £30,000,000 sterling, and for that we have security in the shape of certain Irish revenues. We are never going to spend more than £30,000,000, and we are never to have less than this revenue to fall back upon. Therefore, it does not seem to me that it matters whether we re-lend or not But I do not understand what object the Chancellor of the Exchequer had last night in introducing his new words into the sub-section. I do not think the public interest is involved in the question whether these annuities should be paid off at the end of 49 years, or should be allowed to run on, but the legal difficulty stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford is one that, I think, should be settled in a moment by the Attorney General for Ireland. It appears to me that the difficulty very probably arises from the place in the section in which the new words are introduced. They make the clause read "and for the purpose the such redemption at the expiration of 49 years." That seems to me to be directory rather than restrictive, or, in other words, to absolutely define the period when the redemption shall take place.
    MR. SEXTON: The words were put in at my suggestion, and I should like to hear more about them before they are struck out. I objected to the words the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought up, and suggested that after the word "redemption," in line 12, we should put in the words "within the term of 49 years from the data of the issue of such stock." I imagine the Treasury would find themselves in difficulty if at any time Stock remained

    345
    unredeemed for more than 49 years, unless the Treasury were able to show some sufficient reason for the delay.
    MR. MADDEN: I will carefully consider the matter.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    An Amendment made.
    MR. KEAY: I now beg to move, in Clause C, page 9, line 36, after "payments," to add—
    "But any such order shall not come into operation until it has lain for not less than 30 days upon the Table of the House of Commons, nor if a resolution objecting to the Order has been passed by such House."
    This Amendment also relates to what is called the re-lending clause. My desire is that there should be some check upon the operations of this clause and upon the vast advances which I have already stated it is calculated to make in addition to the original £30,000,000. I propose that re-lending should not take place until the House of Commons has had an opportunity of considering whether the operation is free from danger. I estimate that in the first 49 years the re-lendings alone will amount to £42,000,000 sterling. This at once shows that the matter of re-lending is one of grave importance, and one that should not be entered upon in any given case unless the House has had an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. I may point out that the provision I propose was contained in the Bill of last year, and I ask why it should not be inserted in what is practically a similar Bill of this year? The replies I got in Commit tee consisted of one or two misstatements of fact. The Chief Secretary told me that the reason why the surveillance of Parliament was provided for in last year's Bill and not in this was that the Ashbourne moneys were to be re-lent under the Bill of last year, and were not to be re-lent under this Bill. But I was able to convince the right hon. Gentleman that that was a mistake, for, after consideration, he admitted that not only the Ashbourne moneys, but the immense re-lendings under the Bill of last year to the same vast amount as under the Bill of this year, were to be placed under the control of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had another answer
    346
    for me, and that was to the effect that the Ashbourne moneys were to be re-lent under last year's Bill without security, and that, therefore, the control of Parliament was necessary on that ground. This, again, is a complete error, inasmuch as every penny of the Ashbourne money was to be re-lent on exactly the same security as the new £30,000,000. It is entirely erroneous, therefore, to allege that there was, under last year's Bill, any reason whatever, which is not equally applicable to the present Bill, why Parliament should be invoked to control the re-lending. There is only one other argument adduced against such a salutary provision as that contained in this Amendment. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman that the Government preferred to reject this Amendment, and to exclude the re-lending from the control of the House of Commons, because, if the Amendment were accepted, Parliament would be mainly occupied in deciding matters connected with re-lendings under this Bill, which would very much better be left to the control of the Treasury. I can hardly think that that was a serious argument on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He knows very much better than I do that the forms of the House are such as to make it perfectly absurd for anyone to allege that any opportunities exist under its rules under which the House could possibly be mainly occupied in passing resolutions against re-lendings under this Bill. I therefore respectfully venture to submit that the only arguments which have been adduced against this proposal are neither weighty nor accurate. In consequence, we are in this position: that the Government have knocked out of their Bill a valuable provision for subjecting to the control of Parliament its re-lending operations without a single reason having been adduced for doing so other than the three which I think I have now successfully controverted.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 9, line 36, after the word "payments," to insert the words "but any such order shall not come into operation until it has lain for not less than thirty day's upon the Table of the House of Commons, nor if a resolution objecting to the order has been passed by such House."—(Mr. Keay.)
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 137.—(Div. List, No. 292.)
    Other Amendments made.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Amendment I have to propose is for the purpose of curing what appears to me to be a defect in the Bill, namely, that there is no power given to the Executive to stop advances in the event of payment of annuities falling into arrear in particular districts. Of course, it will be admitted that wherever that is the case advances ought to cease, but it is a very disagreeable task to leave to the Land Commission to say at what particular period this shall take place, and, therefore, I propose that this shall be done on a notification from the Treasury.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 10, at end, add, "When it appears to the Treasury that the payment of annuities in any county has fallen into arrears, and that there is probability that the share of the county in the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund will be exhausted in meeting the claims on the Land Purchase Account, they shall certify the same to the Lord Lieutenant, and the Lord Lieutenant shall thereupon direct the Land Commissioners to cease making advances in such county until the Treasury shall notify to the Lord Lieutenant that, in their opinion, the advances may again be safely resumed."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I regret to have to occupy the House for a short time on the subject-matter of Clause 7, but the opinion I hold as to the general policy in its effect on land purchase in Ireland, and especially in my own constituency, is so strong that I feel bound to enter a final protest against the clause. While doing so I am quite ready to admit that the effort the right hon. Gentleman made to meet the objection to the clause as it was originally framed by extending the limit has to a considerable extent removed objections then urged against it.
    348
    But in doing this the right hon. Gentleman has swept away all basis of principle for the clause. When the clause had the £30 limit the effect on land purchase, according to the figures in the Return presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I take to be fairly correct, would have been to exclude 80,000 holdings in Ireland of the valuation of £5,900,000, exceeding half the total valuation in Ireland. With the extension of the limit to £50 the number of holdings is reduced to something like 44,000, or nearly by half, but the valuation of the area of land which still remains excluded is only reduced by one-fifth; and an enormous proportion of the acreage of Ireland is under the clause expressly excluded, unless the Lord Lieutenant exercises his special powers, from the operation of the Bill. Whereas the holdings under £50 valuation, which give a total aggregate valuation of £5,600,000, are capable of using £27,000,000 under the Act, holdings over £50 valuation, with a total valuation of over £4,400,000, get hold of £2,700,000 only, a disproportion it appears to me impossible to justify on any ground whatever. What is the history of this clause? My right hon. Friend has not always been in favour of the principle adopted in the clause. On the First Reading he stated strongly his objection to the adoption of the principle. He had considered it, I suppose, with great care on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cork, and he told the hon. Member on moving the First Reading that he thought the limit suggested was too rigid, and that it would leave outside the Bill and discontented an important section of the agricultural community in Ireland. He would not accept the limit of £50 valuation; but he proposed in another way to limit the scope of the Bill. Well, the limitations he provided in the Bill were not found acceptable to any portion of the Irish Representatives in the House, and my right hon. Friend did not occupy the time of the House in attempting to defend them; but certainly, if I had anticipated for a moment that striking out the clause originally limiting the

    349
    scope of the Bill would have led to this limitation, I would have preferred the limitation displaced. When we had a discussion on May 7th on the original clause my right hon. Friend said he would be grateful for any observations that would assist him in coming to a decision on the point, and I think he will recollect that hon. Members on both sides expressed opinions more or less strongly against any limitation whatever of the character now before us being maintained in the Bill. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman has not been considering so much the opinion of Irish Representatives as yielding to the sentimental view of certain English Representatives, who, for reasons well or ill-founded, desire to see the benefit of land purchase confined to a certain section of the Irish tenants. Now, I certainly understood, as I think did my hon. Friends when the Bill was introduced, that the object was, so far as the money would go, to throw open the scheme of purchase to every tenant no matter what his holding or position, and it was on this basis that I, at all events, supported the Second Reading; but now my right hon. Friend has adopted the principle that it will be better for the future of land purchase, and better for the position of agriculture in Ireland, to exclude tenants who have the largest holdings, and who, so far as material prosperity goes, are in the best circumstances. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this clause has his approval, because I recollect a very important portion of a speech he made last year on the Second Reading of the original Land Purchase Bill in which he told the House that the position in which Irish land was placed was eminently unsatisfactory, that the system of dual ownership was ruinous to agriculture in Ireland, and he also informed us that the Bill was introduced not only for the promotion of social order, not only to assist landlord and tenant, but for the purpose of improving the economical conditions of ereland by the promotion of a more Ifficient condition of agriculture than the present system in the interest of landlord and tenant afforded. Now, what is the position the Chancellor of the Exchequer must accept if he approves
    350
    of the clause? That he will leave subject to this fatal system he described so eloquently last June, which is ruinous to landlord and tenant and disastrous to agricultural prospects, an area and valuation very nearly approximating to half the total value of the acreage in Ireland. If that is his conclusion, I cannot conceive how the hopes he has held out of agricultural prosperity in Ireland can ever be realised in that country. What is the argument upon which the supporters of the clause base themselves? They object to allowing the larger tenants of over £50 valuation to participate fully in the benefits of land purchase because they are wealthy, because occupying larger farms they offer the best security to the State, and because, as I understand hon. Members opposite to say, they must be contented with their position, inasmuch as they have been law-abiding in the past. Now, I cannot conceive any one of these reasons influencing anyone desiring to see a land purchase scheme succeed in Ireland. I fail to see why the large tenants, who are the men most capable and less likely to be affected by agricultural calamities than the small tenants because they carry on a system of mixed farming, should be excluded. I cannot see why the small tenants, who are not likely to be such good subjects for the experiment of creating occupying proprietors, are to have nearly the whole of the money provided for the purposes of land purchase turned over to them. I have another objection to the clause, that it will create the greatest difficulty in the transfer of property from a landlord to his tenants by the uncertainty it will introduce into every negotiation between the landlord who desires to sell and a portion of his tenants. At what period—and I have never yet been able to get an answer to this question—is the landlord to be satisfied, supposing the amount of money allocated, or which can be properly allocated, to tenants over £50 valuation is exhausted—at what period is he to ascertain that the Lord Lieutenant will exercise the exceptional power vested in him for the promotion of land purchase to advance further and additional sums to complete the sale of an estate? It is perfectly obvious, and I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will

    351
    assent to this view, that in order to negotiate the sale of an estate or any portion of it, it is absolutely necessary that the vendor should have clearly in mind what are the terms upon which he is going to sell, and it is equally necessary that the tenants who are going to be parties to the purchase should know that if they accept his terms there will be no practical difficulty in the arrangement being carried out. But under this clause, as I read it, it will be impossible for the landlord to attempt to negotiate the sale of his property with any hope of success unless, in a county where the sum which can be allocated to the tenants of over £50 valuation has been exhausted, he knows that the Commissioners are prepared to make the necessary advance. I may say, generally, that I believe there is no instance on record in any country where, as a matter of practical experience, it has been found that a large number of small proprietors have been able to hold their own by the side of large tenant farmers except under exceptional circumstances which do not exist in Ireland. It is a well-known fact in England, and we find it exemplified among the "statesmen" of Cumberland and the small owners in the Lincolnshire fens, that in times of agricultural difficulty the small freeholders are the first to succumb, while large tenant farmers hold on and are able to get out of the difficulty. I am extremely surprised to find hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) who, I know, support the Bill in the sincere desire to see its operation productive of good, take up what I cannot characterise in any other way than as an amiable "fad" on this question. I cannot believe, if that hon. Member had sufficient practical knowledge of this class of tenants whom he particularly wishes to bring within the purview of the Bill, that he could believe it is for the benefit of any portion of Ireland to turn over to them such a great proportion of this money, while at the same time excluding from the operation of the Bill the better class, the wealthier class of tenants in Ireland. But there is, apart from this, a special argument I would press upon Her Majesty's Government, and it is one in which my own county is specially
    352
    concerned. I do not know how they will answer it, but there is the fact that by this clause the Government are about to exclude from the operation of the Bill the men who for years have supported the policy of the Government. Then turn to other parts of Ireland, in the West and South; who there will be excluded? The larger and more substantial farmers who have been law-abiding during past troubles, to whom Her Majesty's Government have appealed, and not in vain, to resist temptations to join illegal combinations and conspiracies. What is their reward now? They are deliberately excluded from this great benefit Her Majesty's Government propose to confer upon tenants in Ireland. I am bound to say they will have good reason to complain of the position in which they are placed. I do hope that, even at this late hour of our proceedings, my right hon. Friend will be induced to re-consider the position he has taken up—a position which does not rest on any considerable amount of support from any section of Irish Representatives. Though I know the great proportion of Irish Members on the other side will not concur with me in the argument I have just addressed to Her Majesty's Government, still it is a notorious fact that only a very small section of Representatives from Ireland support this clause, and I think, as regards the general interest of the country, and to facilitate the operation of the Bill, my right hon. Friend would be well advised if he were now to consent to modify, if not entirely to get rid of, a clause he only introduced as an afterthought, as a concession to what, after all, is only a sentimental opinion among some English Representatives. I move the omission of Clause 7.
    Amendment proposed, in page 10, to leave out Clause 7.—(Mr. Macartney.)
    Question proposed, "That the words of the Clause down to the word 'which,' in line 14, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. RATHBONE: I will only occupy a very few minutes, for it is not desirable now to re-open the whole question The speech we have just heard displayed

    353
    that wonderful power of imagination which so often distinguishes speeches from Irish Representatives. The hon. Member has spoken of the exclusion of the larger Irish tenants from the Bill; but, in truth, the object of the clause is to prevent exclusion, to prevent the larger tenants excluding the small tenants from the opportunity of purchase, and it is founded on no speculative or sentimental idea, but upon the actual figures giving the result of the operation of the Land Purchase Acts in the past. The larger holdings have absorbed two-thirds of the money intended for tenants generally, and this is a provision to secure a more general distribution. The large tenants are not excluded; a very large portion of the money can be availed of by them without any limitation, and, in fact, the clause is little more than an indication that we do not intend that the whole of the money shall be devoted to the purchase of larger holdings, and where it is necessary to complete the sale of an estate the Land Commission can relax and the Lord Lieutenant can abolish the limitation. The clause is so moderate in its provisions that I am surprised that the hon. Member should have any desire to touch it. He is not even right in saying that the great bulk of the Irish Representatives agree with him in principle. No doubt Irish Members have said they did not wish for a limitation, but they frankly gave their reason; they expect in time to get the whole sum necessary to buy up the whole of the agricultural estates in Ireland; and if there was a certainty that there would be no further advance in the purchase system, they would have supported the original clause. The hon. Member spoke of the smaller holdings giving the worst security; but I have only to go to the actual experience of the working of the Ashbourne Acts to show that he is mistaken, that while default in payment of instalments is represented by 7 per cent. on the larger holdings, it is only 1 per 1,000 on the small holdings. The
    354
    clause is founded on fact and experience, not sentiment.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: When these provisions were inserted in Committee, I was, unfortunately, unable to be present; and as this clause has created considerable excitement in Ulster, and especially in my own constituency, I am glad to have an opportunity of expressing my views with regard to it. I am free to confess that the Amendment adopted in Committee, raising the limit of valuation from £30 to £50, obviated a good deal of difficulty. The hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) stated that the real reason for the insertion of this clause is that the large tenants under the Ashbourne Acts secured two-thirds of the money advanced. Has the hon. Gentleman considered why this was so? I believe there have been two reasons for it. I am sure I shall not offend hon. Members below the Gangway when I say that they have not always occupied the same position in relation to land purchase as they occupy now. Beyond "yea" or "nay" they have advised the tenants not to be in a hurry to buy, but to wait, and probably they would get better terms. Now, the smaller tenants were precisely the men open to that advice; and the larger tenants, who were precisely the men not open to it, bought regardless of it. That is one reason. The other reason is the action of the Land Commissioners. These gentlemen were appointed to carry out a great experiment, and they were naturally anxious that the experiment should be as successful as possible. They preferred, I suppose—I do not blame them for it at all—to sell to the larger holders, whose security was better, rather than to the smaller tenants, whose security was not so good. Owing to these two causes the state of facts which we all lament has been brought about. But I submit neither of these two causes can operate in future. It will be impossible to tell the tenants in future, large or small, to wait now for better terms, and, if given, the advice will not be taken. After these Debates

    355
    the Land Commission is not likely to err in the same way again, and they will be inclined, I should say, even to give the smaller tenants the preference. In what position does the Chief Secretary place the Ulster Unionist Members by this clause? I ask him why irritate a considerable number of men in each county for so small a matter? What am I to say to those 900 farmers in Tyrone whose valuation is above £50, and a large percentage of whom cannot possibly purchase under this Act? I shall be forced to tell those 900 men that they are practically excluded from the Act, and their answer will be irresistable. They will say that during the last 10 years, when the foundations of social order have been sapped, when the resources of the Government have been strained to the uttermost, they have stood by law and order, paid their rents, and resisted agrarian socialism, and for this service to the State—and it has been a service to the State—their reward is that they are excluded from this enormous boon. On the other hand, we find that the greatest efforts are made to bring the Campaigners under the Act—the men who have been employed for years sapping the foundations of all that is valuable in the State. These men are brought under the Act and are rewarded. I say it is a difficult position that the Act places the Ulster Members in. [Irish Nationalist cheers.] Hon. Members below the Gangway may enjoy it. We do not. Then there is the difficulty as regards estates. In one estate in my constituency there are probably 10 or 12 men who will be excluded by this clause. If the landlord of that estate sells to the small holders he will have to keep up his whole agency expenses and office expenses for the small number of large holders who cannot buy. The very discretion given to the Land Commission in such cases shows the utter unworkable-ness and worthlessness of the whole thing. I should like to ask the Chief Secretary what he thinks will happen if the small holders decline to take advantage of the Act to the extent that is expected. We have heard that these men are heavily weighted by the Insurance Fund, and, if they do not purchase, are the funds to lie dormant, and this while there are large tenants willing
    356
    to buy and owners willing to sell? Lastly, I desire to point out that in carrying this clause the Chief Secretary will be acting in opposition to every supporter he has in this House from Ireland. There is not a single Irish Member, except, perhaps, my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Madden), who will go into the Lobby with him. It may be advisable—it may even be right—to kick your friends, but I should have thought the Government would at least, have considered what they would gain by forcing on the clause. They have not even gained that section of the Irish Party which is so ably led by the hon. Member for West Belfast.
    MR. SEXTON: I beg your pardon; I do not lead any section of the Irish Party.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Well,' I will not go into that question; if I did, I do not know where I should land myself. At all events, if the hon. Member has not led them in these discussions, I should like to know who has. I say he has not only led them, but led them most ably. The Government, I repeat, in thus kicking their own friends have not secured even the support of the Irish section I have referred to. The Irish Members voted against the Government on the last occasion, and I hope they will do so again on this. I trust, however, that even at the eleventh hour the Government will see their way, I will not say to get rid of the clause altogether, but to make some modification in it which will relieve their friends the Ulster Members from the difficulties in which they will otherwise be placed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not propose to deal at length with this question, important though I admit it to be, for it was fully discussed on a former occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim has talked as though I had acted with inconsistency in regard to this clause and some statements I previously made, but the hon. Member is utterly mistaken. The course I objected to, and still object to, is to draw the £50 limit on any line of so absolute

    357
    a character that no one who does not come within that limit shall be able to buy at all. That was the only proposal on the subject I previously had before me, and it never occurred to me that I should be asked to deal with the matter in the particular manner now proposed. I absolutely deny the statement which has been made, that we are excluding the purchase of holdings of over £50 value. It is perfectly true, of course, that some tenants over £50 who would have bought will no longer be able to buy. But, in fact, there is no exclusion in the matter, and the clause ought really to be called an inclusive clause. Its object is to include, and that only will be its effect. What we do with this £4,000,000 is this: it is earmarked for purchasers of holdings of above £50, and we deal with these purchasers on the principle of first come first served. The result, therefore, is not correctly described by saying that certain persons who would otherwise have been able to purchase will not be able to do so. There will, as I have said, be certain persons who will not be able to buy, but an enormous number who were not before able to buy will now be able to do so. The hon. Member for South Tyrone has asked what he can say to his constituents in Ulster if the clause is passed. Well, I will only ask the hon. Member to explain the clause to them, for I am perfectly certain that if they fully understand it there will be no such objection to it as the hon. Member fears. As to the objections urged by the hon. Member in reference to the exclusion of estates and to small holders holding back, provisions are at this moment in the Bill that fully meet them.
    MR. MACARTNEY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say at what period the landlord will be able to ascertain that the money will be advanced by the Commission?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A landlord making his bargain under this Bill must always be in doubt. He must first be in doubt whether or not the Commission will sanction the sale at all, and again whether there will be money enough. Hon. Members discuss the clause as if
    358
    the Government had £90,000,000 or £100,000,000 to dispose of. If they had, no such suggestion as is contained in this clause would have come from my lips or have been introduced at my suggestion into any Bill. It is because we have only a comparatively small and limited sum that we are bound to exclude a certain number of Irish tenants, and to direct the stream of Imperial charity—[Mr. MACNEILL: No, no; not charity]—well, of Imperial munificence or assistance—[Cries of "No, no," from the Irish Members]—well, then, to direct the stream of Imperial assistance into the channel which we think most beneficial to Ireland. That ought not to be, and cannot be, described as a scheme for excluding large tenants. Hon. Members have addressed to me personally an argument which, I think, perhaps, they would have hesitated to use in the House. They have said "Are you not aware that the people who have supported the policy of the Government throughout all the troubles in Ireland are the tenants of over £50 valuation?" Am I really to believe that the great bulk of the larger farmers in Ulster are tenants of over £50 valuation? Why, what is their total number? I think my hon. Friend said there were 700.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: There are 8,000 in Ulster, 900 in Tyrone.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In his constituency. He has more than 900 supporters in Tyrone.
    MR. PARNELL: He means 900 in the whole county.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the admission of the hon. Member, there are 900 such tenants in South Tyrone, and it is a libel on the great bulk of the tenant-farmers of Ulster to say that those below the £50 valuation are not to be counted among the friends of law and order.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I never said anything of the kind. What I did say was those farmers who are excluded for no other reason than that their valuation is above £50, and who have during the past 10 years struggled to do right, are now to be punished, while those who

    359
    have struggled to do something else during that period are to be rewarded.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not my argument. The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway on this side of the House not only said that those tenants of above £50 valuation who would otherwise be able to purchase, would be prevented from doing so by this clause, but he implied that these persons were distinguished for their loyalty above others in his constituency.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I never said that, or intended to say it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I accept the correction, but I must point out that it demolishes the hon. Member's argument. There is, I now understand, no distinction in loyalty between the farmers of above £50 valuation and those of below £50 valuation. Therefore, the clause will enable a very large number of loyal farmers to buy, and will only exclude a very few. Does not the hon. Member for Tyrone see that he has only to go down to his constituents and explain to them the real object and effect of the clause—namely, that it will enable a large number of tenants to buy who otherwise would be unable to do so—to get their support for the policy of the clause? My hon. Friend finished up his speech by asking what the Government gain by proposing this clause, and urged that hon. Members below the Gangway on this side, and hon. Members on the other side of the House, who usually support the Government, both oppose the clause, while the support of the party led by the hon. Member for West Belfast has not been secured for it. I admit that the clause has not been introduced for a merely Party advantage, or to obtain a merely temporary gain. It has been introduced—and it certainly has greatly added to my own troubles and to the labours of the House—to make the Bill as good a Land Purchase Bill as ingenuity can devise. All those who have the interests of land purchase at heart, when they understand the clause—that it does not interfere with
    360
    the sale of whole estates; that it can, if necessary, be altered by the Lord Lieutenant and Parliament; and, above all, that its object and effect will be to enable small holders to buy who would other wise be excluded from the purview of the Act—all these people, including the constituents of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, will be as earnest for the passing some limitation of this kind as the Government itself has been.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Members for South Antrim and South Tyrone seem incapable of understanding the policy of land-purchase. I have held from the first that the only limitation to be recommended is that which would extend the benefits of ownership as widely as possible. But with that I have always coupled the declaration that in my judgment there is no safe ground for the full extension of the policy of land purchase, except that of offering every possible facility for the sale of estates. Before I come to that point, however, I have to say that I think both the hon. Member for South Antrim and the hon. Member for South Tyrone displayed very indifferent judgment by referring in the face of the House of Commons to the political opinions of any class of Irish farmers. The Chief Secretary has disclaimed any intention of applying the money for any Political Party in particular; but if the example of the hon. Members for South Tyrone and South Antrim is to be followed, I can assert that I have known large farmers in Ireland who have been leaders in the Plan of Campaign, leaders of the Land League and the National League, and leaders of that political Party of which I am a member. The bulk of the large and the small farmers are on the side of the Party to which I belong, and, therefore, I feel bound to study the interests of both classes. As I have said, the main object is to facilitate the sale of estates. The higher the line of demarcation is placed, the more danger there is that the sale of estates will be embarrassed.

    361
    The money allotted to the farmers who are above the line of demarcation will be diminished as the line is raised, and the sooner it is exhausted the sooner will the process of purchase be blocked, except in case of some relaxation of the rules. I have no confidence in the discretion either of the majority of the Land Commission or of the Lord Lieutenant. The large farmers in Ireland are the chief employers of labour, and I believe the main hope of the labourers in that country lies in allowing the large farmers freely to purchase their holdings. The right hon. Gentleman says that if he had £90,000,000 or £100,000,000 to spend in land purchase he should not wish the clause to stand. It is just because he does not think that £30,000,000 is final that I object to the clause. So far from closing the land question in Ireland, the grant of £30,000,000 sets the Government upon an incline plane, to the end of which they must travel. They have become by their own act the slaves of logical necessity. In order that it may not be said I have lent any countenance to the idea that the £30,000,000 is final, I shall vote against the clause.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I cannot agree with the hon. Member in the action he is going to take. I agree that £30,000,000 is not going to settle the land question in Ireland, but what chance does the hon. Member see at present or in the near future of getting any more? Where is he going to get it from, and which British Party is going to give it him? It is because that I see no immediate prospect of any more that I wish the £30,000,000 should be spent in the best possible manner so as to benefit all classes of farmers in Ireland. That is exactly what I think the clause will do. It would give the poorer and less intelligent men a chance of getting their share in the land purchase scheme. I do not think the price of land in Ireland is likely to go up owing to any rush by the large farmers to the Land Purchase Courts. The reason why I support the clause is because it will enable a very much larger number of tenants in Ireland to purchase.
    (11.40.) The House divided:—Ayes 190; Noes 34.—(Div. List, No. 293.)
    Another Amendment made.
    Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 15, after the word "Act," to insert the words "or the previous Land Purchase Acts."—(Sir George Campbell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL&c): I have now to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and the object of which is to make the clause applicable to transactions under the Ashbourne Acts. I object very strongly to the loophole which the clause gives as it stands in favour of the large tenants. It is true that the agitation has come to a great extent from the large farmers. When we look at statistics we find that. Lister is pre-eminently the country of small farmers—very excellent small farmers—small farmers of the Scotch type. There are few larger farmers. They are excellent men in every way except when then want to get the money of the British taxpayer. If you give the money to them, how can you refuse it to the Scotch farmers? If you turn these farmers into proprietors the result will be that their sons will turn into gentlemen and will not cultivate the land at all.
    Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 21, to leave out the word "expect," and insert the words "and the amount available in such proportion shall be applied to cases."—(Sir George Campbell.)
    Question, "That the word 'except' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 7, page 10, line 22, leave out "the first-mentioned class," and insert "any of such holdings."—(The Attorney General for Ireland.)
    MR. RATHBONE: I beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name. So far from the clause being so very restrictive as is supposed, I am

    363
    advised that, unless the words I propose to insert are agreed to, it will hardly give the indication it is intended to give that the whole sum shall not be given to the large farmers.
    Amendment proposed in page 10, line 23, after "sales," to insert "of other holdings the rent of which does not exceed fifty pounds each."—(Mr. Rathbone.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    *(MR. T. W. RUSSELL: These words would not, I think, strengthen the "clause.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the clause is thoroughly explicit without these words. I do not, however, see that the Amendment can do any harm.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Verbal Amendments agreed to.
    MR. KNOX: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. A. O'Connor). When Clause 12 was inserted in Committee it was dealt with somewhat hurriedly. The Chief Secretary accepted it as a compromise, but suggested that any Amendment might be inserted on Report.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 13, line 9, at end of Clause 12, to insert the words, "Provided that (a.) bonâ fide agricultural labourer who is occasionally employed on the holding may be deemed to be a labourer employed on the holding within the meaning of the said section and the said Acts as applied by this Act, even though he is sometimes employed on other holdings;
    (b.) It shall be the duty of the inspector appointed by the Land Commission to report whether the holding affords sufficient security for the advance applied for, to inquire into the condition in respect of house accommodation of every labourer employed on the holding, and to report to the Land Commission accordingly;
    (c.) If an order has been made in favour of any labourer employed on the holding no proceedings for the recovery of a penalty under such order shall be defeated by reason only of the labourer having been dismissed from such employment;
    (d.) The Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Acts as applied by this section shall be deemed to apply as if the Land Commission was substituted for the Board of Works;
    364
    (e.) The Land Commission may at any time before the determination of the purchase-annuity make any order for the repair or rebuilding of any cottage built or improved under this section, and the provisions applied by this section and this section shall thereupon apply as if the order had been made on an application for an advance."—(Mr. Knox.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. MADDEN: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press this Amendment. I cannot accept the 1st Sub-section; the 2nd appears to me unnecessary; and as to the others, I think they would be very difficult to work out, and would be neither necessary nor desirable.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: This Amendment is not at all of a party character. Its only object is, if possible, to do some service to the labourers. I am only too glad to recognise the spirit in which the Attorney General for Ireland, and the Chief Secretary approached the question on a former occasion. I would ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, with reference to paragraph (a) he would think it well to accept the definition of agricultural labourer given in the Act of 1885? The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that the definition of agricultural labourer in the Labourers' Act of 1883, was found to be imperfect and inadequate, and that the definition was enlarged in the Act of 1885. If that definition were incorporated in this Bill, the object I seek would be attained. As to Subsection (b) I would point out that one of the reasons why the Labourers' Acts have been so ineffective is, that first of all, the labourer had no locus standi to appear before the Court; and secondly, when the locus standi was secured to him nominally he could only go into Court at very serious risk to himself. The result is that there are many farms altogether unprovided with the accommodation for labourers which ought to be provided. I am anxious to secure simplification of procedure and accounts, as well as unity of administration and control, but I can quite believe there are practical diffi-

    365
    culties. As to the last paragraph, I placed it on the Paper in consequence of a doubt as to whether the 2nd section of the Labourers Cottages Act, 1882, applied to Section 19 of the Act of 1881. The Act of 1882 was intended to amend the Act of 1881, but it is not specially directed to Section 19.
    MR. MADDEN: I am prepared to agree to the following words—
    "The expression 'labourer' shall mean a man or woman whose occupation during the ordinary season of agricultural work is the doing of agricultural work for hire on the holding, and includes a 'herd.'"
    I am also prepared to agree to Subsection (c).
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: Perhaps it would be well I should ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in order that Sub-section (a) may be put in the altered terms.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 13, line 9, at end, to add, "the expression labourer shall mean a man or woman whose occupation during the ordinary season of agricultural work is the doing of agricultural work for hire on the holding, and includes a 'herd.'"—(Mr. A. O'Connor.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. MACARTNEY: If I understand this sub-section rightly, it will enable every labourer, occasional or otherwise, to set up a claim for fixity of tenure, and to compel the tenant purchaser to provide him with a cottage. If that is so, I ask the hon. Member whether he thinks it is at all calculated to forward land purchase. I feel perfectly certain it would be one of the greatest impediments to agreements for sale being arrived at in cases where there are labourers on the farms. It would be better, if you wish to benefit the labourer, to proceed by way of Amendment of the Labourers' Act. In the interest of land purchase, I appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: If the Amendment were calculated to stop
    366
    or embarrass the purchase, I should not press it. I fancy the hon. Gentleman can scarcely have studied Clause 12 of the Bill. If he has, he must recognise that this is merely the incorporation into this purchase system of a provision which was in the Bill of 1881 with reference to the fixing of fair rent. That provision was that when, in the opinion of the Fair Rent Commissioners, a certain holding was so situated that it was proper in fixing rent, to impose terms on the tenant as to accommodation of land or buildings for the labourers, they should have the right to insist on those terms. The clause in the present Bill provides that a similar discretion and authority shall be vested in the Purchase Commissioners on the occasion of an offer to purchase, as was vested in the Pair Rent Commissioners on an application for the fixing of fair rent. With regard to the words the Attorney General for Ireland has handed to you, Sir, I think they rather weaken the definition of an agricultural labourer in the Act of 1885. By leaving out the words "of some person or persons," he has restricted his definition to persons who are occupied on the land of the tenant only, whereas under the Act of 1885 the labourer might be employed, not only on the land of the actual tenant sometimes, but also sometimes on the land of other persons.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    After the foregoing Amendment to add "(b) It shall be the duty of the Inspector appointed by the Land Commission to report whether the holding affords sufficient securtiy for the advance applied for, to inquire into the condition in respect of house accommodation of every labourer employed on the holding, and to report to the Land Commission accordingly."—(Mr. A. O'Connor.)
    Question proposed, "That those word" be there added."
    MR. MACARTNEY: It is not necessary because we have added one sub-section that we should add this. As a matter of fact to add this subsection would be to encumber the Bill It is the practice already for the Commission to do what is proposed by this

    367
    sub-section. I hope the Government will not accept it.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: It is already the duty of the officer of the Land Commission to report upon the holding in several different respects. A visit must be paid to the holding, and no charge, or excuse for charge, is furnished by this Amendment. Perhaps the word ought not to be "Inspector," because there is not an officer with that technical designation. But I put it to the Government that if they do not make it the duty or function of some independent authority to inform the Land Commissioners of the real circumstances of the case, the Land Commissioners will not be possessed of the knowledge, and will not have the materials before them necessary to form a judgment. The labourers simply dare not move, the tenants will not, and the landlords have no interest in the matter. There is no one to protect the interests of the labourers except the Land Department and their officers. Therefore, I ask the Government to accept this sub-section.
    MR. M'CARTAN: I think it is absolutely necessary for the protection of the labourers that such a duty should be imposed on the Land Commission.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The original section in the Act of 1881 says that the Commissioners, if satisfied there is necessity for improved buildings, they are to act as the section provides. In my opinion the Land Commissioners, with the section before them, would be acting very improperly if they did not make themselves acquainted with the condition of the labourers on the holdings and carry out the views of Parliament. But undoubtedly the words do not compel them to do so, and, therefore, though I think the Land Commissioners will not require the direction contained in this sub-section, the direction, so far as it goes, is a salutary one, and I see no reason why it should not be added to the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    After the foregoing Amendment, to add, "(c.) If an order has been made in favour of any labourer employed on the holding no proceedings for the recovery of a penalty under such order shall be defeated by reason only of the labourer having been dismissed from such employment."—(Mr. A. O'Connor.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand it, this sub-section does not impose any limitation on the power of a farmer to dismiss a labourer, nor does it impose any penalty. All it does is to provide that if an order is made in favour of a labourer's cottage, that order shall stand, although the labourer is dismissed; the mere fact of the labourer being dismissed shall not of itself void the order. That appears to me to be right enough.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I do not propose to move Sub-section (d), but I move Sub-section (e).
    Amendment proposed,
    After the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words, "(e.) The Land Commission may at any time before the determination of the purchase annuity make any order for the repair or rebuilding of any cottage built or improved under this section, and the provisions applied by this section and this section shall thereupon apply as if the order had been made on an application for an advance."—(Mr. A. O'Connor.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE:Before we pass away from Clause 13 perhaps the Government will say what are their intentions with regard to the auditing of the accounts under the Bill. I would point out that it is quite unusual to give the Treasury power to make rules and regulations with regard to the auditing of accounts. Elaborate regulations with regard to audit were made under the Land Act of 1881. I presume that those regulations will apply to the working of this Act.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The intention of the Treasury is that the audit shall be conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General. There is no desire to in any way lessen the responsibility of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I understand I cannot move Sub-section (a), which stands in my name; but I beg to move Sub-sections (b) and (c). Sub-section (b) merely provides for a reduction of the staff of the Land Commission when public business is such as to permit of its being reduced. Subsection (c) provides that when a fresh appointment of a Land Commissioner takes place the salary shall not exceed £2,000. I attach great importance to the latter sub-section, because we have ample proof that competent men can be got to perform the duties of Land Commissioner, other than a legal Commissioner, at a salary of £2,000.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 13, line 30, at the end of Clause 14 to insert the words, "(b.) As soon as the state of the business in the Land Commission permits the number of the Land Conmissioners shall, as vacancies occur, be reduced to three, one of whom shall be a judicial Land Commissioner, and, until the number of the Commissioners is so reduced, any vacancy occurring in their number shall not be filled except on a certificate from the Lord Lieutenant that in his opinion the state of business in the Land Commission requires the vacancy to be filled."—(Mr. Mahony.)
    Question, proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have great sympathy with the Amendment; but the hon. Member will, I hope, see it cannot be accepted. We have agreed that in every Court of Appeal there shall be one Lay Member of the Commission under the Act of 1881, and one Lay Member of the Commission under the Act of 1885. If one of them retired and this Amendment were accepted it might interfere with the whole machinery of the Appellate Tribunal.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 13, line 36, at the end of Clause 14, to insert the words—(c.) Subject to the provisions of this Act, with respect to the existing Land Commissioners, each of the Land Commissioners other than a judicial Land Commissioner shall be appointed by Her Majesty under the Royal Sign Manual, and shall hold his office by the same tenure as if he were a county court judge in Ireland, and shall receive such annual salary not exceeding two thousand pounds as the Treasury may assign."—(Mr. Mahony.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTON: Without binding myself to any figure, I should like to say that if there is to be absolute equality of duty and jurisdiction between the four Commissioners it seems to me that, as a necessary consequence, the salaries of the Commissioners ought to be equal.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I quite agree with the importance of equalising salaries, but I think it is possible to level down.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have already settled the tenure of the office, and I do not think it would be wise to alter it. As to salaries, I think we must insist upon the principle of attaching equal salaries to equal duties.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Other Amendments made.
    MR. SEXTON: I move to leave out the last sub-section, in order to allow the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to make the statement we have been long expecting respecting the names of the gentlemen who are to be appointed. I wish to know also whether there is any truth in the statement that the Government intend to appoint both unpaid and paid members of the Congested Districts Board?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Those questions can be asked without moving an Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no truth in the statement that we intend to appoint paid and unpaid

    371
    members of the Congested Districts Board. Her Majesty has approved the appointment of the following five gentlemen:—The Hon. Horace Plunkett, the Rev. Charles Davis, P.P., Mr. James H. Tuke, Mr. J. P. Cairnes, and Mr. Charles Kennedy. These gentlemen have been selected because they have shown a deep interest in improving the condition of the poor of Ireland. Mr. Plunkett has spent much time and trouble in this work in various parts of Ulster. Father Davis is known for his work to all the Members of this House. Mr. Tuke's labours in Ireland are also well known, and are not at all confined to the promotion of emigration, as some gentlemen think. Mr. Cairnes is an ex-Governor of the Bank of Ireland, and has been much engaged in the promotion of philanthropic objects in Dublin. He has lately, I have been given to understand, presented a very large sum of money for the erection of labourers' dwellings in the town of Drogheda. With regard to Mr. Kennedy, I believe he will be found to be connected with almost all philanthropic schemes in Dublin, and he has displayed great interest in promoting the welfare of the poorer class of the community. I am sure these gentlemen will bring to the service of the Board the same desire to do good as they have shown in other and less responsible spheres.
    MR. M'CARTAN: Is there no person appointed from Ulster?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
    MR. SEXTON: Of course the responsibility for the appointments rests with the Government, but I can only say I wish the Board every success.
    *MR. RATHBONE: I wish just to say about Mr. Tuke that he has been most active in the promotion of all industrial enterprises.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to move, in Clause 16, page 15, line 23, to leave out "five hundred thousand," with the view of raising a question as to the allocation of the Church Surplus Fund. That fund has hitherto been
    372
    applied to a purpose which can hardly be called of general public importance. The right hon. Gentleman not only provides money, but promises to develop almost everything that can be developed in the congested districts. The only thing he seems to forget to provide is "elbow grease," which is a most important thing in that part of Ireland. There are other portions of Ireland where the people have borne on their shoulders very severe burdens for the purpose of advancing the interests of their districts. I have specially in my mind that portion of the arterial drainage of Ireland which is carried on in my own constituency. Last year a Bill was introduced for the purpose of facilitating the drainage of the River Bann. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had to abandon that Bill, but he admitted on bringing it forward that it was necessary to contribute a certain portion of the expense of the works, because if the whole expense were thrown on the occupiers of the soil, the rent they would have to pay would far outweigh the benefit that would accrue to them. I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he will consider the claims upon the Church Surplus Fund of those districts in which the people have themselves attempted to improve their position; and whether, if an application be made to him for the revival of the Bann Drainage Bill, he will consider the claims that may be made on him to provide a portion of the funds that may be necessary for carrying it into effect? I put forward this question as an instance of the grievance which we, in the North of Ireland, feel has attended the disposal of the Church Surplus Fund. The largest proportion of the money has gone into the hands of those who have long been the objects of public charity.
    Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 23, to leave out the words "five hundred thousand."—(Mr. Macartney.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'five hundred thousand' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be glad to consider any proposal my hon. Friend may make when the proper time

    373
    arrives. I hope again to introduce the Bann Drainage Bill, and, if so, the money will be obtained, not from Irish sources at all, bat from Imperial sources.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTON: I have a proposal to make which I trust may receive favourable consideration. It in no way will impair the efficiency of the guarantee. It is a very undesirable thing to lock up this sum of £1,500,000 for an indefinite number of years. You have extended the operations of the Board to capital undertakings, such as the building of fishery piers and the construction of small harbours, and it may become apparent that the guarantee will really not be needed, repayments being regularly made, and that the money might be used for works of the first utility. It would be the mere pedantry of finance to lock up this amount of £1,500,000 so that it would be doing no earthly good, depriving the population of certain districts in the West of capital expenditure which would be of the greatest benefit to them, and conferring no advantage on the country at largo. I would strongly urge upon the Government that there should be power given to the Treasury to devote, should they think fit, a portion of the amount to the use of the Congested Districts Board. I beg to move an Amendment to that effect.
    Amendment proposed,
    To add, as a new sub-section: "The Land Commission may, with the consent of the Treasury, place at the disposal of and pay and apply as may be directed by the Congested Districts Board for the purposes of this Act, any part of the principal of the Church Surplus Guarantee which may not, in the opinion of the Treasury, be required for the Congested Districts Guarantee Fund."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree with the hon. Member that it may be possible that before the labours of the Congested Districts Board are brought to an end, it may appear desirable not to rigidly tie up the capital for the Guarantee Fund. Of course, in so far as the capital sum is
    374
    diminished, the Guarantee will be diminished, and the power of purchase in the congested districts curtailed. This power, I think, cannot be too strictly limited, and, therefore, I should like to see the consent of the Lord Lieutenant added to that of the Treasury, and though I do not lay stress upon this point, I should like to add the words "having regard to the interests of land purchase in the Congested Districts counties."
    MR. SEXTON: With the addition of the Lord Lieutenant the matter will be left as one requiring special attention.
    Amendment amended, by the addition after the words "opinion of the Treasury" of the words "and of the Lord Lieutenant."
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Other Amendments agreed to.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: Though the hour is late, I think the importance of the subject warrants my calling attention to the Amendment of which I have given notice to Clause 20. By this I propose somewhat to enlarge the powers given to the Congested Districts Board. I want the House to realise the sort of population the Board will have to deal with. It is a population which has been a source of anxiety to the Government of this country ever since the Union, and it will be to the lasting credit of the Chief Secretary that he has been the first British statesman who has made an organised effort to deal with this part of the country. His effort does not go so far as we could wish, but I give him all the credit of a first attempt in this direction. The population you have to deal with is very poor, and you cannot deal with the people as you would in other districts. As indicating the difference, let me mention that there are large districts where the valuation per head of population is between 5s. and 6s., while in other parts of Ireland it averages £15, or 60 times as much. In these districts, where small holdings abound, the

    375
    people have many rights in common, grazing rights, turbary rights—rights to them very important—to bent grass for thatching, to limestone, and on the seashore to sand and seaweed. The exercise of these rights gives rise to many disputes, and, in case of sale, the control over these rights will be removed, and I do not know what is to happen unless there is some authority, like the Congested Districts Board, to step in and acquire these common rights I speak of. I, therefore, propose that the Congested Districts Board shall have power to purchase or lease such rights, and make rules for the exercise of them by the occupiers.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 19, line 3, after the word "agriculture," to insert the words "providing grazing, heather or bent grass for thrashing, turbary, limestone, seaweed, or seasand."—(Mr. Mahony.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press this. He has four Amendments down, and the others I shall be very glad to accept; but I do not think this particular Amendment is germane to the subject-matter before us. The hon. Member has told us with perfect truth that in Ireland the subject of rights of turbary, and in a lesser degree the other subjects he has mentioned in his Amendment, do lead to grave disputes among tenants, and he is aware that in the Land Department Bill we have introduced elaborate provisions, by which we hope the Land Commission will deal with these different matters, the importance of which I fully recognise. But I think that any provisions of the kind should have application to the whole of Ireland, and that to enforce such provisions comes more properly within the functions of the Land Department than of the Congested Districts Board. In any case, I do not think this matter is germane to the
    376
    clause, which deals with the promotion of Irish industries.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: So far as rights of turbary are concerned, I do not know how they could be satisfactorily dealt with unless by the Congested Districts Board.
    MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider these matters in connection with the turbary provisions of the long leaseholders' clauses?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTON: In his next Amendment my hon. Friend refers to Sub-section (a), but I would suggest that the reference to the sub-section should be omitted, inasmuch as the powers of the Congested Districts Board are really to be found scattered through Part II. of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 8, to leave out "this sub-section," and insert "part two of this Act."
    MR. MADDEN: The hon. Member is quite right, there is no objection to this.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Other Amendments made.
    Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 363.]
    MR. SEXTON: Will it be possible to circulate the Bill as amended on Monday?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; I am informed it will be printed in time.

  INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS, &c (SITES) BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 364.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LANCASHIRE, DERBYSHIRE, AND EAST COAST RAILWAY BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
    Moved "That the Bill be now read 2a."
    LORD DEMAN, in moving "That the Bill be read a second time this day ten months," said: My Lords, I attended at the meeting yesterday, supposing that the matter was before a Select Committee, and being ready to give evidence as to my own knowledge. As I conceive, this railway is a most extensive undertaking, and one which is entirely unnecessary, and most destructive of private property in the neighbourhood in which I reside. One scheme is for carrying a railway down one of those beautiful vales in Derbyshire, which does not require a railway, and which would be utterly spoiled by the passage of a railway through it, and it is proposed to make a station in the very village in which I reside, pulling down houses for the purpose, and doing that for which no compensation can be paid which could satisfy any reasonable person. The other scheme is for a very high railway to go through a large part of the best land in Derbyshire, and going on past Chatsworth in order to join the Great Eastern Railway. It is, indeed, a most gigantic scheme, and I believe that all the advantages offered by it would be far more than gained by the branch line which has long been projected to Caldwell, and which could be very easily carried out. But, whatever happens, I wish to do my very best to oppose this Railway; and I believe the Select Committee would be doing a great service, and that everybody would be very much advantaged by an end being put to it. It is so extremely unreasonable. I am told that if one does not oppose a Bill on Second Reading one is pledged to the principle of it. On that ground I tender
    246
    my opposition to this Bill, aid I hope it will be thoroughly understood that it is opposed. I am afraid we shall have to bring up a host of witnesses from Derbyshire to explain these matters to your Lordships, for I have no credit with your Lordships, and I cannot expect you to do so unusual a thing as throwing out a Bill on Second Reading. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
    Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and insert at the end of the Motion ("this day ten months.")—(The Lord Denman.)
    THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, It is hardly necessary for me to reply at length to the remarks which have fallen from the noble Lord. I do not think any of the considerations he has laid before your Lordships to induce your Lordships not to read the Bill a second time, will have much weight with the House. They are clearly matters which should be dealt with, in this, as they are dealt with in all other cases of Railway Bills, by the Select Committee. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will, in the usual course, give this Bill a Second Reading, leaving its merits to be inquired into by the Committee.
    On question whether ("now") shall stand part of the motion, resolved in the affirmative.
    Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
  Report from, that the one hundred and twenty-second volume of the Journals (53rd and 54th Vict. 1890), with an Index, was ready for delivery; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and the said volume ordered to be delivered in the same manner as the preceding volumes of the Journals have been delivered.
  JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
    FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
    A Bill to carry into effect an international declaration respecting the North Sea Fisheries; and to amend the law relating to sea fisheries and salmon and freshwater figheries—Was presented by the Lord Balfour; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next. (No. 175.)
  SCOTLAND AND EMIGRATION.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    *THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I wish to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee on Colonisation of the House of Commons. I have several reasons for doing so. In the first place, I do not think that Blue Books are a very popular form of literature, and much valuable matter in them escapes altogether the attention of the public, and, I am afraid, even of a large proportion of the Members of both Houses of Parliament. In the second place, this particular Report, although it does not refer to what can be called a very burning question at the present moment, yet does refer to a question which is one of continual and perpetually recurring embarrassment to successive Governments, and, may I add, is not unconnected with some of the most important social problems which lie before us in the future. In the third place, I must say that this Report puts in a very accessible and condensed form the most important facts, and the main arguments, connected with this question of systematic emigration and colonisation. The Committee was appointed only in the present year, in January, 1891. The particular Reference to the Committee was a very limited one. They were to inquire into the various schemes of colonisation, which had been proposed and dealt with more or less by the Government, in regard to systematic emigration from what are called the congested districts of the United Kingdom. Now, we all know what that expression has come to mean. It is a stock phrase for particular districts in the United Kingdom; and when we hear it used we always know where to go to find what are called the congested districts. We think of the wilds of Donegal or of Kerry in Ireland, of some of the Hebrides in Scotland, and possibly some persons may refer occasionally to the East of London. The phrase, congested district, pray observe, does not mean the most densely-populated districts of the United Kingdom; on the contrary, the most populous districts are generally the most thriving—almost invariably that is so. What the term congested district means is those districts where the population is in excess of the means of subsistence which they
    248
    possess in that particular part of the country. Now, the Committee does not waste its time by going into the question as regards Ireland, because they know very well that the case of Ireland is in other hands, and is being dealt with by Government in its own way. Neither do they allude to the East End of London, but they go direct to certain districts of the Western Highlands, particularly to the Hebrides and especially to the Island of Lewis. What I want to direct the attention of the House to is the question—what is there that is peculiar in the condition of any part of the Hebrides, and in particular in regard to the Island of Lewis? The Committee makes one historical remark which is of considerable importance as bearing upon this question. They say that so far as the general condition of the country is concerned there is every indication that the United Kingdom is now maintaining a larger population, corresponding to its area, than almost any other country in Europe, or than itself contained in the early part—the first half of the present century. Now, this is a very important remark, because it carries us back a few years—not very many years—and enables us to see what is the cause of this particular congestion as they call it in these particular districts; it is not a question of mere population; it is a question of population in proportion to the means of local subsistence. I see that a very eminent authority—the late Professor Thorold Rogers, of the University of Oxford—in his very interesting book on Six Centuries of Work and Wages in England, says this: That, as far as he can see, there has been no year of famine in England since the early part of the 14th century—that since the year 1312 or 1315 I think, there has been no year in which England did not support its own population without the import of foreign food with comparative ease—of course with a much smaller population than at present. Now, the first fact that we have to encounter with regard to the Hebrides is that nobody can say this in regard to the past history of Scotland. The whole of Scotland until very lately, not, indeed, within the memory of living men, but within the memory of the fathers of living men, was one vast congested district. It is hardly remembered now how lately

    249
    years of famine prevailed over the whole of Scotland. It seems to be with nations as it is with individuals; we remember pleasure long; we remember pain and misfortune for a comparatively short period; and I have found many Scotchmen, even, to whom it was entirely new to be told that quite lately, within the last two generations, the whole of Scotland was in a state not unlike the condition of the Island of Lewis at the present moment. But that this was the case there is historical evidence, which is irrefutable. During the whole of the 18th century Scotland was only gradually arising from a state approaching to famine. Not only were there frequent scarcities in Scotland, but there were many years when numbers of the people died from want in some of the counties which are now most prosperous. So long ago as the 15th century, in the Parliament of James III., this declaration was made—
    "Victuals are right scanty within the country, and the most support that the realm has is by strangers bringing in victuals; "
    and declaring in favour of the unrestricted introduction of food. That declaration of the Parliament of Scotland was repeated during the whole of that century, the 16th; it was repeated almost through the whole of the next, the 17th, and during most of the earlier part of the 18th century, as we know from many later authorities. The consequence was that the people of Scotland, or rather the Scottish Parliament, were free traders long before the doctrine of free trade was put forward in modern times. The Parliaments of Scotland repeatedly declared that the people of the country were dependent upon foreign food, and they passed law after law inviting foreigners to bring food into Scotland, and, providing that no charges should be made upon importations of food—that there should be, in fact, free trade in com. That was the case with regard to the whole of Scotland: the people were often brought to the point of starvation. Now, the question may well be asked, what brought about a change? I may mention that the last year of positive famine in Scotland was so late as 1788. I have talked, and many of your Lordships have like myself talked, to men 40 or 50 years ago who were alive in that year, and who were born long
    250
    before that time. I remember meeting several people of great age who were alive in that year, and able perfectly to remember what then occurred. That was a year of extensive famine—I mean of real starvation over a large part of Scotland. In the county of Aberdeen, one of the most thriving in the whole north-east of Scotland, the people were on the point of starvation. In that year there were hundreds of thousands of people actually dependent upon charity, and a great many were begging about the country. What brought about the change in Scotland since 1788? Two causes, and two causes only—migration and emigration, but migration chiefly. That is to say, there was an immense movement of the population from the rural districts of Scotland which were all congested, into the great centres of industry which were then rising all over the country, and especially in the west of Scotland, a movement to the great city of Glasgow. There was also a large emigration to the Canadian Colonies, immense emigration lasting for many years, so large an emigration that when at last it arrested public attention, and the attention of the authorities, much alarm was expressed at it by the landed proprietors in the Highlands. Instead of helping the people to emigrate, or forcing them to do so, they were excessively alarmed at it, and held meeting after meeting in connection with the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, to try and prevent it. But it is little known how great this emigration was. People talk of the depopulation of the Highlands; they never think of the depopulation of the Lowlands. In the parishes lying close around Edinburgh to the north—the parish of Cramond, the parish of Dalmeny, where Lord Rosebery has his beautiful seat, or the parish the south of Edinburgh, in which stands the Castle of Queen Mary, the land was covered by crofters who were all in the condition which was usual in other parts of the country. They were all in great poverty, and in frequent years on the point of starvation. In the years 1793–5 we have the testimony of the various ministers of the Church of Scotland, who, under the admirable instructions of Sir John Sinclair, drew up, parish by parish, a Statistical Account of the condition

    251
    of the whole of Scotland. If you look into that record—and most creditable it is to the ministers of the Church of Scotland—you will find that minister after minister tells you that the population in his parish within 25 or 30 years has been reduced from 20 to 30 per cent. That is exactly the state of things which is now alarming many people with regard to the former population of the Highlands. The process of bringing the population of Scotland into a condition of comparative prosperity at that time was the very process which so many people are now afraid of in the Highlands. That was the case over the whole of Scotland, as I have said. Now, what was the case with regard to the Highlands in particular? The Highlands were even more congested than the Lowlands. Take the remarkable story which is told us by Sir Walter Scott, in a very interesting article which he published in the Quarterly Review in the year 1816, and upon which he afterwards founded his famous novel of Rob Roy, where the facts are reproduced in a dramatic form. He there says that the whole of the Highlands of Scotland had, in the early part of the previous century, been, as I have said, on the point of famine. He mentions the particular case of a bit of country which may be well known to some of your Lordships. Probably many of your Lordships have gone up Loch Lomond by steamer, and have stopped at a little place called Inversnaid, from which a short coach route goes across to Loch Katrine, a favourite route for tourists. Sir Walter Scott mentions that on that bit of moorland on the banks of Loch Lomond, and on the slopes of Ben Lomond, there was a large crofters' settlement. And how many families do your Lordships think were standing on that little piece of moorland, where there is not now a house to be seen, except, perhaps, a shepherd's cottage and no land fit for cultivation? Between 700 and 800 people were settled upon the land in that small part of the country, living on wretched holdings of the value of less than 30s.—9s. a piece I think was the average. Those people were living, in fact, upon plunder, and those were the men that Rob Boy, the famous freebooter, used to enlist in his band for marauding and committing depredations in the Lowlands.
    252
    Unable to live on the produce of their own country they lived by plunder on the Lowlands. Now, my Lords, that was the state of things from that period, which was about 1720 or 1725, on to the period of the Statistical Account, or rather, I should say, within 20 years of the Statistical Account. Then began again the same process which had already rescued the rest of Scotland; then began migration within the country, and emigration to the Colonies; large migration from the Highlands to Glasgow, and to the other great centres of industry, and also large emigration to the Colonies. The consequence was, and has been, that almost the whole of the West of Scotland is just as prosperous as any part of England. I always rather resent the expression which is used in these Blue Books, they talk about the West of Scotland and the Western Highlands being congested districts. While there are some spots in the Western Highlands which still retain their ancient characteristics in that respect, the whole of the mainland part of that country with which I have the honour to be connected, the larger part of Inverness and the greater portion of Sutherland are free from any great distress. Last year, it is true, we had a bad potato harvest, but as to there being any approach to starvation the thing is absurd. There is no such thing existing; and except in one or two small parishes there is nothing like what I should call a congestion of population. Let us now go to the Hebrides. There we have a survival and nothing more—we are to look upon it as nothing but that—a survival of the state of things caused by special circumstances to which I shall direct the attention of the House, which existed very lately over the whole of Scotland, still more lately over the whole of the Highlands, and which is now concentrated in the Western Islands, and especially in the Island of Lewis. The Hebrides have this peculiarity—that just at the time when the population of the rest of Scotland was getting thinned out by migration and emigration, the Hebrides began to increase in population to an enormous extent—out of all proportion to the means of subsistence which they had upon the spot, if it had not been for certain accidental circumstances to which I shall now refer. This enormous increase of popula-

    253
    tion in the Hebrides as compared with the rest of Scotland when the population of the rest of Scotland was getting comparatively thin, arose mainly from three causes, which were concurrent. First of all, there was the introduction of inoculation, which stopped a disease which used to ravage the Highlands, which decimated the population, and reduced it every few years to comparatively small numbers. Secondly, just about the same time, we had the introduction of the potato which the people took to there as they took to it nowhere else, and upon which they soon came to live for two-thirds of the year. Lastly, in the Hebrides we had the introduction of the manufacture of kelp. All those three causes were concurrent in the Hebrides: the stoppage of disease by inoculation, the introduction of the potato, and the introduction of the new manufacture of kelp. The result was that the people bred and bred upon the potato, and upon the large returns which they had from the kelp manufacture during the whole of the latter part of the 18th century. From the period in question there is abundant contemporary evidence. We have the evidence of the population Returns, founded upon an estimate of the population in the year 1755, and brought down subsequently to later periods by competent observers. In the year 1755 there were 95 islands on the west of Scotland which were inhabited. We may practically strike out three from that calculation, because three of the largest at the mouth of the Clyde are no longer considered part of the Hebrides at all—I mean Arran, Bute, and Cumbrae—and islands of that class which are just as much cultivated as the Lowlands, and where there is no question of any congestion or excess of people existing. There were 92 islands north of Cantyre, in which the total population at that time was about 52,000. Under the stimulated causes to which I have referred, that population had mounted up, long before the close of the century, to 74,466, that is to say, not far short of 50 per cent.—an increase of about 40 or 50 percent. I will just give the case of the Island of Taree, with which I am especially connected, as it has been the property of my family for many years. The population of that island
    254
    had increased during 80 years by actually a larger number than was added to the whole population of the City of Glasgow between the War of Independence and the Reformation. Just think of that! A small island not in itself infertile, with the potato comparatively fertile, and with the kelp manufacture supporting the population, so long as the manufacture lasted, in comparative comfort, and inducing an increase of population to that extent until in 1824 their kelp industry was destroyed and they were reduced to want. That I think is a specimen. We have a chain of authorities as to the condition of the people in the Hebrides being the same in spite of all the advantages of the kelp trade. You will find that those authorities give you an account of the; condition of the people there, which is precisely the same as this Committee gives us in its Report as to the condition of the people in Lewis, except that it is rather worse. We have the authority of Captain Burt, whose Letters from the Highlands were written about 1730 from Inverness; we have the authority of Pennant, the great Naturalist, who travelled through the Hebrides and noted everything with the most intelligent and careful observation between 1769 and 1777; we have the professional Report of Professor Walker, who was sent from Edinburgh, being himself an agriculturist, to report upon the agricultural condition of the country; then we have the Statistical Account of 1792 to 1795; and lastly we have what is, perhaps, as valuable as any, a series of reports drawn up by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, a body which came to an end in the early part of the present century by a great misfortune, the reports of which are of the highest interest as regards the progress and the economic condition of Scotland. Now, what is the uniform testimony of all those writers on the condition of the Highlands and Islands in spite of all the artificial advantages which they possessed? I will give some specimens taken from the pages of Pennant. In the case of the Island of Islay, on which at present there is no distress, he said he had seen the people "worn down with poverty and famine," barely escaping starvation by the timely arrival of one meal-ship; in Skye he tells us that the years of famine were

    255
    as 10 to 1. In another of the Islands where there is no poverty now, the Island of Rum, which belonged at one time to the noble Marquess (Salisbury), Pennant said he found the people "well-made and well-favoured, but carrying famine in their eyes." And the same with regard to parts of the mainland in the County of Sutherland; he found the people "torpid with idleness and emaciated with hunger." Professor Walker's testimony is exactly to the same effect, and that went on down to the end of the century. Now, we must consider another of the conditions. Another cause that produced this misery was the complete stagnation—the entire absence of anything approaching to agricultural skill or to a knowledge of agriculture. We must not be surprised at that state of things existing in these out-of-the-way parts of the country. We must remember that even in England agriculture was stagnant for at least 400 years. There was a good deal of new land taken in; but no improvement was made in the mode of agriculture. The same authority to whom I have before referred, and who, in spite of all his strong Party antipathies as regards particular classes, I regard as being on the whole an honest writer, I mean professor Thorold Rogers, says there was no progress in agriculture, and probably even retrogression in agricultural skill over the whole of England from the date of Henry III. to the date of James I.; and I believe that to be perfectly true. There were no sown grasses, there were no green crops, there was no rotation of crops, there was no thorough drainage; and, in short, everything that is now considered requisite in good agriculture was wanting. Then, my Lords, we must not be much surprised if in the most outlying districts in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland the same condition of things should have prevailed. Instead of there being no progress in 400 years, as was the case in England, I should say that there had been no progress in the mode of agriculture in that part of Scotland for 1,100 years, because we have a very tolerable account of the agriculture carried on by the monks of Iona in the sixth century, and it is quite apparent that that was skilled agriculture as compared with what existed at the time it
    256
    was reported on by Mr. Pennant and Professor Walker. The truth was that agriculture declined under the wretched system of crofting tenure, under which no man could call a bit of land his own for more than one year, where the pastures were all in common, where there was no care for fodder, no hay made, and where there was no proper rotation of crops, and no care in the seleetion of breeds. What could you expect from such a state of things? This is exactly what you find surviving still in the Island of Lewis. I come to that island now as being in fact an example of the whole. The Island of Lewis is peculiarly placed. In the first place, we must remember that it is not only an island, but a very remote island, and the mere condition of insularity is very often quite enough to account for an utter stagnation in the ideas of the human mind, and in the progress of human society. In the first observations I made to your Lordships to-night, I remarked on the unpopularity of Blue Books, and I do not know whether many of your Lordships have noticed a Blue Book, a Parliamentary Paper which was issued from the Foreign Office during the present Session, which I have, I confess, read with astonishment, showing the effect of mere insularity in destroying or arresting the progress of a people; I mean the Report which has been circulated to Members of this House, of our Consul at Palermo on the condition of Sicily. That is an island round which the civilisation of the world has circulated for more than 2,000 years, and yet, as far as a knowledge of agriculture and the practice of agriculture is concerned, the people are more ignorant and more backward now than they were in the days of the Roman Emperors. Our Consul at Palermo tells us that in Sicily the poor people have no plough to be compared with that described by Virgil; they have nothing but a few sticks which only scratch the ground some three or four inches deep; they are in the deepest poverty; they never build houses in the country; they retain the absurd and evil custom of living in nests on the crests of mountains which are the greatest trouble to get at, both as regards themselves, their cattle, and their crops. That is the mere effect of insularity. Remember, that in the

    257
    case of the Island of Lewis, no civilisation has circulated round that island for 2,000 years. No human being came there to teach the people new ideas. During the whole Middle Ages the most horrible inter-tribal wars were waged, one clan fighting with the other. We read that at one time the island was wholly depopulated by wars between the Macleods and the Mackenzies, who were fighting for possession of it. Isolated, removed from civilisation; so it has continued to the present day. The island itself is extremely barren. It is covered by enormous tracts of moss and bog, which are eight and ten feet deep; a large part of it is rock; another large portion sand, and the sandy part is the place where they get their best crops; it is favourable for potatoes, as it long retains the very little solar heat which they get during the greater part of the year, and I have heard are ripened very quickly there in some seasons. Look at the account which is given by this Committee of the present condition of the people of Lewis. The people of Lewis have been reported upon during the last 40 years by four Commissions or Committees. The first was that of the late Sir John MacKeill, who knew the Highlands well, I think in 1843; and since that time, almost every 10 years, there has been some inquiry into the condition of this unfortunate people. What is the picture presented to us by the last Commission which was sent by my noble Friend on the other side of the House? The Report says they found the people steeped in penury; they describe them as living in filthy houses. Upon that part of the matter I must say that to an English gentleman—it is an English gentleman who makes the Report; he was, I think, a surgeon on board the ship who gives an account of the houses—to a stranger coming from another and a civilised part of the world they would appear very bad. He would think the state of the houses wretched indeed. But here we must remember what the condition of the houses was even in England until a very late period in her history. No doubt your Lordships have seen the extraordinary letter published in Brewer's Life of Henry VIII., from Erasmus, giving an account of how the people in England lived at that time. I
    258
    have no hesitation in saying, and I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that the habits and houses of our ancestors were at that time more filthy and unwholesome than are the habits and habitations of the people of Lewis at the present time. Erasmus tells us that the people of England lived in houses the rooms of which were strewn with rushes. Into those rushes much of the dirt and débris of the household meals went; they were not cleaned out from one week to another; but when it was thought proper a fresh supply of rushes was simply spread upon the top; and it was to the filthy condition of those habitations that Erasmus attributed the horrible sweating sickness which broke out in the reign of Henry VIII., and decimated the Court, the upper classes, and the whole of the population of London. The condition of the people in Lewis is really more healthy than that; still, it is a most extraordinary state of things to read of. The surgeon of the ship says when you go into a Lewis cottage you have to make your way through a considerable space covered with the dung of cattle and all kinds of filth and wet mud, and then you come to one end of the room not separated in any way from the rest of the habitation, but common to the cattle and the family, in which you find the family living alongside the cattle, and everything in the most filthy condition. We must remember that that account given by Erasmus of the habits of our ancestors was written at a time when there was the greatest luxury in dress and in other respects, in apparel, and in the furniture of houses—that it was the age of the Field of the Cloth of Gold. We need not wonder, then, my Lords, that these poor ignorant people in Lewis at the furthest extremity of our islands, away from the rest of the world, should still retain the habits of our ancestors in the 12th and 13th centuries. There is a most extraordinary statement given with regard to the habits of the Lewis people which we know existed 300 years ago, but which I confess I did not know had survived to the present day. It was an old habit in the Highlands to have their houses made of wicker, with, of course, a roof of thatch. There was no chimney to them; there was not even a hole in the roof; the smoke

    259
    percolated through the thatch, and this thatch was taken off every year, saturated with the soot from the fires, in order to be used as manure. That goes on at the present day in Lewis. You may conceive what the condition of agriculture is in a place where exist such a state of things. They do not cut the corn as we do; they pull it out of the ground, and they use the lower part of it for thatching the houses; then when it is saturated with smoke and soot at the end of the next season, they use it as I have described. That is the condition of things you are dealing with in Lewis: the lowest state of ignorance and of idleness, and the absolute want of cleanliness and care which comes of necessity from those conditions. Your Lordships will naturally ask how long has this gone on? Forty years ago, when Sir John MacNeill inquired into the state of those islands, he wrote in the greatest alarm to the Government on the prospects of the people of Lewis. You will see it in his Report quoted by this Committee. He said things were going on in a way and to an extent of misery which must end in great disaster; that the whole population would have to be supported by charity or else starve. However, one of those strange chances turned up on which no one can count, and that was that a great change for the better took place on the coasts—a peculiar change in the herring trade in the North of Scotland. The great buyers on the North and East coasts took up and introduced a new system of catching herrings, and they adopted a system of hiring the Lewis people, and giving them a considerable share in the boats' earnings. The consequence is, that since Sir John MacNeill's Report, there has been something like what might be equivalent to the manufacture of kelp—the people had the advantage of a herring trade which had brought to them considerable sums of money. What has happened now? Another great change has taken place in the herring trade. Owing partly to the free trade in herrings—there has been a great substitution of Dutch herrings for our own in the Continental markets—the former system of catch has become unprofitable, and all that source of revenue has disappeared just as the
    260
    revenue from the manufacture of kelp has disappeared since the beginning of the present century, so that the people are now thrown back upon their own resources in the Island of Lewis, which, I need not tell your Lordships, are wholly inadequate to the support of the people. Now, in view of these facts, let us look at the Returns of population. The population of Lewis has increased at a most enormous pace, and far out of proportion to the rate of increase in the other islands. In 1755 it was only 6,386; in 1797 it was 8,311; in 1841—about the time of Sir John MacNeill's Report, when he felt such alarm about it—it had risen to 17,037; in 1851 it was 19,694; and in 1881, at the last Census before that recently taken, it had reached 25,487. I am sorry to inform your Lordships, from official information supplied to me by my noble Friend this morning, and which I had already seen in the papers, the Census just completed reveals the awkward fact that, instead of the increase of this population being arrested, it is going on as rapidly as ever. The population is now 27,496, having increased more than 8 per cent. during the last decennial period. The consequence has been that the poor rate averages, over the whole island, 4s. 8d. in the £1, besides all other charges—that is to say, poor rates alone; and these with other charges have absorbed from 10s. to 11s. in the £1, leaving very little indeed for those who have the property in the land of the island. It is further stated in the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons—though I must say I have not seen the detailed evidence upon this point—that the type of the population is suffering degradation, that their physical aspect betokens their deteriorated condition. Now, I ask your Lordships whether, under this condition of affairs, it is possible that there can be any other remedy than that which was effectual in the West of Scotland in the previous century, and even in the South of Scotland and the Border country, in the century before that. My Lords, I speak to a Secretary for Scotland who comes from the Border. That Border Country was just as bad at one time as regards its population as the Highland and Islands at the present time. I hope

    261
    my noble Friend will admit that, as one consequence, they had the same predatory habits——
    *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN): I do not deny it.
    *THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I am afraid that the Campbells and the Armstrongs and the Scotts were quite as bad as the Macdougalls, the Macleods, and the Mackenzies. As far as I have seen, the historical evidence upon this point of depopulation is very conclusive. The moorlands with which my noble Friend is familiar are now more desolate than any similar parts which I know of in the Highlands. In going from London to Glasgow, when you come to the watershed of the country, in the County of Lanark you will see one valley alone, which must be more than 20 miles long, much more fit for habitation and for being reclaimed, theoretically, and cultivated than any of the glens I know in the Highlands, and there is not a single habitation in it, except one or two large tenants houses. That depopulation took place on the union of the Crowns. In the West of Scotland it took place, to a large extent, after the union of the Parliaments. The union of the Crowns made a large population in the Borders useless. My noble Friend's ancestors and friends could raise 10,000 men in the vales of the Borders at one time, and sometimes did actually raise a cavalry to that extent. No such force was ever raisable from the population in the Highlands. It is a well-known fact that in the Rebellion of 1745 the largest number of clansmen that ever appeared in the field in support of Prince Charles Edward was somewhat less than 10,000 men raised over the whole Highlands of Scotland. Now, my Lords, what are you to do with this population in the Island of Lewis? There are two remedies proposed—migration and emigration. Yes; but those who talk of migration do not talk of the kind of migration which took place in the last century, which saved Scotland from penury and made her one of the most thriving countries in the world. What they mean is an artificial migration—that the Government should take these poor people, in their utter ignorance, in their utter indolence, in their utter impecuniosity, and should plant them on the lands elsewhere which
    262
    have escaped the misfortunes to which they are subject. The Committee were not specially required to report upon migration; the word "migration" is not used in the terms of their Reference. "Emigration" is used; but as the Committee properly think, they could deal with the subject of emigration without referring to those other schemes which have been put forward as a substitute. They do not dwell upon it. But they give it no encouragement, and they make this very important observation in passing. I have reminded your Lordships that they make an historical observation in an earlier part of their Report, and they now make an economic observation in this part of it. It is a very significant one. They say that taking land on which to plant these poor people implies that you are to take land from proprietors who think that they are now employing it to the best advantage, and to endeavour to employ it to a better advantage yourselves. The Committee reply, and they reply with perfect wisdom, that the presumption is that those who possess these other lands, comparatively free from a pauper population, know best the economic purpose to which they should be applied. It is a significant hint, and I think it is one on which we ought to ponder. I do not understand this idea of what people call migration. It seems to assume that there are in Scotland what are called waste lands. Now, the word "waste" in England has a technical meaning. "Waste land" in England, through all the Middle Ages, meant land which was not tilled, the woods, and forests, and moorlands of the country. That was called the waste, and it was generally the common pasture of particular groups of men. But what these people mean by "waste" is land which they think is not put to its best purpose, not put to the best economic use. I venture to affirm positively that in that sense there is no such land existing in Scotland. There is not in that sense one acre of waste land; there is not one acre of appropriated land which is not let to tenants who value it very highly, and I have personal experience of that fact. I know that sometimes when I have wished to withdraw what I should call very waste land from a tenant's farm he always objects, and says, "That is the most valuable bit in my whole farm. It

    263
    contains a great deal of winter forage." I may say to him, "What a marshy bit that is; it can be of no value to you;" but he says, on the contrary, "It is of the greatest value for fodder for my cattle." And that is the condition of the land throughout the whole of the North of Scotland. There is no instance of land being unappropriated, or of land not being appropriated according to the best of our knowledge at the present day. I am not denying that a change in the present condition of things may be possible in times to come, or that in future ages there may not be some other use devised for these mountain slopes; but I say that at present all the mountains of the West of Scotland which are devoted to sheep-farming, and even those that are devoted to deer, are now employed to the best economic use, that is to say, for the purpose that will alone bring the best return to the proprietor and to the public. Then, my Lords, I often wonder why it is that people suppose the same law does not apply to mountain surfaces which applies to horizontal, or comparatively horizontal, surfaces. It has always appeared to me the strangest thing in the world the effect upon the mind which the position of a particular surface of land seems to create in comparison with all other land which is not of that particular inclination. Many men appear to think there can be no property in land which is not flat or undulating. I recollect 47 years ago going to visit the poet Wordsworth at his place in Westmoreland, and in walking with him round his garden my eye was caught, as the eye of a Highland proprietor would naturally be attracted, by the extreme richness and beauty of the pastures on the sides of the very steep hills above and around us. I asked Mr. Wordsworth "Whose property is that hill?" On which Mr. Wordsworth turned to me, with a look of blank astonishment, and said, "Property! I never heard it was anybody's property." I said, "Well, Mr. Wordsworth, all I can say is, that if you think land as steep as that cannot be made private property I should be extremely ill off." He looked greatly astonished, but he gave me no explanation of why he was surprised that the land should be anybody's property. However, I found that Mr. Words-
    264
    worth —I suppose, being a poet, had never thought it worth his while—a poet who wrote about sheep and shepherds, beautiful lines familiar to all your Lordships—to inquire whose property the land was on that mountain. But I have thought it worth my while to inquire, and I find that in Westmoreland the old crofting system which formerly existed everywhere in the country, prevails to this day. Many of these mountain lands belong to townships, and that is what Mr. Wordsworth possibly had—or rather had not—in his head. He had, doubtless, never heard that they belonged to a group of individuals. They belong very often to the townships. Some of them are held in severalty; but a great many of the mountains in Westmoreland are held in commonalty by members of particular townships. This does not mean that everybody—Tom, Dick, and Harry—may go and put sheep whenever they like on those mountains; it means that anybody who buys land at the bottom of a mountain has the right to put a certain number of sheep on the Township-mountain. That tenure exists also in the Highlands, but the land belongs to the proprietor; it is let to the township. It is let in common in some cases, although by far the larger part is held in severalty, and it is as much private property as any pasture land near London, which is regularly let to the tenants. Now, let us look at what the poor people in Lewis themselves understand by these theories of migration. What happened about six weeks ago? The people, I am sorry to say, are in great distress. Many of them are in extreme poverty; and my noble Friend let them have boats to prosecute the fishery. One of the first purposes for which they used those boats was to make a marauding expedition against land that did not belong to them, and take possession of it. They are poor, ignorant people, and I do not blame them very much; I blame those who put such ideas into their heads. What took place on that occasion was this: A number of those poor people took one of the boats with which my noble Friend had supplied them, and which I strongly suspect they have not yet paid for, and landed on a farm which was let to another man. They encamped upon it and took a number of

    265
    spades, but from the evidence given when the matter came before the Sheriff it appeared they did not know very well how to use the spades. That is their idea of migration—seizing on land belonging to other people who are competent to cultivate it according to the cultivation of the day, themselves keeping it, planting a few potatoes on the land, and living upon it. I cannot find what the other idea of "migration" is. I suppose it has a more educated name; but I presume I may take for granted that it was represented by several of the witnesses who were before this Committee, and certainly by one very remarkable witness who was examined before Lord Napier's Commission, the Free Church minister of Stornoway, a Mr. Martin, whose evidence I will refer to as of weight in this matter, because the Free Church ministers are generally in close relations with the people, and almost always in sympathy with them. He is a great man for migration; but he confessed this to the Committee, that the State, among other duties, would require to teach the people how to cultivate the land. He is simple-minded enough to suggest that the persons who are agitating for this new land being given to the people should subscribe the money required to buy land and take it for them, and he says he cannot doubt that people of so much public spirit as these agitators will come forward with the money and try the experiment themselves; but failing that, he says the State must do it. Then what is it the State is to do? It is, in the first place, to occupy land which is better occupied by those who are at present in possession of it; next to build decent houses for these people who are accustomed to such habitations as I have described to your Lordships; next to subdivide fields; next to reclaim mountain lands which are wholly unfit for arable culture; next to establish schools; and then, having come to the end of the list, he says—
    "But I am bound to say that if the State undertakes this duty of doing all this for these poor people it roust also teach them how to cultivate the land better, for," he says, "at present they scatter their seed in such quantities that when they sow their land it is more like feeding hens than sowing corn."
    This is the account given of them by Mr. Martin, the intelligent representative
    266
    of the people themselves, as far as so intelligent a man can be their representative, regarding these theories. Just conceive the State taking upon itself so onerous a charge as that! Who are to be displaced? Perhaps you will have no sympathy with the larger farmers or against their being displaced, although I think that people who have contributed so much more sustenance to the country are quite as worthy of consideration as these people. Bat whom are they to displace? In the case of the particular raid which happened six weeks ago, whose land was it they seized upon? They seized upon the land of another crofter, a man belonging to the crofter class who had saved money, who was intelligent above his fellows, and who had taken a small farm from Lady Matheson, for which he paid only £50 a year. That was the class of man whose land was seized by these poor ignorant people who were utterly incapable of stocking it or cultivating it themselves. You would have to displace men in any case who are now good tenants, and to put in these people whom it is extremely improbable you will ever make into good tenants. I cannot conceive that this scheme can ever come to anything. Then, what is your recourse? Your only possible recourse is emigration. I know that with many people it is very unpopular to say that the number of people should be diminished. I fully admit that an increasing population is, under certain conditions, a sign of prosperity; but it must be a population that is making their own bread, earning their own living. If they do not make their own bread, if they do not earn their own living they are contributing nothing to the wealth of the State or to the strength of the population of the country. Talk of waste land in the Highlands! I know of no waste land there, but I know of a great many waste people—wasted men—men who might be great men in other conditions of life, because there is no better stuff in the kingdom than the stuff of these crofters. My Lords, I know them well. They have much native intelligence—ay, and I will say more, much native genius; and I never look at a settlement of these poor people—and I am talking only of the poorest class, such as the people in he Island of Lewis—without recalling

    267
    the words of Gray's famous Elegy in a Churchyard, which was familiar to our fathers:—
    "Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid
    Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire;
    Hands that the rod of empire might have sway'd,
    Or waked to ecstasy the living lyre."
    Nor is this a mere fancy, My Lords. Who have been the men whom these crofters have repeatedly turned out when they go from their wretched homes in their own miserable islands and take part in the great currents of civilised life? Who was that man whose death we deplored this week, and on whom the Prime Minister of England made a just and a generous eulogium? Sir John Macdonald, who was and will ever be regarded as the founder of the great Dominion of Canada, was the son of a crofter in Sutherlandshire. Who was the great pioneer in South Africa—the man who in future ages will undoubtedly be looked back upon as the first pioneer of civilisation, the first harbinger of the Gospel, in that country? David Livingstone, the son of an Argyle-shire crofter. Who was the man who more than any other, as Lord Macaulay told me himself, guided him in drawing up the great Civil Code of the Indian Empire—that wonderful Empire of more than 250,000,000 of people over whom England rules with a smoothness and a success unparalleled in the history of the world? Sir John M'Leod, who came from the Island of Skye, where he was a small proprietor, "bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh," with the people whose miserable condition I have now described to you. I wish to see the people of those islands removed from their miserable condition, not only for their own sakes, but for the sake of the Empire which they are so well capable of serving. In their present condition it is impossible to raise them above a state of penury and the consequence attending it, a constant danger of starvation. I, therefore, do hope and trust that my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland and the Government of the day will bend their attention to systematic emigration in the form of colonisation, if they can accomplish it. I know the difficulties that are in their way, and the greatest of all the difficulties are the doctrines of the agitators, who tell the
    268
    people that they should remain where they are. The Committee of the House of Commons gives its emphatical opinion that the first thing to be done is to make these people understand that in their present condition they cannot make a living, and that they ought not to rely on the charity of the public. That is one of the distinct announcements of the Committee, and it is repeated over and over again by the Commissioners as by my noble Friend. That, however, is one of the great impediments which the Government have in their way. You cannot force these people to emigrate. You have taken away from the proprietors the power, which was so well exercised over the rest of Scotland, of gradually thinning the population as agriculture improved. The division of crofts—I do not mean the sub-division of them—but the individualisation of the arable land, giving each man his own bit of soil to cultivate and improve, and his own bit of pasture—the separation of crofts and the abolition of commonalty—those were the secrets of the whole economic progress of Scotland during the last 200 years. You have stopped that by the Crofter Act. To a large extent, that is an Act to stop the improvement of the Highlands. I admit that there have been some counter advantages. Where you have crofters who are intelligent, who have some money, who have some experience—and there are many on my own estates—I will say this: that the security of tenure which the Crofter Act has given has in many cases induced them to make improvements for the first time. But the whole effect depends upon the condition of the people to whom the Act is applied. When applied to people like those in the Island of Lewis it has no effect whatever, except to root them in their bogs, and to keep them steeped in their misery. In the first place, the Crofter Act only applies to those who have lands, and a great many of these people are not crofters, but cottiers. I have had information upon this subject, I may say, from a person who knows Lewis well; and what generally happens among these people is this: They always have large families, of course; then one of the daughters marries, and that family is taken into the house; another daughter or a son marries, and then two

    269
    families are taken into the house. It generally happens that when a third comes in there are a few family jars between the women, and the result is that the third family or the second family is told, "You must go out and live somewhere else," and then whichever family it may be, goes, out takes possession of an empty barn, and converts it into a cottage, and they have a new family there. This was given in evidence before the Sheriff the other day by the poor people who were convicted of raiding land belonging to another tenant. One of the crofters, in giving evidence before the Sheriff, said—
    "The misery we endure is a consequence of the sub-division of our crofts."
    There were two or three members of his own family who were mere squatters on part of the land, which was unable to support them. Nor would it be able to do so if you were to divide the whole of the land in Lewis between the 27,000 people now there. There is no remedy for such a state of things, let it be told, but emigration. With regard to the form that emigration should take, I do not wish to say anything which would at all assume that I know better upon that matter than others do, or than the members of this Committee do, or than my noble Friend does, who has all the sources of information at his command; but I am bound to say, from the experience of former tenants of my own who have emigrated from my own estate in the Island of Tiree, that I believe the most likely country for the settlement of those poor people is in the provinces of British North America. A number of my former tenants are now settled in Manitoba, and I was told the other day, that some of them, who were very poor crofters in Scotland, have so greatly improved their position that they have now upwards of 400 acres of land, with comfortable homesteads, and are thriving in every way. There is another colony, further West, which I confess I have a great fancy for, on the shores of the Pacific—British Columbia. From all the accounts I have heard, that country is precisely suited to the people of the Western Highlands; a splendid country with magnificent mountains and forests, with a rich climate and a generous soil. It is
    270
    a magnificent place, with forests finer than any they ever saw in their own country, mountains far grander, climate more genial, and soil more generous. Why should not these people be told that they cannot be supported in that wretched Island of Lewis, which consists of nothing but bare rock, vast sheets of moss, and a few bits of sandy ground, upon which they reared the few miserable patches of corn which can be forced up under so much as they can ever get of a hot sun. Why should not they be told to do what has been done before—why should not the necessity of doing it be preached to them? I believe thoroughly that if the people once saw that there was no other resource they would do what their ancestors did 100 years ago—repair in thousands to a more bountiful and more plenteous land in the West. I regret very much that the exertions of my noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Lothian) do not seem to have been more successful as regards the pecuniary return which has been received by the Government in their scheme for emigration to the West; but I am bound to say I do not think the experiment has failed. You cannot expect an immediate pecuniary return in such cases as this; but you will obtain an ample return in the removal of these poor people who are the most excellent material in the world for making colonists. They will be industrious for they are quite capable of it, when they are removed from their surroundings in their own country. I have numerous instances of those who were formerly my own tenants, rejoicing in their departure from the old country and at their success in the new. The other day I received an anonymous letter enclosing a sum of money, not a very large amount, and I found upon enquiry that it came from one of my former crofters whom I had assisted to emigrate 30 years ago. He wrote to say that he and all his brethren had made a fortune in the new country, and that he took the first opportunity of returning me the expense I had been at in giving that assistance. That, my Lords, is a noble and generous feeling, and shows what these crofters are capable of doing. I am quite sure that these Highlanders, pressed down by their conditions, living on such a soil in a weeping climate, a soil from which with the greatest

    271
    possible industry they could not extract a living, pressed down by these disadvantages they are what we could only expect them to be; but they are among the best material in the three kingdoms for the purpose of emigration, and if my noble Friend can persuade them to emigrate, and will give them some generous assistance in getting to the other side of the Atlantic, that I firmly believe is the only remedy now, as it was the remedy which in the past converted a large part of Scotland, as I have shown your Lordships, even in the recollection of people who are living, from a country exposed to the continual recurrence of famine into one of the most thriving countries in the world.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I naturally feel some diffidence in rising to say a few words to your Lordships after the eloquent address of the noble Duke who has just spoken in favour of emigration for the crofters of Scotland. As far as the general question of emigration or colonisation is concerned, possibly my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies may think right to say a few words to your Lordships after wards; but as the remarks of the noble Duke have been confined generally to the crofters of Scotland, I will say a few words with regard to them. Before I address myself to the subject, I should like emphatically to convey my thanks to the noble Duke for the manner in which he has spoken of the inhabitants of the Western Highlands of Scotland, because I think the general impression is, that the crofters are utterly disinclined to work, that under no circumstances can they be induced to work, and that their one desire is to do nothing, having no wish to help themselves, but that they are content to sit down and rest under their unhappy conditions, without making any exertion on their own behalf. Now, I believe that is not the case at all, and I have to thank the noble Duke for having given expression so eloquently as he has to his own belief that it is not the case. My own view about the matter is, and I think the noble Duke also said very much the same thing, that, under the severe and hopeless condition under which they live, it is impossible, or next door to impossible, for them to attempt to extri-
    272
    cate themselves from their miserable position. My own desire has been, ever since I have had the honour to preside over the Department for which I am responsible, to give the crofters some means of extricating themselves from those unhappy conditions in which they now are placed. The noble Duke has, in the course of his address, travelled over a very large historical range. From the history of what has happened in Scotland he has, I think, shown your Lordships very convincingly how it is that emigration and a general lessening of the population over all other parts of Scotland has gone on from a considerable period back until the present time, and he has also shown how it is that the population of these Western Highlands has increased during the last comparatively few years. I should like your Lordships to realise what the enormous population of the Island of Lewis means, and I think the noble Duke almost under-rated its enormous increase. He stated what the actual population was at the recent census of this year, but an addition should be made even to that number. It so happened that the training of the Militia was going on at Dingwall at the time, and, therefore, a large number of the able-bodied men of Lewis was, at the moment the census was being taken, encamped at Dingwall instead of being at home included in the census there. So that, instead of the population being 27,000, the total number is 28,000. Now, I think your Lordships will be able to realise, from what has been stated by the noble Duke, what that enormous population means in such a place. The crofters themselves, or those who spoke for them, have said that they considered that 57 acres per head is the quantity of land necessary in order to maintain the population in the Western Highlands and Islands. The acreage of Lewis, if divided among a population of 27,000 or 28,000, would give about 15 acres per head—I include, of course, ail the bog and mountainous land, the utterly uncultivable parts of Lewis. According to their own showing, therefore, the acreage of Lewis is absolutely inadequate to maintain the population of that island and to afford them a living. The noble Duke has referred to the two principal points

    273
    which are dealt with in the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, namely, the subject of migration, and the subject of emigration or colonisation. With all that has been said by the noble Duke as to migration I entirely agree; but though possibly the Duke has fairly stated what the idea of the people of Lewis as to migration is, namely, that they should migrate to some other part of the island than where they are now established, I do not think that is the general notion of migration. The general notion, I think, is that it means the surplus population should be changed to other parts of Scotland from the districts where they now are. Just consider what that means for a moment. To take the Island of Lewis, which, as the noble Duke has said, is a typical instance, I do not think that it could be said to be capable of maintaining more than 10,000 inhabitants, and there is, as your Lordships have heard, a population of 28,000 in the island. Well, if the surplus population were to migrate from the island to the mainland, that would mean a transference of 18,000 people to some place or other; but where are they to go? For the moment I am putting off the question of the landlords' interest in the matter, and I merely ask, are there any parts of the mainland of Scotland which would not be harassed by the sudden invasion of 18,000 people from the Island of Lewis? It is quite impossible to do that—absolutely impossible. I must fake this opportunity of deprecating most strongly the action of those, whoever they may be, who for whatever purposes, and of their purposes it is perhaps not very difficult to judge, are trying to persuade these people, whether in Lewis or elsewhere, to endeavour to better their position by migrating, or by any other system than that of emigration. I do not mean to say that there are no instances in the Highlands of places which cannot be cultivated. I agree with the noble Duke that the land is, generally speaking, used for the best purpose; but I think it is possible there is land which might be cultivated.
    *THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: As also in England.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No doubt, as also in England. If it was not for the difficulty of it, I should
    274
    myself like to have some Return of the spots which might be so used; but as far as the suggestion is concerned that those lands, if they exist, could dispose of such numbers, and enable the islands to get rid of them, that solution of the difficulty arising from the surplus population in these islands is absolutely out of the question. I am not, I am sure, going too far in saying that the noble Duke, in speaking as he has in reference to myself, was speaking to one who was converted on the subject long ago, though I appreciate fully the difficulties attending it. But putting aside the difficulties as merely an abstract question, I, in common with others who have made any inquiry whatever into the matter, have come to the definite conclusion that emigration and colonisation from the Western Islands is the only possible solution. I have endeavoured to persuade those who represent the crofters, who know I take an interest in their condition, in the same direction; and I have no possible interest, and no object in view whatever—though perhaps I ought not to say so, had not other people outside your Lordships' House taken different views—except to aid the crofters in ameliorating their condition. I have wished to put them in a position to do so by their own exertions, and to give them hope of a better future, so that they might be able to take their position in the world, of which the noble Duke has so eloquently spoken, and which it is at present impossible they can take. The noble Duke has stated the conclusion he has drawn from the Report of the Committee as to the suitability of Manitoba and British Columbia for colonisation, and for taking crofters from the West of Scotland. As regards the latter of those two places, I have taken great interest in the matter, and, with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government, have already sent out about 100 families of crofters to those districts, and, though there have been some drawbacks, and everything has not turned out exactly as had been hoped, yet I am able to say that on the whole the result has been a complete success. The noble Duke has said he was disappointed rather in the return which has come, with regard to the sending out of these crofters, to Her Majesty's Government—that is to say,

    275
    repayments by the crofters. No repayments are due, I should remind your Lordships, until these people have been settled in their holdings for four years. By that time I sincerely hope the repayments will be made. I have given every encouragement to the colonists, and have urged them, if possible, to make the repayments before these people become due, so that in a shorter time they may become absolute owners of their property. However, so far I think it is the case that no repayments have been made; but none have become due, and no deduction can therefore be made from the fact that none have been paid. With regard to British Columbia, I should state to your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government are in negotiation with the Government of that colony. Nothing definite has yet been settled under the conditions which have been laid down by the British Government. A loan will be made, and the terms are, I hope, sufficiently liberal to induce the Government of British Columbia to accept them. I hope they will see their way to do so; and I trust that statement will be gratifying to the noble Duke. I do not think I need say much more to your Lordships. Already I think I have pointed out to you that the sympathies of Her Majesty's Government are entirely in the direction, as the noble Duke has indicated, of the Report of this Committee, and of other Committees which have been in favour of colonisation. Her Majesty's Government have not, as yet, been able to come to a definite conclusion as to the course they will pursue, but I can only assure your Lordships that if the Government are not able eventually to do very much in that direction, if we fail in any way, which I most sincerely and earnestly hope we shall not, it will not be from want of sympathy with the crofters and with the object which the noble Duke has in view.

  HIGH SHERIFFS.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I beg to move for the Return which stands in my name.
  Moved—
  "For a Return of all moneys collected in the years 1889–90 and 1890–91 by the high sheriffs of counties, through the under-sheriffs, in the discharge of their office, but not on account of the Treasury."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know that there is any objection to the Motion of the noble Earl, but the Return for which he asks is one which it is not in the power of the Treasury to give. They have been able hitherto to give all that the noble Earl has asked of them, but this is a Return which can only be obtained by the authority of Parliament. I only mention this in order that it might not be understood that this Order is made upon the Treasury. The Treasury has nothing to do with it. This Return is made by the under sheriffs themselves, and the Treasury has no concern with it and no means of control in the matter.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: That I quite understand.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I cannot see any objection to the noble Earl's Motion being conceded. The position of sheriff is a very high and enviable one, and those persons who in the counties have means which enable them to fill the office ought to be willing to undertake the duties of it. Sometimes no doubt the expenses are very heavy, and in one instance the High Sheriff had two elections during the time he held the office. This was, of course, a great hardship, but it was never complained of. You never can expect to substitute readily a new system for one which has had the respect of all England for many generations. You may try to point out new duties which shall be exercised by the Lord Chancellor, but you will have, I think, an immense amount of perplexity to know how to replace in that way duties which have been faithfully performed by different sheriffs. The Motion of the noble Lord made last Session must tend to an increase of the rates. It is impossible to say that causing the Sheriff's expenses to fall upon the counties can do otherwise than increase the rates. I have not heard of any inconvenience arising from any of the arrangements made as to the expenses of the Sheriffs. It would be absurd, if from any purse proud notion, we were to prevent a man from being High Sheriff because he is poor. If a man is respected his neighbours will always rally round him. A High Sheriff attended by his javelin-men is an impressive sight which cannot be replaced by employing

  277
  the police, or by any other means that can be devised. I have thought it right to make these remarks in regard to the office of the High Sheriff—
  Non possidentem multa vocaveris
  Recte beatum: rectius occupat
  Nomen beati, qui Deorum
  Muneribus sapienter uti;
  Duramque callet pauperiem pati,
  Peiueque leto flagitiuin timet:
  Non ille pro caria amicia,
  Aut patria, timidus perire.
  I hope your Lordships will all have successors able to maintain your dignity. I am sure our tenants will always rally round us if we do our duty towards them. I hope your Lordships will excuse the bablativeness of longevity.
  On Question, agreed to.

  JUDICATURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 138.)
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL BILL.—(No. 125.)
  Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.

  HOLDINGS, NUMBER AND VALUATION (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "of all holdings in Ireland, in the following form":—

  Holding valued at—

  Total number.

  Aggregate Valuation.

  £4 and under

  …

  …

  £

  Over

  £4

  and not over

  £15

  …

  …

  Over

  £15

  and not over

  £30

  …

  …

  Over

  £30

  and not over

  £50

  …

  …

  Over

  £50

  and not over

  £150

  …

  …

  Over

  £150

  and not over

  £200

  …

  …

  Over

  £200

  …

  …

  Totals

  …

  …

  —(Mr. Macartney.)