Sitting of 8 April 1892

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
QUESTIONS.

  DUNDRUM ASYLUM.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether frequent complaints have been made of the head attendant temporarily appointed at the Central Asylum, Dundrum, Dublin; whether the man had any previous experience of the duties of the office; and whether, before confirming his appointment, the claims of other officers of long service in the establishment will be considered?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,: The Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums report that there have been no serious complaints against the officer referred to. The acting head attendant has had no previous asylum experience; he has held the position of a non-commissioned officer in the Army. As I have already stated, in reply to a question, the qualifications of all candidates will receive due consideration when a permanent appointment is being made to the post.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man has been reported for cowardice in dealing with a troublesome patient? Surely that is a serious charge?
  MR. JACKSON: No, I am not aware of that.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: But I am.

  PROMOTION IN THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the system of promotion in the Royal Irish Constabulary, known as the "P. List," is alleged to operate unfairly towards the older and more experienced members of the force who entered the Service before this system was adopted a few years ago; that since the introduction
  970
  of this system one-third of the vacancies have been filled by young men of short service and undistinguished in the force except that they had passed examinations in map drawing and other subjects not usually associated with the detection and prevention of crime; and whether he will cause the system to be so modified as not to tell against efficient constables of long service who entered the force before the existence of such conditions for promotion?
  MR. JACKSON: The existing promotion system in the Royal Irish Constabulary has existed for upwards of two years, and has, I am informed, worked most satisfactorily. A large proportion of vacancies—two-thirds—is given among the senior men, while a third is reserved for those, irrespective of seniority, who prove themselves specially fitted for promotion. The examination include among the subjects tests in police duties and general fitness for command and elements of drill.

  THE CASE OF DR. GALLAGHER.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet decided to allow an independent medical man to examine Dr. Gallagher, alleged to be insane, in Portland Prison; and, if so, whether he will cause the doctor selected to be informed that insanity is hereditary in Gallagher's family?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I have already twice this Session informed the House that this prisoner is reported by the medical officers to be in good bodily health and to exhibit no symptoms of mental unsoundness. There is no reason whatever for allowing an independent medical man to examine him.

  RURAL POSTMAN, FOXFORD, COUNTY MAYO.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that a rural postman named Michael McHale, employed at Foxford, County Mayo, has to travel 15 miles per day for wages of ten shillings per week; and whether this man is entitled, under a scale of pay fixed in 1891, to an

  971
  increase of two shillings per week, and an annual weekly increment of one shilling per week; and, if so, whether he will see that he is allowed the increase from the date the new scale of pay was issued?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: The total length of this postman's walk is 12½ miles, not 15 miles; and his work is finished by 11 a.m. every day. Not being fully employed he is not entitled to be paid on scale, as suggested; but inquiry shall be made whether any addition should be made to his wages.

  MILITARY CHAPLAIN, ROORKEE, BENGAL.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Catholic military chaplain at Roorkee, Bengal, has been withdrawn from that station after the Catholic soldiers there, and their coreligionists, had erected a church by subscription; and, if so, whether the case will be re-considered?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,: My hon. Friend has requested me to say that he has no information on the subject, but an inquiry will be addressed to India.

  ALLEGED POLICE VIOLENCE AT BELFAST.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there has been any inquiry by the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary as to the circumstances under which Constable Millar of that force fractured the skull of a man named Francis Coogan, by a blow of his baton, in Belfast, on the night of the 10th ult.; and whether Coogan's life is or has been in danger?
  MR. JACKSON: I shall be glad if the hon. Member will allow me to postpone an answer until Monday. There has been no Report from the Inspector General, but I have had a communication from—I think he is called—the Chief Constable of Belfast. I have called for a Report, but it is not yet to hand.
  MR. SEXTON: It is nearly a month since this murderous assault. Has the Chief Constable reported at all on the case, whether Coogan's life has been in danger?
  MR. JACKSON: The Chief Constable has been investigating the circumstances. I understand the injured man has now left hospital. The case has been watched meantime, but no proceedings have been taken; it was not found possible to do so while the man was in hospital.

  SMALLPOX IN THE METROPOLIS.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that patients have been recently removed to the hospital ships belonging to the Metropolitan Asylums Board from two houses in Shoreditch, and that, after an interval of a fortnight, in one case five children, and in the other four children, were similarly removed from the same houses; whether he is aware that in neither case were the children re-vaccinated after the first outbreak in the house, and that out of these nine children five had never been vaccinated; and whether, in view of the fact that, pending the inquiry by the Royal Commission, some Poor Law Guardians and Police Magistrates in London decline to enforce the Vaccination Acts, he proposes to take any steps to protect the Metropolis from the dangers of a serious outbreak of smallpox?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: I have made inquiry as to the facts, and I find that they are as stated by my hon. Friend. There have, for some time past, been occasional cases of smallpox occurring in different parts of London. I have been strongly impressed with the great importance of the Local Authorities taking the most energetic measures with the view of preventing the spread of infection when these cases occur, and in May last I wrote to the Vestry of the Parish of Shoreditch and to the several other Vestries in the Metropolis asking them specially to instruct their Medical Officer of Health in every case of smallpox which might be notified to him or

  973
  which might come to his knowledge immediately to visit the house where the disease had broken out, and at the earliest possible moment to take such measures as might be necessary to secure as far as practicable the isolation of the patient, the vaccination of any persons who might have been exposed to infection, and the disinfection of the premises, and any further action which the circumstances admitted of for the purpose of checking the extension of the disease. I am informed that the Medical Officer of Health reported to the vaccination officer the outbreak of smallpox in the two houses referred to, and that the vaccination officer immediately visited the inmates and urged them to obtain vaccination and re-vaccination. Unfortunately his warning appears to have been disregarded. I learn that an arrangement has been made for vaccination daily of urgent cases by one of the public vaccinators of the parish. With respect to re-vaccination, there is no law under which this can be enforced. As regards vaccination, I am strongly impressed with the responsibility of parents who neglect to have their children vaccinated, and of the Local Authorities who fail to put in operation the law as to the enforcement of vaccination, especially where an outbreak of smallpox has actually occurred.

  CANADIAN TRADE.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what answer has been returned by the Imperial Government to the Address to the Crown, in September last, of the Senate and House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, praying Her Majesty, in view of the earnest desire of the Canadian Legislature to foster and extend the trade of the Dominion with the Empire, as affording, from its diversity of climate and production, the widest prospect of rapid and practically limitless increase, to denounce and terminate provisions in certain Treaties with Foreign Powers incompatible with the rights and powers conferred upon the Parliament of Canada for the regulation of trade and commerce, and tending to produce complications and embarrassments
  974
  within the Empire; and if the same has been communicated to the representatives of Her Majesty's subjects in British North America now in Parliament assembled?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The reply is on its way to Canada, but as it is an answer to an Address to Her Majesty from the Canadian Parliament, it would hardly be proper to make it known until it has been communicated in due course to the Parliament of Canada.

  SOLDIERS AT POLITICAL MEETINGS.
  MR. T. FRY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if it is a fact that soldiers are not allowed to go to political meetings in uniform, and are not allowed to go out of their barracks without their uniforms; and, if so, if he will take steps to give soldiers a privilege possessed by all other voters?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,: The Regulation upon the subject of political meetings is contained in paragraph 11 of Section VI. of the Queen's Regulations, and is as follows:—
  "Officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and private soldiers are forbidden to institute, or take part in, any meetings, demonstrations, or processions for party or political purposes, in barracks, quarters, or camps, or their vicinity. Under no circumstances whatever will they attend any such meeting, wherever held, in uniform."
  This appears to the Secretary of State to be a most proper rule, and he is not prepared to take any steps which shall tend to weaken it.
  MR. T. FRY: Do I understand that soldiers are not allowed to attend meetings in public halls without uniforms? I suppose since this rule was framed the law has been altered as to the registration of voters. Is the soldier not allowed to hear the address of a Parliamentary candidate?
  MR. BRODRICK: The law has not been altered. It is impossible to allow soldiers to dispense with uniforms, and it is equally impossible to allow them to attend political meetings, wherever held, in uniform.

  THE CONVICT LUNATIC HEHIR.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a prisoner named Hehir, now confined in Dundrum, became a lunatic whilst he was detained at Mountjoy Prison; whether the prison authorities were fully warned as to the man's condition while he was undergoing probationary punishment; whether he is aware that the Deputy Governor acknowledged to a prisoner that Hehir was losing his senses, and that the Rev. Dr. O'Donnell drew the attention of the Governor and the prison doctor to his condition; whether he was all the time kept in solitary confinement, and after his probation was ended was he put to weaving work alone; is it usual to put prisoners suffering from dementia to work in association, and was the custom departed from in the case of Hehir; and, if so, why; and, if Hehir is a lunatic, will he, under the circumstances, be released at an early date?
  MR. JACKSON: The General Prisons Board report that it is the case that the convict Hehir referred to, now confined in Dundrum Asylum, developed symptoms of insanity while confined in Mountjoy Prison. His case was carefully watched by the medical officer, who ordered him extra open air exercise and extra diet, both of which he received. After probation he worked at weaving in association, and was subsequently employed in the open air. The usual custom was followed in this convict's case.

  EVICTIONS ON CLARE ISLAND.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the 19 families about to be evicted on Clare Island were last year saved from starvation by public relief, and that the land agent who is responsible for carrying out the evictions is the same person who, as Sub-Sheriff of the county, will have the right of requisitioning the forces of the Crown to assist at the evictions; and will the Government continue this gentleman in his office as principal executive officer of the law in the county?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not aware of the circumstances of the tenants referred to against whom ejectment processes
  976
  have been issued. I believe the agent also holds the office of Sub-Sheriff. The appointment is made not, as the hon. Member seems to suppose, by the Government, but by the High Sheriff.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, is it not a fact that the Sub-Sheriff is the nominee of the Sheriff, and has not a Sheriff again and again been removed by the Government, for example in the case of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Dublin (Sir T. Esmonde.)
  MR. JACKSON: I believe the Sub-Sheriff is appointed by the High Sheriff, but I am not aware that the Government have any power in the matter, certainly they have no voice in the appointment.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: But I have referred the right hon. Gentleman to the case of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Dublin, who was High Sheriff for Waterford.
  MR. JACKSON: Yes; High Sheriff, not Sub-Sheriff.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: The Sub-Sheriff is the nominee of the High Sheriff.
  MR. JACKSON: He is appointed by the High Sheriff.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: To save the time of the House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman this? Is he able to give an undertaking that in reference to all these undertakings he will deal with the agent—the landlord's agent in this case—in the same manner in which his predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks Beach), dealt with the agent of Lord Clanricarde?
  MR. JACKSON: I have no knowledge of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. I can only deal with cases as they arise. I have said I have no knowledge of the circumstances of the tenants against whom processes are issued, but I am willing to act to the best of my ability when circumstances arise requiring decision.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware, is it not notorious, that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol acting, as he stated, within the law, felt it his duty to remonstrate with the agent of Lord Clanricarde, and to intimate to him

  977
  that unless he showed a more reasonable spirit the forces of the Crown would be withheld from his assistance?
  MR. SEXTON: It will be very convenient to the House if the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to give a more satisfactory answer. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the power to supersede the High Sheriff is not vested in the Lord Lieutenant, who is a Member of the Government; whether he will consent to bring to the notice of the Lord Lieutenant the fact that the Sub-Sheriff appointed by the High Sheriff of Mayo is at the same I time the agent for the landlord, thus acting in a double function—procuring decrees against the tenant as agent and as Sub-Sheriff executing those decrees? I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will bring these facts to the knowledge of the Lord Lieutenant, with a view to the Lord Lieutenant compelling the Sheriff, under pain of supersession, to select a Sub-Sheriff who does not unite these double functions?
  MR. JACKSON: No circumstances have been brought to my knowledge to show that any unreasonable action has been taken, any action to which objection can be taken. I should be acting beyond my powers, with the information before me, if I were to give an undertaking that I would ask the Lord Lieutenant to compel the High Sheriff, on pain of supersession, to dismiss a man against whom, so far as I know, no well-founded complaint has been made that he has acted otherwise than that of simply carrying out the law in the cases referred to. If any circumstances are brought to my knowledge that seem to demand that action should be taken action shall be taken, but it is quite obvious that I cannot in the entire absence of all information give an undertaking of the kind. I have no particulars upon which I can form an opinion or come to a conclusion that the slightest blame attaches to that officer.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is reasonable that the agent should make fees in a double capacity—first, the money he will get for carrying out the evictions as agent, and then the fees he will get for carrying out the
  978
  evictions as Sheriff? Is it reasonable that the agent as Sheriff should be able to enforce the process of the law and make money out of the transaction in both capacities, thereby, as agent, having a premium for carrying out the evictions as Sheriff? I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the uniting of these functions is not so objectionable that he will say to the Lord Lieutenant that he will allow no agent as Sheriff to carry out his own evictions?
  MR. M. J. KENNY: Is there not a process open to the landlord in this case by which he need not take proceedings by his agent, but could proceed by special bailiff?
  MR. JACKSON: It would not be well for me to answer questions of that kind offhand; but if any hon. Member will supply any information he desires to lay before me I shall fully consider it; but I cannot, without notice and without information being supplied to me in a form in which I can have time to consider it, give the undertaking asked for.
  MR. SHEEHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the law that the High Sheriff is not to execute any decree which he has obtained himself as Sheriff, and whether this is not a case of a Sub-Sheriff executing a decree which he has obtained himself as Sub-Sheriff?
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I shall hope to be able to press on the right hon. Gentleman the information on the strength of which we think the intervention of the Government is necessary.

  PAYMENT OF INLAND REVENUE OFFICERS.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is a fact that Inspectors of Inland Revenue when acting as collectors away from home are paid an extra allowance of from 12s. to 21s. per day; whether expectant supervisors of Inland Revenue when acting as supervisors away from home are granted an extra allowance of only from about 2s. 4d. to 6s. 1d. per day, and out of which they have to bear travelling expenses; whether it is true that in the summer of 1891 a Petition was

  979
  presented to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by the expectant supervisors, pointing out their inadequate allowances as compared with the Inspectors and other public officials, and among other matters proving that they were generally performing public duties at a loss to themselves; and whether he will direct the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to consider the case of the officers of that rank, with a view towards granting them sufficient allowances?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. GORST,: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Board of Inland Revenue have recently brought this matter before the Treasury, and it is now under consideration.

  THE IRISH SCHOOL GRANT.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what amount (approximately) out of the school grant for the current year would be applicable to each of the seven objects defined in the Schedule to the Irish Education Bill—namely, augmentation of class salaries of teachers; augmentation of salaries of assistant teachers; capitation grants to schools not having teachers paid by class salaries; bonus to each male assistant teacher of a certain standing and class; corresponding bonus to female assistant teachers; third class salaries to teachers of small schools; and capitation grant in respect of schools the teachers of which receive salaries or other money payments from the Commissioners of Education?
  MR. JACKSON: The proposed allocation of the school grant for the current year among the objects defined in the Schedule to the Irish Education Bill is approximately as follows: In augmentation of class salaries, about £79,000, of which about £61,000 goes to principals and £18,000 to assistants; in capitation grants to schools not having teachers paid by class salaries, about £10,000; in bonuses to assistants of seven years' standing and classed higher than third class, about £5,000 (males about £1,200, and females about £3,800); in third class salaries to teachers of schools having attendances of from 20
  980
  to 30 pupils, about £2,600; and the residue to be disposed of as capitation grants to schools the teachers of which receive salaries or other money payment from the Commissioners of Education, about £112,000.

  MARRIED WOMEN AS POOR LAW GUARDIANS.
  MR. WEBB, on behalf of Mr. MCLAREN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the fact that the Local Government Board decided some years ago, in the case of Mrs. M'llquham, that a married woman having the necessary rating qualification was entitled to be nominated for election as a Poor Law Guardian; and whether, in view of that decision, any official is entitled to refuse to receive the nomination of a married woman who is legally qualified?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,, who replied, said: The case to which the hon. Member refers appears to be one in which it devolved on the Local Government Board in 1881 to determine an appeal against the election of Mrs. M'Ilquham as a Poor Law Guardian. The objection which the Board were called on to decide was whether Mr. M'Ilquham, by whom Mrs. M'Ilquham was nominated, was entitled as a ratepayer to nominate a candidate. The decision was adverse to the validity of her election on the ground that there was no valid nomination. The Board did not decide in that case that Mrs. M'Ilquham was as a married woman qualified for election. The practice of the Board has been where the question has been raised as to the right of married women to be elected as Guardians practically to decline to interfere with the decision of the Returning Officer. The question is one of so great importance that if there is to be any decision on the point the Board consider that it should be a decision of the High Court. It is, at the same time, to be remembered that, there are cases where the Board have nominated as Guardians married women. We think that the question is

  981
  not free from doubt, although we have not gone so far as distinctly to say so.

  CONDITION OF SCARIFF DOCKS.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the ruinous condition of the Scariff (County Clare) Docks and the roadway leading thereto has been brought under the notice of the Irish Board of Works, in whom the control of the docks and the Scariff River navigation is vested; whether it is a fact that there is neither a crane nor a weighing machine on the pier, although there is a regular service of twelve steamers plying to and from the dock weekly; and whether, in view of the great importance of this quay to the trade of the surrounding neighbourhood, he will give instructions to the Board of Works to have the necessary improvements immediately carried out?
  SIR J. GORST: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone this question, as I have not had the opportunity of getting the information from Ireland.

  PENSIONS TO THE WIDOWS OF COASTGUARD OFFICERS.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will explain why pensions are allowed to the widows of Coastguard officers who previously served in the Royal Navy, but the widows of officers who were recruited from other branches of the Public Service are not allowed pensions; and whether he will see that the widows of all officers are treated alike?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,: There are certain officers of the Coastguard who joined the Service when it was under the control of the Board of Customs. These men entered under the Civil Service Regulations, and have retained the right to be pensioned as civilians under the Superannuation Acts. They possess the privilege of remaining in the Service five years longer than the men who joined the Service from the Navy, and their pensions are higher than the naval pensions. On the other hand, by a rule which applies to all Civil servants without exception, their widows are not entitled to pensions from the State, unless the husband's death was directly caused by the Service. In this particular
  982
  only are the civilian Coastguard officers at any disadvantage as compared with their naval colleagues, and in all other respects their position is superior.

  THE CASE OF THE GIRL M'HUGH.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if his attention has been called to the case heard at the Petty Sessions held at Trillick, County Tyrone, on the 15th inst., in which the Magistrates refused informations against a person charged with indecent assault on a young girl under 16 years of age named M'Hugh; whether he is aware that the information of the girl in question set out a complete primâ facie case, and that no evidence was called to contradict her; and if, under the circumstances, inquiry will be made as to why the accused was not returned for trial?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: I have just received the Report concerning this case, and in consequence of that Report I have sent for further information.

  TELEGRAPH OFFICE AT MALTBY.
  MR. A. ACLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a telegraph office can be provided at Maltby without the exaction of the full guarantee of £37 a year for five years, in consideration of the special needs of visitors and residents, and the difficulty of raising the required sum?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The last application for a telegraph office at Maltby was made in February, 1891. If the residents were now to renew their application, they would get the benefit of the concessions authorised by Her Majesty's Government last August, under which the guarantee would be fixed at £24 a year for seven years, instead of £37 for seven years, as stated in February, 1891. Not only so, but, under the 8th section of the Post Office Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vic. Ch. 46), the Rural Sanitary Authority of the district might enter into the guarantee, and so relieve private persons from the necessity of taking the burden on themselves.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR J. PEASE: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would give us some information with regard to the commencement and termination of the Easter Recess?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I am well aware that it would be a great convenience to all of us if we could settle as soon as possible the date of separation and re-assembly for the Easter holidays. The hon. Baronet must admit that the Government have some cause to complain of the small amount of time which has been actually at their disposal during the days nominally given to them for the conduct of the Public Business of which they are in charge, and I cannot at the present moment give any definite answer to the hon. Baronet. Before I can do so, I must wait and see what progress is made this afternoon, and I will take the earliest opportunity of giving the information he asks for.
  MR. HENEAGE: What is the business to be taken on Monday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In the first place, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will introduce his Budget, and after that we shall go on with the Small Holdings Bill Committee.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to give notice that I shall, on Monday, ask the First Lord of the Treasury the following question——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not in Order. The question should be put down on the Paper.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Is it intended between now and Easter to proceed with any other Government Bills besides the Small Holdings Bill?
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to ask, with reference to a promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, made three weeks ago, that he would almost immediately introduce a Bill to enable County Councils to make grants for inquiries into parochial charities, what meaning is to be placed on the words "almost immediately?"
  MR. GOSCHEN: I shall, to-day, give notice to introduce it on Monday.
  MR. BROADHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able, at the end of the Sitting, to give us the information as to the Easter Recess, or shall we have to wait till Monday for it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to be able to make a statement at the end of the Sitting, but I do not like to enter into any positive engagement on the subject. With regard to the question of the hon. Gentleman opposite, it is not proposed to proceed with any first class Government measures other than the Small Holdings Bill before Easter. I do not wish to exclude the smaller and less contentious measures, which we might have a chance of advancing a stage.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Is the Private Bill Procedure Bill one of the first class measures?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall not take that.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill amongst the less contentious business? This Bill proposes to alter the law of England as it has existed for a thousand years—that a man shall not be compelled to give evidence which would criminate himself. I hope, in accordance with the promise of the Attorney General, that we shall not be asked to go into Committee on this Bill without ample notice.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will be impossible to proceed with any first class Bills other than the Small Holdings Bill, and the Private Bill Procedure Bill will not be taken before Easter.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the Second Reading Debate on the Irish Education Bill before Easter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; that will not be taken before Easter.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (: Will the Clergy Discipline Bill be taken before Easter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to take the Bill for the amendment of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act before Easter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no doubt that is a very important measure, and I hope it may pass after 12 o'clock. I do not think it is in the slightest degree controversial; and, so far as I know, it is approved by all quarters of the House, and no obstacles will be placed in its way.
  MR. D. THOMAS: When will the right hon. Gentleman move the appointment of the Committee on Financial Relations?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I hope, immediately after Easter, to come to some arrangement with the Leader of the House whereby the Motion for the appointment of that Committee may be disposed of after a short debate.
  MR. COX: May I ask the Chief Secretary whether he is likely to introduce the Irish Drainage Bill before Easter?
  MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the Bill included in the Bills of last Session I think it is ready, and I hope to introduce it almost immediately.

  THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON LABOUR.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode are bound to print the evidence taken before the Royal Commission on Labour weekly, under a Treasury Minute; whether they are paid a special rate for so doing; whether they have at all times complied with the terms of the Treasury Minute; and whether they are complying with those terms now; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  SIR J. GORST: I am not aware of any Treasury Minute to the effect stated in the question. Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode are not paid a special rate for this work. The direction that each day's evidence should be ready on the following day week was given to the printers by the Stationery Office, and until recently no complaint has reached that Department of failure to comply with the direction given. During the last month, however, the work has been allowed to fall in arrear, and it is proposed to call the attention of Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode to the matter with a view to expediting the work.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Papers promised, relating to the 65th Rule, will be given?

MOTION.
  THE EVICTIONS ON CLARE ISLAND.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    Mr. W. O'BRIENrose in his place and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely:—
    "The harsh and unconstitutional employment of the forces of the Crown in effecting Evictions and Seizures for arrears of rent on Clare Island, whose population was, last year, saved by public relief from a condition of famine; and the danger of widespread destitution and disorder if the impending evictions on the Island are carried out;"
    but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: I regret very much that I am compelled to interrupt the Business of the House, but this is a matter of life and death to an industrious and inoffensive community; and unless the House is asked to devote a short time to save these people from eviction, you will be asked by-and-bye to vote more money to save them from starvation. I was anxious, if possible, to avoid moving the Adjournment of the House, but the reply of the Chief Secretary is so absolutely unsatisfactory that I can do nothing else. He has given us no guarantee that the Sub-Sheriff, the police and the Removable Magistrates will not evict the people in this island for no other crime except that they have made no offer to the landlord of the charitable relief which the British taxpayers were asked for last year, during a time described by the First Lord of the Treasury as a period of exceptional famine. The evictions on this island have already commenced; 19 other processes have been granted within the last few days at the Castlebar Quarter Sessions, and a number of others are pending. Practically speaking, most of these

    987
    people are already evicted, and have become caretakers, and if they recover their status it will be by stripping themselves of everything they have in the world. We have no hope, I am sorry to say, from the Government; we have no hope from the landlord; we have still less from the Sub-Sheriff; and the only hope left to us is to make a special appeal to the public opinion of this House. Last year the whole population of Clare Island, with the exception of the bailiff and perhaps one or two others, was saved from starvation only by charitable relief. They were enabled to sow their crops only by public charity, and whatever little means they possessed after the harvest they acquired solely by means of charitable relief. The Sub-Sheriff, who is the principal officer of the law in the county, is also the agent for the landlord, and that landlord has for the last five or six months been engaged in a series of attempts to strip these poor people of the funds which they received from charity; and I am sorry to say that the Government by their Sub-Sheriff, their Police, and Resident Magistrates have aided this landlord in stripping these poor islanders of the means of subsistence which this Government felt bound last year in common humanity to give them. The place was formerly owned by an Irish family, who got into difficulties, and the property was purchased as an encumbered estate after a famine time by a landlord of a notoriously grasping character, who was at the time Sub-Sheriff for County Mayo. He went through the usual rent-raising process upon his purchase, and it was to recover arrears that began to accumulate that these evictions were entered upon. Another main fact in this case that we shall have to press upon the notice of the House reveals a scandalous state of things. You have the same gentleman acting in the double capacity of principal officer of the law and official of the landlord. He is earning double fees by carrying out these evictions, representing at one moment the impartiality of the law, and later on in the same day the greed of the landlord. You will find this gentleman as Sheriff requisitioning the forces of the Crown to protect himself as agent of the landlord
    988
    in plundering these poor tenants, of the relief which the British taxpayer provided for them. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary will defend this arrangement, but I submit that this dual rôle introduces a most undesirable state of things, and I shall have to press the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the Government will allow this state of things to continue and will allow this gentleman to order about the Forces of the Crown for any miserable purpose he pleases. Even the right hon. Gentleman's inexperience in Ireland would be no excuse for permitting this state of things to continue. There can be no controversy about the facts of this case up to this point. The whole population except the priest and the bailiff were dependent for their lives upon public relief, and were employed on the reliefs which were kept going for five or six months, and I must acknowledge that a considerable amount of relief was dispensed and much sympathy expressed with those poor islanders by two distinguished ladies who visited the island as representatives of the fund that was started by the First Lord of the Treasury and by Lord Zetland. This was the state of things when this Sub-Sheriff and landlords' agent made his first raid upon the island. He arrived in his yacht, and on his requisition a force of 20 riflemen arrived at the same time. There were only about 100 able-bodied men on the whole island, and various attempts were made to terrorise the people into giving up to the landlord the wages they had received to enable them to keep their families alive. I shall be curious to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will deny this, or will attempt to justify a crime which I regard as about as despicable as robbing a poor box. Apparently, a hint was given to this gentleman that the seizure of the little stock of these poor people at that moment would be a little too glaring, and would revolt those charitable people in England to whom the First Lord of the Treasury was appealing for subscriptions. Accordingly, after a few days, during which time most pressing efforts were made to get these poor islanders to pay blackmail to the landlord, the

    989
    Sheriff and his expedition took their departure and abandoned their efforts for a time. But only for a time. When the harvest sown by public charity was gathered, the Sheriff despatched to the island a common emergency bailiff to represent himself—and we raise even greater objection than before, because he delegated his dual functions to this man. Another force of police was despatched, and preparations of the most odious character were set on foot to secure what plunder was left for the landlord. And here I charge the Government not only with their responsibility for the action of the Sub-Sheriff, but also with responsibility for the action of the police. We will undertake to prove that the landlord's bailiff was aided in his operations by the very police who, during the summer, had been engaged in distributing relief to these poor people. These policemen had been able, in distributing relief, to obtain confidential knowledge of the poor people's circumstances, and we can prove, by witness after witness, that these policemen went round night by night with the emergency men and pointed out the cabins in which there might be a mountain cow or a mountain pony which might be seized. This occurred to such an extent that these unfortunate people were obliged, for the first time in their lives, to construct some rude sort of window blinds to protect their families from the espionage of these men. Having thus marked out his prey, the emergency bailiff, accompanied by his armed policemen, made a descent on these cabins. The natural result was that these people came out to see where these riflemen were bound, and to find out whose turn it would be next. It is not proved—I do not know that it is suggested—that any of these people threw a stone, or made use of any weapon. It is not pretended that any one of those riflemen sustained the smallest possible injury; on the contrary the only violence used was towards a poor young man who was simply standing by and was knocked down and clubbed by one of these riflemen.
    MR. JACKSON: Will you give me the name of the young man and the date of the occurrence?
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: The date is the 23rd November, and the name of the young man is Malley. His Christian name I forget. A much more important name, that of the policeman who clubbed this poor young man, has been refused to us, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should be as generous in his information as we have been on our side. The only crime these people committed was that they were anxious to know who was to be the next victim and looked on; and for this crime, practically speaking, the whole adult population were prosecuted under the Coercion Act for unlawful assembly, and for obstructing and overawing the officers of the Crown. The idea of these wretched, famine-stricken people, utterly unarmed, overawing a body of well-fed and well-armed riflemen is too absurd, but 80 prosecutions were instituted. But even after this the treatment of these poor people was most cruel. This trumpery, miserable case was adjourned and adjourned for over three months, and five times these people were dragged to the mainland, who, in the ordinary course of events, only visited the mainland once a year. One of these adjournments, I admit, was because of a terrible outbreak of scarlet fever on the island, and another because storms rendered the sea impassable. But two of these adjournments were caused solely and undeniably by the fault of the Crown officials themselves in failing to secure the attendance of two Removable Magistrates. The first occurred on the 7th December, when only one Resident Magistrate (Colonel Stewart) was in attendance; and by no default of the people, but purely of the Crown, the case had to be put off till the 16th. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question, informed me that the Magistrate had been called away to Sligo on Assize business; but the right hon. Gentleman does not depend upon two Resident Magistrates in Ireland. He has many legions. There are 70 Resident Magistrates at his command, and they are not overburdened with work, but he allowed this miscarriage of justice to take place. On the 16th, the day to which the case was adjourned, the poor islanders

    991
    turned up, and not even one Removable Magistrate was present. The poor, starving islanders were in attendance; the well-fed and well-paid Removable Magistrates were not; and again the case had to be adjourned through, I say, the direct culpability of the Crown officials in Ireland. Having raised—it almost took a sort of national subscription in that place to raise it—£10 as the fee of their solicitor, their solicitor was in attendance, and they lost their £10 fee, and lost their last chance of having any solicitor to defend them in this matter. I questioned the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as to this fact, and asked him who was responsible for the non-attendance of these two Removable Magistrates upon that day, and the right hon. Gentleman failed to answer me. Well, I have to press him to answer now, and tell us how it is that the Government, who have always plenty of policemen and Resident Magistrates at hand whenever evictions are to be carried out, were not able to secure the attendance of two Magistrates upon this occasion, and caused these poor people all this inconvenience and heavy fine—a fine which I hold should be refunded to these poor people, and out of the salaries of £700 or £800 a year of these Removable Magistrates. I pass from that. After nearly three months' delay we come to the fifth Court day—there was a fourth adjournment owing to the outbreak of scarlet fever on the island. Fresh summonses were issued after the breakdown on the 16th, and one of them was served on a young man who was lying on his death-bed with scarlet fever, and who died within a day or two after. The fifth Court day came; two Magistrates were in attendance at last; the islanders were in attendance; and then it might have been supposed that this, at all events, might have been the end of this miserable trumpery prosecution. Nothing of the sort. The Magistrates deliberately adjourned the hearing of the case from Louisburgh, where these people live, to Westport, a place 13 miles away, for no purpose under Heaven except for the personal comfort and convenience of these Magistrates. All these poor people, cold and hungry, were obliged to march
    992
    through the snow in the depth of winter on the journey to Westport, and the following morning the Magistrates actually threatened to issue warrants for two old men who lagged upon the way. What does the right hon. Gentleman say in defence of the conduct of the Magistrates on that occasion? The first allegation, and really I was surprised at him, was that the snow was not actually falling. I do not know really——
    MR. JACKSON: I did not say so. The statement was that they were driven out in a blinding snow-storm. I said I was informed that it was not snowing.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the snow was there: does he deny that the 13 miles of road were there; does he deny that a storm was blowing as it blows for months in the year in that neighbourhood? And if that is so, what is the meaning of this miserable pettifogging? It is much more worthy of the conduct of his Removable Magistrates in general than it is of men like the right hon. Gentleman, to whom we are accustomed to look for something a little better and for something more magnanimous. The second allegation was more important no doubt. He stated that the reason for the adjournment from Louisburgh to Westport was that there was no Court room in Louisburgh. And when I said I happened to know Louisburgh, and contradicted the right hon. Gentleman, he adopted a very majestic tone. Not only did they get the defendants into the Court room at Louisburgh, but the Magistrates continued the hearing of the case the whole day long, and it was only at 5 o'clock in the evening that they adjourned the case to Westport the following morning; so that the excuse they put into the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman—because I quite acquit him of having any knowledge at all in the transaction—is a dishonest and untrue excuse. One of these Removable Magistrates is a Mr. Home, a gentleman who is lent to the Government by the Times newspaper, and who got up its case for the Times at the Parnell Commission. I congratulate him on his brilliant success. I only

    993
    wish we could have that gentleman cross-examined himself before the three Judges as to the dealings of landlordism in Clare Island. There is another allegation, but as the right hon. Gentleman has conceived that I misconceived him, I shall not refer further to the point; but he certainly conveyed to my mind, and I think to the minds of many of my hon. Friends, that the adjournment to Westport took place on the application of the defendant's solicitor.
    MR. JACKSON: No, I did not.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: Well, the right hon. Gentleman has explained away that impression; but that was the impression I decidedly got. What was the solemn assurance given by these men to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and by him solemnly stated to this House? That, indeed, these islanders were extremely pleased with their treatment—were most grateful to the Magistrates, because they only bound them to keep the peace. These poor people actually had to go through Westport begging for the one shilling necessary to pay for their bail bond; and, in one case, the man actually got it advanced by a policeman in Court through compassion. No sooner had these poor people returned home than they were served with processes to Castlebar Quarter Sessions—30 of them were served with processes; whole sheaves of them were sent flying amongst them. They had to meet these at Castlebar Quarter Sessions—many miles from their own place. There were 19 decrees given, and more are to follow. Practically speaking, the whole island is doomed. The first eviction has been already carried out; and I daresay that it was to blunt the edge of British sympathy that the first man they selected for eviction was the relieving officer. I venture to say that unless this House comes to their rescue, the whole population of that island is, practically speaking, exterminated. I venture to say that this persecution is a disgrace to the Government that in any manner permits or allows it; and I ask them to say that they will not, in the interest of Irish landlordism, permit this landlord to pounce down and take away
    994
    the only little means of livelihood belonging to those poor people. We are constantly told in this House that, when the tenants suffer in Ireland it is because they are our dupes. Well, the Clare islanders are not our dupes; it would be well for them if they were. Our dupes have safely in their pockets, nearly two millions a year, rack-rents that the landlords once carried off in plunder from them; but these poor people in Clare Island never held a public meeting, never established a branch of our Organisation there. They were as dumb and patient as sheep; and their reward is that within the last twelve years they have passed through three or four periods of famine, and the moment there was any relief from the charitable public or the taxpayers of these Kingdoms, that money was instantly appropriated by the representatives of their landlords, with, the connivance and assistance of the officials of Dublin Castle. That is the sort of mercy Irish landlordism shows where its victims are too poor to offer resistance. I do not want to make anything like political capital out of the case of these poor islanders. It is not a case of politics; it is a case of common humanity. I submit to the House that whatever little means these poor people possess, they have received from the taxpayers of these Kingdoms not to pay rent to the landlords, but to put food in the mouths of themselves and their children. I say the landlord has no more right or title to appropriate whatever little stock or property they may have and to turn them out on the roadside than he would have to knock them down and rob them. It is a scandal for any landlord who attempts it, and I say it is a tenfold scandal and a shame that the power of this great Empire should be employed in carrying out a system of oppression of that sort. I shall not detain the House further, but this is a subject you will hear of again if you do not dispose of it. And I venture to submit to every respectable man in the House that we have a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland for a categorical and an unmistakeable declaration—first, that he will not allow these evictions to be carried out, and that he will deal with

    995
    the landlord of this island in the same way as the hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol dealt with Lord Clanricarde; secondly, that we have a right to ask him that he shall not allow this arrangement by which the same man by whom the warrant is issued is the evicting Sheriff and the landlord's agent; and, thirdly, I submit we have a right to put it to the right hon. Gentleman's humanity whether or not the case of these poor people is not a case not for the Criminal Law, but for the Congested Districts Board? I would put it to him to recognise that what is wanted in Clare Island is not police expeditions, or eviction campaigns, or coercion prosecutions; but what is wanted is some reasonable project that would increase these poor people's means of livelihood—instead of robbing them—that would give them something like seaworthy boats to carry on the fishing industry, that would establish something like regular communication with the main land, and thereby help to make this island, as it could be made, one of the most beautiful islands in the Kingdom, I ask the House to say that the Government ought not, in the interest of Irish landlords, to exterminate these unfortunate people. I now move the adjournment of the House.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to second the Motion. This is the same island upon which Lady Zetland and Miss Balfour descended, and upon the beach of which they received that remarkable address—from which the Times gave us so many beautiful passages in August last—thanking Mr. Balfour for his kindness, his benevolence, and his charity, and contrasting his heroic and noble conduct with that of the miserable agitators who had only brought devastation and spoliation in their track. It was an address which the First Lord of the Treasury probably has framed and glazed over his chimney-piece at home, although I am sure he has not many such documents as a souvenir of his administration in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman could not have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cork without feeling that the other and the real side of the picture was being
    996
    presented to the House. The address was got up for him by the Local Resident Magistrates; but I would ask, is there to be no other fruit from the visit of these benevolent ladies to the island than that address and the articles which appeared in the London journals? In those articles the manners and customs, the rugged wildness and the native simplicity of the people of the district were very nicely and touchingly depicted, but, Sir, not one word as to the real circumstances under which these unfortunate people live, move, and have their being has not been allowed to reach the outer world as the result of that visit to that far-off locality; and when, for the first time, my hon. Friend lays the complete story before the House, the First Lord of the Treasury is not present with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to listen to it. I would venture to say that if the Attorney General for England had been present he would not have attempted to defend the holding of the dual offices of Sheriff and of agent such as were held by Mr. Routledge. A Sub-Sheriff is not allowed to act as a solicitor, so that he should not be able to put into his pocket as Sub-Sheriff fees arising out of transactions which as a solicitor he might promote. Should it not be the same, à fortiori, in the case of Sheriff and agent? I further find in the list of District Receivers in the Court of Chancery in Ireland—that Court of Equity before which we are all asked to bow—the name of James F. Rout-ledge, of Castlebar, as a District Receiver in the County of Mayo. Now, I say, that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ought not to allow for one instant a man to hold the position of Sub-Sheriff and District Receiver in one, who is carrying out the process of the law. It is forbidden in the case of Sheriff and solicitor, and there is a far stronger objection to it in the case of Sheriff and agent. Let the Government defend the holding of these dual offices if they can. Why should Mr. Routledge as an agent be able to levy the forces of the Crown for the assistance of a Sub-Sheriff? This scandal has gone on now for at least twelve years, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast made some years ago one

    997
    of his most powerful speeches on this very same question—the treatment of the people of Clare Island. The remedial measures about which the Government have boasted so much at their Primrose League meetings has passed on in procession; Act after Act during these twelve years; and yet not one single benefit has been conferred on these islanders beyond that which has been given in the way of a little extra charity. That is the first branch of the case, and what is the second? I think that the Misses Macdonald are I the ladies to whom Lord Carnarvon, when Viceroy of Ireland, sent a letter of special remonstrance with regard to their conduct as landladies. It was not till the distress of last year that the Government set about doing something for the Islanders. One of the things they did was to construct a road for the horses and carts, the only result being a macadam track for the bare feet of the poor people where they formerly had a comparatively level road. But that is not the point that I wish to insist upon. I contend that the Government ought not to have allowed these unfortunate people, who required relief in order to prevent them from starving, to have been marked out for eviction. We have been told that the charity of last year, and of the year before, was administered upon a basis of strictness and foresight such as never was practised in the administration of any previous relief; but instead of the Lord Lieutenant relying upon the local priest and parson as the almoners of charity he himself said that he relied upon Resident Magistrates, and upon the police and other officials as administrators of it. Is it likely, then, that that charity should find its way into the pockets of deserving persons? Is it not absolutely certain that it was misused when we consider who the almoners were? Is it not intolerable that these officials should, when finding out worthy recipients for the charity, mark down others to be dealt with by the law? Are not the Misses Macdonald on a par with Lord Clanricarde in the treatment of their tenants? I venture to say that they are even worse. I know from my own experience how the people suffered under the Crimes Act in Tipperary. How much
    998
    graver and more serious is it when you prosecute the whole population of a distant island in a stormy sea, and compel them to go before their tyrants in the nearest town on the mainland over 13 miles of road in the depth of winter! If these islanders had had a little more devil in them you would not have got them to do it. If they had been of the Tipperary spirit and strain they would not have been harried in this way. The agents of the Government always adapt their methods to the character of the population. They treat the Sikhs and the Ghoorkas of India in a different way to that in which they treat the Parsee and the Hindoo; they treat the peasants in the West of Ireland in a very different way to that in which they treat the farmers of Wicklow and Wexford and Tipperary. The lesson to be drawn from this is not a lesson of patience or toleration or charity; but a lesson of vigour, and of determination, and of defiance. I believe that if these poor islanders had risen up against such oppression, if they had adopted some of the methods of the Scotch Crofters, attention would have been drawn to their case much more quickly. It is because they have been meek, because they have been humble, because they have been patient, that they have been persecuted. I ask the Government to give these unfortunate people something more than magazine articles. I ask the Government to let us have some statement that will bring hope and succour to them, and I venture to think that if some method is not soon adopted there will be further serious trouble. Strong remonstrances should be sent to the Misses Macdonald and to the Sub-Sheriffs, and justice should be done to these people. A remonstrance should also be sent to Mr. Horn of the Times. I do not know, however, whether this Government is strong enough to deal with that matter. Mr. Horn has been for months the organ of the Times, and probably he may have more influence at Printing House Square than a decrepit and dying House. I would suggest that he should be strongly blamed and reprimanded for the enormons hardships he has inflicted upon these unfortunate

    999
    people. Finally, I say that if the Government have anything left of the fund in Dublin Castle about which we have heard so much, but the balance-sheet of which has not been presented to the public, it could not be better employed than by enabling these poor people in some way to meet the necessitous position in which they have been placed. I hope, Sir, that the Government will act as the really paternal Government, and not as the stony stepmother of Dublin Castle, and that it will show that the Union has some blessings in its train and is of some value and efficacy to these islanders.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. W. O'Brien.)
    MR. JACKSON: This is, perhaps, not a very convenient form of raising a subject which is certainly not, so far as I am able to judge, so pressing as to necessitate the absorption of the time of the House on an occasion like this. I have listened with very great attention to the speeches which have been made, and I think I may say that it is not the first time that we have heard these impassioned statements as to what may happen unless immediate steps are taken for the relief of these particular tenants. The hon. Member who raised this question dealt with it in its two-fold aspects. He devoted most of his speech to a subject that cannot be considered urgent, because it is a question that has already been discussed in this House. The hon. Member has again gone over the incidents of the story connected with the prosecutions for unlawful assembly, and I would remind the House that these prosecutions were for resistance to the action taken by the executive officers in the discharge of their duty; and I would further remind the House that in reference to what took place on that occasion, that these persons pleaded guilty to the charge made against them. Surely there was no great hardship in prosecuting them for offences to which they pleaded guilty? Now, Sir, it is not necessary for me to go into all the details connected with these prosecutions, but I should like briefly to refer to one or two statements made by the
    1000
    hon. Member who introduced this question to the House. The hon. Member said that on the 23rd November a man of the name of Malley had been clubbed to the earth by a policeman with the stock of his rifle. This is the first occasion on which I have heard the matter mentioned. I have read carefully all the papers on the action of the police on the island; and, so far as my recollection goes, there is not the smallest foundation for any such charge as that which the hon. Member brings, against the police.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: Did the right, hon. Gentleman read a letter from Father Malloney, the priest of the island?
    MR. JACKSON: Oh, yes! I do not question his authority, but I want to deal with one or two points to which he referred. I was quite aware, when I heard the speech of the hon. Member, that he was giving us statements which came from the reverend gentleman. Well, Sir, I will say that I believe there is no foundation whatever for the statement that a man was clubbed to the earth by a policeman; that disposes, of that point. But the hon. Gentleman also said that one young man, lying on his deathbed with fever, was served on his deathbed with a summons. I am in a position to say that there is not the smallest foundation for that statement.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: What is your authority?
    MR. JACKSON: My authority is the Report of those by whom the process of serving the summons was carried out. There is no reason whatever to doubt their authority. The hon. Member made the statement most positively.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: I repeat it most positively. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman's point is that this young man had not a bed to die upon.
    MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member repeats the statement on the strength of the letter to which I have referred. I have examined carefully into the question, and I say without fear of contradiction that there is absolutely no truth in the statement. Well now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the hearing of these summonses was adjourned on several occasions; he has again referred to the fact

    1001
    that the hearing was adjourned from Louisburg to Westport, and he has referred to the statement that in the opinion of the Magistrates it was much more convenient and much more in the interests of the persons concerned that that adjournment should take place from Louisburg to Westport. It is quite true that on the first day the room at Louisburg was packed with these people, and it must be borne in mind that at this time one of the adjournments took place in consequence of an outbreak of fever among the islanders. On the first day they were packed into this room in rows, and they had to stand the whole time, as there was no possible accommodation for seating them. I have heard on the authority of those who were present that it was dangerous to the health of everybody concerned that they should be kept in such an atmosphere. On the first day it seemed probable that the case would be finished before the rising of the Court. I believe it is admitted that certain recommendations were made by the priest, and at one time it was somewhat probable that the case would be decided before the end of the day. Towards the close of the day, however, when the question came up as to these men, it was found that if an examination by each of the individual witnesses brought forward was to be continued in the manner in which it had began, a reasonable estimate would show that it would probably take five or six days before being finally settled. It was in view of that fact that there were no means of accommodation at Louisburg, and it was in the interest of everybody concerned that the cases were adjourned to Westport. I think I may say that, so far from there having been any unnecessary harshness in dealing with these people, I believe that they themselves admitted that the course taken had been a course which was marked by great leniency. Now, Sir, reference has been made to Mr. Horne, and, unless I am very much mistaken, Mr. Horne is a very popular man, one of the most popular Magistrates in Ireland, and a man in whom the people have perfect and complete confidence; and certainly I have ascertained nothing that would in any degree show that the feeling towards
    1002
    Mr. Horne is other than that I have described.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Magistrates did not attend?
    MR. JACKSON: In the first place, one of the Magistrates was summoned to the Assizes at Sligo. If this had been foreseen, arrangements would have been made which would have obviated the necessity for an adjournment. It was not possible in the circumstances to hear the charges, and it was through no fault of the Magistrate or anyone concerned that he was unable to attend on that day. In the other case the cause of adjournment was this. The first summonses were adjourned to a particular day, subsequent to the first case other summonses were issued against persons who had previously evaded service, and the second batch was made returnable on the same day as the adjourned summonses. It was found then that the day fixed was not a formal Petty Sessions day, and that, consequently, the new summonses could not be taken on that day. I admit that that was a blunder. No doubt the inconvenience of the second adjournment was caused by that fact. It would have been possible to have taken the adjourned summonses, but it was not possible to take the new summonses on that particular day, and I suppose that they thought it was better to adjourn them both rather than proceed with the adjourned summonses. I think a mistake was made in that case, and although I do not pass any severe censure on the officials, I make that admission to show the House that I desire to state the case as fairly as I can. Now, Sir, really what am tasked to do? In the first place, I am asked by the hon. Member whether I will undertake that the Forces of the Crown shall not be used for the purpose of protecting the Sub-Sheriff in carrying out these evictions; in the second place I am asked whether I consider it is right that a person occupying the position of a land agent should at the same time fill the position of Sub-Sheriff, and practically carry out the decrees obtained in those cases in which he acts as agent for the landlord. Taking the second point first, I believe the Lord

    1003
    Lieutenant has no power in the matter. The hon. and learned Member for Longford says in vigorous language that the Lord Lieutenant should threaten the High Sheriff that unless he appoints another Sub-Sheriff he, the Lord Lieutenant, will supersede the High Sheriff. That is the only remedy which the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Longford can suggest as being within the power of the Government, and it is a course that would be certainly very unusual and extremely irregular. On the merits of the case itself, I do not hesitate to express my own personal conviction that it does appear on the face of it a little contrary to the position that we should like to see, that a man who has to carry out the decrees of the Law Courts should seem to occupy the dual position of bailiff and executioner. I do not hesitate to give it as my opinion that it is not desirable that a man should occupy that double position. But I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind that that has nothing whatever to do with the question of carrying out the decrees of the Court, or of the duty of the Government in connection with those decrees. Certainly, so far as any influence I have can go, I say it is not desirable; but I say, at the same time, that in this particular district the most suitable man in the district has been selected. I believe Mr. Routledge to be a highly respectable man, and, apart from this particular case, nobody would raise a question of his suitability for the position of Sub-Sheriff. The Government, however, as I have said, have no power to interfere. The appointment rests with the High Sheriff.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: He is a nominee of the Crown.
    MR. JACKSON: Yes, but the appointment rests with the High Sheriff, and the Government have no power to do that which the hon. Member asks us to do. Now, Sir, with regard to the carrying out of these decrees, it is, I believe, true that there have been 19 processes issued. I would ask the House to consider, just for one moment, what it is I am asked to undertake. I am asked to undertake that the Forces of the Crown shall not be used under any circumstances in this case in order to protect a Sheriff
    1004
    in carrying out his duty. If the Government gave that undertaking it would mean nothing more nor less than a distinct announcement and a distinct intimation to those people on Clare Island to resist the carrying out of those decrees, and we know perfectly well that in these circumstances it would be absolutely impossible to carry out the law.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: I only asked the right hon. Gentleman to follow the precedent set by the President of the Board of Trade when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    MR. JACKSON: I am asked to declare in Parliament that the Government will come under an undertaking or obligation not to use the Forces of the Crown for the purpose of protecting those officers in carrying out the law. I say, in reply, that it only needs to be stated to the House that whatever the view of the Government be, it would be absolutely impossible to carry out the law if that course were adopted. I say it is not possible for a moment to give such an undertaking. The hon. Member raises this question at a time when these processes have been taken out. I know nothing of the circumstances, but shall certainly deem it my duty to make inquiry into the facts of the case. But, so far as I am able to inform myself, I am bound to say that I hope the House will support the Government in the declaration I have made—that it is absolutely impossible, that it would be extremely unwise, that it would be cutting at the root of all the authority of the law in Ireland if, in answer to a demand made across the floor of the House, in a case where there has been no pretence that anything has taken place that has not been completely justified, in a case where there is no pretence that any injury has been done—that the Government should make a declaration that they would refuse that protection which the officers of the law are entitled to in carrying out the law. I say it is impossible for the Government to make any such declaration.
    (4.15.) Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 188.—(Div. List, No. 76.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SMALL AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.—(No. 183.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 5th April.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Amendment again proposed, in page 1, line 10, after the word "may," to insert the words "either by voluntary agreement or compulsorily."—(Sir W. Foster.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WHITBREAD: An hon. Member who sits on this side of the House moved a most important Amendment—more important, perhaps, than any other Amendment which has been moved on this Bill—and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill in dealing with it made use of some arguments which were not very sound in themselves, and which, at any rate, were not sufficient to meet a very grave case. His argument was that he had supported compulsion in the Allotments Bill, but that he did not see the necessity for compulsion in the Small Holdings Bill. What the right hon. Gentleman said was that he quite agreed with compulsion in the Allotments Bill, because it was admitted on all hands that allotments were a public good and a public advantage, but that it was impossible that could be said for the Small Holdings Bill, because it is an experiment which we hope may succeed, but upon which no confident opinion can be expressed. I may put the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in this way:—"I believe in allotments, therefore I am willing to give compulsion. I do not believe in small holdings, I only hope for them, therefore I will not give compulsion." I do not know whether that kind of argument is likely to be accepted by the House or the country; but it does occur to me that you will have to go a very long way back in our history before you will find a Government which has had such an appalling lack of faith in its own legislation as the present Government has shown in free education and small
  1006
  holdings. But it is part of our business to stir up the faith of the right hon. Gentleman, and show him how to make a reality of this Bill. The next argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that there was no need of compulsion, because there is plenty of land in the market. And he quoted the figures of a firm of land agents to show that this was the case. I should like to ask a few questions of that witness on the subject. I should like to ask what was the character of the sale? What sort of land was it? Was it mountain and moorland, or farms that had been allowed to go out of cultivation; or was it good arable and pasture land fit for small holdings? And I want to know what is the character of the land remaining on their books, something like 200,000 acres? Were the sales in large plots, or so dispersed over the country as to justify the belief that if you rely on the supply of land in the market it will meet the needs of the separate parishes which may arise? That is the problem which we have to solve. It is no use to tell the labourer that there are 500,000 acres in the market in another county. Would this convenient witness tell us that if he were negotiating the sale of an estate of 6,000 or 7,000 acres in a ring fence, it would have no effect on the price or the willingness of the purchaser to buy if he were suddenly to tell him that he would have to surrender to the County Council for the purpose of small holdings a good plot of land in the centre of the estate? These are important questions, when you come to rely on the amount of land in the market. If this Bill is to have any effect a surrender must be made. Most of the land in England is tenanted and occupied, and there must be a surrender. The figures of the right hon. Gentleman were very instructive. He said, take the number of acres sold by one land agent, and so many more on his books ready for purchasers, take the number of land agents in London whose names you will find in the Directory, and the multiplication table will do the rest. These figures came as trippingly from his tongue as the figures run in the prospectus of a Limited Liability Company. I do not think it would be a great misnomer if

  1007
  this Bill were called the Small Holdings Bill (Limited), for it is strictly limited to what the landowners choose to subscribe. When my right hon. Friend was describing all these acres to be sold, I could not help picturing to myself the County Councillors with whom I am connected driving through parish after parish, many of them contiguous to each other, and in which not one acre is in the market, or likely to be in the market. Hon. Members opposite represent 20 times, perhaps 50 times, the amount of land in England represented by men belonging to the Liberal Party, and they know what I am saying is true. The tendency of landowners during the last century has been to secure complete and absolute control over the whole land within the bounds of their estates. It has not always been for unworthy purposes, for it is easier to secure good buildings and good sanitary arrangements if you have complete control. Hon. Gentlemen on this side chafe at the notion of that control, and doubt whether the benefits and advantages accruing from it are worth the cost. I am not concerned to inquire on what side the relative Parties lie; we have to deal with the fact. You propose by the Bill to reverse all this. You are going deliberately to give the pendulum a swing in the other direction. It is not a question of letting land for allotments, but of sale outright. The sale will be supervised for ten years by the County Council, but after that the land, purchased in 50 or 25 acre lots, will be available for any object the purchaser may choose. It may be sold in half-acre lots, or for building purposes; there is no guarantee that it will be kept in cultivation. When the Bill is passed, do you suppose that the complete and absolute control which has cost so much to obtain will be very willingly surrendered? It is a mistake to suppose that the landowners will sell large plots to be used for any purpose at the end of ten years unless they are compelled to sell. Look at these "close villages" as they were called, and see what injustice you will do them if the Bill remains a dead letter in their case. If you do not provide them with their share of these
  1008
  new small holdings you do them a double injustice, for you tax them for the advantage of other villages. The right hon. Gentleman says he objects to compulsion, because it would cause friction between different classes. If I had to ask a tenant to surrender a portion of his farm for small holdings I should feel the friction much less if I were backed by compulsory powers. The tenant would feel more hurt if it were at the will of the landlord only that he had to give up the land. I certainly cannot agree that compulsion would make the state of feeling between landlord and tenant, or farmer and labourer, less pleasant than they have been hitherto. I am not ready to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has taken up this Bill as a plaything, as a kind of Parliamentary pastime, to occupy a few spare hours between now and the Dissolution, or that he has put it forward as a convenient banner to be unfurled just before we go to the country and after that to be rolled up again and put on one side. I believe he would have been glad to make a workable Bill, but I think he has wholly failed to realise the magnitude of the task under his hand. I wonder what he and his friends will think when the Bill is placed on the Statute Book if it is found that it will not work? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has estimated the task he has taken in hand, or that the Party sitting behind him is prepared to make the sacrifices which are necessary if the Bill is to work. I look upon it that compulsion in this Bill is the test of sincerity. If they believe in the measure, if they believe that small holdings are a necessity, let them put a clause in the Bill which will insure that small holdings will be forthcoming. I am not enamoured of compulsion for its own sake, but there are some good things which cannot be obtained without compulsion, and this is one of them. There is one thing I dislike more than I do compulsion, and that is to see this House passing measures that we know cannot work, that we know are not real measures. I think that is a dangerous thing to do. I do not like to raise expectations among a part of the people of this country when I know that those expectations will

  1009
  not be fulfilled. I think that is inducing men to distrust Parliament, to feel that when expectations are raised they are not fulfilled, and to avoid raising such expectations and dooming them to disappointment, I would make a greater sacrifice than is involved in voting for the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Reference has been made several times to the decision of the Small Holdings Committee, of which I had the honour to be Chairman, and I should like in a few minutes to give some explanation as to the course taken by the majority of that Committee. Before I do so, however, I may refer very briefly to the speech we have just listened to. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) commenced by referring to the arguments against compulsion which had been used by the Minister of Agriculture, and he complained of the poverty of those arguments. He complained, in the first place, that the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to believe in his own Bill, because he had said that whilst he felt confident in proposing that which referred to allotments that that measure would be largely availed of, he considered the present Bill as in the nature of an experiment, and, therefore, he was not prepared to go as far in the way of compulsion in the latter measure as he did in the former. I very much wish my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford had been on the Committee to which I have referred. If he had been, and had been in the slightest degree impressed by the evidence, he would have agreed with the President of the Board of Agriculture that he would be a very rash man indeed who would predict beforehand what would be the result of State assistance of a scheme for providing small holdings. We had witnesses before us who declared it could not be successful, except in the case of land where fruit-growing could be carried on or where fruit cultivation could be economically practised, and to attempt to extend small holdings throughout the country would be to court certain failure. We were told by other wit-
  1010
  nesses that the class for whose benefit it was sought to create the small holdings would never be able to provide the capital necessary for working them, and that the very utmost they could possibly do would be to take something like the tenancies suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. Then again, we were, told by one witness at least that even the rate of interest suggested in this Bill, and which we suggested to him, would be altogether too large for any small holder to pay if he belonged to the agricultural labouring class, and unless the Government would be prepared to accept the same rate of interest which the landowners are content to take—and which the witness put at about 2 per cent—the Bill would certainly be a failure. Again, we were told that no Bill of this kind would be satisfactory or sufficient which did not provide State assistance, not only to give the land to the labourer, but also to provide buildings. One witness declared that he should not be satisfied with this even, and that the State must go on and provide for the stocking of the farm. There were, of course, other witnesses holding different opinions, and the Committee, although impressed by all this evidence with the fact that a Bill of this kind must necessarily be an experiment, were unanimous in their conviction that it was very desirable to try such an experiment. But undoubtedly I am expressing the conviction of the Committee, or certainly the conviction of the majority of the Committee, when I say that they believed that the Bill must be a tentative measure. My hon. Friend went on to say that the evidence before the Committee was insufficient to show that there would be sufficient land for the purpose of the experiment.
  MR. WHITBREAD: Sufficient land sufficiently dispersed.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, sufficiently dispersed. I am inclined to agree with those witnesses who came before us and said that there would be exceptional cases; perhaps in some cases affecting whole districts, in which there would not be sufficient and suitable land at the particular time at which it was wanted. I think that is

  1011
  quite possible; but, on the other hand, there was a general concurrence of testimony in the view that there would be ample land to be found in different parts of the Kingdom to supply, at all events, as much as would be required for such an experiment as this Bill provides for—an experiment which is confined to a capital expenditure which can be based on a penny rate. As to that I think there can be no doubt. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that there may be cases in which this Bill will not provide for a want which may be found to exist, and if it can be shown that such a state of things exists to any considerable extent a good case would be made out for asking the House to provide compulsion, always supposing that in the meantime the experiment has succeeded according to the desires of those who are promoting this legislation. Then my hon. Friend made use of another argument which, I think, should lead to a different conclusion from that he based upon it. He pointed out that under the Bill these small holders are after ten years to have absolute possession of their holding, and I think he suggested that if now, under a voluntary system even, they were enabled to get land in the middle of an estate they might afterwards so use that land as seriously to injure the estate, and as that would naturally be unpopular with the landowners he actually suggests that compulsory powers should be asked for to do this great wrong to landowners against their will. I should have thought that if anything of the kind were possible it would be an argument against compulsory powers. For myself, I hold that to be an amendment to another part of the Bill which would prevent these small holders from obtaining this absolute possession, and always keep them under the control of the Bill, and carry out the object which the State is making sacrifices to secure—namely, that they should continue occupying and cultivating tenants. I go back again to what I wish to say with regard to the Report of the Small Holdings Committee, the effect of which has, I think, been a little misunderstood. It is said, and said truly, that we reported against compulsory powers, and hon. Members on the other side
  1012
  have supposed that we reported against compulsion on its merits. We recommended that compulsory powers should not be put in this Bill, or in the Bill which was expected to follow on our recommendations, and we did so on two grounds. First, that it was a tentative measure, and that it must be considered as an experiment, and that for the mere purposes of an experiment compulsory powers were not absolutely necessary; and, in the second place, because we believed that if compulsory powers were sought for at this stage of the discussion they would provoke so much opposition, both in the House and in the country, there would be very little chance of any Bill being passed. As regards the evidence we took on the subject of compulsion, I must say that it did not add very much to our information. It was conflicting in character, and hardly of the nature to justify us in coming to any confident conclusion. There were four witnesses—Mr. Standing, a small farmer from Lincolnshire; Mr. Dodd, who spoke as standing counsel for the Small Holdings Association; Mr. Jones, a solicitor in Cardiganshire; and Mr. Hughes, a small owner in Wales, who, I may say, were absolutely in favour of compulsion. On the other hand, Mr. Gibbons, who was connected with allotments at Wellingborough, advocated compulsion after my hon. Friend's own heart. He was for compulsion all round. He was not satisfied merely to compel the landowner to sell, but he demanded that the Local Authorities should be compelled to buy. Another small farmer, Mr. Jones, also from Wales, was in favour of compulsion, but he would only apply it in the case of unlet land. He would not apply it where tenants were in possession and were already cultivating the land. The late Mr. Fyffe, who gave us the most interesting and useful evidence we took in the course of the inquiry, put before us some very strong arguments in favour of compulsory powers. He said, with regard to landlords, "Some will not sell land for the purposes of this measure, though it is true," he went on to say,
  "I believe these are exceptions, but I know some landlords exercising control over very large districts who certainly, at present, would absolutely refuse the land for such a purpose."

  1013
  He said, what I think to be of more importance, that whilst some landlords will not sell there are many landlords who cannot sell owing to the opposition of their tenants, and it would enable these landlords who are quite willing to sell to get over this opposition of the farmers if they could appeal to the compulsion that was behind them. On those grounds, therefore, Mr. Fyffe said that although he was firmly convinced that if compulsion were included it would seldom be used, it would be a potentiality which was a great advantage. Then Mr. Fyffe, who, although he was a very strong Radical and an ardent politician, was an extremely fair-minded man, went on to say, in answering a question, that undoubtedly he thought that the Bill, even without compulsion, was a good and useful Bill, and he would vote for it, even without compulsion, though he thought it would be more useful if compulsion were included. My own opinion, and the opinion of some other Members of the Committee who voted against the immediate introduction of compulsion, may be very fairly expressed in the words of Mr. Fyffe. We think, and we thought, that the introduction of compulsion would be an improvement to the Bill, and if we could possibly hope to convince the Government of that, and at the same time not to arouse any considerable opposition in the country, I should have thought it was very desirable to include compulsion, even now, in the measure. But, on the other hand, if the introduction of compulsion is likely seriously to endanger the measure, then I am prepared to vote against compulsion, at all events at present, not on the merits, be it observed, but as a question of policy. I think that in doing so I should have no difficulty in justifying myself. In the first place, as the hon. Member for Bedford said, and as any reasonable man would say, compulsion is not to be desired for its own sake but should rather be avoided, because it might, in many cases, cause great friction; but I would also point out that it is certain to increase the cost of transactions under the Bill. I have had a very large experience in compulsory acquisition of land, acting on behalf of a great Municipality, and in all cases in which I have
  1014
  been personally concerned, and in every case of which I had the slightest knowledge of the cost of the proceeding, the general consequences of having resort to compulsion have invariably been to add at least 20 per cent., and in one case of which I know personally 50 per cent., to the value of the land. Therefore, I think we all desire that compulsion should be used as little as possible, and not at all unless it is necessary. I have already said that we had evidence before us that enough land was obtainable for the purpose of trying this experiment. I have no doubt that will be found to be the case if this Bill passes. I do not say it will be so in every case in which land is required; there may be cases of grievance but, practically speaking, it will be tried in every county in England, and we shall know what chance there is of giving a large extension to the measure. And if, hereafter, a case for compulsion is made out—as I think it will be made out—then, undoubtedly, we shall have the strongest possible grounds for coming to Parliament and saying, "We must have compulsion, without which this question cannot be dealt with." But if we find, as I am afraid we do find, that there is amongst the landowners of the country a very serious alarm at the prospects of compulsion, I think we are bound, having regard to the prospects of legislation, to take that into account at the present moment. And let me say that some of the remarks which have been made in the course of this discussion are not calculated to relieve landowners from this alarm, because I have heard hon. Members say that what they want is not only land, not only ordinary land, but the best land in the best place. I confess that goes a long way further than I have ever proposed to go in this matter. By all means let the small holder have a fair chance with the other cultivators of the soil; but if you say that that is not sufficient, and that he cannot succeed unless you allow him to pick out the eye of every estate, I think in that case you are putting his claim so high that no just man can possibly recognise it as a fair one. It is because I do believe that the progress of this measure would be most materially advanced if compulsion were not intro-

  1015
  duced that I voted against its immediate introduction. I am prepared to do the same now. The hon. Member for Cirencester the other day threatened us in very plain language with vengeance and with an electoral agitation, and no doubt we shall be denounced throughout the country as the enemies of the agricultural labourer. The hon. Member does not show very good taste in threatening his colleagues in the House in that way, but I will tell him this. If only the matter is fairly stated to the agricultural labourer by himself and his friends without exaggeration and without misrepresentation, I have sufficient confidence in the shrewdness and intelligence of the labourers to feel certain that they will justify our action. Here is a Bill which, as Mr. Fyffe said, and as I believe, is a good Bill, a useful Bill, and a Bill which will go a long way towards carrying out the object which we have at heart. We are told that the Government cannot accept the Amendment which has been proposed, and if it were forced upon them it would be fatal to the Bill. The Bill would have to be dropped, and what would happen then? The labourers, who are the especial care of the hon. Member for Cirencester, would have to wait till another Government came in—I wonder why hon. Members do not cheer me—which is a matter, as we all know, of very few weeks or months. Yes; but they would have to wait a few years after that Government came in whilst that Government was engaged in dealing with Home Rule for Ireland, Home Rule for London, One Man One Vote, Disestablishment of the Church in Wales—and it is not until all these things have been dealt with that the turn of the agricultural labourer will come for his compulsory Small Holdings Bill. Under these circumstances I have no hesitation, and I believe I am acting in the interest of the labourers when I vote for half a loaf instead of no bread. I believe in doing so we shall have done a great deal to satisfy the aspirations of the labourer, and we shall have done much more in his interest than we should do if we postponed the settlement of this question till all the reforms to which
  1016
  my hon. and right hon. Friends are pledged have been carried into effect.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I own to some difficulty in understanding the position of my right hon. Friend who has just sat down. But if I understand it at all, it appears to me to be a position which would go very far indeed to paralyse and to reduce to inanity all the reforming energy of Parliament. My right hon. Friend thinks that compulsion is sound in principle. He is convinced that a case will hereafter arise in which compulsion will be justified and necessary; and yet, although, the has these opinions, he is afraid to give a vote in favour of compulsion, because he says the Government cannot grant it. I want to know from my right hon. Friend whether there has ever been a single measure of reform and improvement in this House which, if we had treated it in that manner, we should not have totally failed in carrying. We have always had this opposition to contend against; we have always had this unwillingness and reluctance to admit the propriety or the necessity of what we proposed. But our answer and our grounds of action have been these: that we were confident in the reason of the case, and that, therefore, we must persevere. My right hon. Friend is perfectly confident in the reason of the case; he has no scruple there; he believes that the thing is in principle sound; and he believes that a case of necessity and compulsion will arise. Well, if we were under these circumstances to refrain from pressing our opinions, I should like to know where would be any of the reforming measures on which my right hon. Friend has heretofore in other days taken part? All these measures at the present day would still have continued to be the subject of idle and profitless discussion and of infinite ingenuity in finding circuitous methods of justification for shrinking from supporting them. If my right hon. Friend would only recur a little to the ancient faith which he used to have! I do not ask him to urge all his principles and all his opinions with the vehemence and in the alarming terms by which, in other days,

  1017
  he excited such horror amongst hon. Members opposite, by which he contrived to sever from the Liberal Party many good though timid men, who are now associated with him in the closest and most harmonious relations; I will not ask him to revert to his famous dicta, by which he earned an immortality, not, perhaps, altogether acceptable to his present humour; but I ask him in some degree to recall the sentiments cherished by him in his youth, and in his middle age to join with us—at least so far as reason will support our proposition—in something better than referring to the discretion and arbitrary will of the Government opposite, to say whether some improvement in our law shall take place or not. Then we come to this question: Is this Bill a Bill which absolutely requires the introduction of compulsion in order to give it any such character of utility, and any such terms of extent as the nature of the case and the expectation of the people demand? My right hon. Friend speaks as if there were nobody and nothing to consider in this matter except the apprehensions of nervous landlords, and except the will of a Tory Government. Now, we have a large rural population, and this rural population—as my right hon. Friend knows—has its mind intently set upon this subject. Of that there is no doubt. My right hon. Friend has got his specific for this. He says, "Only be reasonable and clear in your explanations to this rural population, and there is no difficulty whatever. Let there be no tampering, no exaggeration," and no doubt the hon. Member for Bordesley, the faithful henchman of my right hon. Friend, will be glad to echo that opinion. My right hon. Friend says, "This is my specific: give rational explanations to the rural labourers, and they will be perfectly satisfied." Well, now I should like much to know what are to be these rational explanations? Does my right hon. Friend think that if we have in our pockets a little printed copy of the speech which he has made to-day that will furnish us with a sufficient text for rational explanations to satisfy the labourers? Will the rural labourer be content when we go to him and say, "We believe compulsion is in principle
  1018
  just; we believe you have got a case, but because there is a Tory Government in power that I do not wish to displace, therefore my rational explanation must be sufficient for you; although your case is just, though I am the first in declaring it to be just and good, yet from political motives, brought from other quarters and not belonging to the merits of your case, without disparagement of your just claim, because of previous arrangements to which I have become committed, you are therefore to acquiesce in a measure which I do not deny requires this as a proper complement, but which at the same time it is not convenient for me to confer upon you." Is this the moderate and intelligible and enlightened explanation to which I am to expect the intellect of the rural labourer at once to yield assent? But I confess I differ from my right hon. Friend; I am not so sanguine; and I believe that the rural labourer is either too unenlightened or a good deal too enlightened to give the slightest effect to such explanations. If, on the other hand, my right hon. Friend has got another set of explanations which he has not included in his speech to-day—if he will kindly on some other occasion supply us with them, we should be most happy to take them, provided they are available, and turn them to the best account we can. In the meantime, for the present purpose I must point out to my right hon. Friend that we cannot altogether decline to act in the manner in which we have endeavoured to act upon other subjects—and that is to say that by our speeches we will endeavour to assist the public mind in arriving at right conclusions, and by our votes we will endeavour to assert our conscientious convictions—which are evidently shared by my right hon. Friend with us—we will endeavour to assert them, and we will not be deterred from asserting them by the knowledge that we have before us, as we have had upon every occasion when there has been anything worth contending for, a phalanx banded in opposition to our views. Well, now, the real question comes to this: Is this proposal a reasonable proposal? Is it needful, in order to make this Bill a reality, that compulsion should be introduced into it?

  1019
  But my right hon. Friend dropped important words, if I understood him rightly, in one portion of his speech, where I think he intimated vaguely that he approved of the proposal—I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong—that he approved, in principle, of the proposal to enlarge this Bill by introducing into it the principle of letting as well as selling the land.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg pardon. The Amendment of which I indicated my approval, and which is down on the Paper, was that for limiting the ownership by leaving quit-rent upon the land permanently, but I should have something to say against the proposal for substituting tenants for small owners.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I should be sorry to accuse my right hon. Friend of an intention to enlarge this Bill. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, however, that I am glad of his intervention, because he has relieved me in that way from the danger of disappointments, which I have not infrequently felt in the course of the present Parliament, when after listening to an admirable speech from my right hon. Friends which tended to make it a matter of demonstration to me that we were going to have the support of my right hon. Friend on some important principle, he has by-and-bye found a way circuitously to a means of escape which ended with the announcement that it would be his painful duty to go into the other Lobby. It seems to me that, in considering this Bill on its present basis, we are bound to refer to the evidence of witnesses before the Committee of this House, who have shown that very great doubts exist in the minds of many as to the extent to which this Bill will work, that there are many obstacles in the way, and that although many of us believe that it may easily and reasonably be made into a Bill of large operations, yet many persons appear to be under apprehensions that the operations of it will be small on account of the difficulties and objections there are in the way. But if that be the case, I have to ask myself, first of all, two questions: Is the object in view any very great object; and if it be any very great object is it one on which the common mind of this
  1020
  country is firmly set? My answer to these two questions is in the affirmative. I say it is of enormous importance to bring into profitable use the land of this country—not of the whole land of this country—I speak of nothing of the kind; and I do not believe that any person sitting here will see a fundamental revolution of the sort in the rural land of this country. I believe its destiny is that for the most part it will be held by a considerable mass of persons who are not the occupiers and the cultivators of the soil. But I believe that it is of enormous—that it is of vital—importance and consequence on every ground to bring the rural population, the rural labouring population, as far as possible into union with the soil, and with the profitable use of the soil. Surely that is an argument of enormous power—to which a man of the acuteness of my right hon. Friend cannot possibly be blind—for endeavouring to give all the extension, and all the elasticity we can to the measure which is placed before us under the imposing title of the Small Agricultural Holdings Bill. This is indeed a very great question; and I confess I can conceive nothing more clear than that, without making extravagant or exaggerated demands, we should endeavour to equip such a Bill in such a way that it shall be a Bill of resource, that it shall be a Bill of carefully considered expedients for meeting the difficulties that confront us, and a Bill which aims at extracting from this great subject all the benefits that it can by rational processes be made to yield. Therefore, while disposed to admit that just consideration ought to be given to the arguments of opponents, and even to the apprehensions of opponents, I say I feel no reason to believe that our opponents constitute a considerable majority in this House, and that they have reason to make a call upon our compassion. They are here in a condition to assert individually their own views and principles and to give them effect. But it is a strange thing, indeed, that we who are of the minority should be reduced to the point that we are not to give a reason for our opinions, and not to give our votes in support of these opinions, because what we have before

  1021
  us is still not an inconsiderable majority perfectly able to hold its own ground, and to do what I must admit to be justice, and what I call a great deal more than justice, to bad arguments and insufficient conclusions. There is one statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester which I wish to call attention to. Why is it, it may be naturally asked, that my hon. Friend behind me, in his admirable speech—the hon. Member for Bedford, and other gentlemen in this House—has attached this very great importance to the introduction of compulsion into this Bill? And here I wish to draw a distinction which undoubtedly, in my view, is important. The same distinction was taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester. I wish to point out that if a multitude of blocks of 50, 40, or 30 acre holdings are to be taken out of existing estates, that may be regarded, and rightly regarded, as a very serious interference with the unity of those estates, and, without putting too high an argument on behalf of the landlord, on the landlord's reasonable influence on the control of the area where he is the principal proprietor, and must continue to bear the principal responsibility. As I have gathered from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester, his anxiety for compulsion was not for the 50, 40, 30, or even 20 acre holdings, which the Government contemplate in the form of freeholds. Undoubtedly that is my feeling. I am indifferent whether you apply compulsion to those large blocks, which I call large holdings as compared with the holdings we principally have in view. Now, Sir, what is it we have principally in view? Who are they that have the real call upon us for assistance in this case? They are the rural labourers; they are not the men possessed of £2,000, £1,000, or £500. They are not the men who would buy 50, 40, 30, or even 20 acres. They are the men to whom it would be of the most vital consequence to obtain what I would call small holdings—those which border upon allotments, and which rise by slow gradations from the dimensions of allotments until you come to holdings
  1022
  of an entirely different character. I think the more these Debates are carried on the more it must be evident that the object of the Government is entirely distinct from that of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. The object of the Government is the creation of a class approaching the character of the ancient yeomanry of this country. An object of that character is an exceedingly good one; I have not a word to say against it, but it is an object necessarily limited and narrow in its sphere. There is before us a far wider purpose, and that is of going to the labouring population of this country, and of placing them, to their own profit and advantage, upon the soil from which until now they unquestionably have been almost altogether excluded. I hardly think it can be denied that that is a reasonable purpose on our part, and that we should look to this Bill with a desire that it should be made adequate to the attainment of that object. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture says that he is strongly for compulsion in regard to allotments, but that the holdings contemplated by this Bill are in the nature of an experiment, and that, therefore, there ought not to be compulsion in regard to them. I do not admit the distinction of the line which has just been drawn by the right hon. Gentleman at a single acre being a certain good on one side and a mere experiment on the other. I say that the allotments are a certain good, but that he is wrong in saying that holdings of two acres or three acres, four acres or five acres, ought to be regarded as mere experiments. Some of these holdings, even up to five acres—I believe multitudes of them—may be found to be perfectly capable of management by men who are now in the condition of labourers. I will now refer to a nobleman who was once well known to this House, and who will always be honourably known in the districts in which he lived—the late Lord Tollemache. He was a man of politics entirely opposite to mine, but he was one who did honour to his name and to his order, and to his country; and as regards this question of small holdings he was a model landlord. Now Lord Tolle-

  1023
  mache had an estate in Suffolk, where the people were not associated with grazing and the management of cows, and he gave to every labourer upon it half an acre of ground, partly to be used for the spade cultivation of corn, and partly for strictly garden purposes. But Lord Tollemache also had a large estate in Cheshire, and he gave 2½ acres to every cottager upon it. These are what I call small holdings, and they were held without any call being made upon the labourer to invest money in the freehold, and thereby to deprive themselves of the means of cultivating their holdings. Why should there not be created in many parts of this country a class such as Lord Tollemache created on his own estates? Then we come to the question, whether it is certain that such a class could be created under this Bill as it is now framed? I maintain that they could not be created under it. My right hon. Friend who has just sat down said that in his experience compulsion was a more expensive way of securing land than by voluntary arrangement. That contention appears to be based on the assumption that we are setting up compulsion against voluntary arrangement. We are doing nothing of the kind. It is not a question whether land shall be taken by compulsion instead of by voluntary arrangement. It is a question whether land shall be taken by compulsion or its not being taken at all. The comparison of the standard of price has no reference to the case which is before us. My contention is that we ought to have a uniformity of action, so far as we can, all over the country—I do not say uniformity of action made compulsory, because we are agreed that this is a matter in which the initiative control and responsibility must be left in the main to Local Authorities—to the County Councils—as the basis of the Bill. About that I think there is no division of opinion in this House; but we ought not to frame our measure in such a way that where the Local Authorities are willing, intermediate or secondary obstacles shall be permitted to frustrate and render null and void ab initio the great purpose of the Bill. Can we expect uniformity of action on the part of
  1024
  landlords in this matter? In my opinion, the exceptions which must exist to prevent that uniformity are exceptions very considerable in number. There are the landlords who are indifferent; there are landlords who are absentees; and there are landlords who are minors, whose trustees and guardians, in a multitude of instances, will say "No" to the question of dealing with the corpus of the estate before the succession of the owner. There are landlords who are embarrassed, and whose estates are greatly encumbered—not, I hope, a very large number, but still a not inconsiderable number—to whom it might be a matter of great inconvenience to raise any money in order to release even a portion of their property from the encumbrances at present affecting them. But there is another consideration. This Bill must undoubtedly be regarded as a Bill calling for considerable expense. What I should like to see would be voluntary action of the landlord in dealing directly with the tenants without going to the County Councils at all. But a man must then be in a position of something like Lord Tollemache, whose operations cost him, unless I am much mistaken, a great deal of money. Perhaps not a very large proportion of landlords would be in a position to deal with their tenants upon the liberal footing which Lord Tollemache was able to adopt; and, on the whole, it appears to me that there is no inconsiderable number of landlords whom it is impossible to expect that they or their representatives would voluntarily concur in the purposes of this Bill. Then how will the people of three different parishes stand with regard to it? There may be parish A, parish B, and parish C in the same county; the people of those three parishes desirous of obtaining land; the County Council willing and active in the discharge of their duty. In parish A and C the landlords are willing to sell; but in parish B there is a landlord who from indifference, or from being an absentee, from want of money, or from other causes, is not willing to do so; so that while the labourers in parish B have their desires wholly unsatisfied, and those in A and C have attained the object of their wish, those in

  1025
  parish B would be subjected to taxation for the benefit of the others. Is that likely to conduce to harmony and and to prevent friction? Will the right hon. Gentleman opposite apply the principle to a holding above as to a holding below one acre? Will he open the door which would give us a hope that the rural labourer will have a fair chance of coming into the profitable use and cultivation of a portion of the soil. The only desire we have is to aid him in doing it. My right hon. Friend said that this Bill would go a long way to accomplish our object——
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, no! What I said was that the Bill before the Committee was in its main features similar to the Bill which was introduced by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. J. Collings), which also was not a compulsory Bill, and that compulsion is not necessary to bring a good many more people on the soil.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The expression "going a long way" was, I think, unfortunately used. The sense and meaning of the present Bill is to increase the number of small holdings. By all means let that be done, but do not let us allow the rural labourers to suppose that we for a moment dream that this will meet their wishes. It is something far beyond it that is required. It is the establishment of a prevalent and useful union between the masses of the population and the soil that we should seek to effect. Is that an unreasonable attempt to make? Let the right hon. Gentleman give us, in the most moderate way, the means of accomplishing that object, and we shall be happy to meet him. We wish to give him every credit for what he has done, but to stimulate him to do more; because I fear that if something more is not done this Bill will remain a monument of good intentions, and will carry through the country when it comes into operation, from the extreme narrowness of its scope, a feeling of deep and prevailing disappointment.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: The House has listened with interest, not altogether unmixed with amusement, to the speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen. These speeches have been strikingly
  1026
  different in character. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham explained the reasons which induced him to give his vote against this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian commenced his speech by spending at least a quarter of an hour in attacking my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham for refusing to return to what he called his "conscientious convictions," and denounced the bad arguments he had used on this occasion. I think, in so far as the right hon. Gentleman's speech was concerned, if I may be forgiven for saying so, the difficulty was to find what arguments he relied on. He spent so long a time in attacking my right hon. Friend that I can only come to this conclusion—that whilst my right hon. Friend was desperately anxious to forward and advance this measure, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian would not scruple to injure it, and injure it seriously if he could. The right hon. Gentleman asked if this was or was not a reasonable Amendment, and he went on to say it was a very large question, and that this Bill ought to be what he described as a "Bill of resource." But the right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to explain what a "Bill of resource" was to mean, neither did he give the slightest nor the smallest answer to the question as to whether this Amendment was reasonable or whether it was not. The right hon. Gentleman went on to declare that the endeavour to create a class of yeomen was not the only thing; but that the real object and purpose of the Bill ought to be to aid in the advancement of the agricultural labourer by increasing the number of small holdings. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not see how, by making use of that expression, he advanced in the slightest degree his argument in favour of compulsion. He said I had drawn a line between holdings below one acre and holdings above one acre, and that I stated that, though the one was nothing but an experiment, the other was an advantage that could not be disputed; and he asked me to justify that distinction. I wish to say, in reference to

  1027
  this subject, that that is not the argument I used. I said nothing whatever about a line between holdings below one acre and holdings above one acre. What I have constantly said on this subject is this—that while the system of allotments has been proved to be a success—which is a very different thing from saying it may be an advantage—on the other hand, no one in this House is able to say that the attempt to establish small holdings by the aid of the State can be described as anything more than an experiment, although it is an experiment of which we cherish the reasonable hope that it will succeed. The right hon. Gentleman said it is a question between compulsion and having no land at all. On what ground does the right hon. Gentleman make that statement? We have had some experience of this question in the past in dealing with allotments. Since the passing of the Allotments Act there have been added by voluntary means to the allotments already existing a number that is quite remarkable. Does that show any unwillingness on the part of landowners of this country to come forward and assist a measure of this description, and does that give the slightest ground or justification for the idea that we must either have compulsion or no land at all? Well, Sir, there has been this great addition to the allotments, and it has been obtained by voluntary means and not by the compulsory process which the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to introduce, with the exception, I believe, of one or two cases only out of the multitude of allotments which have been created. The right hon. Gentleman said there would be Parish A, in which the landlord would be willing to sell land for the purpose of being parcelled out in small holdings, and that in Parish B there would be a person of a different description, an odious and selfish character, who would refuse to grant any land whatever for the purpose. Well, Sir, when that is shown to happen it will be time enough to adopt the suggestion of compulsion: and I cannot help thinking it is an unworthy charge to make against the landowners of this country, before the thing has been tried, that at least one-half of them will refuse to give any
  1028
  assistance in the carrying out of this Bill. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman one or two arguments against this principle of compulsion, which seems to be exceedingly dear to him, although I do not think he has advanced one single solid argument in its support. The right hon. Gentleman said—and he has repeated the statement more than once—that in his opinion the holdings granted under any measure of this kind would in the great majority of instances be small, and that it was essential that they should be near the existing homes of the men who were to cultivate them.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I said that small holdings which are capable of being multiplied to a very large extent in my view form the great subject of importance, and that the others are of secondary consequence.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Quite so; but I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that that was one of the grounds which made compulsion necessary. But if I accept the argument of the right hon. Gentleman as to the very small holdings it would be fatal. It would be an admission that would be fatal to the establishment or development of the system of small holdings throughout the country, except on the narrowest possible scale and to an extremely limited extent. The moment it is examined the Committee will see that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is open to two serious objections. In the first place the Committee must remember that the number of small holdings in this country at the present time is very much larger than probably many Members are in the least degree aware of. I have not the figures with me, but according to the latest Returns I am certainly under the impression that there were over 1,000,000—I think the number was 1,300,000 holdings over half an acre; and it is precisely in the districts indicated, that is to say, in the immediate vicinity of the villages, of the homes of the holders, that the great number of these small holdings will be found to exist. If that is so, the right hon. Gentleman will see that if this system is to be developed to the large extent that he desires, and that I hope, you must go further afield than the immediate

  1029
  vicinity of the villages for the purpose of giving effect to your measure. As a matter of fact, instead of bringing land to the houses and the buildings, you will have to consider whether, if the system is to be developed largely, the buildings and the houses should not be taken to the land. If this is not done, and compulsion is insisted upon, then when it is applied in the cases the right hon. Gentleman desires, to the villages, it will be found that it cannot be applied without dispossessing those already in occupation, and inflicting great injustice and injury on others. Everbody who is at all acquainted with the subject must know that it is the commonest thing in the world in the immediate vicinity of the villages to find land occupied as small holdings. That is one of the reasons why, in introducing this measure, and ever since, I have impressed upon the House that we should not be justified in regarding it as anything more than an experiment, but at the same time it is an experiment we hope will be attended by a reasonable amount of success. Now, Sir, I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Bedford, who opened the Debate this afternoon. The hon. Member was good enough to say that my arguments were not sound and that they were insufficient. He summed up my statements as follows:—"The right hon. Gentleman tells us he believes in allotments, but that he does not believe in small holdings." The hon. Member must pardon me for saying that that is an entire and complete misrepresentation of anything I have ever said. What I have said and what I repeat is, that allotments have been proved to be a success, but that no one can say the same of the question of small holdings. Did the hon. Member go further than that himself? Did he hold out to us any expectations that he would be prepared to introduce a Bill of this kind into Parliament, and recommend it as a measure the success of which had been already ascertained and proved? No. He was very careful to abstain from doing anything of the kind. The hon. Member said my figures were extremely loose, and he attempted to discredit the proposition that I put before the House that there
  1030
  were large quantities of land to be disposed of by voluntary means now in the market. The hon. Member does not dispute that; he knows better than to do anything of the kind, and he knows that when I made the statement that there never was a time when there was more land in the market to dispose of than there is at present, I made a statement which, in the opinion of everybody save the hon. Member, is literally, absolutely, and notoriously true. "Someone," said the hon. Member, "must give way." Granted. Someone must give way. But did the hon. Member find any unreadiness on the part of the landowners in England to give way when the Allotments Act was passed?
  MR. WHITBREAD: Yes, before there was compulsion in it.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member says before compulsion was in it there was unreadiness. The hon. Member is so little informed upon the subject that he is evidently not aware that the Act never was without compulsion. The hon. Member had not a word to say that was good of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, on the night this measure was introduced, described it as an honest measure, in the right direction. What did the hon. Member for Bedford say on the subject? He says it is a futile measure; dangerous, because it is impossible that it can succeed: a measure with regard to which he ventured to think I never hoped or intended to succeed, and a measure which would end in nothing but disappointment to the class for whose benefit it is intended. If that be the hon. Member's opinion, why, did he not oppose it on the Second Reading like a man? If I may be forgiven for saying so, a feebler exhibition than the attitude of the hon. Member, and a better illustration of the man who is willing to wound and yet desperately afraid to strike, I do not think I have ever seen. Now, Sir, I am still at a loss to know, though I have asked the question several times, what are the reasons and arguments in favour of compulsion. There has not been one single valid argument adduced throughout the whole course of this

  1031
  Debate except this—that you cannot get the land so cheap without it. It is, I believe, in the minds of hon. Members opposite only a question of the price at which the land is to be obtained, and nothing else. They hope and think and believe, as the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division said, that compulsion will prevent the price of land rising in the future—that is to say, that it will depreciate the value of the property of the landowner, and compel him to sell at a cheaper rate.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I wish the right hon. Gentleman would not impute to me what I have already denied. I said compulsion would prevent land being raised in price—having an artificial value attached to it by the advent in the market of the new purchaser, who will be created by the Bill.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member said compulsion would prevent the land from rising in value. That is the object of his proposal. He drew a distinction between preventing land rising in value and depreciating in value—a distinction which I cannot say that I am able to comprehend. But, granting that it is so, how is it possible to justify the measure on those grounds? It is said this Bill contemplates a national object. If that is so, then why throw the burden of making this national object a success, when you say cheapness of land is one of the first requisites, upon one class of the community, and one class alone? We have had no answer to that question, although it is a question we have a right to expect answered before accepting any proposition of that kind. I must own I am astonished at the passionate devotion, as it seems to me, of hon. Gentlemen opposite for this principle of compulsion. Because, Mr. Courtney, when you come to consider it, what is the meaning of compulsion? Compulsion, after all, is only another word for coercion, and in this case for coercion in a most aggressive form. When coercion has to be applied in order to protect the weak and the helpless from the lawlessness, the tyranny, and the oppression of the strong, when it is applied to coping with outrages or to extinguishing crime and giving security to the person, and the property and the lives of the subjects
  1032
  of the Queen; above all, when coercion is applied to banish the disgrace reflected on our common civilisation by occurrences like those of which I only read this morning, of the barbarous mutilation of dumb animals, then, Sir, both coercion and the Government which enforces it are held up by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to the odium and the execration of the people in every constituency throughout the Kingdom. But when compulsion comes to be directed only against landowners, in order to depreciate the value of the property they possess, then it is, Sir, that coercion goes home with a responsive echo to the heart, and is garnered in the inmost feelings of every good and every pious Radical in the country as the symbol of everything that is sanctified and blessed, and the idol before which he is constrained to kneel, in worship and in adoration. Sir, it is because I object to the inconsistency of the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite that I protest against their arguments, and I hope I have done something, however small, to tear away the flimsy veil of their pretences on this question. We have listened fairly to—we have entirely disposed of—their contentions, such as they have been, and we are now of opinion that we may reasonably be allowed to arrive at a decision on this subject. Nothing, I believe, could be more injurious to the future prospects or working of this Bill than the principle of compulsion. But be that as it may, we shall not suffer it to be wrecked by the maladroit attempts of hon. Gentlemen opposite to improve it by what they call Amendments, but what I can only regard as obstructions to the satisfactory working of this measure; and I call upon the House of Commons with confidence to support me in resisting a proposal which I am perfectly convinced, in all the circumstances of the present time, will do more than anything we can imagine now to retard the successful operation of the Bill.
  MR. LAMBERT: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he would call upon the House of Commons to give a verdict upon this question, and he confidently expected a favourable verdict; but I

  1033
  do not think he would confidently expect a favourable verdict on this question if he were to call upon the newly elected Members in the agricultural districts. He has also defined compulsion as meaning coercion. If it meant coercion I should certainly say it would receive the approbation of hon. Gentlemen opposite, for it certainly seems to us that they are maintaining compulsion or coercion where we think it has failed. The right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to answer the argument which has been placed before him by more than one speaker—namely, that if compulsion is necessary for acquiring allotments of one acre, why is compulsion not necessary for acquiring holdings of three or four acres or more than that. We all admit that this is somewhat of an experiment; but our policy, indeed, our reason for proposing this Amendment, is that we want to make this experiment as successful as possible, we want to give it a firm basis in the rural districts. And I apprehend that it will only be by the introduction of compulsion that the measure can be made such a success as we all desire to see it. It seems to me if compulsion is not added to this Bill, if landlords in one portion of a county or district do not sell, and the County Council invests its capital in buying land in other portions of the locality or county, they will at least be guaranteeing their funds from one locality for the benefit of the other, and that certainly will create grave dissatisfaction in the rural districts. The argument about friction has been dealt with by other speakers before me, but it seems to me it would be a very poor opening indeed if a small holder had to look to the charitable instincts of his neighbours in order to make him a successful small holding owner. We certainly think that County Councils are Bodies that may fairly be entrusted with this power of compulsion. They would not take any undue advantage of it, but would use it only when necessary and with the greatest fairness. It has been stated by hon. Gentlemen opposite that there may be grievous injustice executed under this compulsory legislation. The Leader of the House has also stated that compulsion may be recklessly or ill applied,
  1034
  but it seems to me that does not come well from hon. Gentlemen opposite who have claimed so much credit for creating County Councils, and yet seem to be afraid to trust them. County Councils surely know the local circumstances of the case, they would not use these compulsory provisions unless they believed in them, and that they were absolutely necessary, and if land is not to be acquired unless by compulsory measures, why should not compulsion be used. I say it is infinitely more important that the rights of the community should be considered than the rights of one individual, to whom no injustice could be done because he would get a fair price for his land. I would strongly urge that in my opinion compulsion would undoubtedly oil the wheels of the machinery of this Bill, by quickening the apprehension of the landlord who would otherwise be unwilling to sell. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that compulsion cannot be carried into effect, and he cited the St. Faith case as an example. It seems to me that the St. Faith case is not an argument against compulsion but against the complicated system which has been introduced before compulsion can take effect under the Allotments Act. I do hold that a system of compulsory leasing will be of infinitely more advantage to the agricultural labourer than any attempt to create small holdings. There are very few agricultural labourers who can aquire the capital necessary—£150 to £200—to become small holders under this Bill, and small capitalists are not the ones we want to benefit by legislation. Men with £150 or £200 are not leaving the country districts, and this measure would not touch the class it is intended to touch—namely, the pure and simple agricultural labourers. Compulsion is very much more necessary when it is a question of leasing small holdings, for it is of paramount importance that the holding of the labourer should be in a convenient situation to his dwelling. It certainly would not pay him or the landlord to put up buildings upon a small holding, whereas the labourer's dwelling does constitute a building which he would be able to make use of. And if he can have this small holding near his home it would be a great

  1035
  incentive to him to better his position in life. Under this system small holdings may be carried into effect, the labourers may be able to take advantage of them, and perhaps in time they will be able to become owners. And I say from experience in country districts and of the County Council in my own county, there is not the slightest fear that the County Council will take undue advantage of this power, but that, without the principle of compulsion, this Act will be the same conspicuous failure which the Land Purchase Bill of last Session has proved to be.
  (6.20.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 184; Noes 226.—(Div. List, No. 77.)
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: The rejection of the last Amendment doubles the necessity for enlarging the scope of the Bill in regard to the acquisition of land. I should have thought that word would have covered more than the fee-simple, but after the explanation which the President of the Board of Agriculture has placed upon the word it is necessary this Committee should give its opinion as to widening the means for securing land for small agricultural holdings. By the rejection of the last Amendment the Committee has taken away the guarantee that land shall be got where land is most wanted for this purpose, and has taken away the guarantee that land shall be bought at a fair market price by the County Council for small agricultural holdings. It seems to me the argument the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) used on the Second Reading of the Bill is practically conclusive as to the value, the enormous value, of this or some such Amendment as this I have to propose. The provision which the right hon Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) has inserted in his Bill, that no money can be raised over and above what may be met by a penny rate, imposes an important restriction on the power of the County Council, and it becomes of enormous importance that every facility should be given to the County Council for obtaining land on the best and easiest possible terms. Now, what are the terms for obtaining
  1036
  land—for the purchase of land—in fee-simple? The first difficulty is that it must be extremely small in quantity. Take the case of a small county with a rateable value of a quarter of a million, the amount at the disposal of a County Council in such a county would be £25,000 according to the reply the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) gave to a question the other night. This amount of £25,000 would not allow the Council to provide more than one or two small holdings in each parish. For the accomplishment of this the County Council will have to undertake the choice of the land; then an enormous amount of time and energy will have to be expended in the negotiations for the purchase of these one or two small holdings; then if negotiations are concluded there will be the difficulty and expense of proving the title; and the time and cost of concluding the transaction repeated in the case of the land for each parish will be enormous. But suppose we take the other alternative, and give the County Council power to take land on lease or to hire land? The County Council would, in the first place, have the choice as to how the land would best be taken. In many cases they might find it impossible to obtain the fee-simple where the owner would be unwilling to sell or would only sell at a price the Council would not be warranted in giving. But the owner might be willing to lease a farm of large size, retaining ownership and not breaking the entirety of his estate. In the ordinary course of events a farm may become vacant and a number of acres may be at the disposal of the County Council much in excess of the amount of land they could acquire by means of purchase. From the point of view of the County Council there would be much more opportunity of meeting the demand for small holdings, and there would be an advantage from the point of view of small holders. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian in his speech to-night, and on a previous occasion, has shown conclusively that it is impossible for the ordinary agricultural labourer to take a small holding on the terms presented in the Bill. Take the case of an allotment holder who, in good circumstances, has been able to avail

  1037
  himself of the Act, or take the case of a labourer who has lived on the homestead, and, paying no rent, has been able to save £150, and is anxious to have a small holding. Under the terms of the Bill he would have to pay a quarter of the purchase money for ten acres, say £25, and for securing the title and making the land his own he pays, say, £140, and is left with £10 to stock his farm, begin his buildings, and provide for his first instalment of the remaining three-fourths. It has been shown conclusively that it will be absolutely impossible for any appreciable number of agricultural labourers to avail themselves of the provisions and benefits of the Bill. I hope that I need not delay the Committee any longer, and that the Government will accept this and consequent Amendments largely increasing the powers of County Councils to obtain land, and largely increasing the opportunities for agricultural labourers to secure small holdings. These may not be the right or the only words by which the object may be effected; but without the acceptance of some such words I feel certain, more especially after the rejection of the last Amendment, that the Bill will be a failure, to the disappointment of agricultural labourers, whose hopes have been raised by speeches of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If this is refused there will naturally arise strong feelings of resentment, and punishment will await the authors of a Bill from which so much was expected.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, after the second "Act," insert "lease, hire, or."—(Mr. T. E. Ellis.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am quite aware of the importance of the question raised by this Amendment. I admit that there is much to be said on both sides, and I hope we may be able to meet the views of a good many hon. Gentlemen on the other side. I think I stated on an earlier stage of the Bill I was greatly attracted by the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian that land should be acquired by lease or feu; but after carefully considering the proposal
  1038
  I find the balance of argument is against it. I cannot, in the short time now at my disposal, go into the reasons which induce me to think that the principle of the creation of freeholds should be the first thing to be considered rather than the creation of a great number of tenancies. But it has been suggested—and this is the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W.E. Gladstone)—that it might be desirable and possible that Local Authorities should, acquire land by feu instead of by purchase, and I have gone carefully into an examination of the Bill, taking counsel with the Attorney General, with the result that we find the power to feu land is conferred upon Local Authorities by the Bill—that is to say, they can take payment by means of a perpetual rent-charge instead of by a capital sum. That gets over one of the main objections of the right hon. Gentleman to the Bill, in the first instance, that Local Authorities require the payment of a capital sum. I recognise that it is desirable that greater facilities should be given to agricultural labourers in particular to have the opportunity of obtaining land on a tenure other than ownership. This is a subject I should like to dwell on at more length than I can this afternoon, for there are some very grave considerations arising on the proposal. But, at the same time, I may say that when we reach Clause 3 we propose to make what we feel is a considerable concession to the right hon. Gentleman. In Clause 3, Sub-section 2, there is this limitation—that in the opinion of the County Council the persons to whom the land is let must be persons who in their opinion will be able, if permitted to occupy a small holding, ultimately to be the buyers. I propose to omit that, and thus give the opportunity, of which labourers may be deprived under the clause as it stands, of obtaining a small holding. It is impossible for me within the limited time left for the Sitting to say more, but we shall be prepared to make this concession, and possibly, when we come to an Amendment later in the Bill, but which has also some bearing on this question, after having heard what may be said on both sides, to make a further concession in the same direction.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL. (No. 31.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. SPEAKER: The two Motions for Instruction to the Committee are both out of Order. I, therefore, leave the Chair.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Committee report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Wednesday, 22nd June, again resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Mr. G. W. Balfour.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I object. The hon. Member takes the first Wednesday after the Whitsuntide Vacation. I object, and I understand that by the Standing Order if objection be taken at this stage the question stands over. I ask your ruling on the point.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is for the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to appoint the date when the Bill will be taken unless the House should decide otherwise.
    Mr. SPEAKER ascertained by the preponderance of voices that the House was in favour of Wednesday, 22nd June.
    Committee to sit again on Wednesday, 22nd June.

    MAIL SERVICE (IRELAND) CORRESPONDENCE.
    DR. TANNER: With reference to the correspondence on the acceleration of the Dublin and Queenstown mail service, may I ask if my Motion will be granted?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    DR. TANNER: I shall put it down for Monday.

    THE EASTER RECESS.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I said something at two o'clock to-day as to the possibility of my making a statement at this hour regarding the Easter holidays. I find it will be more convenient if I make the statement at the rising of the House to-night, and this I shall be prepared to do.
  EVENING SITTING.
    ORDERS OF THE DAY.

      SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

      SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.

        THE SEPTENNIAL ACT.
        SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name, viz.:—
        "That in the opinion of this House the Septennial Act should be repealed for the purpose of shortening the duration of future Parliaments."
        In doing so I will ask the indulgence of the House while I endeavour, in a short space of time, to open this truly important subject, which, on many occasions, has provided matter for Debates of considerable interest. In the first place, I wish to say that I intend to discuss the subject as far as I possibly can without the introduction of anything like Party passion, and to treat it from the general point of view of the electorate of the country. My first object is the repeal of the Septennial Act, and then I propose that the duration of Parliaments should be shortened. The Septennial Act dates from 1716, and was passed to meet a temporary danger to the Constitution. That danger has long since passed away. The Preamble of the Act sets out the reasons for it in a clear and definite manner. Among other reasons it recites that the Triennial Act—
        "If it should continue, it may probably at this juncture, when a restless and Popish faction are designing and endeavouring to renew the rebellion within this Kingdom, and an invasion from abroad, be destructive to the peace and security of the Government."
        The Act referred to the rebellion then happily suppressed, but there was

        1041
        still some danger of a renewal of disturbances from frequent Elections, and consequently the lengthening of the duration of Parliaments from three to seven years was carried out. At that time it was regarded by many, and more especially by the Representatives of the Tory Party, as an encroachment on the Constitution which made three years' Parliaments the law: an encroachment on the part of the Whigs, no doubt justifiable, although there were strong protests against it. In the House of Lords there was a very strong protest from 30 Peers against the Bill signed by the Duke of Devonshire and Lord Salisbury. But protests in either House were ineffectual, and the duration of Parliaments was extended from three to seven years. The Triennial Act thus repealed was passed in 1694, and the Preamble of that Act declared—
        "Whereas by ancient Laws and Statutes of the Realm frequent Parliaments ought to be held, and whereas frequent new Parliaments tend very much to the happy union and the good agreement of the King and his people."
        Well, there are many of us on this side of the House, and I hope many who have inherited the principles of their predecessors on the other side of the House, who still feel that frequent Parliaments are for the good of the nation at large, and bring about a closer sympathy between the rulers and the ruled. At one time the Motion I am now moving was repeated almost annually in the House of Commons. It was repeated for a long number of years while the Whigs remained in office, not only by the adversaries of the Whigs, but by a faction of the Whigs called "Patriots." From time to time attacks on the Septennial Act were renewed until, in the course of political events, those who led the attack obtained seats on the other side of the House, when the zeal of reformers in Opposition gave place to the complacent indifference of statesmen in Office. These yearly Motions of the old reformers were carried on to nearer our own time. In the early stages of Parliamentary reform we had this shortening of the duration of Parliaments made one of the chief planks in the Liberal platform. It was among
        1042
        the six points of the People's Charter, and in all the early discussions of reform it ran close in importance to the extension of the franchise. I do not propose to-night to enter at any further length into the history of this great question, but this I will say—that the old Debates on the subject will well repay perusal by any hon. Member who may devote time to them, not only from the rich quaintness of the language and arguments used, but from the energy of the opposition to the extension of Parliamentary life. The history of the custom of yearly or triennial Parliaments was most eloquently expounded in the last Debate twelve years ago by Mr. Joseph Cowen, then Member for Newcastle. Twelve years ago seems a long period for a question like this to remain dormant. But it has slumbered only—it has never died. In 1883, when Parliamentary reform was in the air, it was much discussed, and popular feeling was strong in its favour. But it became overshadowed by the question of the extension of the franchise—that great and crowning triumph of Parliamentary reform in our day. And this other question, deemed subsidiary, but intimately connected with the freedom of the popular voice, was allowed to take a secondary place, while the extension of the franchise absorbed the attention of the Legislature. But the notion of making the life of Parliament an entirely secondary question is, I think, founded on a mistake, for the possession of a vote is only of avail when associated with the opportunity for exercising it. To-give a large extension of the franchise, and to keep from the people, or a large number of them, their just opportunity of making their voices heard in the election of the Parliament that rules, them and makes their laws, is a one-sided and unequal distribution of the benefits of reform. This point was argued in the Reform discussions of 1883, and an admirable history of the movement for short Parliaments was written by Mr. Alexander Paul, full of quaint extracts from the speeches of the old reformers. In 1886 there was evidence that the feeling had still been growing, for ever since then there has been year by year before the

        1043
        House a Bill most ably drawn for a complete scheme of reform, introduced by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. George Howell); one of the points of which has been the limitation of the duration of Parliaments—the repeal of the Septennial Act. Now, I want to-night more especially to call attention to the effect of the Act on the duration of Parliaments in more recent times. I think I shall be able to show, from reference to the duration of Parliaments since the Act was passed, that the effect has been to lengthen the life of Parliaments, and that that effect has been increasing in late years. If we take the first period after the introduction of the Act, from the date of its passing, 1716, to 1801, we find that in that period there were 13 Parliaments. Of these eight lasted over six years, three over five and a half years, one nearly five years, and one three years and five months. So within that period, the Act passed for lengthening the duration of Parliament, and directed to meet the dangers of a time when rebellion was rife, and appeals to the electorate were said to be dangerous, had full effect for the purpose intended. Now from 1801 to the present time there have been 22 Parliaments, giving an average of over four years each, so that the duration of Parliaments from 1801 to the present time may be said to be limited by practice to that period of four to five years. Of these 22 Parliaments three lasted over six years. Six (including the present) lasted over five years. But if we compare different periods since 1801 we find that the duration of Parliaments has varied considerably. From 1801 to 1830 there were seven Parliaments, giving an average of about four years each. From 1830 to 1860 there were ten Parliaments, giving an average duration of three years. Then, if we take the period from 1860 to the present time, we find six Parliaments, giving an average duration of over five years. The tendency, therefore, in recent times has been to increase the duration of Parliament to five years, whereas the average of the 92 years since 1801 was only a little over four years. An increase in the length of Parliaments in recent times has, then, been brought about by
        1044
        the operation of the Septennial Act, aided to a considerable extent by the presence of powerful majorities under the personal influence very often of Prime Ministers of exceptional genius and ability. But this action has not been popular, and I think the best evidence of the unpopularity of long Parliaments is shown in the extreme swing of the political pendulum in successive elections. If we take the more recent elections this is most clearly made out. In the period since the Reform Bill of 1868 it comes out in remarkable figures. In 1868 a Parliament was elected in which there was a Liberal majority of 128. That Parliament lasted five years one month and 16 days. Well, on an appeal to the electorate in 1874 the representation was almost reversed, the pendulum swung over to the other side, the Conservative majority became 106, replacing the Liberal majority of the previous Parliament of 128. This Conservative Parliament of 1874 lasted a little longer than its predecessor, six years and 20 days. Then in 1880 we find the figures exactly reversed; the Conservative majority of 106 was replaced by a Liberal majority of 106. This Parliament of 1880 with a Liberal majority of 106 lasted for five years six months and 20 days; but during the last few months of that period the Liberal majority were not in office. In 1885 an appeal was made to the country, after there had been considerable alterations in the franchise. The county franchise was extended, and a numerous class was added to the electorate. Now, on that occasion the new Parliament returned a Liberal majority of nearly 100, exclusive of Irish Members, and that apparently falsifies the law I am endeavouring to establish—namely, that lengthening the duration of Parliament brings about a swing of opinion to the opposite point. But if we analyse the direction from which that majority came, we shall find that the law I am endeavouring to lay down was maintained even in this exceptional instance. In 1885 the appeal was made to a great and new electorate in the agricultural districts of the country through the extension of the franchise to rural labourers; from these came the Liberal majority. If we look,

        1045
        however, at those parts of the Kingdom that returned Members to the House on the old electorate—the boroughs where the franchise had not been altered by the Reform Act of 1884—there we find the same law still holding good. The Parliament of 1880 gave in the boroughs 85 Conservative Members and 185 Liberals, giving the latter a majority of 100 in the borough representation; the Parliament of 1885 showed 115 Conservative Members from the boroughs and 110 Liberals, a Liberal minority of five in the boroughs to replace a majority of 100. So, my contention is unaltered by the result of the Election of 1885, the swing of opinion, as before, endeavouring to substitute a change of Parties in consequence of the undue prolongation of Parliamentary life. Now, I think the inference from the figures I have given is that there grows up in the constituencies a feeling of resentment against too long a duration of Parliaments and the long continuance of one Party in power. I do not think it is due merely to fickleness on the part of the electorate as some have said; on the contrary, I believe the electorate never were more inclined to follow and maintain the principles they have adopted, but I believe the electorate do get tired of one set of men being in office too long. People in the present day know the character of the work of Parliament. Parliamentary work is carried on under a vigilant scrutiny of the people of this country such as did not exist in the old time, and I think they have noted the fact, and taken it to heart, that in all the Parliaments to which I have referred the best work has been done in the earlier years. So we must agree it was with the Liberal Parliament elected in 1868. The great legislative work of that Parliament was done in its earlier years, and I believe the fortunes of the Party would have been better, if the Government had retired a year or two before they did, instead of holding on to office for the period I have indicated. Certainly, with reference to the Parliament of 1874, its best work was done in its earlier years, particularly in its social legislation. That Parliament, although it kept a Government in office by a vigorous majority
        1046
        for a number of years, and had the influence in its favour of the so-called "Jingo" fever, yet that Parliament outlived the impulse of "Jingoism," which subsided under the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone). Again, with reference to the Parliament of 1880, setting aside the great Reform Act passed in its last days, it did its best work in its earliest years. It would seem as if these long-lived Parliaments, after three or four years, lose touch with the people, and cease to be in harmony with the desires and aspirations of the electorate, and so, when the appeal is made, the Party in power meet with the condign punishment of a reversal of the judgment given at the previous Election. This is natural, I think, on other grounds. If one considers for a moment the enormous alterations in the electorate itself, there is ample reason for the constituencies becoming out of touch, out of harmony with a Parliament which has lived so long. Taking the figures of the last Census of the United Kingdom I find we have every year 255,000 men becoming eligible by age to be put on the register. Unfortunately, only a small proportion of the number do get on the register; but a considerable number are added every year, and we may expect, as time goes on, and the difficulties of registration are removed by future legislation, that many more thousands will be annually added to the electoral roll. Taking England and Wales, I also find that since 1886—that is, in five years—there has been an average of nearly 90,000 electors added each year. This is an enormous addition to the voting power of the country, especially when we consider that at the last General Election 100,000 votes would have made a vast difference in the representation of Parties in this House. Multiply this 90,000 by five, and we have nearly half a million of new electors at the end of a five years' Parliament. That is not all. According to statistics, it may be estimated that 74,000 persons die out of the register every year, and, adding these, there are thus in round figures 164,000 changes in the register each year, and the grand result is that there

        1047
        is a change to the number of 820,000 votes in the electorate to which a Parliament appeals at the end of five years. That is an enormous change: one-sixth of the entire electorate changed during the existence of a five years' Parliament. Is it any wonder that under such circumstances, at the end of its long life, a Parliament ceases to be representative? Is there not truth in the comment of an old Member, made two centuries ago, that Parliament is like manna—when it first comes from Heaven, it is fresh and pure and sweet in the mouth, but if kept long it only breedeth worms?—a forcible way of describing the corrupting influence of time; but that influence in the decay of sympathy with the people, and in the want of harmony with popular wishes, exists in these days, though it is referred to in less forcible language. This enormous change in the composition of the electorate is sufficient to account to some extent for the extreme swing of the political pendulum, and I believe the shorter duration of Parliaments would result not only in greater harmony between Parliament and the people, but in greater stability in the composition of the House of Commons itself, and by that very stability would afford opportunity for a more continuous policy in matters domestic and foreign. I have not in my Resolution fixed any time limit for the duration of Parliament; that may be left for statesmen in the future, who will draft the next Bill dealing with the subject; but I hope, when they do consider it, they will limit the duration very considerably. So far as my own opinion goes, I would say four instead of seven years. When we think of the changed conditions of life since 1716, seven years of our day are equal to 20 of the olden time. That is not an exaggerated estimate when we consider the enormous advances we have made in popular knowledge and education, the great influence of the Press on public opinion, the means of rapid communication with people far away from us, the wonders worked by electricity, the almost miraculous annihilation of space, the great characteristic of modern scientific progress—taking all these things into consideration, I think we must agree that if in
        1048
        1716 seven years were long enough for the duration of Parliament, it is vastly too long a period in 1892. Parliament in a long life changes its attitude to the people, but represents in itself comparatively little change. Members sent here to vote for either Party retain, and very often acquire, an additional dose of the original sin called "political partisanship." They retain the same attitude they assumed at the time of election towards great questions then occupying men's minds. We know in the present Parliament how solid has been the majority on one side of the House in carrying out a policy which we believe will be reversed when an appeal is made to the country. But although Parliament remains, very much the same, I have shown from figures and other arguments that people outside change very much, and so the influence of the constituency on the Member, or of the Member on the constituency is, I think, considerably lessened. As "Junius" wrote—
        "With regard to the influence of the constituent over the conduct of the Representative there is little difference between a seat in Parliament for seven years and one for life. The prospect of your resentment is too remote, and although the last Session of a septennial Parliament may usually be employed in courting the favour of the people, consider at this rate your Representatives have six years for offence and but one for atonement. A death-bed repentance seldom reaches to restitution."
        That opinion of "Junius" is appropriate, I think, to the present day. Although a Government may in the last year of office, with the death rattle almost in its throat, pay more deference to opinions to which they paid no respect in former years, yet that does not come up to the point of restitution, and does not atone for the wrongs arising out of a too long duration of Parliamentary life. But there is a change in Parliament in other ways. In four or five years the Members change not only in their relations to their constituencies, but become more crystallised in their Party vote. An old Coventry Member once said, "Men come hither free men, but are here made bondmen." Hon. Members opposite, who have long been under the domination of the Whips, can appreciate what it is to be a bondman in the present day. It may be

        1049
        good discipline for individual Members, and essential for the success of the Party in office; but at the same time it produces facile votes: a result not always desirable in what ought to be the independent Representatives of the constituencies of the country. In shorter Parliaments Members would have a somewhat happier lot than at present. Their lot would be rendered happier by the inward conviction that they were in closer sympathy with their constituencies. It must, I am sure, be unpleasant to any Member of this House to feel he is out of touch with his constituents, and that feeling must overtake many of us in the course of a long Parliament. If there is one thing more than another which makes a seat worth holding in this House and an honour to the holder, it is the fact of being the real Representative of the wishes and feelings and interests of the people you represent. Nothing else would make the drudgery of Parliamentary life at all tolerable to the mind of an independent man. Mr. Bright expressed his opinion on this point in very forcible language in a Debate on Parliamentary Reform. He said—
        "He believed it would be better for Members if they were more responsible to their constituents at the beginning of a Parliament. He found them suffering from an intense feeling of responsibility just before a Dissolution. He should like that the feeling of responsibility should be spread over the whole period of Parliament. He believed that it would add very much to the conscientiousness with which Members would perform their duty to that House. It would render it difficult for the Government to call a Party meeting in Downing Street to frighten them with a Dissolution, a course pursued by Governments from both sides greatly to the injury of the House."
        That feeling of responsibility to the constituency is one of the most wholesome feelings that can exist in this House, and would be strengthened and maintained by a shorter duration of Parliament better than by the present system. It has been urged that shorter Parliaments are not advisable on the ground of expense. None of us desire too frequent elections; but once in in four years would not be too often to call on Members to bear the expense. I think the expenses would be lessened by shorter Parliaments, even if they were not lessened by law. Members
        1050
        would find it less worth while to spend money for a seat for three or four years than they do now for five or six years. On the other hand, it is contended that the personal labour of Parliamentary life would be increased. I am not at all convinced on that point; I believe, if anything, it would be lessened. At all events, it would not be worse than during the last five years. For that period Members on both sides have been engaged, as it were, in a continual election contest from one end of the country to the other, and the result has been a great strain on public attention, and on the health and strength of individual Members. Another result has been the building up of a great political programme for the Party to which I belong, which we hope to carry out. Hon. Members opposite say that a four or five years' Parliament would never carry out the Newcastle programme; we are prepared to take the risk. We feel that so much of it would be carried out that we could appeal with confidence to the electors to give us a chance of carrying out the rest, and in future such great programmes would not grow up, because the desires and wishes of the people in three or four years would not be so great as they become in five or six years. Another point is that the personal change in long Parliaments becomes very great. It is argued that shorter Parliaments would introduce many new men. I think we have seen many changes in this Parliaments, and we hear on all sides of a number of men who are unwilling to come back to the arduous labour of Parliamentary life, and no one can regret that more than I do. I think that would be prevented if we had shorter Parliaments; a larger number of Members would be willing again to serve their constituents than under the present system. The results of inquiries in foreign countries as to the duration of Parliamentary Bodies ought to convince this House that we, the mother of Parliaments, have been lagging a little behind our offspring. In none of our colonies have we sanctioned septennial Parliaments, and in no other Continental country is the duration, seven years. We believe work would be more effec-

        1051
        tive with shorter Parliaments; we should come fresh from our constituencies with a fresh mandate, and carry it out in the first three or four years of our existence, and not drag on, as sometimes happens, a comparatively useless life to the end of the tether allowed by law. The practice for the last 100 years has been for Parliament to dissolve in about four years; I do not see why that should not be sanctioned by law, and so the law made to agree with the practice. There are many other points and arguments which I will not trespass on the time of the House to give, but, in conclusion, I thank the House for its indulgence, and hope that this Resolution will receive support from both sides. The Tory Party were the first and strongest opponents of the Septennial Act, and I hope their descendants have not degenerated. It is true that at that time they were out of office, and remained so for many years. It has been said that "no one man in office has ever promoted or encouraged a Bill for shortening the duration of Parliament." If that has been true in the past, I hope it will not be so in the future. The opportunity now rests with the Leader of the House; he has the opportunity of saying that he agrees with the old Tory principle of shorter Parliaments. He described himself the other night, in a very interesting speech, as "an old Tory politician." I ask him to-night to support old Tory principles and vote for shortening the duration of Parliaments. If he does so—the authorities are not all on my side of the House—I would refer him to many distinguished Members of his Party who have worked in this cause. I would refer him to the most distinguished of his predecessors in recent times — Mr. Disraeli — who, in 1848, said—
        "I am the less inclined to say anything against Triennial Parliaments, because they are part of those old Tory principles which I have ever taken every opportunity of propagating; they are a portion of that old Tory creed around which I am happy to observe more than one indication that the people of this country are inclined to rally."
        If he lets them rally round it to-night he will do much for the benefit of Parliament, and for bringing about that purification of it, which results
        1052

        from an appeal to the people. There are many distinguished Members of former Parliaments whom I might quote on my side—Members of the Whig, the Radical, and the Tory Parties—but I think I have given enough to back up my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and I would appeal beyond him to this House, to shorten the duration of Parliaments in future. I believe it would add to the dignity and character of the House of Commons, and to the usefulness of our legislation. It would bring about a higher and better relation between the Crown and the people, and finally make the House of Commons, in the highest and best sense, what it ought to be—in the words of Mr. Pitt—"an Assembly united to the people by the closest sympathies."
        MR. ROBY: The Mover of the Resolution has spoken with so much force and clearness that there is no need for me to say more than a few words in seconding the Resolution. In fixing the duration of Parliament we must be guided by two considerations—it must not last so long that it will get out of touch with the people or lead them to be discontented because they have not an opportunity of expressing their opinions. On the other hand, the period must not be so short as to disturb the progress of business by frequent elections. I do not think anybody is in favour of extending Parliament beyond seven years, and then there is the other side of the question. I remember very well the agitation in favour of annual Parliaments. A great many of the proposals of the Chartists have become law; that one has not, and I do not think it has grown in favour with either people or politicians. But seven years is much too long. My hon. Friend has shown that long Parliaments get out of touch with the people. He has shown it à priori by pointing out the inevitable change in the electorate which is made by a few years, and à posteriori by showing that on a dissolution of a long Parliament, the election has proved that the people were thinking very differently to what Parliament was thinking. I do not fear large changes in many things; but I desire that change

        1053
        should be gradual; and if it be gradual and not revolutionary, it may in the long run be very great, and yet be perfectly safe. Parliament ought to exist only so long as the Members represent the people; it is not desirable that they should sit one day longer than they possess the confidence of the people. I do not measure that confidence by momentary impulses and expressions of opinion. The people elect us, and we come here to legislate according to their wishes, and so long as we have reasonable ground for believing that we are, on the whole, representing their wishes, there can be no legal or constitutional objection to our continuing to occupy our positions. But when we find that a change is in progress, and that it is continuous and progressive, and is increasing from year to year, then it is time for Parliament to be dissolved. I have no desire to speak in any Party spirit on this occasion; but I think those who have looked at the bye-elections for the past four or five years will find abundant evidence that the wave or tide which has been advancing is a real tide, and not merely a splash of the waves in one or two places. It is shown, as all tides are, by rising high in some places and lower in others, but it is continuous and almost universal. I have examined the bye-elections for two years and there has been a gain for one Party—the Liberal Party—in every election but four, and only one of those four is really of very substantial importance, that of Aston Manor; and in two other cases there was only a slight diminution of the Liberal majority. I want to ask whether there is not another indication, not only that seven years is too long, but that the present Parliament has sat long enough? I have been struck during the short time I have been in the House with the air of languor manifest in the great mass of the Debates and the small attendance on all but very important occasions. It is not at all uncommon to find present only 20 Members on the one side and 20 Members on the other out of 670 Members. As a general rule there are more persons at a Division than are present in the House, and during the present Session, until
        1054
        yesterday, there were only four Divisions where there were more than 400 Members present—that is, very little more than half the total number of Members have shown by their votes that they take any real part in the business of the House. I think that is some indication that this Parliament has reached its period of real usefulness. If this kind of thing is to continue, it would be well to revert to the old practice under which the Sheriff required two persons to stand surety that the Member would attend when elected. Is it not natural that after four or five years many Members should have had enough of active service in the House? It should be remembered that many of us are elected late in life, and our time is not always at our own disposal, and that the hours of attendance are likely to make those getting on in years somewhat weary. We should get Representatives to sit for periods during which they would not get wholly out of sympathy with the work, or unable to perform it properly. But the main consideration is, does not this period of seven years put the Members out of their proper relation to the people they are professing to represent? At the present time this House does not represent the opinion of the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland, in 1892; what it really represents is a slightly modified expression of the opinion in 1886. It is not safe for the country generally, it is not wise for us as Representatives, or judicious for the people who desire to see their wishes carried out and work done, that we should stay one day longer in office than the confidence of the people is fully placed in us. Seven years is very different now to what it was at the beginning of the last century. The people of England are not separated by great distances, as many of them were, from the proceedings of the House, so that they only got occasional glimpses of what took place in the House. They are practically present with us, and it is obvious that they come more quickly to a decision than they used to do. And I do not think we shall be doing our duty if we do not give them more frequent opportunities of saying who shall be their servants, what measures they consider most important,

        1055
        and what principles they desire to be put in action. I do not wish to lay down any arbitrary rule as to the period, but I am inclined to think that five years instead of seven years would be quite long enough, for that would mean practically a four years' Parliament. Some people, I know, think that a little too long; but I think in that time a Parliament acting with vigour, and carrying out the instructions of its constituents, would do very much more useful work than a Parliament which drags out a weary existence in its last years under the Septennial Act.
        Amendment proposed,
        To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the Septennial Act should be repealed, for the purpose of shortening the duration of future Parliaments,"—(Sir Walter Foster,)
        —instead thereof.
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
        MR. AMBROSE: I wish to congratulate both the Mover and Seconder on the conciliatory tone they have adopted, and the moderation of the views they have expressed. But I have been somewhat struck by the peculiarity of their arguments, because, as I understood them, what they have put forward with a view of supporting this Resolution, to my mind, is an argument in an exactly opposite direction. One of the hon. Members gave various figures representing the majorities in the Parliaments of 1868, 1874, and 1880, and said that the majority of 1868 was changed in 1874, and the majority of 1874 was reversed in 1880. This he declared was calculated to give greater solidity to the Government. I thought it was important to the maintenance of a Government that there should be continuity of policy; that there should not be fickleness on the part of the Government of the day, and that when a policy was declared and acted upon it should be continuous. Take, for instance, the case of Ireland. When the right hon. Member for Midlothian introduced his Home Rule Bill he observed that our treatment of that country had been unequal, and thus unfair, and that at
        1056
        one time we had a Government which courted the favour of the Irish people, and at another a Government which produced Coercion Bills. That is the swing of the political pendulum, and it is to that very swing that the right hon. Gentleman attributes many of the evils which affect Ireland. I always thought that one of the evils of a strictly democratic Government was that there was no permanence of policy. The populace was fickle, and frequently foiled statesmen in their efforts at wise government. They were apt to be led away by any outcry of the moment, or by sensational articles in the newspapers. Is it the object of this Resolution that the Government and the country should be governed by sensational writers in the newspapers? I have a great respect for the Press, and when the Press produces sensational articles based on fact and reason no one respects the Press more than I do. But that is one thing, and I say that the interests of the British Empire should not be left to the writers of sensational articles or the changeable views of the populace, but should be dealt with by the steady views of statesmen and of men who have been sent to Parliament as the Representatives of the people, and not merely as delegates. That is another point which has been raised. If you are a Representative of the people you do not need to be going back to the people every now and then, because the people have confidence in you. But the whole force of the argument of the Mover of this Resolution is that when a man comes into this House, he comess, not as a Representative of the people, but as the delegate of his constituents, and, as I say, of that portion of his constituents who may force themselves to the front and claim to be the representatives of the people whom he actually represents in this House. That is a very different thing from the position of a Member under present circumstances, when he is really the Representative of the people, and ought to be free from pledges with respect to particular Bills, and free to exercise his judgment on a subject which may come before the House. I came into this House unfettered, and if I come again I will come free to exercise my own judgment.

        1057
        I quite recognise that there are particular questions which affect a constituency sometimes on which the constituency has a right to ask for the support of its Member. But you find one section of a constituency wanting its Member to vote one way on the liquor question and another section wanting him to vote for the deceased wife's sister, and you would find Members come into this House bound hand and foot by their pledges upon the hustings. If it is the wish of the Mover of the Resolution, let us understand it. Are Members of this House to be free to use their intelligence and experience, or are they to be merely the delegates of a faction, and to surrender their own judgment in order that they may carry out the behests of that faction which is most forward at the time of the election? I know of nothing more calculated to hamper the usefulness of a Member of this House than the feeling that he is bound to act upon the instructions of a section who say that they represent his constituents. We all know that as soon as any particular class is affected by any Bill, an organisation is started, with branches and secretaries, and influence is brought to bear in the constituencies, and a number of people who profess to speak in the name of the constituency try to bring pressure on the Member. When I am told that my constituents wish this, that, or the other, I reply that I am their Representative, and I take every opportunity of learning their views, but I decline to recognise any particular section who profess to speak for the whole. And I say I know of nothing so calculated to lower the tone of the House as that Members should give up the position they have occupied and become mere delegates. Another argument which rather pointed the other way was the one that shorter Parliaments would shorten their labours. Does the hon. Member mean to say that as a Parliament ceases the labour of a Member ceases? One of the difficulties which has arisen in this House this session is that so many Members, under the belief that the Dissolution is imminent, are electioneering and cannot be here. Does the hon.
        1058
        Member mean to say that that shortens the labours of a Member? It increases their labours fourfold, or even more than that, and I say that frequent election campaigns are calculated so to increase his duties as to unfit him for the honest, faithful, and serious discharge of his duties. The hon. Member who last spoke (Mr. Roby) says that he has observed the languor of the debates, and the small attendance of Members, and half suggested, I believe, that there should be some security for attendance. Does he suggest that the Business of this House would be better done if there were 500 or 600 Members sitting on these Benches than when the ordinary number are present? If he does I disagree with him, for I think that the worst thing that could happen to this House is a large attendance of Members at every Sitting. Such an attendance is not only wholly unnecessary, but it would be found to be very inconvenient. Very little Business would be done. I do not accept the hon. Member's estimate of 20 or 30 as the number generally present in the House. I put the normal number down at something like 100, and I say that number is much safer for the discharge of the ordinary duties of the House than a larger number would be. The work is now done, to a large extent, by delegation. It is not always the same 100 men who are present. A particular question arises, and the men who are interested in that question are present, and those who are not interested may be in the libraries preparing for other questions that are coming on. The other men come in when the Division bell rings, and are instructed by those who have been present. It is, as I have said, a question of delegation. When a financial question is on, the City men are here, and the other Members, when they come in, are content to follow their lead. So it is with questions of Local Government and other questions—the men who are experts on the particular subject before the House are here, and the others are quite content to leave the matter in their hands, knowing that it will be treated with full knowledge. What would be the effect of extremely short

        1059
        Parliaments? The Members would not have as much experience as is necessary for the proper discharge of their duties. I do not know what may be the experience of other Members, but for a long time after I came in I had a difficulty with the forms of the House. Then I suppose, just as I began to feel my way, hon. Members would wish that I should go back to my constituents, and perhaps a new man comes in who has to go through the experience that I went through before I think the experience of the House, and the knowledge of—I will not say statesmanship, because that would be an impertinence on my part, but the knowledge of Government matters and the affairs of the nation—for one cannot help becoming acquainted with them to some extent in this House—all that would be thrown away if we were constantly changing the Members, which is the view suggested by these frequent dissolutions. But there is another argument against the proposal which is far more important in this connection and which seems to me to be most conclusive. It is a fact, of which we have evidence every day, especially by the questions put to Ministers, that some of those who occupy the Front Bench are supposed at all events to have great difficulty in dealing with the permanent officials of the Government. I want to know if you are to have a constant change of Parliament how are you to keep the permanent officials under control? You must have these permanent officials under the control of Members of the Government who are responsible to Parliament; but if you have these constant changes of Parliament you will have constant changes on both Front Benches, you will have constant changes of Ministers; and the result will be that you will have Ministers who have insufficient experience to assert their proper authority over the permanent officials, and you will have the Government of the day—and if you have the Government of the day then you will have this House—practically controlled by irresponsible permanent officials. There is this further argument: that however much we shorten the duration of Parliaments, we must recognise this fact, that whenever
        1060
        you come to the last year, and a dissolution is imminent, as soon as you come to that the Members of the House have their attention directed to electioneering, and the business of the House is neglected. Nobody has got energy enough to apply themselves to the real business of the House. Suppose you reduce the duration of Parliament to four or five years, as soon as you got into the fifth year the very difficulty which we now see in the case of a seven years' Parliament would be apparent, and there is no getting over it. The next movement would be to reduce it from five to four, from four to three, from three to two, and so it would be brought to a minimum, till, in fact, you would have annual Parliaments, and the swinging of the political pendulum would then be to your most entire satisfaction. But the result would be that you would have no permanency, no continuity. Our foreign policy would change from day to day, our domestic Government would change from day to day, and our policy as regards Ireland would change from day to day. That would be most disastrous. Therefore I shall vote against this Resolution.
        MR. COGHILL: The hon. Member who moved this Resolution told us that this question had slumbered for the last twelve years, but I must say that this question might be allowed to slumber on for twelve years longer. I do not remember myself that either in the year 1880, or in the year 1885, when a Liberal majority was returned, this question formed a leading item in the Liberal programme. This Resolution has been most ingeniously worded, because while it proposes that all future Parliaments should be shortened, it evades all mention of the precise term to which they should be shortened. So far as the present Parliament is concerned it is well within the terms of the Resolution. The present Parliament has only lasted five years and nine months, which is a long way off seven years. The hon. Member for Ilkeston would be inclined to set up a Parliament at any particular period; the hon. Member for the Eccles

        1061
        Division suggests five years. In this diversity of counsels, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton if he would kindly tell us what is the period that Parliament is to last if the Septennial Act is to be repealed? I think we ought to know what it is proposed to substitute for it. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to go up and down through the country talking about triennial Parliaments, and then in this House to bring forward such an innocent indefinite Motion as this about the shortening of Parliaments. I should like to know whether the Gladstonian Party are coming back to power at the next General Election? The hon. Member for Ilkeston says not, because, in bringing forward this Resolution, the hon. Member for Ilkeston has, at any rate, no confidence in the Gladstonians being returned at the next General Election. I should like just to press this question from the historical point of view, and I must say the conclusions which I have formed from studying the Statutes are just in an opposite direction to those put forward by the hon. Member for Ilkeston. The Act 6 William and Mary is referred to as the Act establishing triennial Parliaments. It is quite true that it mentions a period of three years, but what is meant by triennial Parliaments was never taken into contemplation at the passing of that Act, and I will tell the House why. The whole object of that Act was to prevent the King reigning without calling Parliament together. That is shown by the title, which is—"An Act for the frequent meeting and calling of Parliaments." If we go back from that to the 16 Charles II., this becomes still more apparent. If we go back to the previous Statute, 36 Edward III., we find it there provided that a Parliament shall be holden every year; and this is proved more conclusively by the Act 4 Edward III., in which it is provided that a Parliament shall be holden every year once, and more often if need be. That proves that the object of this so-called Triennial Act was not that a Parliament should be held every three years, but that the King should not reign over us without having Parliament called together. The Preamble
        1062
        of the Septennial Act—1 George I.—which has been referred to is most instructive. It shows, I think, that, after a period of 22 years it was found conclusively that the triennial period was not a satisfactory one, and therefore the septennial period was substituted for it. The Septennial Act has lasted for 180 years, and before we repeal that Act I think a much stronger case should be shown than has been shown by the Mover or Seconder of the Resolution. There are four distinct reasons, in my opinion, why the Resolution should not be accepted by this House. In the first place, if the Septennial Act were repealed, and a Triennial Act passed, it would result in a great increase in the Election expenses. Unless we were all millionaires we could not afford to meet the expenses which would be incurred by holding Elections so frequently unless the Election expenses were paid by Act of Parliament, or in some other way. The second objection is, that with all these frequent and almost continuous Elections that would result Members of Parliament would naturally demand to be paid for their services. I need hardly remind the hon. Mover of the Resolution that that subject has been discussed only very lately in this House. The Motion, which was rejected, did not receive the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian; it did not receive the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle; and it was opposed in the Division Lobby by that sturdy Radical the hon. Member for the Cirencester Division of Gloucester. There is another difficulty in the way of short Parliaments, which the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Ambrose) has touched on already, and that is, that as frequent Elections would take place hon. Members would be scampering all over the country for the purpose of keeping up their popularity, and they would net be here. The result would, be that legislation in this House would come to a standstill, and the legislative business would be almost entirely transacted by the House of Lords over the way. The hon. Member for Ilkeston entirely forgot the existence of the House of Lords. We must

        1063
        remember that this is not the only House. A comparison is made by the people of the country between this House and the House of Lords; and we hear many remarks made about the excessive amount of talk there is in this House, and that there is very little business transacted; whereas as regards the House of Lords it is just the other way about—there is very little talking, but a great deal of business is done. And there is another objection also with regard to the House of Lords. This House has to contend in a certain sense with the House of Lords as a Legislative Chamber, and if the Members of this House were liable to lose their seats every three years, while the Members of the House of Lords sit there for life and cannot be removed, it is perfectly obvious that the power of the House of Commons must be seriously weakened in contrast with that of the House of Lords. It is not the theory of the Liberal Party to increase the power of the House of Lords; and if it were for no other reason—only this—I should certainly oppose the Resolution. We must remember that the machinery of our Constitution is of a very delicate and complex character, its existence depending on the nice balancing of the different parts. If we disturb this system of balances and checks on which our Constitution exists, then you throw the whole machinery out of work. And I should like to know for whose benefit this great change is going to be made? So far as I know, it is not desired in the country at the present time. There is no great popular outcry in its favour. It seems to me that it is only desired by a certain number of election agents in the country, and possibly by a few restless and unhappy spirits who find their chief delight and enjoyment of life in the excitement, confusion, and turmoil of a General Election. The hon. Member for Dumfries in a recent magazine article has been very candid in the expression of his views with regard to a matter of considerable interest at the present time. I am not prepared to go so far as the hon. Member for Dumfries, who is quite evidently prepared to give up our Constitution and begin over
        1064
        again. I am not prepared to start afresh in that direction. I think we should be content with our present Constitution, considering, as we have been reminded by the hon. Member for Ilkeston, that our Parliamentary Institutions, whatever may be their defects, have served as a model for all other nations in the world. The hon. Member in bringing forward his Resolution has been very indefinite in his language; and I must say that the appeal with which he concluded was one of the most extraordinary that I ever heard in this House from the mouth of a Member of the Liberal Party. He appealed to the Tory Party because this was a Tory measure. I am a Liberal myself, and I am surprised at the hon. Member for Ilkeston advancing that argument from the Liberal Benches in this House. I hope the House will deal with the Resolution of the hon. Mover to-night in a proper way, and that it will be defeated by a large and decisive majority.
        MR. MACNEILL: I think the speech of the hon. Gentleman which has just been delivered from these Benches would be a very strong argument in favour of shortening Parliaments, because if such a change were brought about gentlemen who were sent to Parliament as Liberals and voted as Tories would have a short period put to their Parliamentary entertainments. There are some gentlemen whose constituencies have their eyes intently fixed upon them—gentlemen who have passed into this House as Liberals and who vote with the other side—those pseudo-Liberal Members of Parliament. I have said that the gentleman who says he is a Liberal and votes Tory is a pseudo-Liberal. I would not have intervened in this Debate if it were not for the extraordinary theories of history propounded by the hon. Gentleman, who is as ignorant of history as a good Liberal Unionist ought to be; and that is a strong expression. He assured the House that if we interfered with life of Parliament the Constitution would topple down. Does he know that within this reign, as late as 1867, the duration of Parliament was interfered with in a very remarkable and stringent and

        1065
        strong measure. Until 1867 the demise of the Crown ipso facto, or practically within six months after the demise, put an end to the Parliament. Now the demise of the Crown has no effect upon Parliament at all. I think I would be able to show, without fear of contradiction, that it is from the shortening and curtailment of Parliaments that all our constitutional privileges have taken their origin. The hon. Gentleman says that if the Septennial Act be repealed the power of the House of Lords will be increased. The House of Lords did not think so, because the Septennial Act originated in the House of Lords, like many another bad measure of the time. And a remarkable confirmation of that theory is that the Septennial Act for many years—for almost one generation after it was enacted—was considered to be a temporary measure, the real theory of the Constitution limiting the duration of Parliament to three years. In no one of our Colonies has there been a septennial Parliament; and more remarkable still, when in the time of George III., about 1783 or 1784, the American jurists drew up their Constitution, which is admittedly drawn on the model of the English Constitution, they went practically not on the model of the Septennial Act, but on the model of the Triennial Act, which they believed to be the best model and theory of the English Constitution. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides have stated in terms of indignation that they were not mere delegates—that they were Representatives of the people, and not mere delegates. That is utterly at variance with the great principles laid down by the Conservative philosopher Edmund Burke. It is an insolent assumption that hon. Members understand and know better than their constituencies. We are here the servants of our constituencies, to carry out their behests. In that great letter which was written by Edmund Burke to the Sheriffs of Bristol he, it is true, expressed a different view; but that was 100 years ago, when there was no Newspaper Press, when it was a matter of privilege to publish the Debates of this House, and when gentlemen who published the Debates could be summoned
        1066
        to the Bar, and have punishments inflicted on them. He then said he should exercise his own discretion, and that he would be unworthy of his position if he did not do so. A few days ago the hon. Member for Northampton wished to have a Return of the duration of Parliaments, from the date of the first reformed Parliament to the present time; but the First Lord of the Treasury said: "No; let us have the Return from the date of the Septennial Act." The right hon. Gentleman was right from his point of view, because from 1716 to 1784 every Parliament continued for the full term of its existence. In 1784 there was a great majority at the back of Fox, but that majority feared the people and a Dissolution, lest Pitt should be returned, as, in fact, he was returned with an enormous majority. In 1834, Mr. Tennyson, the father or grandfather of the poet, said that up to the time of the Reformation there had been 42 Parliaments, and of these 26 lasted less than a year; that from the time of Charles I. to the Revolution there had been twelve Parliaments, the average duration of which was three years; but that their average duration, excluding the Long Parliament, would not be more than nine months. Therefore, it is clear that this Parliament has exceeded the usual time allotted to the life of Parliaments. I will conclude by saying that as long as I have a humble voice in this assemblage—and I hope that will be for a very long time—I shall never allow any gentleman to say without challenge that he is a Representative and not a delegate. He and every other person who is a true Representative of the people should look upon himself as the representative of their wishes and the mouthpiece of their wants.
        MR. F. S. STEVENSON: There is a remarkable contrast between the present state of things and those which were in existence before the Septennial Act was passed. The Triennial Act of 1694 was supported by the Tory Party, whilst the Septennial Act of 1716 was opposed by them. Yet on the present occasion, so great has been the change in the constitution of Parties, that we find

        1067
        the first voice which is raised against short Parliaments is that of the hon. and learned Member for the Harrow Division of Middlesex, and the second that of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. The hon. and learned Member for the Harrow Division argued as if this proposal would impair altogether the character of a Member of Parliament as a Representative, and convert him into a mere delegate, and he urged that he would become more and more the mouthpiece of a particularly organised section of his constituents instead of representing their general opinion. The argument of the hon. and learned Member might well be turned in an exactly opposite direction, because, the longer a Parliament lasts, the more likely he is to accept as the views of his constituents an expression of opinion which might be sent up from a particularly organised body which might not represent the sentiments of the majority. On the other hand, if he were brought into frequent contact with his constituents, the more disposed he would be to be guided by the real opinion of those to whom he owed his seat. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme did not appear altogether to appreciate the crisis when the Septennial Act was passed. That crisis occurred just after a most important dynastic change had been carried into effect. There were at the time plots and counterplots which might have developed into most serious proportions, and there was danger of foreign invasion in the interest of the Pretender. There was, therefore, justification for the introduction of such a desperate measure. But that is no reason for thinking that the causes which then existed were of a permanent character. It has been said by the present Duke of Devonshire, with regard to the question of Disestablishment in Scotland, that it ought to be settled in accordance with the opinion of the Scotch people; and the noble Duke said afterwards that a General Election ought to be fought on that question. But if that is to apply to such a question as the Disestablishment of the Church of Scotland, it would also apply to many other questions of equal importance. Therefore it is desirable that more frequent
        1068
        opportunities should be given for consulting the constituencies on questions which may be brought to the front. It may be said that the logical alternative would be the introduction of something like the referendum in Switzerland; but the introduction of any such system, under our present condition, would be attended with difficulties of such a serious character that no one would advocate the adoption of such a course. The only alternative is a more frequent consultation of the electors by Members of Parliament; and this becomes the more important as time goes on, because one Parliament is called upon to deal with many questions. Take the case of the present Parliament. It has been in existence now for nearly six years. Was it anticipated in 1886 that it would have to deal with the questions of Irish Land Purchase, the Sugar Convention Bill, or the compensationand endowment of brewers? It is highly desirable that some decided step should be taken at the present time, when the present Parliament is drawing to its end, and when Members can, therefore, be supposed to be impartial. Some expression of opinion should go forth from this House as to the advisability of shortening the duration of the life of Parliaments, though the exact period to be fixed is a matter for careful consideration whenever the time comes to embody the expressed opinion in a specific measure.
        MR. H. H. FOWLER: I rise for the purpose of expressing my surprise that we have not had any statement from the Government with regard to the Motion dealing with this great constitutional question, and on behalf of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston has made an able and powerful speech. The arguments in that speech deserve, and will, I hope, receive, some notice from the Government before we are called upon to divide upon the question. Whatever else may be said of this Debate, I think we must have enjoyed very much the ideal picture of Parliamentary life which was drawn by the hon. and learned Member for the Harrow Division of Middlesex. The picture was that of an irresponsible

        1069
        Member, superior to the criticisms of the Press, enjoying an unbroken continuity of representation, and absolutely free from all kinds of pledges. The hon. Member told the House how humiliating it is to make a pledge, and he seemed to think that it would be almost as humiliating to keep a pledge. But I think the hon. Member's constituency had a very distinct understanding as to which Party their Representative would support before they elected him; and the steady loyalty with which the hon. Member has supported his Party is a conclusive proof of the honourable manner in which he has carried out his obligations to his constituents. The House has been asked to express the opinion that the Septennial Act should be repealed for the purpose of shortening the duration of Parliament. The Septennial Act was passed in 1716, and the Parliament that passed it was the only one that sat for seven years. What, then, has been the length of the life of Parliament? I will take the period commencing in 1784, for it was in that year, I believe, that the first General Election occurred which practically put a Minister into power. Up to that time Ministers were put in power by the will of the Sovereign or by the action of the House of Lords, or by the intrigues of the ruling families. It was in 1784 that Pitt obtained the great majority which gave him the confidence of the country. From 1784 to 1886 there have been 25 Parliaments. If you take the period as 100 years, that would give to each Parliament an average life of four years. I can, however, hardly imagine any subject to which it would be more delusive to apply the test of averages than to the life of Parliament. We must look a little further to see what the Septennial Act means. The existence of Parliaments has been terminated by four causes—(1) the death of the Sovereign; (2) by electoral reforms which necessitate new elections; (3) by what we call a Ministerial crisis; and (4) by effluxion of time. I think that classification comprehends all the diseases of which Parliaments die. Now, Sir, I find that during the century of which I have been speaking three out of the twenty-five
        1070
        Parliaments were dissolved owing to the death of the Sovereign. Of course, as the House knows, the law has been altered, and the demise of the Crown does not now involve a Dissolution, though up till 1867 the death of the Sovereign involved a Dissolution within six months. The three Parliaments thus dissolved followed upon the death respectively of George III., George IV., and William IV. There have been three great Constitutional alterations—the great Reform Act of 1831, the Extension of the Household Franchise in 1867, and the Extension of the County Franchise in 1885. On each of these occasions there was necessarily an Election. In the century there have been nine Ministerial crises — nine occasions upon which the Ministry have been in conflict with the House or divided amongst themselves so that it was necessary to appeal to the nation; and there have been ten Parliaments which have expired by effluxion of time. In endeavouring to ascertain what the duration of Parliament under the Septennial Act is we ought to see how long each of these ten Parliaments has lasted during the present century; who have been the Prime Ministers in power when the lives of the Parliaments were determined; and from this date we can pretty accurately arrive at what the Constitutional position is. I shall commence my retrospect with Mr. Pitt, who was firmly in power in 1784. His first Parliament expired by effluxion of time in 1790. This great Tory Minister, with a majority in Parliament, dissolved in 1790. In the zenith of his power he again dissolved in 1796. That was the second time he put the seal of his Constitutional interpretation upon the Septennial Act. Again in 1802, Mr. Addington, being Prime Minister, dissolved the Parliament. Then came a series of short Parliaments, partly due to the death of Mr. Fox and partly to the Catholic Question. We do not come to another Parliament which was allowed to run its course of six years until 1812. That Parliament had a Tory majority, and Lord Liverpool kept it sitting until 1818, again recognising the principle of six years, and six years only. The Parliament of

        1071
        1818 was dissolved on the death of George III. A new Parliament was called together in 1820, and that was the longest Parliament of the century, and under Lord Liverpool lasted until 1826, its actual duration being a few days over the six years. No Parliament after that expired by effluxion of time until the Parliament of 1841, the Parliament which put Sir Robert Peel in power. Then Parliament was dissolved in 1847, and if Sir Robert Peel is accepted on the one side of the House, surely on the other Lord John Russell will be accepted as a great Constitutional authority. When Lord John Russell was called upon to construe the Septennial Act his construction corresponded with that of Mr. Pitt and Lord Liverpool, and he dissolved the Parliament of 1841 in the year 1847. The next Parliament that expired by the effluxion of time was the Parliament of Lord Palmerston in 1859. No pressure was put upon him; it was understood his political opponents would keep him in power as long as he liked; yet Lord Palmerston dissolved in 1865, so that again Parliament sat only a few days over the six years. The Parliament of 1868 of my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian was dissolved in 1874. Lord Beaconsfield's Parliament, which was summoned in that year, was dissolved in 1880. In no case have these Parliaments exceeded six years and a few weeks at the most. Now, Sir, my point is that the practice of these great Prime Ministers and the uniform precedents of upwards of 100 years show that the clear, undoubted interpretation of the Septennial Act is that that Act means that the duration of Parliament is six years, and six years only. Therefore, if I am called on to deal with the Motion of my hon. Friend behind me, who says it is necessary that the Septennial Act should be repealed in order that Parliaments may be shortened, it would not be fair to say that we are dealing with Parliaments of seven years' duration. Seven years' Parliaments are not known to the Constitution. There is no precedent for them. The Parliaments we have had to deal with for a century have been for six years, and six years
        1072
        only. It may be said—and said with justice—who is to decide what is Constitutional in a case of this sort, and that we cannot go beyond the text of an Act of Parliament. We have no written Constitution, and I am very glad of it. The elasticity of our system has secured greater freedom than where a Constitution is arbitrarily defined by some legislative Act. But that necessarily involves an enormous reserve of power in the hands of the three branches of the Legislature — the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, and you might reduce the case of each to an absurdity by defining the extreme powers they undoubtedly possess and by saying that they might exercise them to the uttermost. But our Constitution rests upon the play of the various parts of the Constitution, and on the tradition that no branch of the Legislature—neither the prerogative of the Sovereign, nor the Upper House, nor this House—is justified in stretching to the extreme any one of its powers or privileges. Therefore I put it to the House as clear that the Constitutional Law of this country is that Parliament should last for six years, and for six years only, and that any Motion put before the House that Parliament should be shortened must deal with the question, whether right or wrong, of shortening the period of six years. Well now, Sir, is it desirable to shorten that period of six years? Some of my hon. Friends have been induced to state the period which they think a Parliament should last. I do not think that this is the proper occasion for attempting to define that period. This is not a Party question at all. It is an undoubted truth that the Tory Party opposed the Septennial Act. I suppose there is a tendency on either side which happens to be in power rather to strengthen its grip upon its period of power than to loosen it, and I do not claim for the Opposition any superior virtue over hon. Gentlemen opposite in that respect. But, looking at it as a public question, is it desirable that the period of Parliamentary life should be shortened from six years? I think it is. I do not attach the slightest

        1073
        importance to the contention that if we had frequent elections the expense would be so enormous. The expenses, as we all know, have, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury, been substantially reduced during the last ten or fifteen years. There was another reason, that Members would have to be paid; another reason, that Members would be always skirmishing about the country; and another reason, that it was not advisable to shorten Parliamentary life to Members themselves. Sir, the best way of renewing the Parliamentary life of a Member is for him to have the confidence of his constituents. The principle of Parliamentary Government is representation. It is not that a Member of Parliament is put, as the hon. Member for the Harrow Division of Middlesex suggests, as a superior sort of being exalted above and beyond the criticism of his constituents. He is not here as a delegate, and if ever this House consists not of Representatives but of delegates, it will cease to be the House of Commons. But the House must represent the people that elected it, and my experience is that the new and the enlarged constituencies repose greater trust in their Representatives in what may be called the minor matters of administration and legislation than was the case under the older and more restricted system. The constituency has a right to know what its Members are going to do on certain great questions. When the present Government dissolve it will be on a great question of public policy—one of the gravest ever raised in the history of this country. Will anybody criticise or deny the right of the constituencies to know how their Representatives are going to vote on that question? It may be assumed that the new House of Commons will be an accurate reflex of the opinions of the constituencies. But how can you keep a Representative Body in touch with those whom it represents unless you give them not too frequent but moderately frequent opportunities of contact? It has been stated to-night that a period of five years affects the votes of a million of voters. No fewer than 500,000 persons who voted in 1886
        1074
        have ceased to be voters now, and 500,000 persons who were not voters in 1886 are voters now, so that putting the two together that means 1,000,000 voters, or one-fifth of the whole constituency. In these circumstances the constituencies have aright to be heard. It is not what will be more convenient or more costly to us, but how best to carry out the representative system to enable the represented to make their power felt through their Representatives, without going into the question of three years or four years or five years. We ask the House confidently to say that six years is too long a period for Members to be elected. There is another feature in the present state of public life in this country which was alluded to by hon. Friend the Member for the Ilkeston Division in terms of disapproval—namely, what he called "the great swing of the pendulum" when General Elections take place. The tendency of the present day is rather to diminish the number of Dissolutions arising out of want of confidence between the Government of the day and the House of Commons of the day. I think the remark of Lord Beaconsfield was very accurate when he said he had observed that the duration of Parliaments and of Ministries was co-terminous. Well then, Sir, as appeals to the constituencies will be by effluxion of time rather than from any want of confidence between the Government of the day and the House of Commons, I think that is another reason for shortening the duration of each Parliament. There is one reason more. In the present day—during the last Parliament and during the present Parliament, and it will be the same in the next Parliament—the tendency is to increase the power of the House of Commons. Seventy or eighty years ago the House of Commons had not appropriated to itself, as it has now done, the powers of the Executive. Now it exercises supervision over every Department of the State, over the permanent officials, and a more minute and continuous control over the various branches of the Public Service than was ever done before. The House of Commons is now more than ever the fountain of new legislation. We are in a

        1075
        period of great social reform; and when this great Constitutional question which is at present under discussion is disposed of, the probability is that the attention of the House of Commons will be brought to bear more and more upon what are called social problems. If that be so, if the House is to be called upon to discuss questions of capital and labour, of master and servant, of the condition of the masses of the people, and the distribution of various rights and powers among the bulk of the population, it is necessary that the House in so doing should faithfully and adequately represent the views of those by whom it is elected. That in itself is an additional argument for shorter Parliaments. My desire in supporting this Motion is not either to reduce the status or the efficiency or the independence of the House of Commons. I wish to see the House of Commons fulfilling in the broadest manner and in the highest degree that conception of its duties which was defined in the quotation from the speech of Burke at Bristol, which was read to-night. Upon the broad ground that it is for the public interest—I do not care to put it for the convenience of Members, for that is a question that ought to be absolutely excluded from consideration—but on the broad ground of public convenience, and in order to promote its efficiency and its adequate discharge of its rapidly increasing public duties, I am convinced it is desirable that the period of the duration of Parliaments should be reduced.
        THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I have listened with very great interest to the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered; but I confess that in some respects my surprise was even in excess of my interest. The right hon. Gentleman spent the greater part of his speech not in defending the thesis that Parliaments should be shortened, but in establishing by elaborate historical analysis what is the precise duration of Parliaments which he thinks is in conformity with Constitutional usage. I do not know
        1076
        whether he had an eye to consequences other than those raised by the Motion before us; but if he had, I would point out to him that if there is any attempt made by any section of politicians to establish in this country the novel Constitutional doctrine that no Dissolution is to take place on an old register, then it is possible it may be thought necessary on the part of others to seek to establish the equally novel Constitutional principle that Parliament shall last more than six years and one month. I do not develop that point, but I pass to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech—the more important and the less prolonged part, in which he dealt with the question more immediately before us. There, I confess, I was rather surprised to find that the right hon. Gentleman, in common, I think, with every other Member who has spoken from the same side of the House, has taken up the position that though Parliaments are to be shortened, they are not necessarily to be shortened by any considerable period of time. One hon. Member suggested six years, another five years, and another mentioned four years; but I do not think any one Gentleman has specifically suggested three years, and yet I had understood it was one of the accepted items of the Newcastle programme that triennial Parliaments were to be introduced. ("No, no!") Some hon. Members say "No, no!" Well, I have not refreshed my memory recently by a perusal of the document, and I do not deny that hon. Gentlemen opposite have a greater title than I have to speak on the point; but certainly I had understood that the authorised view of the duration of Parliaments, as embodied in the Newcastle programme, was that they should be three years instead of seven. I believe I am right in that.
        SIR W. FOSTER: May I state to the right hon. Gentleman that there was no period specified in the Newcastle programme; but simply a statement that there should be shorter Parliaments?
        MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman was not the author—at least I do not think he was the author—of

        1077
        the Newcastle programme. If he says on authority that no period was named, I have no desire to contradict him; but I should like to refer to contemporary documents before I entirely give up the opinion which I have formed. If triennial Parliaments are to be the rule, and if we are not to follow the universal constitutional usage, founded not merely upon custom, but upon obvious convenience, of not running out any Parliament to within a month or two of its death, it means that two years, or at most two years and six months, will be the duration of a Parliament. Remembering that proposition, that particular period, and not merely the general proposition, that Parliaments are to be shortened, and, keeping in view that two years and six months will be the extreme length of Parliament—("No, no!") Do I understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite are unanimous in rejecting triennial Parliaments? Keeping in view that, according to a large body of opinion, two years and six months will be the extreme limit of Parliaments, let us consider what will be the practical effect upon the Government of this country of such a change. I will not dwell upon the cost to Members, or upon the dislocation of the business of the country, though they are both matters of considerable importance. The matter of cost the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down dismissed with a wave of the hand. He attributed such merits to the Bill—a most excellent measure passed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury—that he seemed to think the cost of an election was really of no moment in these days. I take it, however, that the cost of a great county election might reach the limit of £1,400 or £1,500. That spread over a triennial Parliament is about £500 a year, in addition to the other expenses and the subscriptions which a Member of Parliament is expected to pay. If the hon. Member thinks that is a matter of absolute indifference, I congratulate him on the condition of his banker's balance, but I fear his happy fortune does not attach to every gentleman who sits in this House. I do not wish to dwell upon that in the short time at my disposal, because there are considerations, in my
        1078
        judgment, of incomparably more importance, and which ought to be more in the minds of hon. Gentlemen when they go into the Division Lobby. I have heard a great deal to-night from every Member who has spoken in support of this Motion in favour of what he is pleased to term the bringing of the opinion of Parliament into exact conformity with the opinions of the people. That is a good, sound, constitutional doctrine, against which I have nothing to say. But what does "opinions of the people mean?" It does not mean that the people of this country, the 37,000,000 who inhabit these islands, change their opinion from one side to the other. What it does mean is that out of the very large body of electors, 100,000 perhaps either abstain from going to the poll or alter their vote. That amount of alteration, and that amount of alteration alone, is sufficient to transfer power from one side of the House to the other, and to place gentlemen in power who now sit in the cool shade of Opposition. The change is not a change in the opinion of the nation; it is a change, and always has been a change, of a very small fraction of the nation. Our constitutional system is that the majority should decide what Government shall be in power, and the necessary result of this, in a country where Parties are fairly evenly balanced as in this country, and as I believe they must be fairly evenly balanced if Party Government is to continue to exist—the result, I say, is that a relatively small number of abstentions, or a still smaller number of changes of opinion, are quite enough to make what is called the voice of the people give utterance to opinions diametrically opposite to those of three, five or seven years ago. The necessary effect of our constitutional machinery is greatly to emphasise the result of any such change, because the consequence of this relatively small change of opinion is to place in power a Ministry who, on all controversial questions, profess precisely opposite doctrines to those professed by their predecessors. I do not complain of that, because I think it is the necessary result of Government by Party. It is not the part of a wise man to change anything that is necessary, but we

        1079

        should not deliberately aggravate that which may become a necessary evil when we are considering how far this House is capable of fulfilling the colossal duties which in process of time it has taken upon itself to perform. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he endorses the view which modern experience shows to be correct, that Ministries and Parliaments always change together, and that is to be taken in connection with his view that Parliaments should last such a very short length of time.
        SIR W. FOSTER: It was not my view; it was the view of Lord Beaconsfield.
        MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he endorsed the view that modern experience shows that habitually the Ministry changes with the Parliament; and, undoubtedly, recent experience does tend in that direction. I thought the right hon. Gentleman adopted that view. If he does, it means that the Administration of this country is for all time to be broken up into short lengths of two or three years. Is that a desirable or a safe thing? Is it desirable, in the point of view of foreign policy, that Parliament should be broken up into short periods? I quite admit that the great traditions of the country have established the practice that one foreign Minister shall not, at all events, violently change the policy of his predecessor. A continuity of foreign policy has always been aimed at by the great Parties in the State. But whether that is to last, or the heat of controversy is to break through that tradition, or whether it breaks through or not, my argument remains untouched, because foreign Powers, whose opinions we have to consult, will always hope that on a change the Ministry will be found more pliable, and that after a General Election they will find a foreign Minister who will carry out a policy which they think will be more congenial to their own special interests. Therefore, if we really are to look forward to the time when no foreign Ministry especially is to last more than a comparatively few months, then I say a continuous foreign policy will become more and more difficult, and this
        1080
        country cannot possibly escape from having a difficulty of some kind, for her interests are bound up in having a foreign policy of a kind to maintain her honour abroad. Unless she has such a policy, I say the public interests of the country must most seriously and gravely suffer. To turn from foreign affairs to domestic affairs, no doubt at one time England flourished under a system of short Parliaments, and possibly no difficulties followed from it, because in these times, as I think the right hon. Gentleman has just stated, the Ministry depended just as much upon the Crown and the House of Lords as upon the House of Commons. The result of the modern system is that the House of Commons not only supports the Ministry who carry out their domestic legislation and are supported in their domestic policy, but it insists upon knowing all that they are doing in each one of the numerous Departments of State. Is it desirable or possible that we should entrust these enormous functions—functions never dreamt of in the time of Pitt, never dreamt of in the time of Lord Liverpool, only first dreamt of at the time of the first Reform Bill—are we going to hand over these enormous executive powers to Parliaments whose experience is going to be limited to one or two or three years at the most? In these days, when a large change in its personnel occurs at each Election, during the first year Parliament is learning its business, and during the last year it is not doing its business at all. It is thinking of its constituents. It has passed from the stage of callow inexperience through a stage of mature experience, and has lapsed into a position of senile courtship—and I do not think we ought to endeavour to repeat too often that period of Parliamentary experience. We all know, on both sides of the House, that there are a very large number of gentlemen so anxious to retain the honour of a seat in the House that they have not time to perform the duties of a Member. I do not think that is altogether a desirable or creditable state of things. But I go further; I confess that I think this habit of anxiously scrutinising the effect which each vote or which

        1081
        each speech is to have on the electorate is not a wholesome state of mind for Members of Parliament. Hon. Members have spoken as if that frame of mind simply consisted of a desire that a Member should conform to the wishes of those who have returned him. It is nothing of the sort. He knows very well that he is secure of the support of the great body of gentlemen who support him. What he is anxiously looking for is the good opinion of the small and doubtful margin of support which he may get, but of which he is not quite certain, by a stray vote or a stray speech. I feel that to be a very bad electoral calculation; but it is a calculation constantly made by Members of this House, and which does not conduce to the dignity of Members responsible for the government of a great Empire. It appears to me that some stability of administration is absolutely necessary for the mere conduct of affairs. In America they have biennial Parliaments, but, according to their system, they elect a Ministry for four years, for the President does not stand in the position of the Crown. He stands in the position of Prime Minister of the country, who settles the Ministry to carry out the work of the Government, and in the American Constitution you have more security for that continuity of Government which is so absolutely necessary. But, remember this, America has no foreign policy; it is not brought into constant contact with every European State; it has not affairs to transact with every Power on the face of the globe; it has not colonies in every latitude and in every sea. We have all the difficulties of a great Empire to face. Do not let us rashly, out of some abstract theory of the Constitution, which takes no account of the practical facts of the case, deliberately alter a system which has worked admirably in the past, which I am sure is rendered more and more necessary by the progress of democratic power, and from which I am convinced we shall be able to gather as beneficial fruits in the future as we have in the history of the past. For these reasons I hope the House will emphatically record its conviction that
        1082
        this Motion should not pass. We on this side of the House have nothing to gain or lose by it; and if I spoke from a purely Party point of view, I do not think the Conservative or Unionist Party are likely to be losers by any system which will shorten Parliaments. But whatever the balance of Party gain or loss, I am convinced from the point of view of general administration that it will be perfect folly to make it impossible to have continuous administration either in our foreign or our domestic affairs.
        Question put.
        (12.0.) The House divided:—Ayes 188; Noes 142.—(Div. List, No. 78.)
        Main Question again proposed.
        Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
        SUPPLY—Committee upon Monday next.

      SHOPS (WEEKLY HALF-HOLIDAY) BILL.—(No. 142.)

        SECOND READING.
        Order for Second Reading read.
        SIR J. LUBBOCK: I hope the House will allow the Second Reading to be taken with the object of referring the Bill to the consideration of the Committee upon Shop Hours.
        Objection taken.
        Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

      ARMY AND NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1892–3.
      Return ordered—
      "Showing the Net Estimated Expenditure, for the year 1892–3, on the Army and Navy, and the provision made for it."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

      ARMY AND NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1891–2.
      Return ordered—
      "Showing the Net Expenditure, for the year 1891–2, as estimated at the commence-

      1083
      ment and close of the year, and the provision made for it."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

      PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
      Copy ordered—
      "Of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach)
      Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 139.]

      PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE.
      Account ordered—
      "Of the Total Expenditure in the year ending the 31st day of March 1892, distinguishing between the ordinary Expenditure provided for out of the Revenue of the year and the extraordinary Expenditure provided for out of Loans and other sources, and also the total receipts of the year, distinguishing between the ordinary Revenue and Receipts derived from Loans and other sources (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 412, of Session 1891)."—(Sir William Harcourt.)

      PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
      Reported from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
      Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 140.]
      Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday next, at Two of the clock, and to be printed. [Bill 270.]

      MOTIONS.

        LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Urban Sanitary Districts of Bethesda, Bolton, Buxton, Eye, Lowestoft, Nottingham, Oswaldtwistle, Reading, and Wigan, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
        Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 266.]

        LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Urban Sanitary Districts of Barnsley, Halifax, Keighley, and Wigan, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
        Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 267.]

        LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Urban Sanitary Districts of Acton, Bridgend, Lincoln, New Windsor, Rawdon, Sale, and Stapleton, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
        Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 268.]

        SECONDARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND) BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. Arthur Acland, Bill to promote Secondary Education in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Acland, Sir Henry Roscoe, and Mr. Hobhouse.
        Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 269.]

      ADJOURNMENT.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

      THE EASTER RECESS.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I gave a pledge at 7 o'clock that I would, before the House separated to-night, state the arrangement the Government propose for the Easter Holidays. I think, having looked at the matter in all its bearings, that we may, although perhaps the holiday may be considered rather a long one, permit ourselves to adjourn from Tuesday next until the Monday week following.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: Will there be a Dissolution in the interval?
      Motion agreed to.
      House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.