Sitting of 19 March 1891

QUESTIONS.

  INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS' PRIVILEGE LEAVE.
  MR. KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether it is customary to allow officers of the Indian Army 90 days' privilege leave, of which they avail themselves to make brief visits to the United Kingdom; (2) whether it is usual to count the 90 days from the day when the officer leaves the station where he is serving, wherever it may be situated in any part of India or Burma, the difference in some cases between Bombay—the necessary point of departure from India for so short an absence—and many of the stations, varying from two or three days to three weeks or over in going and returning; (3) whether, having regard to the fact that officers in the Bombay Army, stationed in or near the City of Bombay, have a great advantage over officers in up-country stations, or in Madras, Bengal, and Burma, the Secretary of State will consider the advisability of recommending to the Indian Government that in the case of privilege leave for 90 days, the leave shall count from the date of embarkation for England at the port of Bombay, regulations being framed as to the additional time to be allowed from the various stations or districts to the port of embarkation; and (4) whether, as the season for leave is rapidly approaching, an early intimation can be given to that effect?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The answer to Questions 1 and 2 is in the affirmative; and, with regard to Questions 3 and 4, I have to
  1416
  say that the Secretary of State is not prepared to take any action in the matter.

  THE ARREST OF CAPTAIN DRURY.
  MR. KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been directed to the fact that Captain Drury, of the 3rd Goorkha Regiment, serving in Burma, has been kept under arrest for more than 10 weeks without being brought to trial, and whether this is in contravention of the Queen's Regulations; whether it is true, as stated in a recent telegram to the Times, that Captain Drury has been kept under arrest at the instance of high civilian authorities, on the ground that he has. refused to apologise for a communication which he is charged with having forwarded to the Rangoon Times, and whether he does not deny having made any such communication; whether he has. asked to be brought to trial, and why his requested is refused; whether he has now been released without any explanation being offered, and without being brought to trial; and whether he will be compensated?
  *SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State has no official information with regard to Captain Drury, who belongs to the 2nd, and not the 3rd Goorkhas. I have, however, observed from the reports in the ordinary channels of information that Captain Drury has been released.
  MR. KING: May I ask whether he has any chance of obtaining compensation?
  [No answer was returned.]

  MILITARY FURLOUGH RULES IN INDIA.
  MR. KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that by the Military Furlough Rules of November, 1868, it was provided that all officers who entered the Staff Corps after that date were promised that if they would enter the service of the Indian Government they should receive, when on furlough, half pay "calculated at the rate of 2s. for every rupee;" that between November, 1868, and July, 1871, a considerable number of officers were drawn into the Indian Staff Corps from the British Service by the promise,

  1417
  of this and other advantages; and that in July, 1871, the rule was altered, and for the words above quoted were substituted the words "at the current rate of exchange;" (2) whether it is usual, or was intended to give this rule an ex post facto operation; (3) can he explain why, since 1871, the Indian Government has refused to fulfil to officers who entered the Staff Corps between 1868 and 1871 the promise contained in the rule of 1868; whether on the other hand some officers who had joined the Staff Corps previously to November, 1868, have been granted the benefits of the rule of that date, on the ground that they had elected that rule, or on any other ground; (4) and whether the Secretary of State has ruled that officers to whom the promise was directly held out as an inducement to join the Service are to receive less favoured treatment than officers who were already in the Service when the rule was made; and, if so, whether he will re-consider that ruling?
  *SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first question of the hon. Member is in the affirmative. The answer to the second question is that it is not an ex post facto operation, but an operation on those officers who joined the Staff Corps between 1868 and 1871. As to questions number 3 and 4, I have to say that the ground of distinction between the two classes of officers is that one had elected the Rules of 1868, having the option to do so or not, while the other had no such option. The answer to the last question of the hon. Member is that the question has been repeatedly decided by successive Secretaries of State in Council, and as no new facts have been adduced, the Secretary of State does not consider that he would be warranted in disturbing their decision.

  MILITARY FURLOUGH RULES IN INDIA.

    ILLITERATE VOTERS.
    MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of electors who voted in Parliamentary Elections as illiterates, and their percentage to the total vote, from the conclusion of the General Election, 1886, to the end of February, 1891?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I have not
    1418
    this information in my possession, and it might be difficult to obtain it without an order of the House calling for a Return. The two Returns of 1885 and 1886 were made subsequently to a General Election. If my hon. Friend presses for a Return as to by-elections at the present moment, I should have no objection to assenting to such a Return as he asks for.

    COMMISSIONS TO ARMY AGENTS.
    MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken to recover a sum of £294 5s. improperly paid by the Accountant General of the Army to Messrs. Cox and Co., bankers, as commission to that firm in their capacity as agents of the East Surrey Regiment, which item has already formed the subject of a Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General; and whether any application has yet been made to Messrs. Cox and Co. for the recovery of the sum in question?
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): It is not usual to make disallowances beyond the period for which accounts are open. The circumstances of this peculiar case will be fully explained to the Committee on Public Accounts.

    ON-LICENCES.
    MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can inform the House what is the total number of on-licences in England and Wales; and what is the total number of premises in respect of which on-licences have been granted that are owned by brewers and by brewery companies?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Board of Inland Revenue that the latest statistics at present prepared in regard to on-licences in England and Wales are those which the hon. Member will find in Appendix XI. of the 33rd Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

    DOCKYARD EMPLOYMENT.
    MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the limit of age for admission at

    1419
    Chatham, Portsmouth, and Devonport Dockyards; whether a discharged soldier, with a pension and 21 years' service, of good health and character, 39 years old, was in February refused work at Chatham as "too old for consideration;" and whether, in view of the promise of the Government to consider the question of employment for reserve and discharged soldiers, he will undertake that such men are not refused work at Chatham in future?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): In the unavoidable absence of my noble Friend the First Lord I will answer the question. The minimum age for the admission of hired men to Chatham, Portsmouth, and Devonport Dockyards is 21; there is no maximum age. A discharged soldier was refused admission at Chatham in February last as being "too old for consideration," but a further inquiry is being made in his case. Under existing regulations labourers are selected from the whole body of candidates who present themselves, and are not entered unless accustomed to labour and constitutionally capable of performing the duties required of them, and I do not consider it desirable to make any alteration in this practice.

    UNEQUAL ASSESSMENTS.
    MR. COBB: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, at a large meeting of the St. James' Vestry held on 5th March, a numerous deputation of ratepayers attended as to the assessments made by the Assessment Committee, and a long debate took place; whether he is aware that it was alleged, and figures quoted to prove, that the assessments upon premises occupied by many members of the Committee had been lowered or kept at the same amount, while the assessments of adjoining or neighbouring premises, not occupied by members of the Committee, had been raised; whether the figures shown in the Valuation List books bear out this allegation; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made, with a view to putting an end to the dissatisfaction which exists among many of the leading ratepayers in the parish?
    *THE PRESIDENT OF the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have communicated with the Vestry clerk on this subject, and have ascertained that at the meeting referred to a deputation of ratepayers attended, and made allegations to the effect stated in the question against the Committee of the Vestry, by whom the Valuation List for the parish was prepared. I am unable to say whether the figures in the list bear out these allegations, but I find that at the meeting the matter was referred to a Committee of the whole Vestry, and that this Committee have decided to recommend the Vestry to intimate to the deputation that the apparent anomalies to which attention has been called admit, in their opinion, of a legitimate and satisfactory explanation. Notice was given to each ratepayer of the amount at which it was proposed that he should be assessed, and if he was aggrieved by the list he could object before the Assessment Committee of the Guardians, and, if necessary, appeal against their decision. I am informed, however, that the appeals were not more numerous than at the previous quinquennial revision, and that the surveyor of taxes, who was present at each meeting of the Assessment Committee of the Vestry, did not lodge any objection to the figures entered in the list. The Local Government Board are not empowered to interfere in the matter.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
    MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he has given any effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Friendly Societies, which reported, in 1889, with regard to the introduction of the principle of popular insurance for sickness and old age as one of the subjects of general instruction under the direction of the Department; and, in the contrary case, if he will now do so?
    *THE VICE PRESIDENT OF the COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): It is impossible to include such instruction in the obligatory subjects prescribed by the Code; but by the removal of all restrictions as to optional

    1421
    subjects, and by encouraging managers to submit for approval schemes of instructions on various topics, it is hoped that the recognition now generally accorded to the importance of provident insurance will lead to its being introduced into the school course to a much larger extent. The Department have also intimated that they would be prepared to accept reading books dealing with the subject in a manner suited to the capacity of young children.

    MURDER OF MR. AND MRS. KEEBLE IN TONQUIN.
    MR. BEAUFOY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information as to the murder of Mr. and Mrs. Keeble in Tonquin in January last; and, if so, whether any steps have been taken to bring their murderers to justice?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): No information has been received by Her Majesty's Government beyond a statement in the French Journal Officiel of March 16th, but Her Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed to ask the French Government whether they can furnish any details.

    IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.
    MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether he will give a Return, if moved for, of the names of the persons who were on the 1st January, 1891, in prison for contempt of Court, with the respective dates of their committal and the nature of their offence?
    MR. MATTHEWS: The Prison Authorities inform me that they have no means of supplying information as to the "nature" of the contempt of Court in the several cases; and I see no public advantage in giving the names of persons in such a Return. I am, therefore, unable to assent to this Return.
    MR. COBB: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many persons are now in prison for contempt of Court
    MR. MATTHEWS: I will obtain the information if the hon. Gentleman requires it.

    NAIONAL PROVIDENT INSURANCE.
    MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when a Bill will be introduced to deal with some at least of the recommendations of the Select Committee on National Provident Insurance which reported in 1887, and on Friendly Societies which reported in 1889, with a view to the advancement of their great work?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): My hon. and gallant Friend must be aware that one of the chief recommendations of the Select Committee which reported in 1887 as to the payment of a contribution towards a superannuation fund by persons in the Public Service has already been given effect to by the Police Act, 1890, and the Police (Scotland) Act, 1890, under which Statutes rateable deductions from pay are carried to the Police Pension Fund. The Committee reported, however, that they—
    "Were disposed to wait for the further development of public opinion… before advising the adoption of a general obligatory system of superannuated pay."
    With regard to the Report of the Select Committee on Friendly Societies, delivered in 1889, a Bill is in preparation, and I hope will shortly be circulated, carrying into effect some of the Committee's recommendations affecting Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies.

    ST. PAUL'S SCHOOL.
    MR. KEAY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether his attention has been called to articles in Truth and the Daily Chronicle of 12th February, and the Daily News of 11th March, containing serious charges against the administration of St. Paul's School; whether it is true, as stated to a Committee of the School Board for London by a deputation from the Fulham Vestry, on the 9th instant, that the standard of the entrance examination having been gradually raised so high as to exclude altogether the pupils from elementary schools, the Bursar of St. Paul's School, stated to be in partnership with the Head Master, has established a preparatory school as a private undertaking,

    1423
    which he designates "St. Paul's Preparatory School;" that many, if not all, hoys seeking admission to St. Paul's School are sent by the Head Master to this preparatory school, from which he and the Bursar reap very large profits; that a new building has been erected by one or both of these gentlemen, at a cost of over £20,000, exactly opposite St. Paul's School, in the same style of architecture, and with a bust of Dean Colet, the Founder of St. Paul's School, in front of it, the words "St. Paul's Preparatory School" being also engraved in a prominent position; that the proprietors of this preparatory school send their pupils to compete for free places on the foundation, notwithstanding that the whole conduct of the examination is in their own hands, and that both gentlemen are present at the election of free scholars; and whether, if these statements are true, the Charity Commissioners have any authority to compel the School Authorities to conform to the scheme prepared by them for the school, or if any other Public Department has any control over the school?
    MR. J. W. LOWTHER: As I am only an intermittent reader of Truth, the Daily Chronicle, and the Daily News, the articles referred to have escaped my attention. The admission of boys from public elementary schools is not provided for by the scheme for St. Paul's School, which is one of a high grade. The other matters referred to do not come within the cognisance of the Charity Commissioners, who have no jurisdiction over private adventure schools.

    NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' UNION.
    MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to an article appearing in the Times of Friday last on the subject of the National Agricultural Labourers' Union; whether the allegations therein contained as to grave malversations of the funds of the Union, and more especially as to improper diversions of the sick benefit funds for trade or Trades Union purposes, have also been brought to his notice; and whether the law in its present state affords any means of relief or redress to labouring men whose
    1424
    savings, contributed for the ordinary purposes of a sick benefit fund, have been applied without their consent to other purposes?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I am afraid that I can add little to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in reply to a question addressed to him on the 23rd ult. by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Essex. The Trade Union Acts are based on the principle of a minimum of official interference. Clause 4 of the Act of 1871, 31 and 35 Vict., cap. 31, enacts that—
    "Nothing in this Act will enable any Court to entertain any legal proceeding instituted with the object of directly enforcing or recovering damages for the breach of any of the following agreements, namely, … 3. Any agreement for the application of the funds of a Trade Union (a) to provide benefits to members."
    It appears, therefore, that the law in its present state affords no means of relief or redress in the circumstances referred to by my hon. Friend.

    ART GALLERY AT SOUTH KENSINGTON.
    SIR H. ROSCOE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the case that an unknown donor has offered £80,000 to build an Art Gallery on a site at South Kensington, the erection of which would materially interfere with the purposes for which land was recently bought by Government for housing the Science Collections, and for the necessary erection of suitable chemical and physical laboratories in connection with the Royal School of Science; whether another site at South Kensington has been offered which would not interfere with the object for which Parliament granted the purchase-money for the land; and whether the Government will give an assurance that these objects will be maintained?
    MR. GOSCHEN: It is true that a public-spirited gentleman has offered £80,000 to build an Art Gallery on a site at South Kensington; but with regard to the further points raised by the hon. Member, I may say at once that the offer only affects about one-tenth of the land recently bought by Government, and the remainder would still be left avail-

    1425
    able, if required, for Science Collections. No pledge was given that the whole of the land would be appropriated to Science Collections. On the contrary, the Treasury, in accepting the offer of the Commissioners of the 1851 Exhibition, stated that the land was in excess of even future requirements of the Science Collections. It would be possible to make adequate provision for chemical and physical laboratories on the land between the Imperial Institute Road and the Technical Institute. This site adjoins the east galleries, and it is in these galleries, together with the west and southern galleries, and a proposed cross gallery joining the east and west galleries, that the Science Collections may ultimately be housed. The interests of the Royal School of Science, and of the Science Collections, are being carefully kept in view; and the hon. Member will understand that the acceptance of this generous offer will enable us to provide adequate space for exhibition purposes more rapidly than would have been possible under the old scheme.

    INQUESTS UPON FIRES.
    MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the practice prevails in some parts of the United Kingdom of holding inquests as to the cause of fires which may have taken place; whether this practice has been attended with advantage in the City of London; and whether, in view of the large number of fires which now take place, he will carefully consider any measure which would require inquests to be held in all serious cases of fire throughout the Kingdom?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware that this practice prevails elsewhere than in the City of London, where, as my hon. Friend is aware, it is authorised by a Private Act passed in 1888. Thirty-eight cases have been reported to me under this Act. In 30 cases the jury found the cause of the fire unknown; in seven cases they found that the cause was accidental; and in one case that the fire was caused by an unknown incendiary. I am informed, however, by the authorities of the City that in their belief the power to hold fire inquests acts as a deterrent against arson and fraud on Insurance Companies; and I am
    1426
    prepared to give my careful attention to any proposal which my hon. Friend may make in the direction of extending the measure throughout the country.

    LICENSING—THE GLASGOW EAST END EXHIBITION.
    MR. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that excisable liquors are sold in the Exhibitors' Club, within the Glasgow East End Exhibition; whether he is aware that a licence was refused by the Magistrates when the Exhibition was opened; and whether the sale of liquor in such circumstances is illegal?
    *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The Exhibitors' Club is a regularly constituted club, the members being exhibitors, attendants and other persons connected with the Exhibition. The Club has premises within the Exhibition buildings; and refreshments, including excisable liquors, are sold by the Club to its members and their guests in the manner usual in clubs. There is nothing illegal in this; and the fact that the Magistrates refused a certificate for licence for the sale of excisable liquors to the public in the Exhibition in no way prejudices the question.

    LONDON JOINT STOCK BANKS.
    MR. ATKINSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will allow other London Joint Stock Banks to tender for the business of Her Majesty's Government as well as the Bank of England?
    *MR. GOSCHEN: If there were other Joint Stock Banks with capitals of £16,000,000 sterling, and if the Bank of England were unreasonable, the question of competition might arise, but I do not believe in the double event.

    BRENNAN TORPEDOES.
    ADMIRAL MAYNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many Brennan torpedoes are now constructed, how many is it proposed to construct, and what it is proposed to do with them when constructed?
    *MR. E. STANHOPE: These torpedoes are for coast defence. My hon. and gallant Friend will scarcely expect a reply to the remainder of his question.
    ADMIRAL MAYNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the number?
    *MR. E. STANHOPE: Certainly not.

    THE PADDY TAX IN CEYLON.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can lay upon the Table of the House the replies by, and the criticisms of, the different Government Agents in Ceylon on the Report of the Select Committee which lately sat in that Island to consider the question of the Paddy Tax; and whether, in case these replies have not been brought to his notice, he will cause them to be laid before the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with the view of enabling him to come to a correct decision in the matter?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Papers in question have been received, and are being most fully considered. They will be included in any correspondence which may be laid before Parliament on the subject.

    THE BOY MESSENGERS COMPANY.
    VISCOUNT GRIMSTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is prepared to fix electric calls in the houses of such persons as may desire the same, without charge, as the District Messengers Company have done and are now doing, and to supply messengers to run errands and make small purchases; carry notes and parcels; call cabs, policemen in case of burglary, fire-engines in case of fire, &c.; and, if not, if he will consider favourably the Petition of the said company to carry on their business under a royalty to the Post Office, before depriving the public of this great and much-appreciated convenience?
    *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): In reply to the noble Lord, I have to say that the Post Office will be prepared to supply electric call apparatus, but that a charge must necessarily be made for it. I do not suppose that the District Messengers Company can have had the intention of providing any such gratuitous service to the public as the noble Lord suggests, although it is not impossible that temporary advantages of this sort may
    1428
    have been offered to a few persons of influence. The business of the Department is the delivery of letters, parcels, and telegrams, and I have no inclination to interfere with any branches of the District Messenger service which do not infringe upon the province of the State.
    MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, under the new postal system, announced in the morning papers of last Saturday, the Post Office propose to exclusively work the call system, or whether it is proposed that this system shall be worked by companies or persons under licences from the Post Office?
    *MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that it is not proposed to grant licences for the electric call system, and the Post Office will be prepared itself to meet the demands of the public in this matter.
    MR. COBB: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that without a licence to use the call system the other business of these companies could not be carried on profitably, or indeed at all?
    *MR. RAIKES: The companies which have engaged in this business have done so under express warnings from the Department that their business was illegal, and the warnings have been repeated in each case. As to how far a system of electric call may be applied to other business that docs not fall properly within the business of the Department. I should be glad to consider what course the Department can take in regard to it.
    MR. COBB: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider this fact. The District Messengers Company are now working the call system under a promise of a licence, and the other company have applied for a similar licence. Will the right hon. Gentleman take that question into consideration and make an arrangement?
    *MR. RAIKES: I am prepared to take into consideration any operations of the company outside that part of it which is within the jurisdiction of the Post Office; but no promise of a licence to any of these companies can be made for any business which is proper to the Post Office.
    DR. CAMERON: What is the part of the business which the right hon. Gentleman considers to be outside the province of the Post

    1429
    Office? Is it the carrying of letters, or the summoning of messengers to bring a cab or a policeman?
    *MR. RAIKES: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my answer he would have known that I have just answered that question. The business of the Department relates to the delivery of letters and messages.
    DR. CAMERON: I beg to give notice that I will raise the question on going into Committee of Supply.
    VISCOUNT GRIMSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the abolition of the power on the part of the companies to carry parcels and letters will render the remainder of the business unremunerative and will entail a loss on the companies?
    *MR. RAIKES: I do not know anything of the profits of the company. My business is to give effect to the law.

    EYEMOUTH HARBOUR.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state if there is an early prospect of the negotiations between the Scotch Office, the Treasury, the Scottish Fishery Board, and the Public Works Loan Commission with regard to a further advance of £10,000 for the completion of Eyemouth Harbour being satisfactorily concluded, so that the necessary works may be now contracted for by the Harbour Trustees and carried into effect during the coming summer?
    MR. JACKSON: The negotiations referred to have reached such a stage that I think I may say that a decision will be come to at such a date as not to preclude the Eyemouth Harbour Commissioners, in the event of its being favourable, from taking advantage of the coming season.

    THE MAGAZINE RIFLE.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the fact that the bolt-head of the magazine rifle placed by the Government at the United Service Institution has broken down; and, if so, what is the exact nature of the accident, and to what causes is it to be attributed; whether he will give directions for a rifle of the Mark II. pattern to be placed at the United Service Institution; and
    1430
    whether the War Office have placed any of the rifles Mark I. at the disposal of Foreign Governments, and to which Governments they have been sent?
    *MR. E. STANHOPE: The bolt-head of the magazine rifle at the United Service Institution has been broken by the unnecessary violence of a workman. I am not prepared to issue a rifle of Mark II. to the Institution at present. As regards the third question, I will explain privately to the right hon. Gentleman what has been done, but it is not a question which it is desirable to answer in the House.

    CUSTOMS OUTDOOR OFFICERS.
    SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the results of the recent inquiry held by him respecting the Outdoor Officers of Customs will be published?
    MR. GOSCHEN: My Minute showing the results of the inquiry is in print and undergoing its final revise, I hope it may be published in a very short time.

    VOLUNTEERS IN MERIONETHSHIRE.
    MR. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received any communications through the Lord Lieutenant of Merionethshire relating to a desire to form a battalion of Volunteers in that county; whether he has refused permission to establish such a battalion; whether he is aware that Colonel Liddel, the officer commanding the Militia in the district, has alluded to the difficulty he experiences in obtaining recruits, and has expressed the opinion that such difficulty would probably be overcome if a battalion of Volunteers were established; and whether, in view of the fact that there are no Volunteers-in the county, he will re-consider his decision?
    *MR. E. STANHOPE: The question is under my consideration, but I cannot say what the decision will be.

    RECEIPTS FOR TELEGRAMS.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will consider the possibility of making arrangements for giving speedy receipts for telegrams on demand gratis; and whether he is aware that the amount

    1431
    at present charged for a receipt, and the delay in giving it, hinder many from obtaining this security for the safe despatch of their messages?
    *MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that I am not in a position to authorise the giving of receipts for telegrams without charge. As I have already announced in this House, I have considered the question of reducing the charge, but the Government did not see their way to agree to any reduction.

    DISTRESS FOR UNION RELIEF.
    MR. H. GARDNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that it is the custom of Boards of Poor Law Guardians, by their relieving officers, to enter without process of law the dwelling houses of persons who have received union relief, and to remove and sell the furniture and other goods of such persons, and apply the proceeds towards the costs of their relief; and whether such practice is within the competence of Poor Law Guardians; and, if not, whether he will direct a Circular to be issued to Boards of Guardians pointing out the illegality of such proceedings?
    *MR. RITCHIE: In the case of a person to whom relief has been granted by a Board of Guardians, the Guardians are not empowered to seize the furniture without any process of law. This is subject, however, to the enactment in the Poor Law Union Charges Amendment Act, 1849, under which in the case of a pauper dying and having in his possession or belonging to him any money or property, the Guardians of the union are empowered to reimburse themselves the expenses incurred by them in the burial of the pauper and in his maintenance at any time during the 12 months previous to the decease. I think that the Guardians under this enactment are empowered when they obtain possession of the furniture of a deceased pauper to sell it for the purpose of reimbursing themselves of the cost of his relief within the limitation referred to.

    BETTING AND GAMBLING.
    MR. MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Secretary of
    1432
    State for the Home Department if he will bring forward his Consolidation Bill on betting and gambling this Session, which he has told the House was already prepared?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I am disposed to think that it will not be possible to find time for the Consolidation Bill on betting and gambling in the present Session, which is already too full. There are other measures prepared in the Home Office which are more urgent than the Bill to which my hon. Friend refers, and for which time may not improbably be wanting. I will, however, not lose sight of the subject.

    PORTUGUESE IN AFRICA—SEIZURE OF THE COUNTESS OF CARNARVON.
    DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information regarding the recent seizure of the steamship Countess of Carnarvon by the Portuguese in the River Limpopo?
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have no information beyond that which has been published in the newspapers.

    BANKRUPT TRUSTEES.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether it is competent for a bankrupt, whether discharged or undischarged, to act as trustee of charity lands; and whether a churchwarden, who is ex officio trustee, may act in that capacity if he be an undischarged bankrupt?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): Until removed by the Court a bankrupt can act as trustee; but under Section 147 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, the Court has power to remove a trustee, and has done so both in cases in which the bankrupt has obtained his discharge as well as in cases where he is undischarged. It is not quite clear whether the section applies to an ex officio trustee—as, for instance, a churchwarden; but in almost all cases charities are governed by schemes containing clauses which would give the Court jurisdiction to deal with the trustee in the event of bankruptcy.

    METALLIFEROUS MINES.
    MR. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, in view of the unsatisfactory and doubtful state of the law respecting the metalliferous mines of Great Britain and Ireland which contain base and precious metals in varied proportions and of varied values, and of the want of uniformity of the law in Her Majesty's possessions, the Government would support legislation which would make the law uniform, or, failing that, would alter the law so as to encourage (while maintaining the prerogative of the Crown) the development of the mineral resources of Great Britain and Ireland with profit to the owners of such mines and to the State?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: In reply to the hon. Member's question, it is not possible for me to express any opinion as to the action of the Government until I have an opportunity of seeing any proposed Bill and considering the changes of the law there by effected. I am not, however, at present prepared to recommend any alteration of the law in the direction indicated by the hon. Member, although Her Majesty's Government are very desirous of encouraging the development of the mineral resources of Great Britain and Ireland.

    THE MARRIAGE LAWS.
    MR. WOODALL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been given to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Laws of Marriage, which was presented in 1868, and to the opinion expressed by that Commission that one uniform system was in the highest degree desirable; that the difficulties in the way of the attainment of that object were not insuperable; and that it was the duty of the State to make an earnest endeavour to overcome them; whether the Government will be prepared to give effect to the recommendation of the Commission that the State should be absolutely impartial and indifferent as between the members of all religious denominations, and should found its legislation as to marriage upon the necessity and duty of regulating its civil conditions and effects; and whether, to this end, the Government will consider
    1434
    the propriety of referring to a Select Committee the various proposals now before the House for altering the laws affecting the celebration and registration of marriages among Nonconformists, with instructions to consider the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and to obtain evidence from the Registrar General and others as to the operation of the laws proposed to be altered?
    *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I have seen the Report of the Royal Commission on the Laws of Marriage, presented in 1868, and although it is doubtless desirable that the Laws of Marriage should be assimilated, yet, looking to the time that has elapsed since the Commission reported, it is evident that the subject is one of considerable difficulty. I am, therefore, unable to hold out any hopes that the Government, with a very limited time at their disposal, will be able to deal with the matter in the course of the present Session. With regard to the Bills now before the House for altering the laws affecting Nonconformist marriages, it will be for the House itself to decide, when the Bills reach the Committee stage, whether it is desirable that they should be referred to a Select Committee.

    LABOUR QUESTIONS.
    MR. ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any legislative action has yet been taken by any foreign Government to carry out any of the recommendations of the Berlin Conference upon Labour Questions?
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: I believe that some legislative action has been taken by foreign Governments; but the very short notice given me by the hon. Member has not been sufficient for me to ascertain all the facts of the case.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    MR. HUNTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, for the convenience of Scotch Members, he will postpone the Motion for a Committee on the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill until the latter part of the week after the Easter holiday?
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: If the Motion is not taken before Easter, it shall not be taken till the Thursday after the Easter Holidays.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: What business will be taken on the next day and on Monday? Further, what date will be fixed for the Committee on the Civil Service Estimates?
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope it will be possible to go into Committee on the Civil Service Estimates on Monday. Tomorrow the Government hope to proceed with several of the Bills on the Paper.
    MR. KEAY: When will the Indian Councils Bill be taken?
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not yet in a position to say.

    MALTESE LAW.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of certain disputed points in the law of Malta, which, as he recently stated, Her Majesty has been advised to make, is intended to be made by Her Majesty under the Act 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 41, s. 4; or, if not, under what statute; and whether the Government will consider the propriety of advising Her Majesty to refer to the Judicial Committee under the above statute, or in such other way as may be legal and proper, the question of law as to the eligibility of Roman Catholics to the offices of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and Lord Chancellor of Great Britain?
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: Her Majesty's Government do not think it advisable to propound this question to the Judicial Committee.
    MR. SUMMERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question?
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not at present in the possession of information that would enable me to answer it. I do not look upon it as an urgent matter.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to give notice that after Easter I will again ask the first part of the question.
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: The matter will be referred to the Judicial Committee with full assurance that they have authority to deal with it.
    MR. SUMMERS: Under what statute will the question be referred to the Privy Council?
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: I distinctly decline to state.

    IRELAND—LAND COMMISSION, BALTINGLASS.
    MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has his attention been drawn to the fact that the appeal in the case of Thomas Metcalfe, tenant, Graves Cathrew, landlord, union of Baltinglass, County Wicklow, from the dismiss of his originating notice served 29th September, 1887, by order of 21st March 1890, has not yet been heard, and when it is likely to come on?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Land Commissioners report that the case referred to was dismissed by the Sub-Commission on the 8th May, 1890, on the ground that the tenant was not in bonâ fide occupation within the meaning of the Act. The appeal will be heard in its proper turn, but the Commissioners are unable at the present moment to name a day.

    LAND COMMISSION, WESTMEATH.
    MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware of the fact that the judicial rents in the cases of Philip Brady, Charles Fagan, and Anne Cooney, tenants, Captain Gerald Dease, landlord, heard at the sitting of the Westmeath Land Sub-Commission, held at Mullingar, 29th October, 1890, have not yet been fixed; and can he state the cause of the delay, and when the decisions may be expected?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the question, but it is probable that a decision will be pronounced early in April.

    DISTRESS IN MAYO.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that great distress prevails in the parishes of Kiltimagh and Kilkelly, in the County of Mayo; whether it is his

    1437
    intention to mitigate the distress in these parishes by means of the relief works proposed to be started at Blackloon and Kilbeagh, in the same county; whether he is aware that the latter places are a long distance from the former two places; whether he can say how many hundreds of names the police have given as needing relief in Kilkelly and Kilmovee, and how many have been relieved in these places; and whether, considering the numbers in need of relief in Kilkelly and Kilmovee, he will consider the propriety of starting some relief works in that neighbourhood?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry that I have not yet been able to obtain the information that would enable me to answer the question. The question only appeared on the Paper yesterday. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down for Monday.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I will repeat it on Monday.

    COUNTY INSPECTOR BURKE.
    COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether Mr. Myles Blake Burke has been compulsorily retired from the office of County Inspector, Royal Irish Constabulary, with a pension of £400 per annum, in consequence of alleged incapacity for further service; whether the injuries which caused such incapacity, if it existed, were received when on duty, and whether, if this be so, he would be entitled to £500 instead of £400 a year; and whether his Petition to Her Majesty to have his case re-considered has reached the Treasury through the Irish Government, to whom it was referred by Her Majesty's Command; and what course he intends to take with regard to it?
    MR. JACKSON: Mr. Burke was retired from the Constabulary on Jane 1st, 1887, on the ground that he had received injuries rendering him unfit for farther service. His age was 61. The pension to which his service of 39 years entitled him was £386 15s.; but as he would have completed another year in the following September the Treasury awarded him £400 per annum, the amount for which a service of 40 years would have qualified him. The Treasury did not consider that the injuries which caused Mr. Burke's retirement were
    1438
    received when on duty. No Petition by Mr. Burke to Her Majesty has reached the Treasury.

    DRUGS IN THE IRISH MILITARY HOSPITALS.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the War Office to throw open for public competition the contracts for the supply of pure drugs and medicines to the military hospitals in Ireland, in the same way as similar contracts are in England; and, if not, will he explain on what grounds?
    *MR. E. STANHOPE: The recent competition for the supply of drugs and medicines had reference to the whole Army, including the Force in Ireland. The contract for the supplies in Ireland, estimated at about £1,700 a year, will, as a result of the competition, remain with the Apothecaries Hall at Dublin.

    THE GWEEDORE UNION.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Guardian of the Meenacladdy Electoral Division in Gweedore is a commercial traveller residing at Belfast; that one of the Guardians of the Magheraclogher Division in Gweedore is non-resident; that the Guardian of the Gweedore portion of the Dunlewey Electoral Division is non-resident; that the Guardian of the Gweedore portion of the Gortahork Electoral Division is nonresident; and that only one Guardian is resident, who is a land agent, and has no interest or concern with any electoral division but his own; and, consequently, the Poor Law Board is composed of representatives of the landlord interest; whether he is aware that Father M'Fadden repudiates the suggestion that he advised the people not to purchase seed, but that, on the contrary, he carefully explained to them the necessary procedure for obtaining seed, and in every way manifested a deep interest in the matter; whether, having regard to the constitution of the Board of Guardians, he can take any steps to secure to the district the benefits of the Seed Potato Act, of which they are now deprived; and whether he will take into consideration the great and widespread distress prevailing in the

    1439
    district, and speedily order necessary-relief works to be started there?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As this question appears on to-day's Paper without previous notice, time has not admitted of my obtaining a detailed Report. But from available information it appears that there are 10 electoral divisions in the Dunfanaghy Union, and that for six of these loans have been sanctioned to purchase seed potatoes. I am not aware that the Rev. James M'Fadden repudiates the suggestion referred to. The Guardians, I understand, have summoned a special meeting for the 21st inst., at which applications for loans for seed from the remaining four electoral divisions will be considered. The general condition of the district is receiving careful attention.

    THE COLONIZATION COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask a question of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his capacity as Chairman of the Colonization Committee. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has observed that in the Times newspaper yesterday there was published at great length what purported to be the official Report of the Colonization Committee; whether it was in fact the Report of the Committee, which only ceased its labours on the previous day; how the right hon. Gentleman accounts for the fact that a confidential document is published in a newspaper before it is in the hands of Members of the House; and what steps the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take in the matter?
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I was myself surprised to see the publication to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. The Report is not absolutely correct in regard to several paragraphs, which were only added at the last minute. I have no knowledge how it was furnished, and it is a breach of order on the part of any one to furnish the Report in such circumstances to a newspaper. I do not think that any Member of the Committee would do that. Perhaps it is hardly a matter to which serious attention need be called, but I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has addressed this question to me.

    THE DIVISION ON THE WELSH LOCAL OPTION BILL.
    SIR W. LAWSON: I wish, Sir, to ask you a question, as there is a slight error in the report of our proceedings yesterday. In the record of the Division that took place, the Noes are given as 179. If you add up the names of the Members as printed, they come to only 178. Is there any way of putting that right?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the two gentlemen who acted as Tellers for the Noes may be able to explain.
    MR. J. M. MACLEAN: Sir C. Forster voted in the House without going into the Lobby.
    SIR W. LAWSON: Sir C. Forster voted in the majority.
    The matter dropped.

    STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE, &c.
    Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, have leave to print, and circulate with the Votes, the Minutes of their Proceedings from day to day; and to-print, and circulate with the Votes, any-amended Clauses of Bills committed to them from time to time.—(Mr. G. Osborne Morgan.)
    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to, Seed Potatoes Supply (Ireland) Act (1890) Amendment Bill, without Amendment.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.
TITHE BENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.—(No. 251.)

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords' Amendments be now considered."
  SIR W.HARCOURT. I wish to ask what course the Government propose to take with reference to these Amendments generally. With regard to the first Amendment, which has reference to writs of habere facias possessionem, the Attorney General proposed a similar Amendment before the Bill went to the Lords. Objections were taken to the Amendment on both sides of the

  1441
  House, and, after a good deal of discussion, it was withdrawn. It would be highly undesirable that this House should, by the withdrawal of the Amendment by the Government, be deprived of the opportunity of discussing this clause and of proposing an Amendment which would be unobjectionable. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will support us in rejecting this Amendment as it comes down from the Lords. The next principal Amendment introduces the entirely new element of land occupied rent free. Certainly, I think that is not a matter which the Government can consider necessary or desirable to be introduced into this Bill. On that subject I hope the right hon. Gentleman will state that he will not support a new proposition of such a character introduced at this stage of the measure. Next I come to the most important and most serious of all the Amendments sent down by the Lords. It is the one marked "C," and has reference to costs. The House will remember that one of the most contentious points in this Bill was the question of costs. We fought the matter out largely in this House, and it was the willingness of the right hon. Gentleman to make a concession on the question of costs that greatly facilitated the passage of the Bill. But for that concession it would not have passed through the House of Commons without a great deal more opposition. The principle adopted in the Bill and adhered to throughout was that there was to be no personal liability for costs, and everybody felt that costs ought to be reduced to their lowest possible measure, and that there should be no personal liability in respect of costs as the result of introducing the machinery of the County Courts. The Lords' Amendment entirely overthrows that, because it provides that the costs shall be recovered as in the case of an ordinary action in the County Courts. This result will be to overthrow the whole basis on which costs were settled in Committee of this House as long as they are declared to be costs by the County Court Judge. I would suggest to the Government that it is inadvisable to introduce into the Bill an alteration that would cause so much irritation as an alteration like this. It would be extremely irritating to the
  1442
  small tithe owners, especially in Wales. Therefore, I hope the Government will stand by the settlement made in the House of Commons, and will insist upon removing from the Bill one of the most irritating elements which can be introduced into it. I think the Government came to an honourable understanding with the opponents of the Bill that it should not be altered in this way. I am aware that these Amendments were not introduced by the Government in the House of Lords, but by persons who spread tares among the wheat, and I ask the Government to stand by the principle which they enunciated in the House of Commons, and to keep the Bill upon the footing on which it loft this House by their consent and with their support.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I hope the House will not be disposed to enter on this question into a general discussion of the Lords' Amendments, for I think the House will see that such a course would not be in accordance with the usual practice. But I am far from complaining of the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman in asking what the intentions of the Government are with regard to the three principal Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government are not themselves responsible for these Amendments. I think they are all due to a noble and learned Lord, who has hitherto been spoken of in this House with the respect due to him, until the right hon. Gentleman—an old Colleague—compared him to a certain personage of whom the less that is said the better. The Amendments were introduced by Lord Selborne, and I think the House will be disposed to consider that they come from one who has given special attention to a subject of which he is practically master. With regard to the first Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman calls attention, I cannot quite accept the account which the right hon. Gentleman has given of the action of the Government in this matter. The proposal which was made for an Amendment practically to the same effect was not in Committee, but on Report. That proposal was withdrawn in accordance with the general wish of the House; and

  1443
  if it was intended to introduce another Amendment in the place of it in this House, it could only have been done by re - committing the Bill. Consequently, I do not think it can be fairly said that Her Majesty's Government, in accepting this Amendment, have in any way taken a step which is unfair to the House of Commons or which precludes the House of Commons from considering the subject. In another place it was contended that it would not be fair by the Bill to deprive the tithe owner of the remedy which the Act of 1836 already gave him. The Government agreed to the Amendment in the other House, and I am prepared to move that the House should agree with their Lordships in respect to it. The second important Amendment is intended to meet cases in which, as the Bill stands, the occupier has made such a bargain in regard to the rent as will have the effect of practically depriving the tithe owner of the tithe. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway very property called my attention to this matter, which certainly had escaped notice. It was a matter which required to be dealt with, and Lord Selborne proposed the clause as a remedy. I therefore propose to ask the House to agree to the Amendment. I must say I think that the chances of attempted evasion of liability have been much increased by hon. Members drawing attention to what it was possible to do. The third important Amendment is on the question of costs. It proposes that the Court shall have power to order that any costs which it finds are vexatiously or oppressively occasioned be paid and recovered in the same manner as in any ordinary action in the Court, thus imposing a personal liability for costs which are vexatiously caused. I do not mean to say that strong reasons might not be given for this Amendment; but, at the same time, I have to recollect that throughout the Government have recommended the Bill to the House as one that does not impose any personal liability, either for tithe rent-charge it self or for costs incurred in the course of enforcing payment. On the whole, having regard to the objections which have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and the history of the proceedings on the subject of costs, I think it would be wise
  1444
  for the House to disagree with this Amendment.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: It would, of course, be irregular at this stage to enter into details of the Amendments. We on this side rejoice at the decision of the Government with reference to the last Amendment referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. But with reference to the Amendment incorporated in Clause B, I think that requires further consideration. I hold that the way in which it has been dealt with in another place is most objectionable. As these Amendments were only circulated yesterday we have had scarcely any time in which to consider them, or in which to draw up any counter proposals that may be necessary. I hope the Government will give us further time to consider the matter.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 1, line 11, agreed to.
  Page 1, line 11, leave out from the word "but," to the word "he," in line 12, the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: What is the object of leaving out these words?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The House will recollect that when this clause was considered and a proviso inserted on the Motion of the hon. Member for Norfolk, I undertook that the omission of the proviso should be moved in another place in order to give an opportunity of considering the matter. One point included in the proviso was that where the tenancy terminates on March 25 or September 29, and the occupier is under a contract to pay the tithe which falls due on April 1 or October 1, he is not to be relieved of his liability to pay up to those dates, notwithstanding the expiry of his tenancy, and the omission of the words now proposed to be omitted will make this clear.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I think this Amendment is more important than might be supposed from the mere words.

  1445
  Surely the liability to pay tithe ought not to extend beyond the period of the tenancy?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The only effect of the omission of the words will be to make the tenants liable in cases where the tithe falls due only a few days after the expiry of his tenancy.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I am afraid the effect will be more wide-reaching. It will make the tenant liable to an indefinite extent for tithe after his contract has expired, and that will be a very dangerous proceeding indeed.
  The House divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 99.—(Div. List, No. 92.)
  Page 1, line 14, leave out the words "That tithe rent-charge," and insert the words "The tithe rent-charge which such occupier has contracted to pay," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  MR. H. GARDNER: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give some explanation of this. I may be very obtuse, but I think this is a very complicated Amendment, and as we have only had it in our hands a few hours it is necessary for us to call on the right hon. Gentleman to explain the effect. I may be told that if I had followed the Debates in the other House I should have been able to understand; but I am not a frequent visitor to that place, nor do I carefully study the reports of its proceedings. If the right hon. Gentleman will give us some explanation I am sure the House will be much obliged.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The intention of the Amendment is obvious.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I shall move the omission of the words "has contracted," and the insertion of words to make the clause read as follows: "Which such occupier is liable under the said contract to pay."
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I hope the hon. Member will not press that.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not see why the Government should object to that. It is much simpler than the present form.
  Amendment to Lords' Amendment to omit the words "has contracted," and to insert the words "is liable under the said contract," put, and agreed to.
  (4.56.) Lords' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Lords' Amendment, page 1, line 16, to leave out from the word "rent-charge," to the word "provided," in line 18, the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the-Lords in the said Amendment."
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I do not see any reason for the omission of these words. They were accepted upon my Motion, and I hope the Government will stick to them. One of the chief reasons why the Lords struck out the words was that they objected to the tithe being earmarked. Now I contend that the tithe should be earmarked in order to enable the tenant to see that he is not called upon by the new statutory contract to pay a sum which he was not under a liability to pay before. The object of these words is very evident. Let me put a case before the House. Suppose a tithe rent-charge of £5 is by the fall in the value of corn reduced to £4 10s., how is the tenant to know he is not called upon to pay more than he was liable for under the old contract? A very high authority in the other House, no less an authority than the Prime Minister himself, said it was of the utmost necessity to keep the tenant in the dark as to what he will be called upon to pay. But although we are always willing to listen to the recommendations of the Prime Minister, I think the House will agree with me that people who are placed under certain obligations by Act of Parliament should know the exact extent of these obligations. Yet the object in omitting these words is to keep the tenant in the dark.
  "MR. C. W. GRAY: I hope the House will disagree with this Amendment.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I would point out to the House that the Amendment was inserted on the Motion of no less an authority than Lord Herschell, whom I certainly should prefer to the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. S. Evans). I do not think, however, that

  1447
  very great importance need be attached to it, and, therefore, I shall not object to the House disagreeing with the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I hope the House will not disagree with this Amendment, as I think the Lords did quite right in omitting the words they have struck out. I do not believe that the effect of it will be that any occupier in Wales will be left in the dark, as has been suggested, and certainly no hardship can attach to the occupier if these words are omitted. I would, therefore, suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should adhere to the Amendment made by their Lordships.
  *MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I am glad to find from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that he admits the existence of what I regard as a distinct understanding come to in this House when the matter was before it. It would appear that the real object of the Lords was to disguise the payment of an unpopular charge.
  *MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I will point out that unless this Amendment of the Lords' is passed, it might happen that a landlord giving a receipt for this charge without stating the fact would thereby render the receipt bad in law; and there being no legal voucher that the money had been paid, it might have to be paid over again.
  MR. H. GARDNER: For my part, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to the statement he has just made, and not insist upon the Lords' Amendment.
  *MR. MORTON: I cannot understand why it is that hon. Members opposite, after the Government have given way, should persist in forcing the Lords' Amendment upon us. For what reason do they object to the receipts setting forth distinctly what the money is paid for? I should think there must be something absolutely dishonest in the mind of a man who refuses to say what he gives a receipt for.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I have an Amendment which, as the time has been very limited, I have been unable to place upon the Paper. I propose, in order to
  1448
  carry out still farther the recommendation of Lord Herschell, to add, after the words "rent-charge," in line 17, "and the occupier shall not be liable to pay except on such receipt being given to him by the owner." This, I think, will supply all that is necessary in regard to this matter.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the words restored to the Bill, to insert the words "and the occupier shall not be liable to pay except upon such receipt being given to him by the owner."—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I hope the hon. Member will not press this Motion. There is quite sufficient in the clause as it stands to show that the money is paid in respect of tithe rent-charge, and to stamp the obligation resting on the person receiving the money. As was pointed out in Committee, the object was not to alter the liability, but to direct that the landlord should ear-mark or stamp the amount received for tithe rent-charge. I think it is hardly fail-now to alter the provision in the way proposed by the hon. Member.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, to leave out from the word "by," to the end of the Clause, and insert the words—
  "Sections eighty-one and eighty-five of the Act of the Session of the sixth and seventh years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter seventy - one, and the enactments amending those sections, and not otherwise,"
  the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: The whole of Section 1 was struck out by the Lords in order to insert quite a new remedy, enabling the landlord to distrain for his tithes, or rather the words were re-inserted in an altered form. I want to point out that that alteration is a very serious one. The words were originally "by distress in like manner as provided by the Tithes Act." The Lords referred to two sections of the Act of 1836, namely, Sections 81 and 85. I have no objection to the words as they stand if they are confined to Section 81, but I think the words in Section 85 ought to be

  1449
  omitted. I have a strong reason for this. Section 81 enables the tithe owner to distrain for tithe after giving the usual 21 days' notice; and it goes further, because it provides that whenever any rent-charge payable under the Act shall be in arrear on part of the land situate in the parish in which the rent-charge is due, and which shall be occupied by the person holding the land for which the rent-charge is made, the landlord may distrain upon land which is the property of the occupier. The result would be that where a man farms under a landlord, and holds property of his own, if this section remains unaltered the landlord will be allowed to distrain not only in respect of his own property, but also on the land of the tenant; whereas the tithe the tenant has contracted is only in respect of the land he occupies as tenant. I say that the landlord ought not to be allowed to distrain on any land but his own. I do not propose to proceed with the Amendment I had intended to move if the Government will consent to strike out the words "and Section 85."
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I think the House will see that the hon. Member proposes to deprive the landlord of a part of his right. The hon. Member wishes that the landlord should not have the power formerly conferred upon the tithe owner. That is contrary to the position we have always taken up. We did not accept the suggestion made in the other House of increasing that right by giving the landlord the same right of recovery in the case of tithe rent-charge as in the case of rent. I would ask the House to sustain us in the position we have assumed from the beginning of the Bill.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: If the right hon. Gentleman charges us with inconsistency in respect of certain changes made in the Bill, I would point out to him that to do so is to use a double-edged weapon. Several matters have been thought of by hon. Members since the Bill left this House, and we claim that if we see a point which is relevant to some Amendment coming from the other House, we have a perfect right to raise that point, although we may not have seen it when the Bill was discussed here before. As far as I can understand, we are asked to give the landlord exceptional powers. ["No!"] If we are not,
  1450
  then we have nothing to complain of. But are we not going to give the landlord the power which the tithe owner has only had?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes.
  *MR. C. W. GRAY: But the landlord is to have power not only to distrain on his own land, but also upon other land which the tenant may hold as a yeoman farmer; and if it is proposed to confer that power on the landlord, I shall do all I can to defeat it.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: It seems to me that the power which is conferred on the landlord is unjust, and the fact that it is conferred by the Act of 1836 does not make it less unjust. I shall certainly support the hon. Member's Amendment.
  MR. SIDNEY GEDGE: I think it would be far better to have the Lords' Amendment as it is. At present, if the occupier does not pay the tithe rent-charge, the owner may distrain upon the land out of which the tithe issues, and also on any other land within the parish of which the occupier is the owner, or which he holds under the same landlord. This Bill proposes that the occupier shall no longer pay the tithe rent-charge, but that the landlord shall pay it, and it gives the landlord identically the same powers as the tithe owner possessed, so that the occupier is in no worse position, while the landlord is in a worse, and not a better, position, because he has no general powers of recovery, but only those which the tithe owner had before.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I would point out to the hon. Member that this proposal vitally touches the interests of the occupiers, and hon. Gentlemen opposite who are concerned in this question purely from the agricultural point of view will vote with us on this occasion.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he has already spoken.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Mr. Speaker——
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has also spoken. I wish to point out to hon. Members that the proper time to move an Amendment is before I put the Question "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." Under the circumstances, I will regard the Question as not put.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to move the omission of the words "and eighty-five" so that I shall be in Order. I would point out that the Lords' Amendment would impose a practical hardship. A yeoman farmer may have contracted debts for seeds, manure, and stock, or may have borrowed capital to cultivate his own farm, giving a bill of sale. As a distraint for rent takes precedence of all other debts, the landlord would be able to distrain on the yeoman farmer's land in respect of tithe issuing from other land he holds under that landlord, and not only the yeoman farmer, but his creditors, would suffer. The effect of the section, if adopted, would be to discourage cultivation.
  Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, to leave out the words "and eighty-five."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'and eighty-five' stand part of the Amendment."
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I would willingly regard the tithe rent-charge as part of the rent which the tenant pays to the landlord, but the House has decided that it will make a distinction. I hold that the landlord should have exactly the same power to recover from the occupier which the tithe owner has at present. It is quite evident that the landlord ought to have the same power of recovery from the occupier as the tithe owner has now. it has been said that some of us on this side of the House never speak except in the interests of the Church. This proposal has nothing whatever to do with the interests of the Church, but it would, I think, be very unfair to the landowner.
  MR. C. T. DYKE ACLAND: The noble Lord has omitted to observe one point in Clause 85 of the old Act. I think it is clear from the wording of that clause that the intention was that the person paying the tithe in respect of one holding should be one person only, and if a yeoman should be liable in respect of the whole of his occupation, though part of it might belong to another owner. What we are now discussing is his liability for tithe as a tenant only. The whole question now is whether the landlord shall have the power to recover the
  1452
  tithe from land in respect of which he has not paid any tithe.
  MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON: I think the landlords suffer so-many injustices under this Bill that an extra one more or less will not make much difference. But the small yeomen of the country will be immensely surprised if they find landlords can not only distrain upon their own property, but also upon the yeoman's property. If any landlord sitting upon the Conservative side of the House made such a proposition, it would be a very remarkable thing if he found his way to-the House again, supposing he had a single yeoman in his constituency. There will be endless complications-Who is going to say which is the tithe and which the rent? Take the case of a man paying £100 a year for rent and tithe. Suppose he has paid £75 on. account and the landlord says, "The £25 balance is tithe, and I am going to" distrain on your freehold for it." The tenant will say, "Not a bit of it; one of the three £25 which made up the £75 was for tithe, and therefore you cannot distrain upon my land." I believe if this Amendment is not carried it will give rise to endless difficulties, the presence of which will afford solid ground for the landlords looking to the-House for compensation in respect of its-action in the matter.
  MR. STUART RENDEL.: I can assure the noble Lord opposite that we entirely acquit him of the charge that he never rises to speak except in the interests of" the Church. We admit that he occasionally speaks in the interest of the landlord. I think that on the present occasion he has transferred his advocacy from the Church to the landlord, because I understood him to say that he thought it obviously just that any power the tithe owner might have for the recovery of the tithe should now be vested in the landlord as against anybody else. I cannot realise the justice of that proposition at all. I have always understood that the tithe was a charge primarily on the land. It does not seem to me that because a man collects that charge by deputy the latter is to have against somebody else precisely the same rights as the tithe owner him against him. The proposition of my

  1453
  hon. Friend is that Clause 85 should not apply to the present case, and that the landowners should not have the extreme statutory right as against the occupier, which the tithe owner enjoys under the Act of 1836 as against the landowner.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: May I ask whether there is no distinction between this case and the case of a landlord who distrains on his tenant in the ordinary way? If the landlord is to be allowed to distrain on the land of a yeoman I would point out that the tithe upon that land will probably have already been paid. I should be very much indisposed to support this Amendment of the Lords in any case; but if the view I take of the matter is the correct one, I shall certainly not support the Amendment.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I must say that in regard to the course of the previous discussion and the understanding between the two sides of the House, I shall be indeed surprised if the majority of the House should come to the con-delusion that the clause ought to deprive the landlord of his remedy when he has paid the tithe which the tenant ought to pay. Last year we introduced a provision that where the landlord paid the tithe himself it should be treated as rent as between the landlord and tenant. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) said this would be an unfair thing, because at present the tithepayer is only liable to be distrained upon under the Act of 1836. The right hon. Gentleman and others pressed us to give the landlord, who has paid the tithe, the same remedy as though he was the tithe owner, and no other remedy. That principle we accepted. We were pressed by the hon. Member for Stockport, and many other hon. Members behind us, to give the landlords that remedy which would naturally flow through a breach of contract. We resisted that pressure; we declined to in any way depart from the principles which were pressed upon us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. That was not all. In Committee Section 85 was discussed, and the Bill left the House with the bargain carried out that the landlord would pay the tithe, and have as against the tenant the same remedy that the tithe owner would have had, and no more. What
  1454
  has happened since? A verbal alteration has been made, and that is made the ground for the suggestion that the House of Lords have altered the Bill, and for the re-opening of a question which was discussed and settled. I confess I should be surprised if those who remember what we went through on the occasion of former Debates think it right to depart from what was accepted unwillingly by hon. Members behind the Government and pressed upon the Government by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is perfectly true that the particular remedy to distrain for rent only exists with regard to the particular farm which is occupied by the tenant; but what happens? The tenant could be made bankrupt; he could be sued, an ejectment could be obtained and the whole of the stock, crops, and furniture might be removed from one farm to the other. The hon. and gallant Member for the Holderness Division (Captain Bethell) has put a question to me. The landlord in respect of rent has larger remedies, has remedies which go right over the whole of the land occupied by the owner. He can make that owner bankrupt; he can turn him out of the farms by means of an ejectment, and therefore the position is this; that this is an attempt to cut down the particular remedy of the landlord who has paid the tithe. I trust the House will adhere to the position prior to the Bill leaving the House.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I quite agree with the Attorney General as to the general change made in the original provision. I confess that when I first saw the Amendments of the Lords, I was utterly unable to understand why they altered the Bill. I thought they had some object in making the alterations, and that they regarded this as something different from the arrangement to which the Attorney General has referred. It is ridiculous to say this is better drafting—it is worse drafting. The Attorney General has not attempted to explain why the alteration is made; but he has appealed to us on this side of the House, and to me specially, to adhere to Clause 85. I do not know whether Clause 85 was discussed; it was certainly not discussed when I was here, because I have learned a great deal more about

  1455
  the clause in this Debate than I ever heard before.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: It was never mentioned in the last Debate.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I thought when the Attorney General said it was discussed in Committee it must have been when I was absent. But the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan was never away. Now that the Lords have brought the clause specially under our notice, I think we are entitled to see what the operation of the clause will be. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire has pointed out what an exceedingly invidious position a landlord will be in if he is empowered to exercise such, power as this. I think there are few people who would be disposed to say that a landlord should distrain not only upon in the case of the farm which the tenant holds under him, but also in the case of some other farm. Few people would have the courage to make such an assertion unless it be the noble Lord the Member for Darwen, who, in the interest of truth, justice, religion, and piety, would do his duty and distrain upon the yeoman. Such an operation would not commend this Bill or the persons who took advantage of it to the agricultural tenants of the country. In the interest of the Bill the Government would do well not to press the powers under Clause 85. In respect to the argument of the Attorney General, I should like to say I have never heard of a landlord sueing the tenant for the non-payment of tithe. I have always understood that the landlord has been willing to leave the tithe owner to enforce the obligation in regard to tithe. I am fully persuaded that if this clause is ever acted upon a great deal of irritation, vexation, and discontent will be created; and in opposing the clause I do not consider I am departing from any understanding which has been come to.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I cannot quite accept the theory that the right hon. Gentleman is so ignorant that he did not appreciate what has been done. Let me point out what the House will do if they agree to the omission of Section 85. Section 81 limits the power of distraint to land liable to the payment of any tithe-rent charge. The only lands thus liable to the particular tithe rent-charge are lands upon which the par-
  1456
  ticular tithe rent-charge is apportioned, and, therefore, in order to prevent an occupier from escaping distraint altogether by removing his stock or produce from one field to another, the Legislature-in 1836 gave the tithe owner further powers of distraint which are conferred upon him by Section 85. If Section 85 were omitted the result would be that landowners in many cases would be compelled under the Bill to pay the tithe rent-charge which the tenants have contracted to pay, and they would be absolutely prevented from recovering it from the tenant, because the stock or produce would be removed from one field to another.
  (5.55.) The House divided:—Ayes" 189; Noes 132.—(Div. List, No. 93.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Page 2, line 12, the next Amendment; agreed to.
  Page 2, line 23, after the word "powers," to insert the words—
  "(3.) If such officer satisfies the Court that there is no sufficient distress on the said lands, the Court may authorise the person entitled to the sum ordered to be recovered to sue out a writ of habere facias possessionem, in accordance with Section 82 of the Tithe Act, 1836; and the said person on obtaining possession shall, in accordance with the Tithe Act, pay the surplus (if any), after payment of the tithe-rent-charge and expenses, to the owner of the lands, and, while in possession, be under the obligation not to permit or commit any waste,"
  the next Amendment, read a second time.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan has given notice of an Amendment to this proviso, but I think I can meet what he wants by the Amendment, a copy of which I have placed in his hands. What I propose is to leave but the words in the beginning of the proviso down to the word "court" in the second line, and insert—
  "If the Court is satisfied that the officer would find no distress, or not sufficient distress-on the said lands, the Court "—
  may authorise, and so on. That will insure that the officer shall attempt to distrain, or prove to the satisfaction of the Court there is nothing to distrain upon.
  Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, to leave out from the word

  1457
  "If," to the words "the court," in line 2, and insert the words—
  "The court is satisfied that the officer could find no distress, or no sufficient distress, on the said lands."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said Amendment."
  MR. S. T. EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity of seeing this Amendment, but I cannot say I have had time to properly consider it. The original proposition was that the officer should satisfy the Court; but now the right hon. Gentleman proposes to turn the sentence topsy-turvy, and says "if the Court is satisfied." I do not wish to prejudice the discussion of the Amendment generally, and I say nothing about giving a hearing to the tenant, as to which my hon. Friend will have something to say. I observe that the words do not indicate how the Court is to be satisfied. I do not myself see the advantage of the words. If the clause is to come in let it come in as it originally stood. What is the reason for altering the words in the old Act, that "if there shall be no distress," and so on, the writ may issue? What is the difficulty that the wording is intended to meet?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: My suggestion was to meet the point the hon. Member desired to raise. I do not desire any alteration.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the words "if there shall be"?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am willing to do so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, to amend the Lords Amendment by leaving out from the word "if" to the word "no," in line 1, and insert the words "there shall be."
  *MR. C. W. GRAY: On a point of order, Sir, I wish to oppose the Lords' Amendment altogether; does that Question come later?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may oppose the Motion that the Lords' Amendment, as amended, be agreed to.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Of course, all these Amendments are subject to the
  1458
  general objection we feel to the whole proceeding. On the very words of the Amendment the real objection arises, the evil pervades the whole thing. If there be no sufficient distraint on the land it involves that you are still to have a remedy for the recovery of the tithe. Well, surely the whole principle you have gone on in the Bill is to diminish the claim for tithe in proportion to the yield of the land, and à fortiori if the land yields no tithe you should have no remedy. On what grounds do the Government justify the reduction of the tithe in the case where the rent is in a certain degree less than the tithe, or more than a certain proportion of the tithe? Yet here is a proviso introduced into the Bill for giving a remedy against land which yields nothing at all. It really is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, although I do not advise taking a Division on the Amendment, it is still open to us to object to the whole principle, for clearly it is an absolute contradiction of the principle on which the Bill stands, the reduction of the claim for tithe in proportion to the yield of the land. Where the land yields nothing at all there is no revenue for tithe.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: This section is not to apply merely to land that yields no-produce, it applies to cases of land where at the time of distress there is not sufficient on the land to answer the distress, and the two cases are entirely different. During a large part of the year the bulk of the land of a farm may have nothing on it capable of being distrained upon.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: At what time of the year?
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: Take pasture land where during the winter months there may be nothing to distrain upon. Then, again, take orchards, where there may be for a considerable time no produce capable of distraint. I know a case in Kent to which this section was applied. An orchard had not produced any kind of fruit worth gathering for several years. Tithe had accrued, there was nothing on the land to distrain, and this section was put in force. It was manured, dug, pruned, and cultivated by the clergyman of the parish, and he afterwards took a crop of fruit, and

  1459
  partially paid himself. The tenant in I that case afterwards issued a writ of supersedeas, and having paid the balance of what was due for the tithe and the expenses, resumed possession. There is no doubt that unless this power to take possession is retained as a final remedy there will be cases of perfectly good land paying rent, from which it will be almost impossible to obtain tithe if the landlord and tenant together resist it.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Surely we can come to an agreement on this, which is merely a verbal Amendment, and then come to the main Question.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS: I wish to move the insertion of an Amendment after the word "lands," and my object is this: As has just been mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, occasionally there is land which at certain times of the year is bereft of all chattels on which distraint could be levied. It would be possible, if the words remain in the clause, for the tithe owner to drop upon these lands at that particular season when there would be no distraint available, and thereupon having proved to the Court that there had been an attempt to seize, but without avail, a writ of habere facias possessionem would be put in force. I am not taking a merely theoretical objection—it has proved a very practical difficulty. Some little time ago in Denbigh a hardship of the kind did arise. There was accommodation pasture land upon which a tithe owner gave notice of his intention to distrain. That notice was given when there was a large number of cattle on the land. The notice was given in August, the ten days expired, and the tenant expected distraint. But the tithe owner did not distrain. He waited until late in the season, when the pasture was exhausted, and two months afterwards, when the tenant in the ordinary course of farming operations withdrew, on the approach of winter weather, his cattle to the homestead—this, understand, was mountain land, accommodation land some miles from the homestead—then the tithe owner dropped upon the land, sent the bailiff, got him to swear there was
  1460
  nothing to distrain upon, and made application for a writ of habere facias possessionem. This application was resisted, and the tenant, through counsel, undertook that if the writ was not issued he would put sufficient distress upon the land to meet the tithe, and assured the Court that the cattle were taken off in the ordinary course of farming. Yet still it was held that there being no distress at the time the bailiff went there, and there being no such proviso as this I am about to propose, the Court was bound to issue, and did issue the writ. Now, in Wales there is a considerable amount of pasture land in the mountain districts which from the end of October to April or the beginning of May is free from any cattle; mountain land upon which no cattle, horses, or sheep can live during the winter. Without the words I propose, a tithe owner, for the simple purpose of annoyance, and to put a tenant to heavy costs, could wait until the winter, then send his bailiff up to the mountain, prove there was no distress, and apply for a writ. I propose, therefore, that it shall be open to the tenant to show that the want of distress was simply a temporary one in the ordinary course of farming, that in the ordinary season there would be sufficient distress, and that, therefore, the writ ought not to issue.
  Amendment proposed, in line 2 of the said Amendment, after the word "lands," to insert the words—
  "and there is no probability that the re will, in the ordinary course of farming, be sufficient distress thereon."—(Mr. Bryn Roberts.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member proposes to throw a very difficult duty on the Court in requiring it to decide on a matter of probability. The Court can only decide on the matter of fact whether there was an absence of distress. Moreover, the hon. Member assumes most extraordinary conduct on the part of the tithe owner when he supposes he will act, as is suggested, for the sake of annoying the tithepayer. The object of the tithe owner is to get his tithe paid, and therefore he will not levy his distress at a time when he knows there is nothing to distrain upon. It is not reasonable to suppose the tithe

  1461
  owner will act in such a way simply to annoy the tithepayer, for he will annoy himself a great deal more if he levies distress at such a time in order to obtain the alternative remedy of entry on the land, for he will then have to cultivate or stock it himself. I cannot think that it is necessary to insert such an Amendment as this.
  (6.29.) The House divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 205.—(Div. List, No. 94.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to move to insert the words—
  "After notice given to and hearing of the owner and occupier of the said lands."
  I desire to point out that the sub-section as it stands will enable the Court on the mere ex parte statement of a bailiff to issue a writ of habere facias possessionem. That, I think, is undesirable, and accordingly I move to insert words providing that before the writ can be sued out notice shall be given to the owner and occupier of the lands, and an opportunity afforded for their being hoard. The proposal of the sub-section will be a very expensive process. In the first place there will be the appearance before the County Court Judge, which will count for something, then there is the order of the Judge for the suing out of the writ, then there is the preparation of the affidavit in the country and the application in Chambers in London for the inquisition. That means two separate sets of solicitors, and means the employments of counsel here, the preparation of affidavits, and the hearing in Chambers of the whole of the facts which ought to have been heard in the County Court. Then after the High Court has issued the writ another writ is issued to the Sheriff—a writ of inquisition to inquire into the amount of arrears due in respect of the tithe rent-charge. Then there is the return made by the Sheriff to the Court again, and after that there is another process. According to the proposal as it stands it would involve three separate processes to try this one simple question—the ex parte statement to the County Court Judge, the application to the Court, and the trial before the Sheriff. The Sheriff has to pay the jury, and the hearing of a writ of inquisition before the Sheriff is not an inexpensive process. There are further fees to be paid, besides solicitors and witnesses
  1462
  costs. If these words of mine were introduced, the result would be that the bailiff, in making his application to the County Court Judge, would be cross-examined by the owners and occupiers as to the circumstances upon which he came to the conclusion that there was no distress on the farm. In the only case I know where this writ was issued, before the bailiff entered, the cattle had been driven to another farm. The cattle were only temporarily absent; but, simply because he did not for the moment discover anything distrainable on the property, the Sheriff returned that there was nothing on which distraint could be levied, and all these processes had to be gone through in order to seize the land for the purpose of discharging the tithe rent-charge, whereas if he had waited a short time he would have discovered the cattle. To meet cases of that character and prevent tithe owners from entering upon expensive and unnecessary processes, I propose the simple method of giving notice to the owner and occupier to appear before the Court. If the bailiff, on the first visit, finds there is not sufficient distress, the Court would call in the owner to give a sort of undertaking that when the officer visited the farm on the second occasion he should find sufficient distress. No occupier, or professional man representing him before the Court, would think of breaking his word after giving an undertaking of that description.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 2 of the said Amendment, after the word "may," to insert the words "after notice given to, and hearing of, the owner and occupier of the said lands."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I have no objection to dealing with the substance of the Amendment, but I think the particular line the right hon. Gentleman has taken does not meet the case. It is not necessary to put in the owner, as we are only dealing with the question of there being sufficient distress on the premises. I would suggest that the words should run—
  "After such service on the occupier, if necessary, as may be prescribed, and after hearing such occupier if he desires to he heard."

  1463
  The words "if necessary" would be to meet the case of derelict farms, and it was in respect of those farms that this clause was inserted.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will withdraw my Amendment in favour of that of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lords Amendment amended, by inserting in line 2, after the word "court," the words—
  "After such service on the occupier, if any, as may be prescribed, and after hearing such occupier if he desires to be heard."
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: The Amendment says the writ of habere facias possessionem shall be in accordance with Section 82 of the Tithe Act of 1836. But the latter part of the clause incorporates a certain part of Section 83 of the Act of 1836. The man in possession is bound to furnish accounts to the Court under which he acts under this section; and there are also forms by which the man in possession can be put out. Should not the man in possession be obliged to present accounts to the Court, as he is under the Act of 1836?
  Amendment proposed, in line 4 of the said Amendment, after the words "eighty-two," to insert the words "and eighty-three."—(Captain Bethell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'and eighty-three' be there inserted."
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: When there is no distress the receivership is practically determined, and the matter is handed over to the Superior Court. My hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd-George) was mistaken in supposing that the process of writ of inquiry by the Sheriff will be at all necessary. I apprehend it will not be necessary. On the production of an order of the County Court Judges an officer of the Superior Court should issue the writ of habere facias possessionem, and possession would be taken. It would have been better, I think, if the Bill had provided that the County Court Judge should, on facts being proved before him to justify an application to the Superior Court, have had powers conferred upon him to make an order in the nature of a writ of possession. Then jurisdiction should have been given to the County Court
  1464
  Judge to require the tithe owner to render an account of his possession of the property, and to grant an order for determining the possession. The process would then have been more simple. I suppose now it is too late for the Government to adopt that suggestion, but if, at any future time, the Act is amended, this must be done, in order to cheapen and simpify procedure.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: There is not the slightest intention of relieving a-person who has taken possession of the land from obligations such as are contained in the existing law. The idea in referring to Section 82 of the Act of 1836, was to get a starting point. The County Court would be able to do that which was pointed out by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bolton). It would be a matter of form.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON: I have an Amendment on the Paper, but I do not think it will be necessary for me to move it, as I believe the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade proposes an alteration which will remove my objection. It does not altogether satisfy me, but it is sufficiently satisfactory to render it, unnecessary for me to go on with my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  "At the end of the said Amendment, to add the words 'and either to cultivate the lands in a good and husbandlike manner according to the custom of the country, or, if he lets the land, to bind the tenant so to cultivate them.' "—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)
  Question proposed, "That those words, be there added."
  MR. BEADEL: I beg to suggest that, instead of the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman being added after the word "waste," they should be inserted after the word "obligation" in the preceding line, the effect being that the person obtaining possession shall be under an obligation either to cultivate the land in a good and husband like way according to the custom of the country, or, if he should let the land, to bind the tenant so to cultivate it.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: This illustrates the difficulty we have in discussing Amendments of so technical and compli-

  1465
  cated a nature, especially when they have not been put upon the Paper. As the case stands, it would seem that the man who takes possession cannot turn out the man who has possession at the time of entry, but could put another tenant in his place. I would advise my hon. Friend to ask the Government to postpone the further consideration of this clause, so that we may have further time to consider it. It certainly raises very important questions of a complicated and technical nature, which we not only want to consider ourselves, but upon which we may require to take the advice of experts.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I would certainly join in the request that the Government should postpone this clause, because I feel serious doubts as to whether the County Court Judge has the power to make such an order as is suggested. Is it proposed that the County Court should have power to make an order in the nature of a writ of possession, power to take accounts and have control of the property, power to put the tithe owner in possession, and to exercise a certain control while he is in possession, and further power to make another order in the nature of a writ of supersedeas to give re-possession of the land to the landowner? This is very serious and important, as it empowers the putting in of the tithe owner not only to hold and use the land, but to let it; he may, if he sees fit, turn out the tenant in possession and put in a new tenant, granting a tenancy from year to year. In the last case this tenant could not be got out under two years' notice. I am not opposing this power; but I hope we shall have further opportunity of considering the clause, and, in saying this, I would remind the Government I have supported the Bill consistently, and that I am not, therefore, likely to make any suggestion that is not in the best spirit.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I can confirm the statement of my hon. Friend behind me, that he has given valuable support to the Government on this Bill, and I would venture to point out that we are now in exactly the position we were in when this very clause was in Committee. When it came to be discussed in Committee it was found that it was surrounded by so many difficulties,
  1466
  and that there were so many points which required to be gravely considered, that after debating it for several hours the Government, in order to allow the clause to be placed on a respectable footing, said they would deal with it on the-Report. When we came to the Report stage the clause was still found to be surrounded by so many difficulties that the Government then thought the best thing they could do was to abandon it. But now, without further consideration, the clause is sent down from the House of Lords and we are asked to pass it in a form the Government did not think it right to put it in when it was in this. House before. I say that this is not fair; and I feel that the appeal which is now made to the Government is a just one, namely, that if the clause is to be persisted in we should have further time to consider it. Either let the Government do as they did in Committee and on the Report of the Bill in this House, and abandon the clause, or, if they think it of such importance that they must press it, let them give us-more time to consider it. One very serious question has just been raised. I was not in the House when the Attorney General spoke, but I should be very much surprised to hear him pledge himself to the opinion that the County Court can issue a writ of fieri facias possessionem. In my opinion that does not lie-in the jurisdiction of the County Court. If you refer to Section 82 of the Tithe Act it will be seen that it never contemplated the issue of a writ by the County Court. It assumes that that can only be done by a Superior Court, and the reference made in this Bill, in my opinion, only authorises an application to a Superior Court to issue such a writ. I should be much astonished if the Attorney General said the clause gives any authority to the County Court which it does not now possess. Under Section 82 there was power to have an inquisition before a jury, but that is done away with, and therefore you are not leaving the law as it stood before, but are substituting for the inquisition as to the amount of rent recoverable what I regard as a very dangerous thing, because it certainly is a dangerous thing to deal with that Section 82 simply by inference. Had you re-enacted Section 82 or said it shall disappear, I could have understood it; but it seems to

  1467
  me that by the clause as it stands the law will be most materially altered—because you say, not by express words but by implication, if there is not sufficient distress on the land the Court may authorise the person entitled to recover to sue out a writ. That is not the way in which we ought to deal with difficult and delicate questions of jurisdiction. I hope Lord Selborne is not responsible for such slip-shod drafting as that of this clause. By Section 82 the rent-charge is to be in arrear if unpaid for the space of 40 days, and if there be no sufficient distress it is to be lawful for the Judges at the Courts of Westminster to order a writ to issue. Is that abolished? If so, show me the section and the words which abolish it. You cannot abolish it by implication. The Court is to require the bailiff to summon a jury to assess the arrears of the tithe rent-charge. Have you abolished that, or is it to go on? We never conceived such an absurdity as that contemplated by the hon. Member for Oldham—that all these preliminaries will have to be gone through before the County Court made the order. The people who drew this Amendment in the Lords have not seen that they were bound to abolish the jurisdiction already existing before they created a substituted jurisdiction. What is to prevent a man, before taking proceedings before the County Court, going to the Superior Court under Clause 82? What I want to know is whether all these antecedent processes which are referred to are to be abolished or to remain. If they are to remain, it is impossible to have anything more oppressive; if they are to be abolished, where are the words abolishing them? This Amendment must have been drawn in ignorance of the law, and I cannot attribute it to the authorship which the President of the Board of Trade has described. If the owner of the tithe rent charge can sue out a writ of habere facias possessionem what becomes of the writ of the High Court? You cannot abolish or create a jurisdiction without the use of careful, accurate, and statutory terms. These are important questions which the House ought to consider before abolishing jurisdictions of this kind, and creating an apparently new jurisdiction. Therefore, I urge the Government to give us time to consider how the law is to be
  1468
  altered. It is quite plain that you are not leaving the law as it is. The law is totally different to what is contemplated by this Amendment. If it is intended to insist on this proposal, I should support the Motion for Adjournment.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I can only speak with the indulgence of the House, and I should like to say at once that I made a mistake when I said that the County Court issued the process. There is no necessity for postponement, as the preliminary steps to which reference has been made would no longer be necessary.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The question is whether any writ can be issued without an inquisition upon the order of the County Court. There are no such words in Section 82, which imply that a writ can be issued without an inquisition. It is a condition precedent.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: That is a matter of opinion. The Statute says that the County Court may issue the writ, and, with due deference to the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt the proceedings may be taken up under Section 82, at the stage of the issue of the writ. At any rate, that is the procedure we contemplate. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman what is the necessity for this procedure. It has become necessary to deal with derelict farms, on which no distress could be levied. We have already provided for the protection of the occupier, if he desires to prevent the writ being issued. The writ being issued, it is desirable that further proceedings should be under the Act of 1836; not Section 82, as the right hon. Gentleman observed.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes; I beg pardon; the Act of 1836. Practically speaking, it is only after the issue of the writ that the machinery of the Act of 1836 is applied. I think no such difficulties as are anticipated will arise, and there is no necessity for postponement, because we do not propose to abolish the existing law.
  SIR H. DAVEY: If anything showed the necessity of further consideration of this question, it is the speech which the Attorney General has just made. With all his experience and learning, he stated an opinion which he now says was

  1469
  a mistake, and has stated a second opinion which he says is right. The effect of this clause is that a person has to go to the High Court, and whether that is a convenient procedure, and whether a man is to be knocked from one Court to another, I leave to the House to judge. But we have been under the impression that up to the present time the intention was to enable the County Court to issue the writ. The High Court has no jurisdiction except under Section 82 of the Act of 1836, and it cannot be denied, I think, that it can only issue the writ in accordance with the conditions prescribed by that section. I do not for one moment set up any opinion which I might be able to form in opposition to the opinion of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, but I think it must be obvious to the House that, whether his opinion is right or wrong—and I confess with the utmost humility it does not commend itself to my mind—we are legislating in the dark. We are asked to pass one of those sections which are too frequent in Acts of Parliament, and of which the framers do not know the meaning. Who pays to construe them? The suitors have to pay for construing Acts of Parliament. If the Attorney General had not given so clear an opinion, I should have said that it was almost impossible to argue that the fact of the County Court authorising a person to go to the High Court of Justice under Section 82 could mean anything else than that the preliminary proceedings in that section, by which the High Court acquires its jurisdiction, are to be complied with. And if that is so, I fail to see how the writ will be issued in accordance with Section 82. I may be, probably am, wrong, but if there is a particle of doubt, I would suggest to those who have charge of the Bill, that they should put the clause in such a form that plain people who read it may understand it.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I beg to join in the request to the Government that this matter be postponed. I think if we had time to consider the matter, by to-morrow we could make the clause perfectly clear.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Government fully appreciate the difficulty
  1470
  of the subject, and are far from desiring the House to come to a decision upon it without full consideration. The question before the House is the insertion of the words which I have moved. I would suggest, if the course is in order, that those words shall be inserted, and that then the Debate on the question whether the House shall agree with the clause-shall be adjourned untilafter the consideration of the other Amendments.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the proposal is to adjourn the consideration of this clause until after the other Amendments are disposed of. Such a. course is novel; but if it meet with the general consent of the House I will not, under the circumstances, object to it, provided the Motion is made by the Minister in charge and that it meets with the general assent of the House.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It is evident that this clause has been brought forward without due consideration. There are only two courses open to us; either to postpone the Bill or to drop this clause altogether.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Oh, oh!
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The noble Lord, who seems to consider himself in charge of the Bill, will, I suppose, tell the Government what they are to do. After the argument of the hon. Member for Stockton—than whom, despite his modesty, we could have no higher authority—we know that this question is not even arguable. Under the Act of 1836' the High Court could alone issue the writ, and although as the Attorney General admitted, the Government intended that the writ should be issued by the County Court, we know now it cannot be done.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I made a mistake to-night in saying that the Government intended that the writ should be issued by the County Court.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Then the Government did not communicate their intentions to the hon. and learned Gentleman. No doubt they intended it should be so.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I have taken the full blame on myself. It is not a question of the Government communicating their intentions to me. I was responsible for the original suggestion. I have frankly said that I made a mistake in answering a question across the floor of this House,

  1471
  and of that the right hon. Gentleman may remind me as often as he chooses, but he must not misinterpret my position.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I did not intend to do so. It was originally intended that jurisdiction in these matters should be transferred to the County Court, but it is now quite clear that that has not been done, and that it remains with the High Court. I think we ought to prolong this Debate, unless the Government choose to drop the clause out of the Bill.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: The proposal embodied in the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade does not altogether meet the views of my friends and myself. The whole subject is so complicated that the more the House attempts to deal with it the more difficult it appears. At the earliest moment I shall move the rejection of the clause altogether, so that we may return to the position occupied when the House first went into Committee. I do not wish to be unfair either to the tithe owner or the tithepayer.
  SIR J. PEASE: It seems, from the proposition made in such a fair spirit by the President of the Board of Trade, that this clause must be amended, and I therefore think it would be much better for the Government to take up some other business for the remainder of the evening, and endeavour, before again bringing this matter on, to amend the clause in a practical way. At present, so far as we have been able to gather from the Debate, the lawyers on both sides of the House are unable to understand it, and, therefore, I am sure that laymen cannot be expected to do so. When the clause is brought forward in a form in which it is possible to understand it, I think we shall be able to discuss the matter. I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I beg to second that.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: It is quite clear that as this Amendment now stands we cannot put it into a satisfactory shape. I think the best course would be to disagree with the clause,
  1472
  and then leave it to their Lordships to endeavour to put it in another and more satisfactory form. If we adopt that plan, and the clause is sent down to us in an acceptable shape, it will be open to us to discuss the matter. That, I hold, is the only course it is practicable to adopt.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I agree with the hon. Member for Stockport that it is desirable we should agree with the Lords' Amendment.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I had hoped my suggestion would have met with general acceptance, as it would not have placed any hon. Member in a worse position; but as there seems to be a determination on both sides not to accept the clause in its present form, time may be saved by disagreeing with it forthwith. This course will be adopted by the Government, but only on the complete understanding that we are free as to the course we may adopt in regard to the subject both here and in the other House.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment to the said Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended," put, and agreeed to.
  Page 2, line 28, after "1836," to insert the words—
  "And where any of such lands are held at one rent together with other lands in another parish, the court shall apportion the rent between the said lands and the lands in the other parish in proportion to their rateable value,"
  the next Amendment, read a second time, amended, and agreed to.
  Several Amendments agreed to.
  Page 3, line 4, after the word "prescribed," to insert the words—
  "And hearing of such occupier if he appears and desires to be heard. Any owner of the lands who fails to serve such notice as aforesaid on the owner of the tithe rent-charge, shall not be entitled to recover from the occupier any sum which he has paid on account of tithe rent-charge as aforesaid, unless and until he has, after notice to the occupier of his application for the same, obtained from the county court a certificate that the failure to give such notice was not intentional, and that the occupier has not been prejudiced thereby,"
  the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Amendment proposed, in line 2 of the said Amendment, to leave out the words "and desires to be heard."—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in line 6 of the Raid Amendment, to leave out from the word "aforesaid," to the end of the said Amendment.—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said Amendment."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment amended, in line 9, by inserting, after the word "That," the words "there was good and sufficient cause for," and leaving out the words "was not intentional."
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended," put, and agreed to.
  Amendments, as far as Clause B, agreed to.
  Clause B (Lands occupied rent free), the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I think this is the proper place to move the Amendment to leave out from "order," to the end of the clause, in order to insert the following words:—
  "Sum ordered to be recovered or the portion thereof remaining unpaid shall, until payment thereof, he a charge upon the interest in the lands of the owner of such lands, but such charge shall not be enforceable by sale until a year has elapsed after the creation thereof."
  This is one of the most important Amendments which the other House has made. It is intended to meet cases where the rent of the land is insufficient—where the receiver has nothing to receive, and where, consequently, the tithe owner cannot get the tithe. The question was raised when the Bill was in Committee in this House and the Government failed to grapple with it. This proposal, I take it, has been inserted with the concurrence of the Government, and we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman that the 'Government mean to adhere to it. I hope that the House will understand the
  1474
  meaning of it. In any case where the rent is insufficient to satisfy the tithe rent-charge, the Government have actually come to the conclusion that the occupier shall, in consequence of the default of the landlord, be subject to distress and have to pay, not only the tithe, but also the costs. Certainly one noble Lord proposed to give the occupier interest at the rate of 4 per cent.; but if the rent is not sufficient to pay the tithe what chance will the occupier have of getting from an impecunious landlord, not only what he has paid, but also the interest? Let us take a concrete case: A man takes a farm for fourteen years, and in consideration of erecting certain buildings he is to have it for the first seven years at a peppercorn rent. During that time he may be saddled with the payment of tithe and not have a chance of getting anything back till the eighth year. I say it would be most unfair to make the tithe in such a case as that provided for in the clause rest on the occupier. It ought to be a charge on the land. Is this House going to allow the money which ought to be expended in the improvement and cultivation of the land to be taken out of the pockets of the occupier for the benefit of the landlord, a miserable 4 per cent. on the money being allowed the occupier? There was a difficulty, but the Government have dealt with it in the worst possible manner, in the most oppressive manner against the occupier, they could devise. What is to be done if this Amendment is neglected, and I hope the House will neglect it. It is not, for us to propose a remedy. The Government have thought fit to stir up the question of tithe, and if they find difficulties facing them it is for themselves to find a means of getting out of them. But if the Government say they cannot suggest anything which would be more consonant with justice than the Amendment on the Paper, I think I can suggest a better remedy. I propose there shall be a charge on the land. That is not a hardship upon the landlord. The obligation to pay rests upon the landlord, and, therefore, you ought not to do anything which is oppressive to the occupier. The proposal I made originally was that there should be a sale of the land, but I made the proposal without sufficient consideration, and I agree its operation would not be

  1475
  fair to the landlord. But if the landlord does not pay, if he likes to make an arrangement with his tenant and gets the upper hand in any bargain with the tenant, it is upon him that the Government ought to saddle a new obligation under an Amendment of this kind. I beg to propose my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in line 7 of the said Amendment, to leave out from the word "the," to the end of the said Amendment, and insert the words—
  "Sum ordered to be recovered or the portion thereof remaining unpaid shall, until payment thereof, be a charge upon the interest in the lands of the owner of such lands, but such charge shall not he enforceable by sale until a year has elapsed after the creation thereof."—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said Amendment."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The hon. Gentleman and his friends recognise there is a difficulty to be dealt with. They proposed some time ago to find a remedy in the sale of the land, but they have abandoned that proposal. What is the difficulty which has to be met? It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has pointed out, that the discussion initiated on the previous stage of the Bill has opened people's eyes to a way in which the payment of tithe could be evaded. Let us take a simple case: Suppose a landlord and tenant enter into an agreement whereby the tenant says "instead of paying you £50 a year rent for 10 years I will pay you £400 down." The occupier knows perfectly well that tithe is due and would become due from year to year; he knows the land is worth £50 a year, but he elects to pay a proportionately smaller sum down in order that neither party may be required to pay tithe. I submit there is no hardship in such a case in putting the occupier in the position of owner. I appeal to the House to consider what is the best and fairest way of dealing with such an attempt to evade the payment of tithe, You cannot sell the reversioner's interest; that is an impracticable remedy. When you are dealing with land which is fairly worth from year to year more than the tithe, you ought to provide that the tithe should he received in anno in anno. Take a case where a
  1476
  tenant agrees not to pay rent for say seven years, but to spend what he otherwise would pay as rent upon farm buildings. I submit that in such a case the tithe owner ought not to be deprived of his tithe.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Suppose, as very often happens, the occupier says, "I must have farm buildings" and the landlord says, "I am a poor man, I cannot afford to erect buildings, but if you will erect them I will let you off the rent for seven years."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: That is simply a re-statement of my proposition. Surely the hon. Member does not mean to suggest he would countenance a bargain whereby a poor unfortunate clergyman would be deprived of £10 which might be due to him as tithe. The clause contemplates cases in which it is the bonâ fide and willing purpose of the occupier-to do something other than pay rent. If it is the willing purpose of the occupier to pay his rent otherwise than through the proper channel, we ought to protect the clergyman in his claim on the land. I do hope that when hon. Members argue this question, they will not change the premisses upon which my argument has proceeded. Those premisses are that if there is an annual value, and the landlord is willing that that annual value shall be replaced by bricks and mortar, the tithe owner shall not be deprived of his tithe. Justice and equity dictate that the tithe owner ought to be protected in case such a bargain is made, and the proper remedy is that suggested by this clause. (8.10.)
  MR. STUART RENDEL: It cannot but be matter of regret to some of us that a question we regard as of much greater importance than other questions dealt with earlier in the evening should have come on for discussion in a very thin House. We have had the advantage of a full explanation of the Government view from the Attorney General, and he has courteously challenged us to meet him in argument, only stipulating that we should not depart from the case he has put before us.
  (8.47.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  *MR. STUART RENDEL: The Attorney General has stipulated that we should keep strictly to the case he has submitted, and I will endeavour to do so. This lacuna in the Government measure has been discovered by my hon. Friend (Mr. S. T. Evans), whose grasp of the whole subject has been admitted by the House, and we have to consider the Government proposal to fill it under the disadvantage of having been able to give only scant attention to the proposal. Now, why is it that the Attorney General assumes that exceptional security is required in the circumstances of land, the rent of which has been paid by premium, and is not payable year by year; and why, if there is to be this extra security for the tithe owner, is the occupier to be at the cost of it? I do not know whether the Attorney General would like an innocent layman to suppose that any legal liability for tithe rests upon the occupier, that the occupier under any circumstances is to be a guarantor of the tithe on behalf of the owner? The occupier surely is no more bound to take cognizance, whether the tithe is paid or not by the landowner, than he is bound to take cognisance whether the landowner has paid his Land Tax or any other of his personal liabilities? I do not think that it is sufficient argument to use now to say that the occupier should bear the brunt of this. That there are tithe owners in circumstances of great distress, that there are, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, parsons in circumstances that excite our sympathy, may be true—and we cannot but consider that these circumstances reflect the greatest discredit upon the landed class in Wales on whose behalf the system exists; but why the occupier should be held responsible in this case I cannot understand, unless it comes from old traditional usage which made the occupier liable for the tithe. No doubt, in the operation of the Act of 1836, the occupier has been largely held liable where he ought not to have been, and the single merit of the present measure is that the occupier is relieved from this liability. It seems to me that it is a contradiction of the general spirit of the measure to attempt to treat the tenant as an additional security for tithe. To take the kind of example cited by the Attorney General—an occupier who
  1478
  agrees to pay for a 10 years' lease of a farm worth £50 a sum of £400 down. It is the contention of the Attorney General that the occupier in making his bargain ought to consider the liability of the land to tithe. But why? Why is a tenant to be so alive to this particular liability of the landlord any more than to any other? But granting that the man is quick enough to know all the circumstances, why is he, in consequence of his having paid £400 for the farm, to be placed under a special liability that would not naturally exist? Surely, if any one is to be placed under exceptional liability, it is not the man who has paid the £400, but the man who has got it—the man who has taken the immediate benefit, and not the person who has acted in all innocence and good faith, and with no intention of entering upon this new liability. It is a similar case to that brought forward by my hon. Friend (Mr. S. T. Evans)—a more direct case, where a tenant or occupier agrees to provide buildings or improvements necessary for occupation of the farm, the landlord not being in a position to find these and the tenant undertaking these receives a lease on beneficial terms. When the tenant has then and there, by the terms of his bargain, parted with his rent in advance, now, is it reasonable to say, that he is to bear the burden of this new arrangement, and not the man who has received the full immediate benefit? I suggest that the saddle is being put upon the wrong horse. I can only conjecture that this is from old, unfortunate habit, too long followed. It is not for us to suggest the remedy; this is a Government measure, for which we are not in any degree responsible. I confess it is beyond my power to suggest one, but, none the less, we are entitled, and indeed bound, in the interest of the occupier, to indicate to the best of our power the injustice that will arise by this means of meeting a difficulty—a difficulty which will be sure to arise more frequently in the future. It is opposed to the general spirit of the measure, which is to transfer the burden of tithe from the occupier to the owner.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: It is certainly a singular thing that this blot in the Bill was not discovered in the passage of the Bill through the House before it went to another place.

  1479
  The discovery is due to the acuteness of my hon. Friend and his special knowledge of this subject. The effect of the clause, as it stands, has been fairly stated by my hon. Friend. It is to make the occupier liable for the default of the owner. Surely the proper course would be to give a statutory remedy, not against the occupier, but against the owner—against the man who actually made default. The whole thing is full of difficulties, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, that he should pursue the same course with regard to this Amendment as he followed with regard to the Amendment recently disposed of. The clause, as it now stands, is calculated to work serious injustice.
  MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON: If there is anyone who will be tired of these Debates, I should think it will be the poor clergyman, who is trotted out on every possible occasion. The Attorney General has once again appealed to our sympathy on his behalf. It seems to me that such appeals betoken a very weak case, because the poor clergymen for whom the Attorney General pleads belong to the richest Church in the world, and it is ridiculous to suppose that the members of that Church would allow a clergyman to starve for the sake of £10 a year. The Government have, in effect, said: "The clergy are very poor fellows; help them out of the landlords' pockets." I object to that. The clergy are practically being helped, to the disadvantage of the landlords, and for the very reason that landlords are no longer to be allowed to let their farms to the best advantage. I have no doubt there are thousands of instances in the country where landlords have let their farms for 7, 10, and 14 years, on the understanding that for the first few years the rent shall be low, and higher in future years. If this Amendment from the Lords becomes law, it will be no longer possible for a needy landlord to so let his farms. Indeed, he will have taken away from him the only possible means of letting his farms at all. Again, some landlords let farms at a low rent in consideration of the tenant putting up buildings. It is said this should not be allowed; but it seems to me that if the land is of so little value, that the reduced rent con sequent on building's being put up by
  1480
  the tenant would put it below the annual value arrived at by valuers, it-would be of advantage to the tithe owner that the buildings should be put up, because, although he would be a sufferer for a few years, he would be a gainer in the long run. The two cases I have given are far more common and likely to occur than the exceptional case which the Attorney General gave us of a landlord accepting £400 or £500 down in order to escape the payment of tithe. I was shocked when I read the suggestion made in another place that landlords were to be found who, for the sake of swindling the tithe owners, would agree with their tenants to take less rent. What would the Representatives of the tithe owners in this House say if we came here and attributed bad and unfair motives to them? I hope the Government will see their way to consent to the entire rejection of the Amendment. It contains a very unfair innuendo against the landlords, and, in addition, it will simply bring about what the Government have all along tried to avoid—that is to say, riots and troubles arising from distraining on the occupier. If the promoters of the Bill wish to secure the ostensible object with which the measure was brought forward, they will consent to the withdrawal of the Amendment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The weakness of the defence of the Government on this clause is, that it assumes that the clause will only be applied to cases in which collusion exists between the landlords and tenants. That is not the case. It will affect persons who have entered into a perfectly bonâ fide agreement. There is nothing easier than to give the County Court Judge some discretion to discriminate between the two cases. I believe the only object of the Government is to reach cases of collusion, and that object would be amply met by conferring such a discretion on the County Court Judge. It strikes me that the Government have not in the slightest degree aimed at refuting the arguments adduced on both sides of the House against the Lords Amendment. Take a case in which an owner lets his land to the occupier at a premium. Supposing land lies fallow for some years, it requires the expenditure of a considerable amount of capital to restore it to something like good condition. How will this section operate in such a case?

  1481
  The landowner may be impoverished by the number of years his land has been out of cultivation, and may be unable to spend all the money that is needed to restore the land to proper condition. An agriculturist may say—
  "If you will let me this land for, say, ten years, I will spend so much money, and at the end of the ten years I will pay so much rent."
  In a case of that kind the occupier will be punished for entering into a perfectly fair transaction, and one that is in the interest of the occupier and of the public. The Government seem to have ignored the interest of the public. It is to their interest that the land should have all this capital spent upon it; but the Government, by this section, would be penalising the action of capitalists who desire to restore the land to a state of cultivation. It would be inflicting a punishment on persons who are desirous of benefitting themselves, and the owners and the public, by cultivating these lands. Again, the clause "will be a hardship on the occupier. It will refer to contracts prior to the passing of this Act. No power of this character was incorporated in the Act of 1836, therefore nothing of this sort could have been in contemplation when the agreements referred to were entered into, and there cannot have been collusion. But this Amendment would be of so sweeping a character that it would affect agreements entered into prior to the passing of the Act. It would inflict hardships on the bonâ fide occupiers. I observe that these words are in the clause, "provided that every such occupier shall be entitled in addition to any other remedy." I suppose that means the occupier may, if he is compelled to pay the tithe under the clause, draw upon the owner. But the remedy given to the occupier is perfectly useless in the case of impecunious persons who let their land on the condition that the tenant spends money upon it. In such a case the occupier who has, perhaps, been finding-labour and improving the farm may find himself penalised to the extent of £50 a year. I would suggest that the clause should be confined to cases where the County Court Judge considers that there has been collusion. I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House must be not only agreed but eager to find a remedy so that the tithe owner may not be defrauded. I think the
  1482
  County Court Judge should be allowed discretion in the matter, and that the Government should compare the operation of the clause to agreements entered into after the passing of the Act, because there could not have been agreements prior to it, such a law as this never having been contemplated.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I deny that there is any hardship to the occupier involved in the Lords' Amendment. What is proposed is in operation now in the case of the Landlords' Income Tax. The tenant is the man upon whom the officers of Her Majesty's Revenue come down and insist upon paying the Landlords' Income Tax. The tenant is the only man who can be forced to pay in the first instance, and the remedy which the tenant has is precisely the remedy which is given to the occupier in this. Bill. A tenant has a right to deduct the Landlord's Income Tax from the rent he pays, and if the landlord declines to acknowledge the debt he is liable to a fine of £100. A similar state of things is proposed in the case of tithe. Where is the hardship to the occupier? He will have his remedy against the landlord. The section is intended to provide against collusion. There are no doubt landlords who will endeavour to evade the payment of the tithe rent-charge, and the method suggested seems to me an excellent one to frustrate any such unlawful endeavour.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: We are all familiar with the fact that the hon. Member who has just sat down is the champion of the tithe owner. We have heard the claims of the tithe owner put pretty high, and the privileges of the parson elevated sufficiently in former discussions, but when the hon. Member puts tithe owners on a par with Her Majesty's Exchequer, to which are given remedies unknown in any other case, I think he is a little too strong. It if admitted that the man who is to pay is not the right man; but because it is difficult to get at the right man, it is intended to make the wrong man pay, and let him get his remedy from the right man if he can. Everyone admits that the owner should pay, and having made that a principle of your Bill you then go at the occupier and say he shall pay this and recover it from the owner if and how he can. As

  1483
  my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Lloyd-George) pointed out, he may be a perfectly impecunious man; therefore, you may be making a man who ought not to do so pay the money without any remedy at all against the man who, it is admitted, ought to pay. I hold that in the majority of these cases the landowners will be impecunious persons, and it is the habit of impecunious people to try and get money down for their present necessities. The landlord in these cases will be a man who will go to the tenant and ask for £500 down in order that he may go to, say, Monte Carlo. He gets his £500, and when that is spent what remedy will the tenant have against him? Can anything be more grossly and monstrously absurd? Do right hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that when an Act of this kind comes to be applied against the tenant farmers of England and the people of Wales they will not cry shame upon the Government? As the hon. Member below the Gangway has pointed out, it is not only to cases of collusion that this Bill is to be applied, but to all contracts entered into before the passing of the Bill. What sense or justice is there in that? A more gross and monstrous piece of injustice than is proposed in this clause it is impossible to conceive. I do not know whether this is one of the clauses for which the Government is responsible, or whether they will say, as they have said in other cases, "Please, Sir, it was the other boy, Lord Selborne." That is the line the Government are prepared to take in these Amendments, and they say that Lord Selborne is such a good boy that whatever he proposes must be right. To take an instance from criminal law: Suppose that the police, being very anxious to punish "Jack the Kipper," took hold of the first man they could find, who was the wrong man, and put the penalty upon him, but made a proviso that he should recover against the right man, could anything be more monstrous? Yet that is exactly the proposal now made. Because you are not clever enough to get at the right man you go at the wrong man. This Bill will apply to all the tenures in the country, some of which were more common in past times than they are now. Ecclesiastical property was formerly held on beneficial leases, yet that is precisely the class of lease which it will be
  1484
  unjust to bring under this clause. The clergy wish to have it both ways—to introduce, in fact, a new kind of "benefit of clergy." Because people are clergy it does not release them from their ordinary obligations to their fellow-creatures. Such a proposition as that contained in the clause before the House could not be made except on behalf of some privileged class of the community. If there is a difficulty, let hon. Gentlemen opposite devise some means to obviate it, and of getting at the right man. It is not for me to suggest the means. Hon. Gentlemen opposite remind me of a picture in Punch, in which were represented a number of rustics, one of whom said, "Here's a stranger; let's heave half a brick at him." Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to say, "Here's an occupier! Let's heave half a brick at him," and let him recover against the owner if he can. A more discreditable proposal never emanated from so august a place as that from which this comes. I will do the Government the credit of saying they have never had the face to make such a proposal to the House of Commons. A proposal so iniquitously unjust and so entirely in favour of landowners could never have come from any place except the House of Lords. We are accustomed to strange proposals from the House of Lords, and this is certainly as strange a proposal as ever came from there. I hope we shall offer the most determined opposition to it, and discuss it fully so that the people affected will understand it, and know by whom it is being done and the quarter whence it proceeds. Here is a Bill which proposes to lay the liability for tithe upon the owner, and now it is amended by the House of Lords so as to lay the burden upon the occupier, and leave him to recover as best he can. If he succeeds in recovering, he is to have 4 per cent. for his money. I hope the House will strongly resist this iniquitous demand upon the tenant-farmers of England—to advance money which they do not owe, leaving them to take their chance of getting it back again from the people who ought to pay.
  MAJOR RASCH: I think the hypothetical case put by the Attorney General is hardly sufficient to justify the introduction of this clause. I always understood that the great redeeming points of the Bill

  1485
  were reduction of tithe, in. accordance with the altered value of agriculture, and payment by the landlord instead of the occupier. It seems to me that by this clause the last and greatest advantage of all is taken away from us.
  MR. ROBY: I have listened, as far as I can, to the cases which have been put forward, and I find they are three in number. One refers to derelict estates, which cannot come under the clause at all. They will be put out by the 5th clause, which says that if the tithe exceeds two-thirds of the annual value then it shall be reduced in proportion. Secondly, as to cases of collusion between landlord and tenant to avoid the tithe rent-charge, this clause would only govern contracts made before the passing of the Act, and could not therefore include cases of collusion. Again, if there are cases of collusion, why in the world should you fall upon the occupier rather than upon the owner? One will probably have received something in the nature of rent, and upon him the burden ought to lie. The other case was that put by the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan, of a tenant having taken a farm for a considerable period of time on the understanding that he was to lay out a considerable amount upon it. To make the occupier pay in such a case would be contrary to the very purpose and object of the Bill. The original Act of 1836 enabled the landlord to pay through the occupier. The remedy proposed by this Bill is to throw the payment on the landlord; yet, in a case where the occupier has been laying out money upon the estate, you actually say that he shall pay the tithe rent-charge, and not the landlord, and shall have his chance of recovering from the landlord. I have not heard a single case in which it would be be reasonable to get this money from the occupier. I think the Government must in all fairness see that, in accordance with the very object of their own Bill, they ought to endeavour to discover some means by which to put it upon the owner directly; and if they can devise no better means, let them accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: No one was more surprised than myself when I saw this clause introduced. I remember an Instruction of some three or four years age to the committee that
  1486
  tithe rent-charge should be recoverable from the landlords only. That principle was entirely accepted by Her Majesty's Government; but now we find that we are to have a re - introduction, under certain circumstances, of the process of recovery from the tenant. If the tithepayers of England had an advocate as able as the Attorney General has proved in behalf of the tithe owners, I do not think a proposal of this sort would have had a chance of success. We have heard a good deal about collusion between the tenants and the landlords to keep the tithe owner out of his tithe. I do not think there is much evidence of such a danger. Further, I would remind the House that the annual value of the land is to be decided by Schedule B of the Income Tax, which is sometimes far beyond the actual rent and tithe put together. We find overand overagain, where the rent has almost vanished, that the Income Tax is still something considerable. We have heard, Mr. Speaker, a great deal about the give-and-take principle; but we find that all the changes in the Bill are on behalf of the tithe owner, while the tithepayer is entirely neglected, so that these assertions about compromise and give and take scarcely hold water. If the Church wants to rush to her destruction, why this is the very way to proceed. If the tithe owners act in defiance of the principles recognised in the early stages of this Bill, they cannot be surprised if, when the day of reckoning comes, though I do not wish to see it come, if the farmers say that "Whoever are the tithe owners, they cannot be harder taskmasters than those we have had." The Bill as it left this House ought to have been considered sufficient as far as the tithe owners are concerned. I do hope this House will not go back upon the recognised principle of the Bill by once more making the tenant farmer liable; for surely if the landlord's credit is good enough for everybody else, it ought to be good enough for the tithe owner. Surely, if the task of endeavouring to devise some scheme which would afford sufficient protection to all parties were seriously approached by the lawyers in this House, they would be able to arrive at a solution of the knotty problem without any unnecessary interference with the interests of the tenants.
  MR. H. GARDNER: Whoever is responsible for this clause, whether the Government' or Lord Selborne, has framed it in a very singular way, because those who pose as friends of the farmers and the agricultural interest are supporting it solely on the assumption that the whole of the farmers and landlords of this country desire to enter into a fraudulent conspiracy to defraud the tithe owners. They suppose that labouring as the farmers do in all parts of the country, and especially in my own Division, under the effects of long-continued agricultural depression, they are ready to pay large sums of money to their landlords, and in collusion with them, for the simple purpose of defrauding the tithe owners of what is their just due. It seems to me that the proposal is preposterous. In previous Debates on this unfortunate Bill I warned the House that if it did not consider the interests of the tithe payers the day would come when the Tory tenant and yeomen farmers of England would find themselves in line—shoulder to shoulder—with those who are helping forward the disestablishment of the Church. When I made that statement it was received with derision; bat from the speech of my hon. Colleague opposite, it would appear that the words I then uttered were the absolute truth, which is now proved up to the hilt. If the Government rashly persist in bolstering up the tithe owners by clauses such as this, the farmers who have hitherto in the main supported the Tory Party will certainly at no distant day take action with those who seek the disestablishment of the Church.
  *MR. C. W. GRAY: The hon. Member will excuse MR. I did not say they would be certain to do this; but I said I should not be surprised, if the day of reckoning should come, to find a considerable change in the feelings of the yeomen farmers on this subject.
  MR. H. GARDNER: What the hon. Member says bears out what I have already stated, that the yeomen farmers will on occasion find themselves on the same side as those who are opposed to the Church Establishment. The right hon. Gentleman opposite occupies a position on this question which, with all due respect, I venture to regard with pity. He must have been greatly irritated by the stringent criticisms
  1488
  coming from his own side of the House, especially when he heard the speech of the hon. Member for Shropshire. Because if ever there was a speech tending to convert hon. Members' on that side of the House to our opinion with regard to this clause it was the speech of that hon. Gentleman. I should think the right hon. Gentleman must have said on hearing it, "Save me from my friends." One of the reasons why the Tithe Commutation Bill of 1836 was introduced was that it would encourage persons to put capital into the land which was not to be taxed in the future as highly as in the past. But this clause proposes to put an additional tax on the capital invested in land, because if an owner, wishing to improve his land, lets it at a low rent so that capital may be put into it, this clause will penalise that operation. If the clause is passed what will be the position of the present tenants? It is obvious that they cannot act in collusion with the owner; yet by the present clause that imputation is cast upon them. The object of this Bill, and the intention of the House in passing it, was to transfer the burden of the tithe from the occupier to the owner; but if we accept this clause, which I hope we shall not do, we shall contravene the general assent of the House to the original intention of the Bill by once more putting on the back of the occupier a burden which ought to rest on the shoulders of the owner.
  MR. JEFFREYS: We have heard a great deal about the yeoman farmer; but the fact is, that this clause does not apply to the yeoman farmer at all—it is entirely confined to the occupier. I confess, however, that I do not like the clause. The main feature of the Bill has hitherto been the transfer of the tithe from the occupier to the owner. We now find that under this clause where the tithe is not paid by the owner recourse is to be had to the occupier. I think it is a bad clause. I am sorry it has been introduced, and I think the Government would act wisely in rejecting it.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I object to this clause, because it treats the landowner as if he were prepared to enter into a conspiracy with his tenant to defraud the tithe owner. There could hardly have been a greater slur on the

  1489
  landowner than is contained in this clause. Under these circumstances, I think the Government would do well to expunge the clause from the Bill. The Bill left the House of Commons after full Debate and consideration, and much giving way on both sides, as in some degree a fairly workable Bill; but it comes back from another place in a shape which is almost insulting to every landowner and tenant farmer in the country by suggesting that they are capable, by a system of underhand dealing, of defrauding the tithe owner.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I cannot help thinking that the Government would do well to adhere to the clause as it has come from the other House. Its main object is to prevent anything like collusion between owner and occupier. We have heard a good deal about bolstering up the tithe owner. I confess that I do not exactly understand what that means, because whilst in many cases the tithe owner is the clergyman of the parish, in others he is a layman, and the tithe is admitted to be in the nature of a property. This being so, whoever is the owner of the tithe has a right to it as his property, and has a right to have that property preserved. To preserve that right is the only object of this clause; it may be that it is not worded in the way hon. Gentlemen opposite desire, but its object certainly is to preserve the right to property which is legitimately owned. If the ownership of this property should be transferred to the nation it would be found that the nation would prove a harder taskmaster than the present tithe owner. The clause gives the tithe owner no new right, and if anyone could show that it did confer a right which the tithe owner does not now possess that would be a strong argument against it. With regard to what has been said of the occupier, the liability to the tithe which rests on the owner will, under this clause, should the occupier prove to be pro hac vice the owner, devolve upon him.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension; but even at this, the eleventh hour, it is not too late for him to alter his mind. The only voice raised in support of this clause has been that of the hon. Member for Shropshire, for even the hon. Member for
  1490
  Oxford University merely supported the clause on the understanding that its operation should be limited to cases of collusion. At the present time it is not so limited. I object to the clause as a whole, because it provides a means by which a coach-and-four may be driven through the Act. The principle of the Act, so far as it has any principle at all, is that the tithe should be paid directly by the landlord; but this clause will enable that principle to be entirely discarded, and I venture to say that it will be discarded in cases far more numerous than have been imagined. The hon. Member for Carnarvon referred to the case of derelict farms. Now I know of an estate which has been derelict for four or five years. It is now to be let for a term of years at a nominal rent in the hope that the tenant may put capital into it, and that in that way the resources of the land may be adequately developed. I think it almost impossible to give a satisfactory reason for introducing a clause of this kind into the Bill. If it is to be aimed at cases of collusion, why not state so plainly? I think it most unfair on the part of the Attorney General and his colleagues to call upon us to devise a remedy for this state of things. I think the responsibility for devising such a remedy should rest with them alone.
  MR. WARMINGTON: I was surprised to find this clause introduced in another place, and to hear an attempt to justify it here. If it is intended to aim it at conspiracy, why not state that on the face of the clause itself? If such a clause had been proposed by any Member on these benches when the Bill was in Committee in this House, I wonder what would have been said. Indeed, I think the authors of this clause altogether wrong the tenant farmer of Wales when they suggest he is willing to enter into a fraudulent conspiracy to prevent the tithe owner being paid. I pass that by; but let me ask the House to consider in how many cases this clause will work the grossest injustice. The person who proposed it certainly had the erroneous opinion in his mind that the occupier was the permanent holder of the land. We know, on the contrary, that he only occupies the land for a limited term. He may have a lease of the farm for seven years, and in the sixth year, if the tithe

  1491
  is not paid by the landlord, the receiver can come in to seize. The probability is, that the landlord will be an impecunious person; the amount of the tithe exceeds a year's rent, and where, I should like to know, is the tenant to recoup himself, seeing that the next year's rent, for which he is liable, will not be sufficient to cover the amount which he has been made to pay for tithe? I submit that you will be dealing most unjustly to the tenant if you insist on keeping this in the Bill, because he will not be able to recover what he has paid for the impecunious landlord.
  (10.8.) The House divided:—Ayes 140; Noes 87.—(Div. List, No. 95.)
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I beg to move to add, at the end of Clause B, the words—
  "Provided further that such occupier shall he entitled to recover from such landlord by action at law any such amount which shall have been recovered from him under this section as aforesaid as money paid on the account of such landlord."
  It is admitted on all sides of the House that the obligation to pay tithe rent-charge is to fall upon the landlord, and in order to meet that the Government propose that in certain instances the tithe owner shall be able to recover by distress against the occupier. Could anything more improper be imagined? I think that, according to the elementary principles of justice, whenever anybody is called upon to pay a sum which another man ought to have paid, he should have the power of recovery from the latter by action at law. The object of my Amendment is to secure that, and I trust that I shall have the support of the Attorney General and of other legal authorities on that side. I think it monstrously unfair to say that the landlord who has to pay tithe rent-charge, and whom, under the Act of 1836, it was intended should pay that charge, is now to be allowed to avoid his liability, and that you should allow the tithe owner to recover by distress against the occupier, and put him to the expense and annoyance of having a distraint upon his premises in order that the debt of another may be recovered. Of course, it may be said that the tenant is to receive 4 per cent. upon the outlay; but that is not sufficient, and I think the reasons I have urged will satisfy the House of Commons that it is not fair
  1492
  that this liability to distress should be thrust upon the tenant.
  Amendment proposed, to add at the end of the said Amendment the words—
  "Provided further that such occupier shall be entitled to recover from such landlord by action at law any such amount which shall have been recovered from him under this section as aforesaid as money paid on the account of such landlord."—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I understand that the Government are willing to accept this Amendment. So far, so good, as regards giving some remedy to the occupier. But I should like to point out that, in order to avoid one evil, they are falling into another, because the basis of this measure has been that there is to be no personal liability imposed upon anyone. Yet it is perfectly obvious that the result of this will be to overthrow the whole basis of the measure, because, although it is founded upon the principle of no personal liability, yon are adding to it now a proposal to make a personal liability on the part of the owner at the suit of the occupier. This shows that the matter has never been properly considered. You have got an acknowledged evil that may arise in the case of collusion. A natural thing would have been to draw up a clause pointed at collusion, and have limited it to that. The whole argument of the Attorney General was founded on the necessity of dealing with collusive facts. The Government have now got into a scrape, and the difficulty is how they can get out of it. Can it be done by simply giving the occupier a right of action at law against the owner? Bear in mind the argument which we have been urging, which is, that the owner may be impecunious. And then I would like to know what sort of remedy would it be to the occupier to give him a right of an action at law against the impecunious owner? It does not benefit him in the least. We want an answer on this point from the President of the Board of Trade. The Attorney General is no doubt most competent to deal with matters of law, but it is a remarkable fact that upon this clause, although appeal after appeal has been made by county Members on Benches opposite to the Government to give a satisfactory answer on this point,

  1493
  we have not heard a word from the President of the Board of Trade. The Attorney General has favoured us with a technical argument based entirely upon the assumption of collusion. It is quite plain, however, that this clause is not a collusion clause. It is a clause which will have a very wide operation, and although the Amendment of my hon. Friend may afford some remedy, it is not to be supposed that it in any way gets rid of the main difficulty. That will remain. We object to placing the primary liability on the occupier. You may apply remedies which may, more or less, repair that injustice, but still you have inflicted upon him a grievance. We have objected, and shall continue to object, to this proposal, and I think we are entitled to have from the right hon. Gentleman, who is responsible for the conduct of this Bill, an explanation why the House of Lords has introduced a clause altogether contrary to the fundamental principle of the Bill. That principle is that the tithe shall be a charge on the owner, and not on the occupier. The basis of this clause is that the charge shall fall on the occupier first, and not on the owner. The Government apparently are willing to accept that clause, which is a direct violation of the principle of their Bill. I repeat that the Bill embodies two principles. The first, that the owner is to be liable, and not the occupier, and the second, that there is to be no personal liability imposed. Yet this very clause makes the occupier liable instead of the owner, and it also imposes a personal liability. Why do the Government accept this clause? It is a clause which has been foisted into the Bill in the House of Lords. You would not have listened to it if it had been proposed in this House. You would have said that you would adhere to the principle of your Bill. Why, then, do you not take the wise course of dropping this proposal, and adhering to the principle of your Bill? It surely would be easy to devise some method of dealing with cases of collusion without infringing the fundamental principles of your Bill. It is not for us to discover methods of dealing with this difficulty. It is apparently not for you, because otherwise you would have discovered them in the House of Commons before the Bill went up to the Lords. You accept an
  1494
  Amendment which has not come from your own mint, but is a foreign coin altogether, and which will give a remedy that is obviously inadequate and unjust. We are bound to fight this as hard as we can. We say that this is a gross injustice to the tenant farmers of England; that it is contrary to the pledges you have given in this House to the effect that the occupier should not be made liable for the tithe. Here you put a direct liability on the occupier, and leave him to recover if he can. That is not only in violation of every pledge given by the Government, but is inconsistent with all the principles on which they passed the Bill through this House. If they choose to force through a clause of this kind, which injures the tenant farmers of England at the instance of the landlords, they will have to render an account of it. It is a very clear and plain issue, and we shall be glad to hear not a technical argument from the Attorney General, but an argument from the social and political advocate of this clause, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in answer to the appeals made to him by the County Representatives who sit behind him.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman complains that I did not address to the House a social and political argument on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan (Mr. S. Evans). It appeared to me that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had adequately and sufficiently dealt with the subject already. The right hon. Gentleman has entered on this Amendment, as he often has done on other Amendments, upon the principle of the clause. I decline to follow the right hon. Gentleman into his argument on that point. If it has to be re-argued another opportunity will arise He is very hard to please. If we had resisted the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman was, I think, prepared to denounce us for not giving the tenant a proper mode of recovery. As we accepted it, the right hon. Gentleman denounces us for imposing a personal liability on the landlord. We innocently thought that in this matter we were meeting an argument the right hon. Gentleman had himself addressed to the House. The right hon. Gentleman said a little time ago—

  1495
  "What a terrible position the tenant would be in if the liability were imposed upon him when, perhaps, he and his landlord had agreed that he should hold the occupation on the condition that he should give the landlord £500 to go to Monte Carlo with!" We thought that the right hon. Gentleman was for once serious, and we have endeavoured to give the tenant in such a case the remedy to which he is entitled against this impecunious landlord.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Impecunious when he comes back from Monte Carlo.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACE: I do not want to detain the House on this subject. We think the Amendment is a fair one, and, therefore, we have accepted it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I now propose to add a further Amendment. I think it has been assumed during the whole course of the discussion on the last Amendment that the landlord and tenant might enter into an agreement with the object of evading the operation of this Act, and the clause was inserted in order to meet such a case. It was inserted, first of all, at the suggestion of Members on this side of the House. It is fair in so far as it operates against any collusion between owner and occupier. The argument of the Attorney General in support of the clause was directed exclusively to such cases, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Talbot) supported the clause on that express and exclusive condition. I shall expect the support of the hon. Gentleman, in endeavouring to confine the operation of the clause to cases of collusion. There are cases in which a bonâ fide arrangement may be entered into between landlord and tenant whereby the land may be made rent-free for a certain number of years. It is not right that the tenant should be penalised in those cases simply because the owner does not perform his obligations. The tenant will have carried out his contract. The addition I propose to the clause will, I think, meet every legitimate demand which can be made on the tithe owner.
  Amendment proposed, after the words last added, to add the words—
  "Provided also, that the Court shall not make such an order as is contemplated by this section in any case, unless it is satisfied that
  1496
  the contract of tenancy under which the occupier is in possession of the said lands is the result, in so far as the amount of rent reserved is concerned, of collusion between the said owner and occupier to evade payment of tithe."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: It has been suggested I spoke of fraud and fraudulent conspiracy. I certainly never referred to fraud or fraudulent conspiracy, and I am not aware I used the word collusion. I referred to several cases which were not collusive. I spoke of perfectly bonâ fide arrangements, and I remember distinctly using that expression. I pointed to cases of bonâ fide bargains whereby a landlord and tenant agreed that on consideration of money being spent on buildings, no rent should be paid for seven years. I argued that that would be a bonâ fide contract; but still a contract whereby the tenant or occupier would acquire an interest in the land and in the buildings without the liability of either party to pay tithe, because the owner would say there was no rent, and the occupier would say he was not liable. It seems to me the words of the hon. Gentleman will simply limit the remedy the House adopted by a large majority a few months ago to cases in which there is fraud and collusion. I think justice requires that the tithe owner should be protected in cases in which, without fraud, without collusion, there has been that kind of bargain made by the tenant with his eyes open, whereby he has elected not to pay the landlord rent, but to spend the money either on buildings or in benefitting his own occupation.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot help wondering where it was——[Cries of "Vote!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to like this discussion. I was going to ask where it was that the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Talbot) derived the impression to which he gave utterance so emphatically with regard to collusion. I know where I derived that impression. It was from the speech of the Attorney General, and no doubt the Member for the Oxford University derived it from the same source. It has been argued all through this clause that collusion is the offence that is aimed at. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have protested against this clause will notice that this is disclaimed by the Attorney

  1497
  General, and that it is directed against legitimate, businesslike transactions between landlord and tenant. That, of course, is entirely inconsistent with what the President of the Board of Trade said earlier in the evening, namely, that the clause "was suggested originally in order to prevent collusive action, and that it was adopted by the House of Lords on that ground. At the last moment, under the pressure of debate, the Attorney General says it has nothing to do with collusion. Let us take the last view of the Government that this has nothing to do with any improper attempt to evade tithe, but is aimed at the regular, orderly, and businesslike relations of landlord and tenant. I hope the President of the Board of Trade, when he condescends to speak, will disavow that position. But for the present I will take the view of the Attorney General that this is not to affect any legitimate——
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I never said anything of the kind.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That this was not aimed at illegitimate collusion.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: It is scarcely fair of the right hon. Gentleman. I was pointing out it was not aimed solely at that.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Did not the Attorney General state he never alluded to collusion? If he did not, then this Amendment is aimed at legitimate transactions. That is a perfectly fair statement of what the Attorney General said. Let us take that as the basis. Are you going in this Amendment, which is not part of your original policy, which has never been defended by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill except on the ground of collusion and illegitimate relations, to launch against the tenant farmers of England a provision which makes them responsible for the payment of the tithe in perfectly legitimate transactions in relation to land? Why do you force on this clause in this way? If the hon. Member for the Oxford University is content to have this clause limited to cases of collusion, why do you accept it from the House of Lords as applicable to cases which are not cases of collusion? It is unfair in legitimate transactions between landlord and tenant to impose such liabilities on the occupier, and leave him to recover from the
  1498
  owner as best he may. Of all classes in England the tenant farmers are least in a position to advance money which they do not owe.
  SIR. M. HICKS BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misrepresented, first, the argument of the Attorney General, and, secondly, the possible operation of this clause. The Attorney General did not use the argument which the right hon. Gentleman attributes to him—that this clause is not intended to apply to cases of collusion. It is intended so to apply; but the argument of the Attorney General was that there may be cases as between landlord and tenant which the Courts would not interpret to be cases of collusion, and yet which would be cases to which this clause ought to apply. The right hon. Gentleman also said that this clause would come into operation in the case of an ordinary agreement between landlord and tenant. That is a complete delusion. In such cases the rule is that a rack-rent is paid for the land; and in no such case would this clause come into operation. The only case in which the clause would come into operation would be one in which the landlord and the tenant had deliberately contracted together that the farm should be held at less than a rack-rent, either by the payment of a fine, or by the granting to the landlord of some corresponding advantage, with the result that the yearly rent by which the tenant held the farm would become insufficient to satisfy the sum ordered to be recovered for the tithe rent-charge. Anybody who knew the relations between landlord and tenant in England knew that such cases would be extremely rare.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I hope my hon. Friend will press this Amendment to a Division, because I think it puts the saddle on the right horse. The Attorney General has shifted his ground, and says that the clause is intended to apply to bonâ fide bargains between landlords and tenants. Under such circumstances the clause is a monstrously unjust one; it makes the occupier liable for the acts of the owner, for which he is not responsible. To throw this burden, in the first instance, upon the tenant and give him a remedy, which after all may be purely illusory, does seem to me, coming as it does from the self-styled farmers' friends, one of

  1499
  the moat extraordinary proceedings I have ever heard of. The only course open to the Government is to send the clause back to the House of Lords in the hope that they will return it to us in a shape that will be consistent and just.
  MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON: I am quite aware where the idea of collusion came in. The very foundation of this Amendment in the Upper House was the idea of collusion. So long as I believe that the clause is aimed purely at collusion I have no objection to it, except that I consider it to be a great insult to the landowners and tenant-farmers of the country. Now, however, it is clear that it is aimed at other cases. I can give two very common cases in which it will prevent landlords getting tenants at all. In the first place, there are innumerable cases where landlords let their farms during the first few years at very small rents. That is often owing to the foulness of the land or other circumstances. Sometimes a tenant will not take land at a low rent if he has to pay the tithe upon it. Then, again, in the case of buildings or improvements, these a tenant may contract to construct on condition of a low rent; this will be put an end to if the tenant is under this liability. The tithe owner will be the gainer by an arrangement of the kind, for if buildings are erected and improvements made the certainty and regularity of the payment of tithe is assured. I hope the Government will agree to define the clause so that it shall deal only with cases of collusion, and if it is so confined it will not be put in force so long as landlords and tenants exist on their present relations.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I think this Amendment is well calculated to test the bona fides of the Government in relation to this clause. We pay them the compliment of supposing that the clause is accepted as a means of dealing with cases of collusion; but if the Government say "no" to that they put themselves in a very awkward position, and make a monstrous and indefensible proposition. If it is intended to deal only with cases of collusion I join with my hon. Friend opposite in urging the Government to say so. There has been an interesting discussion, and in relation to what the Attorney General has said
  1500
  I am fortunately able to justify the statement of my hon. Friend that the object with which this Amendment was introduced in the House of Lords was to meet cases of collusion, and such cases only. The Attorney General need not be ashamed to have introduced the word collusion, for it was used by the Prime Minister himself. It will be interesting to the House to hear what the Prime Minister actually said. In the discussion of the Amendment the noble Lord said——
  MR. TOMLINSON: I rise to order, Sir. Is it order for the hon. Member to quote from Debates in the other House during the present Session?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Upon that point, Sir, may I ask you whether on consideration of Lords' Amendments, it is permissible, or not, to discuss the grounds upon which an Amendment was adopted in another place?
  *MR. SPEAKER: No doubt it would not be the proper Parliamentary course to refer at length to Debates in another place, but it may be necessary to refer in some form to a statement upon which an Amendment has been founded.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Following upon your ruling, Sir, I venture to think that the House would prefer that I should not use words of my own in giving my impression of what took place, but that I should cite the very words used by the Prime Minister. This is the Hansard record of what was said—
  "After the matter has been enormously discussed in private, though no doubt it is surrounded with difficulties on every side "——
  *MR. J. G. TALBOT: I rise to order, Sir. I understand you to say, Sir, that it would be out of order to quote words used in Debate in another place, though an hon. Member has a right to refer to arguments used.
  *MR. SPEAKER: No, I did not say that, if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for saying so. I did not say it would be irregular or unparliamentary; I said to follow in detail the arguments used in another place would be irregular, but to simply quote words used would be to quote the foundation of the Amendment.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: It seems to me that these points of order hon. Members are so anxious to raise show the anxiety to keep out of view the very object with the Amendment was introduced. I hope I may now proceed to read the words used by the Prime Minister in reply to

  1501
  the speech of Lord Selborne in moving the Amendment:—
  "After the matter has been enormously discussed in private, though no doubt it is surrounded with difficulties on every side, no remedy has been proposed that is entirely satisfactory. Although it is somewhat clumsy, and will operate rather by deterring the owner than by any effect of its own operation, still it will practically prevent that which we have reason to apprehend, namely, a collusive arrangement of the terms of occupancy for the purpose of evading payment of the tithe rent-charge. When my noble and learned Friend first Drought this question before the House, I thought it was rather like the question of the Confessor who asked the groom 'whether he ever greased the horses' teeth in order to pre vent them from eating oats '—' No, but I will take care to do it next time,' was the answer of the groom. I thought that the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord was due rather to his own enormous ingenuity "—
  thereby indicating his belief that there would not be many cases of collusion—
  "and would rather have a tendency to raise in the minds of evil-thinking men some idea of evading the rent-charge by a method which they never would have thought of themselves. When the noble and learned Lord had once raised it he was certainly bound to find a remedy, and I think the remedy proposed would be satisfactory."
  Now, that is the argument from this side on the question. We are willing, if you think there will be cases of collusion between landlord and tenant, although we disagree entirely with the Amendment as a whole, and hope to fight it to the bitter end, yet to confine the clause so that it shall be so far harmless. We propose our Amendment so that it shall not extend to bonâ fide arrangement as to the terms of occupancy, which would be manifestly unfair, manifestly unjust, and would introduce the greatest amount of friction in the operation of such a provision. It is wholly unreasonable that an occupier, having made his arrangements for occupation, should then find himself called upon to guarantee a debt due from his landlord. The Attorney General has said the words are meant to deal with cases where there is a beneficial lease; but I draw attention to the words, which say that "where there is not sufficient rent to cover the tithe." This is not a case of nominal rent even. The Attorney General went on to say that if a tenant enters into a bonâ fide arrangement of this kind he must do it with his eyes open. But why should he be made to pay the tithe rent-charge in any case? I think the Government are taking a mistaken view of
  1502
  the application of the clause. Let me put this case: Suppose a tenant says to his landlord, "My house is in an unsound condition; the roof is nearly off, and is a source of danger to myself and my family. I want you to rebuild or re-roof the house." The landlord, from too frequent visits to Monte Carlo or from any other reason, is not in a position to undertake the repairs. He says, "I have no money to put a new roof on the place; but I am quite willing that you should do it and keep back the cost from the rent." Now, is it fair in a case of that kind to say to the occupier, "You must pay the debt which the Act says the landlord is to pay and no one else?" The tenant to have his eyes open! Why, I say, is the tenant to guarantee this more than any other debt of his landlord? It will be remembered that two or three years ago the great argument for introducing a Tithe Rent-charge Recovery Bill was put by the Prime Minister in this way: The law as it at present stands makes the occupier pay the debt of another, and difficulties arise from the fact of this debt being due from the landlord, and yet the occupier is made to pay it. We sweep this away, we get rid of that difficulty, and yet here the Government at the suggestion of their ultra ecclesiastical supporters propose to bring in the very same difficulty which Lord Salisbury wanted to abolish in the Tithes Bill of—I think it was, 1887. Let the clause be confined to cases of collusion only. It will still be a bad clause, and still ought to be thrown out, and to this we shall direct our efforts.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I only wish to say that the hon. Member seems to forget the nature of tithe, and that by the Bill the tithe rent-charge is not a debt due from the landlord, and if it were so there would be no necessity for this clause at all.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I confess I am entirely in a fog as to what the Government intend by the clause, because we are told in the first place by no less an authority than the Prime Minister, and I imagined the same from the introductory remarks of the President of the Board of Trade, that it was intended to prevent a fraudulent conspiracy between owner and tenant to defraud the tithe owner of his just and legitimate debt. But the Attorney General just now told us this was not the only

  1503
  case, but, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, to my astonishment, and I think to the astonishment of every hon. Gentleman on the other side who represent an agricultural constituency, the clause is not framed to prevent collusion.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Only.
  MR. H. GARDNER: Not against collusion only, but it "was also to meet bonâ fide cases and arrangements made in the interest of agriculture and the benefit of an industry not, I am sorry to say, at the present moment in such a flourishing condition as it ought to be. Now, our predecessors in this House in Debates upon the Act of 1836, pointed out that one of the objects of the Act was to forward the interests of agriculture and assist capital being put into the land. Again and again when this Tithe Bill has been before the House the Government have declared that nothing in the Bill shall put agriculture in a worse position than it is in under the Act of 1836. But this action of the Government now will have a direct tendency to prevent capital being put into the land. It is entirely against the principle laid down in past Debates that the Bill shall not put tenant or landlord in a worse position than that in which they were placed by the legislation of 1836. The President of the Board of Trade says this is to apply to cases in which a man pays down a sum of £500 and no rent afterwards, cases where, in fact, a man gets a beneficial lease. It is a most extraordinary proposition to put the clause in operation in such a case. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have the agricultural interest of the country at heart will mark this point. The fact is, the whole object of the clause is to screw out the uttermost farthing of the tithe; and once again we have, on this Amendment come down to us from the Lords, a proposal in the tithe owners' interest which, on former occasions, has been repudiated by the Government.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I may remind hon. Members that the clause simply does that in one case which the law now does in all cases. The Bill will relieve the occupier in all other cases, but this is an exceptional case in which, owing to the arrangements entered into between occupier and tenant, the tithe owner cannot get his
  1504
  tithe rent-charge from the rent. When a man takes a farm under an agreement of the nature which the hon. Member has referred to, he makes a sort of purchase, and he must ascertain in making his bargain that no charge comes in before his interest. The existence of the tithe rent-charge is known, and to what has been urged about the interest of agriculture and beneficial leases there is the reply that the application of this clause is universal now, and it has not been attended with those results Members apprehend.
  MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS: It seems to me that the same arguments which support the principle of Clause 5 and the remission of tithe rent-charge where it exceeds two-thirds of the rent, equally apply against this clause. One object of the Bill, it has often been stated, is to prevent land being' thrown out of cultivation, and thus the Bill is in the interests of agriculture. But here is a case in which the land, having gone out of cultivation, or having no buildings, or standing in need of improvement without which it would not be possible it should be brought into cultivation—the land must be let at a nominal rent. Now, if it is right to remit tithe rent-charge where it exceeds two-thirds of the value of the property, equally then the tithe should be remitted in these cases I mention, or else the land will pass out of cultivation.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I hope the Government will re-consider this point. Of course there would be reason for the Amendment if it were confined to cases of collusion between landlord and tenant, though I think there is very little possibility of such a conspiracy arising. Indeed, it is casting a most undeserved slur upon the agricultural classes to introduce a penal clause like this. I can speak as a landowner and a tithe owner, and I am bound to say that I have heard from no member of either class any approval of this clause, and I am at a loss to understand why the other House inserted the clause, and why Her Majesty's Government accepted it.
  (11.22.) The House divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 172.—(Div. List, No. 96.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to move to insert at the end of the clause the following words:—

  1505
  "Provided also that this section shall not apply to cases where the contract of tenancy was entered into before the passing of this Act."
  I move this for the purpose of confining the operation of the clause to tenancies created exclusively after the passing of the Act, and I think the Amendment is obviously such a fair one that the Government will accede to it. It cannot be said that existing contracts were made in view of a law of this kind; but in the future, whenever new tenancies come into existence, the contracting parties will have the clause in view. When an owner lets his land to an occupier the first thing he will have regard to will be the fact that the occupier may at some time or other be held liable to pay the tithe rent-charge. The occupiers in such cases could not complain to the same extent as occupiers who have entered into contracts before the passing of the Act. Parties who enter into contracts after the passing of the Act will be presumed to be aware of this clause, which cannot be the case in regard to tenancies entered into before the passing of the Act. We hear a great deal about respect that is due to contract. Well, I cannot conceive how contracts can be respected by Welsh tenant farmers or Irish tenant farmers when such an example is set them of disrespect for contracts by Her Majesty's Government. Existing contracts are set aside by the clause. I am anxious, as one who believes that tithe is national property, that nothing should be done to fritter it away, or to enter into agreements whereby the payment of it should be avoided. Therefore it was that an hon. Friend and I first proposed this clause. If it is confined to tenancies created after the passing of the Act the hardship will not be great.
  Amendment proposed, after the words last added, to add the words—
  "Provided also that this section shall not apply to cases where the contract of tenancy was entered into before the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I cannot understand the arguments in favour of this proposition. I can see no reason in justice why any difference should be made between the two classes
  1506
  of tenancies, and the Government certainly could not accept the Amendment.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The real reason why the Amendment is proposed is that there is a general feeling against retrospective legislation. Before the passing of the Act the occupying tenant at a rack-rent and the occupying tenant on a beneficial lease were not in the same situation. Now, for the first time, you are proposing to make the occupying tenant under a beneficial lease responsible in the way the occupying tenant at a rack-rent is made responsible. What I contend is that if the Government choose to make legislation of this kind, which I protest against, at all events, they should not make it retrospective in regard to antecedent contracts. What we are trying to do is to mitigate the clause. With one exception the Government have refused all mitigations we have proposed, and that is why we have been obliged to continue so far in opposition to this clause. It is quite plain that if you are to embark on new legislation of this kind you ought to give the tithe-rent owner his remedy direct against the landowner, instead of getting at the owner through the occupier. I will tell you why you did not. It was because the clause comes to you from a House in the interest of the landowners. If all you desire is to secure the tithe to the tithe owner, do you not in the clause go direct against the man who admittedly ought to pay? It is because the House of Lords will not allow you to do it. [" Oh, oh!" from the Ministerial Benches.] Yes, and you prefer, in order to secure the tithe, to go against the tenant-farmer, and, having got the money out of the tenant's pocket, to leave that unhappy person to fight it out with the landowner. That is an unjust proceeding—unjust to the tenants of the future, and still more unjust to the tenants of the past, who might not have entered into their present contracts if they had known it would expose them to this liability. We shall protest to the last against this clause, and if we cannot succeed in mitigating its injustice, at all events we shall have done our part.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: We need not apologise for getting up over and over again and trying to mitigate this clause, which is admitted to be a most

  1507
  severe one. The Government say the clause is the best they can propose, but there is, apparently, a feeling on both sides of the House that if it could be possible to get another clause to work instead of the one we are dealing with now it would be better. Of all the Amendments to this part of the Bill which have come down from the House of Lords this seems to me the least reasonable. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade does not understand how there can be any argument in favour of the Amendment, but if he will only consult the Crown Officers he will soon learn the reason for it. On the last Amendment on which we divided the Attorney General said there was no hardship in applying this Amendment to collusive cases as well as others, because the occupier has entered into his arrangement with the landowner with his eyes open. I hope he will convince the President of the Board of Trade, who has a mind more open to conviction than any right hon. Gentleman on the Front Ministerial Bench. Why are you going to impose this obligation on men who did not enter into the contract with their eyes open? There is a general argument against retrospective legislation. You never make it retrospective, or interfere with existing contracts, unless there is a strong case for it. But now you are doing both these things; therefore, on this argument, and on the argument that you ought not to oppress the occupier on account of the default of a landlord, I say you should not listen to the recommendations that come from the House of Lords.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: This clause is so mischievous that I welcome any Amendment that will mitigate it. The right hon. Gentleman said that under the law as it stood the tenant was liable for these payments. No doubt that is so, but under the Bill we are making a new departure. The Bill transfers the burden from the shoulders of the tenant to those of the landlord, and at the same time this clause imposes a distinction which has never existed before. The Amendment proceeds on an intelligible basis—one recognised over and over again in the House—namely, that there is a distinction between prospective and retrospective legislation.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I think that the argument that a tenant should not be called upon to undertake a contract by which he will be under an obligation he by no means foresaw is one which requires some reply from the Government. I understood that this is a measure, the primary intention of which is to make the owner responsible, and not the occupier, and that in no contemplated case is the occupier to be in any way responsible for the payment of tithe rent-charge. This unhappy clause does place on the occupier a liability which has never been contemplated by the Bill, and I trust that my hon. Friend will press his very reasonable Amendment.
  (11.54.) The House divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 167.—(Div. List, No. 97.)
  Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  It being after midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow at Two of the clock.

  SAVINGS BANKS BILL.—(No. 220.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow, at Two of the clock.

CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BILL [LORDS] (No. 216.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 2 amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  MR. KELLY: I hope the Attorney General will accept an Amendment I have to propose in line 24. There are thousands of cases in which pauper children are brought up from an early age by Boards of Guardians and boarded out. The object of the Amendment is to restrict the power of parents to take away these children at the age of 12 and 13 from the schools in which they are learning some useful trade in order that they may make a

  1509
  profit out of them. We say that if the parent allows the children to be brought up at other people's expense, the Court ought not to make an order for their delivery to the parents unless they first satisfy the Court that they are fit and proper persons to have custody of the children. By adopting my Amendment we may save hundreds of thousands of children from drifting into the criminal classes, and ensure their being brought up as useful citizens. I move, therefore, in Clause 3, page 1, line 24, after the word "expense," to insert the words "or by the Guardians of the Poor Law Union."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): As there must be a further stage of this Bill, I would ask the hon. Member not to press his Amendment, but simply to put it upon the Paper so that it may be considered by the Lord Chancellor, who has carefully gone into the whole question involved in the provisions of this measure. The matter can then be dealt with on the Report stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. BIRRELL: I have to move an Amendment the object of which is simply to interfere with the rights of those persons who, being habitual drunkards, tramps, or beggars, have abandoned their children and allowed them to be brought up by other persons. The Amendment is as follows:—
  "Clause 3, page 1, line 28, after parent insert,' if it be proved that the parent is an habitual drunkard, a tramp, a beggar, or a frequenter of a common lodging-house, or casual ward, or.' "
  My object is to limit the discretion which the Judges would otherwise have under this clause. I think that, owing to the variety of opinions which prevail as to how far drunkenness is a disqualification for the exercise of the parental duty, the House would do well to say distinctly that if it be proved that a parent, having already deserted his child, is an habitual "drunkard, a tramp, a beggar, or a frequenter of a common lodging-house, or casual ward, he shall not be deemed a fit person to have the custody of his children. I ask the Attorney General to insert in the Bill that parents coming within the category I have named shall be con-
  1510
  sidered unfit. The proposal will not in any way restrict the intention of the Bill—it is simply a definition. Should he be unable to accept the Amendment, my feeling in favour of the Bill is so exceedingly strong that I will not press it. I do hope, however, that the Attorney General will give it serious consideration.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I am most unwilling to fetter the discretion of the Court by adopting the form of words suggested. And our objection is that the Bill provides that a parent who has deserted his child shall not be allowed its custody again until he has satisfied the Court of his fitness. I am strongly of opinion that it would be better to leave the Bill as it stands than to insert defining words.
  *MR. BIRRELL: As the Attorney General cannot see his way to accepting my Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to accept the clause I have put on the Paper, because it would aid the management of industrial schools in placing out boys and freeing them from the evil influences of unworthy parents, who, having abandoned their children for many years, seek them out again for sordid reasons, with the result that the children frequently lapse again into crime.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, after Clause 4, to insert the following clause:—
  "If a child detained in or placed out on license from a certified industrial school conducts himself well, the managers of the school may, with his own consent, apprentice the child to, or dispose of him in, any trade, calling, service, or by emigration, notwithstanding that his period of detention has not expired; and such apprenticing or disposition shall be as valid as if the managers were the parents of the child.
  "Provided that, unless twelve months of the period of detention allotted to the child have expired, the consent of the Secretary of State shall also be required to the exercise of any power under this section."—(Mr. Howard Vincent.)
  (12.22.) Question proposed, "That the Clause be read now a second time."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I have no objection to the clause, save that it is one which is without the matters which

  1511
  are to be dealt with by this Bill. To take up a matter which is not clearly germane to this Bill would open up a very serious question. I prefer not to insert the clause, because it seems to me doubtful. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary may introduce it in his Bill on the subject.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I understood from what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said that it was not his intention to introduce a Bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I did not say it was not my intention, but that at the Home Office we are so overwhelmed with work that it is difficult to find an opportunity of pushing forward the Bill.
  MR. S. SMITH: There is no doubt that the power asked for by this clause is very much required, because of the way in which wretched parents get hold of their children after they have left the industrial school and drag them again down to vice. If the Industrial Schools Bill is brought in I shall support this clause—that is, if it cannot be adopted now.
  The UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): This clause makes very little alteration in the law, and still less in the practice. It simply provides that the child shall be disposed of by enlistment or emigration at any time instead of having to wait 18 months, whereas under the present system the same result can at any time be obtained in proper cases by discharging the child. Such discharge is subject to the consent of the Secretary of State.
  *MR. HOWARD VINCENT: Will my right hon. Friend introduce a short Bill dealing with this subject?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I do not think it would be possible to introduce a Bill dealing alone with the disposal of children.
  *MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I will not press the clause now, Sir, but will put it down on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow at two of the clock.

  LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 69.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday, 9th April.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (WALES) BILL.—(No. 1.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  RIFLE RANGES.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the difficulties now attending the acquisition of adequate Rifle Range accommodation in the United Kingdom.—(Mr. Howard Vincent.)
MOTION.
  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1885 (GILSON SCHOOLS).

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. KNOX (): I rise to move—
    "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to withhold Her consent from a Scheme for the management of the Gilson Schools, Oldcastle, County Meath, provisionally approved by the Lords Justices in Council on the 13th November, 1890, unless provision be made in the Scheme for the representation of the Board of Guardians of the Oldcastle Union upon the Governing Body of the said Schools."
    I should like to explain that the scheme relates to a Charity amounting to about £800 a year, which is intended to be applied to the purposes of technical education, and I think there could be no better object. Under the will of Mr. Gilson the funds were bequeathed for the purposes of an elementary school. It was expressly provided in the Will that the school was to be open to all denominations. The master might be a Catholic or a Protestant. There was to be no distinction of religion in the management. The school was not a success, and the scheme now proposes to apply the money to purposes of technical education. It is agreed on all hands that no better object could be found, but a difference has arisen as to the constitution of the Governing Body of the Charity. The

    1513
    objection is that no popular authority is represented on that Body. A scheme was first drawn up by Lord Justice FitzGibbon and Lord Justice Naish, and under their scheme the Governing Body was to consist of two persons appointed by the Protestant Bishop of Meath, two by the Catholic Bishop of Meath, one person representing the National Education Board, two persons representing the Board of Guardians of the Oldcastle Union, and two persons co-opted by the other members of the Board. But, for some reason, religious bigotry came in, and the scheme was furiously opposed by a partisan body of the Privy Council, presided over by Lord Ashbourne, whose tendencies I need not describe to the House. This partisan body struck out of the scheme the representatives of the Board of Guardians on the ground that that Board might appoint two Roman Catholics. The object of the school is to teach the people to make good butter, and can it make any difference whether there is one more Catholic or one more Protestant on the Governing Body? In the North of Ireland in similar cases a Protestant majority is always given on the Governing Body. The majority of the people of Meath are Catholics; 88 per cent. of the children hitherto attending the school are Catholics, and the Catholics might fairly claim a Catholic majority upon the Governing Body. But they do not ask for a Catholic majority as such. They merely ask that the Board of Guardians, who under the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, are the Local Authority for the purpose of technical education, should not be deprived of the right to appoint two members of the Governing Body of a technical institute. I submit that the House ought to refuse its sanction to a scheme drawn up on such bigoted and narrow principles. I wish to point out, also, that this Union forms part of three Parliamentary Divisions, and two of them are represented by Protestants, although the vast majority of the people are Catholics. In the circumstances, it would be the narrowest bigotry to refuse to the Guardians of the Oldcastle Union the right to nominate two Governors on this Trust.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to withhold Her consent from a Scheme for the management of
    1514
    the Gilson Schools, Oldcastle, County Meath, provisionally approved by the Lords Justices in Council on the 13th November, 1890, unless provision be made in the Scheme for the representation of the Board of Guardians of the Oldcastle Union upon the Governing Body of the said Schools."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. and learned Member, in the lucid statement which he has just made to the House, has asked it to dissent from the opinion deliberately arrived at by the Privy Council of Ireland. What is his main reason for objecting to the scheme? It is that it makes no provision for the representation of the Board of Guardians on the Board of Management of the school. I should like to ask whether Boards of Guardians are in any way specially qualified to supervise educational institutions? To lay down that they are would be to establish a dangerous principle. The hon. and learned Member has, I think, missed the real point which influenced the Privy Council in coming to a decision. Under the will of Mr. Gilson the school is to be for the benefit both of Protestants and Catholics, and in order that their interests may be considered equally the will lays down that the management of the school shall be divided between Protestants and Catholics, and the institution is put under the control of the clergyman of the parish and of the priest. Some 30 years ago the question of the management was brought before the Court of Chancery in England, and the Court held that the representation on the Board of Management should be equal as between Roman Catholics and Protestants, adding as additional manager the Chief Secretary, who might or might not be a Protestant. Subsequently the Privy Council in Ireland came to the same conclusion. The plan advocated by the hon. and learned Member would probably give an absolute majority on the Board of Management to the Roman Catholics. This the hon. Member would probably justify by saying that the Roman Catholic population of the district is larger than the Protestant. No doubt it is, but it was so also at the time when the testator made his will and expressed his intentions. The only way to ensure fairness is by preserving the equal representation of both creeds upon the Board. If there is to be a permanent.

    1515
    Roman Catholic majority on the Board, who can doubt that the head master would always be chosen from amongst those who professed that religion?
    *MR. KNOX: Special provision is made that one of the masters shall be a Protestant.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But that does not affect the head master. I hope the House will reject the Resolution moved by the hon. and learned Member. Considering that the Government have on their side the will of the testator and the opinion of the English Court of Chancery and of the Irish Privy Council, I hold distinctly that no sufficient grounds have been shown for departing from the practice which has hitherto prevailed.
    SIR J. POPE HENNESSY: We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that it was the wish of the testator that the managers of this Charity should be equally divided, so far as religious opinions are concerned. But the right hon. Gentleman did not quote the will of the testator, and he has given us no authority whatever for that statement; but has only said what he believes to have been the wish of the testator. But I find in the opinion recorded by Lords Justices FitzGibbon and Naish a very different view, for they declare that "equal denominational representation was not provided for by the founder in his will, or by the present Chancery Scheme." Therefore, the view of my hon. Friend (Mr. Knox) was correct, while the Chief Secretary is mistaken in his idea of the will. But the statement of the right hon. Gentleman threw light on something more important; it threw light on the intentions of the Government with regard to Irish Local Government, and on this point we shall have something to say on a future occasion.
    COLONEL WARING: I may say that the hon. Member who last spoke has not quoted the will of the founder, nor did the proposer of the Motion.
    *MR. KNOX: But I have it here.
    COLONEL WARING: At any rate, we on this side have in our favour the decision of the Court of Chancery in 1858, which distinctly provided that the two denominations shall be equally represented. The school will be closed to Protestant
    1516
    children if the Governors are in a large majority Roman Catholics, and I think it would be perfectly monstrous if that were permitted. I trust that this House will support the decision of Her Majesty's Privy Council. I was surprised to hear it called a partisan body, and do not think such an observation in order.
    MR. ROBY: As I have had a good deal to do with schemes of this nature, I may, perhaps, be permitted to intervene in this Debate. As I understand the question, this testator lived 80 years ago, and the point is not what were his wishes in regard to this Charity, but what is the best scheme for administering the Charity now. I submit it is altogether out of place for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to rest upon a Judgment of the Court of Chancery delivered 30 years ago. One of the main objects of the Endowed Schools Act was to get rid of the intervention of the Court of Chancery so as to entrust the localities specially interested with the duties of dealing with them. Is it not a reasonable and natural thing that the people of the district most affected should have a voice in the government of the schools? In many cases endowed schools may be a curse rather than a blessing to the place—a curse if they are not conducted according to the best spirit of the time. I do hope the House will assent to this Motion, because, whilst it gives, to my mind, too limited an amount of popular government, it at any rate proposes to give some. It also provides that the institution shall be carried on largely in accordance with the intentions of the founder, and, as far as I can see, there is nothing in the scheme which is at all contrary to the will. It is in accordance with the principle which Parliament has over and over again acted upon. I hope the House will assent to the Motion.
    (1.0.) The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 88.—(Div. List, No. 98.)
    It being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
    House adjourned at ten minutes after One o'clock.

PUBLIC BODIES (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 74.)
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1.) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be read 2a to-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed; and to be read 2a tomorrow; and Standing Orders No. XXXIX. and XLV. to be considered in order to their being dispensed with.—(The Earl Brownlow.) (No. 75.)
BORROWING (INFANTS) BILL [H.L.] (No. 44.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I need not trouble your Lordships with any observations upon its general object, or about the provisions contained in the first clause of it, because those are matters which were considered when I moved some days ago the Second Reading of the Bill relating to the sending of circulars to persons under age inciting to betting. The first clause of this Bill is framed on the same lines as the Bill to which your Lordships have already given a Second Reading, and I apprehend I need say nothing further upon it. But, my Lords, the Bill contains two clauses to which I ought to call your attention. Experience has shown that one of the means which those who encourage and induce borrowing by those under age have adopted in order to get their victims as completely as possible within their power is this, that they suggest to the youth that he should make a statutory declaration, or make an
  1350
  affidavit stating that he is of age. The object of getting this done is not really to afford any assurance to the lender; he of course has ample means by which he could satisfy himself if he so desired whether the youth was of age or not before he entered upon the transaction; the purpose for which he obtains the statutory declaration or affidavit is quite different; he represents it commonly as a mere form. It is not regarded by the infant who makes the declaration as in the slightest degree deceiving the person to whom he gives it, for he is told it is a mere matter of form, and for no object. But when it is obtained it is used by the lender in this way—that if he cannot obtain payment of the money which he has lent from the borrowing infant himself, or from his relations, he at once indulges in threats; points out that a statutory declaration has been made which is false, and that unless some settlement is come to, the youth will find himself in the Police Court charged with a criminal offence. Now, I am not speaking of an imaginary case, I am merely referring to cases of which many have come before the Courts, and I have every reason to believe that the cases are very numerous in which this device has been resorted to. I have, therefore, thought it expedient to meet this device in some way or other, which will prevent its being resorted to in future; to prevent its being taken advantage of in the way it has been in the past as a most tremendous engine for extorting money from the relatives of the person to whom the loans have been made. It was a matter of considerable difficulty, because as your Lordships will see, there is no doubt in such cases as those that an offence has been committed against the law; but a suggestion has been made, which I think will meet the case. As I have said, the application for a statutory declaration is not made for any legitimate purpose, and I think, having regard to one's experience as to the mode in. which this engine has been used, that it is perfectly legitimate to make it an offence in a person to induce the giving of a statutory declaration or the making of an affidavit in connection with or for the purpose of a loan by an infant. If this clause should pass into law it will operate in this way, that if the money lender is in the position to say to his

  1351
  victim, "You will find yourself in the Criminal Court unless the money is paid to me," if such a provision as this passes into law there will be a most effective answer to such a statement or threat as that, namely, that the money lender may find himself in the very difficulty in which he wishes to place his victim. And I cannot but think that a provision of this sort, whilst it is a perfectly legitimate one, will afford infants protection against statutory declaration and affidavits being obtained under such circumstances as I have stated to your Lordships. It seems to me it would prevent their being obtained and used as a means of extortion by money lenders. The other provision is one in which I have endeavoured to carry out a suggestion which was made by the noble Marquess opposite. It deals with a matter of great difficulty. There is, of course, no difficulty in declaring that a loan which, when contracted by the infant, is void, shall not be made valid merely by an acknowledgment or promise to pay after the infant becomes of age; but the difficulty arises from this, that the transaction would not under ordinary circumstances be carried out in that way at all, even if you were to prohibit and render ineffective such an acknowledgment or promise, because it would always be connected with some new transaction. We will suppose that a debt had been contracted by an infant which had run up to a large sum and which was void and could not be validated really by any subsequent acknowledgment or promise; there would be a new transaction of this description—the money lender would advance another sum, smaller or greater (a small sum would be quite sufficient), and then he would obtain from the person who had been an infant, when he came of age, a promissory note or negotiable instrument, including both the former debt and the new advance; and, of course, as there would have been a consideration for that new agreement, that consideration would make the whole thing valid, even though the consideration for the new agreement was extremely small. If, for example, there had been a debt of, say £900, contracted by the infant, and there were a new advance of £10 only, that would be a perfectly valid and binding agreement to pay; or if a promissory
  1352
  note were given for £910 that promissory note would be valid, even although the new consideration given after the infant obtained majority only amounted to that small sum. This difficulty can only be met by making any negotiable instrument, after the infant comes of age, void to any extent in respect to which it is given for an old loan, and valid only to the extent to which it is given for the new advance. I do not think there is anything which would run counter to principle in making that provision; so that although the agreement on the face of it is a single one, and for a single sum, you would be allowed to inquire into the consideration given for it, and so get rid of the promissory note or agreement, in so far as the sum covered by it represented merely a loan made during the time of infancy, which was void in point of law. So far I do not suppose there could be much question or controversy. But then this difficulty arises. Supposing a promissory note to be given which you make void to the extent to which it represents what I will call the infant loan, but not for the new advance, against whom are you to make it so void? Of course there is no difficulty in making it void as against the person who has lent the money, but if you were to leave it valid if in the hands of what is called "a bonâ fide holder for value" it is obvious that the effect of this provision could be easily and would be evaded because you would find these notes or negotiable instruments in the hands of a so-called "bonâ fide holder for value" who would be the person appearing to sue upon them, and to enforce payment of them. I say "so-called" for this reason: that it is so very easy on the one hand for a person to be put forward as a bonâ fide holder for value, and on the other so difficult to prove that it is not so; and if you were to allow these transactions to be valid, if an instrument is in the hands of a so-called bonâ fide holder for value, I think the effect of the clause would be likely to be very small indeed. Now, the question is, can those transactions be made legitimately and properly void, even when the notes are in the hands of third persons? As far as I can learn, there would be no danger in such an enactment. These Bills do not pass current; they do not get into

  1353
  the hands of persons who ordinarily take commercial negotiable instruments at all; and I do not believe there is any case in which a person would take a note of this description, really relying upon the name which he finds attached to the promissory note, which is that of an impecunious person who has recently been an infant; and, besides, he can always, of course, look to the person from whom he takes it—he has that security. No one need take it unless he pleases. If payment is not made, he has his remedy against the person from whom he took it, and the only effect, I believe, against a person of that description, if such a measure as this were to be passed, would be that he would be more likely to be careful in the credit he gives. The circumstances are peculiar, and the course to be taken is an exceptional one; but I believe, in a matter of this description, that steps might be taken, and that no harm would be done, while a great deal of good would be likely to be done if, in these transactions, securities of that kind, so far as they represented loans made during infancy, were made void. There is one point in connection with this clause to which I should advert. Some have thought that instead of making a note or agreement void altogether to the extent of the debt which has been contracted during infancy, it would be better to allow the person holding the security to claim the amount of any actual advance and 5 per cent. interest. I think, probably, the result of suchan enactment would be much the same thing, because I think that if lenders could not in any case recover more than the amount of the actual advance and 5 per cent interest, these transactions would cease to become profitable; while, on the other hand, it is necessary to prevent them because if these amounts could be recovered—if the money lenders could get them in only one or two out of a number of cases—that would make it worth their while to make advances in future; but, of course, if they cannot get more than the amount advanced and 5 per cent. interest, such transactions would cease to be profitable and would not be so likely to be entered into. Of course these are more matters for Committee than for discussion on Second Reading; but I have made this explanation because I have thought it the
  1354
  wisest and best course in the first instance, whatever may be done afterwards, to make the clause extensive and absolute, as I have made it in the Bill which I put before your Lordships. I do not think there is any other observation I need make, but I think if this measure, or any such measure as this, be passed into law it will go a long way in checking practices that have been most mischievous and most disastrous. I should like to add this, to remove a misconception which has been found to exist. From various letters which I have received from correspondents, it has been thought that these Bills refer only to youths who are at the public schools or universities, and I have been reproached rather with taking under my care what are called "swells," and with leaving out of sight infants who are not, being in different circumstances, in that happy position. That is an entire misapprehension. The Bill I have introduced to your Lordships applies to persons under age, whatever their position or rank in life may be; there is no distinction made, and it will equally apply to all persons under age, whether at public schools or at institutions of a more humble description. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I have only to make my acknowledgments to the noble and learned Lord for his adoption of the suggestion which I made at an early period of this discussion. I have no doubt that the experiment he has made will be of a valuable character, and that some advantage will result from its adoption. I wish, however, to ask him whether the 2nd clause is really any very large advance on the existing law. Would not complicity in obtaining a false affidavit be punishable now? I believe the making of a false affidavit is only a misdemeanour, but still complicity on the part of the man who solicits the infant to make it, would be complicity with perjury, and, I presume, would be punishable as such. It may not be so severely punishable as under the clause

  1355
  in this Bill which is now introduced by the noble and learned Lord, but I should have thought that it would, at all events, be punishable under the existing law.
  LORD HERSCHELL: The object of inserting it is this. Of course, if you could prove that the person had been a party to making a false affidavit or statutory declaration he would be liable, but you have affirmatively to prove that he knew it was false, and that he knew the infant was of age. That is not always so easy a thing to prove. It would be open to the person to show that the infant told him he was of age, that he did really believe that to be the fact, and that he had no reason to know that the declaration or affidavit was false; and though you might have a very strong suspicion that he was not deceived at all in the matter it is not necessarily certain that that would be provable. Under this Bill, whether he knows it or does not know it, the inciting of infant persons under age to make these affidavits or declarations is made a criminal offence. With regard to the noble Marquess's suggestion, I am not sure whether one ought not to provide that there should be reasonable grounds in the person obtaining the document for his belief, and I should propose to alter it in Committee by inserting words to provide that there must be reasonable grounds for believing that the person was of age. I quite think that the criticism of the noble Marquess is justified, and that it suggests the expediency of making an alteration in the wording of the section.
  *LORD NORTON: I merely wish to express the thanks which I, and I am sure all your Lordships will feel are due to the noble and learned Lord for introducing this important Bill. Its first part was received, when introduced, with perfect unanimity, making penal inciting to betting transactions by agents with lads under age. It is one of the most dangerous practices in this country at the present moment, demoralising young men and sowing a future misery among families. The addition of this second Bill, which of course will be consolidated with the other in Committee, and the two dealt with as one Bill in this House, is received with equal applause, making penal lending money to lads under age. I am very glad, as the noble and learned
  1356
  Lord pointed out just now, this Bill will apply not only to those in our great public schools and universities, but throughout the kingdom. By examination in one of the great prisons in this country it was found that a large proportion of men imprisoned for thefts had begun their vicious course of life by gambling on a small scale when they were young. It is exactly that danger of the taste for gambling being sown among young men of all classes in this country that we ought to provide against. I would only add, with regard to the idea prevalent in the minds of some people that gambling is not so extensive as it was formerly, there is not the slightest doubt that at the present moment the vice of gambling is pervading all classes in this country from the lowest to the highest, and I trust that the Bill of the noble and learned Lord may have the good effect intended.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee I shall move that this and the other Bill be consolidated.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 17.)
  Amendment reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.

  CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 68.)
  On Report of Amendments,
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have an Amendment to propose in Clause 10. The Amendment arose during the discussion on Second Reading. It is to insert, in page 5, line 23, after the word "Chancellor," the words—
  "Is not or has not been for at least five years the holder of a judicial appointment or."
  It will then read—
  "Where the Chancellor is not or has not been for at least five years the holder of a judicial appointment, or has not been a barrister who is in actual practice for not less than 10 years."
  In this and in the other cases mentioned, then a Deputy Chancellor shall be appointed.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I am not quite sure whether this entirely carries out what was intended. It was intended only to include Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and it was intended in that case to provide that the Chairman should be a barrister of not less than 10 years' actual practice. I think it might give rise to some criticism if all Chairmen of Quarter Sessions were necessarily brought within the clause, and I would suggest that it should read thus: "Is not a barrister who has been less than five years holding a judicial appointment."
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: I may say that was quite my understanding of what was agreed to during the discussion in Committee on the clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is it not rather an invidious distinction to distinguish other barristers from those who are in actual practice? I do not know whether there is any distinction made in Courts of Law. Does it involve having held briefs?
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should be sorry to attempt to draw the line between barristers who are in actual practice and barristers who are not, though in some cases the line would be easily enough drawn, no doubt; but I may point out that it is an expression which is frequently used in Acts of Parliament.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: So that it must have a meaning.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think it must have a meaning, and, as I have said, the meaning may be perfectly easy to give to it in particular cases. I quite admit there may be some cases on the border line which would make it difficult to say whether a barrister was in actual practice, but I think nobody would say that a barrister who had never held a brief was in actual practice.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Then in Clause 26 I have an Amendment in order to define the words "judicial appointment," and to limit it thus. It is at page 13, line 31, at the end of the line, to insert—
  "The expression judicial appointment shall include a Chairmanship of Quarter Sessions and a Police or Stipendiary Magistrateship."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

  POLLEN FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 69.)
  Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL. (No. 62.)
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: My Lords, before the House resolves itself into Committee I should like to ask my noble and learned Friend to tell us why it is necessary to push this Bill on with such haste. It involves several questions which are of interest to County Councils which are not very clear, and which they have not had the opportunity of considering. This Bill was read a second time in the House last Monday. I am not at all sure that the Bill was in print when it was read a second time; but if it was, it certainly was only to be had in the House. It was not circulated among Members until Tuesday, and my noble and learned Friend proposed its passing through Committee on that day; but in deference to the representations made to him, he acceded to the request to postpone the Bill until today. On looking into the Bill I must say I think we ought to have further time for considering it, unless the noble Lord is prepared to say that there is some very urgent reason why the Bill should be passed now. The Bill as introduced in the House of Commons consisted only of the 1st clause—I may say the Bill consisted only of subsections A and B of the 1st clause. I do not think there would be any objection to passing it now were that all. Sub-section 2 of Section 1, however, appears to raise one very difficult question. As regards Section 2, part of it is unnecessary and the other part is objectionable; the second paragraph of Section 2 also is difficult to construe, but it is, as far as I can understand it, an objectionable provision. There are several other matters to which I might refer, but I will not say anything more on these different provisions, because, if we are to go into Committee on the Bill, the particular points which may be objected to had best be raised in

  1359
  Committee; but I would ask my noble and learned Friend, unless there is some very special and urgent reason for pushing this Bill on with such haste, whether he would consent to postpone it so as to give your Lordships in this House, and members of County Councils, an opportunity of considering its provisions?
  *LORD THRING: My Lords, the fact that this Bill was likely to be opposed in this House came upon me, and upon the supporters of the Bill, as an entire surprise. The Bill was passed unanimously in the House of Commons. No objection whatever was raised to it. The Bill was approved by the Local Government Board, and, in fact, the 2nd clause of the Bill was drawn by the authorities at the Local Government Board. I understand that both sides in the House of Commons were unanimous in assenting to the Bill. With respect to the necessity for hurry in the matter, there really is very great necessity for it. A question has been raised whether, if this Bill is not passed before the close of the present financial year, it would be lawful for the County Councils to carry over the sums which were appropriated for the purpose of technical education—whether it would be necessary to carry them over to a general account. There are very few County Councils in England who have decided yet how they will apply this money. The whole object of this clause is to provide that where the question of the application of the sums for purposes of technical education is under consideration, it shall not be necessary to carry them over to a general account. If this Bill does not pass before the Vacation, it will be supposed to be necessary that these moneys should be so carried over, and therefore the whole purpose of the provisions relating to technical education will be absolutely frustrated.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I can bear my testimony to the accuracy of what has fallen from the noble Lord with regard to the necessity of passing this Bill at once, because if it be not passed, it is, I understand, the view of the Government that these moneys will be carried over and will be distributed under Section 23 of the Act of 1888, and the effect will be that the use of them for the purpose of technical education in the
  1360
  present year will be in the main lost. But it is not only important to pass this Bill as speedily as may be for that purpose. The 1st clause is of great importance, and, though I do not mean to say there is the same absolute urgency with regard to that clause as in respect to the others, I do say that the power there given to establish scholarships, and especially in institutions which are not within the administrative district of the particular County Council, is one of great importance. It is certainly of great importance in Yorkshire. No doubt the noble Lord opposite will confirm me in saying that it is of equal importance in Lancashire. It seems to me that these scholarships are the best mode of dealing with a large portion of these funds, and County Councils can do nothing until they know whether Parliament will give them power to establish them.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, the reason for passing this Bill has been so clearly explained by the noble Marquess who has just sat down that I do not think it is necessary for me to trouble your Lordships further than to say that those risks have been considered by Her Majesty's Government, and they are unanimously of opinion that this Bill ought to pass at once, as proposed by the noble and learned Lord.
  (House in Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  *LORD LINGEN: I think, my Lords, the declaratory part of paragraph 2 here enunciates a somewhat new principle, and a rather dangerous one, that in considering the eligibility of a school for support, you ought to consider its needs independently and separately, or at any rate in addition to the question of efficiency. I am afraid this clause very often will be read as meaning that although a school is not efficient, yet, that being needy, it is entitled to assistance. That hitherto has not been the view taken of the meaning of public aid being given, and I do not think it should be suddenly adopted as the principle on which public aid should be given to schools. At present the discretion of the County Councils is quite unlimited. If they see fit to give assistance on the ground of need they can do so, but I

  1361
  think the suggestion of such a ground of assistance in an Act of Parliament is likely to lead to results which will not be altogether favourable to technical education. I would therefore venture to submit to your Lordships that Sub-section 2 of Section 1 in the Bill be omitted.
  *LORD THRING: My Lords, I admit that at first sight this clause does appear to give rise to some observation; but it is, in fact, a necessary clause, and I think your Lordships will see why it is inserted. The Technical Education Act provides that the aid is to be given precisely and exactly in proportion to the merits of the schools themselves. In the case of these county schools, your Lordships will easily understand that what the counties want is to have schools in different parts of the counties. They cannot be content with a school at one corner only, but they want to distribute the aid as far as possible. The whole meaning of this clause is that where the County Authority see that they want a school in a particular part of the county, if that school cannot exist without the aid of a grant, and by the aid of a grant might be made an efficient school for the purpose of technical education, they may give a grant to that school, although it is not quite so good a one as other schools in other parts of the county. It is, in fact, a provision to give the Councils a freer hand in the selection of the schools to which they may give aid.
  LORD MONK-BRETTON: The explanation which the noble Lord has given is very good; but there is no limit in the section. The aid may be given, as the section now reads, to a school in any part of England.
  *LORD BASING: My objection to this clause is that it seems to limit the power of the County Council Authority to what they can already do. Why should they be limited in regard to the poverty or wealth of a particular school? It does not follow that they should distribute money through agency of the schools at all, and they might consider it preferable to do something else with it. I do not see how the noble Lord can say that this section is necessary, or that such application of the
  1362
  money is not within the competency of the County Councils.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I should venture to ask the noble Lord whether this discussion does not show that it would be very desirable to adopt another word instead of "needs." The two noble Lords who have spoken have construed that word as meaning neediness, and my noble Friend himself contends for the necessity of aiding a school in the particular locality where the school may happen to exist. If that reading be the right one, I think some wording should be adopted to show that pecuniary neediness is not a ground for obtaining the larger grant.
  *LORD LINGEN: The noble Earl has adverted to a point which contains the principle to be kept in view. It is one thing to say that a school is needy, and another that a school is needed. A school that is needed ought to be created or assisted, but a school ought not to be assisted simply because it is needy. I would point out here that the word is "needs," not "need;" if it was in the singular there would be no objection.
  LORD HERSCHELL: This is not a compulsory clause at all. It is a power given to the County Councils. If you cannot trust your County Councils to that extent, that is to say that they cannot be trusted not to give the money simply because the school needs it, though there may be no need for the school, then it is necessary no doubt to impose some restriction upon them. But what I would point out is, that this clause imposes no obligation upon them at all. They are to do the best they can for carrying out technical education. All it says is that they may take certain things into consideration, and in the case of a school which down to that time has not been an efficient school, but which may be made an efficient school by the grant of aid, and which will be for the benefit of the county, I cannot see any reason why the County Council should not be allowed to do something for that school.
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: I do not see any objection to the clause as it stands. The practice seems to be nowadays to create a Local Authority, and immediately afterwards to distrust it. But my impression is that having created the Local Authority, you ought to give them power

  1363
  to deal with the matters which come before them. This is simply a permissive power, and I think we ought to trust them to exercise that power properly, believing that they will do so to the best of their judgment.
  *LORD MONK BRETTON: I entirely agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down that we ought to trust the County Councils, and for that reason I object to the sub-section. I wish to see it left out. There is nothing as the law stands to prevent the County Council from making a grant under circumstances in which they consider a grant is required; but to introduce a clause of this kind, expressly stating that the Local Authority may consider, not the efficiency of the school, or the requirements of the pupils, but the necessities of the school—that is to say, the necessities of some bankrupt managers, is simply an invitation to jobbery.
  *LORD NORTON: I cannot see how it adds in the slightest degree to the power of the County Councils to give the discretion which is given in the language of this paragraph. In whichever way the words are taken, if they are read as they stand, there is no doubt that their meaning is, as the noble Lord supposes, that these grants are to be given according to the needs of the school. If, on the other hand, the word "needs" were put in the singular instead of the plural, it would be considered that they were to judge whether the school was needed or not, but then the word "relatively" would have no sense at all. What an extraordinary direction to give the County Councils, that they are not to give money unless it is needed. We must suppose the County Councils to be absolute fools if we suppose that they want to distribute their money where it is not needed. It is impossible to suppose that is the meaning of the paragraph. If, therefore, it is meant to stand as we have it, relative to the neediness of the school, it then introduces, as the noble Lord has said, a new principle in the distribution of public education grants money, that the money is to be given according to the worthless-ness of the school. It is wholly inconsistent with the later paragraph, by which money is to be given according to the wealth of the school. There is a
  1364
  contradictory calculation, which would be as absurd one way as the other.
  LORD HERSCHELL: There is another consideration. Under the Technical Instruction Act of 1889 the Local Authority may give a grant for technical education, and shall restrict the provision so made in proportion to the nature and amount of efficient technical instruction supplied by these schools respectively. So that at present the hands of the County Councils are tied in this way, that they can only distribute the money according to the nature and amount of the technical instruction given in the public schools. The object of this is to give them a freer hand, and to enable them not necessarily to give the money according to the amount of instruction given in the school, but because there may be a school, in a particular part of the county, which it is necessary to support and keep up, and that that can only be done by giving it more than its proportion would be.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would it not be simpler to repeal these words? I confess I think this clause has a very ugly look.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I wish my noble Friend would not only repeal these, but a good many other words in the clause, which render, in my opinion, the working of the Act almost impossible.
  *LORD HOBHOUSE: I wish to point out that there are two funds over which the County Councils have jurisdiction in applying them to secular education. One is the 1d. rate which they are empowered to raise by the terms of the Technical Instruction Act, the terms of which have been just mentioned by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell), and which seem to tie down the County Councils to distribute the fund according to the efficiency of the school. If the policy of the Technical Instruction Act is to be reviewed, it may be necessary to relax that restriction in some measure. But there is another fund over which the County Councils have absolute discretion at the present moment, and that is the fund which arises from the Beer and Spirit Duties. The share of the County Councils is to be dealt with as the Probate Duties are dealt with—that is to say, it is to be

  1365
  carried to the Exchequer Contribution Account, and when it is there the County Councils have a discretion given to them to apply it to technical education. They may apply it or not apply it, and if they determine to apply it there is nothing in the Statute to limit their discretion as to what will determine the application of the funds. It seems to me that if too little liberty has been left them this is not a convenient opportunity of considering it, and I think we have been hurried rather into the discussion. I think this is not a convenient opportunity for revising or altering the policy, which was no doubt very well considered, of the Technical Instruction Act. I think your Lordships will find, if this clause is wholly omitted, the County Councils will have as much discretion as they possibly can desire in assisting a poor school which may exist in a particular part of the county which is very much in need of a technical school. They will have as much power as they can possibly want, having a free hand with respect to the Beer and Spirit Duties, and I think your Lordships will consider that it is not desirable now to repeal a policy which was very well considered a year ago, when the Technical Instruction Act was passed.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I am sorry to trouble your Lordships again. I cannot agree that the policy of this scheme was well considered, because your Lordships had no sort of opportunity of considering it at all, and we are of course not bound by considerations which have taken place elsewhere. I think that it would carry out what has been suggested by the noble Marquess in effect, if the clause were made to read in this way—
  "That the Local Authority shall consider all the circumstances, and shall not be bound to distribute the provision so made, exclusively in proportion to the nature and amount of the technical instruction supplied by the schools."
  That, it seems to me, would free their hands, whilst pointing out what should be the ordinary rule. It would say that they should not be bound exclusively to do so, though they would be empowered to do it.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: Would the noble Lord consent to the sub-section being now struck out, and give notice to introduce the Amendment on the Third Reading?
  *LORD THRING: No; I could not consent to that.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: Then I must say that I should certainly use my best endeavours to prevent the Bill being read a third time with that sub-section in it.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: I hope the noble Lord will not strike out the sub-section as it stands at present. It seems to me it is intended to meet a very serious difficulty. We are looking about to find good centres for technical education all over our counties. In many cases we find there are old endowed schools which are poverty stricken, and which have been revived by schemes of the Charity Commissioners, but which are certainly not able to go in for technical education unless they have funds provided. I think it would be better if we were allowed to subsidise those schools instead of starting new institutions all over the counties. My attention has been specially called to this by the Charity Commissioners themselves, and they said they thought it would be well worth while that special attention should be paid to the many endowed schools in various parts of the country which were capable of doing the work, but which were now starved for want of a little assistance.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think we had better, under the stress of circumstances, as we are bound to pass the Bill by the 31st if possible, pass it through Committee without amendment, and then any Amendment can be taken on the Third Reading.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have read the words which I propose.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  *LORD BASING: My Lords, I find a great deal of difficulty with regard to the word "appropriated" in this clause. The Act of last Session, the Customs and Excise Act, seems to have contemplated, and the County Councils seem to think it necessary that they must appropriate the whole of this money for the purpose of technical education, not only that they have received it, but that they must apply it for that purpose or else leave it alone. I think, if your Lordships will allow the addition of the words of which I have given notice, it would

  1367
  be advisable. The words are after "appropriated" to insert "or to be set aside for." Those words will include that they may set it aside and appropriate it as they find convenient from year to year. Recollect, my Lords, that the money assigned to the County Councils last July has not yet been received, and will not be received until the commencement of the next financial year. It must be many months before any scheme can be devised in many of the counties for appropriating the money, and even then great difficulty will be found, I daresay, in appropriating the whole of it. I move, therefore, that after the word "appropriated" the words" or to be set aside for" be inserted.
  *LORD THRING: I have no objection to those words, on the understanding that they are not to be inserted till the Third Reading.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I hope the noble Lord will consent to put it off until the Third Reading.
  *LORD BASING: I really fail to appreciate the necessity of passing this Bill in such a hurry; because, as I have said before, the money is not really payable to the County Councils until after the 31st of March. It is a delusion to suppose that that is a fixed point for dealing with this money. The money will not be passed or merged into the Contribution Account until that other account is closed. There are two years in question now, the year in which the money is received and the year in which it is spent, and it so happens that another year is the time referred to here. It seems to me not necessary to refer to the 31st of March, when we know that not one sixpence of the money will be received until after that date.
  *LORD NORTON: It is not clear what the money is that is talked of here. It refers to the most extraordinary misappropriation of money that has ever been made in this country, and I do not wonder at the delicately veiled term of "any sum of money." One thing does not seem to be understood at all, and that is whether it is an annual sum or a sum down. The noble Lord who spoke last treated it apparently as an annual sum. The Probate Duties in Scotland, likewise given, are an annual revenue—an annual sum, whereas this was a definite sum which
  1368
  had been voted by Parliament for the redemption of beer licences, but that scheme having failed Parliament did not know what to do with the voted money, and it was handed over to the County Councils. It really seems absurd to say that the County Councils are to be enabled to spend this money before they have actually got it, and before they know whether it is to be an annual sum or only a sum down. It is talked of in this Bill by no description whatever, except the vague term "any sum."
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: I do not understand whether the noble Lord moves his Amendment or not.
  *LORD BASING: I have moved it.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: As regards the appeal made by the noble Marquess as to the stress of time, and without agreeing to anything, it may be considered that it should go out on Third Reading, and an Amendment like that proposed by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) substituted for it. With regard to the Amendment now before us, I should like to know from the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill, and from the Government, whether they accept the Amendment of Lord Basing or not?
  *LORD THRING: I will accept the Amendment.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: If it is to be inserted on Third Reading, I, for one, will not object.
  *LORD THRING: I have said that I accept the Amendment of my noble Friend (Lord Basing) on condition that he does not insist upon it now, but I undertake to put it in on the Third Reading.
  *LORD BASING: If the noble Lord's observation applies to all three of my Amendments I am content.
  *LORD LINGEN: Then on Clause 2 I withdraw my Amendment, seeing the way in which Lord Basing has disposed of his Amendment.
  *LORD BASING: I can only withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that it should be considered on the Third Reading.
  *LORD THRING: I have said that I accept the Amendment of Lord Basing. I intend to put it in on the Third Reading.
  *LORD BASING: Then I certainly must propose the second Amendment also.
  *LORD THRING: I have no objection to that on the same condition.
  *LORD BASING: Then I propose, at the end of the clause, to add these words: "Until the County Council shall have made an order for such application." That is to say, that the County Council shall have it in its power, when satisfied that it had done all in its power for the special appropriation of the money, to deal with it according to the language of the Local Government Act.
  *LORD THRING: I cannot accept that Amendment, because it would have the effect of enabling the County Council at the end of next year to rescind the resolutions of the County Council come to this year. There is no objection to a County Council rescinding its resolutions passed during the present year, but it is not intended that a power should be given to a County Council to rescind next year resolutions which they may have passed upon the subject of technical education this year.
  *LORD BASING: The question is not of rescinding the resolution, but of recognising that the time has arrived when all has been done that need be done, and, therefore, that the balance may be paid over to take its place in the Exchequer Contribution Account according to the intention of the Bill.
  *LORD LINGEN: I must say, unless the Amendment of my noble Friend is accepted, the County Council will be placed in a very unpleasant position. This is a clause saying that if you have once passed a resolution appropriating a sum of money you shall have parted with it for ever, and cannot rescind the resolution; or, as my noble Friend has pointed out, if you find you have made a mistake, and there is more money than is wanted, apply the balance to the other purposes which the Act of Parliament gives you power to do. Noble Lords have talked a great deal of decentralisation in this House, and entrusting powers to Local Authorities, and now the first thing you do is to propose to pass an Act of Parliament saying that, having placed these moneys under the control of the County Council, they shall not go back from any resolution which they may have come to respecting them, under any circumstances whatever.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I should be the last person in the world to wish to restrict the freedom of County Councils, and my objection to the Act of 1889 is that it does most unwisely, I think, restrict that freedom in many respects, but in this particular instance the noble Lord who has just sat down ought to remember that there are two parties concerned—the County Councils and the Institutions. If the County Councils promise the Institutions that they will pay certain sums of money to them, and then the Institutions perform certain duties in respect of it, I say the County Councils are bound to carry out their promise, and that they are not to have the power of rescinding their resolutions. That is, as I understand it, the light in which we may regard the matter in respect of this particular point.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: My noble Friend misunderstands altogether my meaning, and the effect of the clause. Of course, if County Councils have engaged with certain schools or Institutions that they will give certain sums of money they would be bound in honour to do so; but according to this, if a County Council have resolved that a certain sum of money shall be appropriated to, or set apart for, purposes of technical education generally, and if after that they find they have appropriated more than is wanted to be spent in that way, they shall not be at liberty to rescind that as they should be. As the noble Lord has said, if they have once passed the resolution, they are not to go back from it.
  *LORD BASING: I would venture to submit to your Lordships the consideration that if the County Councils can never undo grants which they have made that converts the grants into endowments. But let me ask what is to happen if a school becomes thoroughly inefficient? Is the County Council still to go on appropriating money to it?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it would be very desirable, before we get to the Third Reading, if the noble and learned Lords would apply their minds to this clause, and tell us whether it really bears the interpretation that has been put upon it. I think it is really too much to say that resolutions of the County Councils are to be like the laws of the Medes and Persians, that as

  1371
  long as the trees grow and the waters run they shall continue—and that the resolutions of County Councils are to go on for ever.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Looking at it by the light of nature, I do not see any objection to the noble Lord's proposal. I think that the objection is a tangible objection. A strong objection was made to this provision, and those who may be supposed to know something about the matter had, no doubt, some good reason for inserting it.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: What is their reason?
  *LORD BASING: The Local Government Board have no objection to my Amendment. It is not for the purpose of limiting the Act in any way, but merely for the purpose of giving County Councils an opportunity of considering what they will do. It is not at all that this money is to be appropriated to such schools, because there are no such schools in many of the counties. There are proposals made that the money shall be peremptorily applied, and that the County Councils may be permitted to give them up if they find the schools to be inefficient. It is not of necessity that the money should be applied in support of existing schools.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Would not your Lordships be satisfied to do this? On one side it is said that the County Councils object to it; and my noble Friend says, on the other hand, that they do not object. I think many of us do not quite see what the effect of the noble Lord's words would be. If he were willing to move them on Third Reading of the Bill that would be a more convenient opportunity for considering the matter and saying what ought to be done.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Local Government Board, like many other powerful authorities, veils its proceedings in mystery. It is so at the present moment; but, as far as I have been able to ascertain, they have no objection whatever to the clause.
  *LORD THRING: Of course, I accept the Amendment most readily. The reason that I proposed the clause was, in fact, because I was ordered to do so. I was told it was opposed by the Local Government Board. If there is any
  1372
  objection it goes at once, of course; and I most readily accept the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not now.
  *LORD THRING: It will be for consideration on Third Reading.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: May I ask my noble Friend whether, in future, if County Councils have allotted so much money for the purpose of technical education they are never to draw back, whatever the circumstances may be? I understand that to be the meaning.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: No; it is the other way.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: Then they can draw back?
  *LORD THRING: Yes.
  LORD HOBHOUSE: I think the Bill will be improved by the omission of the portion of this paragraph beginning at the words "Where a Council shall have referred to a Committee the question of appropriating" money. The effect of it would be this: that where a Council, before deciding to appropriate money for the purpose of technical education desires to be informed by a committee, which is a very common and reasonable state of mind for Councils to be in, and calls upon that committee to inquire and report whether any, and what, part of the fund in question shall be appropriated to the purposes of technical education, that is to be considered as if the Council had passed a resolution appropriating the sum. I think that can hardly be intended; but as at present advised as this section is drawn, it seems to me to be very injurious as regards the County Councils. If it merely means that where a County Council, having decided to appropriate something, refers the question to a committee to consider the mode in which that something can be best applied for the purposes of technical education, that would not be so objectionable; but I cannot help thinking it is a very undesirable thing for this Bill, not by a direct Resolution, but by a side wind, as it were, in regard to this one particular fund, to interfere in the mode of business as transacted between Councils and their committees. I do not see that any good is to be got out of this which is commensurate with the amount of inconvenience from the interference

  1373
  with the business which has to be done in the County Councils. I therefore move the omission of the clause.
  *LORD THRING: This is a clause in which I am deeply interested as a Surrey County Councillor. My noble Friend's objections, I think, are really due to his imagination. All the clause does is this: The 1st clause declares that where money has been appropriated by a County Council it may then be carried bodily to a suspense account. What is it that the County of Surrey and various other counties have done? They have not decided that the money should be appropriated, but they have decided to refer the question to a committee to report to them whether or not the whole or any part of that money shall be appropriated, Now, the whole meaning of this clause, which is supposed to be so injurious and to interfere between County Councils and their committees, is simply this: I will take one example with which I am acquainted. The County Council of Surrey has referred to a committee the question as to whether that county shall or shall not appropriate the money for the purpose of technical education. If this clause is carried that money would not be carried over to general purposes until the committee have reported upon it; in other words, it simply gives a county that has referred the question to a committee exactly the same benefit which the previous part of the clause gives in the case of a county which has appropriated the money. I cannot conceive a more innocent clause; and if it were rejected, the effect would be that wherever a County Council has not determined that the money shall be appropriated, but has most wisely, as many of them have done, referred the matter to a committee, the whole intention of the Act would be frustrated, and the whole of the money would have to be carried over to a general account, although everybody is anxious that it should not be so carried over.
  *LORD HOBHOUSE: The noble Lord has given a very innocent interpretation to his draft, but see what it does. It says—
  "Where a Council shall have referred to a Committee the question of appropriating to purposes of technical or manual instruction
  1374
  any sum consisting of the whole or any part of such moneys."
  The former part of the section is to apply. Then what is to be done with that sum? It is not merely that it shall not be carried over to a general account, but that it shall remain applicable to such purposes, and shall not be applied in manner provided by Subsection 2 and the following sub-section—that is to say, that it shall remain applicable to the purposes of technical education, and shall not be carried over for the purposes of general account until an event which may never happen.
  *LORD THRING: That is so; it is not to be carried over to the account for general purposes until the committee has given its decision. In other words, you preserve the money in a suspense account until the committee has given its decision; and when they have done so, the County Council will determine what is to be done with the money. Therefore, it will either go over to the general account or be applied for the purposes of technical education. It will simply keep the money to suspense account during the time the committee are considering, and in order to give the Council time for deliberation as to whether the money shall or shall not go over for technical education.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think the difficulty might be got rid of by putting in the few words which probably the House might think desirable should be put in. This would suspend the money until the Committee had made their Report, which, of course, under ordinary circumstances is the proper thing to do; that is to say, that where a matter has been referred by the County Council to a Committee the effect would be to keep the whole of the money in the hands of the Council for application to those purposes in case the Committee should report in its favour, and the Council should decide to so adopt it. But, of course, there is this consideration, the Committee might never Report at all, and it strikes me it would be well to put in after the word "thereon" the words "or until the appointment of the Committee be rescinded." If the Council has referred the matter to a Committee and the Committee have not reported, the money will be kept over until the Committee has made its

  1375
  Report; but, of course, if they should rescind the appointment of the Committee, with the view of not doing anything further, then I presume that would not be the intention.
  *LORD THRING: Quite so.
  *LORD BASING: A Council may see their way to appropriating some of the money at one time and some at another, and the consequence may be that the County Council may be a year in deciding how to use the money. I should think it is not the intention to press them to do it at the particular moment, they having the power to dispose of what they do not want at the close of the year.
  *LORD LINGEN: I should like to call attention to a case which I think it is not impossible might occur. The Committee may have under consideration a Report, either original or upon reference back to them, which the majority of the Council do not agree to, and any clause which gives the Committee, or which may seem to give them, a locus standi of their own, as against the Council, is certainly interfering to a very considerable extent with the principle of Local Government. The Committee is a creature of the Council, appointed, as the Statute says, by the Council for business which may be more conveniently transacted in Committee, but the relations of the Council to the Committee, I think, ought not to be interfered with, and I cannot help thinking, from what I have myself observed in the working of the County Councils, that this clause as it stands would not conduce to the smooth transaction of their business.
  *LORD THRING: I am sorry to trouble your Lordships again upon this subject. This clause does not affect in one iota or in any shape whatever the relations of the County Councils with their Committees. I shall certainly accept the words which have been suggested by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) in order to remove the effect of the possibility that the Committee may not have reported; but the whole effect of this clause is to prevent the money being carried over to general purposes when the Council and its Committee and everybody else in the county may want it to be carried over to techni-
  1376
  cal education purposes. All the clause says is, that during the time the Committee and the Council are deliberating, the money shall not be necessarily carried over to general purposes. The meaning is exactly the same as in the first part of the clause, with this difference, that in the one case the money has been appropriated by the Council, and in the other, the Council before appropriating it have sent the question to a Committee to ascertain their opinion, and that opinion has not been delivered. All I want is to wait until the opinion of the Committee has been delivered before we tyranically direct that the money shall go to a purpose for which it was not intended to be applied. I trust your Lordships will not omit the clause, because I think it would be absolutely ruinous to my scheme from top to bottom.
  LORD HENNIKER: I hope my noble Friend who is in charge of this Bill will not take out this clause. It may be amended, perhaps, in the way proposed, but there is no objection to it on the part of the Local Government Board. It has been carefully considered in the way it is now drawn up, and I think the noble and learned Lord should stick to his opinion, to allow it to remain in the Bill.
  *LORD MONK-BRETTON: As the matter stands I think it is not desirable, but the Amendment which has been suggested by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) in some way mitigates it. The words which Lord Thring agreed to accept from my noble Friend opposite at the end of the first sub-section of the 2nd clause will likewise apply to this 2nd sub-section, and in that way it is mitigated. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I should be willing, on the understanding that the Amendment of Lord Herschell is accepted, and considering that the Amendments of Lord Basing have been already agreed to, to let the Bill pass this stage, but reserving of course full freedom to consider it to-morrow when we shall have the Third Reading. I should like to ask if the Bill passes now, subject to these Amendments, when we shall see the Amendments in print, so that we may have an opportunity of considering them?
  *LORD THRING: The Amendments will be in print to-morrow morning.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

  REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN WRITS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 61.)
  Read 3a (according to order) and passed and sent to the Commons.
NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND THE CIVIL SERVICE.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNDONALD, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government if they will consider the expediency of reserving a certain number of places annually in the Civil Service for bestowal, without public competition, on eligible and deserving warrant and non-commissioned officers of the Army at the expiration of their period of service with the colours, said: My Lords, before going over the reasons which make it desirable, in my opinion, that Her Majesty's Government should favourably consider the question which I have placed on the Notice Paper, I will, with your Lordships' permission, make a few observations on the Return which last July, at my instance, your Lordships agreed should be furnished. This Return was to give the average age and service of non-commissioned officers of each rank doing duty with the colours. I regret that I asked for the average age and service and that I did not have the Return made out in categories of rank as corporals and sergeants, as the form of the Return has, I fear, to some extent obscured the real point. What I should have asked for was the proportion of sergeants and corporals in various categories of age and service under 24 years of age and 22 years of age respectively. This would have been clearer than the Return I obtained, and would have been more useful in opening the eyes of the public. As showing the short service of the sergeants in many regiments, I hold in my hand a Return of the age of the sergeants of the 92nd Highlanders—now the 2nd Battalion of the Gordon Higlanders—a regiment taken quite at random. Of the 24 duty
  1378
  sergeants, no less than 10 were under five years service on January 1, 1890, the average, however, being brought up by a few old non-commissioned officers, who, it must be remembered, are now fast dying out of the Service. I will give another instance: Staff-sergeant M'Donald, of the 2nd Life Guards, was included in the return of average age and service of his rank. There were 17 other non-commissioned officers in the same rank with him; but M'Donald's service was 48¾ years, so that he had enough service to give himself and 16 other non-commissioned officers nearly three years' service apiece. These are instances of how an average in some cases works out and makes the Return, I regret to say, to this extent a misleading picture of the state of matters. In support of my views as to the danger of extreme youth in the non-commissioned officers' ranks I will quote some few short extracts from the proceedings of the Committee on Army Organisation, presided over by Lord Airlie, which began its sittings in June, 1879, and took much evidence as to the youth of the non-commissioned officers and men of many of the regiments which had then lately been on active service in South Africa. Sir Evelyn Wood, who then commanded the troops in South Africa, in answer to the question,
  "What is the result of your observation as to the steadiness in the performance of their duties of the young soldiers who came out with the reinforcements?"
  said—
  "I think they were wanting in steadiness."
  Asked then,
  "Do you attribute that in any way to the want of old non-commissioned officers among them? "
  he said,
  "Yes, certainly to the want of good noncommissioned officers, and to their not knowing their officers."
  Sir Evelyn Wood proceeded—
  "I go further and say that I think that the young soldier is like a boy who has never had a fall out hunting until he gets a shake. I think that they would fight very well going forward, but it is when you want them to come back steadily or after they have had a shake that the difficulty arises. I should not mind taking the youngest boys into fight, but when they have received a momentary check and the men begin to tumble down around them, it is then when you find the difficulty with young soldiers. It is when you want them to

  1379
  turn tail on and come back steadily that you want old soldiers, and especially old non-commissioned officers."
  Sir Evelyn Wood made these criticisms on the force in South Africa, as it was, in the year 1878. Now, it is necessary, and will, I think, be very interesting, to compare the ages of the Army in 1878 with the ages of the Army in 1890 in order to see whether the elements of success in war in accordance with Sir Evelyn Wood's criticism exist in the Army now to a greater or lesser extent than in 1878. I find by the Army Returns that in 1878, during the war in South Africa, there were serving with the colours 528 non-commissioned officers and men above 25 years of age in every 1,000, whereas in 1890 there were serving with the colours only 351 noncommissioned officers and men above 25 years of age, thus showing a great decrease in the class of men of 25 years and upwards from which the non-commissioned officers and steady old soldiers must necessarily be drawn. There was a meeting last January of officers at the Royal United Service Institution to hear a lecture on the recruiting question, and there was a unanimity of opinion amongst those present that something should be done for the non-commissioned officers in the way of improving their position and prospects. One colonel, commanding a cavalry regiment, said—
  "I have got some 324 recruits of under a year's service at this moment. I remember the days of the old, tried non-commissioned officers—reliable, experienced, trustworthy men. I am not in a position any more than you to draw upon the quartermaster's stores for an old head to screw to young shoulders, and I look forward with a certain degree of apprehension to the future."
  Now, I would ask, do not these criticisms and the large further increase of young soldiers justify an appeal to Her Majesty's Government to improve the position of the non-commissioned officers? Officers are easily obtainable. Recruits for that rank came in shoals to compete at the examinations which were held by the Civil Service Commissioners for commissions in Her Majesty's Army. But that is not the case with noncommissioned officers. Where the candidates for commissions as officers number tens for one place vacant, there is a dearth in many regiments of good men who are either willing to accept or who
  1380
  are in any way fitted for the position of a non-commissioned officer. Why is this so? It is because the position of non-commissioned officers is not sufficiently attractive. It entails far harder work than used to be the case in the days of long service, on account of the number of men passing through the ranks who require almost unremitting drill and attention, and also, it must be remembered, on account of the increase in the duties which an Army now has to perform. In order to be efficient in modern warfare far more is required of non-commissioned officers than formerly. Now, I will refer your Lordships to what is done by other countries. We have adopted their short service system, by which the men soon retire from the ranks. Continental Armies have recognised that it is necessary to offer special attraction to induce this deserving body of men to continue on in the Service; but this country, though having adopted the short service system of Continental countries, stands alone in offering few or no attractions to the non-commissioned officer by making service in that rank a means of obtaining civil employment, as is done in France and Germany. Though I am strongly of opinion that the best plan in this country, and the cheapest way in the long run, would be to offer increased pensions to the non-commissioned officers to induce them to stay on in the Service and devote themselves to it, to act not only as an incentive to those who are doing their best in the Service but, by a possible forfeiture of their pensions, as a deterrent to those who might otherwise get into trouble with light heart—though I think that a liberal pension is the best means in this country to reward non-commissioned officers, still I cannot conceive that any large measure of increase in pension, even to a body so necessary as this middle-class is to the welfare of the Army, can be proposed without receiving the most strenuous opposition from many short-sighted persons. This being the case, I have confined my question to the point of asking Her Majesty's Government if they will grant a certain number of nominations to the lower division of the Civil Service, to be distributed annually to deserving non-commissioned officers in the Army who have shown themselves

  1381
  reliable and qualified for the duties to which they might be appointed. I can not think that the taking away of a limited number of appointments from those which are competed for yearly would be opposed by the patriotic youth of the country when they know that it is only by inducements such as these that our Army can be made as efficient as it ought to be by procuring a sufficient number of experienced non-commissioned officers. In this manner the public would be persuaded to consider the profession of the soldier as being an advantageous as well as an honourable one. Persons may say—Why should not non-commissioned officers compete with civilians at the examinations that are held? The answer to this is that as a matter of fact they cannot compete with young men who have made the few subjects in which the examinations take place the object of unremitting study from their earliest boyhood. Men who have been about the world, serving their country in various climates, though practically able to undertake the duties of an office, are mostly unable to compete at an examination with boys fresh from grammar schools or crammers. If a certain number of nominations to the Civil Service were granted to the Army at large, without public competition, there is no reason why they should not be given through colonels of regiments, who are best able to select the best man for a post. As colonels commanding regiments are entrusted with large powers of punishment, they should also, when possible, be given large powers of reward. On this point let me draw your Lordships' attention to the evidence of Colonel now Sir Edmund Du Cane, given as head of Her Majesty's prisons. His evidence was given before the Select Committee on the Civil employment of soldiers, sailors, and marines, which sat in 1876. He said he was desirous of obtaining the services of two good ex-non-commissioned officers. He knew them both, and that they were excellent men, but when they went up to be examined they failed before the Civil Service Commissioners. One of them was ex-Sergeant-Major Brodie, of the Royal Engineers, whose qualifications for employment in the Clerks' Department I will enumerate to your Lordships. Sergeant-Major Brodie, R.E.,
  1382
  after the examination required by the War Office, was appointed a third-class military staff-clerk in the office of the Deputy Adjutant-General of the Royal Engineers. He was then promoted, and went to Melbourne with Colonel Waugh, where he was employed in the Mint, and in the Accounts Department. He was entrusted with a duplicate key of the cash box, and was employed to countersign and pay cheques, performing his responsible duties with the greatest satisfaction to his superior officer, who sent to Colonel Du Cane the highest testimonials as to his conduct and capabilities. But Sergeant-Major Brodie, with his practical experience, and with such testimony from his official superior as to his capacity for undertaking the duties of the office which he was desirous of filling, was prevented continuing his service to the State because he was not fit to compete with youths fresh from the crammers. If the Government favourably consider this proposal I trust that the nominations will, as I have said, be placed at the disposal of officers commanding regiments, who are best qualified to make the selections. With regard to this, Mr. Ramsey, in his evidence before Lord Randolph Churchill's Committee, in 1888, stated that he wished to obtain the services of 10 good ex-non-commissioned officers. He sent round to 10 officers commanding regiments, and got 10 most excellent men; but he goes on to state that the system was changed, that a roster was kept of these men that he required, and that from the roster he did not get such good men as he got when the personal responsibility of the officers commanding the regiments was brought into play. Now, if Her Majesty's Government wish a precedent for dealing in any special manner with any particular class, I would refer them to the privileges enjoyed by the Indian cadets, Queen's cadets, and University candidates at Army examinations, and I would ask them to extend some such similar privileges to the non-commissioned officers of the Army. I will conclude by reading to your Lordships an extract from the Report of the Select Committee on Army Organisation, a Report which was joined in by two late distinguished Members of your Lordships' House—Lord Napier of Magdala

  1383
  and Lord Airlie. In this Report there is the following short but weighty passage:—
  "We have taken a great deal of evidence from staff and regimental officers, in all of which there is a general consensus of opinion that under the present system there is great difficulty in obtaining non-commissioned officers of the same type as those which have been created under the old long-service system and who are rapidly dying out of the Army. There has been a necessity for promoting very young soldiers who have not sufficient knowledge and experience to command the respect of those under them, and there is a general apprehension, which we fully share, that unless effective measures are taken without delay to remedy this evil, the discipline and efficiency of the Army will be most seriously affected, not only as regards the performance of its duties in peace, but also with regard to its steadiness in action. The evidence of officers who have served in the late campaigns, especially those who have observed the con-duct of the young regiments sent out to South Africa last year, is conclusive on this point. We consider, therefore, experience has proved that evidence, that even with the increase of pay and advantages lately given to non-commissioned officers, enough has not yet been done to secure an ample supply of such men as are essential to the efficiency of the Army."
  I feel, my Lords, that anything I can say will not strengthen those words. I trust Her Majesty's Government will view this question on its merits, bearing in mind those precedents I have mentioned for allowing privileges to certain classes of men in the State in limitation of the rights of the public to open competition. The privileges possessed by University candidates, Indian cadets, and Queen's cadets, are all in favour of certain bodies, and against open competition, and I see no reason why such a deserving body of men as non-commissioned officers, who are so essential to the State, should not be treated in a similar manner. I will only remark, in conclusion, that the evidence which I have quoted, given before the Committee on Army Organisation, is as true now as on the day when it was given before that Committee.
  LORD DORCHESTER: My Lords, when I look at the state of the clock, and the condition of your Lordships' Benches, I feel it would be impracticable for me to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes upon this paramount and most important subject, a subject that when England is slumbering at peace, reposing with her money bags under her,
  1384
  may not seem of so much importance but which, if war broke out to-morrow—and war in these days is not a question of months, but of days—would be very quickly brought to her knowledge. I think the noble Earl has rendered a vast service in bringing this question before your Lordships' notice. 'It is a question that, compared with one which arose earlier in the evening, I venture to think, is as a mountain to a mole-hill. It is a question which, in a country where voluntary enlistment takes place, and the opinion of discharged soldiers is spread abroad among their countrymen as they return to their pauper's homes, ought to strengthen the minds of all those noble and gallant Lords that I see around me; it ought to strike those who, having held high office, may not perhaps have thought it worth while to give it very great attention. I myself remember, not only the Battles of Ulundi and Tel-el-Kebir, at which I was almost too old to serve. I remember the Indian catastrophies in which I was not too old. I also remember the disturbance with the only European Power with which we have been brought into contest since the great war. The question of old soldiers against young soldiers has never been half considered. The noble Earl who has just sat down has put it very forcibly—young soldiers will fight-There is not a butcher's boy in London who will not fight; but how long will he stand up to fight? He will stand about as long against an experienced prize fighter as I think a young soldier will stand in the present day against an old soldier of the Crimean War. I had intended to have alluded to an illustrous and gallant Duke who sits on the back Bench, and to call for his testimony as to the way in which the soldiers acted in those days; but I see a noble and gallant Friend of mine, who is distinguished with the Victoria Cross, on the back Benches, who can support me in that opinion. I saw three War Ministers here early in the evening, but they, although not young soldiers, have fled from the field. There is now one gallant officer who holds the post of Under Secretary of War, and who, I think, notwithstanding that official description which it is his duty to preserve, testifies to the feelings which I am giving expression to. But there is

  1385
  one very serious point, and one that has occurred to me for 30 or 40 years, which is, that the English soldier's position is one of pains and penalties without any adequate reward—I will not say even without an adequate reward, but without any reward at all. It is true there is something equivalent to the old Chelsea Pensioners' Retreat which has been done away with. But what happens in foreign countries? We all know how well the messengers in this House discharge their duties. We all know how well other messengers, with medals on their breasts, discharge their duties; but I would ask, why are no such appointments given to old soldiers or sailors? Those of your Lordships who have read this morning's papers must have been struck most forcibly with the gallantry and devotion shown by our British sailors in the catastrophy off Gibraltar. The same thing may be said of the British soldier. I have seen instances, and I could, if I thought it fitting, detain your Lordships perhaps too long on this subject; but why are no places ever given to them as the noble and gallant Earl has asked? No proportion of places under civil patronage are ever given to the soldiers and sailors who have deserved well of their country by long service, or otherwise. I would not attempt to answer that question—I cannot answer it; I feel I may challenge your Lordships to give me an answer in vain. It is Parliamentary patronage that has interfered with this matter, and I think it is a pity we do not see the same thing among ourselves as when you go and knock at an Ambassador's door in this country when the first thing you will see is a soldier whose coat is covered with military medals wearing the livery of his master. The same thing is never seen in this country. I know of but two instances. One of them is employed, I may say, in the National Gallery. It is true, the illustrious Duke at the head of Her Majesty's Army distributes as many places as he can among the soldiers; but I do trust that your Lordships' consideration, and the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, will be given in their own interests, and in the interests of the country, to the consideration of this point.
  *LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, the question which my noble and gallant Friend has raised is a very important one, but I would venture to suggest to the noble Earl that he has forgotten one important branch of Her Majesty's Forces; that is, the Navy. This question has been brought before your Lordships and the other House on several occasions, and your Lordships may remember that in the year 1877 a Committee sat in the other House and went very fully into the whole subject of civil employment. That Committee made a Report, and in that Report they specially refer to the point to which the noble Earl has alluded, namely, the great difficulty which old sailors and old soldiers have in competing for open competition places. In the Report that Committee suggested that the Government should take into their consideration very strongly whether in questions of open competition especial attention ought not to be paid to those matters which old sailors and old soldiers are more especially able to deal with; in fact, that the rigid dicta of the open competition should be amended, and that openings should be given, so that old soldiers and old sailors should have a fair chance. On that Committee I think my noble Friend Lord Wantage served with Lord Wemyss, and a great many Members of the other House. The evidence which they took was extremely important, and I should like to ask my noble Friend, when he answers to this question, to state what has been done towards carrying out the recommendations contained in that Report. I think I am right in saying that in the following year a great effort was made in the matter by the Government that was then in power; but what the result was I am not at all clear. I remember in that Report they specially recommended that the regulations as to age in open competitions ought to be amended as far as old soldiers and sailors were concerned, and also that the question should be taken into consideration whether a man was married or not. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord has done very good service in bringing this forward, and I sincerely trust the noble Lord will be able to give us a satisfactory answer.
  *LORD CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I trust if Her Majesty's Government consider favourably what I may describe as the very modest request of my noble and gallant Friend, that the scope of the inquiry may be increased, so as to see how it may be possible to increase the inducements of non - commissioned officers to remain with the colours. I am afraid—though, no doubt, if this proposal be acceded to it would be a real inducement to men to remain—it would be hardly right that they should be entitled to receive the advantage of this concession when they retire into the Reserve after merely seven years' service. So long as the deferred pay remains as an inducement to the men to leave the Service after seven years by the bribe of the £21 they are then entitled to, I am afraid we must expect to lose from year to year large numbers of valuable men who under other conditions would be only too glad to remain with the colours. That is the weak point of the present system. There is no doubt about that, and I was very glad to see that the Secretary of State for War, in another place, has promised to enter into that question. The non-commissioned officers of the Army are the backbone of the Service, and it is impossible that the efficiency of the regiments can be maintained unless you have a reliable and efficient body of men as non-commissioned officers of such an age as will carry weight and support them in the difficult task they have to perform of enforcing discipline. If this is done, and such inducements as my noble Friend asked for are accorded to them, I am certain the Army would find itself with a body of non-commissioned officers of much the same character as formerly was the case before the short service system was introduced. Commanding officers are satisfied with the stamp of non - commissioned officers they get; the only complaint is that they are too young, and that just as they are becoming efficient they leave the colours. I trust this may only be a step in advance, and that Her Majesty's Government will favourably consider the question, so that Her Majesty's regiments may obtain what they are now wanting, that is a sufficient complement
  1388
  of old and trusty non-commissioned officers.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Earl BROWNLOW): My Lords, I need hardly say that I most entirely sympathise with the noble and gallant Earl who has brought this question forward in his anxiety that some suitable employment should be found for retired warrant officers and non-commissioned officers. The question which he has put to Her Majesty's Government is part of a very much larger matter, namely, the whole question of finding employment for reserve and retired soldiers of all ranks; but as his question specially refers to warrant officers and noncommissioned officers I shall endeavour entirely to confine myself to speaking of those ranks only. The noble and gallant Earl is anxious that they should have advantages in competing in Civil Service examinations, or, rather, that certain posts should be thrown open to them without their having to go through the same competitive examinations as men who have not served in the Army or Navy. I have made it my business to find out from the Civil Service Commissioners what are the posts which are open to competition, and, as far as I gather, the posts that are open to competition are second-class clerkships. I will quote a letter that I have received from the Civil Service Commissioners upon this subject? I find that the clerkships are competed for by very young men, from 17 to 20 years of age, and this is what the Commissioners say—
  "The limits of age for open competition appointments are, as a rule, low. Thus, in 1890, only 12 situations were filled to which persons over 20 were admitted; and for all of these technical qualifications were needed. In the same year 130 clerkships of the second division were competed for by youths between 17 and 20."
  Further on they say—
  "Members of the Military or Naval Services can deduct from their actual age any time they have served for pension. But the number of them who avail themselves of this extension is inconsiderable."
  I think that answers one of the questions which were put by the noble Lord opposite.
  "While the places generally are such as should be filled by youths, and are in one way or another scarcely suitable for retired soldiers, it does not appear that much could be done

  1389
  in this direction to help the soldier's cause. More might, perhaps, be done with the large numbers of subordinate situations filled by nomination with a simple qualifying examination."
  Certainly one must admit that in the case of retired warrant officers most of them are men who have reached a certain age; and I must say I feel some doubt myself as to whether there would be any great anxiety on their part to obtain second-class clerkships, and to begin life in an office with very young men about 20 years old, which is the age at which these examinations are held. But this does not so strongly apply to non-commissioned officers, but still, even with regard to non-commissioned officers, I doubt whether there would be any very great scramble for the posts of second-division clerkships. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that there might be some further relaxation of the rules, to enable those who are well qualified for clerkships to have some further opportunity of obtaining them. I think that what we must look to with some hope is to any station where, as the Civil Service Commissioners say, a simple qualifying examination is required. I hold in my hand a letter, and I think it is an encouraging one, from the secretary to the National Gallery, in which that gentleman says—
  "Our present head porter was a quartermaster-sergeant in the Coldstream Guards. Among the assistant porters we have two ex-corporals in the Coldstreams, one ex-private in the Hussars, one in the Army Service Corps, one from the East Surrey Regiment, and one from the Royal Engineers."
  He then says—
  "Speaking generally, they have turned out well, and the men thus selected are, as a rule, far better disciplined than civilians. There have, however, been one or two exceptions among the short service men."
  He further says—
  "All male attendants on the Staff of this Department are qualified by certificates from the Civil Service Commission."
  Those are posts which are not open to competitive examination, but which can be obtained simply by a qualifying examination. This is a small Department which is able to employ, as I may inform your Lordships, an old quartermaster-sergeant and two other non-commissioned officers, besides other old soldiers.
  LORD DORCHESTER: May I ask whether those appointments are under the Trustees of the National Gallery or under the Government? I rather think myself they are under the Trustees of the National Gallery.
  *EARL BROWNLOW: Those appointments are made by the Treasury on the suggestion of the Trustees. I cannot help thinking that if other larger Departments, perhaps, where there are more posts open, would follow the example of this small Department and ask for old non-commissioned officers and privates of the Army to be appointed, the same happy result would be found. I must point out, as I said before, that the questions put by the noble and gallant Earl are part of a very large question, namely, that of the employment of the Reserve men and retired non-commissioned officers and privates of the army. This question again is most intimately connected with the question of recruiting; that question of recruiting has been lately brought, prominently to the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and a Committee-has been appointed to consider the whole question, of which Committee my noble Friend (Lord Wantage) is the Chairman. The Secretary of State, knowing perfectly well that this question of the employment of old soldiers is intimately mixed up with the question of recruiting, has resolved to extend the Reference to this Committee in order that they may make a full inquiry into the whole question of the employment of soldiers, I think, therefore, we may safely leave this question in the hands of my noble Friend and the Committee over which he is to preside. I can only say that Her Majesty's Government will give every possible consideration to any Report that they may make in the form of practical suggestions for the employment of warrant officers and non-commissioned officers and privates retired from Her Majesty's Army and Reserve men.
  THE EARAL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, with your permission I should like to put myself right with regard to the Navy in reference to the remark of my noble Friend as to my having left out that Service. The Report of the Select Committee on the civil employment of soldiers, sailors, and marines, in

  1391
  1871, specially referred to the Navy, and they stated as sailors entered as boys no inducement was necessary to obtain their services by holding out the prospect of civil employment. As I have brought forward this question partly in the interests of recruiting for the Army, for the obtaining of a better class of non-commissioned officers, and partly in the interests of the non-commissioned officers at present in the Service, I thought it better not to refer to the Navy, though, of course, nothing would please me more than to see every eligible non-commissioned officer of the Navy receiving civil employment. With regard to the statement of the noble Earl the Under Secretary for War about noncommissioned officers, if I understood him rightly, or rather from the letter he quoted, he said that the non-commissioned officers might not be suitable for Lower Division clerkships. I should like to say that Mr. Ramsay, in his evidence before the Select Committee on the Civil Employment of Soldiers and Sailors, in 1888, stated—
  "I took the trouble to write to commanding officers who were friends of mine; I told them exactly the sort of clerk I wanted, and I got first-class men; in fact, out of the men now serving, one came in as a soldier clerk at 5s. a day and is now my store-keeper at £500 a year; and another, who came in at 5s. a day, is now principal clerk at £425."
  What I want to see is that good non-commissioned officers should not have to take a back seat in Civil Service employment, but should take their position among clerks, and if they are good men they should be advanced. With regard to the assurance of the noble Earl that this matter will be referred to the Committee, over which my noble Friend Lord Wantage will preside as Chairman, I should like to inform your Lordships and the noble Earl what the views of that noble Lord are on this matter. In presiding at the meeting of the Military Society at Aldershot on the employment of soldiers in civil life, held on the 12th of December, 1889, he is reported to have said—
  "I think it is the act of a good statesman to discover the right moment when the habits of people are so shaped, and perhaps changed, that he may safely introduce his legislative measures. Every body is agreed that it would be greatly to the advantage of everyone if soldiers were more employed in civil life. Commissions and Committees have recommended it, and now is the
  1392
  time when these recommendations should bear fruit."
  I think, therefore, the task of my noble Friend will be a very simple one, because he will be able to refer to the Blue Books, and see exactly what has been done on the subject.
  *EARL BROWNLOW: In speaking of the difficulty with regard to old soldiers serving as Lower Division clerks I did not mean to imply that retired non-commissioned officers would make bad clerks. There are now 136 of these clerks serving in the War Office, and very good clerks they are; but what I said was that I doubted whether men of somewhat advanced age would care to enter an office side by side with mere boys who had just passed their examination.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES BILL— [H.L.]

  FIRST READING.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD), in rising to call attention to the Newfoundland Papers laid before Parliament, and to present
  "A Bill to revive certain sections of an Act of the fifth year of the reign of King George the Fourth, chapter fifty-one, for the purpose of carrying into effect engagements with France respecting fisheries in Newfoundland,"
  said: My Lords, if in dealing with this subject to-night I am pursuing a somewhat unusual course, I trust that its importance will justify in your Lordships' opinion the action I am taking. The additional Papers with regard to Newfoundland have been but a very short time in your Lordships' hands, and I need hardly say, therefore, that I do not desire in any way to anticipate a full discussion upon these Papers, either upon the Second Reading of the Bill which I am now going to ask you to read a first time or on any other fitting opportunity. But we have thought it very desirable that a full statement of the action and conduct of Her Majesty's Government during the past year and up to the present time in respect to these Newfoundland affairs should be made at the earliest opportunity that presented itself, with a view of removing, if we can do so, some misapprehension which still appears to exist in the colony with regard to the action of Her Majesty's Government, and also

  1393
  in the hope of lessening, by full explanation, the irritation which, I regret to say, undoubtedly exists in the colony against Her Majesty's Government. The object of the Bill which I am now asking your Lordships to read a first time is to revive certain powers which were vested in the Crown of giving instructions to the naval officers of this country with a view of securing the performance of certain Treaties which this country had contracted with France. The Act of 28 George III., c. 35, recites the three Treaties of Utrecht, Versailles, and Paris, by which certain fishery rights were reserved and continued to France along part of the coast of Newfoundland, and certain Royal Declarations, made in 1783, and then, to quote the words of the Act—
  "In order to enable His Majesty to carry the said several Treaties and Declarations into faithful and punctual execution,"
  empowers His Majesty by Order in Council to give such orders and instructions to the Governor or officers on the Station as shall be deemed necessary to fulfil the purposes of the Treaty. These provisions were re-enacted by 5 George IV., c. 51, and these powers will be found in the Schedule of the Bill which I am now introducing to your Lordships. The latter Act was continued by 2 & 3 William IV., c. 79, until the year 1834, "and no longer." These Acts, therefore, and the powers which were given by them, have now lapsed. The object, therefore, of this Bill is not new, but the novelty—if I may say so—consists in the introduction of legislation of this kind affecting one individual colony which has been granted a representative Legislature and responsible Government. It cannot be disputed, and certainly will not be disputed by your Lordships, that the Imperial Parliament is within its rights if it legislates mero motu for any part of Her Majesty's dominions. That power has been recognised by eminent statesmen in both Houses of Parliament and on many occasions. But it is equally certain that such power ought to be, and is, very rarely exercised, and in the case of colonies having responsible Governments never exercised in matters of what I may call local interest or internal organisation or administration, but only in mat-
  1394
  ters which have an Imperial bearing and character, as, for instance, Merchant Shipping. As your Lordships are aware, by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 large parts of that Statute are expressly declared to apply to all British ships and to all Her Majesty's dominions. But in recent years, at all events, very great care has been taken to preserve, as far as possible, the independent powers of Colonial Legislatures. For instance, in the Merchant Shipping Act of last year (53 & 54 Victoria, c. 9), which provided a special load-line for British vessels, there was the express reservation in Section 3 that if a Colonial Legislature adopted for its own vessels a load-line on the same principles as those laid down by the Imperial Act, then the Imperial Act should be, as it were, suspended, and the load-line fixed by the Colonial Legislature should be adopted as if fixed by the Imperial Act. Your Lordships will find that equal care has been taken in this Bill with regard to the Colonial Legislature. By the 2nd section of the Bill it is provided that if at any time before the passing of this Bill, or after it has become an Act, the Colonial Legislature will grant the necessary powers for securing the performance of these Treaties, and of any international arrangement that may be made applicable to the coast of Newfoundland, then the Imperial Act shall, so long as that colonial legislation is in force, be suspended. I admit, my Lords, that a strong case must be made out for Imperial legislation in the case of a colony which has a representative Legislature and responsible Government; but before I sit down I trust that I shall satisfy your Lordships that there is a very strong case in this instance, and that, in fact, Her Majesty's Government had no option but to take the course they have taken, and to introduce this Bill. I would begin with a proposition which again your Lordships will not dispute, and which is, indeed, universally recognised, that if a country has made a Treaty or arrangement with a foreign Power, the country is bound to secure the performance of that Treaty or arrangement by its own subjects. This was the consideration which justified the earlier Acts which I have mentioned, and this is the consideration which

  1395
  justifies the Bill of which. I am now asking your Lordships to grant a First Reading. It is true, as I have said, that since the passing of the earlier Imperial Acts a representative Legislature has been granted to Newfoundland; but when your Lordships come to consider the point, you will see that such a grant can in no way relieve this country from its responsibility in respect of its obligations to secure the performance of Treaties or international arrangements affecting that colony. It may be, and probably is, the case that the grant of a representative Legislature imposes upon a colony to which such grant is made the duty, in the first instance, of passing such legislation as may be necessary to secure the performance of Treaties and arrangements with a foreign. Power which affect that colony; but it is equally clear that if that colony fails in its duty and declines to legislate to secure the observance of those Treaties and arrangements, the responsibility of this country remains in full force. I shall show your Lordships that in the present case the colony of Newfoundland has failed in its duty, and that we are therefore bound to act; and I will, with your Lordships' indulgence, state as shortly as I can how this necessity has arisen. As your Lordships are well aware, questions of great difficulty and complexity have for many years past arisen upon the construction of the Treaties which we have made with France relating to Newfoundland, and as to the nature and extent of French fishery rights under those Treaties; and I may say that very few Secretaries of State, either at the Foreign or the Colonial Office, have not at one time or another had to deal with those questions. It is not necessary, on this occasion, to deal with those points of difference, and, looking at the time of the evening, I will not trouble your Lordships with them, but they are very concisely stated at page 4 of the Newfoundland Paper [C. 6044]. But there can be no doubt that, owing to those differences and to the divergence of opinion as to the extent of the French fishery rights along the Coast of Newfoundland, there has been from time to time imminent danger of collision between the French and colonial fishermen; collision which has only been averted by the friendly action and the good sense,
  1396
  tact, and judgment of the Naval officers of both countries; and I am happy to say that those qualities have never been more conspicuously displayed than within the last few years, when the relations, owing to various causes, have become more strained, and, therefore, the probability of collision has greatly increased. Several causes have led to this state of things. I will content myself with mentioning very briefly three. In the the first place, the feeling of antagonism has been much intensified owing to the passing by the Colonial Legislature of an Act by which the French were prevented from obtaining free purchase of bait, a privilege which up to the time of the passing of that Act they had enjoyed. No doubt that Act was passed with the view of diminishing and checking the losses which had been sustained by the colonial fishermen and merchants owing to the high system of bounties granted by the French Government, a system, which has largely closed European markets to colonial-caught fish. I will not stop to inquire if the Act has worked beneficially or otherwise to the colony, but it is undoubtedly the case that the result of passing that Act has been that, the French have insisted more strenuously on their alleged rights under the Treaties. The second cause of the in creased hostile feeling has arisen from the fact that every year the effect of the Treaties is felt to be more burdensome to the inhabitants of the colony. At the time of the concession of fishery rights to the French fishermen the state of affairs was very different to what it is now, and the concession was not incompatible with the circumstances of the time when it was made. The coast along which those rights were granted was, I may say, almost uninhabited, and both contracting parties looked upon Newfoundland mainly as a fishing ground for the fishermen of the two countries, and there was very little, if any, fishing, by the colonists. But the population has now very largely increased all along that coast, and, therefore, there can be no doubt that to enforce that arrangement must necessarily cause considerable hardship, inconvenience, and suffering on a growing colony with the regular organisation and institutions of civil life; and it is needless to point out that as the population on the coast increases the evil

  1397
  is naturally intensified. In another point also the colonists have been suffering for some years. They have been desirous of developing the mineral and other resources and industries of the colony, but owing to the construction which has been put upon the Treaties by the French Government, and which we dispute up to a certain point, but not altogether, the development of the colony on that part of the Coast of Newfoundland where the French enjoy Treaty rights has been practically at a standstill, although rich mines are known to exist there. In these circumstances, I think we shall all concur in the following words of Lord Salisbury, which will be found in one of his Despatches:—
  "It is impossible not to sympathise with the colonists in their impatience at the burden of stipulations which seriously interfere both with the economical development of the Island and with the prosecution of their most important industry."
  And I may observe, in passing, that successive Governments both Liberal and Conservative, have from time to time endeavoured to arrive at some compromise—some working arrangement by which the burdens of the colonists might be lightened. Lord Derby, in his Despatch of June 12, 1884, which will be found in the Parliamentary Paper [C. 6044, page 4], pointed out the fact that the Commission which sat for that purpose in 1884 was the eighth which had sat since 1846. Those previous attempts to arrive at a working arrangement are all recapitulated in that Despatch, and I need not refer to them; but I may, perhaps, be allowed to point out the fate of the last attempt. The arrangement made in 1884 contained a clause giving the French power to purchase bait freely. That arrangement was sent over for the consideration of the Newfoundland Government, and was returned by that Government with certain modifications which were proposed to the French Government, were accepted by them, and embodied in the arrangement of 1885. In the meantime the General Election of 1885 took place in Newfoundland, and I believe a new Ministry came into power; the arrangement of 1885 was rejected by the Newfoundland Government on the ground mainly that it contained the clause giving the French
  1398
  power of purchasing bait, although that clause was not objected to when the arrangement of 1884 was under consideration. The third and, perhaps, one of the most important causes which have led to the increased antagonism between the French and colonial fishermen along the coast, is the lobster fishery, which has acquired considerable importance within the last few years. In 1884 the export of lobsters was valued at 60,000 dols., while in 1888 it had increased to 385,000 dols. There can be no doubt that the lobster factories established along the coast are of very great benefit to the inhabitants. The Report of Sir B. Walker in December, 1889, upon that point says—
  "The lobster factories are undoubtedly a great benefit to the coast population, and are-raising them gradually out of the destitution in which they existed. The land is in itself too poor to entirely support the population, but with the employment given by the factories prevents the actual starvation which in bad fishing seasons was by no means unusual. They provide employment with good wages for men, women, and even young girls, and give a great deal of winter employment to caretakers and others."
  It is no wonder, then, that the French claims to catch lobsters and erect factories have been hotly contested. The practical difficulty and danger of collision arise from the desire of both parties to" occupy the same fishing ground and have lobster factories at the same places. Sir B. Walker reported, in November, 1889, that it would be almost impossible to prevent collisions occurring in the fishing season of 1890 unless some special provision was made. He further reported that there was an increasing feeling of resentment against the French, and an increasing risk of this feeling showing itself in acts of an aggressive nature. Her Majesty's Government recognised the serious position of affairs at the end of that year—1889—and being "anxious to meet the wishes and learn the views of the Newfoundland Government, they telegraphed in December their desire to consult the Premier of the colony, Sir William Whiteway—
  "Generally on matters connected with Newfoundland fisheries, and especially with the object of determining whether it would be possible to submit to arbitration the French, claims connected with the lobster fisheries, and to consult with him as to the terms of reference."

  1399
  We were informed that Sir William White way would come over, but could not get away before the end of March at the earliest; and, as a matter of fact, he and the delegates did not arrive until the end of June 1890. In the meantime, looking to the serious nature of the Report of Sir B. Walker, it was clearly necessary for us to make some working arrangement for the fishing season of 1890. After communication with the Newfoundland Government, and the proposal to the French Government of certain modifications suggested by the Newfoundland Government, which, however, the French Government refused, the terms of a modus vivendi for the 1890 season were agreed to here, and communicated to the Newfoundland Government by the telegram of March 12th, 1890. Those terms, with which I will not now trouble your Lordships, are to be found in Parliamentary Paper C. 6044, page 363. We received, I may say immediately, protests against the terms of the modus vivendi from the Colonial Ministers and Legislature, and also a protest by a Petition of inhabitants very numerously signed. But I think it will be seen upon examination that those protests were based on a misapprehension of the effect of the modus vivendi, which the colonists considered to be a concession of the French claims and an interference with colonial rights of fishing. Her Majesty's Government, in a Despatch on March 31st, 1890, and subsequently in another Despatch on June 24th, dealtfully with those two points; and as this arrangement must be carried on in the fishing season of 1891, I will venture, with your Lordships' permission, to read a short passage in the reply which we gave to the Petition against the modus vivendi. It is to be found at page 7 of the Paper [C. 6256] which has just been presented, and is as follows—
  "The petitioners do not here notice the fact that the modus vivendi referred to is of a strictly temporary character, its operation being expressly limited to the current fishing season only, neither is any notice taken of the fact that the Colonial Government was consulted as to the terms, which ware to some extent modified in order to meet their views. It was, however, necessary to conclude this merely temporary arrangement without referring it to the Colonial Government in its final shape. This act on the part of Her Majesty's Government does not appear to them to have
  1400
  involved any departure from the principles laid down in the Despatch from the Secretary of State (the late Lord Taunton, then Mr. Labouchere) of the 26th of March, 1857, referred to by the petitioners, of which the following is the actual wording, namely, 'that the rights enjoyed by the community in Newfoundland are not to be ceded or exchanged without their consent, and that the constitutional mode of submitting measures for that consent is by laying them before the Colonial Legislature; and that the consent of the community of Newfoundland is regarded by Her Majesty's Government as the essential preliminary to any modification of their territorial and maritime rights.' "
  Then it goes on to answer that point—
  "The modus vivendi does not cede or exchange any right enjoyed by the inhabitants of Newfoundland, neither does it involve any modification of their territorial or maritime rights. Any right which British subjects have to erect lobster factories on the shores affected by the Treaties and Declarations concerning the fisheries, although its exercise may be temporarily suspended, is not surrendered or prejudiced by the modus vivendi, the first sentence of which contains a statement to the effect that the questions of principle and of respective rights are entirely reserved on both sides."
  My Lords, instructions were given by the Admiralty to Sir Baldwin Walker, and, in accordance with those instructions, Sir B. Walker issued orders to the officers in the colony to secure the observance of the modus vivendi. In the course of the season it became necesssary for Sir B. Walker to give orders for the closing of a lobster factory; and after full notice, when those orders had been disobeyed, the officers were desired to close it by force. It had become known in the colony at that time that the earlier Acts to which I have before referred had lapsed, and it was contended that these proceedings of Sir Baldwin Walker and of the naval officers were illegal. The question of their legality was raised in an action against Sir B. Walker, and I have seen in the papers of this morning that a decision, not upon the facts of the case, but upon the legal points, has just been given by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland in favour of the plaintiff and against Sir B. Walker. As, however, the action is still pending, I should not think it right to make any further observation upon these proceedings. But your Lordships will see that the state of things had now become very serious, and it appeared to Her Majesty's Government absolutely

  1401
  necessary to arrive at some solution of the difficulty. We considered that an arbitration to define the rights of the respective parties upon the lobster fishery questions was the only course to be pursued. The Newfoundland Government was consulted, but we were met by an absolute refusal, couched in very concise terms, which will be found at page 19 of the last Parliamentary Paper. This is the answer of the Newfoundland Government to us:—
  "The Secretary of State for the Colonies asks if we are prepared to submit the question of the lobster fishery to arbitration? After a careful perusal of the Treaties bearing on this matter, we find that there is certainly no question for arbitration. A similar proposition applied to Great Britain would be for the French to claim a right to take salmon in the Tees or the Tay, and for your Majesty to submit such claim to arbitration."
  With reference to this last sentence I think it is sufficient to say that at present there is no Treaty giving French fishing rights either in the Tees or the Tay, and in the absence of such Treaty there is clearly no similarity in the cases. The reply goes on—
  "With respect to the lobster industry, this colony will be satisfied with nothing short of the immediate removal of every French lobster factory from the shores of Newfoundland; and all our efforts will be directed to the accomplishment of this object."
  What does this refusal amount to? It amounts to this in effect: "Our rights are so clear that there is no ground for referring them to arbitration and they must be enforced." It is needless to point out to your Lordships that as the French entertain an equally strong view of their claims, the enforcement of our rights must of course lead to collisions and to war. That is a position which Her Majesty's Government were not for a moment prepared to accept, and if they had accepted it the country would not have sustained them in their view. We had, as I have said, invited the Premier of Newfoundland to come over to discuss the subject and to consult as to the best mode of proceeding, and he and two delegates, his colleagues in the Colonial Government, Mr. Harvey and Mr. Bond, came over at the end of June. After repeated discussions with them and fully ascertaining their views and wishes, we finally submitted to the French Government
  1402
  their proposals as to how the arbitration should be conducted, what should be the terms of it, and what the conditions. The nature of the proposals and the refusal of the French Government to accept them are clearly stated at page 37 of the Paper last presented [C. 6256]. Writing on October 29th, 1890, M. Ribot says—
  "In his Despatch Lord Salisbury is good enough to recall that, in the pursuit of this work of conciliation, both Governments had, in a spirit of mutual confidence, contemplated the eventuality of a resort to arbitration. But, whilst recognising the advantages of this mode of settlement, the Prime Minister informs us, in the Note to which I have the honour to reply, that it does not appear that this solution would be in conformity with the wishes expressed by Sir W. Whiteway and by the Newfoundland delegates; and he adds that, in order to satisfy the wishes of the colony, France should consent to surrender the rights secured to her by the Treaties; while in return the colony would be disposed either to offer facilities for the purchase of bait, or to make a reasonable money payment proportionate to the value of the advantages surrendered, and as compensation for the interests affected."
  M. Ribot further says—
  "But the Government of the Republic do not hesitate to declare that the proposals emanating from the Representatives of the colony appear to rest on a wholly inaccurate appreciation of the nature of the rights and of the importance of the interests of France, as well as on a manifest exaggeration of the evils of which the colony complains."
  And he concludes as follows:—
  "In view of these various considerations, and notwithstanding the sincere desire of the French Government to prevent difficulties, always regrettable in themselves, they do not feel justified in acceding to the proposals made to them to exchange their rights either for a money payment or for certain facilities with regard to the purchase of bait. The Government of the Republic are, however, quite prepared to consider such other conditions of an agreement as may be submitted to them, whether they approximate to the bases of the scheme drawn up in 1885, or whether they contemplate an eventual resort to arbitration, in conformity with the preliminary opinions already exchanged on the subject between the two Governments."
  I may add that again with the view of meeting the wishes of the Newfoundland Government we submitted to the French Government the further proposals which are mentioned at page 40, and they were also declined, as is shown by reference to page 63. The delegates returned to

  1403
  Newfoundland in the November following. I must now refer your Lordships to page 62, in which there is a telegram from myself to the Governor, Sir T. O'Brien. In this telegram, dated November 27, I drew attention to the state of the case—
  "In pursuance of the wish of the delegates from Newfoundland who were lately in England, Her Majesty's Government have proposed to the French Government to accept a pecuniary indemnity and a statutory permission to purchase bait as a consideration for renouncing their alleged rights upon the coast and territorial waters of Newfoundland, and abolishing the bounty upon all fish not consumed in French dominions. These proposals have not been accepted."
  The words which I want to call your Lordships' particular attention to are the next:—
  "The Government of France intimate that for the settlement of the question they are willing to proceed either by agreement on the lines of the Convention of 1885, or by arbitration. Her Majesty's Government are willing to take whichever of these courses may be preferred by the colony,"
  thus showing, my Lords, our desire to meet the wishes of the Colonial Government.
  "But either course will probably occupy a considerable time. An agreement requires lengthened negotiation, and unless a very large discretion indeed is given to the arbitrator, the preparations for submission to arbitration must be lengthy. A renewal of the modus vivendi so as to give time for further action is therefore indispensable. But after what has taken place,"
  that is to say, after the doubts which had been raised as to the powers of the naval officers—
  "to renew it would be useless, unless statutory force is given to its provisions. I very earnestly press upon your Government to procure the necessary legislation; the power of Her Majesty's Government to bring this controversy to a satisfactory conclusion will be seriously diminished by a refusal."
  Then, on page 64, will be found what I may call the ultimatum of the Newfoundland Government, which we received by telegraph on December 5th, and which runs as follows:—
  "Ministers desire to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the rejection by the colony of the arrangement of 1885 as constituting a reply to the second proposal of the French Government for a settlement based upon that arrangement. With respect to the proposal for a settlement by arbitration, if it is upon the basis proposed by delegates in July
  1404
  last, my Ministers assent; if otherwise they wish for information as to the meaning of the phrase 'settlement by arbitration.' My Government cannot assent to any arbitration which does not include withdrawal of the French from the coast; that the granting of facilities for procuring bait be considered only with the modification of bounties. Whilst my Ministers recognise the necessity for sufficient time being allowed for complete negotiations after they take definite form, they beg to" remind Her Majesty's Government of the emphatic protests made by them, the Legislature, and the public, as well as by the delegates, against the modus vivendi, as being most hostile to interests of colony, and they are not, therefore, prepared to give legislative; sanction to the modus vivendi,"
  Your Lordships will see that there are two' distinct points raised in that ultimatum.. The first is, that the Newfoundland Government will consent to no arbitration unless it is coupled with the condition; of the withdrawal of the French from that coast. That condition, as I have already stated, was submitted to the French Government and refused by them. So that practically the colonists refused any arbitration at all. In the second place, the Colonial Government distinctly declined to give legislative sanction to the modus vivendi for the fishing season of 1891. The position of Her Majesty's Government, therefore, was very embarrassing, because it was clear that the Colonial Government was not in any way prepared to meet our proposals or to assist us, and yet it seemed to us necessary that some steps should be at once taken, not only to ascertain the extent of our international engagements, but to provide for effect being given to them. There is one more extract I should like to read to your Lordships, because it states shortly the view which Her Majesty's Government took of the position. It is contained in a letter sent from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office on January 16th last, and afterwards communicated to the Newfoundland Government. After recapitulating the facts of the case; the refusal of the French Government to accept the proposals of the Delegates; and the grounds upon which the Colonial Government decline to agree to arbitration, the letter proceeds—
  "The existence of some French rights, whatever their exact interpretation may be, is. a matter of absolute certainty. The signature of England has been pledged again and again to their acknowledgment. They cannot be re-

  1405
  pudiated so long as the binding force of any Treaty obligations made in the past is admitted. The honour of England is committed to the acceptance of them, and the nation certainly would never consent to a breach with France incurred in the support of what would be a plain infraction of Treaty right. It is quite conceivable that the Colonial Ministers should dislike to incur any responsibility in support of Treaty rights which they have no interest in upholding, and the cogency of which may be imperfectly understood by the population of Newfoundland. But their refusal to give us their co-operation in the matter does not relieve this country from the obligations which it has incurred. Lord Salisbury considers that Her Majesty's Government must take the shortest and plainest method of ascertaining what out international engagements in this matter are, and of carrying those engagements into effect. It appears to him that no time should now be lost in making proposals to the French Government which may lead to arbitration upon, at all events, the most urgent of the matters which are in contest between them. It is hardly to be hoped that this process can be complete before the ensuing fishing season commences. It may be therefore necessary to conclude some intermediate arrangement, which probably would follow the lines of the arrangement made last year, omitting those portions of it which have become inapplicable through the lapse of time. It will be necessary to apply to Parliament to obtain the powers for giving effect to any such arrangement; as it appears from the course of legal proceedings that there is at least doubt whether our officers, in taking steps for that purpose, would be adequately protected against an action at law. The Statute of the fifth year of George IV.'s Reign, which unfortunately was allowed to lapse, will probably furnish the best model for legislation upon this point, as it only aims at securing the performance of international obligations, and does not interfere with the international affairs of the island."
  My Lords, I have at some length, bat I hope at not too great length considering the importance and gravity of the subject, endeavoured to state the position of Her Majesty's Government, and I trust I have established three points to your satisfaction; the first is, that we have endeavoured in every way to ascertain the views and to meet the wishes of the Newfoundland Government, and to lighten their burdens as far as we could, consistently with the responsibility and obligations which have been imposed upon them and upon us for many years by these Treaties. Their views were fully ascertained; all their proposals were submitted to the French Government; and it was not until after the French Government refused to accept those proposals, and until after the
  1406
  Colonial Government and Legislature had refused to assist us, that we felt that we must take the matter into our own hands. In the second place, I trust I have satisfied your Lordships that it has now become necessary to settle and define the rights of the respective parties by arbitration, with the double advantage—first, that when the rights are clearly and distinctly defined, there is no danger, or very little danger, of collision. It is in the uncertainty of the extent and nature of rights that the danger of collision lies: neither party, when those rights have been defined, will desire to infringe them or refuse to recognise the obligation to perform them. And, secondly, the great advantage will result that when once the rights have been defined, the possibility of arriving at some compromise or settlement is largely increased. The third ground upon which I trust I have satisfied your Lordships is that, as the Newfoundland Government have declined to legislate to secure a modus vivendi for next fishing season, we have no alternative in the interests of peace and order, and in the performance of our obligations, but to revive the powers which were given by the earlier Acts In truth, if we consider the case, we are in a worse position as regards the fishing season of 1891 than we were in with regard to the season of 1890, because, in the first place, those doubts to which I have referred have been raised as to the powers of naval officers; in the second place, the Colonial Government have now absolutely declined to assist us to secure the performance of the modus vivendi; and, finally, the situation has been lamentably aggravated by the inflammatory notice which has been circulated at three or four of the chief fishing places in Newfoundland, and the terms of which will be found in page 92 of C. 6256. I submit with confidence that the Government, therefore, had no option but to introduce this Bill, in which I have pointed out to your Lordships we have as far as possible preserved the independence of the Colonial Legislature by providing that should they now or or after the passing of this Act pass the necessary measures for giving due powers to the naval officers and securing the performance of the modus vivendi, and of our fishery engagements with France,

  1407
  then, the Imperial Act will be suspended. I have to apologise to your Lordships for having occupied so much of your time, but I must again express my hope that, in consideration of the importance and the difficulty of the subject, you will not think that I have unduly trespassed upon your patience.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am sure my noble Friend need have made no apology for the speech he has addressed to the House, both on account of the serious nature of the question, and also because he has very clearly and fully explained the situation to your Lordships. As my noble Friend is well aware, I being one of those who have had the honour of holding the seals of the Colonial Office, have myself not escaped from the necessity which every Colonial Minister has had of confronting the very serious difficulty there has always been in dealing with these rights of the French on the Newfoundland coast, and I need scarcely say that in common, I have no doubt, with my noble Friend and with all your Lordships, I feel great sympathy with the people of Newfoundland in the position in which they find themselves. These Treaties were made at a time when the condition of Newfoundland was wholly different. I will not attempt, especially at this time of the evening, to go into the various points which have been so well explained by my noble Friend, but perhaps the most important question of all, except the immediate difficulty of the lobster fisheries, is the fact that this portion of the coast which contains, as my noble Friend has said, valuable minerals, has been lately settled, and that a state of things has arisen which has really become almost intolerable. I think, speaking from memory, I was the Minister who advised the appointment of Magistrates on that coast, and I remember that that was not agreed to without very considerable difficulty and hesitation. Up to that time there was, in fact, no authority to enforce order or law among the inhabitants on the coast. That jurisdiction has, however, since been exercised and has been a very great benefit. But everybody must see that the state of things existing on that coast, with the growing population, cannot possibly be allowed to continue. On the other hand, to find a solu-
  1408
  tion of the difficulty has puzzled Minister after Minister. As long ago as when I was Under Secretary at the Foreign Office we were engaged in negotiations with the French on this subject, and Commission after Commission has been issued, and inquiry after inquiry has taken place—I myself negotiated personally with a representative sent over with the French Government—but all has been in vain. We have now arrived at a point at which I agree with my noble Friend—unfortunate as it is—some decided action on the part of Her Majesty's Government has become-unavoidable; and I cannot help feeling at the same time, as I am sure he feels, extreme regret that it has become necessary to use the undoubted power of the Imperial Parliament for the purpose of enforcing the law by an Imperial Act in a colony which is possessed of Representative Institutions, and has itself the power of passing the necessary laws for carrying into effect the Treaties which have been entered into by the Crown. There are two remarks which may be made in defence of such a step as regards the colony—lam not speaking now of our relations with France. In the first place these Treaties are all of very old date; they were all in existence at the time when responsible government was given to the colony, and the colony has exercised its rights subject to those Treaties. It cannot, therefore, be said that we are now using the power of the Imperial Parliament to interfere with the rights of the colony, because rights of the colony as against those Treaties never did and never could exist. It is perfectly manifest that as long as the colony forms a part of the Empire, and' as long as the right to conclude Treaties-is vested in the Crown, so long must there rest on the part of the colony the responsibility of passing laws to enforce those Treaties which are as binding upon the colony as upon us at home. But when there is a state of feeling like this existing in the colony, there is no alternative if we are bound by Treaty obligations to a foreign Power but for the Imperial Parliament to take care that as we have entered into those; Treaty obligations they shall be observed. And that, I apprehend, is the defence upon which Her Majesty's Government rest. I need not enter into the par-

  1409
  ticulars of the agreement. I quite think it will be a wise step to decide in the first place the question of the lobster fisheries, and in the next to open a door to the settlement by arbitration of all possible questions which may arise under those Treaties. This I feel bound to say: that my noble Friend has not spoken too strongly of the extraordinary tact and good sense displayed by the naval commanders on both sides for a long series of years in avoiding a collision which might have occurred at any time, and it seems to me almost incredible that there should be no naval officer, either French or English, guilty of any indiscretion by which a collision might have been brought about. That must be said in full recognition of the friendly disposition of the French nation and Government, because without that feeling and, of course, instructions due to it, their officers out in Newfoundland would not have been able to deal as they have with so delicate a situation. It is only just to the French Government to say that in the Papers which have been laid before your Lordships' House it appears plainly that the spirit in which they have met Her Majesty's Government has been of an essentially friendly nature, and that, being the case, there ought, I think, to be no difficulty now in arriving at a friendly solution. I feel confident that the Newfoundlanders, when they look at the circumstances, and reflect upon the whole situation, will see, as everyone in this country must see, that we cannot set aside our plain Treaty obligations with another Power, and they will, I believe, now, at the last moment, recognise that it is their duty calmly to wait until the issue of these negotiations is fully seen. I earnestly trust that will be the case. At present they certainly have given a very strong refusal to the appeal made to them by Her Majesty's Government; but I think they will see that any action on their part which would aggravate the situation, cannot redound to their own interests or to the benefit of the colony. I should be very sorry indeed to appear to utter, even as a private individual, any threat towards the colony, but I do not feel it altogether wrong to point out to them what the position of affairs would have been if we had not the power or disposition to en-
  1410
  force a Treaty between the Imperial Government and a friendly Power. Might not the French Government then have said:—"If the English Government refuse to enforce their obligation, are not we ourselves justified in enforcing the obligations under the Treaty?" And apart from the extremely serious questions which would arise, and which it would be for Her Majesty's Government to deal with, I would ask whether the Newfoundlanders would not be placed in a position which would involve great hardship upon them and injury to the colony. Upon every ground, therefore, I think they ought fairly to await the issue of the negotiations in the full confidence that Her Majesty's Government will, as I am sure they will, do their best to preserve all the rights which the colony can really claim under the Treaty, and afterwards, when those rights are ascertained, to arrive at a friendly compromise with the French Government, which will relieve the colony from the difficulties in which they are placed. I agree with my noble Friend that it is first important to ascertain what those rights are. They have been constantly disputed. The French have held one view, we have held another, and it is impossible to find any solution of the difficulty until they are ascertained. I, therefore, for these reasons, welcome this reference; I welcome it because I think it is a proper and friendly mode of dealing with a question of this kind between two friendly Powers; and I welcome it as a means to a settlement of the meaning of the Treaties. This is not, as I apprehend it, an arbitration for the purpose of taking away from Newfoundland, or for their giving up any rights they may possess. Arbitrations very often take the form of questions what, on one side or other, is to be given up; sometimes each side gives up something if the arbitrator so decides to the other; sometimes the decision is that a portion of the rights belonging to, or claimed by, one party shall be given up to the other party. But this arbitration—and I think the Newfoundlanders ought to weigh that well—is not of that nature; it is for the purpose of ascertaining by an impartial examination what is the true interpretation to be given to the Treaty obligations which we have en-

  1411
  tered into. That having been ascertained there will remain, of course, the further question which may be left to be considered afterwards—what solution can be found for the whole difficulty. As a preliminary step nothing could be better than arbitration to ascertain the meaning of the Treaty. With regard to the modus vivendi, after the explanation which has been given by the noble Lord, it is not necessary at present to say anything further; it is sufficient to say that there must be a modus vivendi, and that there must be power to enforce it during the negotiations. That seems to me to be the justification for this Bill. I should be most ready to find fault with it in the interests of the colony if I thought there was reason for it, but I do not. I have not yet seen the particular stipulations in it, nor do I know what the precise provisions of the Act of George IV. may have been; but, speaking generally, I have no hesitation in saying that deeply as I regret that the necessity should have arisen, I cannot see how it was possible to avoid interference by the Imperial Legislature for this particular and most important purpose.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has, in responding, dealt with this question in so candid and patriotic a spirit that it is quite unnecessary for me to add any words further than to say that I am glad, not only that he generally approves of the policy we have pursued, but that he spoke in the most sympathetic manner of the position of the colonists. I feel that they deserve every sympathy we can give them. They have been the sport of historic errors. It is an illustration of the continuity of the history of this country that we are now embarrassed and are paying the penalty of the deeds of Lord Bolingbroke, whom it did not suit to exact as strong terms as he might have exacted in the Treaty of Utrecht as against the French. The consequence was that these fishery rights were allowed to survive, with all the embarrassments they have brought with them. Once or twice in our subsequent history there was an opportunity when, without difficulty or strain, diplomacy might have removed this embarrassing chapter of our International Law. But it was not done. I believe that somebody appealed to Lord Castlereagh to
  1412
  make more satisfactory arrangements in 1815, but he replied that it would be inconsistent with the position of the French Government. It is impossible not to deeply pity these people, whose daily life and prospects of developing their industry in an inclement climate are subject to such difficult conditions, and who have been the sport of the errors of former statesmen. But of late years, ever since Lord Palmerston began these negotiations in 1834, statesmen of all schools and Parties have given their utmost efforts to bring about a satisfactory solution. Unfortunately, though it is impossible to speak otherwise than in terms of high appreciation of the tone and temper in which the French Government have dealt with the whole of this matter, still there is a strong feeling in France, not unconnected, I suspect, with their recollections of the past history of these countries, which makes it very difficult for any Government to obtain the slightest relaxation even of the more extreme and unreasonable claims which from time to time have been put forward by France. Therefore the negotiations have struggled on, what with the feeling of the colonists on the one hand and the claims of France on the other, under quite insuperable difficulties. In 1878, when the present French Ambassador was the Prime Minister of France, and I was holding the office which I hold at present, we sketched out what we hoped might be a reasonable compromise, selecting particular parts of the colony in which the French might enjoy freer rights, and releasing from those rights with entire freedom to the inhabitants all those parts of the coast in which it was thought that mineral or other sources of improvement might lie. We did not pursue it, we merely sketched out the idea; but it was taken up by our successors. Lord Granville pursued it—I do not know the details of the negotiation—for five years; and in 1885, when I succeeded him again, I found that he had succeeded in effecting a most equitable and satisfactory arrangement. It fell to my lot to give the signature to it, but it was a Treaty negotiated by him. Most unfortunately, I think, the Colonial Government were persuaded in apolitical crisis, under the influence of electors new to political power and scarcely cognisant of the responsibility attached to their

  1413
  action, not to avail themselves of that opportunity, and they rejected that Treaty. It was a golden opportunity lost, and I am afraid for ever. Since that time we have struggled on as best we could, and I think if that unfortunate animal, the lobster, had not interposed its claws between us we might still have got on; but with the lobster industry sprang up a pile of insoluble questions, bringing together sharply opposed interests, exposing us every year and every day of the fishing season to the risk of dangerous collisions. Because, my Lords, though the tact of our naval officers has been very great—they deserve every word that has been said of them—and though we can rely upon them to the utmost, still it was impossible not to feel but that at any time an ugly blow might have been given, or that something might have been done on one side or on the other by which the honour of the flag might have been imperilled. We know how easily the feelings of nations are aroused, and it was difficult to look without grave apprehension at the future such eventualities might involve. I think the colonists have lost sight of some of the most important considerations which should guide them, but it is fair to say that they have been very much pressed by material suffering; their fishing seasons have been unfortunate; their climate has been unusually severe; and they have shared in that depression of trade which has for some years affected the world. Therefore, I think they have judged too hardly and hastily of the existing situation. Judging from some utterances that I have seen of—I am sorry to say—responsible people, they seem to imagine that the embarrassments with which they are struggling are part of the result of their loyalty to the Queen and of their connection with this country. That is a great mistake. I do not for a moment suggest that there is the slightest probability or chance of a realisation of those utterances by which their political position would be modified; but I only say it is a great mistake to imagine that this difficulty with France would be in the slightest degree affected if they were now at liberty to tender their allegiance to any Sovereign or State in the world. The rights of the French would attach to that part of the
  1414
  coast under whatever allegiance they might rest. I think it right to say this, because of the wild language which I have seen has been used by some persons in the colony. I do not, however, believe that from the mass of the colonists any unreasonable conduct is to be apprehended. I think that when they see the question discussed, as it must be in this and the other House of Parliament, and when they see that their rights are subjected to the judgment of an impartial Commission, and that all we desire to do is not to modify or alter their status in any degree but merely to ascertain what that status really is before a tribunal of International Law, I feel certain that they will recognise the sympathy and the sincere desire which animates every school and Party of English politicians, and that they will co-operate with us in solving one of the most difficult international problems that has ever perplexed succeeding Governments, and will aid us in restoring to the utmost extent we can—and we have shown that we are ready to make considerable sacrifices for that purpose—that prosperity and plenty which no one desires more earnestly for them than the statesmen and the Legislature of this country.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: If I may be allowed to speak again I would ask the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies one question—I have no doubt he will answer it in the affirmative—that is, whether the colonists will have full opportunity of representing their views before the Commission? No doubt that is intended, but it would be more satisfactory to hear the statement from his lips.
  *LORD KNUTSFORD: Not only will they have full opportunity of bringing their views before the Arbitrators, but we have telegraphed out to know whether they desire to have as one of the delegates some one who has the confidence of the Colonial Ministry. We have not yet received an answer.
  Bill presented; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 76.)

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 77.)
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed: The Lord Foxford (E. Limerick)—chosen Speaker.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.