Sitting of 4 May 1891

QUESTIONS.

  THE MANIPUR EXPEDITION.
  MR. CRAWFORD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table the instructions given to Mr. Quinton for the expedition to Manipur?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): Yes, Sir; the Despatches, when printed, will be laid upon the Table.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for
  50
  India whether the Papers relating to the Manipur Expedition, which he has promised to present to the House, will include, not only such instructions as may have been given to Mr. Quinton by the Government of India, but all communications which have passed between the India Office here and the Government of India upon this subject?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes, Sir; the communications between the Secretary of State and the Government of India will be included in the Papers presented to the House.
  MR. BRYCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon he thinks the Despatches will be laid upon the Table?
  SIR J. GORST: I said last week that the Secretary of State is waiting for the Despatches, and they are now on their way from India. When I left the India Office to-day they had not arrived. They ought to arrive to-day.

  GUARANTEED RAILWAYS IN INDIA.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what are the railways for which the Secretary of State has given or offered a guarantee, and what is the amount and duration of the guarantee in each of such cases; and whether, in cases in which a concession has been given, any deposit or security has been exacted to bind the applicants, or whether in any cases concessions have been given which leave the concessionaires free to take them up if they find they can raise the money so as to make a profit for themselves, or to throw them up if they cannot?
  SIR J. GORST: A proposed company for making a railway from Chittagong to Assam is the only one to which such a guarantee has been offered. The Secretary of State does not think it would be fair to the promoters of that company to promulgate the terms of the guarantee in reply to the question of the hon. Member.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of my question, as to the security which it is proposed to exact.
  SIR J. GORST: That would be promulgating the terms of the guarantee, which my noble Friend the Secretary of State is unwilling to do.

  THE CONGO — TREATMENT OF NATIVES BY THE BELGIANS.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that when the Belgian steamer Le Roi Souverain reached Boma a month or two ago, the Governor General went on board and selected 83 Krooboys (out of 400 contracted as labourers for the Railway Company) as soldiers and marched them oft in spite of the captain's protest on their behalf; if he has no information, will he make inquiries on the subject; and are Kroomen under the protection of the British Crown?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): We have no information on the subject. If by the term "Kroomen" natives of the Kroo coast are indicated, the answer is that they are not under British protection. It is not for Her Majesty's Government to inquire into the conduct of a Belgian official where no British interests are concerned.

  LOCAL LOANS STOCK.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Local Loans Stock is over and above the £679,992,000 net liabilities of the State on 31st March, 1891; what is the total amount for which the taxpayers of this country as a whole are ultimately responsible, in excess of that £679,000,000, in the shape of local loans and guaranteed debts; and if he can distinguish those local and guaranteed loans as made or guaranteed for England, Scotland, Ireland, British Colonies and Possessions, and foreign countries?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): The figure of £679,922,000 represents the net liabilities of the State. The net liabilities do not include local loans, where there are corresponding assets. The method of arrival at the net liabilities will be best seen by the hon. Member if he turns to the Return known as that of the right hon. Member for Derby, No. 343, 1890, pp. 4 to 7. On pages 16–17 of the same Return will be found a statement in detail of all the national liabilities of a contingent or indirect
  52
  character. On pages 134–135 of the Finance Accounts of 1890 will be found the distribution of the loans between the different portions of the Empire.

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND THE BEER AND SPIRIT DUTIES.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER:: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many counties and county boroughs have applied the contribution made from the Beer and Spirit Duties to technical education; and what are the amounts so applied?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. From the Returns already received in reply to a Circular issued by the Science and Art Department at the end of March last, it appears that of the 50 County Councils and 60 county boroughs in England, 16 of the former and 25 of the latter have already decided to apply the whole of their share of the residue under the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act of 1890 to Science and Art and technical education. Nine County Councils and two county boroughs have made grants varying from "nearly the whole" to a smaller proportion of their share to the same purpose. Twelve County Councils and seven county boroughs have the matter under consideration; that is to say, they have appointed Committees, and in many cases the Committees have recommended the allocation of the whole, or the greater part of the residue fund, to technical instruction, but their Reports have not yet been confirmed by the County or Borough Councils. I am not able to give the amounts, but they can be supplied in the form of a Return if the right hon. Gentleman will move for it later in the Session, when the information will be more complete. With regard to Wales, the question is complicated by the fact that the Welsh Intermediate Education Act includes technical instruction, but it appears that four County Councils and one county borough have applied the whole of their share of the residue under the Intermediate Education Act; while two County Councils and one county borough have divided their quota between that Act and the Technical In-

  53
  struction Act. The remaining County Councils have either made no Return or else have the matter under consideration.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: May I ask whether, having regard to the fact that so large a number of County Authorities have followed the example of the County of London, and have not applied this money to technical education, the Government will be prepared to make such application compulsory?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: That is a question that may be worth considering.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board in how many counties have any arrangements been made by which non-county boroughs will be intrusted with the application and distribution of their share of the contribution of the Beer and Spirit Duties available for technical education under Clause 1, Sub-section 3, of "The Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Act, 1890"?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): As a considerable number of counties have not yet come to a final decision as to the allocation of the duties referred to, it is not possible to give a complete statement on the subject. I shall have no objection to giving a Return showing the allocation when I am in a position to make it a complete one.

  POLITICAL ECONOMY AND GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether political economy has been struck out of the compulsory subjects for examination for the Foreign Office or Diplomatic Service; and, if so, whether he can state for what reasons this has been done?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: There will in future be one examination qualifying for both Services. Political economy is omitted from the examination. The Secretary of State considers that the subject is not one that affords a good test for a competitive examination, and that the amount of knowledge which would be acquired for the purposes of competition would be of little value in
  54
  the future career of the candidates. Other subjects have been added to the examination which are considered to be of more value.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWER: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I will take an early opportunity of calling attention to the subject.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: May I ask whether, apart from competitive examinations, it would not be possible to require some knowledge of political economy in these Services?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No, Sir. The Secretary of State is of opinion that the examinations may be more usefully devoted to other subjects.

  THE ELECTION OF ALDERMEN.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent case in which, the Mayor of a borough, being a candidate for the appointment of Alderman, presided at the election, and, the numbers being equal, gave a second or casting vote for himself, and returned himself as duly elected; whether, having regard to the principle that a man cannot preside at his own election and return himself elected, the election was valid; and whether the Mayor was capable of acting in the execution of his powers and duties as to elections, within the meaning of Section 67 of "The Municipal Corporations Act, 1872"?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: My attention has been called to this case. It is no part of my duty to decide points of law such as are raised by my hon. Friend in the second and third paragraphs of his question. It is for those who dispute the validity of the election to raise the question in a Court of Law.

  LAGOS.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has received a Memorial from 246 inhabitants of Lagos, dated December, 1890, calling attention to the frequent and disastrous raids and kidnapping expeditions from Dahomey on

  55
  the Yoruba country, and to the neglect of Article 1 of the Treaty of Cession in 1861, to the following effect:—
  "In order that the Queen of England may be the better enabled to assist, defend, and protect the inhabitants of Lagos, and to put an end to the Slave Trade in this and the neighbouring countries, and to prevent the destructive wars frequently undertaken by Dahomey and others for the capture of slaves, I, Docemo, do with the consent and advice of my Council, give transfer,"
  &c.; and, if so, whether he will inform the House as to the action which Her Majesty's Government proposes to take in the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Petition has only recently been received, as, although dated in December last, it was not sent to the Governor until the 28th February. It will receive the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but I may state that the Governor was authorised, before the arrival of the Memorial referred to, to send a letter to the King of Dahomey protesting against his making an anticipated raid, and warning him.

  THE CHILIAN REVOLUTION.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government are aware of the fact that a large number of sailors and other British subjects are being forcibly detained in the service of the Chilian Insurgents; and whether he will state what instructions have been sent out to Her Majesty's Representatives for the protection of life and property in connection with the Chilian Revolution?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The only Report of any circumstance of this kind is contained in a Despatch from the Vice Consul at Punta Arenas of the 4th February last. He mentioned that there were on board the Almirante Lynch, which had declared for the Chilian Government, about 30 sailors of British nationality besides some of other nations, and that the engineers were English, and that it was reported that they were kept on board against their wishes under promise of double pay. But the Almirante Lynch and her consorts went at once to Monte Video, and
  56
  new crews were sent to them overland from Santiago. Neither the Admiral nor Her Majesty's Minister at Santiago have alluded to any incident of the kind in their Reports. Their instructions are, generally, to protect British subjects and vessels to the best of their power from illegal molestation; and they seem to have exerted themselves very effectively for the purpose. It is scarcely possible that any large number of British subjects should have been illegally detained in the manner described without their having mentioned it. But inquiries will be addressed to them by telegraph.

  BRITISH GUIANA.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State has nominated a successor to Colonel Cotton as Inspector General of the Armed Police of the Colony of British Guiana; and whether any scheme has been received from the Governor for the defence of the colony since the removal of the Imperial troops?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The Secretary of State has selected Colonel McInnis, Commandant of Local Forces in Trinidad, to succeed Colonel Cotton. Arrangements for strengthening the local forces in the colony are under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government and the Colonial Government.

  THE NEW POST OFFICE BUILDINGS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the statement that Mr. Chapple, the contractor for the New Post Office Buildings, St. Martins-le-Grand, has further sublet the first floor to Messrs. Smith and Taylor; and, if so, will he explain on what grounds this has been done, in view of his statement that sub-letting was carefully limited, and that no further portion of the stonework would be submitted to be sub-let?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): I have made inquiry of Mr. Chapple, and I am assured that there is no foundation whatever for the statements referred to in the question of the hon. Member.

  TRADE INCORPORATIONS AT AYR.
  MR. SOMERVELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the funds of certain Charitable Institutions in Ayr are being diverted from their original purpose; and, if so, whether he can suggest a remedy for the misappropriation of these funds, or direct an inquiry into the working of the existing Trade Incorporations of Ayr?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I presume the question of my hon. Friend refers to the three Incorporations of Tailors, Weavers, and Fleshers of Ayr. As regards the first, my only information is that there is an existing membership, and that recently a Mr. Loudon raised an action in the Court of Session asking that he should be admitted a member, but in this claim he was unsuccessful. The case of the Weavers' Incorporation has also been the subject of litigation, which does not appear to have yet been finally decided, and the membership of the Fleshers' Incorporation having become extinct, the property which formerly belonged to them has fallen to the Crown as ultimus hœres. I am further informed that a movement is on foot to ask that the sums which have fallen to the Crown may be devoted to benevolent purposes within the district; but as this is a matter which falls to be dealt with by the Treasury, I am unable to give my hon. Friend any further information on the subject.

  SOLDIERS CLOTHING.
  MR. H. S. WRIGHT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now able to announce what scale of issues the soldier will in future receive, or will he be granted a money allowance to purchase his clothing as required; what in future will be done regarding the worn-out clothing; and will it become the property of the soldier absolutely?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The whole question of the issue and disposal of soldiers' clothing is at present under our consideration, and I am sorry not to be able at present to announce any decision upon it.
  MR. HANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman announce the decision before the Estimates come on?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am afraid I cannot undertake to do that.

  MAXWELLTOWN BURGH.
  MR. R. T. REID: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether a burgh, situated as Maxwelltown is, with a separate Local Authority to administer the Public Health Acts, can be legally assessed for the salaries of the County Medical Officer and Sanitary Inspector, for which they are receiving no benefit, inasmuch as the burgh is already assessed by the Burgh Local Authority for the salaries of the Burgh Medical Officer and Sanitary Inspector?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The salaries of these county officers are paid out of the general purposes rate, and burghs such as Maxwelltown contribute their proportion towards the payment of these salaries. It is no doubt the case that such burghs are also assessed under the Public Health Act for the salaries of their own Medical Officer and Sanitary Inspector, but, in this respect, they do not differ from the Rural Sanitary Districts. The new Medical Officer is appointed to take a general supervision of the sanitary condition of the whole county, including both urban and rural districts.

  HE AMERICAN MAILS.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that, on each alternate Thursday from this date to the close of the year, a much faster steamer than the vessel carrying the mails by contract is arranged to leave Queenstown for New York at the same hour with the mail steamer; if he is aware that, in the case of these steamers, the average passages last year of the non-mail carrying steamers were fully two days quicker than those of the mail carrying vessels; and will he sanction any method whereby merchants sending correspondence to America may be informed of the advantage of two days' earlier delivery to be gained each alternate Wednesday by sending their letters, not by the mail steamers, but specially addressed?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I am informed that on Wednesday next the contract packet Majestic carries the regular mails from Queenstown to New York, while the private steamer City of Berlin, a much slower vessel, carries ship letter mails. As regards future sailings, the Post Office has no notification at present, as the owners only furnish such information weekly; but it is probable that, on some occasions this year, as last year, a faster non-contract steamer will sail on the same day as the contract packet. The names and dates of sailing of non-contract steamers, as well as those of the contract packets, are published in the Post Office daily list, and the public are notified that all letters superscribed to go by the non-contract steamers, in preference to the contract packets, will be so forwarded.

  THE BUDGET SURPLUS—APPLICATION OF THE SCOTTISH PORTION.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the growing feeling in Scotland in favour of applying to various educational purposes the greater part or even the whole of the sum to be allotted to Scotland, in conjunction with the sum to be allotted to free education in England, he will endeavour to state the proposals of the Government for the application of this Scotch sum before the Whitsuntide Recess, in order to give full opportunity for the expressions of opinion in Scotland upon the subject?
  MR. M. J. STEWART: May I also ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is acquainted with the growing feeling existing in Scotland, as proved by the deputation of persons from influential bodies and authorities, that a considerable part of the sum in question should be applied to the relief of ratepayers?
  MR. H. ANSTRUTHER: Is it not a fact that the Municipal Authorities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, Greenock, Paisley, and many Parochial Boards of important cities in Scotland have made representations in the opposite sense to that indicated by the question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bryce) below me?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I can answer the questions of fact. It is the fact, as the hon. Member for St. Andrews suggests, that representations have been made to me by those important authorities and bodies to which allusion has been made. The hon. Member for Aberdeen asks me whether, in view of the growing feeling in Scotland in favour of a certain application of this fund, the Government will do a certain thing, and my hon. Friend behind me asks me whether, in view of the growing feeling in Scotland in a certain other direction, I will do a certain other thing. I can speak to facts, but not to growth. Under these circumstances, I am not prepared to say "yes" or "no" to the Preamble of the question of the hon. Member for Aberdeen; and, as to the substantive part of his inquiry, I am afraid I am unable to give any positive pledge at present.
  DR. CAMERON: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the precise amount of money that will be allocated to Scotland?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot at present state the exact amount, but it will be in the proportion of 11 per cent. of the whole.
  MR. BRYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the matter a little more clear? Can he not indicate in some way the objects contemplated by the Government, so that full time may be available for the discussion of the proposals in Scotland?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am afraid that we cannot make disclosures to Scotland before we make disclosures to England and Ireland. I would suggest that any further inquiries on the subject should be addressed to the Lord Advocate. It is my business to provide the money, and it will be the business of the Scotch Office in the main to determine how it shall be applied.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Is the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the 11 per cent. subject to inquiry as to the financial relations between the three Kingdoms?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will not say that that might not be the result either upwards or downwards, but for this year, at all events, it is likely that 11 per cent. will be the proportion.

  CERTIFICATED TEACHERS.
  MR. CROSS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state when the Return relating to certificated teachers in public elementary schools, ordered on March 11th, will be ready for distribution?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: The revised proofs were sent to the Home Office some days ago, and I understand that the Return is now with the printers for completion by an early date.

  MR. NELSON AND THE LURGAN MAGISTRATES.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of the Chairman of the Lurgan Bench of Magistrates in refusing to give costs for attendance as witness for the prosecution, to Mr. Nelson, pawnbroker, of Lisburn, in recent cases; whether he is aware that in these cases Mr. Nelson had given information to the police, upon which the persons charged were arrested and convicted, and that he has been publicly complimented in Lisburn Court for the assistance rendered to the police on other occasions; whether it is customary to grant costs for the expenses applied for on behalf of Mr. Nelson; and whether the Constabulary authorities have any ground for imputing to Mr. Nelson the conduct ascribed to him by the Chairman of the Lurgan Bench in refusing to give the costs applied for?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The facts, I am informed, are as stated in the first three paragraphs of the question. The Constabulary do not impute to Mr. Nelson any attempted evasion of the law. On the contrary, he has always shown a marked inclination to render every assistance in his power in the detection of offenders.

  RESULT FEES IN IRELAND.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what was the amount of the result fees paid to schools in Ireland for industrial work under the alternative scheme for girls of the sixth class, for the year commencing on or after 1st August,
  62
  1889, distinguishing between the amount paid to convent and monastery national schools and that paid to other national schools?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners of National Education report that the information sought in this question could not be supplied without an exhaustive examination of all the Inspectors' Reports of their results inspections for the year mentioned, which would involve considerable labour. The Commissioners add that for the period in question the adoption of the alternative scheme for girls of the sixth class was entirely optional with managers of schools, and comparatively few schools were prepared to at once adopt it.

  THE BELFAST MAILS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the amount of the annual contract for carrying the mails from Belfast by steamer to Greenock and Glasgow; at what date was the present contract entered into; what was the date of the first contract, and the amount then paid for the service; and if he can state when the present contract expires, and also the number of years during which the mails were carried by this route without any payment?
  MR. RAIKES: The annual payment for the Mail Packet Service between Greenock and Belfast, and Ardrossan and Belfast is £10,000 a year. The contract is dated 1st August, 1883, and is to continue in force until 12 months' notice to terminate it has been given on either side. The former contract was dated 16th July, 1849, and remained in force until the 1st August, 1883. No payment was made under that contract, so that the period during which the mails were conveyed free of charge was 34 years.

  PORK-PACKING IN LIMERICK.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a Report by the United States' Consul Reid, of Dublin, published in the Grocer, of the 11th April, in which it is stated that—
  "One of the chief pork-packing concerns in Limerick buys great quantities of American hams in the cured state, smokes them, and impresses its own brand upon them,"

  63
  and sells them at a price a trifle below what it asks for its own goods; whether impressing an Irish brand on American hams is an infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act; and if, in the interest of the Irish trade, he will cause inquiry to be made as to whether any such practice, as alleged, is carried on?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The Government have no information whatever that confirms the statement referred to in the question.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I will repeat the question on Thursday.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the American Consul been asked upon what grounds he made the statement?
  MR. MADDEN: No, Sir; I think it would hardly be within my province to put a question of that kind.

  LAND PURCHASE ACTS.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the sale of a holding for non-payment of instalments, under the Land Purchase Acts, gives the new purchaser a clear Parliamentary title, free of all other claims and liabilities; and whether the arrears of the instalments are a first charge on the money raised by the sale?
  MR. MADDEN: In the case of the sale of a holding for non-payment of instalments, the transfer of the holding is effected by means of conveyance by the Irish Land Commission to the purchaser, the holding being conveyed freed from any liabilities, except any liabilities incident to the tenure, such as head rent, subject to which the holding may have been originally purchased, and subject, of course, to the payment of the future instalments of the annuity if (as is usual) the holding is sold subject thereto under the provisions of the 15th section of the Act of 1885. The title cannot be accurately described as a Parliamentary title; but if the Local Registration of Title Bill, which has been read a second time by the House, should become law, the title of the purchaser, as well as of the original tenant, will be in all cases absolute and indefeasible. The arrears of the instalments, as provided by Sub-section 3 of Section 30 of the Act of 1881, are applied first in discharge of the arrears due to the Commissioners unless
  64
  the holding was subject to a head rent or other outgoing in priority to the advance.

  IRISH CHRISTIAN BROTHERS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government is still determined to refuse the claims of the Irish Christian Brothers to some participation in the public funds provided for primary education in Ireland; whether he is aware that this Order of teachers possess over 70 establishments in Ireland, and educate 40,000 children of the working classes, and that the Royal Commissions of 1854 and 1868 reported most favourably of their system of education and its results; whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Brothers do not object to the inspection and examination of their schools, nor do they object to submit the schools and the results of the teaching to open and public competition; and whether, in view of the immense services rendered to the cause of primary and intermediate education by the Brothers, he is prepared to make some recommendation on their behalf to the proper authorities?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The case of the Irish Order of Christian Brothers was fully dealt with in my reply to a question similar to the present one asked on 19th May, 1890, which is reported in Hansard, and to which I beg to refer the hon. Member. As I then stated, various Orders of Monks, including the French Order of Christian Brothers, find no difficulty in taking advantage of the public grants and putting themselves under the general regulations of the National Education Board, and I, therefore, do not see that it is necessary to make a special modification of the rules in favour of one Monastic Order.

  THE POTATO DISEASE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to an article in the Times of 6th April, entitled "A Remedy for Potato Disease," and referring to the employment of sulphate of copper as a preventive of the disease; and whether he will consider the advisability of communi-

  65
  cating with the Local Government Board in Ireland with a view to some steps being taken to test the value of the suggested preventive of this destructive disease?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The subject of potato disease has, of course, come under the notice of the Agricultural Department of the Irish Land Commission, as well as of the Royal Dublin Society. Experiments of a practical character in connection with this subject are being undertaken.

  DOWNPATRICK GAOL.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Gaol at Downpatrick, County Down, has been discontinued as a convict prison; and whether the Prison Board intend to make any, and, if so, what, further use of it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that the gaol at Downpatrick has been discontinued as a convict prison, but that the question of the future disposal of the building has not yet been decided.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the reason assigned by the Privy Council for refusing to permit the removal of cattle in those districts of the Mullingar and Delvin Unions which have been declared free from pleuro-pneumonia for the period prescribed by the Order in Council?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are no restrictions on the removal of cattle in the Delvin Union. As regards Mullingar Union, the Parish of Killucan has, in consequence of outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia there, been declared under Order in Council a scheduled district since February 14 last. This district is under observation, and the Scheduling Order will be revoked as soon as it is deemed that it can be done with safety.

  LAND COMMISSION—WEXFORD.
  MR. J. BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state when the Chief Land Commis-
  66
  sion will hold a sitting to hear the fair rent appeals from County Wexford; and if they will sit in the town of Wexford, in order to save the tenants the inconvenience and expense of bringing their witnesses to Dublin?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not yet been able to obtain the information, and, therefore, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put down the question for another day.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL. (No. 205.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 221.)
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. (No. 221.)
  Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into Consideration upon Monday, 25th May, and to be printed. (Bill 315.)

  IRISH SOCIETY AND LONDON COMPANIES (IRISH ESTATES).
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Proceedings and an Appendix, brought up, and read;
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 222.)
  Minutes of Proceedings, with an Appendix, to be printed. (No. 222.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Charities' Recovery Bill, with Amendments.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 111.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 5.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, to leave out Sub-section 1. — (Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'Where' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. SEXTON: I must remind the Committee that,

    67
    practically, land purchase has been in operation in Ireland for the last 22 years, and during the last five years it has been followed on a large scale upon principles which in their main features are the same as those of this Bill. I should have expected, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman, in suggesting this provision, would have based it upon the results of experience, and that he would have felt it necessary to convince the Committee that the results of the system, as it is actually administered, have proved the necessity of this additional advance in the nature of insurance money. No suggestion of the kind has come from the right hon. Gentleman. But I can understand his silence, because if the Reports of the Land Commission are referred to it will be seen that the arrears which have actually accrued are so trifling—not amounting to more than 2d. in the £1 upon the annuity—that the mention of them is an argument against this sub-section rather than in favour of it; and this provision, so far from being justified by the test of experience, is proved by experience to be unnecessary. Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, in the Colony of Victoria, had to frame and administer a Land Purchase Act. He tells us that the purchasers were 100,000 in number, and that the land taken up was equal in extent to the whole arable land in Ireland. The purchasers included many Irish evicted tenants, and Sir Charles Duffy testifies to the fact that ever since the initiation of the system the annuities have been fully paid up, and with remarkable punctuality. I mention this fact to show that the principle of ownership and the growth of interest with men who have been converted from tenants into landed proprietors operate so powerfully where the terms of purchase have been fair that really no default is to be apprehended. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, then, to consider this case, which is altogether analogous— [Cries of "Oh!"] I am astonished that the Representatives of the Irish landlords whom I see opposite should be excited on the subject. I maintain that if these powers are retained you will destroy the Act. In the Bill of last year you were so careful of what you call "free con-
    68
    tract" that you would not permit the Land Commissioners to fix the price of a holding unless both landlord and tenant agreed to refer that question to them. But in this Bill you play so fast and loose with the principle that even when the landlord and tenant are agreed, and the contract has been ratified by the Land Commissioners, you propose to allow the Lord Lieutenant, who may be—as was the case last year—an Irish landlord, to alter the terms of purchase—in fact, to turn the bargain upside down, and alter it without regard to the views of either the landlord or tenant. Such a proposal is both grotesque and indefensible. Such powers are given to the Lord Lieutenant under Sub-section 3, with reference to the holdings dealt with in Sub-section 1, as will, if passed into law, defeat the object of the Bill. It would be in the power of the Lord Lieutenant, if he asserts his right, to levy a fine upon any contract by extending the period during which the higher annuity is to be paid. You may say that he would not do so; but, on the other hand, he might, for a Lord Lieutenant can do pretty nearly anything he likes. I daresay that hon. Members opposite are not anxious to sell their own estates; but they represent the interests of those who are anxious to sell, and I hope they will join with us in insisting that this power be excluded from the Bill. I am encouraged by the very nature of the case to believe that the Government will consent to strike out this extraordinary provision. The mere existence of such a power would create enough misapprehension in the minds of the tenants to greatly restrict the sales. Even the scheme for insurance for a period of five years will unquestionably be attended by the most deleterious effects. In the first place, it will encourage purchases. There are in Ireland some 20,000 farmers who have bought under the Ashbourne Act, and these men enjoy reductions of from 36 to 45 per cent. on their old rents. If the tenants under this Bill are asked to accept a position in painful contrast to that of the purchasers under the Ashbourne Act, the tendency to purchase will be minimised. What will be the reduction under this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman puts it at 14 per cent.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I was wrong in that.
    MR. SEXTON: How was the right hon. Gentleman wrong?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will explain when the hon. Gentleman has concluded his speech.
    MR. SEXTON: It would, perhaps, be better to give the explanation now.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then what is really done is this: The Land Commission will find out what is the nature of the value of a holding in relation to the rent. The rates will be about 7 per cent. of the total rent, and deducting them from, say £107, the net annual value would be £100, and the tenant would pay £80. The Land Commissioners will find out the value and reduce it.
    MR. SEXTON: If the tenant is able to secure a reduction of 10 per cent. that is enough for me. But when you take into consideration the fact that the tenant will be put to the expense of travelling to and fro in connection with the purchase, that he will further have to pay the cost of the transaction and of legal advice, and that he will also have to provide for drainage and other charges, my belief is that if you insist upon this insurance clause the relief to the tenants for the first five years will be nothing, or next to nothing. I am quite convinced that the effect of the insurance clause will be greatly to discourage purchase. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Morley) has urged that the effect of this provision will be to increase the price artificially; but the Chief Secretary says "No, because if you discourage purchase you cannot increase the price." For my own part, I think that both things may happen. If you purchase an annuity to represent the true annual payment in respect of the purchase money, everyone in Ireland will know what has been the actual rent purchased. But what will be the effect of this insurance? All the transactions all over Ireland for the next five years will be as if farms had been bought at 20 years' purchase, while the Land Commission have refused to sanction many transactions at 14 and 15 years' purchase, because they think the holding is not sufficient security for the
    70
    advance. It would be difficult, under such circumstances, to discover what had been the actual value of the laud as tested by the number of years' purchase given. The effect of this provision is to obscure facts, and by obscuring facts to obscure judgment. Further, it will artificially raise the price of land by making it appear that the transactions have taken place on the basis of 20 years' purchase. Moreover, the provision will create a difficulty at a most critical period. The Chief Secretary urged the other night that it would be a provision for a bad year. Undoubtedly that would be so if we could satisfy ourselves that the bad year would not occur until the five years were over. But suppose that it occurs, as is most likely, within the first five years, when the struggling owner is in special difficulties, and his credit has not yet been established, what is likely to happen? My contention is that the first five years is the most critical period, and if the tenant goes through those five years he will most likely go through all the rest. The insurance provision, instead of aiding the solvency of the tenant, in my opinion strikes a blow at that solvency. I think the scheme is a thoroughly bad one, and I am satisfied that it never proceeded from the right hon. Gentleman. Whatever else the right hon. Gentleman may be he is certainly too adroit to have drafted a scheme of this kind—one of the most clumsy that ever disfigured a Bill. Nor is it comprehensive or even in its operation. In some cases it is adequate, while in others it is absolutely oppressive. In the case of a tenancy at an annual value of £5 at 19 years' purchase, the advance would be £95, the annuity £3 16s., and the insurance 4s. a year, which, in five years, would amount to £1, in respect of annuity of £3 16s. At 10 years' purchase, which might be given for moor and mountain bog, reclaimed by the tenant, the advance would be £50, the annuity £2, or £10 in five years, so that by that time provision would have been made for five bad years. That statement is, I think, sufficient to condemn the scheme. But I lay down the principle that if this insurance is required at all, it ought to be comprehensive in every case in which it is applied, and so far as it is applied the inci-

    71
    dence of the charge ought to be equal, This, however, is not a system of insurance hut rather a system of fine. On the one hand, there may be cases in which the provision is most inadequate, and, on the other, there will be cases in which the impost will become most oppressive. I would suggest that a line should be drawn at £25. Below that annual value the tenants of Ireland have a very hard struggle to live, and the true principle would be to give tenants under that line the full benefit of their bargains under the Act, while you impose upon tenants above that line, and who will probably have some surplus, this principle of insurance, if you will. Then, again, instead of making the insurance increase as the rent goes down, I would suggest that there should be one uniform rate of 5 or 10 per cent. charged all round upon the normal annuity. At the end of five years such a provision would give you a sum equal to one half-yearly payment. I would not, however, make this an arbitrary rule, because there may he young tenants who would be willing and desirous of increasing the insurance rate in order to accelerate the period when they would enjoy the complete ownership of their farms. The right hon. Gentleman says that he proposes to make provision for a bad year. I think he is labouring under a fallacy. He seems to think that he can use the money of the Irish tenants better than they can use it themselves, and he believes that if they get the full value of the reductions they will not save the money. I think that experience and history teach the contrary. In America and elsewhere no other race has exhibited such brilliant examples of economy and thrift. I maintain that if you allow the Irish peasants the full advantage of the credit of the State—if you give them the full benefit of the reductions to which they are entitled, they will make use of the difference in the development of their homes. These are my arguments against this provision. I think that it should be struck out altogether; but if you retain it, then in the congested districts the tenants should be given a chance of paying their annuities, but they and all tenants who pay under £25 a year should not be obliged to pay to an insurance
    72
    fund. Furthermore, instead of imposing the insurance on the first five years in succession, which will be the hardest years of the tenants' struggle, let it be imposed on alternate years, so that he may have some remission and ease between. I also wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the State advance may now be more than 20 times the annual value?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I may say, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, that in the Bill of last year the State advance was limited to 20 years' purchase, and it is in view of that Bill that the present one has been brought in in the shape to which the hon. Gentleman has called attention.
    MR. SEXTON: May I ask whether this Bill fixes any number of years' purchase?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; it only says it may be any number of years' purchase for which the Land Commissioners think the security adequate. The 20 years' limit in last year's Bill is not contained in this Bill, and therefore the Return must be corrected in this respect; the advance may now be made to any number of years' purchase for which the Land Purchase Commissioners think that the security is adequate. The hon. Gentleman's objection to the scheme is based upon his experience, and he has told ns that from his experience of the Ashbourne Acts of 1885 and 1888 he does not anticipate any large number of arrears. That, I think, is true, but it must be remembered, in the first place, this is a very much larger scheme than any which has been adopted before, and therefore requires special safeguards which perhaps have not been necessary in dealing with smaller amounts. We are contemplating the operation of the scheme extending to districts where there has practically been no such thing as purchase up to the present time, as for instance, in the West of Ireland and the poorer districts. We cannot ignore the fact that tenants who purchase in those districts may find themselves, possibly from no fault of their own, in very embarrassed circumstances in a bad year, and then an Insurance Fund will be necessary. With regard to the experience of Sir C. Gavan Duffy in Australia, which the hon. Member re-

    73
    ferred to, I have not had an opportunity of looking into that question, but I conjecture that there the transactions have been with regard to virgin soil, bought at perhaps less than £1 an acre, where the whole value was contributed by the industry of the tenant, working on this virgin soil. In the case of Ireland the tenants, or their predecessors in title, have expended a good deal of money in bringing the land to its present state of cultivation, so that we cannot expect a large increase in the value of the asset, and therefore any financial operation based on the value of the holding without any security behind it in the shape of a Guarantee Fund must necessarily be of a much less solid kind than would be the case where the sale is one of fertile virgin soil at a very small rate of interest.
    MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to draw his attention to Sir Gavan Duffy's words, which were to the effect that the fact of allowing the annual rent to count as part of the purchase money constituted a powerful inducement to the purchaser to make regular annual payments.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not referring to that particular argument; I am far from desirous of undervaluing the effect which the feeling of proprietorship may have on the purchasers, but we may, I would point out, anticipate less of that feeling in Ireland because legislation in the past has been such as to give security of tenure. The hon. Gentleman opposite attacked the provision in Sub-section 3. I think there are very strong reasons in favour of that provision which I will give when the sub-section is reached. I am aware my hon. Friend the Member for South. Tyrone does not concur as to the wisdom of the provision. The principal argument advanced against the sub-section is that under Lord Ashbourne's Act a purchasing tenant gets off 30 or 40 per cent, of his rent, while under the provisions of this Bill he will only get off 20 per cent., the difference of 20 per cent. representing a further obligation thrown upon the purchaser. The Committee, however, must see that this obligation is not of the same character as the obligation to pay the annuity. The latter is an absolute obliga-
    74
    tion, independent of all good or bad fortune; but the obligation to pay this additional 20 per cent., which represents the tenant's insurance fund, is an obligation capable of modification if the tenant suffers from undeserved misfortune. If any scheme of land purchase is to work smoothly, and is not to be accompained by extremely hard cases, some provision, not materially different from this one, is necessary. I now come to the criticisms passed by the hon. Gentleman on his scheme of insurance. The hon. Gentleman pointed out objections to which, he said, his own scheme was not open. The hon. Gentleman proposes that there shall be an ad valorem insurance of 10 per cent. on the annuity. In the case of tenants who buy at less than 20 years' purchase, that will have the extraordinary effect of making the duty greater than the rent they pay their landlords. Again, in the case of a tenant giving 25 years' purchase to the annuity, which is equal to his former gross rent, the hon. Gentleman desires to add another 10 per cent. It seems to me that while the scheme in the Bill is open to criticism, the hon. Gentleman's plan would operate far more harshly and far more unjustly. I will go further, and say that an ad valorem fund is not the proper mode of insurance. Companies who insure against fire have different rates, according to the character of the buildings insured, and life insurances differ in the same way, and so it is clear that the insurance on these holdings ought to be increased exactly in proportion to their liability to difficulties and misfortunes. The plan adopted in the Bill, being automatic, will of course not be justified in every instance, but, broadly speaking, I believe it will be thoroughly justified. The tenant in the West of Ireland is, owing to climatic conditions and the poverty of the soil, peculiarly liable to misfortunes, and surely it follows that the insurance fund should be larger in that case than in the case of a man whose holding is worth 15, 17, or 20 years' purchase. It appears to me that the holdings the hon. Member would exclude from the operation of the fund are precisely those which ought specially to be included. It is exactly in the cases in which the tenants have a hard

    75
    struggle, in which a year of potato failure, of drought, or excessive wet produces a catastrophe in their affairs, that I wish to have the insurance fund large in order to prevent the unpleasant and odious necessity of turning them out of their holdings. Nothing that the hon. Member has said, or that the right hon. Member for Newcastle said on Friday night, leads me to doubt the wisdom of the provision in the Bill or to suggest that it should be modified.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I admit there is great force in some of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman; but, on the other hand, from the point of view of the tenants, I contend that the particular provision under discussion will tend to raise the price of holdings in Ireland and put into the hands of the landlords a potent weapon which they may use in negotiations for purchase to induce the tenants to give a larger number of years' purchase than they would otherwise do. Before, however, I deal with this point, let me say with reference to the principle of tenant insurance that the Chief Secretary has hardly estimated the inequalities of the plan he proposes as between the smaller and the larger tenants. In the case of a tenant at 18 years' purchase, I calculate that such a tenant would in the course of the five years have paid a sum equal to a half-year's instalment of the amount due to the Exchequer. If he gives 16 years' purchase at the end of five years he will have found an additional one year's instalment; if 14 years' purchase two years' instalments; and if 12 years' purchase, four years' instalments, and if at 10 years' purchase five years' instalments. I venture to ask the Chief Secretary whether it is at all necessary to require such a large proportion as that in the case of holdings bought at a low rate of purchase. I would suggest to the Government, if they carry the principle of this clause, that they should, at all events, limit the deposit of the tenant to one year's or half a year's instalments. That would be much fairer to the class of small tenants. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary twitted us with inconsistency in opposing this proposal, when we have so often used as an argument
    76
    against the Bill that it created glaring inequalities between the purchases under it and those who are unable to purchase. For my own part, I have often used that argument. I believe it will be totally impossible in the future to maintain two classes of occupiers in Ireland, one paying rent for ever, and the other paying 30, 40, or 50 per cent. less than their previous rent in the shape of their instalments. The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to get rid, to some extent, of the glaring inequality by raising the instalments in the first five years. But will this provision really affect the financial position of the two classes? I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman rather deceives himself on that point; at all events, after five years the full effect of the reduction will come into force, and the inequality will then be apparent to everyone. The real objection to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is, that it will enable the landlord to use a very potent argument with the tenant who is negotiating with him for the purpose of raising the price of the land. Let us suppose the landlord is prepared to accept 20 years' purchase, and the tenant is only willing to give 15 years' purchase. The landlord would argue that at the lower rate of purchase the tenant would have to pay an increased instalment for five years, and that even after five years the Lord Lieutenant would have power to continue the increase. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No.] That is what the clause provides.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will not argue with the right hon. Gentleman whether the drafting of the clause exactly carries out our intentions, but our intentions are that there shall be no interference with the bargains entered into, although there may be with future sales.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Well, that is certainly not the apparent meaning of the sub-section. At all events, it will be possible, I understand, for the Lord Lieutenant in the case of future purchases to extend the increased instalments. The landlord will be able to say to the tenant, "If you can pay 80 per cent. for five years, why not continue to do so for a little time longer, so as to

    77
    give me a somewhat higher rate of purchase." Only yesterday I saw a landlord from County Cork, who told me that in his opinion this particular clause would have the effect of minimising purchase. My opinion is, therefore, that viewing this proposal from the tenant's point of view, it is an extremely unwise one. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will at all events consent to make the clause less objectionable than it is at present.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: This is a clause to which I attach the greatest importance. I venture to think that there is no clause about which so much has been said throughout the length and breadth of Ireland as Clause 5. I shall join heartily with the hon. Member below the Gangway in asking the Government to withdraw Sub-section 3, if we are right in our contention with regard to its effect. I do not think there is any analogy between the cases of Ireland and Victoria, because in Victoria there are no regularly recurring periods of distress.
    MR. SEXTON: There are seasons of drought in Victoria, and I may say that Sir Charles Duffy, who knows both countries well, thinks the analogy perfect.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I must be allowed to differ from him. It is important to see what this clause actually does, and I may say that a stranger who heard the Debate and had not read the Bill would conclude that the insurance money was taken away from the tenant altogether, whereas the clause does not take the money from the tenant.
    MR. SEXTON: I never suggested it.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: No; it was not suggested. It was what the hon. Member suppressed that I object to. The clause does not take the money from the tenant. In many Building Societies there are fining down annuities, and a borrower pays higher amounts at first and lesser instalments afterwards. ["No, no."] It is so in societies of which I have knowledge. [An hon. MEMBER: They are rotten.] Anyhow, I do not see how this provision can be opposed by those who pose as the protectors of the British taxpayer. I cannot understand the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) standing up one day
    78
    and declaring that not one sixpence of the taxpayer's money ought to go for this purpose, and then when it is proposed to guarantee the taxpayer by means of actual cash in hand to oppose the proposal.
    MR. STOREY: I have not opposed that, and until my hon. Friend hears me oppose it he had better not make the assumption.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Well, I shall be curious to see the Division List. As I understand this clause it means that, in view of the exceptional periods that occur regularly in Ireland, some step should be taken in the Bill to provide against them. I say that is a proper and fair principle on which to act. A man whose rent is at the rate of £100 a year will be entitled under the Bill to pay, say, £68, but will have to pay £80 for the first five years, the difference going to form the Insurance Fund. The money will not be lost to him. Although I have heard a good character given to the Irish people for thrift—a character which I am not going to challenge—I say that a compulsory form of insurance is not a bad thing in itself. The money will be practically banked. I want to make one suggestion on this point to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He is going to pay interest to the landlord on his guarantee deposit at the rate of 3 per cent. I want to know why he will make any difference with the tenant's guarantee deposit? I do not think the proposal to make an Insurance Fund is an unfair proposal. The State is doing something for the tenant, and the landlord is sacrificing something. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen who say "Oh" have not studied the Bill perhaps as much as I have. I contend that as the State and the landlord are both making sacrifices, it is not too much to ask the tenant to do this little thing—to allow a certain reserve of money to be made as an Insurance Fund for a period of distress. Although I admit that the tenants do not like the proposal, they do not want to sacrifice the Bill, and they will take the Bill with it. I am prepared to vote for it, although 9 out of 10 farmers are against it.
    MR. SEXTON: Does the hon. Member think it fair to take five years' insurance in the case of a small tenant?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: No; I said I was prepared to support some of the proposals of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). It is on the principle of the proposal that I have been speaking, and not on its details. For the reasons I have given I will support the clause; but I hope the Chief Secretary will consider the objections that have been urged against some of its details, and will delete Sub-section 3, if it bears the interpretation that has been put upon it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the point whether it would not be wiser to amend the clause in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for West Belfast.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I think that this clause stands on a different footing from the preceding one, and is, I fancy, conceived in a spirit directly opposite to that which permeates the rest of the Bill. The other night I attempted to point out, although my remarks did not receive much attention, that the small tenants would have but little advantage as compared with the larger tenants. The Bill takes care the large tenant shall not be injured, but the smaller tenants are placed in a very different position. I agree with the hon. Member for South Antrim that we ought not to differentiate between the two classes of tenant. Even the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who has great knowledge of Ireland, says that nine-tenths of the tenants are opposed to this particular provision, and I am not surprised that they do not like it. If I may take the liberty I will make this illustration. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary set up in business as a shopkeeper in Ireland in a country town, and charged the smaller farmers a higher price than the large ones in order to have a margin against bad debts, I think he would find the small farmers very strongly objected to deal with him. Yet that is the principle of this clause. I am afraid that this Bill will have a tendency to throw the £30,000,000 into the hands of the large tenants, and that the small tenants will be prevented purchasing under it. That, I think, would be greatly to be deplored. The
    80
    Chief Secretary made a tour in the West of Ireland the other day. Yet I venture to say he does not know much about the country. I tell him the effect of this clause will be to prevent the small tenants buying, and I therefore strongly object to it. This is really Irish money, and not Imperial money. The whole of the money forming the guarantee, in the first instance, is from Irish funds; these form the security, and, practically, it is almost impossible that there can be any call upon the Exchequer, and yet, in spite of the protest of a large number of Irish Members—certainly the majority—the Government insist upon inflicting this fine for the first five years upon the smaller Irish tenants. Practically, the Government will be putting the Lord Lieutenant in the position of the biggest landlord in Ireland. We had a short time ago a Lord Lieutenant who was an Irish landlord, and there were continual deputations to him to induce him to reduce his rents. Those deputations ceased when he ceased to be Lord Lieutenant. But now you have the tenants continually coming to the Lord Lieutenant worrying him so to arrange the terms of repayment that their annual instalments may be reduced.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURexpressed dissent.
    COLONEL NOLAN: In bad years he will have the power to reduce the payments, and the tenants will look up to him as to a landlord to obtain reductions.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is a pity that discussion is not confined to the sub-section before us. The Lord Lieutenant will have no such power as the hon. and gallant Gentleman attributes to him, and it is not possible that the tenants will come to him to exercise such power.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Well, I will defer that to a later clause, upon which there will be much to be said about the Lord Lieutenant. Anyhow, you are so treating these small tenants that in a bad year you will have to make some special arrangement by the House of Commons to meet their case. You may have to defer one instalment and distribute it over the period of future payments. You have the whole of the smaller tenants opposed to this provision,

    81
    and certainly the effect will be to convey the greater part of the £30,000,000 into the hands of the large farmers.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the progress of the Debate affords a most extraordinary illustration of the condition to which Parliament has been brought by successive efforts in land legislation. Anyone coming into the House a stranger to the Bill, and who did not keep in view the main object and purpose of the Bill, would imagine that Parliament was once more engaged in inflicting an injustice in addition to the endless series of grievances which has been inflicted by British misgovernment on the Irish people. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down practically asked, in a tone of mild indignation, what apology the British Government are going to make to the small Irish tenants for the iniquitous coercion of the Bill. Well, but what is it that an English Government propose to do that is so injurious to the Irish tenants? If the history of land legislation is referred to, in Ireland and in all other countries where attempts have been made to convert tenants into proprietors, what is found? The late Mr. John Bright, who may be looked upon as the author and originator of this legislation in Ireland, suggested that it was immensely desirable that the tenant should be made a proprietor; and that the tenant would think so, and be willing to pay for it. Therefore, Mr. Bright in his original proposals asked the tenant who wished to purchase to pay more than his rent. But what is the position of the injured tenants now? The Government asks 20 per cent. less than the rent, and this is the main grievance which the Government are creating by the Bill. As the hon. Member for South Tyrone has pointed out, the Government are not going to take from the tenants one single farthing; the tenants are only asked to increase their earlier payments in order that the number of payments may be fewer, and that they may become proprietors at an earlier period. It is said that these tenants are placed at a disadvantage with regard to the larger tenants. What would have been said, then, if the Government had said, "Where the reduction of rent is larger,
    82
    we shall expect that the term of repayment shall be short?" That would have been quite a fair stipulation, especially when it is remembered that when the reduction of rent is greater it is because the number of years' purchase is smaller and. the nature of the security is worse. In dealing with property in the congested districts, it is undoubtedly probable that the number of years' purchase will be less, because the character of the security is not so good. In these cases the Government, who lend the money and confer such great advantages, have a right to ask that their security should be increased, and that the term for which the money is lent should be shortened. The tenants so treated are at no disadvantage with other tenants, because they will get not only the 20 per cent. reduction of other tenants, but will pay their rent for a much shorter number of years. I heartily approve of the proposal of the Government, though I might have wished it to be carried further, and I claim for it two distinct advantages. In the first place, it gives a security not only in the formation of an Insurance Fund, but in the fact that the tenants will have paid the larger part of the sum owing in the earlier years. This provides a great inducement to the payment of the remaining instalments in later years. It will be admitted that, after a certain portion of the advance has been paid off, there is no longer any risk to the Government. The Bill merely asks that where the security is worse the debt should be paid earlier; and in asking this no great sacrifice is inflicted on the tenant. What is the position of the tenant? If he has to pay the same annuity for 49 years, after the first great advantage he will have no longer anything to hope for in his lifetime, and will get no further reduction of rent; he will get tired, and will begin to desire something more. But under this system there is something to hope for; as he pays a higher rate at first, therefore he has to look forward to its reduction; while, at the same time, by the term being shortened, he may expect to see himself the proprietor of his land in his lifetime. The hon. Member for South Tyrone says that the Government, if they insist on this pay-

    83
    ment, should give interest. But surely the Government do give interest; surely in the actuarial calculation interest is taken into account. The period at which, the payments will come to an end will be affected not only by the amounts paid, but also by the interest due upon them. A second advantage is that by this system a larger sum will be at the disposal of the Government for immediate use. Roughly speaking, they will have a sum of £30,000,000 to deal with, and will have no more until repayment begins; and then they will only have the amount of the repayments. If they can by any means increase the amount of repayment and bring it on at an earlier period, they will have more money for these transactions. Therefore, the Irish tenantry as a whole will be benefited by the earlier payment of a portion of the money. What are the disadvantages of the system? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford has told us that it is going to raise the price of land, and he has said that the Irish tenant will believe that he is going to pay the higher rate for ever. Does my right hon. Friend take the Irish tenant for a fool? I think that the Irish tenant may be relied upon to take care of himself, and not to listen to such an absurd and ridiculous argument as that. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the price is already fixed; the question is only how that price is to be paid. The price cannot be affected by this proposal. Then we are told that purchase will be discouraged. The hon. Member for West Belfast has made the extraordinary statement that the Land Commissioners will not find sufficient security in the land. But that argument loses sight of the fact that the value is in the land, and not in the question of instalments. The Land Purchase Commissioners may advance on the land without regard to the number of instalments, except that they may think that the security is better when the whole sum will be paid off in 30 years instead of 50. We have been told that this system is unfair to the small tenant, who will have to pay five, two, or, in any case, one year's rent in insurance. But what we are doing is to say to every tenant who comes under this Act, "You shall have this advance if you, will be
    84
    good enough to pay one-fifth less than your present rent." Really, it seems an extraordinary proposal when stated, as I have had to state it more than once, at a public meeting. It seems an astounding proposition that we go to the tenant and say, "First, you shall have a fair rent fixed, and having fixed a fair, rent, which, under present circumstances, it is right you should pay, we then go on to say, hat in hand as it were, If you pay one - fifth less than that fair rent we will make you proprietor of your land in 49 years." That is the legislation of a brutal Saxon Government. We offer the credit of the British nation, and do it not in favour of the small tenant alone, but of every one, big and small. The same advantage is offered all round—20 per cent off the rent if he prefers to become his own landlord. If he prefers to remain a tenant, he can go on paying his rent; but if he prefers to become proprietor, he can do so by paying 80 per cent. of this rent for 30 years, or at a maximum of 49 years. I contend, therefore, that the system cannot be properly represented as being unfair to any class of tenants. I understand the hon. Member for West Belfast to propose that the congested districts should be excepted and all tenants whose holdings are under £25 valuation. These are the last persons who ought to be excepted, because from the very nature of the case they are the people who can give the least security, and there, if anywhere, is the greatest risk; and, in the second place, I am not sure that it is to the advantage either of the tenants themselves or of the nation to tempt the tenants in the congested districts to buy their holdings unless they can be amalgamated in such a way that the tenant can make a living out of his holding. Merely to stereotype the present condition of things by relieving the tenants by offering them the shilling or two they pay as rent and calling them landlords will be very little good. Therefore, I do not see why special and exceptional advantages should be offered to them more than to any other class of tenant. Then the hon. Gentleman made an alternative suggestion, that, in lieu of taking this Insurance Fund from that class of tenant who will be best able to pay it, it should be

    85
    taken from everybody in the shape of 10 per cent. on his rent. Take the case of 20 years' purchase. A man under the Bill will pay £80 for £100; if we allow 10 per cent. as insurance he would have to pay £88, and the benefit, therefore, offered to the majority of tenants to induce them to purchase would be 12 per cent., instead of 20 per cent.—an alteration which might go a long way to prevent the tenants from taking advantage of the Act. For all these reasons, I think that the proposal of the Government is a good one and ought to be supported.
    MR. KNOX: I think we all agree with one remark of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Irish tenant is not a fool. The hon. Member for South Tyrone has told the Committee that 9 out of 10 of the tenants are opposed to this provision, and putting these two statements together, that the Irish tenants are not fools and that they are opposed to this, the inference is that this provision is opposed to their interests, that it is an obstacle in the way of the Bill effecting its object. The feeling against this provision is, I may say, unanimous, and even the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, that faithful supporter of Her Majesty's Government, is opposed to it. He says he dares not face his constituents after supporting, this proposal.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I did not say that.
    MR. KNOX: That it will much embarrass his position when he meets his constituents. The hon. Member for South Tyrone says that 9 out of 10 tenants are against it, and, indeed, I think the puzzle will be to find the 10th. Perhaps he might be that rare being whose interest has been championed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who is prepared to pay 25 years' purchase. The tenant who is prepared to buy at that—a tenant who, I am sure, many hon. Members opposite would like to meet—might be in favour of this provision, for it would do him no harm; he does not expect to get any reduction, is not affected by the provision, and might support it. But the great mass of tenants are opposed to it, and for good reason. If the Bill is fairly worked there is no necessity for it. The tenant's
    86
    interest ought to be sufficient security for the money advanced. Let me call attention to the argument of the Chief Secretary on this point. In support of the contention we advance the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast brought forward the case of the Australian settler, and showed how by the system of land purchase carried out in the colonies there was no loss to the State. The Chief Secretary, in reply, urged that the circumstances were entirely different in Australia. There, he said, the land was virgin soil, and the State looked to the value of the improvements the settler was about, to make. But is that not an extraordinary argument, for are not the improvements made by the tenant in Ireland as important as those the settler is expected to make in Australia? We know that the Irish tenant has made these improvements. If the tenant buys at a fair price the value of these improvements does not go to the landlord, and there is that additional security that the tenant will pay back the money, and the State will not lose a farthing. Further, I say, the provision as an Insurance Fund is absolutely useless. Take the case of a large tenant whose rent is £100, and who buys at 19 years' purchase, as he might. What does he pay into the Insurance Fund? Twenty pound—not enough to pay a third of the year's instalment. Is that not absurd as an Insurance Fund? I say, further, it is an injustice. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who is, of course, indifferent to the smaller details of Irish legislation, assumed that this provision would still give 20 per cent. whatever the Irish tenant was. That is not so. In the first place, the 20 per cent. will be less by 7 per cent., which is the amount of the landlord's share of the rates. [Cries of "No!"] I understood the Chief Secretary had admitted that; but whether that is so or not, there are some facts which the right hon. Gentleman did not take into account. There have been considerable reductions on the rents fixed under the Act of 1887. Even the last Schedule issued under the Act of 1887 showed instances where rents had been reduced 14½ per cent. Tenants will buy on the old judicial rents,

    87
    not on the rents as reduced; and the tenants who received a reduction under the Act of 1887 will not receive any considerable reduction during the first five years under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman assumes that it is not the object of this guarantee to extend the benefit of land purchase to the small tenants in the West of Ireland, but I venture to call against him the evidence of the Chief Secretary; he said to-night it was his intention to extend the blessings of land purchase to the small tenants. How does the Bill propose that these blessings shall be extended? The effect will plainly be, and everybody who has seen anything of the actual work of land purchase will agree, to prevent the sale to small tenants. In the case of these small tenants in the West of Ireland there is a considerable difference, of course, between the nominal rent and the real rent the landlord receives, there are bad debts and there is the larger cost of collection, but I don't believe that represents the whole case. I do not think the only reason why the tenants buy so much cheaper than in any other part of Ireland is because there are bad debts, and the landlords are therefore willing to sell to get rid of the property. Another reason is the remote relation the economical value of the land has to the rent. Sir James Caird has stated that the economical value is such that if the rent approximated to it, the rent of the holding would be nearly nothing. The rent is not a share of the product, it is the sum paid for a licence to live on the land. But the Land Commission very rightly refuse to take into account mere considerations of sentiment. They have refused to make advances unless there is security in the economic value of the land, and in the West of Ireland they have sometimes refused to advance more than seven years' purchase. In such a case, the tenant under this provision will be actually paying three times, or nearly three times, as much as he would have been paying under the Ashbourne Act. I ask whether, if the Land Commission were satisfied that not even eight years' purchase could have been advanced on this land, it is possible to conceive that they will advance the purchase money when as much will have to be paid
    88
    during the first five years as would have had to be paid if the tenant had bought for 20 years' purchase under the Ashbourne Act? The effect of the provision will be that land purchase will be entirely stopped over the whole of the West of Ireland. It is a very serious thing if the Committee have determined to prevent the benefits of the Bill being extended to the small tenants of Ireland. Even under the Ashbourne Acts the small tenants have not got a fair share of the benefits, for the average purchase money has been £416 and the average rents of the tenants, fixed by the Land Commission, £16. If we multiply 16 by 17, which is the average number of years' purchase, we shall find that if the holdings, which have been sold to the tenants under the Ashbourne Acts, had been holdings of an average size, the purchase money would not have proved £416, as has actually been the case, but £272. We, therefore, find that even as it is under the Ashbourne Acts, the tenants who have bought have not been fair average tenants, but tenants holding larger holdings than the average. If this £30,000,000 is spent on holdings even of the same average size as those bought under the Ashbourne Acts, what will be the effect? Why, we shall find that not one tenant in eight will be able to buy until more than £30,000,000 has been advanced. The proper way to distribute the money equally is not to exclude any tenant by a cast-iron provision, but to facilitate sales to small tenants either by compulsion or by giving them exceptional facilities. I venture, therefore, to hope that if the Chief Secretary will not abandon this provision in its entirety—a provision condemned by almost all sections of Irishmen—that he will consent to modify it in some degree in the direction indicated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast. It is a provision which will prevent land purchase being availed of in those cases where every benevolent man, whatever his views in politics, would most wish to see it availed of. The hon. Member for West Birmingham said he did not wish to extend land purchase to these small tenants in the West of Ireland; but I venture to think that there were few Members who agree

    89
    with him in politics who agreed with him in that statement. We who wish to benefit the poorer tenants in Ireland must offer strenuous opposition to a proposal which may do some good to the rich tenants, but which will work unmitigated evil to their poorer brethren.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think I ought to point out to the Committee that we are slipping into a novel and more than doubtful practice. In Committee the Amendments to a clause are first considered and subsequently the merits of the clause as a whole. On the last clause the hon. Member for West Belfast moved the omission of the first sub-section in order that he might state a general opinion as to the clause with a view to its probable alteration and more speedy discussion and settlement. It was obviously convenient that such a course should be adopted, and so long as the discussion is confined to the possible emendation of the clause, so as to make its passage more easy, it is convenient to allow such a discussion to be taken at the beginning. But from what we have heard of the discussion of the principle of the present clause that discussion has not been with the view of emendation to speed the passage of the clause, and, therefore to allow such a discussion to take place at the commencement and again at the close of the clause, would simply be to double the Debates in Committee.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: In considering your ruling) Sir, I am struck by one fact, namely, that much as the discussion may have proceeded on the clause, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham managed to give it considerably greater breadth, because he managed to insert or insinuate in the course of his remarks a general lecture on British bounty to Ireland which certainly did not seem, quite relevant. However, as he did so, I would only take leave to remark that the astonishing fact is this that great as your bounty is we are not in the least grateful for it. The only Act of the present Parliament in which we value in the least your bounty, is that which will enable us to
    90
    get your hands off our throat. I have been listening to some remarks from the Chief Secretary in defence of the 20 years' limit. He has stated, and he has been borne out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, that for some extraordinary reason the more hazardous the operation is by reason of the tenant giving an enormously increased price for his holding—the more ruinous is the bargain for the tenant—the less the State requires insurance. I confess, my intellect not being of the Birmingham pattern, I am wholly unable to follow that class of thought. I should have thought that the bigger the price the tenant gave the more risk there was that the tenant would not be able to pay his instalments. That, however, is not the view of the hon. Member for West Birmingham. The man who gives 20 years' purchase for his holding has to pay a small amount of insurance, but the man who gives, say, two years' purchase, has to pay an enormous sum. That is an argument which is supposed to show us the absolute superiority of the British Legislature, and to demonstrate our own inferiority and the absolute folly of cherishing the notion that we are capable of managing our own affairs. Under the Ashbourne Act the condition of the tenant was this: He owed his landlord two years arrears. He lived under a lease which he was supposed to have taken after the passing of the Act of 1870. He was compelled to buy by reason of the threat of eviction, owing two years' arrears, at 27 years' purchase. The consequence was that his annual instalments were more than the rack rent he had been paying. What did he get, you will ask, by purchasing? He got the wiping off of two years' arrears, the staving off of the Sheriff from his door, and yet that man would not have to give the British Government any insurance. But if he buys at seven years' purchase under this clause he will have to pay you an enormous amount for the Insurance Fund. I cannot undertand that class of reasoning. The suggestion of the Government is this: the Chief Secretary has persuaded himself that the larger the price the tenant gives, and the larger the number of years' purchase, the safer the State is. He has also persuaded

    91
    himself that it is the small tenants who will give the smaller number of years' purchase. I ask what is his data for that conclusion? What is it founded on? We have not been told. I conceive it will be the poor man who will give the larger number of years' purchase. And why? Because he is not able to make the bargain for himself. It is the man who has arrears hanging over him who gives the most money for his land; it is that man whose bargain is of a character that requires a strict insurance by the State. It is not likely that the man of means and with the money, who can wait for the market, is going to give 20 or 25 years' purchase for his land. No; it is the man who has the crow bar of the sheriff at his door who will do that, and yet he is just the man that the Chief Secretary and the Member for West Birmingham join in saying, shall make a contribution in the shape of an insurance to the State. If there is any class of men who will pay their annuities regularly it is the small tenants. The man likely to make a default is the man with 20 cows; the man likely to pay regularly is the man with one cow. The reason is in the nature of things. The man with 20 cows has more risk. His cattle may have the murrain; the price of butter may fall. The man with 20 cows on a pasture allotment, is a man subject to fluctuations; and yet, according to the Chief Secretary, that is the man who is certain to pay his instalments regularly. I say it is not so. The man who is certain to pay is the man living on a bit of cut-out bog—the man who has made his holding himself with the sweat of his body, and whose property is almost as precious to him as his soul. The Chief Secretary with his fine English intellect, and the Member for West Birmingham with his gunsmith's knowledge—["Oh, oh!"]—well, it makes one impatient to hear men who know nothing at all about the subject dogmatising on it. I say the contention of these right hon. Gentlemen is a gross, palpable absurdity, and not worthy of the House. Has the House forgotten that the Government only dreamt of putting in tenants' insurance when they left out landlords' guarantee? What has become of the landlords 5th which you retained in
    92
    the Ashbourne Act? The landlords' 5th has had to go, and the tenants' 20th has to remain. It is a very remarkable thing that these two events should synchronise in the mind of the Government. Yet it is said that this Bill is intended in the interest of the tenants—that your British Government, which has alienated some millions of our race and starved some more, and which has allowed laws to continue which have made landlordism synonymous with horror all over the world, has now changed its spots and is legislating in the interest of the tenants. I will leave it to some of my colleagues from Ireland to believe in that view of the case and to greet the Saxon smile. For my own part, I take up my original position with regard to Tory government, and I do not believe in the Saxon smile. I should like to know upon what actuarial basis the Government calculated their tenants' insurance. Have they any figures to lay before us? I maintain that except under duress no tenant will give more than 20 years' purchase for his land. If there is fair play on the part of the Land Commissioners, the average number of years' purchase that would be given would be from 12 to 15 years. But the Government now appear to sanction the idea which is to go forth to the Land Commissioners that 20 years' purchase should be allowed. That is a landlord dodge in this clause. I banish from my mind the idea that this is done in the interest of the British taxpayer. I believe the fact is that the Chief Secretary has invented this 20 years' limit simply to incite the tenants to give 20 years' purchase for their land.
    MR. LEA: It seems to me a pity that the Committee should discuss whether the large or small tenants are most likely to take advantage of the Bill as it seems to me that this clause is equally detrimental to the one as to the other. To my mind, the restrictions in the clause will tend to prevent land purchase under the Bill being carried out to any great extent. I believe the Land Commissioners themselves would be against the restrictions. I am sorry the Chief Secretary did not tell us in what way the definition clause will operate in favour of the tenant. It

    93
    appears from the clause that 80 per cent. is to be paid to the Insurance Fund. We know that the tenant will, after purchase, have to pay his share of the poor rate, which with other charges will bring his annual instalment up to 100 per cent. of his present rent. Therefore the tenant will derive no immediate benefit under the Bill. I do not believe that the clause will stop land purchase; but I say it will tend very much to prevent it, as it will deprive the tenants who purchase of the capital needed to work their farms. It seems to me, in fact, that it would be better for the Government to allow this 10 or 20 per cent. to remain in the hands of the tenants in the form of capital rather than in those of the Treasury, who cannot make so good a use of it. I have an Amendment lower down, but as I have had an opportunity of saying a word now I shall not move it. I shall be glad if the Government will give the Committee an expression of their view of the opinion of the Irish farmer on these points.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I am so often in the position of being under the painful necessity of opposing the Chief Secretary that it will be quite a pleasant change for me to once go into the Lobby with the right bon. Gentleman, but I feel bound to do so not for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman in support of the clause, but for those given by the hon. Members around me, who assert that this clause will destroy the Bill, and will prevent land purchase from being carried out in Ireland. For my part, I will do nothing to prevent the Bill from being destroyed—it is my dream to destroy the Bill, because I have no desire to see land purchase in Ireland carried into effect at the expense of the British taxpayer. I would not think of voting for the omission of a single word which is likely by any possible chance to destroy the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle said that under this sub-section the number of purchasers would be reduced. Well, I hope the number of purchasers will be reduced. I am anxious that there should be as few purchasers as possible, and that there should be as little of this £30,000,000 expended as
    94
    possible. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham scoffed at this, and said they would not be reduced, and that on the whole the same amount of money would have to be advanced. But Gentlemen from Ireland replied that the Irish tenants are not fools, and that men always prefer deferred payments to payments down. Of course tenants will promise to pay in 10 or 12 years rather than pay at once in the first five years, because there is the off chance of not being obliged to pay in the end. Therefore, I think that Gentlemen on this side of the House have brought forward such sound arguments against the sub-section that I shall have to vote in favour of it. There is some point once in a way in what the Chief Secretary says. The principle of this clause is a sound one, and one which should be adopted in the interest of that unfortunate man the British taxpayer. There should be as much insurance money paid up by the purchaser as possible. I voted against the Contingent Fund; I have voted against the Cash Fund because I considered that no Irishman—certainly that no Englishman—had a right to pledge the ratepayers of Ireland to incur an obligation without their consent being first obtained. But here we deal with persons who voluntarily go into these transactions. Those who purchase their land under this Bill will obtain an immediate remission of rent to the extent of something like 20 per cent., and after the expiration of five years they will have a still greater remission, while at the end of 49 years they will become the owners of the land; and all this benefit they will derive at the risk and peril of the British taxpayer. If they do not like to do it, do not let them. I shall be delighted if they do not. But as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said, I do not see why Parliament should tempt these gentlemen to accept these gifts; and it is certainly not for them to look a gift horse in the mouth. It is said that the greater the number of years' purchase the bigger the security, but I am bound to say I do not agree with that. A small number of years' purchase means a high rent, and the rent is high because there is a strong probability that it will not be paid.

    95
    But the Land Commissioners will not consider the thing as a question of rent alone, but will consider whether the land is of real value, which is not the case with a number of holdings which do not bear an economical rent at all, and in which the tenants are unable to make sufficient to pay the rent and keep themselves. Am I not, therefore, right in looking at the matter, not from a sentimental point of view, but from a taxpayer's point of view, and in holding that the greater the amount of security we can get banked up during the first two years the better? Under these circumstances, though regretting to find myself in such company, I shall go into the Lobby with the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
    MR. STOREY: I should have thought that the fact that he is about to find himself in the company of hon. and right hon. Members opposite would have convinced the hon. Member who has just sat down that he is making a mistake. Looking at the matter from the point of view of the British taxpayer, I think the provision is not unreasonable. It gives us security as the taxpayers of Great Britain, and it staves off any necessity there may be for the Government of Ireland to foreclose on defaulting tenants and sell up their holdings. Therefore in principle I cannot say that I dissent from this provision. But I would point out that the security is the worst and most unfair that could be offered to the House, for the cheaper the holding the more insurance has the purchaser to pay. The hon. Member for South Tyrone referred to building societies, but if he had known anything about such societies he would have been aware that the desire always is to put as little a burden on the borrowers at first as possible. The reason is that during the first three, four, or five years the borrower will be anxious to expend most money on the land; and that is the time when the State should make it as little burdensome on the purchaser as possible. The exception I take to the Insurance Fund is that the heaviest insurance is charged where there is least risk, and that the burden is put on the early years of the transaction. If the right hon. Gentleman will have an Insurance Fund
    96
    we would rather prefer the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Belfast than the proposal contained in the Bill. The figures on which I found my contention are these: If a man pays 20 years' purchase on an annual value of £5 he would have to pay a total of £100. His charge to the State would be £4 a year, and under the Bill there would be no additional guarantee to pay for the first five years. But in the case of a man who buys a 15 years' purchase at the same annual value his payment would be £3 a year, if there were no Guarantee Fund, but under the Bill his payments for five years would be £4 a year. Moreover, if he bought at 10 years' purchase without guarantee he would only have £2 a year to pay, but under the Bill with the guarantee he would pay for the first five years £4 a year. Therefore, I say that in these cases of 10 and 15 years' purchase, the right hon. Gentleman is unduly pressing on the purchasers during the earlier years of payment. The proposal of the hon. Member for West Belfast is that instead of the course provided for by the Bill there should be a guarantee charge of 10 per cent. ad valorem. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) twitted the hon. Member for West Belfast with talking nonsense, and suggested to him the case of a man who gave 20 years' purchase, and there, I think, the right hon. Gentleman was unfair in his treatment of my hon. Friend. I say let us take a common case, for instance, one of 10 years' purchase, under the Bill with the guarantee proposed by the Chief Secretary—in the case of a 10 years' purchase, where the annual value was £5, the purchaser would have to pay £4 a year. But under a 10 per cent. ad valorem charge the same man would only have to pay £2 4s. a year; he would still have something in the nature of an insurance, but he would not be so severely drawn upon as in the case of the proposal under the Bill. Again, if you take the case of a 15 years' purchase with the guarantee in the Bill, the purchaser would pay £4 a year, but under the proposal of the hon. Member for West Belfast he would have to pay only £3. I submit that it is unwise for the Chief Secretary to press too

    97
    hardly on the people who make these bargains, and that it ought to be quite enough if he can insure what amounts to a sufficient guarantee. I say that the proposal of my hon. Friend would be much less onerous to the purchaser and at the same time equally safe for the State. I would, therefore, suggest that the Chief Secretary should substitute the 10 per cent. ad valorem charge which has been suggested as an insurance and spread it over 5 or 10 years instead of limiting it for the first five years. If the right hon. Gentleman will do this I shall be glad to support him.
    MR. SEXTON: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for what he has just said, more especially as the primary view the hon. Member takes in these Debates is always that of a Representative of a British taxpayer. I shall press my Amendment now and at every possible opportunity on the Committee and on the House, and I think that after the speeches we have heard, not only from the hon. Member for Sunderland, but also from the only Irish supporters of the Government who assume the name of Liberals, namely, the hon. Members for South Tyrone and South Derry, the modification I have suggested in the incidence of the charge deserves some further consideration on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. For the sake of compromise I should be disposed not to press my Amendment, which stands lower down on the Paper, to exempt the congested districts, although theirs is a very hard case, if the right hon. Gentleman will only agree instead of his insurance scheme to accept the proposal of an ad valorem charge of the 10 per cent. all round upon the tenants. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the scheme under the Ashbourne Act is a much smaller one than this. But my answer is that the Ashbourne Act had an equal application throughout the country, and that that is not the case in regard to this measure. Moreover the question of security is one that cannot be judged merely by the number of millions expended. You may test the security asked for quite as much in the case of £1,000,000 in the case of 100 tenants as by £100,000,000 in the case
    98
    of 1,000 tenants—the argument being quite as powerful in one case as in the other. Nothing has been said in the course of this Debate to disprove the manifest fact that the provision contained in this Bill will necessarily have the effect of decreasing purchase by minimising credit, and I would strongly urge on the Chief Secretary that his proposal is unjust, particularly in the case of the smaller tenants. If the insurance proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is to be exacted, it ought to be exacted equally all round. I say that all the needs of the case would be sufficiently met by providing for one bad year, or say for one half-year, and my proposal simply amounts to a half-year's rent all round among large tenants and small.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I think the case would be met if the Chief Secretary would promise to consider the matter on the Report. It would be exceedingly difficult to deal with it now or before the Report stage. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will adopt that course.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not wish to say anything which would indicate that I propose to re-model the Bill in this respect at any stage, because I should only be holding out false expectations to the Committee, although, of course, I am willing to consider anything that may be brought before me. If the hon. Member for West Belfast chooses to put down an Amendment to make the man who buys at 20 years' purchase pay as much insurance as the man who buys at 10 years' purchase we can discuss it; but it seems to me that the cases stand in the same relative position as Stocks, the prices of which rise and fall with the public estimate of their security. The hon. Member seems to assume that 20 years' purchase is an unfair price, whereas the assumption underlying the Bill is that the price is fair in all cases.
    (7.5.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 176; Noes 102.—(Div. List, No, 175.)
    MR. SEXTON: As the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary adheres not only to the principle of his

    99
    proposal but to the detailed mode by which it is to be carried out, I have no option to do other than persevere with the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 34, after the word "Where," to insert the words "in the case of a holding not situate in a congested districts county, the annual value of which is more than twenty-five pounds."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the Committee will think it necessary that I should repeat at any length the arguments I have already advanced in relation to the question raised by this Amendment. But I would take the opportunity of removing one or two misapprehensions which appear to have crept into our discussion on this subject. It was certainly never suggested by me that the small tenants in Ireland were to be treated differently to the largo tenants, as appears to have been assumed by hon. Members opposite, although no doubt there is a wide distinction to be drawn between the position of tenants in different parts of Ireland. I should have thought there could be very little doubt that, to guard against default in congested districts, a purchasers' Insurance Fund is necessary. Land in the congested districts has always sold—for the last generation certainly—for a very much smaller number of years' purchase than land in other parts of Ireland. That is an inexplicable phenomenon, unless the reason is that rent in the congested districts is more difficult to collect and is paid less readily. The British taxpayer is not affected by the compulsory insurance, except in as far as it would tend to the smooth working of the Act. The person who will be affected is the purchasing tenant. To compel the Land Commission to evict a tenant who, by hypothesis, lives in a district so poor and so liable to be adversely affected by bad seasons, on the first occasion when the instalment is not paid, would not only be unfair to the Land Commission, but cruel to the tenant. It is to escape this hardship and cruelty that the Insurance Fund is established. Hon. Members habitually talk as though the provision
    100
    will produce great inequality. It is just as open to me to say that what the Bill does is to give to every tenant, small or great, rich or poor, a reduction of 20 per cent., and that is equality. Arguing on this basis, the proposals of the Bill are more equal than those which it is proposed to substitute for them.
    MR. CHANCE: The right hon. Gentleman is in error in stating that the Bill gives 20 per cent. to every purchasing tenant. It does nothing of the kind, and I am surprised that the author of the Bill should have made a statement which a moment's reflection would have shown him was not well-founded. There is nothing under this Bill to prevent purchases being made to the extent of 35 or 40 years' purchase money. Indeed; before the Ashbourne Act was in operation, I knew a case in which, under the Bright's Clauses of the Act of 1870 a tenant offered 42 years' purchase and the landlord refused to take it. The right hon. Gentleman admits that the position of the tenants in the congested districts is a very bad one; that they are living from hand to mouth, and that they are not paying their rent from the produce of the soil, but that when they do pay their rents at all they pay it from money which is earned at the English harvests, and is supplemented by receipts from relatives in America. Consequently in those districts the value of the land has nothing to do with the rents. A reduction of 20 per cent. would make very little if any appreciable difference in the position of the tenants in the congested districts. The Land Commissioners are already very slow in buying these small holdings on any terms, and I have known cases in which the Land Commissioners have refused to advance even nine years' purchase. In such cases the effect of this sub-section will be to stop the sale of these holdings altogether. This leads me to what I believe to be the view of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the subject. They desire to make this Land Purchase scheme a success as far as their own position with the public is concerned. They want to be able to go to their constituents and say, "we have advanced so many millions of money and everything

    101
    has gone right." To achieve this result, they have put a clause in the Bill which might well have been deliberately designed to prevent the Land Commissioners promoting land purchase at all in these congested districts. In point of fact they pick out the tit-bits on the different estates throughout Ireland and leave the unsaleable land on the landlord's hands, simply in order that they may make a show in five or six years' time, when they think they have a chance of coming into power again. If this is their design they ought at least to put it forward openly and plainly, for it would be much more honest to strike this sub-section out of the Bill and insert a clause empowering the Land Commissioners to refuse any advance in case of the small holdings in the congested districts.
    COLONEL NOLAN: No doubt it is a reasonable thing to form an Insurance Fund, but I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman has already formed an Insurance Fund of 6¼ per cent. by charging £4 instead of £3 15s. 0d. per cent., and so adding an extra 5s. to the payments made by the tenants. I quite agree with the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) that the effect of this sub-section would be to materially interfere with the operation of the Bill in the case of the smaller holdings. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Belfast were introduced, the clause would be materially improved, and the result would be that a large number of small tenants would take advantage of the Bill. This, no doubt, would have a general effect throughout the country and might be the means of enabling the Government to diminish the Constabulary Force, to reduce in some respects the number of civil servants now employed, and the number of military garrisons at present maintained, cutting down the expense of governing Ireland by £1,000,000 or £500,000, as a return for a few hundreds of thousands a year, which, however, will not fall on the Treasury, but upon the ratepayers of Ireland. I would strongly recommend the Chief Secretary to accept this Amendment, which, I am quite certain, will have a very good effect in Ireland.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: We have already decided on having an Insurance Fund. The question is, whether there should be certain exceptions in the congested districts? For my part, I hardly think it reasonable altogether to exempt a certain class of tenants, and therefore I cannot support the Amendment. I would, however, press upon the Government the expediency of making some relaxation in favour of the small tenants. I would suggest that, after the word "annuity," you might insert the words "a sum equal to one year's purchase."
    SIR W. PLOWDEN: I do not see the force of the objections that have been taken by gentlemen on this side of the House. I sincerely trust that no exemption will be allowed in this measure.
    MR. CHANCE: I assume that if the tenant pays the abnormal annuity during the first five years, he is to be evicted, and his holding is to be sold?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He will be evicted unless the non-payment is the result of agricultural distress.
    MR. CHANCE: Then the position may be this: he may have paid his abnormal annuity for four years, so as to have practically paid eight years' rent in the four years, and in the fifth year he may fail to pay. In that case, although he has paid his instalments for three years in advance, he is to be evicted. The Land Commissioners are bound to take into account the reasonable probability of the holding being fit to pay the abnormal annuity, and ought not to make an advance if they have reason to know that it will end in five years in eviction.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has given the case of a man who pays for four years into a large Insurance Fund, and who has no title to claim any rebate on the ground that he suffers through his own default. The Commissioners, no doubt, will consider that point.
    MR. CHANCE: While you have this man's insurance in your hand you are going to treat him as a man who has made absolute default, although he has prepaid his rent, so to speak, for four years. I think that nothing could be more absurd. But it is admitted that

    103
    under such circumstances he would be turned out. The Land Commission then must certainly not make an advance on a holding without considering this point. When the Commissioners are making advances in congested districts they refuse to advance more than 8, 9, or 10 years' purchase. That being so, can any rational man on the Committee think they will advance money that will place on the holding the burden of paying 80 per cent. of the rent in the first five years?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I should like to ask the hon. Member who has just spoken why should a man who has paid four years of this abnormal annuity stubbornly refuse to pay it for the fifth year, when he knows that at the end of the fifth year he will be relieved of the extra amount? We have been assuming to-night that the Irish tenants are not fools. The hon. Member seems to suppose they are fools. If there is to be an Insurance Fund, let it apply all round. It seems to me that it is in congested districts that an Insurance Fund is most required. I shall vote for the clause and against the Amendment.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I quite agree with the last speaker that in the congested districts default is likely to happen. I know from what I have seen in Ireland that the rent paid on these estates is not paid out of the land, but is obtained from labour in our own country, or from the labour of the children of the tenants in America or elsewhere. I have, myself, travelled over a considerable portion of these congested districts, for instance, in County Mayo and County Galway, and I made myself familiar some years ago with the condition of the Dillon estate. It is admitted on all hands that there would be no rent paid by the unfortunate tenants if the farmers did not go to Scotland for the harvest. During the five years in which this abnormal annuity is to be paid there will probably be repeated defaults, and unless the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary intends to impound the wages received by the children of the tenants as the money comes over from America, I fail altogether to see where he is going to
    104
    get money from the tenantry to pay even the diminished rent provided for under the machinery of this Bill, quite apart from the increase of 80 per cent., he proposes under this clause; as far as I can see, the idea of purchasing the holdings of the small tenants in these congested districts is altogether an absurd one. You will be compelling them, if they are able to pay at all, to pay not out of their own pockets but out of the pockets of their children in foreign countries, and out of earnings which have no relation whatever to the soil. You will also be compelling them to pay for property which is their own. The fee simple of hundreds and thousands of acres in congested districts is of absolutely no value. Without the labour of the tenants, the outside price would be 6d. an acre. It is possible for the landlords under this Bill to charge practically anything they like. I maintain that the whole of the price the landlords will be able to squeeze out of the tenantry—in which process they will, of course, be aided by the coercion system of the right hon. Gentleman—will be squeezed out of the money they obtain from other sources than the land.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question is not now of authorising purchases to be made, but what is to be done in cases in which purchase has been authorised.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I will not continue that line of argument, Sir. I was only anxious to insist that the Government will have to face this probability in reference to insurance, and they will probably find that from the very start these unfortunate people will be unable to pay their 80 per cent. of the rent, and the insurance fund will fall through altogether from the first. My hon. Friend near me said just now that the object of the Government apparently is to make this system of purchase a success as far as the British public is concerned. I much doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman troubled himself at all about the British public being concerned about it. The Government take care by every means in their power to prevent loss falling on the landlords, but the application of this principle of insurance to the case of small tenants will be absolutely

    105
    impossible, as far as I can see, for this measure to be a success even supposing the Government are desirous of making it a success. There is another point the Committee ought to take into consideration in dealing with this matter. It has been pointed out that the Government by insisting on the application of this insurance clause to the smallest tenants in the congested districts will be introducing, if not an absolute bar, at any rate a very considerable bar or obstacle to the application of this measure to those tenants. I do not wish to impute sinister motives to the Government in this respect, but if, with their eyes open they insist on this, and thereby introduce this difficulty in the way of dealing with the congested districts, I can only say it will afford to my mind a strong presumption that they are doing it in order to get out of the second part of this Bill. If their refusal to exempt from the application of this insurance the congested districts will make it practically impossible for the Act to apply to those districts, does it not seem as though they want an additional lever to assist them in the application of the emigration provisions contained in Part 2 of the Bill? I cannot support the Government in opposing this Amendment.
    MR. WEBB: I had not intended to intervene, but I feel bound to say that it would be the height of unfairness that tenants who make default, and who have paid six or seven years' rent instead of only four, shall be sold up. The default would be not because they stubbornly refuse to pay, but because they cannot. I believe that this will prove a great grievance, and will cause a great deal of soreness amongst the Irish tenants. The more this Insurance Fund is discussed the more its unfairness becomes apparent. It is not necessary at all to have it, but if there is to be such a fund let it be equal all round. As it has been decided to have it I support this Amendment, believing that it will to a certain degree prevent the application of the principle to a class of holdings to which it would be unjust and unfair to apply it.
    (8.23.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 95.—(Div. List, No. 176.) (8.30.)
    MR. MACARTNEY: There is an Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Colonel Waring), upon whom, I think, you called. I do not know whether the Amendment the hon. Member for Belfast wishes to propose comes in first?
    MR. SEXTON: Yes; my Amendment comes in first. I have to move an Amendment which raises the question of rateable insurance proportionate to the amount of purchase money and the amount of annuity. I do not know whether I may appeal to the sympathy of the Attorney General for Ireland—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member say where his Amendment will come in?
    MR. SEXTON: After the word "advance" in the first line. I have first to move the insertion of the words "is made."
    THE CHAIRMAN: In that case the hon. Member for North Down has precedence, for his Amendment in that place is on the Paper.
    MR. MACARTNEY: The Amendment which, on behalf of my hon. Friend, I have to move will take effect in the cases of those tenants who advance a portion of the purchase money.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. MACARTNEY: In the event of the Amendment being accepted, further words would have to be inserted after the word "holding"—
    LORD HENRY BRUCE: I rise to order, Mr. Courtney. I believe, Sir, you have a certain discretionary power with regard to a "count." It is only about three-quarters of an hour ago since a Division was taken, and, as there were more than 130 persons present, I apprehend that it was quite palpable that a quorum was in attendance just now, when a count was called.
    MR. MACARTNEY: In the case where the tenant has himself advanced a certain portion of the purchase money it appears to me obviously unfair that he should be called upon to contribute towards the

    107
    Insurance Fund, not only on the advance made by the State, but his own purchase money. I am informed that several instances have occurred under the Ashbourne Act, and, in all probability, such cases will occur under this Act. I would suggest to the Government that, having such instances in view, they should accept these words, which have no ulterior motive, but which are designed to meet the cases of those tenants who are willing and able to contribute from their own resources towards the purchase money where the advance is less than 20 times the annual value of the holding. I do not think it is necessary to elaborate the argument; the proposition is simple, and I do not know that there is any objection to it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 34, after the word "advance," to insert the word "made."—(Mr. Macartney.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The tenants to whom my hon. Friend refers are those who offer to pay a third of the purchase money, borrowing the remaining two thirds. Now, I doubt whether the class to which he alludes is a very large one, and probably purchasing tenants under this Act would always prefer to borrow the whole amount and use their capital in another and more productive manner. At the same time if they do decide to advance a third of the purchase money the probability is that they belong to a class from whom it is not necessary to extract an Insurance Fund. Let me, however, point out to my hon. Friend that the proposal should not be carried out by the insertion of the words here, but by proviso at the end of the sub-section. Nor do I think that the exact words proposed will carry out the intention. I think something in this way would meet his object—
    "Provided that this sub-section shall not apply where an advance does not exceed three-fourths of the purchase money of the holding."
    If that would satisfy my hon. Friend I should be willing to insert it.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I am quite willing to accept that.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTON: I now beg to move an Amendment after the word "advance," to insert the words "is made,"
    108
    with a view to altering the first five lines, introducing language which instead of leaving out some tenants altogether, and taking from others a very inadequate insurance for the payment of the holding, and from others an amount in excess of the need the right hon. Gentleman describes, will apply an equal rule and exact a rateable insurance from all tenants coming under the rule, having regard to the purchase amount and the annuity. The sub-section runs thus—
    "Where an advance for the purchase of a holding is less than 20 times the annual value of the holding as defined by this Act, then during the first five years of the term of the purchase annuity the annuity shall be 80 per cent. of such annual value."
    I propose that it should read—
    "Where an advance is made for the purchase of a holding—then—during the alternate years of the first nine years on the term of the annuity the annuity shall be £4 8s. per cent. on the amount of the advance."
    The objection I make to the right hon. Gentleman's plan is this, he leaves out of account the tenant who ought to pay the insurance as well as others. The 20 years' tenant might pay the insurance and yet have an annuity much below the old rent, and the tenant who buys at 19 years pays only 4s. a year insurance, that is £1 on the five years. I think if we look at this it is in no sense an adequate provision against the calamity the right hon. Gentleman has in mind in pressing this Insurance Fund. In the case of the 10 years' tenant you take an insurance enough to meet a five years calamity, and it is obvious the scheme of the Bill will not act fairly. The right hon. Gentleman says he is willing to admit that 10 years' purchase may be fair, or 20 years' may be fair; he does not impeach any bargain on the years' purchase, and if he admits that, then, by inference, it follows that the tenant is entitled to such benefit as the credit of the State affords. Surely it cannot be contended that it is fair that one man should provide as insurance a quarter of an annual payment, another two years, and another five years. Why should the right hon. Gentleman require to raise a fund to meet a five years' calamity? He need not in any case ask for more than would

    109
    meet one year's calamity. To pile up five years' insurance will be to do what, in the first place, is unjust, and, in the second place, needless. What I suggest is not open to the charge that it leaves out some persons and hits others too hard. My proposal is, that you levy from any tenant on every alternate year for nine years, but I am willing to make it 10 per cent. for the first five years. Ten per cent. for five years would make half a year's provision, and that would be quite enough to meet the needs which the right hon. Gentleman has in view. But if it is absolutely indispensible to make a year's provision in every case I would not object to that, and it would be a better scheme for the State than the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. It would get rid of the empty coffers in the case of the 20 years' tenants, and provide a year's annuity down to any point you name. A modified scheme of this kind would meet the requirements of equity, it would appeal to a sense of justice, and show that proportion of the burden in each case to the insurance scheme, and you will leave the people to increase the Insurance Fund on their own account, as they will if you do not thrust this upon them against the equity of the case. I think, in the long run, you would get a very considerable Reserve Fund by my scheme, and I think I have made out a tolerable case, which I beg again to press on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 34, after the word "advance," to insert the words "is made."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, I admit that the plan introduced in the Bill will not produce any startling effects. The amount of the insurance depends obviously upon the danger of the insurance being required. The hon. Member seems to think that equality is attained by insisting that the purchaser of every kind of holding should pay the same amount of insurance. That could only be fair if the risk in every case was the same; but is the risk in every case the same? If it is, then the hon. Gentleman is justified
    110
    in his contention. If it is not, and if it is true that a holding held at 10 years' purchase is an insecure investment, while one held at 20 years' purchase is a secure investment, then to have the same Insurance Fund in both cases is obviously unjust. To have the same amount of insurance against loss for different degrees of risk is not to make it fair but unfair, not equal but unequal. I am assuming, as must be assumed, that on the whole the bargain between the landlord and tenant would result in a fair price being given. On the whole, the Bill does provide the largest amount of Insurance Fund where the largest amount of loss may arise. I am very sorry I am not able to meet the hon. Gentleman in what he proposes; and if the Committee will support me, I will adhere to the proposal in the Bill.
    MR. CHANCE: The same error runs through all the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. He assumes that a holding sold at 10 years purchase of the rent is, in some respects, a worse security than a holding at 20 years' purchase; but the Land Commissioners must recollect that fact; and if they believe it to be a worse security, it is their duty to retain a larger deposit from the landlord. In the case of two holdings precisely alike, one tenant who is not able to make a good bargain and pays 20 years' purchase will have to pay no annuity at all; while the other tenant, a provident man and able to make a good bargain, who buys at 18 years' purchase, will have to pay five years' insurance. I cannot understand for the life of me, how a Member of this Committee usually so astute as the right hon. Gentleman should fall into an error so stupid as that of confounding the rent with the purchase annuity. Apart from the question of extreme cases, it is obvious that the more money the State advances the more security will it want. If an Insurance Company advanced £10,000 on an estate it would require a certain amount of security. If it advanced £12,000 it would require more security. But in this clause the common rule of prudence is turned upside down in an extraordinary—I might almost say Irish—

    111
    fashion. Where an Insurance Company calls for more security because the advance is larger, the State calls for less. I cannot conceive a more absolutely absurd position. I trust some Member of Her Majesty's Government will offer a real and intelligible argument upon the subject of this Amendment.
    MR. KNOX: The Amendment is one which we venture to think the Government should at least consider. I confess I am surprised at the attitude the Chief Secretary has thought right to adopt on this clause. In the previous clause he accepted a number of reasonable Amendments, though I must admit that there had been no strong Irish opinion on them outside. We come here to a clause on which there has been a wide and unanimous expression of opinion in Ireland. There is no difference between the various sections of Irish Members on this side of the House.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is travelling outside the question. The only question now is the form of insurance.
    MR. KNOX: I was trying to show how there is a general consensus of opinion among all, except the landlords, against a provision which makes the security as much as 80 per cent. of the purchase. Under this provision you will actually take from the tenant more in many cases than he previously paid. The Chief Secretary says that the landlord takes 10 years' purchase because the landlord has not been in the habit of receiving anything like his full rent. Why is the Government for the first five years to extract from the tenant something which is not much less than the full rent? According to the foundation of the Chief Secretary's argument, this provision is without argumentative justification. What is the real reason of smaller prices being given in the West of Ireland? I believe it is because of the work done by the two Land Commissioners there. They have habitually refused to make advances on those holdings in proportion to the amount previously paid for rent. They recognised that the rent was paid not out of the produce of the land, but out of money earned by the tenant elsewhere. They, therefore, made the advances on
    112
    the actual value of the holding; and if it be asked why the landlord accepted this valuation, the answer is that he could not get any more. I really must ask the Government to re-consider the whole question, on which there is an unanimous opinion among nearly all sections in Ireland.
    (9.45.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 58; Noes 108.—(Div. List, No. 177.)
    MR. CHANCE: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, the effect of which is to make this clause more conformable with the practice of business men—that is to say, to make the collateral securities larger as the advances increase. I want to deal, in the first place, with the poorer class of tenants—the tenants on whom the pressure of prices has fallen with the greatest weight—and those are the tenants living upon holdings the purchase value of which is very small. The operation of my Amendment would be, to some extent, to destroy the effect which the Government credit has had in creating an artificial market for land, and in raising the price of land, and, at the same time, to turn the benefit of the Act to the poorer class of tenants who want it most, and from the richer class of tenants who want it least. I think the operation of this clause would have a tendency to give an artificial value to the land; and if the Government decline to accept the Amendment, I hope that, at any rate, we shall be given some reason for the refusal.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 34, to leave out the word "less," and insert the word "more."—(Mr. Chance.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'less' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that, looking to the substance of the speech of the hon. Member, it is necessary for me to advance any argument. The hon. Member surely cannot wish me now to refute the very arguments with which I have endeavoured to convince the Committee.
    MR. CHANCE: I do not in my Amendment make 15 years the standard. There is no reason why the amount should not be 10 or 12 years' purchase.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That will be a question for the Land Commissioners.
    MR. CHANCE: Only last week I had before me several cases in which the Commissioners had refused to advance more than a sum equal to nine years' purchase on the valuation.
    MR. STOREY: I understand the Amendment to mean this: To those who buy at 20 years' purchase there will be no difference in the annual payment; but the burden will be felt by those who buy at the rate of 10, 11, or 12 years' purchase. Now, my point is that we ought not to differentiate between the various classes of purchases, but that the insurance payment should apply to all classes equally. I therefore cannot support the Amendment.
    (10.1.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 149; Noes 49.—(Div. List, No. 178.)
    COLONEL NOLAN: In moving the next Amendment which stands in my name, I do not intend to dwell upon it at any great length, because it was incidentally discussed on the previous Amendment. But I would point out to the Chief Secretary that the cases in which 14 or 15 years' purchase is the sum agreed upon will be the majority of the cases arising under the Act. Indeed, I hold that in nearly all cases the terms will range from 16 to 20 years' purchase, and I certainly do not believe that a reduction of 20 per cent. will be considered sufficient in those cases. The right hon. Gentleman must see that the Members for Ireland have throughout been in favour of some relaxation of the drastic provisions of the Bill, and I do, therefore, urge upon him the desirability of making some concession on this point.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 35, to leave out the word "twenty," and insert the word "sixteen."—(Colonel Nolan.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have very grave doubts whether the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member will bring about the condition of affairs which he desires. I cannot but think that tenants purchasing under
    114
    the Ashbourne Acts have obtained more than their due proportion. But that is a question which will have to be discussed later on. I can only now say I do not think the adoption of the Amendment would foster sales to small tenants.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I differ from the right hon. Gentleman on that point. The larger tenants may be expected to give 20 years' purchase, while 25 years will probably be demanded for the smaller tenants.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But how would the Amendment relieve the smaller tenant, who has to pay more than 16 years' purchase for liability to pay to the Insurance Fund?
    (10.28.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 161; Noes 55. — (Div. List, No. 179.)
    MR. SEXTON: I wish to draw the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to the phrase "annual value of the holding," in line 35. Now, there was no such phrase in the Bill of last year, and I do not see any necessity for it now. I therefore move the next Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 35, to leave out the words "as defined by this Act," in order to insert the words "as in this Act defined as the interest the tenant agrees to buy in the holding."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I do not see what objection there can be to the words. The annual value will be the value as defined by the Act.
    MR. SEXTON: But I cannot see what harm would be done by agreeing to the Amendment.
    MR. MADDEN: I think that the Bill is perfectly clear on this point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I have now to move as an Amendment that the guarantee of the Insurance Fund shall be paid for one year instead of five years. It is of no use going over the old argument, but I do urge that if a tenant pays this extra premium of 15 or 20 per cent. for one year, it will form a sufficient

    115
    fund to secure against all possible loss. As the clause now stands, I am afraid the payment will not be limited to five years; it may have to go on for an indefinite period. Surely the Chief Secretary will be willing to make some concession on this point.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 36, to leave out the words "five years," and insert the word "year."—(Colonel Nolan.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'five years' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. SEXTON: Allow me to suggest a compromise. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary wishes five years, and my hon. and gallant Friend desires to limit the payment to one year. Why not make the period three years?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Although I agree with the Government as to the desirability of establishing an Insurance Fund, I certainly should be glad to see the right hon. Gentleman give way on this point.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I think the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Amendment has given the Committee very good reasons for not accepting it. He said no Irishman ever looked forward more than one year, and if that be so it surely cannot signify whether this payment is insisted on for one year or five years. Of course, I do not blame hon. Members for Ireland for trying to get all they possibly can, but I do think the Government would be exceedingly foolish to acquiesce in this proposal. We English Representatives have a duty to perform in the interests of British taxpayers. We are here to look after their interests, and all I can say is that, in my opinion, if there ought to be any alteration on this point, it should be in the direction of extending instead of lessening the period. I advise my Irish friends to rest and be thankful for all the good things they have got.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton has taken up this attitude. To my mind, the British taxpayer has already been trotted out sufficiently for electioneering purposes. I hope the
    116
    right hon. Gentleman will make some concession in our favour.
    MR. STOREY: It seems to me that the effect of this proposal will be to place a premium on increasing the number of years' purchase, and I do not think that we as guardians of the British taxpayer would be justified in agreeing to it.
    MR. LEA: I think the suggestion of the hon. Member is really a good one. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) admits that his only desire is to wreck this Bill. There are two ways of wrecking it. One is to put its supporters in a minority, and the other is to render it unworkable. I trust the Government will accept the compromise with reference to the three years, and that the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway will allow the clause to go through.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I really think the hon. Member who has just sat down is very ungrateful. He complains that we want to wreck the Bill by making it unworkable. Surely he has not forgotten that one of our own Party—the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson)—on the first night of these Debates saved the Government by pointing out how absolutely ridiculous the measure was as drawn, and how they might remedy its essential defect. Unfortunately, this Bill will be only too workable, and workable to the ruin of the British taxpayer. The reason why I cannot support the Amendment to make this one year instead of five is the very argument adduced by my hon. Friend in favour of such a proposal, namely, that it would bring in more purchasers and would dangle the Bill more prominently before the insolvent tenants. I want the measure to be confined within the narrowest possible limits, and I cannot support the proposal. My hon. Friend said that if we rejected the proposal, we should be removing the butter from the bread of a large number of Irish tenants. But I would remind him that it is our butter and not his. We put it on the bread. As the butter comes out of our pockets, I shall certainly think twice before I consent to facilitate the process of putting the butter on. Why, it is said, should you make the

    117
    limit £1,200,000 a year, when you take £200,000 a year from local resources under Clause 3, for you need not be afraid of the advances? But this goes to the whole root of the question. The right hon. Gentleman knows that this so-called guarantee is absolutely worthless, that it is a bogus—a sham—guarantee, and it never could be realised.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am very unwilling to interpose between the friends of Ireland and the Representatives of Ireland, for it is not for me to try to settle their quarrels; but I may explain the position in which we stand: Hon. Members opposite have openly expressed a desire to destroy the Bill, or so to injure it as to make it unworkable. On the other hand, Irish Representatives desire that the Bill should pass. I credit the hon. Members for Northampton and Camborne with the desire to induce the British taxpayer to believe his interests are in danger, but hon. Members behind them have no such apprehension, and openly press their claims against the British taxpayer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has moved this Amendment declared earlier in the evening that the proper means of providing an Insurance Fund was a Vote of the Imperial Parliament, that if any calamity arose Parliament should certainly meet it. I have some points of agreement with the Members for Ireland, and also with the friends of Ireland, and likewise some points of difference with both. I have been pressed by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and by hon. Friends above the Gangway, to accept a compromise, and substitute three years for five. I hope I have not shown any undue reluctance to accept Amendments which would facilitate the proper working of the Bill and facilitate progress of business, but there are reasons why I find myself unable to accept the Amendment. The average price of Irish land is something a little over 17 years' purchase. If 17 years' purchase be taken as the normal selling price of land, it will be found that at the end of the five years' period during which the tenant's insurance money is collected—in which the abnormal annuity is running—a sum will be reached which will very nearly equal the amount of one year's annuity. This
    118
    is about the sum that ought to be aimed at. It is true that, if you take 19½, 19, 18½, or 18 years' purchase the amount of insurance received will differ. After all, what we ought to go by is the normal number of years' purchase at which land sells, and it is not less than 17. That gives a little less than one year's annuity for the Insurance Fund, and it appears to me that what we ought to aim at is one year's purchase at the normal selling price. I therefore come reluctantly, but clearly, to the conclusion that the figure introduced in the Bill is the figure which the Committee would be well advised to keep.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I propose to withdraw the proposal for one year, that a Division may be taken on the substitution of the figure "three."
    THE CHAIRMAN: That Question will arise on the Question of inserting another word. The Question now is, the retention of "five."
    (11.15.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 179; Noes 61.—(Div. List, No. 180.)
    MR. CHANCE: The Committee have now reached a stage when a final decision has been taken that the purchase insurance annuity shall, as a rule, be exacted for five years. But though that rule has been laid down, I do not assume that it is the only rule, human or divine, to which there shall be no exception. In the belief that it should not be absolute and invariable, I propose to move an Amendment providing that during the first five years the annuity shall be such sum not exceeding 80 per cent. of the annual value and not less than 4 per cent. on the advance as the Land Commissioners may deem expedient. That is to say, the Land Commissioners may in exceptional cases, when they think it expedient to do so, diminish the amount of the abnormal annuity, or do away with it altogether. I am sure, if the right hon. Gentleman had any practical acquaintance with land purchase, he would know that cases arise on every estate which require to be dealt with in an exceptional manner; but if he retains this as an invariable rule, the Land Commissioners will make advances on two-thirds or three-fourths of

    119
    an estate, and leave the other third or fourth on the landlord's hands. Suppose a rent of £10 and a purchase on a 10 years' valuation under the old Act, the Land Commission had only to consider whether the holding was safe to pay £4 a year for 49 years; but under the Bill as it now stands, the Commissioners will have to consider whether the holding can pay 8 per cent. for the first five years and 4 per cent. for the rest of the 49 years, subject to a certain fining down process, and there will be cases where, although the holding is safe to pay the normal annuity, it is not safe for the payment of the abnormal annuity during the first five years, and the Commissioners may say that they are unable to entertain the purchase. There will be, I am sure, a number of cases where a holding will be safe for the payment of £6—that is to say, £4 being the normal annuity, and £2 as an abnormal annuity or temporary payment. Bat the Commissioners will have no power to fix upon an intermediate figure betwixt the £4 and the £8. If the Bill passes without my Amendment, they will in no way be able to modify this rule; and if the holding falls short by a single 1s. of being due security for the abnormal annuity during the first five years, they will have no option except to refuse to allow any advance whatever. Obviously, they could not make the advance subject to the lucky accident of the tenant being able to tide over the several charges that may come upon him in the succeeding 45 years. That, clearly, is a hardship from the tenant's point of view; and I contend that if the principle of an Insurance Fund is to be admitted in the Bill, it is well to provide a clause for enabling the Land Commissioners to deal with an estate as a whole, so that upon one estate the richer holdings may not be purchased and the poorer holdings left upon the landlord's bands, perhaps in isolated cases, here and there. If the Government do not adopt this view of mine, the position will be that upon one estate three-fourths or four-fifths of the holdings will be sold, whilst those of the worst class remain unsold, and undoubtedly this will be against the interest of the landlords as well as the tenants. I hope, therefore, that this
    120
    rule will not be made inflexible, but that some power of modification shall lie with the Commissioners, under proper circumstances, to deal with this abnormal insurance clause. For my own part, I am exceedingly reluctant to give such a power to the Land Commissioners, for I have no confidence in these gentlemen, and suspect they will not be favourably inclined either to the tenant, or to those Local Authorities whose funds it is proposed to hypothecate. But I am not the author of the Bill, and I cannot make my views felt. What I can do is to offer this doubtful expedient. But the Chief Secretary, the author of the Bill, places the utmost confidence in the Commissioners. He has even gone so far as to release them from the control of Parliament, therefore, I do not think I am asking much from him when I recommend that they should be trusted with this discretionary power. The right hon. Gentleman does trust them with discretionary power later on in this Bill, where they have to deal with sudden or unexpected calamity falling upon the tenant, and not caused by his own default. I appeal to the Chief Secretary to give a similar discretion upon this point, and I am sure it will assist the smooth working of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 37, after the word "be," to insert the words "such sum not exceeding."—(Mr. Chance.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have every confidence in the Land Commissioners, but it is quite another thing to entrust them without guidance or rules to indicate their course in the administration of the Insurance Fund, thus throwing upon them a burden it is hardly right to ask them to bear. There is, no doubt, some analogy between this point and another question to which the hon. Member has alluded. But, in the latter case, the most careful rules to guide the Commissioners are laid down; whilst, here, the hon. Member suggests no rule or guidance whatever. One of the objects I have always felt to be attained by this insurance is one that has been rather left out of view in the Debate, but one to which I attach the very

    121
    highest importance. It is that by this insurance you get rid of that feeling of envy which might animate tenants who find themselves unable to purchase, when they compare the amount of rent they pay to that which is paid by tenants under contract of purchase. But this is not a point upon which the Land Commissioners are qualified to form an opinion; it is purely an administrative matter and a question of policy which cannot be left for them to determine. The hon. Gentleman appears to think there may be holdings able to bear the normal insurance, but not plus the extra insurance for five years. I do not believe there are any such. My own view is that if the Land Commissioners are of opinion that the tenant of a holding cannot, even in the absence of exceptional misfortune or distress, pay 20 per cent. less than the rent he has actually been paying for the holding, then they ought not to sell to that man. And I cannot conceive why they should. They have power to determine the annual value of the holding.
    MR. CHANCE: Not where the judicial rent is fixed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A competent Court has determined the annual value of the holding; and if there is a tenant who, in the absence of exceptional distress, is not able to pay 20 percent. less than this value, then I say to that man the holding should not be sold at all. Where a tenant suffers exceptional distress through calamity special to the holding, or peculiar to the district, and not through any fault of his own, the Bill provides a method of meeting his case; but if a man is improvident or stupid or drunken, or in any other way disqualified for making a sum of less by 20 per cent. than the rent, then I say he is not a fit man to purchase the holding. Under the circumstances I ask the Committee not to accept this proposal, which certainly should not be made without some rule for the guidance of the Commissioners.
    MR. KNOX: I do not imagine that my hon. Friend would object to any such rule for the guidance of the Commissioners, providing that the principle of his Amendment is accepted. The Chief Secretary, I think, will have observed that there is
    122
    almost unanimity of opinion in favour of the Amendment. From South Tyrone and from every other part of Ireland a protest is made against this provision. There is an agreement which has seldom been seen upon this question, and rightly or wrongly, undoubtedly it is the opinion of a vast number of people that this particular provision will tend to defeat land purchase in Ireland. The Chief Secretary says this will be putting upon the Land Commissioners a duty which is foreign to their position as a Judicial Body. But the right hon. Gentleman faces both ways in meeting our arguments. He tells us at times that the Commissioners are an administrative and at others that they are a Judicial Body. I say that this will certainly be a duty akin to those they have to perform. They have to see that there is sufficient security for the advance which is to be made upon the holding; and surely if the Land Commissioners are capable of judging of the amount of security the holding affords, they are also able to express an opinion as to the necessity for the abnormal amount of insurance, and may be entrusted with the discretion which will enable them to set a tenant on his legs again after a succession of hard years. I must press again on the Government, if the Chief Secretary is not philosophically indifferent to all argument, that they should re-consider the question, which I believe everybody in Ireland considers is at the root of the success of land purchase. Surely some sort of discretion should be allowed. The Chief Secretary will not give us compulsory purchase, so that it will only be where the landlords will sell that the tenants will be able to buy. In many of the congested districts the tenants have not been able to pay their rent, therefore, it may be taken that the nominal rent has been higher than it ought to have been. Surely it is a hardship to give a man no chance of becoming a peasant proprietor unless for five years he pays considerably more than he is able to pay at present. I believe the Chief Secretary does, in some degree, wish the Bill to work successfully, and I would, therefore, ask him not to erect this cast iron barrier against land purchase in Ireland. My hon. Friend allows me to say that he

    123
    will accept any reasonable modification, and all we ask is that there should be discretion given to the Land Commissioners in this matter.
    MR. SEXTON: The objection raised by the Chief Secretary was rather more of a technical than of a substantial nature. If the Amendment is adopted it will only impose on the Commissioners a duty analogous to those they already will have to perform. If they are capable of judging of the security and its value they surely are capable of receiving the amount of the insurance money, if they are of opinion that the imposition and the full demand would prejudicially affect the solvency of the tenant or interfere with the due cultivation of the holding. How can the right hon. Gentleman say that the Land Commission is unfit to discharge the function contemplated by my hon. Friend when we remember the duties it will have to perform under Sub-section 4. When the regular annuity falls into arrear on any holding, the Land Commission will have to examine into the circumstances of the tenant and say whether or not the default is unavoidable, and I hold that that is a duty analogous to that contemplated by the Amendment. Furthermore, after they have applied the insurance money to the payment of the arrear, they then have to apply to fix the amount of the money and arrange as to time. There is, therefore, no force in the contention of the Chief Secretary, who seems to have placed himself under an honourable understanding with the landlord party, to give a common repulse to all Amendments, however reasonable. I trust my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division.
    MR. CHANCE: The right hon. Gentleman stated that my case assumed that a given holding might be good security for a normal annuity for 49 years and yet might be bad security or no security at all for an abnormal annuity during the first five years, and he said those were the cases we did not want to deal with under this measure. Under the Ashbourne Act when the Land Commission was satisfied, the whole amount could be advanced. Now the cases are to be subjected to the fresh consideration whether for the first five years
    124
    they will bear an abnormal annuity. Under that Act you made no loss, and yet the cases you exclude are the very cases in which land purchase is most needed to tranquilise the people and make the localities prosperous. It has been suggested that the right hon. Gentleman is under some contract in regard to this clause. It looks very like it. But I do not know with whom he can be under contract. It cannot be the tenants, because a certain number of tenants are excluded from the relaxation of the rule. It cannot be the landlords obviously, because by the refusal of this Amendment a certain number of cases will be left on their hands, and they will have scattered holdings all over their estates. The only interpretation I can place on it is that he wants to make this Bill a tit-bit Bill, and to say as he skips out of office "We have made no loss"—leaving the tail of the tenants to be dealt with by his successors.
    (11.50.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 74; Noes 151.—(Div. List, No. 181.)
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL CHILDREN BILL.—(No. 261.)
  Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACT (1860) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 160.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  RIFLE RANGES.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 223.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

THE VICTORIA EMBANKMENT.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THR EARL OF MEATH: London, my Lords, cannot, I fear, take high rank amongst the beautiful cities of the earth, but she possesses in the Victoria Embankment a boulevard which she owes to the foresight and public spirit of the London Metropolitan Board of Works, and of which any Londoner may be proud. It unites in a remarkable degree the life of the great city and the spirit which is attached to the shipping moving up and down in the river, and that which is attached to ancient buildings and fine palaces—a combination which I think cannot be shown in any other capital of the world. We have there a wide thoroughfare replete with life: we have fine trees, green grass, bright parterres
  2
  of flowers, fountains, monuments to the illustrious dead. We have ancient buildings and we have interest on all sides. Now, unfortunately, some portion of the public gardens which abut upon this thoroughfare are not open to the public. There are about eight or nine or ten houses which possess the right of enjoying some of these gardens. I understand that these gardens to which I allude are in the possession of the Crown. The noble Lord who answers me has better means of obtaining information than I have, and he will correct me if I am wrong; but I understand that these gardens form part of the Crown lands, and are vested in the Commissioners of Woods and Forests under the Thames Embankment Act of 1862. I am told that the gardens have been leased by the Crown to the lessees of the adjoining houses, and that the leases expire as follows: the lease of Montague (otherwise Beaufort) House in 1904, the lease of No. 1 Whitehall Gardens in 1954, those of Nos. 4, 5, and 6 in 1923, and of Nos. 7 and 8 in 1892. Unfortunately Nos. 7

  3
  and 8 abut on the public gardens at present open, and if those are built upon, or if any lease is given to the owners of the houses, Nos. 7 and 8, of those gardens, your Lordships will see it will be impossible later on to continue the public gardens down to what are at present the new Scotland Yard buildings; and the continuity of such gardens would therefore be destroyed. I may as well at once state that I hold no brief for the London County Council in this matter. Indeed, I have been very careful not to consult any of my colleagues upon it, because I do not wish to be bound one way or the other, but simply as a citizen of London I bring this subject to your Lordships' notice in the hope that Her Majesty's Government may do what they can to add to the beauty of this thoroughfare, to make it still more beautiful and more worthy, than it is at present, of the greatest Metropolis in the world. I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government whether the lands at present leased as gardens to private owners, situated between the New Scotland Yard Buildings and the Victoria Embankment Public Gardens, will revert to the Crown in 1892; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will undertake not to renew the leases, sell, relet or otherwise dispose of the land, until the citizens of London, through their representatives on the London County Council, have had an opportunity of declining to purchase or rent these lands for the purpose of enlarging the area of the gardens at present open to the public?
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (Lord WINDSOR): My Lords, I think I may say that Her Majesty's Government will not be likely to minimise the importance of retaining open spaces in London for the public use. There is only a small portion of these gardens at present leased to private owners, situate between the New Scotland Yard Buildings and the Victoria Embankment, which will revert to the Crown in 1892. The noble Earl has correctly stated, I believe, the dates at which the rest of the gardens will revert to the Crown. The gardens which do revert next year, that is in 1892, are those of No. 4, Whitehall Yard, and Nos. 7 and 8, Whitehall Gardens, at present in the occupation of the Board of Trade. A new road is going to be made opposite the Horse
  4
  Guards from Whitehall to the Embankment, and nearly the whole of the gardens of No. 4, Whitehall Yard will be required for this purpose, and for the exchange of land necessary with the London County Council, respectively authorised by the Horse Guards Avenue Act of 1888. I may explain that this exchange affects only two very small pieces of land, and was made for the purpose of making the new road conveniently straight. No determination has yet been arrived at as to the future appropriation of the gardens of Nos. 7 and 8, Whitehall Gardens, but it clearly could not be made an addition to the present existing gardens on the Embankment, because the new road which will be made between the present public gardens and the gardens of Nos. 7 and 8, Whitehall Gardens, would prevent this. Under the circumstances, it is impossible for the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to give any undertaking which will fetter such future appropriation.

POTATO DISEASE IN FRANCE AND BELGIUM.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether inductions can be issued to the Consular Agents in France and Belgium to transmit to the Foreign Office Reports (if any) made to the Governments of those countries, or such other information as may be procurable, respecting experiments recently made with the object of curing the disease in potatoes, said: I understand that Reports have been presented, and I believe that some answer has been given on the subject by the Minister of Agriculture in the House of Commons, which I have not yet seen; but if the noble Marquess will give those instructions, no doubt it would be more satisfactory to have them from official sources in the full Reports which have been presented from the various ports in France and Belgium.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I will see what information is to be procured on the subject, and I shall have great pleasure in giving orders that it shall be procured through Her Majesty's Consuls as the noble Lord desires.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 76.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I have given notice of a Resolution asking the House not to proceed with this Bill until a reasonable time has been given to the Legislature of the colony to pass the necessary legislation; and, in the first place, I wish entirely to disclaim the slightest desire to embarrass the Government in the conduct of this difficult question. I am quite certain that I speak for those who act with me when I say that we all recognise the absolute necessity of legislation either by the Imperial Parliament or by the Colonial Legislature to enable this country fully to discharge the obligations which it has towards France both in regard to the old Treaties and Obligations, and in regard to the Convention which has recently been concluded for the purpose of determining the lobster question. My reason for moving this Motion is my strong feeling that it is most important that the undoubted power of this country to override the Legislature of a colony, enjoying legislative power as regards its own affairs, should only be exercised in the very last extremity and as a last resort. This question should not be considered simply with reference to the Colony of Newfoundland. The matter is one, in point of fact, of principle. I hold, as I suppose every one of your Lordships does, that no one can call in question the power and the right of the Imperial Parliament to legislate for all our colonies. We have done so on various occasions, and our colonies have always recognised, and will continue, I hope, to do so as long as their connection with this country remains, that that power must rest in the last resort with the Imperial Parliament. But although that power is absolutely necessary for the welfare of the Empire, it still remains that such a power, which overrides the rights which we have conceded to them for the management of their own affairs, is a power which
  6
  should never be exercised, if possible, against the wish of the colony itself, and certainly should never be exercised at all if it be possible to attain the object of any power by other means. In the present instance we have a distinct proposal from the delegates acting on behalf of, and with authority from, the Colony of Newfoundland, in which they have distinctly intimated their willingness to pass, in the first place, a Bill which embraces all the points at issue. I will read the words, because I think it is very important there should be no mistake as to what their proposal was. Their proposal was made in these words—
  "The Newfoundland Legislature to pass immediately an Act, authorising the execution for this year of the modus vivendi, the Award of the Arbitration Commission regarding the lobster question, and the Treaties and Declarations under instructions from Her Majesty in Council."
  Your Lordships will observe that that embraces every one of the points. It states distinctly that the Newfoundland Legislature will pass an Act to authorise for this year the execution of the modus vivendi. It also proposes to pass an Act which will enable the Award to be carried into effect; and, last, which it is very important to remark, that an Act should be passed, good for one year, enabling the Treaties and Obligations—that is to say, the old Treaties, as I understand it, and the Declarations in connection with those Treaties — to be carried into effect by instructions from Her Majesty in Council. Therefore, the delegates have carefully embraced every one of the points which it is necessary to deal with. Then, as regards the future, they propose, too, that there shall be a consideration of what will be the most convenient permanent arrangements, and when those permanent arrangements are settled with Her Majesty's Government, they express their willingness to pass the necessary Act. Now, it seems to me a fairer offer could not be made. It is distinct, unequivocal; it embraces every one of the points at issue; it embraces all necessary present legislation for present purposes, and whatever future legislation is necessary in order to safeguard the execution of the Treaties. This being so—of course I am not cognisant of what may be the precise com-

  7
  munications which Her Majesty's Government may have had since our last discussion of the subject with Newfoundland—I can scarcely conceive that unless the Legislature of Newfoundland is likely—which I am told it is most unlikely to do—to repudiate the action of their delegates, that anything can have occurred, or is likely to occur, which will necessitate so much haste in the matter as that we should necessarily go forward with the Bill before us to-day. And, my Lords, it is quite obvious that the feelings of the Newfoundlanders would be best consulted by our not proceeding to-night in this matter, and, as I said the other night—and I do not want to elaborate all that matter over again—it is really of vital importance that the whole matter should be so conducted as, if possible, to allay irritation in the colony, and to ensure the hearty co-operation of the colonists in future in carrying into effect these very difficult Treaties. Therefore, on that ground alone, from mere considerations of policy, it seems to me, unless there is some paramount reason, some insuperable objection to postponing the further proceeding with this Bill, a very strong case is made out for not going further with it now, and I cannot imagine that there can be any very serious risk run, or any risk run, of any complication arising from a postponement because your Lordships have already read the Bill a second time, and if unfortunately (which I do not anticipate) it should be found that the Newfoundland Legislature is not prepared either to pass the necessary legislation satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government, or to pass it in sufficient time for the fishing season, then the Government will have, it seems to me, ample power and ample opportunity of proceeding with this Bill and carrying it through Parliament; and although it is possible, when it gets to the other House, knowing that they are not very speedy in their proceedings, there may be some delay, yet in the case of this Bill, I cannot conceive there can be any fear that there could be any serious delay there, Her Majesty's Government are able, at all events, to ensure that the legislation which they desire shall be passed rapidly through this House. If the necessary legislation is not passed in sufficient time or in a proper manner
  8
  by the Newfoundland Legislature, then I am quite certain that, independently of the power which Her Majesty's Government possess in this House to pass any Bill, there would be entire concurrence on the part of the House in passing the legislation necessary. The questions which would arise in Committee cannot be serious or long, more especially because an Amendment is already on the Paper proposed by the noble Lord opposite, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, which certainly meets entirely some objections which I expressed to the details of the Bill on the former occasion. Well, my Lords, if there is any haste necessary, who can doubt that the Bill would in a single evening go through Committee, and if necessary pass the Third Reading, so that the risk of any delay is exceedingly small? I do not now propose, after having addressed your Lordships at considerable length the other night, to trouble you with any long observations on the present occasion. The matter lies really in a nutshell. The question is, are we prepared to exercise the power possessed by Parliament, a most seldom exercised power, a power which has scarcely been exercised against a colony since it was last necessary to deal with Canada? Are we prepared to exercise this great and supreme power possessed by Parliament in this instance, when, if I am not entirely wrong, the Bill may be delayed, without any detriment to the matter in hand, that may be done, and there is a fair chance that it will not be necessary eventually to proceed with the Bill at all? Another point which has been alluded to is the effect of this elsewhere. It is possible that the Debates which have taken place in this House will attract considerable attention elsewhere, and I should be extremely sorry if there should be any misunderstanding on the part of the French Government that any action taken by us in this House implies the slightest desire to throw any impediment whatever in the way of duly carrying into effect the Treaty which has been entered into by this country with France. The point is not at all a question between us and France; it is a domestic matter which we have to settle with our colonies, and we on this side, I am certain, admitting in the fullest degree our

  9
  obligations to France, have not the slightest intention of throwing obstacles in the way of this Convention being rigidly and fully carried into effect. My Lords, I have no more to say, but to earnestly ask the House to agree to the Resolution which I have placed on the Paper not to proceed further with the Bill to-night.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out from ("that") to the end of the Motion, and insert the following Resolution, namely, ("in view of the assurance given by the Newfoundland Delegates that provision will be made by immediate legislation in the Colony for the due enforcement of the treaty obligations of this country, and of the modus vivendi agreed upon with the French Government, it is not expedient that this House should go into Committee on the Bill until a reasonable time has been given for such Colonial legislation.")—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): Since this question was put down on the Paper Her Majesty's Government have given it full consideration, but I regret to say that we are not able to accede to the Motion. I agree entirely with much that has been said by the noble Earl as to the desirability, I might almost say necessity, of interfering as rarely as possible with the Legislature of a colony by Imperial legislation; but when he says we are interfering with a Colonial Legislature upon this occasion in the management of their own affairs, I cannot agree with him. As I have said before more than once, this Bill is of an Imperial character. It involves the performance of Treaties, the performance of which is an obligation upon us, along the coast of Newfoundland, and it is therefore not a question purely of local management of local affairs. The noble Earl says it is very desirable not to proceed with this Bill, because if we do we shall increase the feeling of irritation which now exists in the colony. I admit that the introduction of the Bill was distasteful to the colonists, and I know that the Bill was much resented. I do not dispute that, but, at the same time, I must again point out that no one in the colony, who had studied the subject, who was well informed of what had really taken place, and who recognised the obligations of a country to perform the Treaties into which it has entered, could really
  10
  have been surprised, or could have expected any other course to be taken than the one which Her Majesty's Government have felt themselves compelled to take. I cannot help thinking that much of the irritation felt in the colony has proceeded from those who have not been well informed of the position of affairs; and after the full explanation that has been given of the position of Her Majesty's Government at the time this Bill was introduced, we may reasonably expect that that feeling of irritation will be considerably lessened. I would again ask your Lordships to remember the position of affairs when this Bill was introduced. At that time the Colonial Government had expressly refused to legislate for securing the observance of the modus vivendi for 1891, and had expressly declined to be bound by the arbitration to which we had agreed. That refusal was tantamount to a refusal to legislate to secure the execution of the decision of the arbitrators. They were also aware of the doubts which had been raised as regards the powers of naval officers, and that those doubts extended to the power of naval officers to enforce the observance of Treaties, and yet until the delegates arrived in this country there had been no offer made to us of legislation to secure the observance and performance of those Treaties. But, my Lords, if, on the one hand, the feeling of irritation will not be softened by these considerations, I think, on the other hand, there is very little fear of its being increased by our passing this Bill through this House, when it is understood that we have agreed that it shall not have a Second Reading in the House of Commons until after Whitsuntide, and that then, if the Colonial Legislature have performed their duty and have passed an Act satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government, we shall drop this Bill, and proceed with it no further. Now I will, with your Lordships' leave, state the two reasons for the decision at which Her Majesty's Government have arrived. The first is this: We had to ascertain about what time we might expect the fishing season to begin. It varies according to the state of the ice every year; but taking an average of the last few years, and looking to the Naval Reports as well as to the Colonial Official Reports,

  11
  we found that cod-fishing might be expected to begin about the middle of May, and that the lobster factories might be expected to get to work about the end of May or early in June. That calculation, based upon an average of years, will show, I think, that we were justified in stating that the fishing season was close upon us; but since that time we have received a telegram from the Governor, dated the 1st of May, stating that he had just heard that, owing to the absence of ice, lobster-catching and cod-fishing had been already commenced in St. George's Bay. Now, my Lords, what is the position of affairs? The necessity has arisen, as the fishing season has begun, for us to see, on the one hand, that the French do not go beyond the rights given them by Treaty, and, on the other hand, to secure that they shall have the full enjoyment of the rights secured to them by Treaty. Questions of difficulty will arise, as they have arisen in the last few years, between the two countries as to the construction of the Treaties. Those questions have hitherto been settled by the tact, judgment, and friendly action of both French and British naval officers; but can we expect that these difficult questions will be settled in an amicable spirit when our naval officers have no power to act? And that is their position at present. It will in these circumstances be admitted that Her Majesty's Government must be placed in a position to pass this Bill rapidly through all the stages should any unfortunate hitch in the Colonial Legislature take place. The second reason for adhering to the proposals we made on the Second Reading is this. I will remind your Lordships that with the desire of meeting the Colonial Government half-way, we had practically and substantially agreed to the first proposal brought to your Lordships' notice by Sir W. Whiteway at the Bar of this House. We agreed to postpone the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons until after Whitsuntide, and then to drop it if the Colonial Legislature had in the meantime passed a proper measure. We had also agreed that we would at once consider how far the initiative as to proceedings on land, and how far the adjudication of claims, should be secured
  12
  to the Colonial Courts; but while we expressed our readiness to consider these questions, we distinctly stated that it would be impossible that the first Bill, the Bill mentioned in the first proposal of the colonial delegates should be postponed until the terms of the second Bill had been settled. We expected after what passed on the Second Reading, and I think we had a right to expect, that the draft of a Bill which would be very simple in its terms would be at once prepared and submitted to us for approval, and passed by the legislature of Newfoundland. But my Lords, I will ask you to consider how we have been met. Instead of a Bill being presented to us for our approval and consideration, we received a letter from the delegates, dated May 1, the substance of which I think it is only fair to the delegates that I should read. It is of a very important character inasmuch as it modifies the proposals which were made, and presents conditions to us in a new form. The letter from the Newfoundland delegates says—
  "My Lord, in acknowledging the receipt of your communication of the 29th inst—"
  that communication, I may observe, was one in which I asked them what steps, if any, they had taken towards preparing the Bill, and when I might expect it—
  "We beg to say that, having very carefully considered the speeches made in the House of Lords on Monday, the 27th inst., we desire to lay before Her Majesty's Government the following propositions:—
  'If the Sill now before the Lords be not further proceeded with, and if Her Majesty's Government admit the principle of a measure for the creation of Courts to adjudicate upon complaints arising in the course of the enforcement of the Treaties and declarations relative to French Treaty rights, and engage to discuss and arrange with us as rapidly as possible the terms of a Bill embodying that principle, we will, with all possible speed, procure the enactment by the Colonial Legislature of a measure giving power to Her Majesty in Council during the current year to enforce in the same manner as heretofore Her Rules and Regulations for the observance of the modus vivendi, the award of the arbitration, and the Treaties and declarations with France, which temporary Act the Colonial Legislature will replace by a permanent measure for securing the enforcement of the Treaties under the Orders of the special Courts referred to above, provided that if, as the result of the enforcement of the award of the arbitration, the property of Her Majesty's subjects is disturbed they shall be entitled to compensation.
  'If a temporary Act by the Colonial Legislature is to supersede the Bill now before Par-

  13
  liament Her Majesty's Government will perceive how wise it will be to prevent greater irritation in the colony by refraining from proceeding further with the Bill now before the House of Lords, and will not hesitate, we hope, to accede to our requests in this respect. The burdens under which the colonists suffer are great, the causes of irritation many, and they feel that, as the claims of the French are being unduly pressed for the purpose, apparently, of affecting the policy of Great Britain in other parts of the world, they may be said to be suffering for the benefit of the Empire at large. A proper recognition of their unfortunate position would induce Her Majesty's Government, we think, to be extremely considerate, and not to press forward the pending Bill in a manner which may be regarded by our fellow-colonists as indicating a want of confidence in us and them.
  'The temporary Act suggested should be extremely simple in its provisions, and delay in framing it would neither be desirable nor necessary. If our propositions can be accepted the terms of such an Act may be telegraphed to the Legislature and enacted in a few days, thus relieving Her Majesty's Government of all anxiety as to the enforcement of the Treaties and engagements during the present year?'"
  They then proceed to state their views in favour of the jurisdiction of the Colonial Courts in cases of complaint; but it is not necessary to read that argument now. That is a question which will have to be considered, and Her Majesty's Government have agreed to consider it. Then the letter goes on—
  "In reference to the present Arbitration Commission, we have to make the following proposal:—
  'If it be possible to abandon arbitration upon the lobster question, we strongly urge that it be done, for we fear grave complications as its result. But if it be not possible now to withhold that question, we ask an assurance—

  '(1) That no further questions shall be submitted to the Arbitration Commission without prior consultation with the Government of the colony,

  '(2) That the opinion of the Colonial Government will not be disregarded in the absence of some paramount consideration involving the welfare of the Empire; and

  '(3) That compensation will be given to those persons, if any, whose property may be disturbed by the award of the arbitration.'"

  And they then proceed to state the grounds for supporting those proposals. My Lords, I think that the reading of that letter shows you that there is a very considerable difference between the present proposals and conditions of the delegates and the first proposals which the made, and which we accepted, at
  14
  the Bar of the House. This letter has been carefully considered, and I think your Lordships will now allow me to read certain portions of the reply which has been sent to that letter, and which was delivered this morning to the delegates. After acknowledging the receipt of that letter, the reply goes on—
  "Her Majesty's Government regret to observe that the proposals now presented differ in form from those made on your behalf at the Bar of the House of Lords.
  "You are aware from the statement made by Lord Knutsford in moving the Second Reading of the Imperial Bill on the 27th ult. that Her Majesty's Government agreed not to move the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons until after Whitsuntide, and then not to proceed with it any further if in the meantime an Act had been passed by the Colonial Legislature authorising the execution of the modus vivendi, the award of the Arbitration Commission regarding the lobster question, and the Treaties and Declarations under instructions from Her Majesty in Council.
  "Her Majesty's Government were under the impression that you clearly understood that the Colonial Act, while providing for the execution of the modus vivendi for 1891, was also to secure permanently both the execution of the award of the Arbitration Commission on the lobster question and the fulfilment of the Treaties and Declarations. Her Majesty's Government at the same time recognised the objections raised by you against continuing powers to the naval officers to act on land, and expressed their readiness to consider at once, but as a separate matter, 'the terms of an Act to empower Courts and provide for regulations to enforce the Treaties and Declarations,' upon the understanding that the passing of the Colonial Act referred to in the first part of the proposal would not be delayed, but that if, as they anticipated, the terms of such a measure could be agreed upon, another Colonial Act would be brought in to amend the former Act.
  "It appears, however, from your letter under reply that it is now made a condition precedent to Colonial Legislation that the Imperial Bill should not be further proceeded with; and it is also stated that the Colonial Act is to be altogether temporary.
  "Her Majesty's Government regret that they cannot assent to this altered proposal."
  The reply then states the substance of the Governor's telegram, which I have read to the House, showing that the fishing season has already begun, and then proceeds—
  "In these circumstances, and bearing in mind their obligations to the French Government and the decision of the Supreme Court of the colony against the powers of the naval officers to secure observance of the Treaties or of the modus vivendi for 1891, Her Majesty's Government are confirmed by your present letter in the opinion that the Imperial Bill must be so far advanced that in case of any unfortunate failure on the part of the Colonial

  15
  Legislature to pass the necessary legislation, it may be rapidly proceeded with through the remaining stages and become law.
  "As regards the further proposals made in your letter, Her Majesty's Government desire me to state that the arbitration upon the sole question now to be submitted to the Commission cannot be abandoned, but they are willing to give an assurance that no further questions shall be submitted to the arbitrators without full consultation with the Colonial Government, and that the opinion of the Colonial Government will not be disregarded in the absence of pressing considerations affecting the interests of the Empire.
  "They will also carefully consider the question whether compensation should properly be given to those persons whose property may be disturbed by the award of the arbitrators, although they see no ground for admitting any liability on the part of the Imperial Government to pay such compensation.
  "Her Majesty's Government still entertain a hope that the Colonial Government will assent to the proposal that the colony should be represented by a delegate at the approaching arbitration, and they heartily join in the hope expressed by you that the relations between France and Newfoundland may speedily be placed upon a more satisfactory basis. They cannot, however, pass without notice the sentence in which it is said that 'the claims of the French are being unduly pressed for the purpose, apparently, of affecting the policy of Great Britain in other parts of the world.' There is no foundation whatever for the suggestions contained in these words."
  My Lords, I think that the portions of the letter I have read from the Newfoundland delegates show a very considerable difference between their present position and the propositions which were made previously, and which we accepted on the part of the House. I cannot but consider that this step taken by the delegates is an unfortunate one, and one which may tend materially to delay the colonial legislation, and thus to defeat the object which we all have at heart, that is that the colonists should take the matter into their own hands, and that Her Majesty's Government should be enabled to withdraw the Bill now before the House. Our two reasons, then, and I trust sufficient reasons, for proceeding with the Bill are (1) that the fishing season has begun at St. George's Bay, and will soon begin at other places along the coast; and (2) that we cannot but fear that delay may take place in legislating in the colony. The noble Earl, when urging the importance of postponing the further proceeding with this Bill, has referred to the Amendments which I have put down on
  16
  the Paper; with a view of meeting objections raised to the form and scope of the Bill. The main objection to the Bill as it was originally framed, was that it included within its scope "permanent arrangements," and the power to enforce them. It was argued as a principal objection to our taking powers to enforce permanent arrangements that they might involve perhaps a cession of rights, and thus be contrary to Mr. Labouchere's assurances given in 1857. I have already pointed out that no additional powers beyond those now possessed are given by the Bill to the Imperial Government; that any Government, if it thought right to do so, if it thought it was required by Imperial necessities to do so, might enter into a permanent arrangement which would be binding on the colony, and even without their consent; though I added, and still am of opinion, that that course is not likely to be taken except under pressure of grave and weighty reasons of Imperial necessity. It was further argued that the Bill as it stood provided for such permanent arrangements being made and carried into force without giving an opportunity to Parliament of expressing their opinion upon them, and that if powers are given to enforce such an arrangement the Government of the day would be in a position to act without the submission of the arrangement to the Imperial Parliament. This objection might have been met by an Amendment, but after full consideration Her Majesty's Government have decided to omit all reference to "permanent arrangements," and to limit the Bill to "temporary arrangements," pending negotiations. The Bill as it stands provides for the carrying out of the modus vivendi; the decision of the arbitrators on the question now submitted to them; and the obligations we are under to France. I believe that these concessions, which were frankly offered by Her Majesty's Government, will commend themselves to this House, to Parliament, and to the country. I feel sure that they will show that Her Majesty's Government have approached this question, and have desired to act, in a friendly and sympathetic spirit, and that they have made every endeavour to secure, if

  17
  possible, the loyal co-operation of the colony.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I do not suppose your Lordships will care to have a prolonged Debate upon this occasion, and I only wish to call your attention to the very small magnitude of the point which is before us. We are all agreed that legislation is necessary and is urgent, and from what we have heard to-night I think we must agree it is a great deal more urgent than we thought it was when we discussed the subject last. We are all agreed that there should be some provisional legislation on the part of the Imperial Legislature to be ready in case the Colonial Legislature fails from any accident; and the only question before us raised by the noble Earl opposite at this moment is whether this provisional legislation which has been begun in this House should be suspended at the present moment or at a later time before it goes to the other House. We have at this moment simply to choose the point of suspension of the Imperial provisional legislation. It is asked whether the Imperial Parliament should pass an Act which the Colonial Parliament, being the party primarily concerned, is able and willing to pass; but that is not the question. We do not in any way propose to supersede the colonial action. All that we have in hand is provisional legislation which will be absolutely necessary within a few weeks from this time, in case the colonial legislation, either from any accident or from any obstruction, has failed to legislate. It is impossible to say that that may not be the case, but if colonial legislation, by any accident, be not passed, and the Imperial legislation were not ready, bloodshed and colonial disruption must necessarily issue. It is, therefore, a trifling matter that we are discussing, the simple question being the point at which the Imperial legislation should be suspended, merely to gratify colonial susceptibilities. But it would be no trifling matter if we should run the risk in a few weeks time, of calamitous conflict and colonial disruption. It is proposed, in postponing this Bill, that we should consider colonial susceptibilities at the expense of vital colonial interests which are acknowledged on all sides. But the noble Earl who has
  18
  moved this Amendment gives as his reason for proposing this little postponement of the Imperial Act, that Imperial Acts should not override a self-governing colony. There is nobody who takes that principle more to heart than I do, for I may say that I spent the first years of my life in Parliament in maintaining that the self-government of colonies was the wisest principle to adopt both in the interests of the colonies themselves and of the Empire. But what is this over-riding by the Imperial Parliament of colonial legislation. The Treaty power is in the Crown, only supported by Parliament, either the Local or Central Legislature, as the case may require. If we were quite sure of the Colonial Legislature doing what it has been urged to do, to support the Crown in dealing with this Treaty, so far from wishing to override them, we are simply asking them so to act, and all we are doing is to take care, in case anything should prevent their so acting, that there shall be power to carry out the objects they have in view. The Colony of Newfoundland has pleaded a simple fallacy in their case for their opposition to the progress of the Bill. It is said that the Imperial action has interfered with their self-governing colonial rights. They entirely mistake what their rights have ever been. It is only about 30 years since that Newfoundland became a colony instead of simply a fishing station, and Newfoundlanders were given self-government. But they were given that self-government distinctly subject to our obligations by Treaty towards a foreign Power. And now that we all agree that those obligations are obnoxious and ought to be removed in the interests of the colony, we are ready to do it, we are eager to do it, and we have called upon them to take their part in supporting the Crown by local legislation. It is only upon their having refused to take their part that this Bill was introduced. I can hardly conceive anything more entirely contrary to the allegation made the other day that we were retracting what was called Mr. Labouchere's engagement, that the rights of the colony should not be diminished without their consent. We have tried in every possible way to get them to do it, and it is

  19
  only at the last moment, when the danger is extreme and urgent, that we have interfered to assist them in carrying out their object in the way we now propose. The delegates propose to pass a Bill by which that shall be done, and that this Bill shall be withdrawn; the noble Earl proposes that this Bill shall be suspended at the present point; while the Government propose that it shall be suspended at a somewhat later period. Those are the three propositions. As to the colonial proposition, which is supported by the noble Lord behind me (the Earl of Dunraven), I can hardly conceive for what object the Bill should be withdrawn, and not brought to a Second Reading here, ready for use if wanted. Surely if the object was to be ready in case of the colonial legislation failing, there not being a moment to lose, it would be an advantage to have this Bill advanced as forward as might be required. If it is not advanced, the matter being one of emergency, what could be done? I think the noble Lord (the Earl of Dunraven) actually suggested that if it was run to the last moment the Bill could be passed through both Houses of Parliament in 24 hours by suspending the Orders. That is certainly a somewhat wild proposal, and I can scarcely conceive it in the interest of anybody. In the interest of whom can it be?—of the colony, or of England, or of both? The best thing to do is to get this Provisional Bill placed in a position to be brought into action, if ever necessary, at the critical moment. I maintain, under these circumstances, there really has been no reason whatever adduced for the proposal to withdraw this Bill, and I merely rose to ask your Lordships to consider how very small is the magnitude of the point with which we are now dealing, it being simply whether to suspend the Bill at this point or a little later.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I was perfectly horrified at hearing the noble Lord (Lord Norton) get up in your Lordships' House and say that the feelings of the colonists were not to be considered in this matter—
  LORD NORTON: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I did not say that.
  LORD CARRINGTON: I so understood the noble Lord.
  LORD NORTON: I beg leave to state that I said the point of suspension of the Bill was only a matter of susceptibility.
  LORD CARRINGTON: Then would the noble Lord repeat what he did say? I certainly understood the noble Lord, with great respect, to say that the susceptibilities of the colonists were not to be considered.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That they were to be considered as of less importance than their interests.
  LORD CARRINGTON: On the contrary, my Lords, I consider that it is only by consulting the susceptibilities of our colonies that this great Empire of ours can be held together. I do not presume to detain your Lordships for many moments; but I should like to call attention to one great danger, which it seems to me is contained in this Bill; that is, the power which is given to the naval officers in what I may call the naval officers' clause. The popularity of the Royal Navy all over the colonies is worth going out there to see. In Australia the officers are treated as if they were Princes. They are given free passes all over the colonies, and everything possible is done for them. For the men the same thing is done. A large sum of money was subscribed by the New South Wales Government for the Naval Home. Then £5,000 was put down in the Estimates, and a plot of land worth £10,000 was given by the Government, and £13,000 was subscribed by the inhabitants of the City of Sydney to establish a Naval Home for the sailors. Now, the Royal Navy is the representative of the fighting power and strength of England; arid if you give the power to naval officers to coerce British subjects, the popularity of the Royal Navy will be shaken to its foundation. The feelings of the Newfoundlanders as regards the Royal Navy are very well shown by the fact that the Newfoundland Chamber of Commerce—and I should think it is the first time such a thing has occurred in British history—refused to give an address of welcome to the British Admiral at St. John's last year; and at a ball given on the naval station a great many of the Newfoundland ladies and gentlemen abstained from being present. Now, if this power is given to the Royal Navy, as I

  21
  said before, the popularity of the Naval Service will be shaken to the foundation, and it will go like wildfire all over the British dominions. Therefore, with great respect, I feel bound to get up in my place in the House of Lords and express my regret that Her Majesty's Government feel themselves unable to shelve, if not altogether to knock on the head, this most hateful Bill.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I merely rise to say that I have heard with very great regret that Her Majesty's Government are unable to agree to the Resolution of the noble Earl opposite, because I fail to understand what real practical objection there can be to the slight delay that might possibly be caused by not proceeding further with this Bill in your Lordships' House at present. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies has told us that the fishing season has already commenced, and he is also of opinion it seems that it is, at any rate, doubtful whether the Newfoundland Legislature will carry out the proposals that were made by the delegates at the Bar of your Lordships' House the other day.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I beg leave to say that I did not express any doubt upon that point. I only said I thought the proceedings now taken might tend to delay.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I understood the noble Lord to say there was some difference between the proposals now formulated by the Newfoundland delegates and those formulated the other day.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: Certainly.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Then if, on account of the approach of the fishing season and because there was some difference between the present and the previous proposals, if for those two reasons Her Majesty's Government thought it necessary to press this Bill through all its stages in this House and through all its stages in the other House as quickly as possible in order that it might prevent collision and danger—
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I am really very sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I did not say it would be necessary to pass this Bill in this House and in the House of Commons through all its stages as quickly as possible.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I think the noble Lord has misunderstood me. What I said was that if the noble Lord states that, for those two reasons, because of the approach of the fishing season and because the proposition of the Newfoundland delegates has been altered, therefore Her Majesty's Government consider it necessary to pass the Bill into law as speedily as possible, I should not have a single word to say. My position is this: I cannot see that by not pressing the Bill any further at present in this House any practical inconvenience can possibly arise. The Second Reading of the Bill is not to be taken in the other House of Parliament until after Whitsuntide. If the Committee stage of the Bill was postponed in your Lordships' House until after Whitsuntide that would delay the Second Reading in the House of Commons at the utmost only two days. If the Committee stage was left over until just before your Lordships rise for Whitsuntide, it could not make a delay of one single moment in taking the Second Reading in the House of Commons. It is impossible to deny that the passing of this Bill through your Lordships' House will—whether rightly or wrongly I will not discuss—have an irritating effect upon the feelings of the people in Newfoundland. I do not think it is possible to over-estimate the importance of as far as possible consulting the feelings of the colonists in the matter. I am not going to repeat again anything that was said on the Second Reading as to the very peculiar nature of the circumstances in this case. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is advisable to consult the feelings of the people in the colony as far as possible. If I could understand that by postponing the Committee stage of this Bill in your Lordships' House until, at any rate, just before your Lordships rise for Whitsuntide that would delay the matter, and that very possibly danger would arise in the event of the Newfoundlanders not legislating, I should have nothing to say about it; but as I cannot understand that, and I venture to think it has not been pointed out, I shall, if the noble Earl opposite goes to a Division, certainly vote with him.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I think your Lordships will generally, whatever view you may take of this

  23
  matter, differ entirely from the view expressed by the noble Lord opposite, who, whatever may have been the exact terms he used, obviously intended to convey the idea, and did convey to me the idea, that it is a matter of minor importance that the susceptibilities of the colonists should be considered. Now, that seems to me to be a matter of primary importance. We never have contended that under all circumstances you must yield to considerations founded on the susceptibilities of the colonists. But that you should, founded upon the views which they take, endeavour as far as you possibly can to show them consideration, appears to me to be a course prescribed by the most elementary dictates of common sense and prudence if you wish to maintain and preserve your Colonial Empire and to avoid difficulties with your colonies. This is not a question which can be regarded as only affecting this country and Newfoundland, for we may be perfectly sure of this, that the other colonies which belong to and form part of this great Empire will watch with anxious eye, and keenly scan the observations made in your Lordships' House, and the action taken by this House; and the action taken with regard to this measure may have an influence, far-reaching and extending widely beyond the limits of Newfoundland. Now, I would call to your Lordships' attention what the proposal of my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) is, and the objections which have been made to it by the Government; and I would implore them even yet to re-consider their determination, because it does not appear to me that the reasons they have put before your Lordships are conclusive even from their own point of view. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies put forward two reasons; the one that the fishing season was beginning earlier that he had anticipated; the other arising out of the proposals of the delegates. Those are matters which are quite distinct, and I therefore propose to deal with them separately. As the noble Lord opposite has pointed out, if the first reason comes to anything, if it be in any sense valid it should, of course, be a reason for at once proceeding with this Bill here and in the other House. If delay is a matter which will cause such paramount mischief, why
  24
  wait until after Whitsuntide, as I understand the Government still propose to do, before proceeding with this matter in the other House? But if they can afford to wait until after Whitsuntide, and that they tell your Lordships' House they are able to do, the question you have to consider is whether there would be substantially any greater delay if the proposal of the noble Lord behind me were carried into effect. Now, just consider for a moment how the matter stands. The Bill is not to be proceeded with in the House of Commons until after Whitsuntide. It has been read a second time here. Two days here will at any time suffice to send this Bill to the other House, and under those circumstances how is it possible to contend that postponing those two days until some later date than the present, would really have any substantial effect upon the date at which the measure will pass through the House of Commons, and so become in a position to be passed into law? While upon that point allow me to urge also that if whilst proceeding upon this measure here you increase, as I fear you will, the feeling of irritation in Newfoundland; if by proceeding now with this measure you render it more difficult to be passed through the Newfoundland Legislature, if a position be taken up hero which many think to be an unwise and injudicious and mischievous one, do your Lordships think that will be likely to accelerate the passing of a measure when it goes down to the other House? It has to be considered there, and has to pass through all its other stages there, and if it came before them when they had been satisfied that full opportunity. had been given to Newfoundland to legislate, and the colony has declined to legislate when everybody admits that legislation is necessary, it would pass readily enough in the other House; but if when it goes down to the other House it can be shown that the position of the Newfoundland Legislature has been altered owing to the course taken by Her Majesty's Government, do your Lordships suppose that would not be made the subject of comment and vigorous attack upon the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to this Bill, all of which would be open upon the various stages of the Bill in the other House. It seems to me, if the

  25
  object be to pass this Bill into law after Whitsuntide, the chances of passing it rapidly into law will be infinitely more increased by meeting the susceptibilities of the colony than by forcing the measure through, now, in order to save just a couple of days, for that is all it means. So much with regard to that point. But the noble Lord had another point, which was that the colonists had withdrawn from the position which they at first took up, and from the offer which they made at your Lordships' Bar. I confess I heard that passage read in the noble Lord's answer to the delegates with absolute astonishment. It is not the Newfoundland delegates who have departed from the position, but Her Majesty's Government who have departed, and are distinctly departing, from the position taken up in the Debate on the Second Reading. In the Debate on the Second Reading no suggestion was made by the Government that any permanent measure was to be passed at once in Newfoundland. Let me call your Lordships' attention to what the proposal of the delegates at the Bar was, which, standing by itself, Her Majesty's Government said they were prepared to agree to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We never said anything of the kind.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I certainly am distinctly under the impression that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies said he did not know whether all those conditions were to be read together, but that the first proposal taken by itself was that to which Her Majesty's Government was to be taken as being willing to assent. I will venture to say no such distinction was ever drawn by the noble Marquess or by the noble Lord as that in the noble Lord's letter. Now what was that proposal? The letter states—
  "That Her Majesty's Government agreed not to move the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons until after Whitsuntide, and then not to proceed with it any further if in the meantime an Act had been passed by the Colonial Legislature authorising the execution of the modus vivendi, the award of the Arbitration Commission regarding the lobster question, and the Treaties and Declarations under instructions from Her Majesty in Council."
  Now, nothing can be more clear, or distinct, or unequivocal, than that. There
  26
  was no suggestion by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or by the noble Marquess, that any permanent measure was to be passed. It was on the contrary admitted that the character of any permanent measure must be a matter for negociation. Now what was the language of the Secretary of State for the Colonies? In this letter he says—
  "Her Majesty's Government were under the impression that you clearly understood that the Colonial Act, while providing for the execution of the modus vivendi for 1891, was also to secure permanently both the execution of the award of the Arbitration Commission on, the lobster question and the fulfilment of the Treaties and Declarations."
  Now, all I can say is if that was the impression of the noble Lord it was the impression of no other Peer in this House who had attended to the discussion, or listened to what had passed. I listened to every word that was said by the noble Lord and by the noble Marquess, and I understood throughout that the proposal as to this matter of legislation had reference only to a temporary measure.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble Lord, instead of citing from vague recollections, cite from Hansard what we did say?
  LORD HERSCHELL: It is not easy to cite from Hansard at once, and I doubt even whether the number containing the Debate has yet come out. I did not know of this Despatch stating the new position taken up by the Secretary of State for the Colonies until a quarter of an hour ago, so that it has been quite impossible for me to study the pages of Hansard within that time; but certainly all the observations made by myself, and by my noble Friend behind me, were made under the impression that what Her Majesty's Government were disposed to assent to were temporary arrangements, temporary legislation for one year. If that was not the case it appears to me that the attitude taken by Her Majesty's Government is utterly unreasonable and would justify the rejection of this Bill, because it appears to me if the colonies are willing to legislate in such a way as to tide over the difficulty, which is all that is necessary, for a year, once they undertake to discuss the terms of a permanent measure and to place that permanent measure on the Statute Book, what is the use of asking them to pass permanent legisla-

  27
  tion hurriedly? And, my Lords, I will tell you why I am astonished that this permanent legislation is suggested. I am astonished at it for this reason, and the noble Marquess will not question this: We were disposed to accede to the arguments urged with reference to the desirability of not enforcing the Treaties in the present fashion; and he said that the necessity of enforcing them by Acts would be considered at another time.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said it would be in another Bill.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Quite so; but that is a reason, I say, for dealing with it in another Bill, and for making this a merely temporary measure. At all events is not that the view which Her Majesty's Government ought to be willing to accede to? If they get a temporary measure passed covering a sufficient time, say one year after this Session of Parliament, that will afford ample time for the framing of a permanent measure in which this question will be satisfactorily dealt with. There will be no difficulty within that time in framing a measure and passing it into law; and if the Newfoundland Government have not within that time passed that measure into law, then Her Majesty's Government will be perfectly within their rights in introducing here in the Imperial Parliament such permanent measure as will be rendered necessary by the approximate expiry of the temporary Bill. Surely it is not expedient to enter into a controversy with the colony upon such a question as that. Do let us consider, in view of that peaceful settlement, what the divergence is. They have admittedly—because the noble Marquess admitted it—an objection to legislation which would merely enforce in the old fashion the Treaty rights. You cannot expect the Newfoundland Legislature to enact a new system within a few days. That is obviously impossible; the new system would have to be elaborated in a permanent measure. Then why should not you be content with a temporary measure which would cover a year's time, giving ample opportunity in the meantime for the passing of a suitable permanent measure? Is it really wise to enter into a controversy with the Government or people of Newfoundland with regard to such a question as that? What difference does it make? Looking
  28
  at the matter practically, I am sure your Lordships will find there will be serious objections on the part of many to dealing with the matter in this way. I have myself put down notice of Amendments on this matter guided by the consideration that if this measure be passed it should be temporary only; because it appears to me the method adopted is an utterly wrong one for a permanent measure, although it may be suitable for a merely temporary one. Now, if Her Majesty's Government understand this, and it is put in unequivocal terms, I do not see what objection there can be. As quotations from Hansard are appealed to, we shall probably be able to refer to them before the Debate closes, and I should like the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies to find the passage in which he called attention to the fact that he had no objection to the delegates' proposal of legislation for a year.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: My answer to that is, that, as I understood it, the words "for the year" covered the modus vivendi which is for the year, and is, therefore, temporary in character, but that the rest of the legislation was to be permanent.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not doubt for a moment that the noble Lord thought so at the time.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I think so now.
  LORD HERSCHELL: The noble Lord states that was his understanding of it, although I should have doubted, with the great respect which I have for his legal acumen, that he could have thought so; but, of course, the fact that he has stated he did so understand it is sufficient. However, as I read the words, I cannot understand in the least how that construction was ever put upon them. It certainly never occurred to me until I heard the words read just now that there could be any doubt that the Newfoundland Legislature was to pass immediately an Act authorising the execution for this year of the modus vivendi, the award of the Arbitration Commission and of the Treaties.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: Not of the award—the execution of the modus vivendi.
  LORD HERSCHELL: It is not "authorising the award;" the words "the execution of" must govern the

  29
  word "award." Everybody will admit that, or else it is nonsense—it is not grammar. Then if the words "the execution of" govern the word "award," the words "the execution for this year" must equally govern it. That is how I understand it, and I am not surprised to find that the delegates also understood it in the same way. I take no objection at the moment to the expression that Her Majesty's Government "were willing to assent." Now, I want to get away from the past and come to the present condition of things, as to its not being a departure from what was intended. I think, considering the interpretation which many of us put upon it, it cannot be suggested that the delegates are unreasonably departing from what they said. Is it worth while contending with them upon these proposals according to the modification of the noble Lord? If, as I say, a temporary measure is passed for a sufficient length of time—which a year would be—until the end of the then Session of Parliament, is not that enough for the present purpose, especially when we have an undertaking that they will confer as to the permanent measure, and a better method of carrying this out for the future. I would earnestly implore Her Majesty's Government not to enter into a controversy of that description, which I cannot but feel will not aid the ultimate passing of such a measure if it should become necessary, and which is not likely to render it more certain or more probable that the Bill will not have to be proceeded with in the other House. If that is the only point, cannot Her Majesty's Government make this concession to the Newfoundland Legislature and colony—that when they are asked not to pass the measure in so great a hurry, and if it is to pass, that it should only be a temporary measure, that sufficient time should be given for the elaboration of a more satisfactory measure? Whatever may have been the interpretation of Her Majesty's Government previously, now that they see what was the view and the proposal of the delegates, may I ask them to re-consider the determination which they have expressed not to agree to this, because it would be departing from the proposal of the delegates? Is it not a matter which Her Majesty's
  30
  Government may reasonably accede to, even if the proposal be made for the first time? If not, will not the situation be made more difficult? There is no desire which I have greater than this: that we may have a settlement of these questions which may leave as little bitter feeling as possible, and as little as possible make necessary the interference of Parliament with these matters affecting Newfoundland and affecting the people of Newfoundland. If we can secure legislation by that means, even if it be not all that Her Majesty's Government might desire, if it be effectual for the purpose and will cover a time of difficulty, may we not appeal to the Government in that respect to make a concession which I am quite sure in the end will not put any real impediment in the way of the enforcement of these Treaties? It is likely to put a weapon in the hands of the Government, which sooner or later may be required by the necessities of the case, and the withdrawal of which power is likely, as far as one can see, to create considerable difficulty. The only other reason, as far as one can see, which is now put forward, is that the delegates have made a condition that the Bill be not proceeded with, but be delayed, at any rate, till after Whitsuntide. The noble Lord is not quite accurate with regard to that. The original proposal of the delegates was that the Bill should be withdrawn. That they do not press now; they only urge that it should not be proceeded with further, and the difference between that and the proposal of Her Majesty's Government is the very small delay involved. As the total delay can be for two days only, is it wise for the sake of that to depart from the tone of conciliation and to cease our endeavours to bring to a peaceable settlement this troublesome matter which is the subject of controversy? I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will not be disposed to allow any false pride to stand in the way of making the concession that is asked for, and I would earnestly beg them to re-consider the conclusion at which they have arrived.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The proposal of Her Majesty's Government is that the Bill should pass in the ordinary way through this House, and that it should not stand for Second Read-

  31
  ing in the House of Commons—as indeed it could not well—until the meeting of that House after Whitsuntide, and that then it should not be proceeded with if the Newfoundland Legislature has by that time passed a measure to make its adoption unnecessary. I say, my Lords, it could not in any case be taken much earlier than the time when the House of Commons comes back after Whitsuntide, because after to-day we have only four more days for sitting; there will be the Committee to-day, the Standing Committee on another day, the Report on another day, and the Third Reading on a fourth day. Thursday is a dies non. Therefore, we are only following the ordinary course in sending the Bill forward to the House of Commons. The noble Lords opposite have seemed to put themselves forward as the representatives of the colony in asking for a delay which they say would amount to merely four days in order to soothe the susceptibilities of the colonists. Susceptibilities have played a great part in this Debate. The noble Lord who has recently returned home, after a distinguished career in Australia, has drawn for us a touching picture of the terrible position of British officers if they are not invited to colonial balls in the future. I hope our legislation will be such that their invitations to balls shall go on unchecked; but we have business to do, and must deal with it on business principles. We have very serious interests in charge—we have great international obligations to fulfil — international obligations contracted with a Power which has also its own susceptibilities—obligations which we are bound in honour to perform in a scrupulous spirit and with consideration for the peace and harmony of the world. As matters stand now, since the decisions of the Courts of Newfoundland, the hands of our naval officers are paralysed, and they cannot exercise that jurisdiction which appears to have been irregular, but which they have exercised up to this time. They cannot deal with any infraction of the Treaties that may be committed on the shores of Newfoundland without exposing themselves to an action at law—that is to say, they cannot deal with such infraction at all. The time is rapidly approaching when
  32
  the performance of this duty will become a matter of great moment. The lobsters are bound to be caught, though of course the lobster fishery is not in full swing yet, but each day that passes adds undoubtedly a certain amount to our risk, because if in the present excited state of feeling on the part of the colonists on the coast on the one side, and of the French on the other, there are acts performed which one side believes to be legal and the other side believes to be a breach of international law, there being no authority to decide between them, and prevent collisions, collisions may happen, not between the highest authorities, but collisions it may be between inferior officers, yet which may have the most deplorable effects. For this reason, finding that we have not the authority that is necessary to enforce international obligations, we come to Parliament to ask them to give us that authority, and we are met by resistance—resistance which carefully says that it does not object to the principle, but, of course, objects to the machinery by which we intend to carry the principle into effect. And what is the ground on which we are asked to delay the Bill for a few days? I think it is fair when we are talking thus of susceptibilities not to impute to the colonists so grotesque a sense of susceptibility as is suggested—that they would be satisfied with a measure passed four days later, but feel wounded in their feelings by a measure passed four days earlier. The colonists have said nothing of the kind. It is their advocates on the other side of the House who have said it because they know that it is the only plea they can put forward, and that the plea which the colonists themselves put forward is not one which they can urge. I have here the letter of May 1 of the Newfoundland delegates, and the words with which it begins (they have been already read) are—
  "We desire to lay before Her Majesty's Government the following proposals, if the Bill now before the Lords is not further proceeded with," &c., &c.
  So that it is not a question of four days—it is that the delegates want the Bill to be dropped altogether. The Bill is not to be proceeded with: that is a condition precedent to their doing any of the things which they afterwards pro-

  33
  pose. Now, my Lords, of course, we should be very glad not to proceed with the Bill if we were certain that the legislation that is necessary in this matter would be adopted by the colonists themselves. There are many advantages in that plan, and we would gladly entertain it. But what assurance or even probability have we? The delegates tell us that they will propose it to the legislature of Newfoundland. Well, of the sincerity and good faith of the delegates I have never had the very slightest doubt, but what power have they of insuring that the Newfoundland Legislature shall pass this measure? And what is the authority for assuming that the Newfoundland Legislature will pass the measure? Is it naturally inclined to such a measure? Why, we know that the modus vivendi only two or three months ago was the subject of a most bitter attack on the part of the Legislature as a whole. Are they inclined to co-operate with us in obtaining an arbiter's decision upon the meaning of these disputed Treaties? Why, only so far back as the 5th of December last we were informed, in reply to a proposal on our part for arbitration—
  "My Government cannot consent to any arbitration which does not include the withdrawal of the French from the coast."
  That was the state of opinion in Newfoundland in December last. Are you sure that it is not the state of opinion in Newfoundland now? What ground have you for thinking that the great change of opinion which has come over the delegates since they entered this country extends to all their countrymen whom they have left behind them? And what security have we that they will pass the Bill they propose, or that the Bill they propose will, in its details, be a Bill which is necessary to meet this emergency? We have seen no Bill, we have had no detailed proposals even from the delegates. My Lords, if there had been this great conversion on the part of the Newfoundland Legislature I should have expected some action would have been taken by that Legislature already. The delegates have been in this country between a fortnight and three weeks. Some step towards passing one of these measures might have been very easily taken by the Newfoundland Legislature if they
  34
  were so minded. But they have observed an absolute inaction. Surely we are justified in saying that, though we have an absolute belief in the sincerity of the promises made to us by the delegates, still we have no security that they so carry with them the opinion of their friends and colleagues, whom they have left behind, that those friends and colleagues will undergo the same change of opinion that they have undergone, and will pass this measure to which hitherto they have been so averse. Therefore, my Lords, the proposals of the delegates do not satisfy us because they are promises; they are not actual legislation, nor an attempt at legislation; and I venture to say, in answer to the noble and learned Lord opposite, that neither my noble Friend nor myself has ever at this Table intimated an intention on our part to withdraw this Bill in consequence of the receipt of mere promises by the delegates here.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I did not suggest anything of the kind.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What we insisted upon was that they should proceed to actual legislation — actual legislation suited to the emergency with which we are dealing, and in that case we should gladly withdraw the Bill. There is another objection, and that is that the Bill for carrying out the award of the arbitrator is only to last for one year. Now it is almost a derisory proposition. My experience of the movements of arbitrators leads me to believe that it is exceedingly improbable that the arbiters' sentence will be delivered very much before the expiry of that one year. But you tell me that the powers can be renewed by the Newfoundland Legislature, and that if they are not then renewed the Imperial Parliament can interfere. Yes, but Parliaments are not beings of that unbroken existence that you can rely upon their being always there, in order to carry any legislation that may be desired. They are subject to temporary suspensions of animation, they are subject, like mortal beings, to permanent suspensions of animation, and you can never be certain that at the time when the Newfoundland Legislature might indicate clearly its intention not to renew those powers, Parliament will be in a position to give you the Imperial

  35
  powers that you require. There will be delay. There may be weeks, months, intervening. Those weeks and months will be a period during which your officers will be powerless and disarmed upon the Treaty coast, unable to carry out any international obligation; and we may have to deal with a state of diplomatic circumstances different from what we have now to deal with. Now it seems absurd, with the enlightened Government which France happily possesses, to suppose that such a question as this could ever be pushed to any extreme arbitrament. But suppose there should be a change? It is easy, without going into them, to conceive many circumstances under which it would not only be most inconvenient, but even dangerous, that the power of carrying out the award should cease to exist at a moment when, from some circumstance or other, the British Parliament was unable to give a renewal of those powers to its Government. Why should the Bill be only for one year? I understand it is urged because the noble and learned Lord and the colony think there is a preferable procedure to that of the Act which we propose to renew. The same end without any of the dangers can be attained by passing an Act which shall repeal or supersede this Act; the result attained will be the same entirely, and none of the dangers will arise. The Newfoundland Government no doubt desire to put a certain pressure upon us to pass the amended law by holding before us the threat that this Act will not be renewed unless we do. But, my Lords, consider how many chances there are of our agreement falling through if such is the temper of mind of the two principal parties towards each other. Do they distrust us so much as that—that they will not assent to a permanent Act, lest they should lose a lever to get certain amendments of the law which they desire? They desire two things—they desire that a system of Courts should be set up, and that compensation should be given. I cannot imagine two subjects more likely to create debate, discussion, disputes, differences, and hopeless disagreement, and if these results, or either of them, should arise, your Act will not be renewed; your officers will be without
  36
  powers on the coast, and it will entirely depend upon its being within the power of the British Parliament at the moment to give the necessary powers to the officers, whether you escape serious and dangerous international complications. I have only one thing more to say with respect to the general assumption that has governed this Debate. It seems to be thought that we are inflicting some new thing, some great hardship, on the Newfoundlanders by interfering in this matter at all, and that, not only they, but, as I understood the statement, all the colonists throughout the Empire would resent such an interference. I demur entirely to that doctrine. We are not interfering with anything we have not a right to interfere with. We are dealing with that which is our proper province—our Imperial province—the fulfilment of international obligations. These international obligations govern every right the Newfoundlanders have. We did not put the Treaty upon them; they went to a place where the Treaty already existed and was law; and it is as much our right and our power to deal with international and outside relations as it is their right and their power to deal with matters that concern themselves alone. And why should it not be so? Is not that the natural result of the reasons which have always guided us in dealing with these subjects? We gave to them unlimited power with respect to their own internal affairs because they would be the people to suffer if we made a mistake. Therefore it is right that they should in such matters be independent, and that we should not interfere with their discretion. But, if they make a dangerous mistake in this matter, it is not they who will suffer. It is we who run the whole risk, and they hardly run at all, for I do not suppose that in case of a war with France the French would take the trouble to invade Newfoundland. And, this being our risk, the whole burden and responsibility falling upon us, it is a matter of primary and vital necessity that we should have the necessary powers to defend our interests and our fellow-subjects, and also to comply with international duties, to fulfil international obligations and to enforce the observance of the pledge given by the country.

  37
  That is the power that we now ask of you, and I hope, if you are not resolved to give it to us, you will not cover and disguise and mask your refusal by these petty proposals for delay.
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 113; Not-Contents 30.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I have an Amendment to propose in line 14, to leave out from the word "also" to the end of subhead I., and insert the words—
  ("A temporary arrangement made with France for the fishing season of 1891, set out in the second Schedule to this Act, and any continuation of the same pending the arbitration agreed upon in the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, and seventh Articles of an Agreement between Great Britain and France, signed on the 11th March, 1891, and shall also include any provision for giving effect to the decision in such arbitration.")
  The only object of this Amendment is that it was thought desirable to insert the temporary arrangement with regard to the modus vivendi in a second Schedule and to limit any continuation of it pending the arbitration which has been agreed upon, and which is referred to in this Amendment as having been signed on the 11th of March. It also includes a provision for giving effect to the arbitration.
  Amendment moved,
  In line 14, to leave out from the word ("also") to the end of sub-head I., and insert the words ("A temporary arrangement made with France for the fishing season of 1891, set out in the second Schedule to this Act, and any continuation of the same pending the arbitration agreed upon in the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, and seventh Articles of an Agreement between Great Britain and France, signed on the 11th March, 1891, and shall also include any provision for giving effect to the decision in such arbitration.")—(The Lord Knutsford.)
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Are we to understand by the arbitration that it is arbitration upon the fishery point or the lobster point, or upon all the subsidiary questions which may be raised? I might point out that this section provides that the temporary arrangement with regard to the modus vivendi may be continued
  38
  during the pending arbitration agreed upon. If that is merely as regards the arbitration in reference to the lobster question, I think it would be a much shorter way of doing it to say so.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: That is so. The modus vivendi only refers to the lobster question, and the only question referred to the arbitrators is the lobster question.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: Then at line 17, I move to leave out the sub-heads 2 and 3 of Clause 1. That is, in effect, to leave out of this Bill any reference to permanent arrangements, and to confine the scope of it to the temporary arrangements, the decision of the arbitrators, and the modus vivendi.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  LORD HERSCHELL: After Clause 2 I have to request your Lordships to accept a new clause which I propose, making this Act a temporary one. I cannot help thinking that the light in which it will be regarded will be somewhat different whether it is a temporary or a permanent measure, and in the next place I have a very strong feeling that as a matter of principle it ought to be made only temporary, because it is, to my mind, a very unsatisfactory piece of legislation for the purpose for which it is intended. It contravenes, I think, sound constitutional principles; and although that might not be a sufficient reason for not passing the measure under urgency, it is not less a reason for not making such a measure a part of the permanent Statute Law. With regard to the question of the view of the delegates as to passing a temporary measure and dealing with the matter more satisfactorily as a permanent measure, I would call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies to a passage in the address of the delegates at the Bar of your Lordships' House, which I think he has overlooked as throwing light on the meaning of their proposal. It is on page 9—
  "We regret that up to the present moment these propositions have not been accepted, nor has any hope been held out that they will be.

  39
  The temporary legislation, which we have proposed to procure the enactment of, would be immediately adopted by the Legislature of the colony, and present needs thereby amply met. I may here observe, my Lords, that we represent before you to-night all shades of political opinions in the island of Newfoundland, and, therefore, our promise to do this may be relied upon as though the Act were passed. The details of a permanent and thoroughly satisfactory measure would be arranged and enacted without delay by the Legislature of the colony."
  That seems to me to clearly indicate that the legislation was temporary and not merely, as the noble Lord states, for one year.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: To which we did not agree.
  LORD HERSCHELL: What I am calling attention to is what the noble Lord said, that the Government were prepared to accept the 1st Sub-section A as standing alone, and, certainly, as interpreted by them in the following passage, it appears to me to indicate that they only intended temporary legislation.
  Amendment moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following clause:—
  "This Act shall continue in force only for one year and until the end of the then Session, if Parliament be then sitting, or if Parliament be not then sitting, until the end of the then next Session of Parliament." — (The Lord Herschell.)
  LORD KNUTSFORD: The noble Lord asked me, a short time ago, to state what my words were on the occasion to which he referred. I have the passage here, and I find I said—
  "If at the time the Colonial Legislature has passed an Act which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, sufficiently secures the observance and execution, first, of the modus vivendi of 1891;"—
  I kept that quite separate—
  "secondly, the decision of the arbitrators upon the lobster question"—
  for which I certainly did not consider legislation for one year would be any use—
  "and, thirdly, the observance of the Treaty and Declarations."
  which again would not be met by legislation for one year.
  LORD HERSCHELL: That does not seem to me to affect the duty of enforcing it. It never was proposed that you should enforce it for one year, and then stop — nobody supposed that. That
  40
  would have been absurd. It was admitted by the delegates that you must always have some means of enforcing it, but whether a particular measure should be for one year, and then that you should enact a more satisfactory method, was the question. That is the first point which arose on the Bill. I make no objection to this as a temporary measure, but let me call attention to what it proposes. It proposes to revive, at a time when they are utterly unsuitable, powers which might have been very well exercised in the middle of the last century.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hardly the middle of last century—1834 was the date when the Act expired.
  LORD HERSCHELL: That is quite true, but the first Act was passed in 1718, and I do not regard an Act which is continued merely from time to time as being in the same category with an Act which is then enacted for the first time. Parliament very often continues, as a matter of convenience of State policy and so on, Acts of a description which it would never have enacted at the time it continues them. However that may be, even if it was in the year 1834, I hope that in some respects we are wiser than they were in that year. We have passed a good many Acts since 1834 correcting a good many things which were done then and previously. But what I want to ask your Lordships is this. Do you desire to assert that it is a proper means of enforcing a Treaty, to give naval officers within the limits of one of our colonies, powers which are absolutely to be determined by the Government of the day, so that naval officers, on the instructions of the Government of the day, may go on shore in one of our colonies and may deal with individuals and with their property on the arbitrary instructions of Her Majesty's Government, without any means of questioning their propriety before any tribunal? That is what this Bill proposes. I do not care whether it was enacted in 1834 or in the middle of the last century; it is not a thing which we ought to enact in 1891. It may be difficult for the noble Marquess to concede so much, but he said he felt the force of the argument that the administration of these disputed rights through

  41
  the Courts would be a superior mode of enforcing them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said there is a better way.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Then if the noble Marquess is conscious that there is a better way, he ought not to enact a way which is worse. You are obliged to do it now, but make the Bill temporary, giving yourselves time to work out the proper legislation afterwards. But in this matter you are saying to the colony: "We are legislating for you as Her Majesty's Government have the right and power, no doubt, to do, on a system which we admit not to be the best, and which we believe to be open to objection; but we are not content to make it on that account a temporary measure, but we will make it permanent." Now, is that wise—is it desirable? I have heard the objection which the noble Marquess opposite has made to temporary legislation. He said that Parliament may not be always sitting, and that you may not be able always to legislate; but I propose that the legislation should continue for one year, and then if Parliament is not sitting, until the next Session, and if not then sitting until the end of the next. Therefore I have provided, I think, for every case which can arise before there is a possibility of this Act expiring. Surely it would be better, if your Lordships can, to fall in with the desires and wishes of the Newfoundlanders; the more so, as I have pointed out, when we are re-enacting legislation to which grave exception may be taken. I should myself have preferred, if it had not been necessary for this measure to be pressed on, to have elaborated a substituted scheme for this, which seems to me to be most objectionable; but I am willing that this legislation should go on for a year, giving that time for the elaboration of a better scheme; but I see no such difficulty, as the noble Marquess suggests, in passing this as a merely temporary measure in the meantime, until we can devise a more satisfactory arrangement.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think the noble and learned Lord is giving an accurate representation of what the Bill enacts. It does not enact that the Orders in Council shall have effect without any power of approval by
  42
  Parliament. It enacts that before they are made effectual they shall be laid before Parliament.
  LORD HERSCHELL: No doubt that was the proposal with regard to an Order in Council providing for a permanent arrangement; but for the purpose of the 1st section, there is no Order in Council necessary. These Orders come into force ipso facto, and at once revive the powers.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have not the least objection to putting that clause in again if that is what the noble and learned Lord means.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It never did apply to Section 1.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it did; but we have always differed as to the meaning of that. However, I will not raise a discussion upon it now. I am perfectly willing that we should re-introduce it. We can do it in the Standing Committee to-morrow. The third, I see, ought to have been kept in, and we will put that in too. But with regard to this question of the temporary measure, the criticism which I venture to pass upon it, like that which I passed on the last Amendment moved from that Bench, is that it is very trivial, carries with it very little importance, and rather gives a grotesque air to what we are doing. If we were passing a law of the Medes and Persians, which afterwards could not be altered, there would be great force in the noble and learned Lord's contention that we should not enact a less perfect process until we had had the opportunity of considering a better process. But we are doing nothing of the kind; we are passing a law which we can alter with as much facility as we make it. The only difference between the procedure I propose and that proposed by the noble and learned Lord is, that I propose that we shall keep the old process, the inferior process, until we have got the new one, while the noble and learned Lord proposes that the old process shall disappear whether you have got the new one or not, and that you shall run all the risks which the blank may cause. I do not say the risk is very great. I daresay Parliament will always take care to renew the Bill; bat there is no possible reason for running such a risk. It is a risk absolutely and gratuitously run for

  43
  the sake of a mere piece of legislative pedantry. Just consider what these renewed Bills are, and what the result is of having Bills constantly renewed. They have become a perfect scandal. We had a very celebrated instance, which has now happily disappeared. For nearly 130 years the Dissenters were admitted to the House of Commons by a Bill which was renewed annually. I believe that now the people are exempted from rates in respect of personal property by a Bill which has been renewed for some century and a half. Some 20 years ago we passed, after much discussion, a Ballot Bill in this House, and it was thought we got a good security against any evil because we limited its duration to 10 years. We thought it might then be re-considered. The 10 years went by, and the Ballot Bill found its place, with some 20 other Bills, in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which passes every year through Parliament without discussion; and it has continued since then as it was in the first instance. It is a mere form adopted according to the ordinary practice of Parliament, but if any accident should happen, it is a dangerous and inconvenient form. It will leave a gap which will produce evil. No present evil will be caused by passing the Act in this shape, because it is always in your power to substitute for your present procedure a procedure which will be elaborated and be probably a superior one. All the advantages are therefore on the side of making the law permanent; no possible harm can be caused by passing the Act in this shape, and there is nothing but foolish formality in making it temporary.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I almost feel alarmed at addressing the House; the noble Marquess has used such terrible language and employed such dreadful epithets against those who do not agree with him. He has twice told us that our propositions are grotesque, he has told my noble and learned Friend that he is guilty of pedantry, and the last expression which he used was, I think, that we were urging a "foolish formality." But I am not deterred by those epithets at all, because it seems to me that we have some substance on our side. The noble Marquess says these Acts are apt to be renewed from time to time without dis-
  44
  cussion. If that is so I do not see what the difficulty of the noble Marquess is, because if he is right the Bill will certainly go on being renewed by Parliament year by year, and it will practically come to the same thing as if it was a permanent Bill. But I do not quite take that view. If it is not made permanent the Newfoundland Government and Legislature will take great care to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the fact that the Act has expired, and that they protest against its being renewed. But is this mere pedantry? Mere tu quoques are not valuable, and I shall not attempt to use them. Is it grotesque? I think it is most grotesque to pass this Act, simply because if you do not pass it you may not have time or opportunity to pass a good Act. I should think the common sense of the matter is this: If you are obliged under the circumstances of the case, and I contend that if we are obliged here to pass an Act which contains a method of procedure of which no one approves, you should pass it for such a time only as will enable you to fully consider and frame a better Act, and then to pass that better Act.
  LORD THRING: My Lords, I really feel very strongly upon this question. I will ask your Lordships to consider this—can there be any greater hardship inflicted upon a colony than to give the naval officers absolute power to legislate within its territory without any appeal whatever, that is the first point. Then we are told that it is grotesque and pedantic to object to this measure. I would ask, is it a fitting reward for what the colony has done that they should have such epithets applied to them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never said it of the colony. I have never called the colony grotesque or pedantic.
  LORD THRING: Is it then grotesque on the part of noble Lords on this side of the House who object to this cruel tyranny? Your Lordships' attention has never been called to the facts. You have had this Treaty of Utrecht, this oppressive and galling Treaty, carried out for 200 years. Your Lordships have not been told that this Act which we have now revived was only in force for 10 years, and was then dropped, and

  45
  that its predecessor was only in force for 10 years. Then how was the Treaty of Utrecht carried out? It was carried out by the concurrence and goodwill of the colony, because they gave the naval officers a commission, a colonial commission, and under that colonial commission the naval officers acted, and had full power to act. We are now told that a new Act is absolutely requisite. Why? Because of the case of Sir Baldwin Walker. But the case of Sir Baldwin Walker has not been fully brought before this House. I have been told that he was not exercising his proper jurisdiction under the colonial commission, but that he was acting under direct instruction from the State; which, of course, he had no power to execute. But, my Lords, the Treaty of Utrecht there has always been ample power to execute. And what is the object of this Bill which has been brought forward? It says in its very Preamble that it is going beyond the Treaty of Utrecht. It says it is imposing fresh obligations on the colony, because it says the clauses of the Bill are to extend and to apply as if they were enacted in the Treaty. If it were a Bill to carry into effect only the Treaty of Utrecht we should not complain of it; but it is to carry into effect something beyond, and out of the Treaty of Utrecht. And then we are told that the colony which has suffered this grievous wrong of having the provision of the Treaty of Utrecht enforced by Act of Parliament is not to complain of it. I think it is a Bill which above all deserves the reprobation of your Lordships in its present form, and that the least you can do is to make it temporary.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, as I understand the noble Marquess, in his view, any one who objects to enact in a permanent form a measure by which the law is administered by the arbitrary determination of the Executive and not through the Courts is grotesque and a pedant. All I can say is if in the noble Marquess' view that is his definition of what is grotesque and pedantic, I trust most sincerely I shall even be a pedant and grotesque. But I rise chiefly in order to call attention to a matter which I confess I do not altogether understand. What I was pointing out was this, that under the Bill an absolute
  46
  arbitrary uncontrolled power is given to naval officers to go ashore on British territory and to deal with the property of British subjects.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That depends upon the Orders in Council.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not see how it depends upon the Orders in Council. The noble Marquess seems to be under that impression; but let us see what the enactment is. The enactment set out in this Schedule shall be revived and be of full effect, and shall include the Newfoundland fishery and any temporary arrangements. Now what are the powers revived?—
  "It shall and may be lawful for His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, by advice of His or their Council, from Time to Time to give such Orders and Instructions to the Governor of Newfoundland, or to any Officer or Officers on that Station, as He or they shall deem proper and necessary to fulfil the Purposes of any Treaty or Treaties now in force between His Majesty and any Foreign State or Power; and in case it shall be necessary to that end, to give Orders and Instructions to the Governor or other Officer or Officers aforesaid, to remove or cause to be removed any Stages, Hakes, Train fats, or other Works whatever, for the Purpose of carrying on the Fishery, erected by His Majesty's Subjects on that Part of the Coast of Newfoundland;"
  and so on. That will be as soon as this Act passes into law; there is no provision as to Orders in Council.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: The noble Lord forgets the words, "His Majesty, his heirs, and successors, by advice of His or their Council."
  LORD HERSCHELL: "With the advice of His Council," means the Government of the day. Does the noble Lord mean to say that that refers to anything but the Act of the Executive?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There must be an Order in Council.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Whether they do it in that way or in any other, there is no control of Parliament over it.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: You propose that we should give it; and the point shall be considered.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I say there is no control of Parliament over it whatever. Is it suggested that Instructions to the naval officers are to be embodied in the Order in Council? I should doubt whether that could be done. It is certainly not provided in the Act, and

  47
  I would suggest for the noble Lord to consider well before he embodies all that in an Order in Council to be laid before Parliament. There is certainly great danger in doing it in that way. I do not understand the provision in the Bill as it stands. It seems to me in any event to give the Executive power to exercise that arbitrary authority untouched by any Courts whatever. However, I feel the force of circumstances, and I do not urge that now; but I would suggest to the noble Lord whether, if he puts in such a provision as that, it might not, at any rate for the present year, endanger the success of its working. But all that only points to the expediency of not meeting the objection I have made by an expedient which may do more harm, I think, even from the point of view of the framers of the measure, but of enacting it merely as a temporary measure, giving in that way an assurance that a better scheme will be enacted in the future.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I be permitted to explain, in reference to what the noble and learned Lord has just said? The noble and learned Lord has stated that I applied the word grotesque; but I applied it to something quite different, and not to this Motion at all. I do think, however, it is pedantic, not because it is a proposal to pass for a limited time a provision for power to be given to the Executive, but because it is passing for a limited time a power which it is absolutely necessary for international purposes should exist' continuously. To do that in deference to some species of constitutional prepossession does seem to me to justify the epithet that I used.
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 21; Not-Contents 61.
  First Schedule.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, on the first Schedule I should like to call the attention of the noble Lord to the point to which the noble Earl called attention on the Second Reading of the Bill. I have every desire certainly that if this Bill is passed it should do as much good and as little mischief as ma be. Now, one of the objects of this Bill is to enable the modus vivendi to be carried out. The modus vivendi affects the
  48
  lobster fishery. We contend, as I understand, and always have contended, that the establishment of this factory for canning lobsters is not exercising fishing rights within the Treaty. That is the essence of our position. That, of course, is so as regards the French, and if it is not so as regards the French it cannot be as regards the inhabitants of Newfoundland. Now, to enforce the modus vivendi the very object is to give power to deal with the lobster canning factories. This Bill, when it is passed, will only give power to remove stages and so on, and other works erected by Her Majesty's subjects for the purpose of carrying on the fishery. Now, in order to contend that under that there was power to deal with the lobster factories for the purpose of carrying out the modus vivendi in that respect, we should have to contend, and it will be an argument used against us: "Why you have actually passed a Bill to deal with the modus vivendi, the only mode of dealing with which is to treat these things as having been erected for the purpose of the fisheries, while you contend that they have nothing to do with the fisheries whatever." That seems to me to be most dangerous, first, because it would not give the powers desired, and next because it would prove a most cogent argument against us when we come to deal with these things in arbitration. I would therefore beg Her Majesty's Government to reconsider this point, and, as the wording of the Schedule may lead to ambiguity on the question of lobster fishing, and as that might be used to our prejudice in the arbitration, not to pass the Bill as it stands.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree generally with what the noble and learned Lord says, but I find that all of his profession are not of the same opinion. Of course that always creates some difficulty, but I hope to-morrow we shall, in Standing Committee, be able to introduce some words to meet the point which the noble and learned Lord suggests. It may or may not be true that that will give us the necessary powers, but we shall be able to deal with that in Standing Committee.
  LORD HERSCHELL: That is what I was going to point out, that my opinion might be shared by those concerned in

  49
  the arbitration, and it might be found ambiguous.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I was going to point out that it is admitted that the term "fishery" under the old Act does not include the lobster catching for the reasons the noble Marquess has stated, and therefore it became necessary by special terms to make the Act extend to the modus vivendi and to the decision of the arbitrators, and this was done by the first clause.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Of course it may not be so, but I was looking rather to how it might be used against us in the arbitration. It was merely as a matter of precaution that I urged it.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I hope this Bill will not be referred to Standing Committee, but to a Committee of the Whole House. I trust we shall not be obliged to send it to two Committees instead of one.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 114.)

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.] (No. 77.)
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.