Sitting of 12 May 1891

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL—(by Order).
  As amended, considered.
  MR. JORDANrose to move the insertion of the following clause:—
  "The company shall provide waiting rooms and other necessary accommodation for passengers at the north-eastern platform of the Enniskillen Station, and shall run an additional train daily from Enniskillen to Clones in the evening, and one from Clones to Enniskillen in the morning, at such times as shall satisfy the Board of Trade."
  MR. SPEAKER: The House will recollect that on the Second Reading of this Bill the hon. Member moved an Amendment which I ruled out of Order. The Amendment which he now proposes to move is of a similar character, and it is also out of Order.
  MR. JORDAN: Can I move it as an addition to any part of a clause?
  MR. SPEAKER: No.
  Bill ordered to be read the third time.

  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL.(by Order.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider the advisability, in the public interest, of requiring the fulfilment of the provisions of Clause 199 of the Manchester Ship Canal Act of 1885, which provides for the vesting of the undertaking in a Public Trust as a condition precedent to the sanction of any municipal guarantee for the raising of additional capital."—(Mr. Philip Stanhope.)
  And, objection being taken, further proceedings stood adjourned till Tomorrow.

  MR. DE COBAIN.
  Address for—
  "Copy of Warrant for the Arrest of Mr. Edward S. W. De Cobain, Member for East Belfast."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

QUESTIONS.

  MANIPUR.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a statement in the Press, copied from the Allahabad Pioneer of the 17th April—
  "That, in view of the probable flight to Burma of the Manipuri nobles responsible for the recent outrages, the Chief Commissioner has issued a Proclamation offering heavy sums for the heads of 'the Regent,' 'the Senaputty,' and those of the Councillors and Generals who were concerned in the outbreak";
  whether this Proclamation was issued with the knowledge of the Indian Government and Secretary of State for India; if not, what measures have been adopted for its withdrawal; and will he state the nature of the Court under which the leaders of the rebellion captured are to be tried?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I have to say that the Secretary of State has received no official information on the subject, but he has seen in the newspapers a copy of the Proclamation of the Chief Commissioner of Burma, the material part of which is as follows:—
  "This is to give notice that any such persons"
  —that is, the Regent of Manipur and those of his Councillors, Generals, and followers concerned in the murder of Mr. Quinton and his companions—
  "taking refuge in Burma are to be seized and delivered up to the nearest Magistrate and police officer, and that rewards will be granted as stated below for the capture of the persons named."
  The rewards vary from 1,000 Rs. to 5,000 Rs. The reply to the second paragraph of the question is that the Secretary of State sees nothing in such a Proclamation to require his interference. In answer to the third paragraph, I have to say that the nature of the Court will be found described in the Blue Book which will be certainly distributed before the House rises for the holidays. The leaders of the rebellion are to be tried by a Court consisting of three officers, including at least one political

  557
  officer, their sentences to be subject to the confirmation of the Government of India.

  WRECKAGE ON THE CHESIL BEACH.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, considering the grave inconvenience occasioned to fishermen by the wreckage in the neighbourhood of the Chesil Beach, west of Portland, he will be able to experiment as to the possibility of removing this wreckage by dynamite, or otherwise employing Her Majesty's ships at Portland, Portsmouth, or Devonport, and naval divers for this purpose?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): The Dorset County Council were informed in June last, in reply to a similar question, that the district in question was not within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, the Board of Trade being the authority. I understand that the local fishermen in the neighbourhood objected to the wreckage being blown up, as being likely to increase rather than diminish the obstructions to their calling.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman will communicate upon the subject with the Trinity Board?
  MR. FORWOOD: The Board of Trade is the authority in charge, and the hon. Member had better put a question to the President of the Board of Trade.

  THE PARCELS POST.
  MR. BLUNDELL MAPLE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if, in view of the great development which has taken place in the Parcel Post, especially in regard to articles of consumption, and that goods, such as dairy produce, tea, coffee, &c., are sold by the pound, it would be possible to arrange that, under the Parcel Post Service, 17 ounces should be considered as each pound, so as to allow for the weight of packing materials; and if, at the same time, the maximum weight under the Parcel Post could be increased from 111bs. to 141bs.?
  THE POSTMASTER, GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): Suggestions for developing the use of the Parcel Post for the conveyance of dairy
  558
  produce, flowers, &c, were made to me yesterday by a deputation, and I shall be glad to consider that now made by the hon. Member together with them. Similar proposals, I may say, were not unfavourably viewed some years ago by one or more of my predecessors. There is a good deal to be said for the suggested raising of the maximum limit of weight, which, indeed, has been long since proposed from within the Department, but hitherto, Her Majesty's Government has not seen its way to an adoption of the change.

  LAMBETH FREE LIBRARY.
  GENERAL FRASER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if, in view of the fact that out of 28,308 voting papers filled up in the recent Lambeth Free Library polling, 9,358 were officially declared to be spoiled, and that the majority in favour of the extra halfpenny was only 374, he will, before allowing this extra halfpenny to be paid out of the Lambeth Poor Rates, cause an inquiry to be made into the assertions of many inhabitants that the immense number of spoilt voting papers was the consequence of the way in which the question was put to the voters, and, further, that persons went about the poorer districts of North Lambeth telling the voters not to append their names to the papers, as voting was on this occasion by ballot?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have communicated with the Vestry Clerk of the Parish of Lambeth with reference to the recent voting, and I am informed that there were 9,358 voting papers officially declared to be invalid. Of these 7,163 were blank papers not marked in any way, so that the number of papers which were invalid for defect in marking of all sorts was 2,195. The number of votes was 18,950. The voting paper was in the form prescribed by the Statute, and showed on the face of it that it must bear the signature of the voter. The presiding officer states that no voter has made any complaint or statement to him as to any particular case in which the voter was told not to append his name to the voting paper. As regards the inquiry whether the

  559
  Local Government Board, before allowing the extra halfpenny rate to be paid, will cause an Inquiry to be made into the assertion referred to in the question, I must point out that the Local Government Board have no jurisdiction in the matter, and that no sanction on their part to the levying of the rate is required.

  MEAT SUPPLY TO THE ARMY.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can say what proportion of the meat supplied to the troops at home is homegrown meat, and how much is refrigerated or foreign; and what was the average price per pound paid for each of these kinds of meat during the last financial year?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): At most of the large military stations beasts are delivered alive. They are bought in the home markets, but their place of origin is unknown. Very little refrigerated meat is used, and its use, where employed, is limited to the cool months. The average price of all meat at horns during 1890–91 was 5 19–20d. per lb., but I have no figures which would enable me to state the prices according to the place of origin. I can only repeat what I said on the 10th of March—that I shall always try. when a due regard for economy admits of it, to give the preference to home-grown meat of good quality.

  POLICE MATRONS.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in respect to the appointment of police matrons either in London or the provinces; and whether he will lay upon the Table the Report of the experienced officers who were considering this subject in December, 1890?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): As a result of the deliberations of the Departmental Board which has been considering this question, the Commissioner of Police has made a proposal that at all stations at which there are cells female warders shall be appointed, who will be available, when
  560
  required, to attend upon females in custody. The question of the expenditure which such a system would entail is now under consideration. It would not be usual to lay a Departmental Report of this nature on the Table, but the suggestions made are practically contained in the proposal of the Commissioners.

  ARMY QUARTERMASTERS.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether on the Committee over which Lord Wantage presides, and which has been appointed to inquire into the difficulties of Army recruiting, the Army Quartermasters and Riding Masters are represented; and if not, whether he will add representatives from this class, from which the recruits for the Army are furnished?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Lord Wantage's Committee is composed of officers who represent efficiently the various military interests, and among them is an officer who has had Rank Service. The actual question of the position of Quartermasters and Riding Masters is not before the Committee. It has, moreover, been dealt with comparatively recently, and I have no intention of re-opening it.
  MR. CAUSTON: Is there any reason why the Quartermasters and Riding Masters should not be represented?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Every interest will be represented.

  MISSION FROM GUNGUNHANA.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has any knowledge of the mission which, it is reported, the Gaza Chief Gungunhana is sending to England; whether this chief has declared himself quite independent of Portuguese control; and whether he has communicated to the Government any desire for close alliance with the British Empire?
  BARON H. DE WORMS (for Sir J. FERGUSSON): The Chief Commissioner has reported that two messengers from Gungunhana are being sent privately to England. They have not been officially recognised. 2 and 3. Any declarations or communications made by Gungunhana

  561
  have been made to private individuals. As far as our present information goes, much of the territory claimed by Gungunhana has been recognised by this country as Portuguese dominion in earlier Treaties.

  SEIZURE OF THE LYDIA PESCHAN.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received advice as to the amicable settlement of the matter of the seizure of the Lydia Peschan, by the agent, Mr. Edgar Tripp, accredited to Caracas on behalf of those interested?
  BARON H. DE WORMS (for Sir J. FERGUSSON): The consignees of the Lydia Peschan and agents of her owner have declined to send an agent, as suggested by the Venezuelan Authorities, with a view to the amicable settlement of the case. Her Majesty's Consul at Caracas has been authorised to explain to the Venezuelan Government that the parties interested in the matter have left it to be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government, and he has been directed to invite them to make to Her Majesty's Government such offer for a final settlement of the case as they have already expressed their readiness to make to the consignees of the vessel.

  EXPORTS FROM TRINIDAD TO VENEZUELA.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the value of the exports from Trinidad to Venezuela during last year, and also the maximum value reached during the last ten years; whether he has received any communication from the Governor as to the scheme elaborated by the Committee of the Venezuelan Congress for the abolition of the 30 per cent. differential duty on imports from Trindad and other West Indian Islands; and whether the duty applies to the Colony of British Guiana?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Exclusive of bullion and specie the total value for 1890 was £174,748, of which £89,918 represents goods in transit. The maximum value of exports to Venezuela during the last 10 years excluding bullion, &c, in 1881 was £252,686 of which £130,962 represented goods in
  562
  transit. The answer to the 2nd question is in the negative and to the 3rd in the affirmative.

  EXCISE OFFICERS.
  MR. C. T. DYKE ACLAND: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has taken into consideration the case of some Excise officers who, notwithstanding the general increase in their salaries and prospects, happen for the time to be adversely affected by the abolition of extra payment formerly paid to them for the collection of acreage returns of agricultural statistics?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The Treasury has authorised the Board of Inland Revenue to make arrangements by which no Excise officer shall have a smaller income this year than he had last in consequence of the recent introduction of the new scale of salaries.

  THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the remuneration fixed by a Treasury Minute of July, 1890, for all indoor officers performing Sunday duty in the various departments of the Post Office has not yet been paid; when will it be paid; and when paid, will it be calculated as from the date of the Treasury Minute in question?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the Minute referred to authorised additional payment for Sunday duty to sorting clerks and telegraphists, and I am not aware of a single instance in which the money has not been paid. If the hon. Member can mention any case in which it has not been paid I will inquire into it.

  CHAPLAINS IN SCOTCH POORHOUSES.
  MR. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether there is any statutory provision directing or authorising the appointment of ministers of the Established Church as chaplains in Scotch poorhouses; whether the remuneration of clergymen of the Established Church, or other denomination, for ministering to inmates of such poorhouses is entirely within the discretion of Parochial Boards and the

  563
  Board of Supervision; and whether the powers of Parochial Boards and the Board of Supervision to provide for the remuneration of clergymen for ministering to inmates of poorhouses must in every case be restricted to ministers of the Established Church?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Sir C. PEARSON,): I am not aware of any statutory provision on this subject. In answer to the second paragraph, the remuneration of chaplains of poorhouses is within the discretion of the Parochial Boards. The answer to the third paragraph is in the negative. The only rule of the Board of Supervision on the subject is that the chaplain should be an ordained minister or licentiate of a Protestant Church.

  NATIONAL SOCIETY'S SCHOOLS.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the number of school places provided by the National Society are in all cases reckoned at eight square feet per child in average attendance; whether there have been within the last three years any cases in which the average attendance has exceeded the number allowable at eight square feet per child; and, if so, whether the grant or any portion has been withheld; and whether, in any of the newer schools of the National Society, the space allowed is more than eight square feet per child; and, if so, how many?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The hon. Member is mistaken as to the functions of the National Society which does not provide schools, but the accommodation in schools connected with it was, up to the date of last year's Code, provided on the same basis as that in schools connected with the Wesleyan Body or the British and Foreign School Society, namely, that of eight square feet per child. In some cases this has, no doubt, been exceeded, but never without a warning that the grant will be endangered if such a state of things is allowed to continue. For the rule to which new schools must now conform, I can only refer the hon. Member to Art. 85 of the Code.

  STORNOWAY LICENCES.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the reversal by the Dingwall Quarter Sessions of the decisions of the Justices of the Peace for Lewis in regard to the Stornoway licences; whether he is aware that the people of Lewis are practically unanimous in desiring that those Stornoway licences should be withdrawn in the public interest; and whether he will propose some change in the Licensing Law?
  SIR C. PEARSON: The Lord Advocate has no knowledge of the matters referred to in the question, and there is no present intention of proposing any change in the Licensing Laws.

  THE SCOTCH GRANT.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of any part of the probable grant of £200,000 to Scotland being devoted to the relief of local taxation, he will make special provision to meet the case of the unusually high rates which prevail in certain Highland parishes, more especially as in 1889 an intended grant of £30,000 to the Highlands and Islands was reduced to £10,000?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I presume the question of the hon. Member is intended rather to suggest a policy than to elicit information. At all events, I fear I cannot give him any reply different from that which I have given to other hon. Members in the House.

  THE INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the number of Members of the House of Commons absent through influenza, and to the probable presence of influenza microbes in and about the House and other premises; and whether he will take steps to have the same, so far as frequented by Members of the House, thoroughly cleaned and fumigated during the Whit holdidays?
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I wish

  565
  to ask whether his attention has been called to the allegation of the Sheffield papers of this day, that 267 persons have died of influenza within the borough in the past three weeks, and that the figures of the death-rate are without precedent; and, having regard to the fact that the Metropolis and other parts of the country are in like condition, whether the Government will, instead of pro longing the holidays of the House of Commons, consider steps to ascertain the cause of the epidemic, and the best means of averting the recurrence of its disastrous effects on the people, to whom illness means loss of employment and wages.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKETT,): I am well aware of the ravages which the prevailing epidemic has made amongst the Members of this House, and I have given directions that our Committee Rooms shall forthwith be fumigated with sulphur, which I am advised is the best method of checking the spread of the disease. I shall adopt the same process in such other parts of the House as it may seem possible at once, and I shall avail myself of the Whitsuntide Recess for the purpose of completing the operation.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the number of Members of the House of Commons absent through influenza, and to the necessity of having the House and other premises thoroughly cleaned and fumigated during the Whit holidays; and whether, to enable this to be done, and to afford the sufferers a reasonable time to recruit, Her Majesty's Government will extend the Whit holidays till Monday the 25th instant?
  MR. GOSCHEN: With regard to the question put to me, I have seen the report to which the hon. Member for Sheffield refers; and the House will, I am sure, feel sympathy with the sufferings of the population from this disease. But I am glad to see in the very paper to which the hon. Gentleman has called attention that there is universal testimony to the fact that the number of cases is declining, and that in most of the works and places of business the pressure is passing away. I see that one medical man who had been overworked has now only two cases on his
  566
  hands, so I trust that the hon. Member will find that the disease is declining among his constituents. With reference to the general question, of course the attention of the Government has been called to the seriousness of the epidemic which has visited so many Members of the House; and I am sorry to say that the Members of the Government have had their share, and even in a larger proportion than any other part of the House. But with regard to the question which has been especially directed to the length of the holidays, the Government is at present unable to make any communication to the House; we must watch and see what further progress is made with the Land Purchase Bill which is now occupying the House; but, as soon as possible, my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury will take the House into his confidence, and will consider what can be done. At present we must see what progress is made with the Land Purchase Bill.

  NAVAL RESERVE MEN.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the changes proposed to be made at Scarborough in the accommodation for the Naval Reserve men when on drill in that port in place of the existing battery described as being in a bad condition in the official Return of 13th of March last, and when such changes are contemplated?
  MR. FORWOOD: A space has recently been covered in to serve as a temporary drill shed for the Naval Reserve men at Scarborough. It is proposed to include new Royal Naval Reserve buildings there in next year's Estimates.

  THE TUBERCULOSIS COMMISSION.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if, in return for the co-operation of Medical Officers of Health in collecting information for the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, and on other matters, and in view of the great importance of imparting the results of governmental inquiries on sanitary matters to officers officially responsible for the health of the people, he will use his influence to have the Reports of such Commissions, and of the Medical Officer of the Local

  567
  Government Board, sent in return to such Medical Officers of Health as may-have furnished contributory information towards the preparation of such Reports?
  MR. RITCHIE: As regards the Reports of the Medical Department of the Local Government Board, the Board are in the habit of forwarding copies of such Reports on local inquiries to local officers who have given assistance to the Board's Inspectors in the inquiries. It is also the practice of the Board to distribute a certain number of copies of the Annual Report of the Medical Officer of the Board. In the case also of special Reports, such as that on the smallpox epidemic at Sheffield, a considerable number of copies have been distributed among officers of Sanitary Authorities. Any applications that the Board may receive for such Reports will be considered with the desire to meet them, so far as is practicable, within the limits which may be fixed by the Treasury. I may at the same time observe that it is quite within the power of a Sanitary Authority to purchase at the cost of the rates Reports of this character, which they may consider will assist their officers in the discharge of their duties.

  THE ETIQUETTE OF THE BAR.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether it is opposed to the traditions and proper professional conduct at the Bar that Members of the Bar, who are sons of County Court Judges, should locally settle for practice in towns within their father's districts, and should regularly practice in their father's Courts; and whether, considering the constitution and jurisdiction of County Courts, it is also calculated to shake public confidence in the administration of justice?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Sir R. WEBSTER,): My answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The second involves a matter of opinion, on which the hon. Member is as well able to form a judgment as I.

  THE MAIL TRAIN FROM SLIGO.
  MR. COLLERY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether passengers are not allowed to travel by the 9 o'clock p.m. mail train from
  568
  Sligo to Dublin; and, if so, whether, in view of the great inconvenience of persons not being able to leave Sligo for Dublin later than the ordinary 4 p.m. train, he will exercise his influence with the Midland Great Western Railway Company to allow passengers to travel by the mail?
  MR. RAIKES: The mail train referred to by the hon. Member runs at hours fixed by the Post Office under the general contract with the Railway Company, and carries goods but not passengers. The question of allowing passengers to travel by it is one for the company, with whom I cannot pretend to have any such influence as the hon. Member is good enough to attribute to me.

  LAND COMMISSION—WESTMEATH.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of fair-rent applications from County of Westmeath remaining undisposed of, also the number of fair-rent appeals entered and not yet decided; and if he will give the dates of the next sitting of the Sub-Commission for Westmeath?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Irish Land Commissioners report that the number of holdings purchased by tenants in the County Westmeath, and of which the sales have been completed, was, up to April 30, 1891, 120, and the amount advanced for same was £93,652. The Commissioners report that on April 30, 1891, the number of fair-rent applications from the County Westmeath in which judgment had not been delivered was 299, and the number of fair-rent appeals entered and not decided was 41. The next sitting of a Sub-Commission for the county will be on June 2, for which 86 cases have been listed.

  THE IRISH ESTATES OF THE LONDON COMPANIES.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will take any immediate steps to carry out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select

  569
  Committee on the Irish Estates of the London Companies, which has within the last few days been laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government have not had an opportunity of considering the Select Committee's Report mentioned, which has not yet been distributed.

  LAND DEPARTMENT BILL.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the probability of the Land Department Bill not passing into law this Session, he will consider the advisability of transferring from that measure to the Land Purchase Bill the clause relating to the long leaseholders?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The clause relating to long leaseholders would, I believe, not be in order in the Bill now under discussion, so that I fear it would not be possible to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.

  POSTAGE OF REGISTRATION FORMS.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he has seen the Report of the Enniskillen Board of Guardians, on Tuesday last, the 5th instant, in reference to the cost of the Returns of (A) requisition forms under the Registration Act of 1885; whether it is true, as alleged by the Chairman of the Board, that the Post Office authorities charge double the ordinary postage rate for the delivery to the Clerk of the Union of unstamped forms; whether this extra postage will cost that Union £20 for this year; whether the Clerk of the Union has any option but to pay the double postage and receive the forms; and whether, as the Return is mandatory and the Statute penal, he will, under all the circumstances, make arrangements to have these necessary legal forms delivered, either free, or at the usual single postage rats?
  MR. RAIKES: I understand that a communication has been addressed to the hon. Member asking him to furnish a specimen of the form on which surcharge is alleged. On the receipt of that specimen, I will cause inquiry to be made.

  TULLAMORE GAOL-CASE OF MR. JOHN CULLINANE.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many prisoners in Tullamore Gaol are now suffering from typhoid fever; if any prisoners there are suffering from influenza; and, if so, how many; whether the prison doctor knew that the disease from which Mr. John Cullinane was suffering was typhoid fever, or did he share the mistake made by the medical member of the Prisons Board, and think it influenza; and whether any arrangements are being made to remove from Tullamore the prisoners who have so far escaped the fever?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are 11 prisoners at present suffering from typhoid fever in Tullamore Gaol. There are four prisoners also slightly ailing, and under observation. There is no case of influenza in the prison, but cases of this disease are known to exist in the town of Tullamore and neighbourhood. It was on the authority of the medical member of the Prisons Board alone that the disease was at first pronounced to be influenza. The medical officer of the prison, not joining in Dr. Woodhouse's opinion, treated Cullinane's case from the beginning as typhoid, which treatment was subsequently approved by his own medical attendant. Thirty-four of the prisoners whose sentences would expire within a month were released yesterday, but pending the result of an inquiry by sanitary experts, namely, Sir Charles Cameron and Mr. Kaye Parry, the Board are not prepared to recommend any further steps in this direction.
  MR. SEXTON: When will the inquiry take place; and would it not be better on the whole to remove the prisoners from all risk of contamination?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The investigation has been going on for some days, and I fancy that it is near its termination.

  IRISH HOLDINGS.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay the Return of

  571
  figures respecting the relative proportions of holdings in Irish counties above and below £30 value, quoted from by him on the 8th instant, upon the Table as a Parliamentary Paper?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am having some figures compiled on the subject mentioned, which I hope to lay upon the Table.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, by their new Rule No. 8, the Board of Intermediate Education in Ireland intend that a student in his 14th year, who this year passes in the junior grade for the second time, should next year, when only in his 15th year, enter for the middle grade, intended for students in their 17th year; and, if not, what other course of study they intend for students so situate? I have also to ask whether, for the purpose of showing the effect of their new Rule No. 8 in practice, the Board of Intermediate Education in Ireland will, without delay, supply a Return in the following form: (a) number of junior grade students who passed in June, 1890, being in their 13th year on the 1st June, 1890; (b) like in their 14th year on the date mentioned; (c) the number of junior grade students who have sent in their names for the forthcoming examination in June, 1891, and who will be in their 13th year on the 1st June, 1891; (d) like in their 14th year on said date; (e) the number of middle grade students who passed in June, 1890, and who had either attained or were under 15 years of age on the 1st June, 1890; and (f) the number of middle grade students who have sent in their names for the forthcoming examination in June, 1891, and who will either attain or be under the age of 16 years on the 1st June, 1891; whether by No. 8 of the new rules of the Board of Intermediate Education in Ireland, teachers, and second year students in the junior grade, have been compelled, at six weeks' notice, to choose between entering for this year's examination, and thereby surrendering the chance of passing with honours in a future year, or to forfeit the whole results of last year's study by postponing their exami-
  572
  nation till next year; whether as it now stands the rule will, as regards next year and afterwards, treat students who this year pass a second time in the junior grade as if they had got the benefit of the "preparatory grade," which comes into force next year for the first time; whether the rule operates in an analogous way on students for the middle and senior grades; and whether, owing to this, teachers and students are placed in a position of great embarrassment, their plan of study for the past year having been based on the assumption that the existing rules would not be altered, and this rule being now published for the first time six weeks before the coming examination? I beg further to ask the right hon. Gentleman at what date the Board of Intermediate Education in Ireland propose to meet to consider the objections which have been taken to No. 8 of their new rules; and whether they will come to a decision at a reasonable date before the coming examinations for this year; also to ask whether, since the intermediate education system was established in Ireland, it has been customary for teachers and pupils very generally to make the junior grade a four years' course by increasing the number of subjects at each year's examination during that period; whether the new preparatory grade in effect recognises this practice and allows two examinations in that grade and two afterwards in the junior grade or four in all before a student is compelled to enter for the middle grade; and why the Commissioners, by making Rule 8 retrospective, limit students who pass this year in the junior grade to a two years' course, though all past students and all future students have had and will have a four years' course before entering for the middle grade?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not yet been able to obtain information to enable me to reply to the questions of the hon. Member.
  MR. M. HEALY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is unable to reply to any of these questions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  MR. BRYCE: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if

  573
  he can now state what course the Government propose to take in regard to the Newfoundland Bill, seeing that it has passed the House of Lords?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat his question on Thursday.

  PORTUGAL.
  MR. BRYCE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies will be able to say whether the modus vivendi in. regard to Portugal has been prolonged?
  No answer was returned.

  NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
  The Right Honourable William Henry Smith for the Borough of Strand; John William. Logan, esquire, for the County of Leicester (Southern or Harborough Division).
MOTIONS.

  CAPTAIN EDMUND HOPE VERNEY.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I beg to move—
  "That the letter addressed to Mr. Speaker by Mr. Justice A. L. Smith respecting the conviction before the Central Criminal Court of Captain Edmund Hope Verney, member for North Buckinghamshire and the record of the proceedings upon his trial be taken into consideration."
  Before I discharge the most disagreeable duty which is cast upon me, I wish to address a question to you, Sir, with regard to the course which in your judgment ought to be followed in this matter. I believe it is usual, when the conduct of any Member of this House is brought under the serious consideration of the House, that notice should be given to that hon. Member, and an order be made that he should attend in his place to answer any charges which may be brought against him. I do not know, Sir, whether you are of opinion that any difference is to be made in dealing with the particular case which is now to be brought under the consideration of the House, with which the House is unfortunately charged; but, Sir, I should wish to ask your view, as it would be certainly a cause of great regret to me
  574
  if I asked the House to depart from the usages which have always governed its action, or generally governed its action, unless the circumstances should in your judgment, and in the judgment of hon. Members of this House, be so clear and so sufficient for the action of the House for it to be unnecessary to serve the order upon the hon. Member and to require his presence in the House—a circumstance which would, I think, cause pain and sorrow to many besides the hon. Member, and to many whom this House would desire to spare the pain and grief which must accompany all the circumstances.
  MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that, looking at the precedents in these unhappy cases, it is certainly customary that notice should be given to the incriminated Member to attend; but the House will remember that in the letter which he wrote to me the learned Judge states that the hon. Member has been convicted of a misdemeanour on his own confession. I think, therefore, that that constitutes a difference which the House will, no doubt, take into account. But I am informed that in order that nothing might be done which might seem to prejudice in any way, or to be unfair to a Member of this House in the position in which the hon. Member has been placed, he has been informed by those who are best entitled to advise him of the course which the House is about to adopt in this case, and therefore everything has been done to avoid any kind of undue haste or the taking of any course which might in any way prejudice the hon. Member. Under these circumstances, if I may be allowed to say so, I think it is perfectly competent for the House to proceed on the information now before it, and that the attendance of the hon. Member is not necessary.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not conceive there is any opposition on the part of any hon. Member to the view which you have expressed, and I have now only the painful duty to make the Motion which stands in my name. I think it is usual in a case of this kind that the Judge's letter should first of all be read before any Motion is made.

  575
  The letter (see page 259) addressed to Mr. Speaker by Mr. Justice Smith respecting the conviction before the Central Criminal Court of Captain Edmund Hope Verney, Member for North Buckinghamshire, read.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in my absence, moved for a copy of the record of the proceedings of the crime or indictment against Captain Edmund Hope Verney, a Member of this House. That record is now in the possession of hon. Gentlemen. [Opposition cries of "No!"] At all events, it has been placed in the Vote Office, and is accessible to any hon. Member who may desire to obtain it. It is within the knowledge of the House that the hon. Member pleaded guilty to the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth counts of the indictment to which I now refer. I do not know whether, in order that we should be perfectly regular, those counts should be read by the Clerk at the Table[Cries of "No, no!"] But I should hope the House will dispense in the present circumstances with what I take to be a formality. Every Member can be put in full possession of all the facts of the case if he thinks fit. I am at least glad that in the position in which I find myself it is not necessary for me to enlarge upon the crime which has been committed, or on the offence of which the hon. Member has been guilty. I think I carry with me the united sense of the House when I say that the circumstances are such, painful to us as they are, as to render it impossible for the hon. Member to remain a Member of this House, and to associate with Members of this House in the discharge of the duties which belong to Members of this House. I think that, although the sentence passed by the Judge may not indicate the greatest offence which a man may commit, the character of the offence is such that we should all feel it impossible to associate with the hon. Member in this House, and we should feel that it is utterly impossible for the hon. Member efficiently to discharge his duties to his constituents and to the House of Commons longer as a Member of this House. I will not enlarge upon the facts of the case. They have been sufficiently referred to in the public prints, in the charge of the Judge,
  576
  and in the address of counsel; but I may, Sir, be allowed to express the hope that there will not be a Debate upon a question of this character, which would only be most painful to those connected with the hon. Member, whose names are held in high esteem in the country, who have served the country faithfully and well, and who deserve the utmost sympathy of every Member of this House and of the whole country at the undeserved misfortune and the great sorrow which has befallen them, and in the great trouble with which they are afflicted. In deference to them—in consideration for them—I trust the House will dispose of this most painful question with as slight a discussion as may be fit under the circumstances. I can only say that in taking this course I have discharged a duty which has been the most painful that has ever fallen to my lot.
  Motion made, and Question proposed'
  "That the said letter and the record of the proceedings upon the trial of Captain Verney be now considered." —(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR.CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I rise for the purpose of seconding the Motion which the First Lord of the Treasury has just made. No more solemn, no more distressing duty could ever fall to be discharged by this House than that which now devolves upon it of pronouncing judgment upon the conduct of one of our colleagues, and upon his fitness to continue to discharge the trust imposed by the Constitution upon an elected Member of Parliament. I wish to associate myself most cordially with all that the right hon. Gentleman has said on the personal aspects of this case. The hon. Member who is the subject of the Motion has not been long in the House, but he has exhibited a degree of zeal and capacity which gave promise of a future career of usefulness; and we all knew that he had served his country in his earlier years with gallantry and distinction. If we were ready to welcome any promise for his future that was shown, we were the more ready to do so—those of us at least who sat at that time in Parliament—from the vivid recollection we have of his venerable father, who during the many years he sat here was regarded on all sides of the House

  577
  as a model and type and example in all the public and private relations of life of what an English gentleman—of what a high-minded and public-spirited English gentleman—should be. But, Sir, the terrible facts which are brought formally to our notice by the letter from the Judge cannot be set aside, and I imagine in no quarter can there be any hesitation as to the course which it is oar duty to pursue. I presume that there cannot be any hesitation, and that the more keenly we feel the stain that has fallen upon an honoured name, and also the amount of discredit which may be brought even upon this august Assembly by the misconduct of one of its Members, the more imperatively shall we recognise the duty which lies upon us to assent to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I feel sure, with him, that the desire in every part of the House will be that, having this painful duty to discharge, we should accomplish it in as speedy and simple a fashion as possible. At the same time, I think it right to say that it behoves us on every occasion, and especially on an occasion such as this, to see that we duly protect the rights and privileges of the individual Members of this House. However plain the facts may be—and they are very plain in this instance—we may possibly, by some ill-considered action, create a precedent which in some future case, perhaps not altogether analogous to this, may have the effect of compromising the rights and privileges of Members of this House. In the present instance, as you, Mr. Speaker, have pointed out, our course is made plainer by the fact that the incriminated person has him self pleaded guilty to the charges on which he was arraigned. On the understanding that the hon. Member cannot have the occasion or the desire to address the House by saying anything in extenuation of his offence—on that understanding, and in that belief, I beg, without any further qualification, to second the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  The said letter and record considered.
  Resolved, "That Captain Edmund Hope Verney be expelled this House."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

  TRADE UNIONS (PROVIDENT FUNDS).
  On Motion of Mr. Howell, Bill to exempt the funds of Trade Unions paying provident benefits to their members from the payment of Income Tax on their investments, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Howell, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Burt, Mr. Fenwick, and Mr. John Wilson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 334.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to Evidence." [Evidence Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the amendment of the Marriage Act, 4 Geo. IV., chapter 76." [Marriage Acts Amendment Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to revive certain sections of an Act of the fifth year of the reign of King George the Fourth, chapter fifty-one, for the purpose of carrying into effect engagements with France respecting Fisheries in Newfoundland; and for other purposes" [Newfoundland Fisheries Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for further promoting the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing Enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary." [Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords.]

  EVIDENCE BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 335.]
  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 336.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 111.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 6.
    MR. RATHBONE, in whose name stood the first Amendment on the Paper, proposing

    579
    an addition to the clause to the effect that the amount to be advanced for the purchase of holdings above £30 value should not exceed such proportion of the amount available in a county as the Land Commission might fix, and that in no county should the proportion fixed exceed one-fifth of the amount available, said: With the view of saving time, I wish to ask whether the Chief Secretary will undertake to make effectual his Amendment dealing with this question, which it has been admitted must be dealt with. In that case I do not propose to press the Amendment. It is a matter which will, perhaps, be best dealt with when we reach the new clauses, and I shall then be prepared to go into it.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 40, after Sub-section (4), to add—" The amount to be advanced under this Act for the purchase in any county of holdings of which the annual value exceeds thirty pounds shall not exceed such proportion of the whole amount available under this Act for the purchase of holdings in that county as the Land Commission may fix, having regard to the relative number of holdings of an annual value over and under that amount in the several counties.
    The proportion so fixed for holdings of an annual value of more than thirty pounds shall not in any county exceed one-fifth of the whole amount available under this Act: Provided that, if the Land Commission certify that it is, in their opinion, expedient so to do, for the purpose of purchasing whole estates or large portions of estates, they may increase the said proportion in any specified county or counties, so however that it do not in any case exceed one-third.
    The Land Commission, in considering applications for advances for the purchase in any county of holdings of which the annual value exceeds thirty pounds, shall have regard to the amount at their disposal for the purchase of such holdings, and to the requirements, whether immediate or prospective, of the several estates in that county.
    An advance under the said Acts for the purchase of any holding shall not exceed twenty years' purchase of the annual value of the holding as defined in this Act."—(Mr. Rathbone.)
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to the appeal of the hon. Member, I wish to say that I am obliged to him for the consideration he has shown for the progress of the Bill, I think it would be inexpedient that the Amendment on the Paper should be pressed now, because the Government cannot accept it in its present form, and there
    580
    would be considerable inconvenience in discussing it before we have the figures I have promised to produce. I hope to produce the figures before the new clauses are reached, and I think the best course will be to defer the discussion until that stage.
    MR. RATHBONE: Will a full opportunity then be afforded for discussing the question?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be out of my power to limit any discussion the hon. Member may think it right to enter into.
    MR. RATHBONE: I think we ought to have a thorough understanding that a full opportunity will be afforded.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is a matter which must rest entirely with the hon. Member himself. There is an Amendment down in my name, and if he is not satisfied with it he can move to amend it.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will bring the question before the House in the shape of a new clause. I wish to take this opportunity of expressing my recognition of the conciliatory manner in which the Chief Secretary has endeavoured to deal with the matter.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: What we want to know is whether it is really intended that the discussion on the Bill shall cease by a certain date.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order That is not the subject before the Committee.
    MR. SEXTON: I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to give a more specific answer before we decide whether we should proceed with the discussion of this Amendment or not.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Committee must be aware of the extraordinary difficulty there is in dealing with these agricultural statistics; and I do not see why I should be pressed to give pledges which after all would afford no guidance to the Committee.
    MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring up a new clause?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have every intention of doing so; but it is in the power of any hon. Member to move a new clause.
    MR. RATHBONE: I beg to withdraw this Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to move the Amendment which stands on the paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid). I think that a tenant who becomes an annuitant ought to start with a clean slate, all the arrears being wiped off.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 40, at end, to add—"An advance shall not be made under the Land Purchase Acts for the purchase—

    (1.) of any holding except upon condition that, in consideration of such advance, the holding is vested in the tenant free from any further payment or promise of payment, and that the tenant is discharged from all arrears of rent and all claims whatsoever by the landlord in respect of the said holding prior to the date of the vesting order; or

    (2.) of any holding unless the Land Commission is satisfied that the terms of purchase between landlord and tenant are fair and reasonable."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This point as to the wiping out of arrears was dealt with in Section 3 of the Ashbourne Act of 1888. I think that everything is provided for by that section.
    DR. KENNY: I am afraid that the Act of 1888 will afford no security. The object of the Amendment is to protect tenants against being sued for arrears of rent. I am not quite certain that the Amendment will have the desired effect, but I think there ought to be some provision to render arrears irrecoverable after purchase.
    MR. M. HEALY: I think the words of the Act are insufficient, for they would not cover the case in which the tenant had given a promissory note to cover the arrears. The landlord, though estopped from suing for the arrears, could sue on the promissory note. It is a very common thing in Ireland to give promissory notes [Colonel WARING: No.] The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken, and the Act of 1888 does not provide for such a case. I hope the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland will say that this abuse will be put a stop to.
    COLONEL WARING: I hope before the right hon. and learned Gentleman answers the question the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy) will give specific instances of abuses.
    MR. SEXTON: It would considerably undermine the security of the sale if the tenant were to remain bound to pay not only the annuity, but promissory notes given in respect of arrears of rent. I would ask hon. Members to examine the Report of the Committee on the Estates of the Irish Societies, and particularly the evidence concerning the transactions of the Drapers Company. Before that Committee ample evidence was given in regard to the exaction of promissory notes and the recovery of such notes from the tenants after the sale had been completed. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will confirm me in this, that a promissory note given by a tenant to the landlord for arrears prior to the sale is not held subsequently to be a liability affecting the tenant. I say that if this Amendment is not accepted the evident intention of Parliament will be defeated, that intention being that the signing of the agreement for sale by the tenant should discharge him of all liability for arrears, the object being to take it out of the landlord's power to extort more money from the tenant by virtue of any document signed before the completion of the transaction. This Amendment will stop the loophole through which that object might be defeated. It appears to me that the Government are thinking of the interests of the landlords and disregarding the security of the State. If you allow a farm to be sold on the basis of a certain value, and if the Land Commission sanction the sale because in their judgment the holding constitutes good security for the money advanced, and if the tenant at the same time is to be held to be liable in succeeding years not only to pay the annuity, but also to pay off promissory notes respecting liabilities incurred to the landlord before the sale and of the existence of which the Land Commission was not made aware, to what extent may not your security become imperilled! Why, the tenant may become liable every year to pay the landlord a sum exceeding the amount of his annuity. How then could he be expected to keep up his payments to the State? I urge the Government to accept this Amendment in the interests of the security of the State.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): It appears to me that the Legislature has done a great deal, and probably all that could be done by Act of Parliament to prevent the tenant purchaser being over-burdened with liabilities. Under Section 30 of the Act of 1888 it is provided that the tenant when he buys under the Act shall be discharged of all liabilities between landlord and tenant affecting the holding and existing at the date of the agreement for sale. Not only are arrears of rent cancelled, but also all other liabilities affecting the holding, and I take it that even if a promissory note were given in respect of liabilities which had been cancelled. There would be no consideration for it.
    MR. M. HEALY: But suppose the note has been discounted.
    MR. MADDEN: That is another matter altogether. I say that as between the parties there is a statutory cancelling of entire obligations in regard to the holding, I doubt the Legislature can go beyond that. As to the possibility of the note having been discounted the Government cannot provide for all such possibilities.
    MR. M. HEALY: Yes you can.
    MR. MADDEN: Would the hon. Member have a note which has been discounted rendered null?
    MR. M. HEALY: Null as against the party who gives it, but not as against the landlord who endorses it.
    MR. MADDEN: It seems to me that it would be extremely difficult for the Legislature to go beyond the provisions of Section 30.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: No doubt the Legislature did intend by that section that the tenant-purchaser should start clear, but I must confess it seems doubtful whether a case such as I intend to cite, might not arise and which the section would not meet. There are two conditions of cancellation named in this clause. It is to be a liability affecting the holding and it is to include rent-arrears existing at the date of the agreement for sale. But suppose that before the agreement for sale is signed the landlord says to the tenant: "I will acquit you of all rent-arrears in consideration of your giving me a promissory note," and that he adds some nominal
    584
    consideration. Would such a note be voided by the operation of this section? Or suppose, again, as suggested, that the note is endorsed to a third party. I understand that both the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant and the Attorney General for Ireland desire that tenants shall be free from such liability, and I do, therefore, urge them to reconsider the matter. Would it not be possible to make such a note void as against the maker of the note?
    MR. MADDEN: Surely the hon. Member does not suggest that we should make the note void?
    SIR C. RUSSELL: Yes, as against the maker, but not as against the landlord who has chosen to put it in circulation.
    MR. MADDEN: The hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to introduce an entirely new principle into the law with regard to promissory notes. However, as there is no difference between the objects aimed at by the Government and by hon. Members opposite, I will undertake to consider what can be done.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton may accept the assurance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he will consider the best means of securing the end we have in view. At present I may point out there is nothing to prevent the holder of such a promissory note obtaining judgment against the tenant-purchaser, so that practically the former will remain liable for arrears existing prior to the agreement for sale. The Act of 1888 certainly did not contemplate permitting such a state of things.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: After the explanation of the Government I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MORTON: Does that apply to the second part of the Amendment?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. M. HEALY: The Government have devised an elaborate series of checks and counter-checks to prevent the State being at a loss, but I will venture to suggest in one line, a clause which will enable them to dispense with those checks. My suggestion is that an advance shall not be made under the Land Pur-

    585
    chase Acts to such an amount that the resulting purchase annuity will exceed the fair rent of the holding purchased. I do not know what view the Government take of this Amendment, but I imagine the right hon. Gentleman would have some difficulty in defending a proposal which would have the effect of permitting advances which left the holding subject to an unfair rent. Yet, that would necessarily be the logical consequence of refusing the Amendment which I now submit for the consideration of the Committee. I ask now, is it or is it not the intention of the Government that the purchase annuity may exceed the fair rent of the holding? Upon the answer to that depends the fate of my Amendment. Under existing Acts there have been cases in which the tenants, instead of getting advantage from the purchase transaction, have been saddled with a purchase annuity in excess of the rent they originally paid. The attention of the right hon. Gentleman has again and again been called to such cases on the Waterford estate. Lord Waterford induced certain tenants at rates which involved annuities in excess of the judicial rents originally paid. The consequence was that the tenants could not keep up their payments, they were sold up by the Land Commission, and the Marquess of Waterford being the purchaser has regained possession of the holdings. I may explain in regard to the Amendment that the term fair rent means fair rent as defined in the existing Land Act, and in estimating the amount it would be the duty of the Land Commission to exclude the value of the tenants' improvements. It ought to be the duty of the Land Commission not merely to see that the State is safeguarded, but that the tenant also is fairly treated, and this can only be secured by means of my Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 40, at the end of the Clause to add the words, "An advance shall not he made under the Land Purchase Acts to such an amount that the resulting purchase annuity would exceed the fair rent of the holding purchased."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that the Amendment would not effect
    586
    the object either of securing the repayment of the annuity or that the tenant should not buy what is really his own share in the dual ownership. These I take to be its two purposes. I would remind the Committee that the amount in question might in some cases be much, too high, and in others too low; that would depend on the number of years'" purchase. There are cases in which the tenants' interest is worth 20, 30, or even 40 years' purchase of the landlords' interest, and surely in such a case 25 years' purchase on the gross rent of the holding would leave an ample margin of security. Under the Bill, as at present, drawn, beneficial leases can be sold, but the Amendment will exclude those. The hon. Member says it would be unfair to ask the tenant to pay more by way of purchase annuity than the fair rent of' the holding. Will he go a step further and say that under no circumstances shall the tenant sell in the open market his share in the holding for a sum, the interest on which is more than the fair rent of it? If he did that he would entirely destroy free sale. I cannot agree to this Amendment, which would introduce in some cases too high a limit and. in others too low a limit.
    MR. SEXTON: I am at a loss to discover the relevancy of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I think the Amendment is a most reasonable one. It simply suggests that the purchase annuity which the tenant will have to pay shall not be greater than the rent which he has to pay before this measure-was passed for his relief. Where in the world is the parallel between that case and the case of the tenant selling his own interest? In land purchase in Ireland in the past we have always had a certain amount of relationship between the avowed intention of the Government and the means of giving effect to it. Now in this Bill the avowed object of the Government is to improve the agrarian situation in, Ireland, and free the tenant from the, pressure now inflicted on him. This Amendment would go far to securing that end; and I, therefore, greatly regret that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept it. By refusing it he shows a desire to allow the landlords of Ireland free play in extorting as much as they can from the tenants.
    MR. M. HEALY: I, too, fail to see what the right hon. Gentleman's arguments have to do with this Amendment. Does he think it desirable to have a repetition of the cases which occurred on the Marquess of Waterford's estate? If he wants the annuities paid punctually, it would be wise to accept the Amendment. If the Land Commission is allowed to sanction advances, which, instead of bettering the condition of the tenant will make it worse, he will throw a heavy burden on it and on the State as well. I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept an Amendment, the expediency of which he has not confuted by argument.
    MR. MORTON: I should like to draw attention to a Return which shows how money advanced for land purchase is wasted. It is astonishing what the landlords in some cases get out of these transactions. In one case there was an advance of £2,360. The tenant defaulted, and the holding was sold for, £175. In other cases the figures were respectively £1,042 and £155; £2,257 and £190. Holdings on the Marquess of Waterford's estate were absolutely sold for about one-twentieth part of the money advanced.
    (5.12.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 106; Noes 151.—(Div. List, No. 212.)
    MR. KNOX: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Longford. In the case of certain purchasers, the landlords have made contracts reserving game. I see that the Government accept the Amendment; so I shall only move it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 40, at the end of the Clause, to add the words—
    "No advance shall be made under the Land Purchase Acts for the purchase of any holding where the landlord reserves any rights or easements concerning or affecting the land."—(Mr. Knox.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We cannot accept that Amendment.
    MR. KNOX: I am afraid there has been a misunderstanding. I thought the Attorney General for Ireland accepted it.
    MR. MADDEN: No, Sir; I only said that of course "reserves" was the proper word in the Amendment, and not "recovers," as it appeared on the Notice Paper.
    MR. KNOX: Very well. But I see no reason why it should not be accepted. If the landlord reserves the game it may be a source of constant dispute between him and the tenants. I know one case in my own constituency where such a dispute has been going on for over 20 years; and there are numerous cases where great difficulties have arisen on this ground. Landlords will not get game in any case, for it is a well-known fact all over the world that small holders do not like anybody else getting the game except themselves, and they generally do not let anybody else get it. Whatever reservations a landlord may put into his contract, there will be no game left for him to get. In the interests of peace, I venture to think that this Amendment should be accepted. There may be other reservations in some cases which may be still worse, especially on a grazing holding. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the great difficulties that have been felt in the Highlands, where game rights are reserved.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman will see there is nothing in the spirit or principle of the Bill contrary to the landlord reserving game rights. There are portions of Ireland where the fishing and sporting-rights are of great value, and, in my opinion, an attempt to destroy these will do injury not to the wealthy or landlord classes, but to the community at large. I should be very sorry to do any such injury. I do not know whether landlords think it worth while to make such reservations, but in some cases there will be a general gain both to the landlords and tenants, and to the general community, to whom the fishing or shooting are a source of natural wealth. I do not see why we should stop these by putting artificial restrictions in the Bill.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I do not know whether or not it has been the practice to have the permanent reservation of game or sporting rights under the Purchase Acts, but I think it most undesirable and inexpedient. If it has been the practice, then the

    589
    purchasing owner has been deprived of the enjoyment of the rights associated with the freehold land. I do not know whether it can be done in England by law, and I do not think it has ever obtained in point of practice. At any rate, I do not think it ought to be allowed, and if it has been permitted under the Ashbourne Acts it ought to be prevented under this Act.
    MR. CHANCE: It has been the case that under the Ashbourne Acts rights of fishing and sporting have not infrequently been reserved by landlords. The whole object of the Bill is to get rid of dual ownership and of friction between landlord and tenant, and yet you go out of your way to preserve to the landlord aright which gives rise to friction and trouble not only in Ireland but in England. Nothing could be more suicidal. If you reserve game rights you will have a number of gamekeepers prancing round the place and trampling down the crops; and then the landlords sitting as Magistrates will be issuing summonses against these tenants and fining them 20s. or 40s. You will keep the district in a state of friction, which this Bill is intended to prevent. It was stated by the Chief Secretary that the natural wealth of the country is largely dependent upon game.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In parts.
    MR. CHANCE: I fully admit that. But if this Bill be meant only to preserve game, let us understand that. I understood it was a Bill to improve the position of agricultural tenants. Now you have got enormous tracts of uncultivated heather land, and if you give the fee simple to tenants and get them to cultivate it, every purchase they so make interferes with the game and lessens the value of the shooting. I do not quite understand the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman objects to this Amendment, but I confess to my mind the real reason appears to me that the London Times has published a series of articles warning him to expect certain pains and penalties for himself and his party if he accepts any Amendments, however reasonable, that we may propose. He is not to consider whether an Amendment is reasonable or not, but his sole duty is to force this Bill through the House without Amendment. If that is his policy, he ought to say so frankly.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should say so, if it were.
    MR. CHANCE: Then why does he not say so?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Because it is not.
    MR. CHANCE: He says it is not his policy. If it is not, then I want to know why he has objected to every Amendment moved from these Benches. I say that that is the policy which he has been carrying out in this House, and which has led to the delay and waste of time in carrying this Bill. Amendments have been moved not affecting the principle of this measure, but on matters of detail to facilitate its working; and to all these the right hon. Gentleman has offered an opposition based upon the principles of philosophic considerations or some such things. That is why we have been unable to get the Bill through the House; and in resisting Amendments of this character the right hon. Gentleman shows himself the first obstructor.
    MR. A. E. GATHORNE-HARDY: I think the House will agree that as a general rule it would not be desirable that sporting or similar rights should be dissociated from the holding of the land, but there is a point in the interests of the tenants which hon. Members have not considered. The purchase is voluntary and not compulsory, and it may well happen that the landlord may have a difficulty in selling the whole of his land, and that only one small tenant is desirous to purchase. Supposing one particular holding is to be purchased, I think hon. Members opposite will agree that the reservation may rightly be of advantage, and that its prohibition would be defeating their own objects, as the restriction would practically deprive the tenant of the opportunity to purchase, for the landlord would necessarily not wish to interfere with what may be a sporting right of considerable value.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: Fishing in rivers is not a necessary adjunct to the land, and might well be dissociated from it; but the rights of sporting in Ireland would not be worth very much under any circumstances. It therefore seems to me that this Amendment is desirable as a matter of public policy and of justice to the State which

    591
    advances this money. If the landlord is enabled to retain all kinds of servitude over the land undoubtedly that will immensely detract from the security. I am somewhat surprised that the Chief Secretary should resist this Amendment, because he, as a Scotchman, knows the great complications in Scotland which have arisen because of dual ownership of most objectionable kinds, in which the land belongs to one man and the minerals, or the shooting, or the grazing belong to others. These superior rights will be a continual cause of quarrel and disturbance, and will immensely detract from the security given to the State.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the hon. Member sees where his own arguments would lead him. Here are sporting rights which are valuable, especially when held on a large estate. Are you going to take these away from the landlord without paying him anything, or do you suggest that you should advance money for the purchase of sporting rights to enable the Irish tenant to become a sportsman? In the latter case you will advance money on a security which is destroyed by the cutting up of the sporting rights. If you pass an Amendment of this kind, is it not quite obvious that you compel the landlord to part without a fair consideration with that which is a valuable commodity, or else you advance money to the tenant for the purpose of purchasing these sporting rights? I do not think the House means either of these alternatives; and under these circumstances I think you ought to leave it to voluntary arrangement between the landlord and tenant whether or not these sporting rights should be preserved.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I assert most positively that there is no estate in Ireland or elsewhere which consists of small holdings where the sporting rights, apart from the right of fishing in rivers, is worth anything at all.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is quite in error.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: The Act of 1881 only recognised the legal position of the tenant's interest, and specifically reserved certain rights to the landlord; but you now propose to go further and to confer an estate in fee simple on the occupying tenant, at the
    592
    same time reserving from him the sporting rights. I think it is the first time on record in this or any other country where you have such a state of things; and I should like to know how the Chief Secretary or the Attorney General for Ireland propose to logically defend their position. I hope that the discretion at present vested in the Land Commission will be taken away, and that in future they will not be able to sanction a sale where the landlord reserves his sporting or other rights.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I would like to give the Committee one instance mentioned to me by an Irish gentleman, to show how injuriously this Amendment would operate by destroying sporting rights. He gave me his own case. He has grazing farms, which only bring him in £20 a year; and the sporting rights are worth £300 a year. Therefore this Amendment would preclude the possibility of a landlord selling to his tenants in such a case.
    MR. M. HEALY: I should be sorry if this Amendment should be discussed purely as a question of sporting rights. There are a great many other rights annexed to a holding in Ireland which are very much more important. I mean the taking of sand, rights to seaweed, rights of turbary, rights to quarries, rights sometimes to mines and minerals, all of which are covered by this Amendment. No question has given rise to greater trouble between landlords and tenants or between tenants themselves, than the question of turbary. The late Colonel King Harman, formerly a Member of this House, got into trouble with his tenants on this question; and it was charged that when the Land Commission cut down their rents the landlords in Ireland proceeded to recoup themselves by putting on, in the shape of turf rents, what had been taken off the ordinary rents. Is a landlord, after selling his estate, to be continued in a position that he can still draw a new rent from his tenants? Take the question of quarries. I have known a case where the land purchase transaction failed, because the landlord persisted in the determination to reserve the quarry from the tenant. I think it is very undesirable, where a landlord has arranged to sell his property to his tenants and to part with dominion over it, that he should

    593
    be continued in a position to reserve his feudal rights. They were offensive enough when annexed to the land, but when vested in an individual who has no interest in the land, they will be still more offensive. Then the question of seaweed is a matter of very great importance to holdings on the coasts, for there the tenant must have seaweed if he is to be able to work his land. Really it would seem as if the Government were determined, though they profess that this Bill is brought forward in the interests of law and order, and ail the rest of it, to keep alive all the matters in Ireland most certain to create conflict between landlord and tenant.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have two remarks to make in reply to the hon. and learned Member. His own Party proposes an Amendment to reserve the whole of the mineral rights to the State, and surely that is a dual ownership of a much worse form. The second observation is that in the case of seaweed, it is the business of the Land Commission to see before they advance the money that the rights of the tenant in this respect are preserved.
    MR. KNOX: I admit that as regards fishing in rivers there is not much difficulty, for a tenant has not a right to the middle of the stream; but in the case of game there would only be exceptional cases of difficulty, and in the vast majority I venture to think it would only be a source of constant dispute between landlord and tenant.
    (5.48.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 103; Noes 160.—(Div. List,. No. 213.)
    MR. KNOX: I beg to move that—
    "No advance exceeding the value of the interest of the landlord in any holding shall be made under the Land Purchase Acts for the purchase of the holding."
    Several times in the course of the discussion it has occurred to the Chief Secretary to use the argument that nothing unfair can be done because the Land Commission may be relied upon to see that nothing unfair is done. Some hon. Members opposite have assumed that it is already the law that the Land Commission are bound to see that the price given by the tenant is a fair price for what the tenant is buying. As a matter of fact, at present, the Land Commission
    594
    have no power or authority to assess the value of the interests in the holding. If 20 years' purchase is given, and if of that 20 years' purchase 10 belong to the tenant and 10 to the landlord, the Land Commission can advance 17, 19, or even 20 years' purchase, though they know they are advancing a great deal more than the landlord's interest is worth. In the Government Bill of last year the phrase used was "the landlord's interest in the holding." The draughtsman has left that phrase out of this Bill, and I suppose not merely for the sake of brevity. I am reminded that in one case, at the request of the hon. Member for West Belfast, it has been inserted in this year's Bill. But we want something more than a mere phrase. We want a distinct direction to the Land Commission that they must not advance more to the tenant than the fair value of that which the tenant is buying. The House is sanctioning a great scheme of land purchase, because it believes that by the scheme tenants will be able to buy the landlords' interest, and dual ownership will cease in Ireland. Surely the State should not advance money for what the tenant is not buying. What is the use of advancing public money in order to enable the tenant to buy what is his own already? The Chief Secretary will probably say we must not prevent free contract, but we know that 10 years ago the Legislature declared that the ordinary contract between landlord and tenant in Ireland was not free. I venture to think that my Amendment is a just one in the interest of the State and of the purchaser.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Clause to add the words "No advance exceeding the value of the interest of the landlord in any holding shall he made under the Land Purchase Acts for the purchase of the holding,"— (Mr. Knox.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I have some interest in the views held by the hon. Member for two reasons. First of all, the hon. Member represents the county in which I live, and in which the hon. Gentleman does not live; and, secondly, the hon. Gentleman has taken a very remarkable course upon the question of land purchase. I remember the hon.

    595
    Gentleman's maiden speech. In that speech he condemned land purchase altogether, but at the very moment he was selling his own estate under the Ashbourne Act.
    MR. KNOX: It is absolutely contrary to the fact. I did not condemn land purchase altogether. I carefully avoided doing so. I condemned a particular scheme.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: It is a curious thing that the hon. Member is the only Member of Parliament who has up to the present sold his property to his tenants, and levanted to the other side of the water. The hon. Member said that according to his Amendment it will be the duty of the Commissioners to determine what is the real property that a landlord has in a holding, and I gathered from the hon. Member's speech that the property the landlord owns in a farm will depend upon what the tenant has paid for the tenant right. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that in many cases the tenant right exceeds considerably the interest of the landlord. I think the Committee will, therefore, see that the Amendment is absolutely absurd. I trust the Chief Secretary will not be cajoled by even the eloquence of the hon. Member into accepting the Amendment.
    MR. SEXTON: It appears to me the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been more rash than usual. He has argued that because the value of the interest of the tenant may be worth more than the fee simple, the interest of the landlord will be worth nothing.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: According to the hon. Member.
    MR. SEXTON: I cannot allow that my hon. Friend's argument can justly be so construed. There are two values in a holding. The value of the tenant right may be greater than the value of the interest of the landlord, and yet the value of the interest of the landlord may also be substantial The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said the Amendment is absurd, but I was not aware that it was ever supposed to be absurd to apply to any contract the test of whether the property purchased was worth the price given. If the Chief Secretary were as anxious to protect the State, of whose interests he is for the moment the guardian, as he is to
    596
    put money into the pockets of the landlords, he would not hesitate for one moment to accept this Amendment; because in addition to the one line of fortifications with which he has surrounded the State, a second line would be thereby created which could not be overpassed. If the Government were to direct the Commission to inquire: Is the thing sold by the landlord fairly worth the price given for it? it would be absolutely impossible that any default should arise.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not able to accept this Amendment, which would throw on the Land Commission an entirely new duty, and one which is not in consonance with the functions they at present discharge. They can estimate the value of a holding, but they have hitherto never had anything to do with estimating the value of the respective interests of landlord and tenant in any holding. That this interest varies greatly is shown by the fact that in some instances 20 and even 25 years' purchase of the rental is considered to fairly represent the landlord's interest, whereas in other cases it is said that 10 or 12 years is sufficient. This Amendment, in fact, is an attempt to introduce a new policy as to these transactions. The Committee have to choose between two policies—one which allows the landlord and tenant to settle between themselves what the selling price should be, and the other which is shadowed forth in the Amendment, and which would set up a tribunal to settle the price. I believe the first is the better policy. If, as the hon. Member suggests, the Land Commission are to control the price and see that the tenant does not pay too much, this control ought to be bi-lateral, and the Land Commission ought to see that the landlord does not get too little. It has been assumed that all the pressure is on the tenant to buy, but owing to the general state of the country, or the particular circumstances of an estate, the pressure in many cases-might be on the landlord to sell. The best policy is to leave the landlord and tenant to settle the price between themselves.
    MR. M. HEALY: I am not at all convinced by the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman. It is admitted that there are two policies open

    597
    in connection with this legislation—one, the policy of protecting the Irish tenants from oppression and extortion, and the other, that of leaving them at the mercy of their landlords. The latter is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, who has dealt with this Amendment as he has dealt with many others, as a mere matter of dialectics, as if Irish politics could be discussed without reference to what is going on in Ireland. He tells us this Amendment cannot be accepted because it is one-sided—that it purports to protect the tenant. whereas it ought also to protect the landlord; but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is an Act known as the Coercion Act, which, in our view, affords quite sufficient protection to the landed interest. If he would drop the Coercion Act and let the Irish tenants combine as the landlords do, there would be some reason in his argument for the necessity of protecting both parties. As it is, it is notorious that the Irish tenants have bought at too high prices. We do not pretend that this Amendment would cover every conceivable case; but we say it would do an act of justice which ought to ensure its acceptance. All the Amendment says is that the Commission shall not advance more than the value of the landlord's interest, and I trust the Committee will see the desirability of passing it.
    MR. KNOX: The hon. and gallant Memb3r for Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), whom I have the honour to claim as a constituent, has thought fit to make a personal attack on me, an attack which is not particularly relevant to the Amendment; but as he has gone into the subject of his personal history and mine, I think he might have gone still further, and have reminded the House of the time when he, as yet unknown in the Orange Lodges, was Member for the constituency I have now the honour to represent, and in that capacity supported the principle of tenant right on the hustings. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has attacked me because I have sold my land under the Land Purchase Act. If I had at any time opposed land purchase, I admit that my conduct would have been inconsistent; but I have never condemned land purchase; on the contrary, I have constantly tried as I am trying now by this Amendment to facilitate land purchase on fair terms. I might even go so far
    598
    as to retort on the hon. and gallant Member that, as I understand, he does not wish to sell his land, and yet is now supporting a measure of land purchase. If, therefore, it comes to consistency, I am at least as consistent as he. The hon. and gallant Member says it is very difficult to assess the tenant's interest. I admit that, and I further admit that the tenant often gives more for the interest in his holding than that interest is really worth. We know what the jealousies of two neighbouring farmers may lead to, and that owing to this, in many parts of Ireland, the tenant right is sold for a great deal more than it is worth; but although it is difficult to estimate in all cases the value of the tenant's interest, the Courts have, in many cases, made these estimates under the Land Act of 1881, the Commission has to estimate what that interest is worth; and there is an express provision that the amount of purchase money shall be considered. What we now ask is that the Commission shall do the same in respect of the landlord's interests.
    (6.29.) The Committee divided:—Ayes-90; Noes 153.—(Div. List, No. 214.)
    MR. KEAY: I now beg to move to insert the following-provision:—
    "An advance shall not be made under the Land Purchase Acts, as amended by this Act, for the purchase —
    (a.) Of any holding where a judicial rent has not been fixed, or has been fixed prior to the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, unless the tenant has first applied to the Land Commission to determine the annual value, and the annual value has been so determined."
    The object of this is to secure that purchasers of holdings may have their values fixed by judicial authority. I desire simply to make compulsory that which the Bill itself renders permissive. I consider that under the beautiful system of voluntary sale and purchase which is a cardinal feature of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill what will happen will be this—when the parties come together the tenant will say: "I have no judicial rent fixed, and you are asking too large a price. I will go to the Land Commission and get them to settle the annual value." "No," will say the landlord, "if you don't waive your claim to go to the Land Commission I will refuse to sell." I say we can prevent the landlord taking up that attitude

    599
    if we insert an Amendment of this kind. The wholesale inflation of prices which will take place if this Amendment is not inserted will be not only a grave danger to the British taxpayer, but a grave danger and ruination to the Irish tenant. The easiest way to elucidate the position is to look at the Return of defaulters which has been presented to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The Return teaches us a lesson which, I think, we cannot afford to disregard. Whilst the average price paid for holdings bought under the Ashbourne Act has been a little over 17 years' purchase of the Poor Law valuation, the Return shows that in? the case of estates to the value of £35,000, in regard to which the purchasers have made default, the price charged has been on an average no less than 25 year' purchase. Let me give some of the cases. Samuel O'Neill was made to buy at 30 ½ years' purchase, and the result was that, while as we all know the present judicial rents in Ireland are, as a rule, fixed at something like 20 per cent. below the Poor Law valuation—the Poor Law valuation of this man's holding was £77, and he became saddled with an annuity to the State of no less than £94. Then there is the case of James Aherne, who bought at 32 years' purchase, and had his Poor Law valuation of £32 a year changed into an instalment of £41. Bernard Dooling bought at 37⅓ years' purchase, and his Poor Law valuation of £36 was changed into an annuity of £48. James Fitzgerald bought at 37½ years' purchase. His Poor Law valuation was £79 a year, and his judicial rent, I think, would have come down to something like £65. He did not get a judicial rent fixed, but bought instead, and his Poor Law valuation of £79 became an instalment of no less than £120.
    COLONEL WARING: Mr. Courtney, I rise to order. The hon. Member is quite misquoting the Return. The amount due was £120, but that is much more than one year's instalment.
    MR. KEAY: I think the hon. Gentleman will find when he looks at the Return that I am right. I do not know if I said 37½ years' purchase of the rent. If so, I was wrong. It is 37½ years' purchase of the Poor Law valuation.
    COLONEL WARING: It is not even that.
    MR. KEAY: Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to correct me later. I say that Fitzgerald was made to buy at 37½ years' purchase of the Poor Law valuation of his estate—that valuation being £79—and became liable for an instalment of £120 a year. In another case the tenant bought at 38 years' purchase of his Poor Law valuation, which was £26 5s. He had saddled on him an instalment of no less than £40 a year. I may say that Fitzgerald struggled on paying the intolerable instalment of £120 a year, but succumbed in the third year. I need not say another word to show what a damning proof this is that the whole of the pecuniary benefit of British credit had gone into the landlords' pockets in these cases, and both the British taxpayer and the Irish tenant have been left most thoroughly out in the cold. I find that in the £35,000 worth of holdings of which I have been speaking. The pecuniary boon of British credit has been given to somebody amounting to no less than £78,000 during the 49 years. Who has got that boon? The whole of it has been capitalised in the pockets of the landlords in the shape of the enormous purchase price with which they have run away. I beg to move my Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 40, at the end of the Clause to add the words, "An advance shall not be made under the Land Purchase Act, as amended by this Act, for the purchase —
    (a) Of any holding where a judicial rent has not been fixed, or has been fixed, prior to the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, unless the tenant has first applied to the Land Commission to determine the annual value, and the annual value has been so determined."— (Mr. Keay.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Member has been wise in concealing under a judicious anonymity the fact that he is the author of the Amendment. [The Amendment appeared on the Notice Paper without any name attached to it.] The hon. Gentleman has given us what he calls facts and figures from the Return on the Table. He has based his argument on what, no doubt, is the fact — that in certain cases in County Cork a very large number of years' purchase of the Poor Law

    601
    valuation was given to the farmers, and he has calmly argued that therefore far too high a price was given to the landlord. This is not the first time the hon. member has spoken of 38 years' Poor Law valuation of a farm being given by one unfortunate tenant purchaser. Surely the hon. Member ought to be aware of the elementary fact that in regard to particular holdings in the South of Ireland the Poor Law valuation is a most imperfect guide to the annual value. In the cases quoted, the 37 or 38 years' purchase was simply about 18 years' purchase of the annual value in one case and 20 years' purchase in another. What is the value of an argument based upon such data as the hon. Member has given? It is not worth while dragging the Committee through what the hon. Member has been pleased to describe as his facts and figures. Even if we were to accept the Amendment which has been put upon the Paper, we should obviously not be taking a single step towards carrying out the object that the hon. Gentleman himself has in view. Assuming the annual value of the holding to be fixed in some such manner as that suggested, there would be no more security that the tenant would not give too high a price for his holding. The hon. Member alluded to the provision by which we direct that, for certain purposes, the annual value shall be fixed by the Commissioners. That has no connection whatever with the bargain the tenant makes with the landlord, but solely determines the amount the tenant shall pay during the first five years. If a revaluation of the annual value of every holding were to be made, nothing would be done to carry out the object which the hon. Member has in view, and which he has thought fit to support by the very exaggerated statement and the very curious figures he has put before the Committee.
    MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has deliberately and obstinately ignored the annual value as a factor in determining the price of the holding. He has told us over and over again that the Irish tenant thinks only of how much will the annuity be less than the rent. The ultimate question for the tenant is, no doubt, how much less than the present rent will the annuity be? but there is hardly a peasant in Ireland who does not understand that the solu-
    602
    tion of that question depends on the solution of two others—namely, what is the annual value, and what is the number of years' purchase? I think my hon. Friend the Member for Elgin has not led the Committee astray nor wasted any time in directing our minds to the question of the annual value. I cannot share the indignation which the right hon. Gentleman sought to excite against my hon. Friend in reference to the suggestion that the Poor Law valuation should be considered as a factor in the matter. I know that the Poor Law valuation is lower in reference to farms in the South than to holdings in the North. But anyone who has paid attention to the subject will be aware that any transaction where a tenant purchased at 38½ years' purchase of the Poor Law valuation was one of such a character that it is not surprising that at the end of two or three years the tenant utterly broke down. I am not going to set up the Poor Law valuation as a standard of value; but at the same time I say it is an indicator of the value. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman does not countenance the idea that where the rent was fixed before 1886 the tenants should have a right to apply to the Land Commission. I think myself the idea is well worth consideration, because it can hardly be denied that rents fixed before 1886 did not represent the annual value. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, with reference to Clause 17, which provides that where a judicial rent has not been fixed a purchaser shall have a right of applying to the Land Commission to fix the annual value—in what way is the provision to be carried out? Is the same process to be gone through as in the case of a tenant who wants his fair rent fixed? Will there be a hearing before the Land Commission, with costly and elaborate proceedings? I would suggest that it should be a summary process that could be carried out without expense. The Inspector who examined into the question of the security might at the same time determine what should be the annual value.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR; The views of the hon. Gentleman on that point do not seem to be at all in discord with those of the Government. Of course we are not on Clause 17 now, but I may indicate to him that our idea is

    603
    that as the determination of the annual value will affect only one person, it might be done by a very rough and ready process, and it is by such a process we intend to proceed. If this is not provided for in the clause it can easily be amended.
    MR. KEAY: I hope by this time the right hon. Gentleman has been able to verify the figures he said I had quoted in an extraordinary manner. The extraordinary thing about them seems to be their correctness, as no further reference has been made to them by the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Waring). I took the Ashbourne purchases and pointed out that the whole of those purchases taken together amounted to about 17 years' purchase of the Poor Law valuation. I showed that the defaulting tenants had been made to pay a purchase price of from 25 years to 38 years' purchase of the valuation.
    MR. CHANCE: There is one argument that strikes me as having some force in it. Tenants whose rents have been fixed at a high standard will be compelled to repay the money advanced to them at a very rapid rate, whereas those who are able to pay 20 years' purchase get the benefit of the money for a far longer period. It would be highly desirable to my mind to have a uniform standard. I admit that as far as equality of treatment is concerned it is all the same whether you make the nominal annual value high or low, as long as the standard is uniform.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The object of this Amendment is to protect the tenants. The right hon. Gentleman's answer is: "It is unnecessary to protect the tenants, because we do not suffer if they are robbed." I am putting it in other words, but that is the meaning. What a remarkable Bill this is when the right hon. Gentleman has to defend one of its clauses by saying, "We have no objection to what the parties do, because any loss will fall on someone else."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Let the hon. Gentleman make his own speech and not put into my mouth words which have not the slightest resemblance to or connection with the argument I used.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, that is how I understood his argument. No doubt it was my stupidity.
    (7.20.) The Committee divided: — Ayes 67 ; Noes 107.—(Div. List, No. 215.)
    MR. KEAY: I now propose to move the insertion of the following Amendment:—
    "No advance shall be made under the Land Purchase Acts for the purchase of land by, or from a person, or the assignees, or successors in title of a person from whom the said land has previously been purchased under the said Acts."
    I substitute this for the Amendment I have placed on the Paper, because, whilst it will carry out my object, I am assured it will better carry out that of Irish Members around me. This Bill is intended to be a perpetual Land Purchase Bill. All its main provisions contemplate its going on to an indefinite extent in point of time and amount. As it stands, it will be competent, apparently, for any successors of the present landlords, and for their successors again and again to use British credit for the purpose of selling and re-selling the same land. The Government have always told us that their principal reason for bringing forward this Bill is a political one. They have told us practically that the existing Irish landlords are such a bad lot that it is well worth while paying through the nose for the purpose of inducing them to give up the soil. That political object certainly will be served when the present generation of landlords have disappeared; and yet this Bill will allow the purchase operations to go on to' an indefinite extent between the new tenant purchasers, one after another. The Government must admit that their political considerations cease to operate when the present landlords are expropriated. My Amendment simply provides that when a purchase has taken place through the operation of British credit the process cannot be repeated by any of the representatives or assignees of the same party.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 40, at end of Clause, to add, "No advance shall be made under the Land Purchase Acts for the purchase of land by or from a person, or the assignees or successors in title of a person from whom the said land has previously been purchased under the said Acts."—(Mr. Keay.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. CHANCE: I almost hope the Government will accept these words. They merely provide that a person once paid out of the Land Purchase Fund for a holding shall not be able to repeat the operation in regard to the same holding. Suppose a landlord sells to a tenant and gets possession again, he will not, under this Amendment, be able to put another tenant in and sell to him under the Act, so as to get paid twice over for the same land. I think the Amendment carries out the object of every Member of the Committee, and also of the Government.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down as well as the mover of the Amendment, will see that the result of the Amendment would be to ear-mark certain portions of Ireland as portions over which henceforth the operations of this Act shall not run. ["No!"] Let us suppose that land is sold under one of these Acts, that the annuity has not been paid, or for some reason or other the land has reverted to the landlord. The landlord has repaid the whole of the money, and desires to re-sell the land to some other tenant. Suppose that the holding is amalgamated with some other holding, and the two become one farm—the whole farm cannot be sold. I fail to see what object would be gained by adopting the present proposition.
    MR. CHANCE: I would be perfectly willing to add "Until the whole or any part of the advance has been repaid."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether it would then read properly. Perhaps the best plan would be to bring the matter up on Report.
    MR. CHANCE: Report is a distant stage.
    MR. SEXTON: While the right hon. Gentleman is drawing up words, perhaps I may be allowed to say it is something new to me to hear that money which is advanced for the purpose of getting rid of dual ownership may be again applied within the term of 49 years; it opens up an altogether new vista to me, and I doubt whether it can properly be brought within the scope of the scheme. The tenant purchaser fails to pay his instalments and is put out of the holding, and the holding is sold for the debt to the State. The landlord buys in the holding, satisfies the State some way or other with regard to the
    606
    balance of the annuity, and then it appears you contemplate allowing the landlord to sell the holding again. There is another thing to be mentioned. You cannot issue more Stock in any county than 25 times the share of the county in the Guarantee Fund. It is perfectly evident that the people who will want to avail themselves of this Purchase Act will be more numerous than the number who can possibly come within the operation of the Act, and if you allow the same farm to be sold twice in 49 years it is plain the second sale will affect the issue of Stock. The effect will be to shut out some farmer, because two sales of one farm have been allowed.
    COLONEL WARING: I think the Committee would be ill-advised to allow an Amendment of this kind to-pass before it has been seen in print.
    MR. CHANCE: The Amendment was written by me an hour and a half ago. I sent a copy of it to the Attorney General for Ireland. I surely am not to be damnified because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has unfortunately been compelled to leave the House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Amendment could not have been accepted in the form in which the hon. Gentleman sent it to the Attorney General. It has since been modified, and I think in the new form my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Waring) will see there is no objection to it. In reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for West Belfast, I may say there is nothing in the Bill which allows a man to sell land to a person who is not a tenant. The second tenant may be a most deserving person, and I do not see why he should be prevented from buying. The Amendment, as modified, would read—
    "An advance shall not be made under the Land Purchase Act for the purchase of any holding for the purchase of which, or any part of which, land stock has been issued under this Act, or an advance already made under the Land Purchase Act until the entire purchase annuity has been repaid."
    That would prevent land being resold and being the subject of a new annuity before the old annuity has been disposed of. I think that is fair, and I recommend the Committee to adopt it.
    MR. KEAY: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 40, at end of the Clause, to add "An advance shall not be made under the Land Purchase Act for the purchase of any holding for the purchase of which, or any part of which, land stock has been issued under this Act, or an advance already made under the Land Purchase Act until the entire purchase annuity has been repaid."—(Mr. Keay.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTON: I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a financial point. When the whole of the annuity has been repaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in a position to purchase and to cancel the Stock on which the original purchase has been transacted. We are dealing with the second purchase of the same holding. A county is entitled to receive a certain amount of Stock. Will not a county's share of Stock be affected by a second purchase?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Arrangements must be made by which Stock that has been redeemed shall not be re-lent to the county.
    MR. SEXTON: I think it is necessary that such an important statement should be embodied in the Bill.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I think there are provisions in the Bill by which the object is attained, but I will look carefully into the matter.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. RATHBONE: I wish to move to add to the clause the words—
    "An advance under the said Acts for the purchase of any holding shall not exceed 20 years' purchase of the annual value of the holding as defined in this Act."
    This was a valuable provision in the Bill of last year. If a tenancy is sold at more than 20 years' purchase, that of itself is evidence that it is not necessary for this country to enter into any liability on account of it. I think the Amendment would impose a proper check, and I hope the Government will assent to it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, to add after the words last added—
    "An advance under the said Acts for the purchase of any holding shall not exceed 20 years' purchase of the annual value of the holding as defined in this Act.—(Mr. Rathbone.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill of last year contained words of a precisely similar import, but they have been omitted from this Bill, and I think on the whole wisely. They met last year with a great deal of hostile criticism. They were supposed by the friends of the tenants to indicate that everybody ought to give 20 years' purchase, and by the friends of the landlord to imply that nobody should give less. There is something to be said for the proposal, but on the whole I am inclined to think it would cause a great deal more friction and dissatisfaction than it would prove of advantage to those whom it is intended to serve.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question "That Clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 7.
    Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 20, after the words "out of," to insert the words "the Land Purchase Account, and if need be."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    (8.0.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 42.—(Div. List, No. 216.)
    Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 32, before "section," to insert "the payment directed by."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTON: We are not disposed to allow any Amendments to be moved in silence; and as we are scarcely aware what point has been reached, we must insist that every Amendment is made the subject of explanation. Perhaps some explanation will be offered upon this point.
    MR. MADDEN: It is simply a drafting Amendment to make the intention clear. The Act of 1888 in the 1st section directs that certain payments are to be made in the financial year, and this carries out our intention, that payment directed by Section 1 of the Probate Duties (Scotland and Ireland) Act, 1888, shall be made as if the Guarantee Fund under this Act were substituted for the Local Taxation (Ire-

    609
    land) Account. The following Amendment is a consequential one.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Consequential Amendment, in line 33, to leave out "construed," and insert "made."—(Mr. A.J. Balfour.)
    Agreed to.
    MR. SEXTON: At an earlier stage of our proceedings we had occasion to refer to Sub-section 8, and I still think that the provision made for adjustment in the sub-section is far too wide and general—
    "The Treasury may cause such adjustments to he made between the Sinking Fund, inclusive of the purchasers' insurance money, the Land Purchase Account, the Guarantee Fund, and the Reserve Fund, and such payments to be made from one account or fund, or one portion of an account or fund, to another, and sums to he placed to such credit, and such securities to be sold or bought as may appear to them necessary for the purpose of carrying into effect this Act or the regulations."
    Now, in a hard matter of figures and facts there ought to be no need of appearance." I would sustitute for this language the words "as may be necessary." The Treasury should be laid under the obligation to do what is necessary, and we do not want the introduction of this appearance of necessity. Then, again, this remuneration clause does not exhaust the list of accounts and funds; it is defective in two particulars—it does not include the Consolidated Fund. Various funds are named, but the big brother of the group, the Consolidated Fund, is left out, though as necessary a part of the adjustment as any other. This fund will have to advance money, and will have to be recouped from the other funds, and, therefore, it is necessary the Consolidated Fund should be inserted. Another account in the long series is omitted—the Guarantee Deposit. Of course, it is understood that sometimes the Land Purchase Account will have to be replenished from the Guarantee Deposit, and, therefore, adjustment will be necessary. In the first place, I move the insertion of the Consolidated Fund before the Sinking Fund.
    Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 40, after the word "between," to insert the words "the Consolidated Fund.—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GOSCHEN: We cannot accept these words, nor are they necessary. Everything in regard to this fund is precisely laid down, and the rules are absolute. No new machinery is provided, and the Treasury have to make no adjustment so far as the Consolidated Fund is concerned. I do not quite apprehend the hon. Member's point in regard to the Guarantee Deposit. My right hon. and learned Friend will explain that. As regards the third point raised by the hon. Member, I think we must adhere to the words "as may appear to them" for the purpose of carrying the Act into effect, otherwise we put upon them the burden of proof that it was absolutely indispensable. The Treasury must have power to make a certain number of adjustments, and a certain amount of latitude must be left to the Treasury in the matter.
    MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has failed to appreciate the force of my observations. You will have to make adjustments; why object to say so? The Consolidated Fund will advance money to the Land Purchase Account, and possibly for the Guarantee Fund, and this money will have to be paid back. What is the use of raising here a sort of financial fetish, and speaking of the impossibility of making any adjustment when we know that the adjustment will have to be made? What is the sacredness of the Consolidated Fund? I think it is an amendment really in the interest of the Treasury and the Consolidated Fund. The Consolidated Fund is called upon to make advances, and the only meaning of the sub-section is that such money must be paid back. I never before heard of a Chancellor of the Exchequer's objection to such a precaution.
    MR. GOSCHEN: A temporary advance may be made; but if ever such an advance is made, it must be paid back out of the Guarantee Fund; there is no further adjustment.
    MR. SEXTON: That is adjustment.
    MR. GOSCHEN: But the expression "adjustment" would possibly cover more than is intended by the Act. As a matter of fact, the Consolidated Fund is, as the hon. Member says, a sort of fetish; it has a character almost sacred in our

    611
    financial system. We cannot introduce any elasticity in dealing with the Consolidated Fund. Everyone who has had any experience of Treasury finance will agree with me that rules in regard to the fund must be absolute.
    MR. SEXTON: I do not think the Amendment would import any elasticity that is not provided in the Bill. The sub-section provides that there shall be such adjustment as may be, or as may appear to be, necessary for the several funds for the purpose of carrying the Act into effect. The Act makes it quite clear what may or may not be done. The Consolidated Fund may advance sums to other funds, and the other funds must pay the amount back. It is idle to argue that the Consolidated Fund would be damnified. What difference could be made? The sub-section has an enumeration of funds, and the enumeration is defective unless the Consolidated Fund is included, and the insertion will not permit any adjustment other than that contemplated in the Bill.
    MR. CHANCE: Earlier in the debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to consider a provision enabling tenants to redeem their annuities. Does he intend to insert a provision to that effect? If it was inserted, would it render any Amendment necessary for the adjustment of the Consolidated. Fund?
    MR. GOSCHEN: My answer to the second question is in the negative. We have nothing to do with the Consolidated Fund; we stand by what we have said before. The question does not arise on this point; the Consolidated Fund stands quite outside.
    MR. CHANCE: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to convey that he will introduce a separate clause on the subject of giving purchasers power of redemption of their annuities?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I can give no final pledge. I regard the suggestion with favour, but I can give no absolute pledge. The matter shall have full attention on the Report stage.
    (8.25.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 38; Noes 76.— (Div. List, No. 217.)
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to move to omit the words "inclusive of" in line 40. It is evident the insurance
    612
    money will always have to be earmarked and available for the purpose of relief of distress apart from the purposes of the Sinking Fund. I observe that the insurance money when referred to in the sub-section shall be referred to in language less equivocal and less open to the fear that it has been merged in the Sinking Fund; indeed, I think it would be well to speak of it as an Insurance Account.
    Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 40, to leave out the words "inclusive of."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    MR. MADDEN: It is true that the insurance money goes to the Sinking Fund, to be there invested. If everything goes well it will not be called on by the tenant, but he will have the benefit of it in the later years of the term. If there ever is occasion, a necessary adjustment between the two funds will be made.
    MR. SEXTON: In the first instance, the insurance money is to be paid into the Sinking Fund, there to accumulate in case of any special call upon it; if any tenant is unable, through no fault of his own, to pay his half-yearly instalment, it may be paid for him. In such case the insurance money will have to be taken out of the Sinking Fund. What I want is that there shall be an account which shall clearly show the insurance money paid by each person, how much has accumulated, and what has been drawn out and applied to the purpose of any special need.
    MR. MADDEN: I cannot undertake, dealing with a Treasury clause, to agree to the insertion of words, but I will consult with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if it is thought desirable to insert words, I will bring them up on Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (8.40.)
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to move, as a further Amendment to this clause, the insertion of the words "a guarantee deposit account" after the words "guarantee fund," in page 8, line 41. My object in moving this Amendment is that as soon as the landlord's money comes into the guarantee deposit account you may forthwith take that money without going to any other source.
    MR. MADDEN: I see no objection to the insertion of words to carry out the object of the hon. Member. There is no general guarantee deposit account, but I see no objection to specifying the guarantee deposit.
    MR. M. HEALY: I should like to ask the Attorney General for Ireland to state exactly the order in which the Guarantee Fund is to be called upon. At present there is no distinct provision as to the point at which the guarantee deposit becomes liable. Is it not desirable that there should be some distinct arrangement as to the point at which the guarantee deposit shall become liable? My hon. Friend has suggested a point, i.e., that at which the rate becomes leviable. How can it be said that the guarantee deposit should be called upon before you call for a levy on the county? Before you do either, the cash portion of the guarantee must be exhausted.
    MR. SEXTON: I do not propose to press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTON: I submit that the last three words of the paragraph are unnecessary. I take it that the object of the sub-section is to enable the Treasury from time to time by adjustment of the several accounts conveniently to carry out the regulations referred to. The regulations themselves will only be subsidiary to the Act, and if these words are retained it appears to me that it will be in the power of the Treasury to make other regulations which may define new purposes or extend the purposes already defined. I think it will be quite sufficient, as power is given, to make such adjustment as will enable the Treasury to carry out the purposes of the Act without giving additional or unlimited powers.
    Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 4, to leave out the words "or the regulations."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    MR. GOSCHEN: I think the hon. Member, if he examines the section dealing with the rules, will see that they are to be submitted to Parliament, and therefore no change can be made in the purposes of the Bill without the knowledge of the House; I do not think we can leave out the words "or regulations," for they will enable the Treasury to make adjustments between different
    614
    counties, which it will be very necessary to do sometimes.
    MR. CHANCE: I am not satisfied as to what these regulations are. I think the words would be far less objectionable if something were added showing their connection to Section 9, which deals with,matters of a purely financial nature necessary for controlling the Land Purchase Account.
    MR. MADDEN: I do not think there could be any objection to that, except that it would be necessary to go a little beyond that and insert "or regulations made under sections of this Act, empowering the Treasury to make the same."
    MR. SEXTON: That is just the point. You speak of regulations in this subsection, you speak of rules in Section 9, and you allude to regulations elsewhere. That makes it very embarrassing.
    MR. GOSCHEN: It would be most unwise to limit the sub-section to Section 9. But we will undertake that the words shall not be so vague, and shall have reference to the special sections in the Act which refer to finance.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    COLONEL WARING: I wish to insert words in this clause which will make more clear, what is, no doubt, intended by the Act. I do not think the Amendment will be objected to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 12, after "shall," to insert" until otherwise inserted in pursuance of the Land Purchase Acts."—(Colonel Waring.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GOSCHEN: I accept the Amendment.
    MR. CHANCE: Will this authorise the investment of the guarantee deposit in matters authorised under the Acts of 1885 and 1888? The reason I ask is this: Under those Acts the guarantee deposit may be invested in mortgages on land, and this involves the lapse of a considerable period before the money can be released. I have an Amendment which I intend to move—if I am not ruled out of Order—that no deposit shall be invested in land mortgages. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not allow such a monstrous thing as that to be done. Let me point out that if it is invested in land it may be necessary to go to the

    615
    Court of Chancery before it can be released, and the delay may extend over four or five years, while another set of sales may be involved before a penny can be got out of the guarantee deposit. Suppose, for instance, it is invested on the mortgage of a landed estate in a county where the funds authorised to be advanced under this Act have been exhausted, and where, consequently, no advance could be made for the purchase of any holding. You will in that case be unable to release a penny of the money, unless you can get some Insurance Company or private land speculator to advance the necessary amount. I cannot imagine anything more calculated to prevent the working of the Act. I, therefore, hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will indicate the intention of the Government not to allow the investment of the deposit in mortgages on either English or Irish land.
    MR. MADDEN: So recently as in the Act of 1887, under the 10th clause it was provided that the guarantee deposit might, on the application of the person by whom the deposit was made, be invested by the Land Commission in any security in which Trustees are by law allowed to invest. The hon. Member is correct in stating that mortgages on land are thus included. But let me point out that this is a matter which rests in the discretion of the Land Commission, and that they would not be at all likely to invest in such a security, because it would not be immediately available. I do not think the question arises on the Amendment now before the Committee, which amounts to this, that however the money is invested in the interest shall go to the depositor. That is obviously just. It was the intention of the Act of 1887, and it is the intention of this Act.
    MR. CHANCE: There is not a single syllable to show that the question of the nature of the investment is to be left within the absolute discretion of the Land Purchase Commission. I think, however, there will be no objection to the Amendment if words are added, "as amended by this Act." Otherwise, I may be precluded from proposing the Amendment to which I referred just now.
    Amendment proposed, to proposed Amendment, to insert at the end the words, "as amended by this Act."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, proposed,
    MR. M. HEALY: I think this Amendment raises definitely the question whether under the enlarged scheme of land purchase the Land Commissioners should be given full discretion as to the class of investment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That does not arise on this Amendment. It is dealt with in an independent section.
    Amendment agreed to.
    COLONEL WARING: I have now to move another Amendment, as follows:—
    In page 9, after line 13, to add—"(11.) In the course of any sale proceedings if it shall appear to the Land Commission that any crown rent, quit rent, tithe rent-charge, land improvement charge, or other Government charge, including probate duty or any instalment or instalments of succession duty, are payable or redeemable out of the purchase money, and may be paid or redeemed without injury to, and without waiting to ascertain the priority of any other charge, the Land Commission may, on the application of the landlord, order the payment or redemption of said charge, by transferring to the proper party or department stock to the nominal amount payable in respect thereof, or pending payment may transfer to the separate account of said charge stock to the nominal amount thereof, and, until such payment or redemption, the interest on said stock shall be paid to the department entitled to the annual payment in respect of said charge."
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This Amendment the hon. and gallant member should bring in as a separate clause.
    MR. SEXTON: I have now to move an addition to the clause, to the effect that if any Consolidated Annuities bearing interest at a less rate than £2 15s. per cent. are given in exchange for any guaranteed Land Stock, the amount of the difference between such interest and £2 15s. per cent. shall form part of the county percentage, and shall be paid to it accordingly.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 9, line 13, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "If any consolidated annuities bearing interest at a less rate than two pounds fifteen shillings per cent. be given in exchange for any guaranteed land stock under sub-section (2) of this section, the amount of the difference between such interest, and interest at the rate of two pounds fifteen shillings per cent. shall form part of the county per-

    617
    centage, and shall be paid and applied accordingly."—[Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GOSCHEN: We are unable to accept this Amendment. The National Debt Commissioners must take their chance as regards profit and loss on this transaction, and they ought not to be thus fettered. The amount involved would be very small indeed.
    MR. SEXTON: This difference of a ½ per cent. is not beneath notice, for under the Bill there will be very large transactions. I think it rather shabby on the part of a rich country like England to retain this ½ per cent. and I shall take the sense of the Committee on the matter.
    MR. KNOX: I understand the reason of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for rejecting the Amendment to be his desire to make the Sinking Fund yield as much as previous Chancellors of the Exchequer had calculated; in fact, it seems this Stock must be invested in order to make both ends meet. But surely the right hon. Gentleman should bear the loss due to his predecessor's miscalculations, and not throw it on Ireland.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I do not think it will be so easy to invest at 2 ¾ per cent., as the hon. Member suggests. Of course the operation will be limited to Irish Land Stock.
    MR. CHANCE: Let me point out that the Land Commissioners, if the Stock is not at par, may go into the market, and buy it up and extinguish it. If they do that at a profit why should the profit not go into the fund?
    MR. GOSCHEN: But if it cannot be bought to give 2¾ per cent. the Sinking Fund will suffer. On some transactions there will be a gain, and on others a loss, but the balance either way will be very small at the end of 49 years.
    MR. CHANCE: Of course, but why should not the ultimate profit go into the Land Purchase Account? Why should the National Debt Commissioners have it? Surely it would be only fair that the Purchase Account should receive it.
    MR. SEXTON: The policy of land purchase will be greatly embarrassed if
    618
    any considerable portion of the Land Stock is transferred to other Stock, and the tenants of Ireland see that while they are charged 4 per cent., only 2½ goes to the landlords, instead of 2¾ They will want the Purchase Fund to receive the ½ per cent.
    (10.0.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 25; Noes 128.—(Div. List, No. 218.)
    MR. CHANCE: I beg to move to add at the end of the clause the following words:—
    "The purchase of a sum of Guaranteed Land Stock in the names of the National Debt Commissioners by a person indebted to the Land Commissioners shall be a good discharge of the debt to the extent of the nominal value of the Stock so charged.
    I should be willing to add, "subject to the rules to be made under this Act." I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks favourably on the proposal.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 9, to add at the end of the Clause "The purchase of a sum of Guaranteed Land Stock in the names of the National Debt Commissioners by a person indebted to the Land Commissioners shall be a good discharge of the debt to the extent of the nominal value of the Stock so charged."—[Mr. Chance.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GOSCHEN: I have already informed the Committee that in our opinion such a proposal would be just in principle, but it may be a matter of some delicacy so far as the regulations are concerned. I will, however, undertake that, the Government will bring up a clause to carry out the policy which underlies the Amendment.
    MR. CHANCE: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and I am perfectly satisfied with the pledge the right hon. Gentleman has given.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTON: I wish to move some words in the nature of a proviso at the end of the clause. I should have liked to move them in connection with Sub-section 5, but the way in which that sub-section was dealt with made it difficult to do so. The sub-section provides that the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund may be used for temporary advances and other purposes

    619
    connected with the administration of the Act. That opens up a very serious prospect, unless the words be qualified. It is extremely important that the money which is to be paid over for local purposes should be paid at the appointed time, for schools and other local services, and the Government previously gave a promise that it should not be taken for the purposes of the Act unless a charge had actually arisen. My Amendment provides that the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund shall not be used for temporary advances to the Land Purchase Account, or for other current purposes connected with the administration of the Act, except where default has happened, and a charge has actually arisen.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 9, to add at end of the Clause, "The cash portion of the Guarantee Fund shall not be used for temporary advances to the Land Purchase Account, or for other current purposes connected with the administration of this Act in such manner as to retard the application in ordinary course of the sums included in such portions for local purposes for which such sums are intended." —(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GOSCHEN: I think hon. Gentlemen will see that amid the shower of Amendments which occupy the attention of the Government it is very difficult at the same time to clear up all the points which we have left behind us, and this is one of these points to which the hon. Gentleman has called attention. We will undertake to reconsider the drafting of Sub-section 5, and to make it in accordance with the policy we have accepted on the subject of the non-derangement of local finance.
    MR. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is the purpose of Sub - section 5. The Chief Secretary has explained a temporary order as distinguished from a permanent order under which the various funds are to be applied. I have always understood that the first fund to come upon was the Consolidated Fund. That fund is usually large enough to bear whatever advances are necessary. Why should it be necessary to take sums out of the Guarantee and Reserve Funds for purposes for which the Consolidated Fund is in the first place applicable?
    MR. SEXTON: I must confess that there seems some point in the observations just made by my hon. and learned Friend. If the sub-section operates at all it operates in derogation of the pledge already given. But the Government have given so many pledges that it would be well if we had an official record of them, so that we might see they were carried out.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I think the hon. Gentleman's memory is sufficiently accurate.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. KNOX: I think I owe an apology to the Committee for not having put this Amendment on the Paper; bat I had no idea we should get so far as this clause to-night. I have to move to insert at the end of line 13—
    "Regulations as to investment in and sale of Government Stock made under the Savings Bank Act, 1880, may include provisions for the investment in and sale of Guaranteed Stock at the request of any depositor in the Post Office Savings Bank, and such regulations may provide for the—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not relevant to this clause. The hon. Gentleman wishes to make this Land Stock available for Post Office Savings Bank purposes. That must be done by a separate clause.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. SEXTON: It would have been well if this clause, dealing with matters of such vast importance to such large numbers of people, had been drawn in such a form that its intent and force were apparent to the ordinary Member of Parliament. I trust the Law Officers of the Crown will not think us obtrusive if we appeal to them to throw some light on the somewhat unique method of expression, which is observed in the drafting of the clause. The first sub-section provides that—
    "The Guaranteed Land Stock shall from time to time, as required for the purposes of this Act, be created by the Treasury, and issued by the Land Commission in the prescribed manner, and the National Debt Act, 1870, shall, but without creating any further charge on the Consolidated Fund, apply to the stock as if it were described in the 1st Schedule of that Act."
    If the provision simply were that the

    621
    Act of 1870 shall apply to the Stock as described in the 1st Schedule of that Act, one could understand it; but the qualification introduced here, that the application of the Act shall not create any further charge on the Consolidated Fund in reference to the. Stock, puzzles the ordinary Parliamentary critic. In the 3rd sub-section provision is made for the consolidation of the Stock and the commencement of the dividends on Stock issued for an advance and for the payment of interest.
    "Such interest shall he paid out of the Consolidated Fund as if it were part of the dividends."
    It is evident a broken period between the issue of the Stock and the sale of the land and the date at which the first dividend shall accrue, is contemplated. I have not discovered the machinery by which the interest for the broken period is to be obtained from the purchaser. Another sub-section provides that the purchaser's insurance money shall be paid to the National Debt Commissioners, who are to apply and invest the same in manner prescribed. This insurance money discharges an important function for the tenant purchaser. The primary object is to shorten the annuity term. It will accumulate at interest to the end of each year, and be deducted from the principal at the end of 18 years. It is desirable that the purchaser should be informed as early as possible of the amount and extent to which his capital is affected. But there is no provision here that he shall be so informed; the Commissioners may keep that knowledge to themselves. I should be glad to see within the four corners of the Bill a provision that the operations of the National Debt Commissioners, both general and individual, should be communicated to those interested.
    MR. CHANCE: There are two small matters to which I should like to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary. In the first place, I think particular gale days ought to be mentioned, that should be uniform or convenient to each locality. The first payment becomes due six months after the cash is paid over under the old system, or after the Stock has been issued under the new system. It will be convenient that the payments in a county should be made on one day. The interest on dividends is
    622
    payable in June and December, with a provision for the interest during the broken period, and I would suggest that Sub-section 3 might very well be supplemented in another part of the Bill by a clause enacting that the broken period system should apply to the tenant purchasers as well, so that the Commissioners may have two gale days in the year, in May and in November, and not be hunting all over the country for rent all the year round. Further, I would refer to the adoption of the Section of the Act of 1887, and the provision for the investment of the guarantee deposit, and I may just remark on the inexpediency and unwisdom of locking up money that may be required at any moment in a security so difficult of realisation as Irish land.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The mention in the clause of the National Debt Act has reference solely to formalities which have to be observed in dealing with Consols. It is said that notice ought to be given to the tenants of the proceedings of the National Debt Commissioners with regard to the Sinking Fund. Every such information will be given. Returns may be moved for in the ordinary way; but it will be the duty of the Government to present Returns showing the precise state of the funds, how they have been progressing, and what is the general state of the various accounts. The House may rely upon the Treasury giving every information.
    MR. MADDEN: The point with regard to gale days was appreciated in 1887, when it was provided that the annuities should be payable on the 1st of May and the 1st of November. In framing the present Bill the dividends were made payable in June and December, so that there should be an interval of a month between the two operations. I hope and expect from past experience, that this arrangement will render it un necessary to draw on the Guarantee Fund or the Consolidated Fund, to any appreciable extent. The other point in regard to investments does not properly arise on this clause, but I may say that. the Land Commissioners can, under the Statute, exercise discretion as to the in vestment of guarantee deposits.
    Question put, and agreed to,
    Clause 8.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: This clause proposes to extend to certain counties of cities, and counties of towns, the liability which is extended to counties. The 1st Schedule includes the towns of Kilkenny, Carrickfergus, Galway, Drogheda, and Waterford. Now we have not made any objection to the principle of a Guarantee Fund, but we have consistently and persistently objected to providing an unsuitable and unfair Guarantee Fund, and nothing can be more unfair and unsuitable than to saddle upon urban communities the liabilities of purely rural districts, not only without their consent, but in such a manner as will make it impossible for them to derive any advantage from the arrangement. Of course, in the case of a county it can reasonably be advanced that although their securities are pledged without their consent, yet the persons living within those districts do derive some advantage from this. But that is not the case with cities and towns like these. The population of Kilkenny is over 15,000, of Galway about 20,000, of Drogheda 14,000, and of Waterford, I should say, 28,000. These places are all urban districts just as much as Derry, Limerick or Cork; and I do not see how logically you can exclude the one group and include the other. I think it is extremely desirable that all urban districts which are under the management of separate Local Authorities, whether Corporations or Town Commissioners, should be excluded from any liability under the guarantee portion of the Act. It is monstrous to propose that a city like Waterford, which cannot by any possibility derive the slightest advantage from the operation of the Bill, should have its local rates impounded and be liable to seizure for default of farmers outside, who may live at the far end of the county and do all their business with Cork. The same observation applies to Carrickfergus, a town which will derive no advantage from the Bill. The farmers of the county of Antrim carry on their trade to a greater extent with Belfast. I think the security of the State will be fully met by conferring the liability to the rural communities, and therefore I move the omission of Sub-section 2.
    Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 18, "to leave out Sub-section(2.)."—(Mr. Kenny.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the Clause."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course wherever a line is drawn some cases of grievance will be created; but I do not think that the towns enumerated can declare that their prosperity is quite independent of the agricultural community in the neighbouring counties. It is not unjust, therefore, to make them responsible in part for that which will bring so much benefit and prosperity to the rural inhabitants, with whom they are associated more or less closely.
    MR. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman says it is difficult to draw a line that will not give rise to complaint; but the fact is there is a line drawn already on which the right hon. Gentleman's proposal encroaches. The towns which are not counties or cities themselves are now rated by the County Authorities, and are liable to pay the Grand Jury cess. But there are other towns which are counties of cities, and these it is unfair to bring under the general county rates. My hon. Friend has referred to Waterford, and can anything be more unfair than to make Waterford liable for the default of tenants who live in the neighbourhood of Ballyduff, where the business relations of farmers are with Cork? Why should a distinction in this respect be made between Waterford and Cork? The right hon. Gentleman divides the counties into two classes, and as regards one of them, the inhabitants are to be liable for the defaults of the adjoining counties, while the second will not be so liable. I would point out that the existing law draws a fair line of demarcation.
    MR.SEXTON: It seems to me that we cannot debate this part of the Bill with the necessary particularity until we come to the Schedules. I am at a loss to discover upon what principle the right hon. Gentleman has proceeded in including and excluding towns. I fail to see what valid distinction can be drawn between the cities and towns included in counties, and the cities and towns to which the Act is not to apply. The City of Waterford is very hardly

    625
    treated in being placed amongst the included towns. I do not know any city of the same size which contains within itself so many energies and peculiar outlets for industry as Waterford. It is as wholly divorced from dependence on rural industry as any of the cities which the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to exempt. Unequal treatment is shown in the manner in which the cities have been separated in the two Schedules, and the cities in the 2nd Schedule stand in a position of extraordinary advantage as compared with the cities in the 1st Schedule. I invite the Chief Secretary to consider whether some modification of this treatment might not be made by which the rural portion of the population of those cities might be allowed to hypothecate their part of the urban funds.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have taken out the figures, and the Committee will see there is as much justification for the line which the Government has drawn as there ever can be for any line drawn between two classes of the community which have much in common. It is true that many of the towns included in the Bill have industries of a purely urban character; but even Belfast and Dublin cannot be considered as being wholly divorced from the interests of the agricultural community in which they find themselves placed. Nevertheless, I think that if we are to include any towns at all within the purview of the Bill the Government have chosen the best line. I find the population of the excluded cities under this Bill is: Londonderry, 59,000; Limerick, 48,000; Belfast, 208,000; Cork, 104,000; Dublin, 273,000. If I come to the included cities I find that Waterford is almost identical with Londonderry—just 59,000; Carrickfergus, 10,000; Kilkenny, 15,000; Drogheda, 14,000; and Galway, 90,000. The only point of contact is between Waterford and Londonderry. The hon. Gentleman suggests we should exclude the five cities we have included. I do not think that would be expedient in the interests of the rural population with whom we are specially concerned. By excluding them we would diminish the amount of the Guarantee Fund at the disposal of the rural community, and by so much diminish the benefit which the Act was intended to confer on the counties concerned. I admit that it is
    626
    impossible to defend any line on the ground that there are no cases on each side which might possibly, by plausible argument, be transferred to the other side; still I think the line is drawn, on the whole, at the best point, and I should be sorry to see the Bill limited in its operation by any exclusion such as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    MR. KNOX: I fail to see that the right hon. Gentleman has given any reason for having drawn a line on one side of Waterford and on the other side of Londonderry, which are places of almost similar population. They are both seaports 'and largely engaged in shipping. I venture to submit that there is really no justification for including these five towns within the scope of the Bill.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to ask for a little information on a point of Order. I do not wish to interfere in the discussion, but for the information of the Committee I want to know whether in the clause we are now discussing as to whether the county cities and county towns specified in the 1st Schedule of the Act are to come under its operations, it is proper to discuss the merits of individual places? That can be done when we come to the Schedule itself, but the question is, ought we to have two discussions on that point?
    MR. SEXTON: Also on a point of Order. How can the Committee determine the question raised by this Amendment except by dealing with specified places?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! It is a question of detail. The point is whether the Schedule of the Ashbourne Acts shall be adopted in this Bill, and it is impossible now to discuss the general characteristics of each city or town.
    SIR. G. TREVELYAN: I think it is rather unfortunate, owing to the somewhat arbitrary character which certain towns and cities in Ireland have acquired, that this question has been raised exactly in this shape. If there had been some sort of local control granted there might have been good reason for the clause, but as it is, it seems to be mere chance whether towns and cities are or are not drawn within the purview of the clause. The scheme which includes Waterford in and

    627
    excludes Londonderry from the county can commend itself to none. I do not see why two towns, each with a population of 29,000 or 30,000, should be treated so differently. Some principle, such as that adopted in the English Local Government Act, might well be accepted here. Municipal boroughs should be recognised, and if certain towns are to be excluded from the risks and advantages of the Bill they should be municipal boroughs above a certain population. I would suggest a limit of 15,000 or 20,000, and we might take the opinion of the Committee.
    MR. SEXTON: I agree with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, but think that all municipal boroughs should stand out of the operation of the Bill, unless they wish to come in.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The suggested Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork has reference to the Schedule, and when this Schedule comes on for discussion I shall be prepared to consider the Amendment.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: The Chief Secretary has not met the arguments which I advanced against the inclusion of these towns and cities within the operation of the Bill. Cork, Limerick, and Derry are excluded, while their municipal boundaries extend three or four miles into purely agricultural districts. I want to know why the farmers living in the outskirts of these cities—some thousands in number—are to be altogether excluded from the benefits of the Bill?
    MR. M. HEALY: I wish to refer particularly to the case of the City of Cork. Its boundaries run eight miles beyond the city proper, and the rural population number 20,000. Yet they are wholly excluded from the Bill. In this clause the right hon. Gentleman has divided the towns of Ireland into two classes in a most arbitrary fashion. I maintain that the exclusions have not been so carefully considered as they ought to have been, and I, too, would advocate a system of excluding or including certain cities by a certain limit of population.
    MR. SEXTON: Will the Chief Secretary make a declaration as to the power to be given to the Municipal Authority in the cities specified?
    (11.42.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 129; Noes 71. — (Div. List, No. 219.)
    MR. SEXTON: In moving the next Amendment, I merely wish to say that I think it would only be fair to give the discretion it proposes.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 9, line 30, after the word "transferred," to insert the words "Provided that, if the Town Council or Town Commissioners of any such county of a city or county of a town shall by Resolution passed in the prescribed manner so declare, this Act shall not apply to such county of a city or county of a town."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not, unfortunately, the exact figures indicating the share of the Guarantee Fund contributed by each city; but the question raised by the Amendment is not one upon which I feel very strongly. I think it is more a matter for the counties to decide. We can hardly hope to finish the discussion on this to-night, and perhaps it would be as well to defer saying anything definite upon it.
    MR. SEXTON: Very well. I move to report Progress.
    (11.56.) Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  BRINE PUMPING (COMPENSATION FOR SUBSIDENCE)(re-committed) BILL.—(No. 296.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 3.
  MR. HASTINGS: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 22 and 23, to leave out "and any sanitary authority."—(Mr. Hastings.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. GAINFORD BRUCE: I would appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, which is subversive of the principle of the Bill. The measure was carefully considered by the Select Committee, which took a large amount of evidence.

  629
  I feel sure the Amendment would give rise to considerable Debate, if insisted on, and would be fatal to the Bill.
  MR. J. S. GATHORNE - HARDY: I would support the view expressed by my hon. and learned Friend. I was Chairman of the Committee, and I think we arrived at a very fair compromise on this subject. I think it very unfortunate that an Amendment of this kind should be moved, because, if persisted in, it will wreck the Bill.
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNE:: I have sat on two Committees on this subject, and I may say that the hon. Member who has brought forward this Amendment himself belonged to, at any rate, a section of those with whom the compromise was made before the Committee. It was a compromise on which there was a considerable amount of yielding on each side, and I think, under such circumstances, it ought to be considered a point of principle with gentlemen who represent the different interests that came before the. Committee to submit to the arrangement that was arrived at. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
  MR. HASTINGS: I am entirely unaware that I was represented in any way before the Committee, and I never heard of any compromise. I have no interest in the matter except a public interest; but I happen to live in a district where many of these questions arise.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): I would submit to my hon. Friend that the matter with which his Amendment deals is one of great importance, and the proposal would give rise to a general discussion if it were pressed. The Bill is the result of very careful consideration by a Select Committee, and I would submit that there is hardly any good reason why a rural Sanitary Authority should not be allowed to move in the matter. If this Amendment is refused by the Committee the only result will be that the rural Sanitary Authority will have the right of moving in the first instance.' Its action will have to be followed by a local inquiry, and it will rest with the Local Government Board to act. I submit that the power of initiation which the clause
  630
  gives alike to the landlords and the rural Sanitary Authority is not a dangerous power, and as the tendency of Parliament has been to increase the powers of the local Sanitary Authorities, and as my hon. Friend represents a form of Local Government himself, I am sure he will not desire that the slightest slur should be thrown on the Local Authorities.
  MR. HASTINGS: I withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Several verbal Amendments agreed to.
  MR. HASTINGS: I beg to move in Clause 22, page 7, line 12, after "exceed" to insert "one half of." I believe this Amendment would make the Bill more equitable and remove any objections that are at present entertained with regard to it. It is quite true, as has been said, that the Committee took a certain amount of evidence on this Bill, but there was one subject on which they did not take evidence, or took it to a very slight extent, that is to say, with regard to the causes of subsidences. There is great doubt whether a large part of the subsidence is caused by brine-pumping. I went into the question some years ago with one of the most accomplished geologists in this country, who had gone over the brine district in Worcestershire, and the conclusion I then arrived at was that the brine-pumping did not create any great effect upon the subsidences, and that the subsidences were due to natural movements of the earth, which would take place if there was no pumping. I believe a large amount of scientific evidence could be produced in support of that view. If that be so, considerable injustice would be done to the owners of brine property by making them pay the full amount of compensation to those who suffer from the subsidences. It seems to me that the justice of the ' case would be fully met if the amount of the compensation were cut down by 50 per cent.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 22, page 7, line 12, after "exceed," to insert "one half of."—(Mr. Hastings.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. S. GATHORNE-HARDY: I do hope the hon. Member

  631
  will not press this Amendment. No doubt the Committee over which I presided did not hear any large amount of evidence on this question, but we had before us the evidence presented to the former Committee which went into it very largely. To my mind it is perfectly childish to maintain the view put forward by my hon. Friend opposite. No one who is acquainted with the state of things in the brine-pumping districts would accept the evidence of any expert that these subsidences are due to natural causes. Those natural causes have been at work for many centuries, but it is only during the last 100 years, since brine-pumping has been going on so extensively, that these subsidences have occurred. The Committee took into consideration all the facts of the case, and refused to recognise the claims of a large number of people—such as those who claimed on behalf of the public rights, all public companies and all landlords who make any profit out of the sale of salt—so that, practically, only the small owners of property in these districts will receive full compensation.
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNE: I am very sorry that when I spoke before I used expressions which made the hon. Member (Mr. Hastings) think I had done him an injustice. I certainly understood that he had a considerable interest in the great salt monopoly, and I assumed, from what I had heard, that his opposition to the Bill arose from that cause. Of course, I perfectly accept his statement that it is only on public grounds that he opposes the Bill. I would ask him to withdraw this Amendment. I believe I am the only Member in the House who sat on the Committee of 1881, when this question was thoroughly gone into, and I can truly say that we then convinced ourselves, as the Committee which sat the other day were perfectly convinced, that these subsidences have occurred in proportion as the brine has been pumped up. As a scientific man, I venture to say that the enormous subsidences of late times have arisen entirely from the exaggerated amount of pumping that has taken place. To adopt the contrary view is simply to go back half a century in our knowledge. I think that in
  632
  Cheshire there can be no doubt whatever on the question.
  MR. BRUNNER: I want to bear my testimony to the great devotion to work shown by the Committee, which was a perfect microcosm of this House. It is not at all the fact that the Committee refused to receive scientific evidence on this point. The Chairman of the Committee said he hoped the evidence would not be presented at great length, and, thereupon, the counsel representing the Salt Union decided not to offer any scientific evidence at all. It seems to me equitable that if those who pump brine damage their neighbours, they should pay the whole, and not half, the cost. The Committee has decided not to give any compensation to those public bodies who have no legal right to support, but to give it to the small freeholders of Northwich and Winsford. Time after time it has happened that a workman has seen the whole of the savings of his life disappear in consequence of one of these subsidences, at a time when he is no longer able to earn his living. I may say that there is no one so much interested in this matter, and who will pay so much if the Bill passes, as myself. I think, therefore, I have a right to appeal to the hon. Member to allow the clause to stand as it is.
  MR. HASTINGS: I do not, of course, wish to set myself in opposition to the feeling of the Committee, but I think it will be recognised that I have a right to express my view on the subject—a view which remains unchanged. It may be that the conditions in Cheshire differ from those in Worcestershire. I have spoken from my own knowledge, and I am convinced that, as far as my own county is concerned, I am right. I may say that my personal interest, as far as it goes, would induce me to favour the Bill, because I happen to hold property in a district where these subsidences take place.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Several verbal Amendments agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.

THE MANIPUR DISASTER.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, with reference to the answer which I gave to my noble Friend the Marquess of Ripon yesterday, I, of course, at once telegraphed that answer to the Viceroy, and I have just this moment received the following telegram from him:—
  "There is no foundation for the report that a reward has been offered by us for the rebels, dead or alive."

  TRUCK BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to truck—Was presented by the Lord Kenry (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 127.)

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered—
"That Standing Orders No. XCII. and XCIII. be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess."

MARRIAGE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 118.)
Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
Bill read 3a (according to order.)
Amendment made.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE: Before the Bill passes I wish to ask your Lordships' permission to move the insertion of a new clause. I explained upon the Report being received the reason for this new clause being required. It is manifest that if this Bill becomes an Act it will throw considerable and rather complicated duties upon the clergy with regard to the publication of banns, and it is essential that something is done to alleviate the difficulties thus arising. I, therefore, propose a new clause for that
554
purpose, which will come between Clauses 20 and 21.
Amendment moved,
After Clause 20, to insert as a new clause "It shall be the duty of the Registrar General to prepare and cause to be printed a form of banns-book suited to the provisions of this Act, and to transmit upon application from time to time a copy of the same to the minister of any church in which banns may be lawfully published."—(The Bishop of Carlisle.)
Agreed to.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons,

PRESUMPTION OF LIFE LIMITATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 104.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
HERRING BRANDING (NORTHUMBERLAND) BILL.—(No. 92.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
ENDOWED CHARITIES (NOTTINGHAM.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I have upon the Paper a notice to move for copies of the General Digest of Endowed Charities for the Counties and Cities mentioned in the Fourteenth Report of the Charity Commissioners relating to the County of Nottingham (in continuation of House of Commons Parliamentary Paper, No. 292–1., of 1871.) As I understand that the Return for which I ask is being prepared in a series for production in the House of Commons I will postpone my question for the present, hoping that this Adjournment may render it unnecessary.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered, That the Evening Sitting of the House on Tuesday the 26th instant do commence at a quarter past Four o'clock.
House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, to Tuesday the 26th instant, a quarter past Four o'clock.